You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.
#41. Posted:
Deftones
  • TTG Champion
Status: Offline
Joined: May 16, 201310Year Member
Posts: 8,519
Reputation Power: 1554
Status: Offline
Joined: May 16, 201310Year Member
Posts: 8,519
Reputation Power: 1554
Gun laws are there for freedom
#42. Posted:
Yin
  • TTG Undisputed
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 30, 201211Year Member
Posts: 5,468
Reputation Power: 245
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 30, 201211Year Member
Posts: 5,468
Reputation Power: 245
I have been on the fence with this, but I am starting to lose my patience. Countries with very strict gun laws aren't perfect, but most seem to not have shootings/mass shootings regularly like we do. Guns are very dangerous objects. There is a reason we give them to soldiers and they are their primary weapons when they go on missions. I would be fine with some single-shot gun or something like that, but semi-auto, large magazine rifles seem a little much. Something at some point has to change, whether that means more laws or arming more people. I don't recommend the latter, but that is just me.
#43. Posted:
Grown
  • Game Reviewer
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 10, 201112Year Member
Posts: 1,578
Reputation Power: 81
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 10, 201112Year Member
Posts: 1,578
Reputation Power: 81
Motivational wrote
Halo wrote You try and take away the 100+ million guns in the USA, lmao.


Nobody's saying that all guns should be outright banned. We're just saying that stricter rules are needed.

And it would be extremely easy to do, they have documents of who bought guns and when, it wouldn't be very hard to send police out to collect the guns and offer extremely high penalties if anyone attempted to hide their weapons or were caught with them.


You act like we can just walk into a store and hand them money and then they hand us a firearm.. When that is not the case at all. There is a lot of paper work that you need to do in order to buy and you also have the background check. When I bought my ak-47 and my pistol I had to take papers to my local police station so they had record of me owning the firearm. Again stricter rules wont do anything to stop a shooting.. Black market is a big thing here and if people want to get a gun they will.
#44. Posted:
002
  • Winter 2022
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7282
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7282
[quote="Motivational"]
002 wrote
Motivational wrote
Excuse me? Guns don't server a purpose? Tell me again how I am supposed to put food on the table for my family when I can't afford it.


Sorry, let me rephrase that sentence.

Excuse me? Drugs don't serve a purpose? Tell me again how I am supposed to put food on the table for my family when I can't afford it. Them drugs let me make money.


Your lack of education is no excuse for having to use a weapon to provide an income. That's like a thief or drug dealer saying that what he does is good because he has no other option and that's his only way to provide for himself. There's nothing good about having to shoot innocent animals because it's your only method of income.

That gun is a tool used to help the women that is about to get raped defend herself.



That gun is also used by rapists to help rape woman? I can guarentee you that a woman does not have time to reach into her handbag, take out a weapon, remove the safety, point it at the attacker and fire multiple shots. The majority of rapes are commited by people who are extremely close to the victim. Nobody is going to shoot someone that they love, even if their life is in danger.

Only around 10% of rapes are committed by 'strangers'. Around 90% of rapes are committed by known men, and often by someone who the survivor has previously trusted or even loved. People are raped in their homes, their workplaces and other settings where they have previously felt safe. Rapists can be friends, colleagues, clients, neighbours, family members, partners or exes.


If you want to defend yourself from rape, it's called pepper spray and self defence classes. There's no need for a woman to be carrying a loaded gun in their handbags.

A 9mm would have no problem taking out a guy with a fully automatic weapon. However, that gun was NOT a fully automatic rifle. It was semi automatic. Please, look into the facts before you speak on them.


It's extremely easy to convert a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic one, so I assumed that the gunman had done that. Especially considering the crazy amount of people that he injured and killed and how educated and experienced he was with weapons.

No. There's no way in hell that you could pull a 9mm from a holster and proceed to fire when you're extremely intoxicated and the gunman is pointing a rifle in your direction. You're forgetting to add things such as the fact the people out were drunk, they would be in shock and they're panicking. I can guarantee you that one of the clubs had a weapon under the table or even using a melee weapon like a knife or bottle. People were scared and ran for their lives though.

This man was a trained security guard, he knew what he was doing and didn't panic and wasn't inexperienced . He graduated with a degree in criminal-justice technology from Indian River Community College in 2006, he was not a stupid person. The police had trouble taking him down for god's sake. This is real life and not COD.

Do you know why the UK doesn't have many school shootings? Guns have been illegal there to the average citizen for a very long time. If you think that illegalizing guns in America would have the same effect, you're an idiot. There are a ton of guns already here, most people are not going to give them up. Just like drugs, making them illegal won't do much.


So what? It can't be any worse than it is already. There's a ridiculous amount of shooting happening that shouldn't be and for no reason whatsoever. Very few of the people who commit these mass shootings actually get the guns illegally, because there's no bloody need to! They just ask the government if they can have one and they get it.

As far as school / population goes, you can say that, however you're just applying numbers and saying everything is going to be 100% across the board like that. It won't be. Let's flip the tables on you here. In the US, roughly 1500 people die from getting stabbed yearly, compared for 14k people fell victim to people using knives. Huh, does that mean that the UK should ban knives? After all that number should a fraction of what it is beings that only 1500 people died in the US each year from knives, and the US is 5x bigger.


It won't be. Let's flip the tables on you here. In the US, roughly 1500 people die from getting stabbed yearly, compared for 14k people fell victim to people using knives. Huh, does that mean that the UK should ban knives?


You must be getting pretty desperate if you brought that up.

Firstly, a knife is not a killing machine. It has a purpose other than destroying things, such as preparing food, gathering resources and so on. There's literally thousands of uses for a knife, I could name plenty more. A gun has one purpose, to kill or damage objects.

A knife cannot kill large amounts of people. It can kill at most, one or two. It's not even hard to disarm someone with a knife, I did five years of self-defence classes and I'd rather someone had a knife than a baseball bat any day of the week.

If someone gets stabbed in the UK, it's normally either to do with a drug-related crime or a robbery. Nobody has ever killed a school of children in the UK with a knife.

Lots of people are generally evil. There's very little access to guns in the UK, therefore people who wanted to hurt an individual person result to using a knife. I'm not saying that we're all saints but I'd rather take my chances in an almost fair fight against a knife than be hunted by a rifle.

I watched a documentary once about a man who got hacked into with a samurai sword, beaten with a baseball bat and stabbed about ten times and he lived. If you want to survive bad enough, you can. It's not the same with a gun.

After all that number should a fraction of what it is beings that only 1500 people died in the US each year from knives, and the US is 5x bigger


Why the hell would you use an knife when you can get legally purchase and own a semi-automatic rifle instead?


SOOO many things wrong with this post, but beings that I assume you're from the UK, you're pretty uneducated on the matter.

Ok, in America, most of us live paycheck to paycheck. This means when our car breaks down we can't afford to fix it. That deer that I killed with my oh so bad gun, lets me put food on the table for my family for a week at minimum. This allows us to save money to get the car fixed.


I have no problem with someone killing for the purpose of survival, if it has to be between you and the deer then obviously your life is more valuable. But if you have a full-time job and you're killing on the side or for a sport, it's completely wrong in my eyes.

That's fine, if you want to hunt for wild animals with hunting weapons, like bolt action rifles then that's cool. There's no need for a semi-automatic rifle or even a pistol though. I honestly don't mind guns being legal so long as they're not ridiculous killing machines, which sadly most of them are.


Guns and drugs have literally nothing in common in this matter. Guns have a good side- that being self defense and the ability to aid me in putting food on the table. There is nothing good about having to shoot an innocent animal? Excuse me, you must not eat meat. Trust me, I used to work at a farm and the way we hunt animals is A LOT better than how we farm animals. It is a lot more humane but at the end of the day, an animal is dead. It's nature bud, animals kill animals and we as humans are also animals.

Firstly, you can put food on the table without guns. Humans have been doing it for the last 200,000 years. So that point is completely invalid, if anything you're superior to a caveman and should have no problem getting a crossbow or knife.

Secondly, guns are not self defence. I can say this time and time again, if someone wants to kill you specifically they will. Someone can stab you before you even knew they intended to cause you harm and a gun will do nothing to prevent that. Not to mention, why are you so afraid of dying? The chances of you using your gun are so damn slim, you will die, we will all die. There's no point carrying around something that's not going to save your life, the majority of people aren't even.

And drugs do have a good purpose, millions of people use anabolic steroids and they've gave them opportunities that they couldn't of had without them.

And lastly, I'm not a vegetarian. There's nothing good about having to shoot an animal though, the meat is just something that's gotten once it's dead and has nothing to do with the actual slaughtering of the animal. Sadly it's a part of nature and it is what it is, I don't hold that against you.

That gun is also used by the bad people, but the bad people are also not law abiding citizens. By taking away guns, you disarm the good people so that gives free reign to the bad people. It takes less than a second to get your gun. All the while you should be backing up and putting as much space between you and them as possible. Also, you don't "take off" a safety. It is a little lever you push 5/8" forward which is extremely easy to do. "Nobody is going to shoot someone that they love, even if their life is in danger. " B.S. I guarantee you that there will be no more love after that person rapes them. The idea that "oh I love you so I won't stop you raping me" is asinine, it is simply not a fact.


Are you joking or serious? Taking off the safety is easy obviously but in a state of panic, you're not going to be doing things methodologically, most woman are extremely inexperienced with guns and don't know how to use them and they'll forget this kind of thing and panic.

The second point is just stupid. As I said, most people who are raped are with someone they love, who the hell keeps a loaded weapon in their bed or bathroom? What rapist husband would allow their wife to even have a gun? I guarantee that you would find it impossible to shoot a member of your family no matter what the situation was. Now imagine you're a terrified woman who has loved this man all your life, not to mention. Good luck proving in court that they raped you and you shot them? Do you know how hard to would be to prove that? Most woman wouldn't shoot because of the fear of not being believed and imprisonment.

Pepper spray will do a lot when the rapist is weilding a gun, right? Let me refresh you on how long it takes. It takes the same amount of time to take pepper spray out of your bag as it does a gun. Pepper spray is often a round can so you have to think which way your aiming it and you might even spray yourself. Let's just forget about the fact that some of them use a pin you have to remove so it doesn't spray in your bag. A gun takes less time to deploy and is more effective in the situation. Often times if you show a gun, that person is going to run.


Pepper spray is far smaller and lighter than a gun and it can be carried in your pocket. I guarantee you that it's faster to take out pepper spray than an actual gun. As for the pin and stuff, buy a better model of pepper spray.

As I said, 9/10 rapes happen with familiar people. You're not going to shoot someone you love because no court is going to believe that your husband of twenty years wanted to rape you and you shot him. It's that simple, we call that murder and I guarantee that millions of people have been jailed when they were actually just trying to defend themselves. It's far more believable and easier to hide under a pillow when you have pepper spray.

It's extremely easy to convert a semi-auto to a fully auto? Tell me, how do you do it? You know how easy it is, let me know. I'll let you know, it's not that easy, in fact it's fairly difficult. An example here, on an AR-15 you have the upper and lower receivers. You are pretty much replacing most of the parts in the lower to make it a full auto instead of a semi-auto. Also, that gun used in the Orlando shooting was a semi-auto. Let me give you a refresher on what semi and full auto mean as I don't think you understand it. When I say that I'm referring to this comment " Especially considering the crazy amount of people that he injured and killed and how educated and experienced he was with weapons." A fully auto firearm is one that you hold down the trigger and it will empty the clip, usually in less than 3 seconds (about 10 rounds per second). This is the illegal one and would not be effective in this scenario. The one that was used was semi-auto. This is where you press the trigger once and a bullet fires. Every time you press the trigger, a bullet fires. When it does, the gas used to propel the bullet is also used to work the action, taking out the spent round, putting another one in, and cocking the action ready to fire again.


If you've got a degree in criminal-justice technology which is basically analysing crime scenes like the guy who died the shooting did, I'm pretty sure you can convert a weapon from semi automatic to automatic. And obviously I know the difference, how the hell would that not have been more effective though? He could easily have made a drum sized magazine and fired in bursts of 3-5 and far more people would have died. He obviously didn't really think the whole shooting through but it would definitely be more effective to have the option to switch to automatic if needed.

Who said everyone was "extremely intoxicated"? The people serving the alcohol are not supposed to be intoxicated, and a lot of people go to bars just for the atmosphere.


I'm making an estimated guess, for every twenty or so people at the club, there was probably one staff member. There is obviously going to be more people drinking alcohol than those who don't.

It doesn't matter if one guy is trained, the other 10 should've been armed and been able to take him out. Do you know why the police had a hard time taking him out? As you said, this guy was smart. He knew the right place where he could open fire on the people he wanted to kill, yet stay fairly safe from the people who wanted to kill him.


Well, since this is about gun laws in general and isn't specifically centred towards the recent attack,

Do you remember the Aurora shooting? The batman movie one?

Around 12:30 am, he reentered the theatre through the exit door. He was dressed in black and wore a gas mask, a load-bearing vest, a ballistic helmet, bullet-resistant leggings, a bullet-resistant throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves.


How is a 9mm handgun going to do anything when you're surrounded by gas, it's extremely dark and the person shooting you is in bullet-proof gear? 50 cent got shot nine times with a 9mm pistol at point blank range and was able to survive.

WRONG, although it is easy to get a gun, if you can't pass a background check, you won't get it. Might I also add that they are expensive? Yes, a lot of people who do these shootings get them legally, but you don't walk up to "the government" and ask nicely with puppy eyes to get a gun, it doesn't work like that. This further shows you lack of education on the matter. The way you actually get a gun is you walk into a gun dealer (Cabelas, Walmart, Remmington, etc.), look at a gun, say you want to buy it, you answer a series of questions while they run a back ground check, if everything passes you give them your money and you walk out with the gun.


It's slightly different in the UK, we have to actually apply to the police and government but it's completely irrelevant. Either way, your government lets you buy pretty much any gun you want. All I'm suggesting you do is limit it the way it's done in the UK. No handguns and only sporting weapons, that way you can hunt and shoot and can't commit a massacre.

A knife is not a killing machine, just like a gun is not a killing machine. They are both tools.


Tool - a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.


Obviously they're both tools. An AK-47 is a gun and and also assault rifle. It's two things.

No, a gun is used to kill. It has no other purposes. If it's target practice, what are you practising your aim for? To shoot either animals or humans. A knife is actually used by other people. Everyone I know uses a knife, I know only two people who have guns. There's a pretty large difference.

A gun can be used just for fun at the range, in fact that's why I bought my AK. A gun has MULTIPLE purposes, and I'm tired of bringing this up to you. It is meant to put meat on the table, it is meant for self defense, it is meant for recreational activities at the range, etc. A knife and a gun both have many uses, both have good uses and both have bad uses.


You still don't see the obvious. The whole reason of training on the range is to increase your aim, thus making you more efficient with the gun. By putting meat on the table, you're still killing an animal and it's a terrible act. But whatever, it's life. Unless you can make a sandwich with a gun, or cut a rope using it, then it hasn't got many good uses. It has one got use at most which is target practice and I don't even agree with that.

A knife absolutely can kill large amount of people. What about the 29 dead, 140 injured at the China Kunming train station?? What about the 8 dead and 15 injured at the Osaka school? Nanping school? the list goes on and on. Knives can kill and injure mass amounts of people.


You're just being stupid now. Of course it can be used to kill lots of people, what I meant was it hasn't happened so far in the UK and it probably wont happen. I could kill a school of small children with my bare hands, I'm obviously not going to say that they're lethal weapons though.

You're listing countries where it's legal to carry around 16 inch knives, I'm talking about the UK here. Not countries with populations of 2 billion people.

Both male and female attackers pulled out long-bladed knives and stabbed and slashed passengers


"If someone gets stabbed in the UK, it's normally either to do with a drug-related crime or a robbery." Kind of like guns in the US? Out of 32k deaths, 20k are suicide and 2k are gang related? Weird how that works out. "Nobody has ever killed a school of children in the UK with a knife" There have been attempts, Blakenhall, Wolverhampton, England, United Kingdom? A guy slashed 3 children and 4 adults at the St Luke's Primary School


It's nothing like the US. Two days ago somebody shot up a club full of innocent people, that doesn't happen with the UK. A school full of children obviously means a large amount. Like the amount that are killed in an American school shooting. Not two or three.

You are acting like if there is a law saying guns are illegal that everyone will hand in their guns. It's simply not the case, it will never happen. There are too many guns out there so to think that the criminals who own guns will wilfully give them up is just a stupid idea. If we make guns illegal, I will become a criminal because I will not give up my guns.


I don't think that it will but if it even helps prevent something like this not happening again then it will be worth it. Anything is worth a try at this point. As I said, I've got nothing wrong with old fashioned and very basic one shot weapons but when you start getting semi automatic and fully automatic stuff then it's too far in my opinion.

There are MANY people who survive being shot. Hell, look at the Orlando shooting, 53 people were injured and came out alive.


And most of them have lost friends, scarred for life, wont be able to walk and will seek medical assistance for the rest of their lives.

Don't compare the amount of damage that a gun causes to that of a knife. Seriously.

You're missing my point. My point is that even in a "perfect" world where let's say guns are illegal and it's just as hard to get one in the US as in the UK, these murders would still be happening, it would just be with other means. Knives, or even tannerite bought at Walmart.


That's simply not the case. People do things when the opportunity presents itself. If there's a gun lying there, there's more chance of you using it than if it isn't. Nobody could kill fifty people with a knife. People have tried that in the UK and it doesn't work.

At this point, I can't feel my fingers or my hand. I'm in pure agony. For that purpose alone I guess we should agree to disagree, however I will still reply if you want to continue.

Long story short, knives are less dangerous than guns and if people want to hurt each other they should use actually fair weapons.


@Motivational It's not as hard as you may think to get a gun here in the UK.


I know but we're heavily restricted and we can't even buy handguns let alone semi automatic assault rifles and sub machine guns.


I eat meat. There is no difference between me killing the animal or the farmer killing the animal. The difference is how it was raised. A wild cow has a lot better life than a farmed cow.

As far as what rifle to hunt with, I used to think the same way until one year I screwed up a shot. The deer was 250 yards out, I took the shot, a gust of wind came, and I shot it in the rear end. Now this thing is paralyzed and I frantically throwing the bolt back trying to take it out and I had to re-load. That deer was in pain for at least 45 seconds before I finally killed it. The animal was in range for my rifle, what it came down to was a gust of wind knocked my shot off and I hate animals suffering so I made the mistake of throwing lead down range. If I had the semi-auto rifle, that deer would've been dead in less than 5 seconds. Also, I hunt in areas where things hunt me, like bear and cougar. A semi auto rifle is a lot better option than a bolt action in terms of hunting in those areas.

As far as putting food on the table without a gun, you can't do it like we used to. We used to hunt with spears and knives but that is illegal as it's inhumane. I love how you say guns kill innocent animals and then say that I could hunt with a knife or crossbow (crossbows are illegal in most areas here by the way). These methods are worse methods. It leave the animal in a lot of paint before it finally dies. Which side of the fence are you on?

A gun won't save you life. Lol, ok, there's not even a point in rebutting that. I assume you're from the UK and have no training with guns or have felt a gun. When someone pulls out a gun, the situation is null. The other person is running, or a shoot out will happen.

"the meat is just something that's gotten once it's dead" WHAT???? No, we kill the animals. We herd them into a slaughter house where we line them up execution style and put a bullet in their heads, or chop their heads off in terms of smaller animals like chickens. If you wait until the animal dies of natural causes, the meat is often bad.

Some guns don't have safety. All the pistols in out house don't have a safety. The rule we go by is the safety is not having you finger on the trigger, and / or not having it cocked.

We keep guns loaded in out house. There is a gun in every room of the house with 2 loaded mags. As far as rape, it's a lot different here in the US. A lot of things count as rape, hell if a girl has sex with a guy and she regrets it, she can call it rape and it stands. If I was a terrified women being held against my will about to be raped, hell yeah I'm shooting you. There are only a select few fatal shots on the human body. Shoot the stomach, legs, knees, shoulders, etc.

You can think pepper spray is a better option, but pepper spray isn't all that much lighter than say a .38 special or a .22, and it's more complicated to use.

Buddy, criminal justice has nothing to do with gun smithing lol. How would a semi-auto been better than a full auto? Like I said, full auto will dump 10 rounds a second or more. Semi auto you choose when your shot is placed.

It doesn't matter if there was 2k people drunk off their ass and 10 staff members, those 10 staff members should not have been drunk and should've been able to fire back.

Mind expanding on your Aurora thought?

Anyone can survive point blank shots, as I said, there are very few fatal shots. Bullet proof gear isn't really bullet proof either. Level 3a armor which is a steel plate won't stop my .308, especially if I use a green tip round. Look at a 9mm bullet. It is a lot bigger, and more blunt than the traditional 5.56 used by the AR-15. The 9mm would be more lethal than the AR in that scenario as the 5.56 is small and a penetration round. The 9mm is a big heavy bullet meant to tear crap up.

So where are you going to draw the line? A pistol is the perfect self defence weapon, but let's have it the way you want it, all hand guns and semi auto rifles are out of the question, gone. All we have left is high powered hunting rifles. Now I can get on a roof top and snipe a lot more people before I get found. Great idea.

Here in America, we go to the range for fun, just to throw lead down range. It may be a little different from where you live, but I used to go to the range almost every friday with a group of friends just to throw lead out there.

A spoon doesn't have meany uses, it just moves food. Since it can cause har by making people fat, should we outlaw them too?

Look at all the school shootings in the past 5 years in the US. Most of them are killing or injuring 1-2 people.

I love how you say "Don't compare the amount of damage that a gun causes to that of a knife. Seriously" yet you want to compare the US to the UK. It's the same principal. You can, yet you can't.

"People do things when the opportunity presents itself. If there's a gun lying there, there's more chance of you using it than if it isn't" Oh boy, I love this one to. So that's kind of like the tannerite sitting on the walmart shelf, right? You know, I was looking at the US massacres vs UK, and we have shooting shooting shooting, you have bombing bombing bombing. I'd much rather fight a guy with a gun than a bunch of bombs.

"Long story short, knives are less dangerous than guns and if people want to hurt each other they should use actually fair weapons" That couldn't be further from the truth. Neither object is dangerous, it's the people that wield them that are dangerous.


Watch this video:
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
#45. Posted:
002
  • Rigged Luck
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7282
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7282
Motivational wrote
Halo wrote You try and take away the 100+ million guns in the USA, lmao.


Nobody's saying that all guns should be outright banned. We're just saying that stricter rules are needed.

And it would be extremely easy to do, they have documents of who bought guns and when, it wouldn't be very hard to send police out to collect the guns and offer extremely high penalties if anyone attempted to hide their weapons or were caught with them.


Woah woah woah, hold your horses right there. You're telling me that you want the police to go door to door taking away my guns that you deem I shouldn't own? What kind of tyranny is that? Trust me, if the police knock on my door and say "sir, we see you bought an AK-47 and the government made them illegal, we will need to take it", I'll laugh at them and say you can do anything on your last day on earth. I'm not giving up my guns that I spent 2-3k on, simply not happening lol.
#46. Posted:
ProfessorNobody
  • Winter 2017
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
[Since I wrote this and previewed it, Motivational has said that he does not want to ban all guns, so let's proceed. I won't edit the rest because it's quite obvious where this clearing up would impact my text]

Motivational and 002.

It is quite obvious that both of you are almost at your wits end with each other. You are both raising good points, but from what I have read there seems to be a misunderstanding on the most basic level between the two of you.

002, you view this debate as though you are defending the position of not banning guns completely.
It doesn't seem as though Motivational has explicitly stated that he wants guns to be banned.
I am not a mind reader, but Motivational appears to be attempting to refute the arguments defending guns being legal when he might not necessarily want them to be completely banned. In essence, it seems like Motivational is playing Devil's Advocate for the extreme position of banning guns.
I think this is putting you both in a position of misunderstanding and that eventually you will both reach the point of thinking that it has been a complete waste of time having this debate.

As a viewer it has been very interesting and educational, aside from the occasional personal attack which is understandable in a heated discussion.

But just for the sake of ease, let's assume that Motivational does want to ban guns, if he doesn't then he can reply to this, I'll edit it - and we can move on, hopefully.
I think that for any common ground to be found on this topic, you must both concede just one point each.

Motivational, if I concede to you that guns are not tools and they are only used for destructive purposes, it is still a non-sequitur when it comes to the issue of banning guns. Like many people have pointed out, there are simply far too many people in the US who own guns, and they view it as an integral part of being a free agent in this world.
The culture surrounding gun ownership will not change overnight, as much as we might want it to. It would take an act of God for every gun owner in the United States to turn over their firearms.
The more practical way to achieve the goal of banning guns in the US - assuming that is your goal - is to do it slowly. In the exact way that the conspiracy theorists say is already happening now. Legislation on top of legislation for years, and eventually gun ownership would be down to a minimum in the US.
What I think is your position on this topic anyway, gun control is a much more viable solution than banning guns.

002, I understand that you view the restrictions on purchasing weapons to be very strict as they are.
But it also seems as though you have this view that any more restrictions would also restrict the abilities of any law abiding citizen to buy a gun.
You are obviously very educated when it comes to how guns work, the loopholes you must jump through to get one, being able to conceal, carry, and shoot a gun efficiently and safely - and you also care about criminals getting their hands on guns.
It is an obvious fact that many criminals go through illegal channels to get their weapons, but many also go through the legal channels. For instance, the Orlando shooter bought his weapons legally.
The restrictions that many centrist people on this issue would put in place would make it so that those buying guns must be educated on how to use them safely and must not have a criminal record.
For every single law abiding citizen in the US who just want to provide for their family, collect weapons, or go to the shooting range for an afternoon of fun, these restrictions would have no impact whatsoever and would have the side effect of making these law abiding citizens safer too.
All that gun control advocates, like me, are advocating for is that every person who can buy a gun is a person like you.

If you both concede these points, assuming they are correct, you will both have fallen into agreement on the major issue being raised in this topic. Whether or not guns should be used for hunting when you have a job is a side-issue in comparison to the simple question of whether or not guns should be banned, made harder to buy, or left alone.

I don't think that either of you are going to change the other person's mind completely, but if you can get to the 50% mark that will have been worth the sore fingers.
If not, you both have provided people who might not be very knowledgeable about this issue with much food for thought and that is a good enough result as it stands.

I don't intend to barge into this topic acting like the arbiter of logic, but I have seen far too many debates on this website end with bitterness and not a single concession from either side.
On the internet is seems that the only way to have a productive debate is with concessions from both sides.

Edit after Motivational clarified his position: In this case, the concession from Motivational would be to not play Devil's Advocate for the arguments used by proponents of a position which you don't hold.
I think it can only be productive for you to realize that it is just muddying the water and preventing any kind of common ground to be found between you and 002.

If you both concede these points but then continue to debate the smaller issues of hunting, knife use, etc. for the fun of it then that's great, but I think that people need to see that common ground can be found on this issue.
It is so often portrayed as a false dichotomy of either "Ban all guns!" or "Guns for everyone!" and that is simply not the case, but people never see any agreements being made from people on both sides of this issue so much so that it persists as a false dichotomy which too many people accept as true.

-

As for this topic at large, I view drug legalization as the best way to remove the majority of gun violence in the US.
Polling data shows that most of the gun deaths in the US are related to gang violence. Gangs deal in drugs for profits and buy guns with those profits off the black market. The simple solution to this is drug legalization. The war on drugs has had the opposite of the desired effect.

When it comes to mass shooters, gun control can only go so far. For example, Adam Lanza stole the guns he used to commit the Sandy Hook mass shooting but those guns were legally purchased by his parents.
Gun control could not have stopped this. What could have potentially stopped this shooting was an increase in education and healthcare focus on mental health issues.
#47. Posted:
002
  • Winner!
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7282
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7282
Motivational has said that assault style weapons shouldn't be allowed to be had, that's my issue.

Secondly, I often hear that people want stricter regulations on how you get guns. I have yet to hear a viable option as to what else we can do. As it stands right now, if you buy a gun at a legal FFL you know that they do everything but know what will happen with the gun in the next 20 years. I do agree however that being able to sell guns at a gun show without a registered FFL there should be illegal. Yes, you are supposed to go to an FFL to transfer it into your name, but if anyone has done that, you know that it's like going to the DMV for a new drivers license picture. It sucks, so people don't do it. The only way past it that I can see is have 1 legal FFL booth for every 5 gun booths and make sure no one leaves with a gun that they did not transfer. Another way to do it is write everyone's names down and have a signing party at an FFL the next day. For example I'd go there, I see a gun I want say I'll buy this gun, write my name down and let's get it registered tomorrow, all the while the gun is still at the booth until it is in your name.

Private party sales are hard to regulate because you already are supposed to go to an FFL, but it rarely happens.





My position on the subject is there should be no restrictions on what guns can be had, but there should be ends to the loop holes. While I will agree that there is no need for a full auto rifle, I do believe there should be a way of getting one as the point of our second amendment is to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

My issue with the thought that making guns harder to get would stop criminals is that it wont. People like the Orlando shooter start out as normal people. He had a lot going for him. I myself have a lot going for me, I have no criminal record so I have no problem getting a gun. That does not mean that next week I won't wake up and shoot up a school, a bar, or what have you. Let's say though that I'm a career criminal and can't get a gun legally. I can tell who has a gun who don't. The rich guy with the lambo out front probably doesn't have the gun I want. The guy with the run down house and the *** dog in the back with a lifted pickup probably has a gun I might want to shoot a place up.
#48. Posted:
ProfessorNobody
  • V5 Launch
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
002 wrote Motivational has said that assault style weapons shouldn't be allowed to be had, that's my issue.

Secondly, I often hear that people want stricter regulations on how you get guns. I have yet to hear a viable option as to what else we can do. As it stands right now, if you buy a gun at a legal FFL you know that they do everything but know what will happen with the gun in the next 20 years. I do agree however that being able to sell guns at a gun show without a registered FFL there should be illegal. Yes, you are supposed to go to an FFL to transfer it into your name, but if anyone has done that, you know that it's like going to the DMV for a new drivers license picture. It sucks, so people don't do it. The only way past it that I can see is have 1 legal FFL booth for every 5 gun booths and make sure no one leaves with a gun that they did not transfer. Another way to do it is write everyone's names down and have a signing party at an FFL the next day. For example I'd go there, I see a gun I want say I'll buy this gun, write my name down and let's get it registered tomorrow, all the while the gun is still at the booth until it is in your name.

Private party sales are hard to regulate because you already are supposed to go to an FFL, but it rarely happens.





My position on the subject is there should be no restrictions on what guns can be had, but there should be ends to the loop holes. While I will agree that there is no need for a full auto rifle, I do believe there should be a way of getting one as the point of our second amendment is to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

My issue with the thought that making guns harder to get would stop criminals is that it wont. People like the Orlando shooter start out as normal people. He had a lot going for him. I myself have a lot going for me, I have no criminal record so I have no problem getting a gun. That does not mean that next week I won't wake up and shoot up a school, a bar, or what have you. Let's say though that I'm a career criminal and can't get a gun legally. I can tell who has a gun who don't. The rich guy with the lambo out front probably doesn't have the gun I want. The guy with the run down house and the *** dog in the back with a lifted pickup probably has a gun I might want to shoot a place up.


That's great. Not only are you saying that gun control should be improved but you are offering suggestions as to how it could be improved.
Nobody is going to know how to improve gun control more than the people who regularly buy guns. Those are the people who can see where the problems are, like gun shows, and know what would be an easy and efficient way to fix those problems.

You and Motivational might disagree about what types of guns should be banned and can rightly debate that issue, but you are both agreeing that gun control should be improved to one extent or another.
In an internet debate even the smallest agreement is cause for celebration, and I think that is quite a big one.

My issue with the thought that making guns harder to get would stop criminals is that it wont. People like the Orlando shooter start out as normal people. He had a lot going for him. I myself have a lot going for me, I have no criminal record so I have no problem getting a gun. That does not mean that next week I won't wake up and shoot up a school, a bar, or what have you. Let's say though that I'm a career criminal and can't get a gun legally. I can tell who has a gun who don't. The rich guy with the lambo out front probably doesn't have the gun I want. The guy with the run down house and the *** dog in the back with a lifted pickup probably has a gun I might want to shoot a place up.


Increasing gun control will never stop good people from turning bad, absolutely. But depending on what restrictions are put in place, it could stop bad people from getting guns to do bad things.
At the very least it will decrease the numbers by even the smallest amount, but that could still save lives.
Personally I think that it has to be a combination of different changes to make any sort of dent in the gun violence rate in the US.
Drug legalization to reduce the prevalence of black market sales, mental healthcare and education increase to reduce the numbers of mass shooters, the closing of loop holes in gun control and an increase in restrictions to reduce the numbers of legal guns bought with bad intentions, but also to simply increase the safety and education of law abiding gun owners.

Depending on how you and Motivational reply to me, I think that I have said all that I want to say on this topic.
I hope that I have been able to give a little bit of perspective to you both and have shown you that your debate has not been a waste of time and that even in the heat of an argument, agreements can be made.
#49. Posted:
Mass
  • V5 Launch
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 16, 201311Year Member
Posts: 1,964
Reputation Power: 184
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 16, 201311Year Member
Posts: 1,964
Reputation Power: 184
Halo wrote You try and take away the 100+ million guns in the USA, lmao.

This is what Australia did after their last massacre in 1996, we haven't had a massacre in 20 years. The government rewarded people for handing in their illegal firearms, they didn't get in trouble, they were actually rewarded, because that was one further prohibited firearm off the streets that could possibly land in the hand of a psychopath. Australia didn't ban guns, they just made the possession of them further restricted, and made firearm holders secure their weapons better.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
#50. Posted:
Parker-Stubbs
  • 2 Million
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 12, 201410Year Member
Posts: 681
Reputation Power: 69
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 12, 201410Year Member
Posts: 681
Reputation Power: 69
C4s wrote Do people on this site not understand that strict gun laws will not do anything? Look at all the drugs that are banned and look at how big the market there is for them. If anything they should allow open carry to people in every state. Say 2 or 3 people had guns on them in that club they could have cut down the number of people that got hurt and died.
TBH it's not hard at all to be able to carry a pistol out in public. Just go to your cities courthouse and get a permit. I just think Assault Rifles need to be a lot harder to acquire.
Jump to:
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.