The right to bear arms
Options
Replies
-
The point is not to parse the various ways that different types of firearms can destroy the body of a 6 year old. Just a reminder that's it's not an esoteric argument.
And until you can prove that specific legislation you are in favor of will in fact prevent tragedies like this, all you're doing is undermining the deaths of those children by taking advantage of what they went through to try to prove your point. You're fanning the flames of an already emotionally charged argument.
We're talking about an assault weapon ban, as I recall the only weapons used at Sandy Hook were pistols. This is my biggest contention with some of the arguments being pushed in this thread (and in general). If you want to use a devastating tragedy to further a cause then that's fine, but make sure that there's actually something valid to be done.
Columbine: GET RID OF ALL VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES
Sandy Hook: BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS
How about actually tackling the problem and facing the fact that this is an incredibly complex issue which cannot be solved with a list of 'bad' guns.
Mention was made of closing loopholes in gun sales and increasing accountability of gun sellers. I agree with that, but first there needs to be a standardization of gun regulation across the nation. RIght now I live in New York, I can drive an hour to PA and have TOTALLY different rules for buying a firearm. I don't think these regulations need to (or should) be comparable to the strictist in the country, but we need a baseline commonality between states.
Further I think mental health care in this country is in a VERY sorry state, and massive overhauls need to be made.
I think that those two issues need to be tackled with much higher priority than listing all the bad weapons in the world and why a 12 gauge is ok but a 12 gauge with a different handle means you want to go on a killing rampage.
I will just point out that a legal AR15 was used at Sandy Hook. CT already has an assault weapon ban. A federal assault weapon ban would not remove that gun from circulation. In addition, a federal assault weapon ban was in effect when Columbine happened.
Banning assault weapon will do nothing to curb gun violence. It is just a way for lawmakers to appear to be doing something. If they want to curb gun violence they need to ban handguns. Good luck with that!
With all the conflicting reports I do not believe anyone can say what was used at Sandy Hook! I do know I watched pollice officers pulling the AR-15 out of the trunk of the shooters car AFTER the shooting. There also was initial reports on CNN that it was 2 hand guns.
It doesn't really matter what gun was used. All of the guns in possession of the shooter were legal in CT even though CT has an assault weapon ban. A ban on a class of guns will not reduce gun violence. As long as some guns are legal and available, if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun they will do it.0 -
The point is not to parse the various ways that different types of firearms can destroy the body of a 6 year old. Just a reminder that's it's not an esoteric argument.
And until you can prove that specific legislation you are in favor of will in fact prevent tragedies like this, all you're doing is undermining the deaths of those children by taking advantage of what they went through to try to prove your point. You're fanning the flames of an already emotionally charged argument.
We're talking about an assault weapon ban, as I recall the only weapons used at Sandy Hook were pistols. This is my biggest contention with some of the arguments being pushed in this thread (and in general). If you want to use a devastating tragedy to further a cause then that's fine, but make sure that there's actually something valid to be done.
Columbine: GET RID OF ALL VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES
Sandy Hook: BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS
How about actually tackling the problem and facing the fact that this is an incredibly complex issue which cannot be solved with a list of 'bad' guns.
Mention was made of closing loopholes in gun sales and increasing accountability of gun sellers. I agree with that, but first there needs to be a standardization of gun regulation across the nation. RIght now I live in New York, I can drive an hour to PA and have TOTALLY different rules for buying a firearm. I don't think these regulations need to (or should) be comparable to the strictist in the country, but we need a baseline commonality between states.
Further I think mental health care in this country is in a VERY sorry state, and massive overhauls need to be made.
I think that those two issues need to be tackled with much higher priority than listing all the bad weapons in the world and why a 12 gauge is ok but a 12 gauge with a different handle means you want to go on a killing rampage.
I will just point out that a legal AR15 was used at Sandy Hook. CT already has an assault weapon ban. A federal assault weapon ban would not remove that gun from circulation. In addition, a federal assault weapon ban was in effect when Columbine happened.
Banning assault weapon will do nothing to curb gun violence. It is just a way for lawmakers to appear to be doing something. If they want to curb gun violence they need to ban handguns. Good luck with that!
With all the conflicting reports I do not believe anyone can say what was used at Sandy Hook! I do know I watched pollice officers pulling the AR-15 out of the trunk of the shooters car AFTER the shooting. There also was initial reports on CNN that it was 2 hand guns.
It doesn't really matter what gun was used. All of the guns in possession of the shooter were legal in CT even though CT has an assault weapon ban. A ban on a class of guns will not reduce gun violence. As long as some guns are legal and available, if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun they will do it.
I agree with with the rest of your statement, but in this situation it absolutely matters which gun was used. The next day the president was on the tv wanting to ban AR-15s and certain magazines!0 -
You have a different definition of "curb" than me, I guess. To me it means "reduce." Apparently to you it means "eliminate." No legislation is going to eliminate gun violence. Some measures on the table will probably reduce gun violence.
Eschew the excluded middle.
Prove it. If you're going to phrase your argument in that way at least have something to back it up that's a bit more solid than a 20 year old study that doesn't hold weight.
You're funny! You prove nothing yet want me to prove everything. This is a discussion. I'll prove what I want to prove. My opinion is that some of the measures on the table will probably reduce gun violence. Prove me wrong.0 -
You have a different definition of "curb" than me, I guess. To me it means "reduce." Apparently to you it means "eliminate." No legislation is going to eliminate gun violence. Some measures on the table will probably reduce gun violence.
Eschew the excluded middle.
Prove it. If you're going to phrase your argument in that way at least have something to back it up that's a bit more solid than a 20 year old study that doesn't hold weight.
You're funny! You prove nothing yet want me to prove everything. This is a discussion. I'll prove what I want to prove. My opinion is that some of the measures on the table will probably reduce gun violence. Prove me wrong.
I am curious which measures you think will reduce gun violence? The only one I can think of that may reduce gun violence is closing the gun show loophole.0 -
I am curious which measures you think will reduce gun violence? The only one I can think of that may reduce gun violence is closing the gun show loophole.
Even then there will always be private buyers and sellers. What are they going to do, prevent you from putting an ad in the paper to sell your weapons and force you to sell to a licensed broker or pawn shop that runs background checks on buyers? Wouldn't they just love to do that, though?
I mean I could be wrong, but last time I browsed the classifieds for a car there were plenty of people selling all types of guns, too. Personally I wouldn't want to buy a gun from some stranger for fear it might have a body count, but they certainly were not being prevented from selling these weapons to whomever they chose.0 -
You have a different definition of "curb" than me, I guess. To me it means "reduce." Apparently to you it means "eliminate." No legislation is going to eliminate gun violence. Some measures on the table will probably reduce gun violence.
Eschew the excluded middle.
Prove it. If you're going to phrase your argument in that way at least have something to back it up that's a bit more solid than a 20 year old study that doesn't hold weight.
You're funny! You prove nothing yet want me to prove everything. This is a discussion. I'll prove what I want to prove. My opinion is that some of the measures on the table will probably reduce gun violence. Prove me wrong.
I am curious which measures you think will reduce gun violence? The only one I can think of that may reduce gun violence is closing the gun show loophole.
That's the one thing I've consistently said here should be done and will be at least partially effective. Higher penalties for straw purchasers would also help a bit.0 -
I also support funding for research, so we don't have the ridiculous situation where people say "Prove it," when there is no reliable information because those same people have shut down research. Stopping the Republican "starve the beast" toward the ATF would also help.
Let me repeat: I doubt an "assault weapon" ban would be very effective. I also think it has near zero probability of being enacted.0 -
I also support funding for research, so we don't have the ridiculous situation where people say "Prove it," when there is no reliable information because those same people have shut down research. Stopping the Republican "starve the beast" toward the ATF would also help.
Let me repeat: I doubt an "assault weapon" ban would be very effective. I also think it has near zero probability of being enacted.
He was talking about the assault weapon ban being proposed. You made a snarky comment about the definition of the word curb. I told you to back that statement up. That's reasonable, not ridiculous. I have made no such attempts to shut down research other than saying researching the causes of gun violence didn't fall under the CDC's scope. In fact I support further research. You're making unfounded claims about the actions of those that are in disagreement with you.0 -
I made zero claims about you shutting down reearch. If I make a general statement that doesn't apply to you, don't assume I'm talking about you.0
-
I agree with you. I don't think people need automatic weapons to defend themselves. However, in my opinion, some people think by taking certain weapons off the shelves that it can/will lead to further weapons restrictions (make ALL firearms illegal). This is not the purpose of an automatic weapons ban. You don't need that kind of weapon to defend yourself and your home.
And you are so right about the 2nd amendment. It is intended to arm citizens against a tyrannical government...0 -
automatic weapons are already banned.0
-
Proving that bans on certain classes of weapons are constitutional.0
-
Proving that bans on certain classes of weapons are constitutional.
Like whether something is constitutional or not even matters? Abraham Lincoln was the first to violate the Bill of Rights and not the last.
If people don't want this ban they'll have to scare their elected officials so badly with promises of voter vengeance on election day that they refuse to push it through. Which I doubt will happen.0 -
I made zero claims about you shutting down reearch. If I make a general statement that doesn't apply to you, don't assume I'm talking about you.
You used quotes and referenced an exact phrase I used. That's not in any way a "general statement" (those quotes mean I'm talking about you).0 -
I was not talking about you. I was talking about the NRA and its lackeys in Congress. You are not alone in demanding that the unprovable be proved.0
-
I was not talking about you. I was talking about the NRA and its lackeys in Congress. You are not alone in demanding that the unprovable be proved.
And that's fair, but acting like I should've known when I'm the only person in this thread who said prove it is silly.0 -
I'm sorry I was unclear.0
-
Interesting/funny article about guns with interesting statistics. I promise it's not a gun bashing article. It does look at the debate from a little different perspective.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns.html0 -
The part about suicide was especially interesting, I thought.0
-
Other crimes committed with guns were down even more sharply — from 1.53 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a drop of 70 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/07/18108298-gun-violence-in-us-has-fallen-dramatically-over-past-20-years-justice-dept-report-finds?lite0
