Current Events > Increased gun regulation != gun ban

(+) Yeah! (+)

Remember that.

theres no such thing as gun control unless you ban sales and begin confiscastion
---

We already have laws against killing people, how will having laws against buying guns stop it?
---

Awesome posted...

theres no such thing as gun control unless you ban sales and begin confiscastion

^ It's rhetoric like this why gun owners are so vehemently against any sort of legislation, even reasonable. They're not afraid of better background checks and whatnot, they're afraid of coming one step closer to the inevitable calls to confiscate like this.
---

Awesome posted...

theres no such thing as gun control unless you ban sales and begin confiscastion

Well that's just not true at all.

Baby steps.
---

SageHarpuia posted...

We already have laws against killing people, how will having laws against buying guns stop it?

Obviously they wouldnt break that law though.
---

america wont begin any baby steps because even though guns are a huge problem and increase crime and murder rates by a ton, "muh guns"

and then theres the people who think its not worth taking steps to improve public safety, lower crime because it will be a long process and not provide an immediate resolution.

thats why america will never solve this problem
---

tell that to nancy pelosi.
---

Theres almost as many guns as there are people, and thats just counting the firearms that are lawfully accounted for. Gun regulations at this point wouldnt stop much. The only way a gun regulation would have any impact is if there were confiscation protocols to severely diminish the number of known guns. Even then, youre only disarming the law-abiding citizens.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

america wont begin any baby steps because even though guns are a huge problem and increase crime and murder rates by a ton, "muh guns"

and then theres the people who think its not worth taking steps to improve public safety, lower crime because it will be a long process and not provide an immediate resolution.

thats why america will never solve this problem

Gun ownership is the highest it's ever been despite overall violence having gone down steadily since the 90's. You still can't answer why that is yet you continue to spout nonsense.
---

Malcrasternus posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

america wont begin any baby steps because even though guns are a huge problem and increase crime and murder rates by a ton, "muh guns"

and then theres the people who think its not worth taking steps to improve public safety, lower crime because it will be a long process and not provide an immediate resolution.

thats why america will never solve this problem

Gun ownership is the highest it's ever been despite overall violence having gone down steadily since the 90's. You still can't answer why that is yet you continue to spout nonsense.

police do more now, anti-terrorism is commonplace in every major city/airport, etc

explain to me why america has one of the highest crime rates and murder rates in the first world and explain why countries like australia are far more peaceful, lower crime etc even though they have gun restrictions
---

Rika_Furude posted...

police do more now, anti-terrorism is commonplace in every major city/airport, etc

explain to me why america has one of the highest crime rates and murder rates in the first world and explain why countries like australia are far more peaceful, lower crime etc even though they have gun restrictions

the US also has 4x non-firearm related homicides than australia. that right there shows theres a lot more at work than guns.
---

SageHarpuia posted...

We already have laws against killing people, how will having laws against buying guns stop it?

Because it drives the price up and limits the people that can actually obtain them illegally. It's a common complaint, but most people don't have thousands to spend on illicit guns and ammunition for a suicide attack.

Want to know who else loves gun control?

Hitler and Stalin.
---

DirkDiggles posted...

Want to know who else loves gun control?

Hitler and Stalin.

Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Hugo Chvez took the guns.

And I am here to tell you, 1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS! It doesn't matter how many lemmings you get out there on the street begging for them to have their guns taken; we will not relinquish them, do you understand? That's why you're going to fail, and the establishment knows, no matter how much propaganda, the Republic will rise again when you attempt to take our guns!
---

AssultTank posted...

But generally illicit guns are pretty cheap and easy to get. o.O

Because guns are legally cheap and easy to get.

No one who ever says the just want "more regulations" is ever willing to state what what their endgame is or what lines they wont cross.

Because there's always going to be criminals who will acquire and misuse firearms, they always have an excuse to want more regulations. I don't trust any of these people when they say they won't ultimately pursue a gun ban/confiscation. I don't trust that any of these people would ever be content at any kind of middle ground where they would say "There is still some gun violence, but I'm not going to support any further restrictions on the right to bear arms because we've already put enough restrictions in place."

For example, when they say something like "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 30 round magazine!", if they were given their way then I don't believe that they would just stop there and in the future wouldn't say "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 20 round magazine!" (and then a 10 round magazine, and then semiautomatics in general, etc.).
---

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

DirkDiggles posted...

Want to know who else loves gun control?

Hitler and Stalin.

Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Hugo Chvez took the guns.

And I am here to tell you, 1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS! It doesn't matter how many lemmings you get out there on the street begging for them to have their guns taken; we will not relinquish them, do you understand? That's why you're going to fail, and the establishment knows, no matter how much propaganda, the Republic will rise again when you attempt to take our guns!

He parroted from a dimly lit basement littered with empty bags of cheetos and bottles of mountain dew now filled with urine.

DifferentialEquation posted...

No one who ever says they just want "more regulations" is ever willing to state what what their endgame is or what lines they wont cross.

Automatic weapons are restricted, semi-automatic weapons are available but purchasable by people who clear criminal, background, and psychological testing. Firearms should not be made illegal, but certain classes of firearms should not be available to the public. You know, like how every other country does it, or how things like push daggers, switchblades, butterfly knives, and brass knuckles are handled in most countries.

There, I stated my endgame and what lines I don't think should be crossed. I guess that makes you wrong.

Dash_Harber posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

No one who ever says they just want "more regulations" is ever willing to state what what their endgame is or what lines they wont cross.

Automatic weapons are restricted, semi-automatic weapons are available but purchasable by people who clear criminal, background, and psychological testing. Firearms should not be made illegal, but certain classes of firearms should not be available to the public. You know, like how every other country does it, or how things like push daggers, switchblades, butterfly knives, and brass knuckles are handled in most countries.

There, I stated my endgame and what lines I don't think should be crossed. I guess that makes you wrong.

@Dash_Harber

I already have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm. What would this psychological testing consist of?

Why does this check apply to semi-automatics specifically? Why do you, for example, care more about someone buying a semi-auto .22 rifle than a pump action shotgun or a high caliber bolt action rifle?

What are the classes of guns that are available to civilians now that you would you want to ban?
---

Youve already got a 10 ft wall around gun regulations and the criminals go around it to obtain them illegally.

Now your answer is to make that metaphorical wall even higher?

You make it the incentive to obtain a firearm legally pretty darn low.
---

More than just gun control needs to happen, which I agree with if someone wants guns they will get it, but it is kinda sickening that the right side only loves guns cause of the NRA. Guess if there was a big marijuana group paying off republicans they would be for that too. Guns needs to be as taboo as hard drugs at this point.

This guy apparently made alot of social media posts showing off his weapons and guns, THAT needs to be instantly flagged and he should be investigated.

He was expelled from the school, so he wasn't part of the school anymore? Well school's should be like jobs where you need a badge to get in (My high school was) but STRICTLY enforced with security guards looking for them on whoever enters the building.
---

Gun regulations need to go away as they are unamerican. Give more guns to people. This could have been solved if someone was armed and shot that kid O_O
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

No one who ever says they just want "more regulations" is ever willing to state what what their endgame is or what lines they wont cross.

Because there's always going to be criminals who will acquire and misuse firearms, they always have an excuse to want more regulations. I don't trust any of these people when they say they won't ultimately pursue a gun ban/confiscation. I don't trust that any of these people would ever be content at any kind of middle ground where they would say "There is still some gun violence, but I'm not going to support any further restrictions on the right to bear arms because we've already put enough restrictions in place."

For example, when they say something like "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 30 round magazine!", if they were given their way then I don't believe that they would just stop there and in the future wouldn't say "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 20 round magazine!" (and then a 10 round magazine, and then semiautomatics in general, etc.).

There always will be some people advocating for a full on gun ban, but to use them as an excuse to refuse to even discuss rational gun laws is being just as absurd as they are. You seem to have fully bought into the NRA propaganda that any gun legislation will lead to bans and confiscation. Falling for ideological nonsense like that is always a mistake, even if it's easier than actually having to think about how to solve a complicated problem.
---

---

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

No one who ever says they just want "more regulations" is ever willing to state what what their endgame is or what lines they wont cross.

Because there's always going to be criminals who will acquire and misuse firearms, they always have an excuse to want more regulations. I don't trust any of these people when they say they won't ultimately pursue a gun ban/confiscation. I don't trust that any of these people would ever be content at any kind of middle ground where they would say "There is still some gun violence, but I'm not going to support any further restrictions on the right to bear arms because we've already put enough restrictions in place."

For example, when they say something like "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 30 round magazine!", if they were given their way then I don't believe that they would just stop there and in the future wouldn't say "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 20 round magazine!" (and then a 10 round magazine, and then semiautomatics in general, etc.).

There always will be some people advocating for a full on gun ban, but to use them as an excuse to refuse to even discuss rational gun laws is being just as absurd as they are. You seem to have fully bought into the NRA propaganda that any gun legislation will lead to bans and confiscation. Falling for ideological nonsense like that is always a mistake, even if it's easier than actually having to think about how to solve a complicated problem.

If someone can actually give a reason as to why they want something regulated instead of just "there's no reason for anyone to own this", then I would listen to their reasoning.

Again let's go back to the magazine size. There are are lot of people who think 30 round magazines should be banned and give no reason other than "people shouldn't have them" or "you shouldn't be able to fire that many bullets so quickly". Their "logic" would be no less applicable to 20 round magazines, to 10 round magazines, or to semi-automatics in general.

We hear time and time again simply that "no one should have these types of rifles". If we react by banning semi-auto .223 rifles, what then will happen when someone walks into a school and kills people with handguns (possibly even a revolver)? If someone walking into a school and killing innocent people with an ar-15 warrants further restrictions of firearms, then why wouldn't someone walking into a school and killing innocent people with a revolver warrant further restrictions of firearms?
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

No one who ever says they just want "more regulations" is ever willing to state what what their endgame is or what lines they wont cross.

Because there's always going to be criminals who will acquire and misuse firearms, they always have an excuse to want more regulations. I don't trust any of these people when they say they won't ultimately pursue a gun ban/confiscation. I don't trust that any of these people would ever be content at any kind of middle ground where they would say "There is still some gun violence, but I'm not going to support any further restrictions on the right to bear arms because we've already put enough restrictions in place."

For example, when they say something like "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 30 round magazine!", if they were given their way then I don't believe that they would just stop there and in the future wouldn't say "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 20 round magazine!" (and then a 10 round magazine, and then semiautomatics in general, etc.).

Right

Another huge problem is people don't even know what they want banned. There's a post up right now where a guy wants to have military grade weapons banned from civilians. When asked what he meant by that he had no clue what to talk about

People are so uneducated about firearms that you can't take their point of view seriously. Its why whenever I see someone on here proposing a ban on guns I assume they're just not smart enough for critical thinking
---

I thought Bernie had a solid platform on gun control.

-close the gun show loophole
-make the requirements for owning a gun more similar to a drivers license, needing renewal every so often, passing a test, etc

That wont prevent all tragedies, not by a long shot, but I can guarantee itll slow down a lonely greasy-haired 15 year old. Theyre not gonna even know where to begin looking for a gun to buy off the mob or gangs. Plus then its less BAN X KIND OF GUN and more just raising standards for ease of access.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

No one who ever says they just want "more regulations" is ever willing to state what what their endgame is or what lines they wont cross.

Because there's always going to be criminals who will acquire and misuse firearms, they always have an excuse to want more regulations. I don't trust any of these people when they say they won't ultimately pursue a gun ban/confiscation. I don't trust that any of these people would ever be content at any kind of middle ground where they would say "There is still some gun violence, but I'm not going to support any further restrictions on the right to bear arms because we've already put enough restrictions in place."

For example, when they say something like "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 30 round magazine!", if they were given their way then I don't believe that they would just stop there and in the future wouldn't say "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 20 round magazine!" (and then a 10 round magazine, and then semiautomatics in general, etc.).

There always will be some people advocating for a full on gun ban, but to use them as an excuse to refuse to even discuss rational gun laws is being just as absurd as they are. You seem to have fully bought into the NRA propaganda that any gun legislation will lead to bans and confiscation. Falling for ideological nonsense like that is always a mistake, even if it's easier than actually having to think about how to solve a complicated problem.

If someone can actually give a reason as to why they want something regulated instead of just "there's no reason for anyone to own this", then I would listen to their reasoning.

Again let's go back to the magazine size. There are are lot of people who think 30 round magazines should be banned and give no reason other than "people shouldn't have them" or "you shouldn't be able to fire that many bullets so quickly". Their "logic" would be no less applicable to 20 round magazines, to 10 round magazines, or to semi-automatics in general.

We hear time and time again simply that "no one should have these types of rifles". If we react by banning semi-auto .223 rifles, what then will happen when someone walks into a school and kills people with handguns (possibly even a revolver)? If someone walking into a school and killing innocent people with an ar-15 warrants further restrictions of firearms, then why wouldn't someone walking into a school and killing innocent people with a revolver warrant further restrictions of firearms?

You're attacking others arguments while literally saying there's no relevant difference between an AR15 and a revolver. C'mon man. This slippery slope nonsense has to end, youre still arguing that there shouldn't even be a discussion about this. I mean registering guns like we do with vehicles would be a start, there are tons of common Sense gun laws we can enact that wont infringe on anyone's rights.
---

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

No one who ever says they just want "more regulations" is ever willing to state what what their endgame is or what lines they wont cross.

Because there's always going to be criminals who will acquire and misuse firearms, they always have an excuse to want more regulations. I don't trust any of these people when they say they won't ultimately pursue a gun ban/confiscation. I don't trust that any of these people would ever be content at any kind of middle ground where they would say "There is still some gun violence, but I'm not going to support any further restrictions on the right to bear arms because we've already put enough restrictions in place."

For example, when they say something like "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 30 round magazine!", if they were given their way then I don't believe that they would just stop there and in the future wouldn't say "there's no reason for any civilian to own a 20 round magazine!" (and then a 10 round magazine, and then semiautomatics in general, etc.).

There always will be some people advocating for a full on gun ban, but to use them as an excuse to refuse to even discuss rational gun laws is being just as absurd as they are. You seem to have fully bought into the NRA propaganda that any gun legislation will lead to bans and confiscation. Falling for ideological nonsense like that is always a mistake, even if it's easier than actually having to think about how to solve a complicated problem.

If someone can actually give a reason as to why they want something regulated instead of just "there's no reason for anyone to own this", then I would listen to their reasoning.

Again let's go back to the magazine size. There are are lot of people who think 30 round magazines should be banned and give no reason other than "people shouldn't have them" or "you shouldn't be able to fire that many bullets so quickly". Their "logic" would be no less applicable to 20 round magazines, to 10 round magazines, or to semi-automatics in general.

We hear time and time again simply that "no one should have these types of rifles". If we react by banning semi-auto .223 rifles, what then will happen when someone walks into a school and kills people with handguns (possibly even a revolver)? If someone walking into a school and killing innocent people with an ar-15 warrants further restrictions of firearms, then why wouldn't someone walking into a school and killing innocent people with a revolver warrant further restrictions of firearms?

You're attacking others arguments while literally saying there's no relevant difference between an AR15 and a revolver. C'mon man. This slippery slope nonsense has to end, youre still arguing that there shouldn't even be a discussion about this. I mean registering guns like we do with vehicles would be a start, there are tons of common Sense gun laws we can enact that wont infringe on anyone's rights.

I'm not arguing that there's no difference between an ar-15 and a revolver. I'm just saying revolvers can still be used to kill large numbers of (unarmed) people. It would be completely feasible for someone to walk into a school and murder 10 or more people with a revolver before they were stopped.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

I'm not arguing that there's no difference between an ar-15 and a revolver. I'm just saying revolvers can still be used to kill large numbers of (unarmed) people. It would be completely feasible for someone to walk into a school and murder 10 or more people with a revolver before they were stopped.

But you can never argue that you'd be able to kill as many people with a revolver as you would an ar 15, so saying the same argument can be used for both is disingenuous. And this is the point really, to figure out the solution to this problem we need to be able to speak openly about it. Wanting a quick simple answer is how you get people who want to van everything, or just shut down the discussion entirely like you do. It's all great when you're getting your way, but this "no discussion whatsoever" tactic you're using won't be so great when it's the other side making the decisions.

Don't shut down the debate because of what might happen, take every discussion as it comes and go from there. I've never seen a legitimate argument for why we shouldn't have a rational gun registry, every single time it's "no! Then they'll come to take my guns!" Which is propaganda the NRA has been pushing for decades, propaganda you've been falling for.
---

rabbi_baby posted...

They're not afraid of better background checks and whatnot

In theory, yes, but no amount of background check can actually prevent (already illegal) straw purchases and (already illegal) firearm theft.

They should be banned
---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

They should be banned

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html
Get on it.

myzz7 posted...

what an awful comic lol
---

Asherlee10 posted...

nicklebro posted...

But you can never argue that you'd be able to kill as many people with a revolver as you would an ar 15,

This may be true, but what is the end game here?

A better society.

Questionmarktarius posted...

rabbi_baby posted...

They're not afraid of better background checks and whatnot

In theory, yes, but no amount of background check can actually prevent (already illegal) straw purchases and (already illegal) firearm theft.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.
---

nicklebro posted...

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

As-is, the background check system seems to to working pretty well, yes, for the original purchaser at least.
How would you suggest making it "better", though? All I can come with is some sort of "pre-approval" system, so someone wouldn't have to have another background check when buying a second gun.

Questionmarktarius posted...

nicklebro posted...

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

As-is, the background check system seems to to working pretty well, yes, for the original purchaser at least.
How would you suggest making it "better", though? All I can come with is some sort of "pre-approval" system, so someone wouldn't have to have another background check when buying a second gun.

All gun owners should be licensed to own guns and every gun should be registered. Just like with cars.
---

nicklebro posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

nicklebro posted...

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

As-is, the background check system seems to to working pretty well, yes, for the original purchaser at least.
How would you suggest making it "better", though? All I can come with is some sort of "pre-approval" system, so someone wouldn't have to have another background check when buying a second gun.

All gun owners should be licensed to own guns and every gun should be registered. Just like with cars.

It's not a right if you need a license.

nicklebro posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I'm not arguing that there's no difference between an ar-15 and a revolver. I'm just saying revolvers can still be used to kill large numbers of (unarmed) people. It would be completely feasible for someone to walk into a school and murder 10 or more people with a revolver before they were stopped.

But you can never argue that you'd be able to kill as many people with a revolver as you would an ar 15, so saying the same argument can be used for both is disingenuous. And this is the point really, to figure out the solution to this problem we need to be able to speak openly about it. Wanting a quick simple answer is how you get people who want to van everything, or just shut down the discussion entirely like you do. It's all great when you're getting your way, but this "no discussion whatsoever" tactic you're using won't be so great when it's the other side making the decisions.

Don't shut down the debate because of what might happen, take every discussion as it comes and go from there. I've never seen a legitimate argument for why we shouldn't have a rational gun registry, every single time it's "no! Then they'll come to take my guns!" Which is propaganda the NRA has been pushing for decades, propaganda you've been falling for.

Yes, in otherwise identical scenarios, someone with an AR-15 would do more damage than with a revolver. What I am saying is that, in a school shooting scenario where it is unfortunately like shooting fish in barrel, someone can kill a lot of people with a revolver before the cops show up. I don't see any reason why someone murdering 10-20 children with a revolver wouldn't prompt the same sorts of "no civilian needs a weapon that can cause that much death" arguments.

The arguments for banning/restricting the guns themselves has almost always hinged on the death count. Someone killing 10-20 kids with a revolver is no less a tragedy.

Also, an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is one of the best choices for a home defense weapon which is one reason why I want it to to remain available to civilians.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Yes, in otherwise identical scenarios, someone with an AR-15 would do more damage than with a revolver. What I am saying is that, in a school shooting scenario where it is unfortunately like shooting fish in barrel, someone can kill a lot of people with a revolver before the cops show up. I don't see any reason why someone murdering 10-20 children with a revolver wouldn't prompt the same sorts of "no civilian needs a weapon that can cause that much death" arguments.

The arguments for banning/restricting the guns themselves has almost always hinged on the death count. Someone killing 10-20 kids with a revolver is no less a tragedy.

Also, an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is one of the best choices for a home defense weapon which is one reason why I want it to to remain available to civilians.

I agree with you that types of guns banned or even magazine restrictions are bad ideas with no evidence to support them.

How do you feel about "permit to purchase" legislation?
https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/PTP-policy-brief.pdf

There is evidence that this kind of legislation does reduce gun violence (both suicide and homicide):

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/_pdfs/effects-of-missouris-repeal-of-its-handgun-purchaser-licensing-law-on-homicides.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504296/
---

tbh, I think gun (or weapon in general) licensing would be the better idea, with mental health tests being part of the process, tough the problem would be everyone having to take them and thus clotting the system.
---

Balrog0 posted...

How do you feel about "permit to purchase" legislation?

Good luck with that, though.
Perhaps some sort of "tiered" permit, like we kinda sorta have with suppressors and pre-86 automatics?

DifferentialEquation posted...

Yes, in otherwise identical scenarios, someone with an AR-15 would do more damage than with a revolver. What I am saying is that, in a school shooting scenario where it is unfortunately like shooting fish in barrel, someone can kill a lot of people with a revolver before the cops show up. I don't see any reason why someone murdering 10-20 children with a revolver wouldn't prompt the same sorts of "no civilian needs a weapon that can cause that much death" arguments.

The arguments for banning/restricting the guns themselves has almost always hinged on the death count. Someone killing 10-20 kids with a revolver is no less a tragedy.

Also, an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is one of the best choices for a home defense weapon which is one reason why I want it to to remain available to civilians.

Do you see the same push to ban revolvers as you do to ban AR 15s? Cuz I have no idea why anyone would ever think they would be the same. You've admitted that there's a massive difference between a revolver and an EAR 15, that difference is relevant in the conversation, so saying banning one would mean banning the other is ludicrous.

Lol and youre protecting your home with an AR 15? Jesus dude, you're gonna kill all your neighbors bro! No, the best choice for home protection is clearly a pistol, that should be common sense. Unless you're protecting your house from an army of charging mongols or something. I've got a .38 and a .22 for that reason, and a .45 for funsies.
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

I thought Bernie had a solid platform on gun control.

-close the gun show loophole
-make the requirements for owning a gun more similar to a drivers license, needing renewal every so often, passing a test, etc

That wont prevent all tragedies, not by a long shot, but I can guarantee itll slow down a lonely greasy-haired 15 year old. Theyre not gonna even know where to begin looking for a gun to buy off the mob or gangs. Plus then its less BAN X KIND OF GUN and more just raising standards for ease of access.

So, fuck the Constitution?
---