The God Damned Gun Control Thread

[Col. Hstar]

Homestar....wow. That was a very serious answer. I pointed out several things that put an AK ahead of a traditional hunting rifle. It was a very clear answer.

Someone tell me what use an AK-47 has.

Not what makes it better, and more efficient then a rifle. What USE other then killing more efficiently does the gun have?

A BTW Drowning with Flames is exactly right, I doubt that anyone here is saying all guns can and should be banned

I also do not need to have pulled a gun in self defense to be allowed to comment on the situation. It certainly gives you a unique perspective on the discussion, but not the final word. Again BTW, I did say that handguns are useful for defense. You guys really need to stop generalizing our arguments. It would save time and keep us from repeating ourselves over and over again.

[WD-40]

This thread has gone beyond impossible reasoning with you guys on this issue. Let's get rid of all the fluff and BS detracting irrelevant side-stepping and cut to the bare bones.

Two factors are involved: (1)Guns and (2) People

People use guns to kill people, but to this day, I have never seen a 'gun' use people to kill people.

Now, Crater, Otto, Homestar, Pepsi and anyone else, show us some research and 'data' that shows how an assault rifle was used by perfectly same, normal, law-abiding citizens in the US to kill numerous innocent people.

Then, show us some data in which an assault rifle was used to kill numerous innocent people by deranged, sick, mentally unstable individuals.

Compare the data.

I'm sure that even Crater who only exists for 'data' in life cannot refute the fact that 'the whacks' are the core of the problem...not the existence of the Assault Rifle, and certainly not by law-abiding citizens who own them. The assault rifle and guns in general are not the problem...and they will always be available, ban or no ban.

So...where El Presidente should be focusing, is on the mentally unstable. Build more institutions, identify the whacks, get them off the street and away from the ability to harm others. Now it's on you. Prove this otherwise.

[Hobo]

damn it wd. I had this well-thought out essay over random [poo] and you've gone and veered it in another direction.

here, haev sum data:
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-mas ... ll-2012-12

[Col. Hstar]

Now, Crater, Otto, Homestar, Pepsi and anyone else, show us some research and 'data' that shows how an assault rifle was used by perfectly same, normal, law-abiding citizens in the US to kill numerous innocent people.

Then, show us some data in which an assault rifle was used to kill numerous innocent people by deranged, sick, mentally unstable individuals.

Compare the data.

I'm sure that even Crater who only exists for 'data' in life cannot refute the fact that 'the whacks' are the core of the problem...not the existence of the Assault Rifle, and certainly not by law-abiding citizens who own them. The assault rifle and guns in general are not the problem...and they will always be available, ban or no ban.

So...where El Presidente should be focusing, is on the mentally unstable. Build more institutions, identify the whacks, get them off the street and away from the ability to harm others. Now it's on you. Prove this otherwise.

First we're getting ripped apart for using data and not "real world wisdom" and "experience" and now you want data to prove you points??

Without looking up any data I can tell you no sane person has used an assault weapon to murder innocents. But I think it would be safe to say that about any crime. No sane mentally stable person would commit a violent act on another. No er how you look at it, it take a degree of twisted thinking to do harm to someone else.

Now tell me this. Since curing any and every mental instability is as unreachable a goal as removing every weapon, wouldn't it be better to not allow mentally unstable people to have access to such weapons? I said before, why not insist on licensing and tracking every firearm. They do it with cars. A person who buys a gun today may be mentally stable, but what happens tomorrow? What happens when something throws that person over the edge, they're already armed.

Find a happy medium. Register and license every firearm people own. Have gun owners and potential gun owner submit to exams and tests to determine mental stability, and to show that they are competent and responsible enough to handle the weapon they own. Criminals won't follow that rule but eventually those firearms will be confiscated, in the meantime, law-abiding citizens will have their licensed guns to defend themselves with. I'm willing to look at a balanced solution, but you're trying to say that guns don't contribute anything at all to the problem. That to me is very short sighted.

[[m'kay]]

The way I see it, the people I don't want to be in possession of guns are the people that wouldn't kill without those guns. When people who aren't prepared to kill have a gun, that's when the gun stops being a means to an end and becomes the reason someone gets killed. Those who have the resolve to kill someone, with full knowledge of what that means both socially and mentally, often know that it's usually better not to kill, and will use it largely as an intimidation tool, only shooting to kill if the situation truly warrants it. For obvious reasons however, it's fairly impossible to actually test this in any meaningful way. I think that the screening process should be more strict, possibly putting the one who wants a gun through a battery of psychological tests. Requiring prior experience with death and violence would be a bit too much, as that would be easy to abuse in the event of a police state.

Homestar, as to your opinion that a mentally stable sane person is incapable of committing a violent act on another person, I don't believe in that at all. I'd consider myself rather sane and mentally stable, but if someone was threatening my family, had the means to do them harm, and looked as if they might actually do so, i'd kill them. Maybe that makes me seem like some internet tough guy, but it's the truth. I might be kind, I might be generous, I might be all sorts of [poo] that people like, but if it comes down to the protection of my friends and family, i'll do whatever I have to. Given that, maybe i'm not perfectly sane compared to society's standard, but in the event of some form of societal collapse i'd be looking for other people like me, rather than people who won't kill for any reason. It's not a "realistic" viewpoint, and i'm well aware that the likelihood of such a situation occurring is almost nil, but hey. Better safe than sorry.

[Col. Hstar]

Homestar, as to your opinion that a mentally stable sane person is incapable of committing a violent act on another person, I don't believe in that at all. I'd consider myself rather sane and mentally stable, but if someone was threatening my family, had the means to do them harm, and looked as if they might actually do so, i'd kill them. Maybe that makes me seem like some internet tough guy, but it's the truth. I might be kind, I might be generous, I might be all sorts of [poo] that people like, but if it comes down to the protection of my friends and family, i'll do whatever I have to. Given that, maybe i'm not perfectly sane compared to society's standard, but in the event of some form of societal collapse i'd be looking for other people like me, rather than people who won't kill for any reason. It's not a "realistic" viewpoint, and i'm well aware that the likelihood of such a situation occurring is almost nil, but hey. Better safe than sorry.

Actually WD-40s question involved asking about completely sane people murdering innocent people.

Show us some research and 'data' that shows how an assault rifle was used by perfectly same, normal, law-abiding citizens in the US to kill numerous innocent people.
Then, show us some data in which an assault rifle was used to kill numerous innocent people by deranged, sick, mentally unstable individuals.

The key word I zero in on is innocent. Of course if someone is threatening a person's personal safety or that of others they care about, then yes that rational sane person would be moved to act. But then that means that the initial aggressor is not innocent.

I still stand by the reasoning that it takes a certain amount if mental instability to cause harm to a completely innocent individual.

[Duel of Fates]

After rereading this thread I see how pointless it is. I am now sharing the bench with Dad, weeping for the future.

Amen brother.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Bump.

[Duel of Fates]

Fire is gettin' low. Time for more fuel.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Dude, the first problem is that if you knew anything about pre WW2 Germany then you would understand that if the German Jewish population had been left with a means to protect themselves that the Nazi machine would've been severely hampered and perhaps the British and French would've been pushed over the edge to join in and assist the resistant Germans (Jews included) in putting out the Nazi fire before it really got going.

The second problem that you've missed is that gun control was enacted on a populace in order to make their extermination easier. It's a prerequisite so to speak of what was to come. Obviously Obama, the British and the Australians don't want to exterminate their people by enacting gun restrictions, but I feel it's a very short sighted solution to a problem that's NOT going away. That problem is our violent nature.

You can feed a wolf all the fruits and vegetables you want, but that wolf will still have his teeth and the desire to consume the sheep when given a chance.

[color=#0000FF] That's nonsense! Jewish freedoms.......Chancellor Von Papen had passed, and Hitler and convinced the people of Germany to give him dictatorial powers.

"Convinced the people" is a strong term Pepsi. He lied and strong-armed his way to power and took what wasn't given to him by manipulating the system made available to him. (sounds familiar)

It is unlikely that Britain or France would intervene (even if, by some miraculous fantasy-type miracle, the Jews did, as you suggest, hamper the Nazis) considering that they did nothing when Germany seized Czechoslovakia and other nearby territories. They only declared war when Germany invaded Poland over the Danzig Corridor in September 1939.

There's no way you could know that. The only thing we can know is what happened and then to sit back and Monday morning quarterback the hell out of it. The Czech's were basically annexed and as the saying goes, "if Hitler was raping Austria, it would seem Austria likes being raped." Things changed for the French and British when armies deployed and shots were fired.

but I will chime in when I feel irrelevant, infactual, or just plain ridiculous evidence is presented.

Surely you don't mean me. You must be referring to Duel.