What's new
By:

GUN CONTROL is STUPID. HELL YEAH

Hantlers said:
Of course I'm ok with what can be purchased.

Semi-automatic weapons, bolt-action and lever-action weapons.

In order to get a fully automatic weapon you have go through extensive background checks, pay a **** ton of money, and your name will be registered with the government and you're probably going to be monitored a little more closely. That's if you do it legally of course. Not much you can do about how people purchase them illegally. Plus they're all pre-86, so it's not like these are modern guns. Still lethal, but as far as I know, nobody who has purchased them legally has ever done anything they shouldn't with them.

Tell me, what weapons do you have a problem with in the US?
Click to expand...

What purpose does an assault rifle serve? Why do we need this?
 
Revolution 9 said:
That statement is just how I feel. Obviously more factors go into it than that. Well lets break down where we know that is true. If you put a gun into your home you are bringing in potential threat. The presence of a firearm in the home increases the risk of unintentional firearm related death among children no?
Click to expand...

Sure, that's *one* of the consequences, but it's not the *only* consequence. So some types of violence go up with increased gun ownership. But not all type of violence. And it's very possible (in my opinion) that the number of lives saved (in e.g. preventing state violence against citizens) could be greater than the number of lives lost.
 
colton said:
Sure, that's *one* of the consequences, but it's not the *only* consequence. So some types of violence go up with increased gun ownership. But not all type of violence. And it's very possible (in my opinion) that the number of lives saved (in e.g. preventing state violence against citizens) could be greater than the number of lives lost.
Click to expand...

Colton I completely respect that opinion. That is the argument of people for guns. That the lives guns do protect, outweigh the accidental deaths. I get that. In some areas guns are needed more, and in some situations guns allow hunters to provide for their families. The rural people who depend on this food from hunting.

For me I feel safer around less guns. That statement was not complete obviously because there are more factors. It's more of a personal statement as well. I feel less safe with a weapon in the house than I do without one. America has 10 times the amount of gun deaths than Germany. I feel safer here. I think the real here question is what is reasonable for the needs of citizens.
 
Revolution 9 said:
What purpose does an assault rifle serve? Why do we need this?
Click to expand...

Ugh. Just because it looks like a weapon an army might use, does not mean that it is a weapon an army would use.

For example: these two rifles are essentially the same thing. Semi-automatic .22 rifles, made by the same company (Ruger). One of them just looks "scarier".

10-22-takedown-22lr-semi-auto-rifle.jpg 1236.jpg


Now to answer your question, I use them for hunting. I'll use an AR version of a .22 to shoot things like rockchucks, gophers, squirrels...small things like that. It's nice to not have to reload as often, and AR types are very accurate, which is nice for small game. I would use a .223 AR version to shoot wolves or coyotes. Fast animals where it's nice not to have to reload with a bolt or lever action in order to shoot again, because they can get away from you quick.

Now tell me this, what is wrong with having them? Because people abuse them? Better get rid of alcohol too then. Hell, we better get rid of cars. Removing things just because people abuse them is not the right answer.
 
Revolution 9 said:
1. Gun accidents are gun violence.
2. Wrong. The rate of gun violence is so high that the accident %s are low, but not meaningless. 75 kids die a year from completely preventable deaths. 600 adults. Not meaningless at all.
3. Ive lived in North Dakota. Not a good example.
Click to expand...

1. Changing definitions is trying too hard.

2. 600 deaths out of 330,000,000 people is inconsequential. More people die falling out of bed (650), and twice as many falling down stairs (1307). Accidents have no place in the adult conversation on gun control. Dragging it in is fear mongering and going to earn you more pushback than acceptance.

3. Anecdotally convenient to match your viewpoint?
 
Hantlers said:
Ugh. Just because it looks like a weapon an army might use, does not mean that it is a weapon an army would use.

For example: these two rifles are essentially the same thing. Semi-automatic .22 rifles, made by the same company (Ruger). One of them just looks "scarier".

View attachment 3216 View attachment 3217


Now to answer your question, I use them for hunting. I'll use an AR version of a .22 to shoot things like rockchucks, gophers, squirrels...small things like that. It's nice to not have to reload as often, and AR types are very accurate, which is nice for small game. I would use a .223 AR version to shoot wolves or coyotes. Fast animals where it's nice not to have to reload with a bolt or lever action in order to shoot again, because they can get away from you quick.

Now tell me this, what is wrong with having them? Because people abuse them? Better get rid of alcohol too then. Hell, we better get rid of cars. Removing things just because people abuse them is not the right answer.
Click to expand...

I bet AR's/AK's/Mac's are outlawed from new manufacturing/purchase within 20 years. They're too deadly in crowded areas for congress to do nothing. Of course, at that point they'll be replaced with handguns in the mass shootings, which can be much more deadly in the hands of a trained killer.
 
Revolution 9 said:
This isn't about disarming the United States. I am not for that. Personally I don't want a weapon but it doesnt mean you cant. Can we not look at the current state of guns in our country. Are you ok with what is allowed to be purchased? I personally dont feel any fear going into a Mall here, bank, gas station or Movie theater. I do not feel the same way in the US right now.
Click to expand...

No offense, but I think that says more about you than it does about the U.S. I've never felt fear going into a mall, bank, gas station, or movie theater in the U.S.
 
A handgun is far more effective for a mall/school shooting than a rifle is. The only reason people want AR's banned is because they don't know what the hell they are.
 
Revolution 9 said:
Colton I completely respect that opinion. That is the argument of people for guns.
Click to expand...

I did say earlier in the thread that I'm middle of the road on this issue. If I were talking with someone who was unreasonably pro-gun (in my opinion), I'd be arguing in favor of increased background checks and limits on the type of weapons allowed.
 
colton said:
I did say earlier in the thread that I'm middle of the road on this issue. If I were talking with someone who was unreasonably pro-gun (in my opinion), I'd be arguing in favor of increased background checks and limits on the type of weapons allowed.
Click to expand...

Again, what weapons do we have allowed that we shouldn't?

I would love to hear a valid reasoning for why any guns that are currently legal should be banned.
 
A school district here in Utah is giving their school officers AR-15s. Good or bad? What say you Jazzfanz?
 
Hantlers said:
Again, what weapons do we have allowed that we shouldn't?

I would love to hear a valid reasoning for why any guns that are currently legal should be banned.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not informed enough for a discussion like that. And if I were to inform myself I may well come to the conclusion that there are no additional weapons that are currently allowed that should banned. I do agree with you that "assault rifle" is a meaningless phrase and that guns should be categorized based on capability rather than on looks.
 
colton said:
Sorry, I'm not informed enough for a discussion like that. And if I were to inform myself I may well come to the conclusion that there are no additional weapons that are currently allowed that should banned. I do agree with you that "assault rifle" is a meaningless phrase and that guns should be categorized based on capability rather than on looks.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, if you say that you're not informed enough for this discussion, then perhaps you shouldn't be saying that we should be calling for the banning of any types of weapons. We should be knowledgeable on any subject before we call for the reform of said subject.
 
Hantlers said:
With all due respect, if you say that you're not informed enough for this discussion, then perhaps you shouldn't be saying that we should be calling for the banning of any types of weapons. We should be knowledgeable on any subject before we call for the reform of said subject.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing me with someone else.
 
colton said:
No offense, but I think that says more about you than it does about the U.S. I've never felt fear going into a mall, bank, gas station, or movie theater in the U.S.
Click to expand...

This is a media phenomenon imo. If you look at the wiki page for schools shootings, for example, it shows that school shootings, with comparable numbers of people killed, have been happening since the 1800's, and since the 20's it is close to the same numbers we are seeing now, and this is with incomplete records from the earlier years as it isn't always possible to get every incident reported, especially in rural areas where they might not even have had a newspaper. So it isn't like this is a hugely escalating issue, but the difference is the way it is reported. Every single incident, no matter how large or small or how remote, gets front-page coverage across the entire world now. Same thing for child abduction. When I let my daughter ride her bike from Sparks to Reno (a whole 6 miles) our neighbors freaked, and all but threatened to report us for child neglect for putting her in such a terrible situation where she would obviously be abducted and all we would get back would be her head if we were lucky. Nevermind the fact that the stats show that child abductions, since the 50's, are more or less flat. It is not an escalating issue, but now every single incident gets an amber alert, everyone talks about it, reads about, gossips about it, and so it is a gigantic problem that will hit every child who walks more than 2 blocks without being tethered to their parents. This is what is getting out of hand, to be honest.
 
Hantlers said:
Did I misunderstand this?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think so. I was saying I'd be arguing for limits on the type of weapons allowed. I wasn't saying that I'd necessarily be arguing that ADDITIONAL limits needed to be put into place.
 
Hantlers said:
A handgun is far more effective for a mall/school shooting than a rifle is. The only reason people want AR's banned is because they don't know what the hell they are.
Click to expand...

This is correct. If people were really for banning the firearm most used in violent crime, they'd be focused on handguns and not rifles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top