Gun Control, Facts Vs Liberals

[Doktor Avalanche]

I just found out my next Birthday present was ordered: A WInchester Model 1873 Sporter. Walnut Stock, gold bead, Buckhorn sights, octagonal barrel and 14 rounds of 44-40 held in its beautiful bone-blued steel casing.

[Beatrix]

The government will never take my right to obliterate cities with nukes! 

[WISD0MTREE]

Do you assume that I do not open your links?  Maybe you want to explain your point more.  The perps died in that bank robbery/confrontation with police.  Is your point that in a running gun battle where the perps were fleeing that they only managed to injure 20 people with their high capacity weapons?

 

Your point? is lost on me.

 

Your link is broken. 

 

But I am glad you are willing to listen to the government when it issues you instructions.  Anyway, the Department of Defense told me that 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearms were suitable enough for CQM/CQC.  I am unimpressed by that argument.  Give me a Benelli any day of the week...that being said the rapid transition required from CQC to marksman shooting in actual combat generally makes an M4 or equivalent superior.  Note that we are now talking about how to efficiently kill people in combat.  Not how to participate in sports nor killing Bambi for food.  A good CQC weapon allows me to enter a house and kill the people inside.  Defense of your house against the extremely rare armed and persistent home intruder makes your Springfield XD beyond sufficient.

 

Here your logic truly falls apart.  That criminals do criminal(illegal) things is not a surprise.  Allowing those things to be legal does not increase the incidence of criminals doing these things.  If anything it can only, and probably does, decrease the prevalence of such things.

Some people like to use x for recreation.  X is or should be illegal.  Yet criminals still, or would, purchase x for sale or make it themselves.  This does not lead us to a logical conclusion that x should be legal.

x could be: meth, nukes, modified ammo, child pornography, high capacity mags, etc

You said "kills more." In that instance, the only people who died were the people using said weapons. Meanwhile, <insert almost every mass murderer who used a weapon in America here> used a semi-automatic and actually killed many more people. 

 

This is from the DOD. Go to page 38. 

http://www.m14.ca/TM/026378.pdf

 

Not for me. Try this link.

 

Here’s a list of reasons why these rifles are good for self-defense situations:

-You can mount a light, red dot sight and/or a laser to the rifle to make it easy to used and aim during the day or night. 

-They have a reasonable recoil, making the gun easier to shoot as compared to a defense-caliber shotgun or pistol. 

-They can be customized to fit a variety of body types and shooting styles. 

-The .223/5.56 self-defense round is appropriate for use within a home, even in an urban environment. Ballistic experts have found rounds from these calibers “dump energy†quickly and break apart or begin to tumble after penetrating the first barrier. (Source)

-Ammunition is (normally) readily available and (normally) priced within reason.

However, I'm assuming you don't think self-defense is a valid reason. The Center for Disease Control, in a 2013 study commissioned by President Obama, estimated that defensive gun uses number between several hundred thousand and several million per year in the U.S. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals. (Source) 

 

1. Find me someone who can casually build a nuke in the USA without all of the three letter agencies crashing their party/centrifuges. I'll get you a job in my new real nation. 

2. The point is that there are so many gun laws on the books already, and they're not working. Why impose more that probably won't work either, thus making criminals out of what once were otherwise law-abiding citizens? Like, for example, suddenly mandating that all private gun transactions require a visit to the FFL for a background check, or for instance suddenly saying a magazine that held x rounds yesterday was legal is suddenly illegal to own today (see CA Prop 63). It's one thing to enact and have laws, it's another to have and enact worthless, easily surmountable, unenforceable laws. 

 

I just found out my next Birthday present was ordered: A WInchester Model 1873 Sporter. Walnut Stock, gold bead, Buckhorn sights, octagonal barrel and 14 rounds of 44-40 held in its beautiful bone-blued steel casing.

Nice! 

 

The government will never take my right to obliterate cities with nukes! 

There are different kinds of arms. What you’re talking about with missiles and warheads aren’t normal arms at all, however. It’s military ordnance. Unlike arms “in normal use†(see Heller), like handguns and rifles, ordinance is strictly controlled. Even there, ordinary citizens can own some types of ordnance if they get permission from the government in the form of an NFA stamp. (Ordinance is/are arms, but not all arms are ordinance.) A nuke is definitely ordnance. You are unlikely to get the government to issue you an NFA stamp for a nuke. 

[Beatrix]

So you're saying government can take my right to own an F-15SG?

[WISD0MTREE]

So you're saying government can take my right to own an F-15SG?

I don't know why you would want an SG. I'd go with the I for the night-attack capabilities. Plus they are banned in California because they are controlled by something that resembles a pistol grip. 

[Beatrix]

Because the F-16i is racist, duh!

[Frederick]

"Everything is sexist, Everything is racist, Everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time..." -Anita Sarkeesian

 

Wise words to live by.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Octavius

[LordRahl2]

God I hate this forum system.  Click one button and lose a tldr.

 

 

You said "kills more." In that instance, the only people who died were the people using said weapons. Meanwhile, <insert almost every mass murderer who used a weapon in America here> used a semi-automatic and actually killed many more people. 

 

This is from the DOD. Go to page 38. 

http://www.m14.ca/TM/026378.pdf

 

Not for me. Try this link.

 

Here’s a list of reasons why these rifles are good for self-defense situations:

-You can mount a light, red dot sight and/or a laser to the rifle to make it easy to used and aim during the day or night. 
-They have a reasonable recoil, making the gun easier to shoot as compared to a defense-caliber shotgun or pistol. 
-They can be customized to fit a variety of body types and shooting styles. 
-The .223/5.56 self-defense round is appropriate for use within a home, even in an urban environment. Ballistic experts have found rounds from these calibers “dump energy†quickly and break apart or begin to tumble after penetrating the first barrier. (Source)
-Ammunition is (normally) readily available and (normally) priced within reason.

However, I'm assuming you don't think self-defense is a valid reason. The Center for Disease Control, in a 2013 study commissioned by President Obama, estimated that defensive gun uses number between several hundred thousand and several million per year in the U.S. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals. (Source) 

 

1. Find me someone who can casually build a nuke in the USA without all of the three letter agencies crashing their party/centrifuges. I'll get you a job in my new real nation. 

2. The point is that there are so many gun laws on the books already, and they're not working. Why impose more that probably won't work either, thus making criminals out of what once were otherwise law-abiding citizens? Like, for example, suddenly mandating that all private gun transactions require a visit to the FFL for a background check, or for instance suddenly saying a magazine that held x rounds yesterday was legal is suddenly illegal to own today (see CA Prop 63). It's one thing to enact and have laws, it's another to have and enact worthless, easily surmountable, unenforceable laws. 

 

Nice! 

 

There are different kinds of arms. What you’re talking about with missiles and warheads aren’t normal arms at all, however. It’s military ordnance. Unlike arms “in normal use†(see Heller), like handguns and rifles, ordinance is strictly controlled. Even there, ordinary citizens can own some types of ordnance if they get permission from the government in the form of an NFA stamp. (Ordinance is/are arms, but not all arms are ordinance.) A nuke is definitely ordnance. You are unlikely to get the government to issue you an NFA stamp for a nuke. 

 

What is the point of your link(s).  Page 38 is a pic of the load assist that nobody uses (you want to mix tracers with your ball).  The other is a SoW which has little to no bearing on anything.

 

Your list: none of those items are compelling for home defense.  In brief (I had more in my previous reply):

-I do not need a red dot at 10 meters.  The bulk of an assault rifle completely negates this "advantage".

-False.  Recoil varies among all classes of firearm and is not a huge discriminator in the normal range tbh.

-The bulk of an assault rifle completely negates this "advantage".

-False.  Ammo availability and cost is better for handguns actually.

 

Don't make assumptions.  Did you read the link from the Institute of Medicine or just cherry pick on fact?  You should really read it - it basically refutes your argument.

 

Nukes.  I gave you a list of examples of what high capacity mags are like:

Some people like to use x for recreation.  X is or should be illegal.  Yet criminals still, or would, purchase x for sale or make it themselves.  This does not lead us to a logical conclusion that x should be legal.

x could be: meth, nukes, modified ammo, child pornography, high capacity mags, etc.

 

So if gun laws are ineffective why do you care so much?  But are they ineffective?  As you say most mass shooting happen with lower capacity mags and guns.  You could pretend this is because those were selected over the equally available high capacity mags.  Or you could conclude that the high capacity mags were unavailable and hence the laws reduced the casualty rate.  You assume one over the other with no apparent evidence.  So I will just assume it is the latter and that the laws were effective although limited in scope and hence limited in impact.

[Doktor Avalanche]

-False.  Ammo availability and cost is better for handguns actually.

Bullshit.

 

Everywhere I have lived the ammo for handguns is almost twice the cost.

Availability is about the same except for 6.5mm which varies.

Edited October 30, 2016 by The King in Yellow

[Frederick]

So if gun laws are ineffective why do you care so much?  But are they ineffective?  As you say most mass shooting happen with lower capacity mags and guns.  You could pretend this is because those were selected over the equally available high capacity mags.  Or you could conclude that the high capacity mags were unavailable and hence the laws reduced the casualty rate.  You assume one over the other with no apparent evidence.  So I will just assume it is the latter and that the laws were effective although limited in scope and hence limited in impact.

I'm pretty sure he is saying that they are ineffective in the sense that they do not prevent mass shootings or gun crime in general.  Instead they punish and criminalize law-abiding American citizens, because of criminals who almost certainly attained their firearms illegally.  It makes absolutely no sense to anyone with a thinking brain, but that's because the government couldn't care less about the deaths of children.  They only care about attaining more power for themselves, so these sociopaths then twist the truth and use these tragedies for their own agendas to shackle the law-abiding American populace.  If people started using their brains over their feelings, then they would realize the whole ridiculousness of these "gun control" proposals.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Octavius

[LordRahl2]

Bullshit.

 

Everywhere I have lived the ammo for handguns is almost twice the cost.

Availability is about the same except for 6.5mm which varies.

 

I can get 1k rounds of 9mm for 150-200$.

I can get 1k rounds of 5.56 for 300-400$.

 

So yeah?  no.

[LordRahl2]

I'm pretty sure he is saying that they are ineffective in the sense that they do not prevent mass shootings or gun crime in general.  Instead they punish and criminalize law-abiding American citizens, because of criminals who almost certainly attained their firearms illegally.  It makes absolutely no sense to anyone with a thinking brain, but that's because the government couldn't care less about the deaths of children.  They only care about attaining more power for themselves, so these sociopaths then twist the truth and use these tragedies for their own agendas to shackle the law-abiding American populace.  If people started using their brains over their feelings, then they would realize the whole ridiculousness of these "gun control" proposals.

 

Actually, people with those rare thinking brains probably know that reducing the supply of something generally reduces its availability to criminals and law abiding citizens.

It is also silly to argue that those laws are ineffective by pointing out that the banned things were not used.

How does an absence of high capacity military grade weaponry reduce law-abiding citizens power?  They have power via the ballot box.  Sounds like you are using empty rhetoric to blow things out of proportion.

[WISD0MTREE]

God I hate this forum system.  Click one button and lose a tldr.

 

What is the point of your link(s).  Page 38 is a pic of the load assist that nobody uses (you want to mix tracers with your ball).  The other is a SoW which has little to no bearing on anything.

 

Your list: none of those items are compelling for home defense.  In brief (I had more in my previous reply):

-I do not need a red dot at 10 meters.  The bulk of an assault rifle completely negates this "advantage".

-False.  Recoil varies among all classes of firearm and is not a huge discriminator in the normal range tbh.

-The bulk of an assault rifle completely negates this "advantage".

-False.  Ammo availability and cost is better for handguns actually.

 

Don't make assumptions.  Did you read the link from the Institute of Medicine or just cherry pick on fact?  You should really read it - it basically refutes your argument.

 

Nukes.  I gave you a list of examples of what high capacity mags are like:

Some people like to use x for recreation.  X is or should be illegal.  Yet criminals still, or would, purchase x for sale or make it themselves.  This does not lead us to a logical conclusion that x should be legal.

x could be: meth, nukes, modified ammo, child pornography, high capacity mags, etc.

 

So if gun laws are ineffective why do you care so much?  But are they ineffective?  As you say most mass shooting happen with lower capacity mags and guns.  You could pretend this is because those were selected over the equally available high capacity mags.  Or you could conclude that the high capacity mags were unavailable and hence the laws reduced the casualty rate.  You assume one over the other with no apparent evidence.  So I will just assume it is the latter and that the laws were effective although limited in scope and hence limited in impact.

Wow, we can agree on something. 

 

Will this explain? Or do I actually have to type something? 

 

-Maybe not at a range with infinite time to get a shot off. However, it can be very useful when you are panicked. 

-It allows for weaker people (the people who need a gun in the first place) use the weapon more comfortably. 

-What do you mean by this? 

-Maybe not during an ammo scare, but my range always has 5.56 and only sometimes has .45. 

 

Care to point where? 

 

Let me reiterate. 

"The point is that there are so many gun laws on the books already, and they're not working. Why impose more that probably won't work either, thus making criminals out of what once were otherwise law-abiding citizens? Like, for example, suddenly mandating that all private gun transactions require a visit to the FFL for a background check, or for instance suddenly saying a magazine that held x rounds yesterday was legal is suddenly illegal to own today (see CA Prop 63). It's one thing to enact and have laws, it's another to have and enact worthless, easily surmountable, unenforceable laws."

The average person doesn't have meth, nukes, child porn, etc. However, many Americans have firearms. If you banned meth2.0, then not many Americans would be affected. I'd even argue that majority of the people using meth2.0 already use other drugs. However, if you banned "high capacity" magazines, then you would be banning something that many Americans have, thus making them criminals. 

 

There comes a point where if you keep insisting on making unreasonable and unenforceable laws, like this one you propose, then people are simply going to ignore them. In 2015, Los Angeles put a law in place mandating city residents owning “high capacity†magazines had to turn them in to police or otherwise dispose of them within 60 days. At the end of 60 days, guess how many got turned in? ZERO.

http://www.ammoland.com/2015/11/los-angeles-bans-highcap-mags-not-1-turned-in/#axzz3sMz8vSst

 

What constitutes a “high-capacity†magazine? Who was the “expert†who made that decision? The AR-15/M-16, for example, was developed to use a 20-round magazine. Later, a 30-round magazine was made for use as well. So, these “high-capacity†magazines are in fact standard capacity magazines.

[Frederick]

Actually, people with those rare thinking brains probably know that reducing the supply of something generally reduces its availability to criminals and law abiding citizens.

It is also silly to argue that those laws are ineffective by pointing out that the banned things were not used.

How does an absence of high capacity military grade weaponry reduce law-abiding citizens power?  They have power via the ballot box.  Sounds like you are using empty rhetoric to blow things out of proportion.

First off, there actually is a such thing as a black market and it is ridiculously easy to attain illegal firearms.  If we can't even stop illegal drugs from coming over our border, what makes you think we can do the same with guns?  Let me reiterate since you still don't grasp it.  Lawful gun owners are far less likely to break the law than criminals (the definition literally means someone who breaks the law).  Because of this, it is safe to conclude that illegal weapons are most likely to fall into the hands of the criminals rather than lawful citizens.  Would it not then be reasonable to ensure that the lawful populace is just as armed as the criminals who pose a threat their life, liberty, and family?  Regardless of what you think, guns will not just disappear and the only way to ensure a balance of power is to guarantee the right of the law-abiding populace to bear arms.

 

Also, the fact that you believe in the "ballot box" just proves your naivety.  Votes mean nothing when there isn't firepower to back it up.  If rigged elections are already a problem, imagine how much of a problem it would be if the populace was completely disarmed.  The 2nd Amendment is-once again-a check on the Federal government.  That and the separation of powers are what define the American republic which was meant to escape the excesses of both democracy and monarchy.  The Democrats have been committing voter fraud for decades, so don't give me crap about the people having power purely by ballot box.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I cut myself on all the edge. "Votes mean nothing when there isn't firepower to back it up." Whoa, man, that's some good stuff right there.

 

#banassaultshitposts

[Kemal Ergenekon]

>cant think of a rebuttal

>think calling the opposition edgy gives your argument some merit

>shiggy mcdiggy

 

Hahah, that's a good one. I did entertain Octavius for far too long than his shitposting merited. Now I am just here to enjoy the stupid replies Rahl is fishing for.

[Frederick]

Hahah, that's a good one. I did entertain Octavius for far too long than his shitposting merited. Now I am just here to enjoy the stupid replies Rahl is fishing for.

"Those conservatives are so dumb.  We always know what's best and what's right.  If only those ignorant bigoted conservatives could actually agree with everything we say, then there wouldn't be a problem!  They need to be more open-minded and just accept everything we tell them.  Wait, what?  Did you just say what I think you said?  Racist! Edgy! Shitposter!"  -typical liberal who lacks an argument(i.e. Kemal Ergenekon)

 

Condescendingly acting like you won an argument doesn't actually win you an argument nor does it convince any intelligent person that you have.  If facts and logic qualify as shitposting, then I suppose I would be shitposting.  Nevertheless, your buzzwords are absent of any meaning and you only make yourself look more foolish than ever.  Though, I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything better considering my experience with you thus far. 

[Doktor Avalanche]

I can get 1k rounds of 9mm for 150-200$.

I can get 1k rounds of 5.56 for 300-400$.

 

So yeah?  no.

I live in Wisconsin. I can get 1k NATO 7.62 for around $200-$240 but 1k of .357 is $300+ and .44 is a hundred more, on average.

Same story in Illinois and California.

Screw 9mm. I never use it so I would not know.

 

Regardless, I reload myself. Saves money.

Edited October 31, 2016 by The King in Yellow

[Kemal Ergenekon]

"Those conservatives are so dumb.  We always know what's best and what's right.  If only those ignorant bigoted conservatives could actually agree with everything we say, then there wouldn't be a problem!  They need to be more open-minded and just accept everything we tell them.  Wait, what?  Did you just say what I think you said?  Racist! Edgy! Shitposter!"  -typical liberal who lacks an argument(i.e. Kemal Ergenekon)

 

Condescendingly acting like you won an argument doesn't actually win you an argument nor does it convince any intelligent person that you have.  If facts and logic qualify as shitposting, then I suppose I would be shitposting.  Nevertheless, your buzzwords are absent of any meaning and you only make yourself look more foolish than ever.  Though, I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything better considering my experience with you thus far. 

 

You are not worth replying to because you cannot even recognize the most stupid of your claims for what they are. Case in point:

 

"Votes mean nothing when there isn't firepower to back it up."

 

Oh, really? That must be why all the people in European democracies are living under the iron fist of their government. They can vote, but they don't have the guns, so their "oppressive liberal governments" must have turned the country into a dictatorship. Oh wait. That didn't happen. I WONDER WHY?

 

Jesus Christ, you people are too &#33;@#&#036;ing easy.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Haha, you sure showed him!

 

Yes, a kid that claims 2+2=5 and isn't contested also feels smug. Doesn't change the fact that he is retarded, xdxd.

[LordRahl2]

I live in Wisconsin. I can get 1k NATO 7.62 for around $200-$240 but 1k of .357 is $300+ and .44 is a hundred more, on average.

Same story in Illinois and California.

Screw 9mm. I never use it so I would not know.

 

Regardless, I reload myself. Saves money.

5.56 and 9m is an apples to apples comparison. Both are standard NATO issue. That is why I picked them.

 

I can come up with innumable examples of less common rounds to refute your silliness. The fact remains that handgun ammo is cheaper.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

The NIH study posted was interesting

 

"A number of individual behaviors and susceptibilities are associated with firearm violence and injury. Impulsivity, low educational attainment, substance use, and prior history of aggression and abuse are considered risk factors for violence (for both perpetrators and victims). "

 

 

"Unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns. "

 

"In 2010, incidents involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 individuals in the United States.."

Holy shit, that's a lot of people

 

"...the effectiveness of various types of control is inadequately researched.  Research on the impact of imposing additional penalties for firearm use in illegal activities has also produced mixed results. Studies on the impact of right-to-carry laws on firearm violence also have inconsistent results"

"state laws designed to ameliorate the risk of firearm use by those that abuse alcohol differ, and there is a lack of data on the basis for these laws or on their effectiveness"

"It is unclear whether modifications in the physical and social environment have been effective in reducing firearm violence"

 

For decades, Republicans have forbidden any federal gun research.  Maybe its time we actually used science.   Stop presupposing the answer, and lets get some research.

 

Edit:  This conversation got good at some point, wow, totally unexpected.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Aisha Greyjoy

[Doktor Avalanche]

5.56 and 9m is an apples to apples comparison. Both are standard NATO issue. That is why I picked them.

 

I can come up with innumable examples of less common rounds to refute your silliness. The fact remains that handgun ammo is cheaper.

To be honest I am only in this debate with you because I read your post and saw that specific line, which in my experiences is absolutely true that all of my handgun ammo is more expensive than my rifle ammo. It may not be the case with other ammo but in my collection it is complete bullshit what you claim. I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative- but a lot of your absolutes are not always the case across the country.

 

Did you mean innumerable? 

Edited October 31, 2016 by The King in Yellow

[Kemal Ergenekon]

are you implying that European """"""democracies"""""" do not have complete control over the body of which they rule? The people can choose which supreme leader they want, that's the extent of the democracy.

 

Oh my god. Please report to your high school teacher. When was the last time you saw the democratic results get ignored because the citizens were not armed in Europe? Let me tell you: zero times. Hence, the claim that the votes need to be backed by guns for them to be taken seriously is completely false. How do you envision it to be different in your Lalaland?

[Donald Trump]

Oh my god. Please report to your high school teacher. When was the last time you saw the democratic results get ignored because the citizens were not armed in Europe? Let me tell you: zero times. Hence, the claim that the votes need to be backed by guns for them to be taken seriously is completely false. How do you envision it to be different in your Lalaland?

Dishonest Kernal! Sad, no guns you claim? Ha! Facts say otherwise!