Yet another fucking mass shooting in America; 14 dead so far

[obsidian]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ent=202703

[seremtan]

An argument that has ZERO chance of coming to fruition in the US. So keep making it. Sounds reasonable.

you have zero chance of convincing anyone of your point of view in this thread. so keep trying. sounds reasonable

[xer0s]

There is a rumoured quote by Yamamoto about not invading the US because there will be a gun behind every blade of grass, but it's likely to be bullshit. There was way bigger reasons for them not to invade the US.

In modern times it ain't gonna do shit, never stopped us from going into Iraq.

But there's not the amount of guns in Iraq as there is in the U.S....

[YourGrandpa]

you have zero chance of convincing anyone of your point of view in this thread. so keep trying. sounds reasonable

I'm all about discussing the much needed changes to US gun control laws. I'm not some irrational foreigner screaming for extreme changes to another countries laws and/or constitution. I'm being quite reasonable.

[xer0s]

Quite...indeed...

[Eraser]

Is this the moment where we throw in the Jim Jefferies clip again?

[seremtan]

i think this is America's way of making non-Americans so bored with mass shootings that they stop talking about them

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Federal authorities said the two assault rifles and two handguns used in the massacre were all purchased legally in the U. S., and two of the guns were bought by someone who's now under investigation. Meredith Davis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives says investigators are now working to make a connection to the last legal purchaser.

She says all four guns were bought four years ago but she's not saying whether they were purchased out of state or how and when they got into the hands of the two shooters. Davis says California requires paperwork when guns change hands privately but many other states don't.

She also says the rifles involved were .223-caliber - powerful enough to pierce the standard protective vest worn by police officers, and some types of ammo can even plow through walls.

[xer0s]

She also says the rifles involved were .223-caliber - powerful enough to pierce the standard protective vest worn by police officers, and some types of ammo can even plow through walls.

lol, what? First of all, a standard .223 round isn't going to pierce through a protective vest. Unless it's a special armor piercing round, and I don't even think you can get a true armor piercing .223 round. And secondly, plow through walls? No shit. Most walls are a couple sheets of dry wall. A fucking BB gun could go through that...

[scared?]

Anti gun ppl are morons... ...

[losCHUNK]

There is a rumoured quote by Yamamoto about not invading the US because there will be a gun behind every blade of grass, but it's likely to be bullshit. There was way bigger reasons for them not to invade the US.

In modern times it ain't gonna do shit, never stopped us from going into Iraq.

But there's not the amount of guns in Iraq as there is in the U.S....

Cos America is in its own league, but guns were easily obtainable - just as much as America and are in the top 10 for firearm ownership ? (I think). It wasn't even a concern (along with a long term plan for the country )

Like I said though, in modern times it wouldn't be a concern. There's way bigger issues like man power, air defences, logistics, size of the continent / armed forces and nooks and shit instead of worrying about some legohead dressed up like rambo. I think this arguement goes back to the revolutionary war where a bunch of farmers with guns are said to have won against the mighty Brits, even back then there were other, bigger issues more responsible for that.

I think the actual gun owners in America is pretty low n all ? - like 30/40% ?

This is without getting into an argument reguarding the moral stance in sacrificing your population due to gun ownership for a deterrent

Quite...indeed...

Really ?, research suggests that more guns = more death, so surely the goal should be including gun legislation with the goal to remove guns and restrict those who can obtain them ?.

America isn't the only country that has suffered gun crime, granted it's on a much bigger scale but pretty much every 1st world country has included gun laws and things have gotten better. So maybe the foreigners (or foreign laws) are the best to offer advice, as it also fits inline with research conducted.

[xer0s]

I was just shitting on Gramps. He's a moron...

[losCHUNK]

lol

to be fair the suggestion he offered on the first page would be a good starting point, but the ultimate goal must be to remove all guns and make them as difficult as possible to obtain.

[Transient]

I never said you had to be an expert to have an opinion.

And I never claimed you said that. Yet another Straw Man argument to try and distract.

You popped off saying the average citizen shouldn't own an "assault" rifle. But yet you're not really sure what one is. You had to look it up. Then when questioned further you were still unable to provide further clarification as to what the general term "assault rifle" meant to you.

Just because I chose to look up a definition doesn't mean I didn't know what it meant. You're just making an assumption. Plus, my definition came from a legitimate source, whereas you gave a nebulous explanation that it's "really just a prefix added to scare uneducated people". At least I bother to look into it a bit, rather than spout nonsense off the top of my head. The reason I didn't delve into it further is because you were trying to sidetrack the conversation.

But when you scream blanket statements like "BAN ASSAULT RIFLES", you're not being realistic.

There you go, putting words into my mouth again.
I'm fully aware of how impossible it would be to remove assault rifles from every home in America. I'm not naïve. If anything, I would start by advocating for a buyback program like what Australia did not too long ago. That actually had a measurable impact on gun violence in Aussieland.

Because crazy people/extremists will always find a way to kill lots of people no matter what (i.e. box cutters and airplanes).

So let's just make it as easy as possible for them then, right? When's the last time you heard of a mass murderer using a knife to kill a dozen people? That dude in the subway in China was the exception that proves the rule, because that was years ago. There's a mass shooting weekly in America. How many of them were done with assault rifles?

If we all agree, then why is the knee jerk statement BAN guns?

It's not. As it turns out, you're the first one to bring it up in this thread. Nobody has advocated for banning guns here, and of the roughly dozen times the word has been used in this thread, you've used it about 10 times. Did you read that link I gave you about the Straw Man fallacy on Wikipedia? You hurt your credibility when you rely on it.

Again, I'm for developing a more stringent vetting process for people who want to own semi-automatic, mag fed firearms.
...
The only feasible approach is to work on legislation that would help prevent the wrong people from getting these guns to begin with.

Why do you have to hide these pearls of logic in your polished turds of word vomit? This is something we can actually agree on, but there's so much nonsense that I have to wade through to get to it that it's almost missed!

[xer0s]

The white and green is really pretty. A nice contrast next to the red...

[Transient]

It's only pretty until you read it.

[losCHUNK]

We need a blue !

[YourGrandpa]

Wall of green text

1. "Because I don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine, I don't understand the problem?That's a really weak argument, dude." Did you say that?

2. "In general, assault weapons" That's pretty generic. Which was why I followed up with some additional questions. And "Assault Rifle" is a generic term typically used to promote fear of firearms. Believe it or not.

3. People shouldn't have access to assault rifles. Did you say that? That sure sounds like a ban to me.

4. My point was banning mag fed firearms would not stop mass murder. It may add a few more steps to the lunatics process, but they'll still get there. However, I feel my previously posted idea would definitely help prevent the random crazy from getting a gun.

5. Refer to #3.

6. My 5th post included my proposal for vetting gun owners.

I think you're arguing just to argue. Now why don't you answer my previous questions?

How many rounds do think makes a magazine large?
What ROF do you consider rapid?
What is a "combat" configuration in your opinion?

Or are you not able to do that? I'm certain it will require some more research on your part.

[mrd]

I dunno YGP, you tell me. Is it a wall, or is it green text?

[Flex Donkey]

[YourGrandpa]

I dunno YGP, you tell me. Is it a wall, or is it green text?

Oops, I hit the r instead of the f. (fixed) You are certainly a master debater.

[mrd]

I ain't debating shit, what are you on about?

[Transient]

1. "Because I don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine, I don't understand the problem?That's a really weak argument, dude." Did you say that?

Yes, what's your point?

3. People shouldn't have access to assault rifles. Did you say that? That sure sounds like a ban to me.

Well, it's not. See, this is the problem with talking to someone like you who is a staunch gun advocate. I didn't say we should ban them. I didn't say guns should be taken away. I can't help it if you're fixated on taking my comments out of context and misinterpreting them. You're jumping to conclusions.

I think you're arguing just to argue.

You mean like pointing out a common mistake, like mixing up the words 'clip' and 'magazine'? Or pointing out someone saying 'gunowner' instead of 'gun owner'? Or 'Increasibly' and 'increasingly'? Classic projection.

How many rounds do think makes a magazine large?
What ROF do you consider rapid?
What is a "combat" configuration in your opinion?

Or are you not able to do that? I'm certain it will require some more research on your part.

The reason I never answered your questions about magazine sizes, rates of fire and combat configurations is because it's only tangentially related to the topic at hand. The reason sane people want weapons is mainly for hunting, self defense, and target practice/sport shooting. Without looking it up, I'm not able to answer those questions. It's a lot like porn: hard to define, but I know it when I see it. What is the point you're trying to make here, anyway? That because I can't specifically define an assault weapon, I have no business voicing my opinion on whether or not people should be able to own them?

How about his. People should be able to own these:



Or these:

[lvlshot]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Modern_Hunting_Rifle.jpg[/lvlshot]

But not these:

[lvlshot]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/%D0%90%D0%9A-47.jpg[/lvlshot]

But that's irrelevant now, isn't it? Because they exist and they're already out there, everywhere. And as 3D printers become more commonplace and more capable of printing metal parts, their proliferation will only increase. So banning AK-47s outright or taking them away from people wouldn't work, even if I wanted to do that (which I don't, for the eleventy billionth time). Even if all the manufacturers went out of business tomorrow, there would still be functional guns all over the world 200 years from now. There are things that can be done to monitor and regulate the gun industry, however. Adobe Photoshop won't let you print an image file of paper currency; something similar can be done for gun parts and CAD or Sketchup or whatever software talks to 3D printers, for example. Regulation, regulation, regulation.

[losCHUNK]

If you use them for sports / hunting, farming or whatever then fine but almost anything else like self defence isn't a good enough reason imo.

If weapons do manage to become 3d printed and readily available then we can take a stance against that BUT I don't think it will be as big a problem as you suggest, not only because it's made out of plastic but with legislation for the weapons then ammo becomes harder to find - chances are if you can get ammo you can get a gun, without legislation then the metal alternative will always be better. You also wouldn't want one of those things laying around or waving it in public if it was illegal. They may be a thing of the future, but they also may not

[Transient]

There are 3D printers now that print with metals, carbon fiber, wood and combinations of various materials. It's not a matter of 'if', but 'when' metal printers hit mainstream.