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.
GUN CONTROL is STUPID. HELL YEAH
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
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.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
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.
So I'm reading up on causes of death and I come across this page: https://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
Can anyone tell me what the hell "Inhalation of gastric contents" is? Is this how cannibals die?
Can anyone tell me what the hell "Inhalation of gastric contents" is? Is this how cannibals die?
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.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
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.
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
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.
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.
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.
DutchJazzer
Banned
it would!