Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[Phatscotty]

Here is the divide...Arm everybody or Arm nobody. Which solution would have less deaths by firearms? The answer is blatantly clear towards an intelligent person.

Piers Morgan got fuggin WORKED! Why would you even want people to see this?

LMFAO! OMG thank you for this. I had not seen the entire clip.

So cherry. It deserves it's own thread

[Funkyterrance]

How's this for a solution: Let everyone have guns, stop making bullets.

[Pope Joan]

How's this for a solution: Let everyone have guns, stop making bullets.

Like it Constipastution seem to allow arms, not ammo, yet http://www.bulkammo.com/

[Pope Joan]

Still, nobody has shown how reducing production/consumption of arms and ammunition will reduce crime.

You haven't proven how arming everyone will reduce crime.

One reason I don't think repealing gun free school zones is good.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/new ... other.gun/

Except I am not arguing that everyone should be armed. There are those here arguing that everyone should be disarmed...

It is obvious that if everybody in Sandy Hook had a gun, the gunmen would not be able to kill so many people in this incident. The problem is statistical, it will lead to many more deaths overall, but they would be more uniformly distributed. Every time I am trying to park in France, I feel like shooting somebody but luckily all I can do is swear in French...

The statistical solution (given the concentration of guns in the environment) is also obvious. Joe Average should not be allowed to carry a gun on public property (except disassembled, unloaded, locked and for a good reason: transportation between home, shop, place of practice) but certain highly trained individuals should be allowed to carry them. Police carries them already but to protect schools you may train schoolmasters, groundskeepers and lollypop ladies

And I gather if my schoolmaster had had a gun, I would have been taking after school detentions a bit more seriously...

[Juan_Bottom]

Also, Sym is correct, Assault Rifles are legal in the US.

tgd has Assault Rifles confluttered with Automatic Weapons, which is not the same thing, yet Automatic weapons are also legal with heavy restrictions. Typically you need permits and they have to be registered with local police. Most states wont let you have them anyway, but you can own machine guns in Carolina. The regulation actually goes back to the NFA 1938. But the bans ended in 2004, to my knowledge.

No offense, but you need to find a definition of assault rifle other than "Juan Bottom says this is an assault rifle." I've looked at wikipedia and the language of the Assault Weapons Ban for my definitions. I hold those two sources more important than you.

The rest of your post is also mostly incorrect. Automatic weapons are not legal except for those owned and registered prior to 1986. The bans up to 2004, which expired, were only for certain semi-automatic weapons (NOT assault rifles). And they were not for all semi-automatic weapons.

I will point you to the following post of mine, in this thread, which you must have read and ignored. Perhaps if you read it again...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994084
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994199

Honestly you guys, this is not about whether I think guns should be legal or illegal. I honestly don't know enough about the statistics and the relative effect of gun bannings to understand whether banning guns will have a great effect. What this is about is getting the facts right on what guns are and are not assault rifles and are and are not banned currently (or were banned in the past). This is not something that is up for debate really. Symmetry noted that he would like to ban assault rifles. Well, they are banned (except for those registered prior to 1986). So, I asked him and I'll ask you Juan - what weapons would you like to ban? Would you like to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, which arbitrarily banned certain semi-automatics and not others?

I stand by my reply. Obviously I didn't separate "machine gun" from "assault rifle" very well. But I was correct, you can own a machine gun in some states in the US. Although, my impression has always been that an Assault Rifle was different from an Assault Weapon in that Assault Weapons were machine guns and Assault Rifles had military-type features like pistol grips, silencers, and long ranges. Select fire never entered into the discussion, but although the definition varys, the ATF seems to think that "select fire" option is what makes an assault rifle, along with those features.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i ... y_state%29

I am not sure what can safely be called an Assault Rifle though, given the different definitions between wiki links, the atf, and the public. I've always supported changing definitions and whatnot, and it does seem that most people would call a rifle an assault rifle if it had more than one military feature.

[CreepersWiener]

Here is the divide...Arm everybody or Arm nobody. Which solution would have less deaths by firearms? The answer is blatantly clear towards an intelligent person.

Piers Morgan got fuggin WORKED! Why would you even want people to see this?

LMFAO! OMG thank you for this. I had not seen the entire clip.

So cherry. It deserves it's own thread

Wow, you are a conservative nutcase, aren't you? Why on earth would you agree to arming all the teachers in a public school? That is the most absurd answer us liberal nutcases have ever heard!

Now, people are buying more guns? The people buying "more" guns are the same paranoid people that already own a hundred guns!

It just doesn't make any sense to arm teachers and school staff with firearms within such a tight conglomeration of young children, I thought Piers made that point quite clear. You just can't justify this idiotic position of arming all the teachers with concealed weapons...you just can't!

[stahrgazer]

Still, nobody has shown how reducing production/consumption of arms and ammunition will reduce crime.

It won't. Most violent crimes - most, not all - used illegally obtained products.

All that will happen if the US stops manufacturing arms and ammunition is that foreign companies will grow and there will be more black-market trade across borders.

[Pope Joan]

Wow, you are a conservative nutcase, aren't you? Why on earth would you agree to arming all the teachers in a public school? That is the most absurd answer us liberal nutcases have ever heard!

Now, people are buying more guns? The people buying "more" guns are the same paranoid people that already own a hundred guns!

It just doesn't make any sense to arm teachers and school staff with firearms within such a tight conglomeration of young children, I thought Piers made that point quite clear. You just can't justify this idiotic position of arming all the teachers with concealed weapons...you just can't!

Piers was rude and too emotional. Clearly, all school staff should not have concealed weapons but an armed guard at the gate or an armed headmaster would have made a world of difference...

[PLAYER57832]

Now, people are buying more guns? The people buying "more" guns are the same paranoid people that already own a hundred guns!

A lot of people are buying these weapons as a kind of bank policy. If/when they become illegal, then folks can turn them in for a profit.

That, and people want to just be able to use them while they have the chance.

People who like guns, shoot them for sports are different from the folks who see guns as something for protection, by and large. That is part of the conversation anyone entering this debate must acknowledge. Claiming anyone with guns or large numbers is essentially a redneck paranoid person is wrong.

I mean, do you seriously think I fit that profile?

It just doesn't make any sense to arm teachers and school staff with firearms within such a tight conglomeration of young children, I thought Piers made that point quite clear. You just can't justify this idiotic position of arming all the teachers with concealed weapons...you just can't!

Unless a teacher ALREADY has serious training in not just general weapons use, but specific defense use of weapons, arming them will do more harm than good. As a minimum, in order to keep the guns away from kids in close contact, they would have to have them somewhat inaccessable.

Teachers need to be better at teaching, not shooting.

[PLAYER57832]

Wow, you are a conservative nutcase, aren't you? Why on earth would you agree to arming all the teachers in a public school? That is the most absurd answer us liberal nutcases have ever heard!

Now, people are buying more guns? The people buying "more" guns are the same paranoid people that already own a hundred guns!

It just doesn't make any sense to arm teachers and school staff with firearms within such a tight conglomeration of young children, I thought Piers made that point quite clear. You just can't justify this idiotic position of arming all the teachers with concealed weapons...you just can't!

Piers was rude and too emotional. Clearly, all school staff should not have concealed weapons but an armed guard at the gate or an armed headmaster would have made a world of difference...

That is debatable, seriously. And I mean that this is the very discussion happening around me, in a town where there are far more guns than people.
OOPS... I was going to say more, but just looked at the time... gotta go.

[Night Strike]

Now, people are buying more guns? The people buying "more" guns are the same paranoid people that already own a hundred guns!

Guns do break, so if the government is going to ban new purchases of those guns, people want to make sure they have replacements on hand prior to such a ban.

[Juan_Bottom]

Once again, I want to remind you all that we're not talking about taking away your guns. Everyone here is pro-gun on some level.
The Europeans may be talking about taking all guns, but that's whatever.

Americans are discussing which guns to stop selling.

Clearly the answer is handguns, large clips, and many jackets. I would also argue that semi-automatic assault rifles and riot guns should probably go too, but I understand that that is pretty debatable because these guns aren't usually used in crime.


So a few months ago teachers were all union terrorists of some kind, and now those same people who blamed teachers and unions for all of our problems want to arm them.
ok....

[Juan_Bottom]

God Bless Piers Morgan. He continues to display in public that he does not understand the issue, as well as provide a case study for complete feelings based irrationality.

You just said a few pages back that you don't care what any limey says about America's gun debate.

[Night Strike]

Americans are discussing which guns to stop selling.

Which is precisely why people have to stock up now: because the government may take away the rights of people in the future. Furthermore, if you do ban the sale of guns, then you're automatically denying Constitutional rights to people that are below the age of buying at the time of enactment. Then, you'll be making two classes of adults: those adults who are allowed to own guns and those who are not allowed to own guns because they were not old enough to buy them. Owning guns should be a choice made by law-abiding citizens, not by the government arbitrarily deciding which law-abiding citizens are able to have them.

[thegreekdog]

Also, Sym is correct, Assault Rifles are legal in the US.

tgd has Assault Rifles confluttered with Automatic Weapons, which is not the same thing, yet Automatic weapons are also legal with heavy restrictions. Typically you need permits and they have to be registered with local police. Most states wont let you have them anyway, but you can own machine guns in Carolina. The regulation actually goes back to the NFA 1938. But the bans ended in 2004, to my knowledge.

No offense, but you need to find a definition of assault rifle other than "Juan Bottom says this is an assault rifle." I've looked at wikipedia and the language of the Assault Weapons Ban for my definitions. I hold those two sources more important than you.

The rest of your post is also mostly incorrect. Automatic weapons are not legal except for those owned and registered prior to 1986. The bans up to 2004, which expired, were only for certain semi-automatic weapons (NOT assault rifles). And they were not for all semi-automatic weapons.

I will point you to the following post of mine, in this thread, which you must have read and ignored. Perhaps if you read it again...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994084
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994199

Honestly you guys, this is not about whether I think guns should be legal or illegal. I honestly don't know enough about the statistics and the relative effect of gun bannings to understand whether banning guns will have a great effect. What this is about is getting the facts right on what guns are and are not assault rifles and are and are not banned currently (or were banned in the past). This is not something that is up for debate really. Symmetry noted that he would like to ban assault rifles. Well, they are banned (except for those registered prior to 1986). So, I asked him and I'll ask you Juan - what weapons would you like to ban? Would you like to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, which arbitrarily banned certain semi-automatics and not others?

I stand by my reply. Obviously I didn't separate "machine gun" from "assault rifle" very well. But I was correct, you can own a machine gun in some states in the US. Although, my impression has always been that an Assault Rifle was different from an Assault Weapon in that Assault Weapons were machine guns and Assault Rifles had military-type features like pistol grips, silencers, and long ranges. Select fire never entered into the discussion, but although the definition varys, the ATF seems to think that "select fire" option is what makes an assault rifle, along with those features.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i ... y_state%29

I am not sure what can safely be called an Assault Rifle though, given the different definitions between wiki links, the atf, and the public. I've always supported changing definitions and whatnot, and it does seem that most people would call a rifle an assault rifle if it had more than one military feature.

Yeah, I understand that. My point is that for purposes of crafting a gun law, the public should be aware that banning "assault rifles" as that term is currently defined would not be more effective since "assault rifles" as that term is currently defined are already banned.

[AAFitz]

God Bless Piers Morgan. He continues to display in public that he does not understand the issue, as well as provide a case study for complete feelings based irrationality.

You just said a few pages back that you don't care what any limey says about America's gun debate.

Contradiction. Its kind of his thing.

[Phatscotty]

Here is the divide...Arm everybody or Arm nobody. Which solution would have less deaths by firearms? The answer is blatantly clear towards an intelligent person.

Piers Morgan got fuggin WORKED! Why would you even want people to see this?

LMFAO! OMG thank you for this. I had not seen the entire clip.

So cherry. It deserves it's own thread

Wow, you are a conservative nutcase, aren't you? Why on earth would you agree to arming all the teachers in a public school? That is the most absurd answer us liberal nutcases have ever heard!

Now, people are buying more guns? The people buying "more" guns are the same paranoid people that already own a hundred guns!

It just doesn't make any sense to arm teachers and school staff with firearms within such a tight conglomeration of young children, I thought Piers made that point quite clear. You just can't justify this idiotic position of arming all the teachers with concealed weapons...you just can't!

Anybody who thinks the plan is to arm "all" teachers is highly uninformed, and I move to strike their banter from all records!

All across America, people's eyes are being opened up. More and more schools are going to start having an armed presense to protect the children. Gun free zones have been exposed by mass psychos for far too long, and we are seeing the Emperor truly has no clothes.

[Phatscotty]

God Bless Piers Morgan. He continues to display in public that he does not understand the issue, as well as provide a case study for complete feelings based irrationality.

You just said a few pages back that you don't care what any limey says about America's gun debate.

Contradiction. Its kind of his thing.

I care when they are soooo bad that they help make my point...

[Night Strike]

How do we know that taking away guns is on the wrong side of freedom? Communist China completely agrees with it and wants Obama to go hard after them:

The Communist Chinese government, via its state-run media front Xinhua, has called for Americans to be disarmed, arguing that the Sandy Hook school massacre demands “no delay for U.S. gun control.”

Xinhua is virtually the press agency for the Communist Chinese government. The organization, “is subordinate to the State Council and reports to the Communist Party of China’s Propaganda and Public Information Departments.”

In other words, Xinhua represents the pinnacle of Chinese state-run media. Whatever is printed in its editorial pages represents the opinion of the ruling Communist Party leaders.

The article calls on Obama to exploit the tragedy to push his gun control agenda, adding that his lame duck situation represents “the best position to promote it,” while blaming the National Rifle Association for curtailing previous attempts to regulate firearms in the United States.

Noting that after previous mass shootings efforts to impose gun control measures “disappointingly always fail,” the editorial expresses the desire that the “gunman’s cruelty and evil may provide a strong momentum and broader public support for the restart of gun control efforts.”

The article adds that Barack Obama should begin “to make preparation for a protracted war,” with a massive political cost if he wants to eviscerate the second amendment.

As Brandon Darby points out, “The current Chinese government, the communist People’s Republic of China, was established in a revolution led by Mao Zedong, who killed an estimated 40-70 million people with starvation, executions, and re-education camps.”

Indeed, it was Mao himself who said “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

This should provide a hint as to what happens when tyrants are unleashed upon a disarmed population, and why China’s call to repeal the Second Amendment rings chillingly hollow.

If you want to get a taste of how a state treats citizens who refuse to submit to big government tyranny yet who are completely disarmed, look no further than China itself.

As we reported earlier this year, a villager in northern China attempting to resist a forced government relocation by remaining on his land was brutally crushed to death by a road flattening truck on the orders of a Chinese government official.

China is routinely rocked by riots staged by residents furious at the arbitrary theft of their land by the state, which under the Communist system claims that the government owns all land and that private property rights are non-existent. However, the state-owned media ensures that news of the protests does not reach a national audience.

Since the state has all the guns, the idea of government thugs arbitrarily kicking people off their own property is a routine occurrence in China. The kind of massive land grabs and forced relocations that occur almost every day in China is not a situation that has yet been visited on America primarily because Americans have the second amendment with which to protect their private property rights.

A law was recently passed in Indiana which legalizes the use of deadly force – including against a police officer – in the event of an unlawful intrusion.

China can keep its forced relocations, its summary execution of political dissidents, its mobile execution vans, and its draconian police state. Americans will keep their guns, no matter how many times the Communist Chinese government – and all its political allies within America – talk down the second amendment.

http://www.infowars.com/communist-chinese-government-calls-for-americans-to-be-disarmed/

[PLAYER57832]

So a few months ago teachers were all union terrorists of some kind, and now those same people who blamed teachers and unions for all of our problems want to arm them.
ok....

Rather ironic, isn't it?

[Phatscotty]

So a few months ago teachers were all union terrorists of some kind, and now those same people who blamed teachers and unions for all of our problems want to arm them.
ok....

Rather ironic, isn't it?

Not sure they are union terrorists to the point of not wanting to protect their students from a mass murderer, but by all means continue the circle jerk

[PLAYER57832]

How do we know that taking away guns is on the wrong side of freedom? Communist China completely agrees with it and wants Obama to go hard after them:
]

Oh come off it. Your argument is like saying that those opposing pedaphilia are opposed to sex in general... seriously!

And YOUR attitude is a big reason why it will be those utterly opposed to guns making the decision. Because, when push comes to shove, the safety of my child supercedes your right to have a gun... period. And when you refuse to accept that there is a threat, when there is, then you are part of the problem, not the solution and you leave the solution to those who see the problem as simplistic, that is those who see guns as the problem.

I am in no way anti gun, but I can tell you right now that if I seriously thought my child were threatened, I would take every gun in our house and not just sell them.. I would destroy them. I can gauarantee that a good many moms would do exactly the same. Moms who live in gun-toting households, who tote them themselves frequently.

If you belittle everyone who wants any kind of control as being somehow like China and bringing on oppression... then you yourself are a big part of why we have a problem with guns in this country.

[PLAYER57832]

So a few months ago teachers were all union terrorists of some kind, and now those same people who blamed teachers and unions for all of our problems want to arm them.
ok....

Rather ironic, isn't it?

Not sure they are union terrorists to the point of not wanting to protect their students from a mass murderer, but by all means continue the circle jerk

yeah, because according to you anyone who disagrees with you is a jerk.

And yet.. you wonder why your position is not widely accepted?

[Night Strike]

And YOUR attitude is a big reason why it will be those utterly opposed to guns making the decision. Because, when push comes to shove, the safety of my child supercedes your right to have a gun... period. And when you refuse to accept that there is a threat, when there is, then you are part of the problem, not the solution and you leave the solution to those who see the problem as simplistic, that is those who see guns as the problem.

Excuse me? I don't want to harm your child, so why do you magically get the authority to take away my guns? Same for all the other law-abiding citizens out there. I have a Constitutional right to own a gun and your child has a Constitutional right to be alive (well, since you didn't kill him/her prior to birth). You're just going to have to deal with the fact that both rights can and must live in harmony. You do NOT get to take away my rights just because you think I'm going to try to take away yours.

And isn't it telling that not only do I have to work to pay for your health care and birth control, buy only the more expensive products and energy sources that you mandate, I then also have to surrender my right to self-protection just because you have some fantastical notion that people want to hurt you?! How full of yourself can you become?

[crispybits]

Aren't you basing your "right to own a gun" on that same "fantastical notion" that people want to hurt you? (note - not the constitutional statement, that's not an argument at all but merely a legal statement, I'm talking about the reasoning behind that legal statement)