The Gamespot Gun Control Debate

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

Also Hart is stupid. He believes in bigfoot and the 9/11 conspiracy. Why are you bothering with him?

hartsickdiscipl

Check back with me in a year and tell me that I'm irrational and paranoid.

Shut hart up with one post!

New record.

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Suburbs are pretty damn easy to navigate and unlike the Afghan Guerillas who have been fighting wars against invaders the last 30 years most Americans have been fighting their local dunkin donuts while wondering who will get kicked off American idol. Ace6301

Before I ventured into OT, I thought he was a fairly reasonable fellow. However after reading his comments in this thread, he does seem quite irrational and paranoid.C_Rule

Check back with me in a year and tell me that I'm irrational and paranoid.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] I'm sure the government will not given two sh*ts about being traitors to themselves if things are as fargone as American citizens having a nation wide uprising. Ace6301

They should take the hint and not try to fight their own people.

Local uprisings involving tens of millions of armed people?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Check back with me in a year and tell me that I'm irrational and paranoid.

CreasianDevaili

There was no such thread. He's just spewing sh1t.

Shut hart up with one post!

New record.

MakeMeaSammitch

Riiiiiiiiggggghhhhht.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] I think the people you just described might not be the type to actually raise their arms against the goverment. So it might be a moot point to make? Well some but.. I mean c'mon. CreasianDevaili

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

They should take the hint and not try to fight their own people.

hartsickdiscipl

Local uprisings involving tens of millions of armed people?

Don't think I can read the entire thread after reading the idiotic posts on the first page. But, has anyone mentioned that the buckmaster rifle used was just a .22?

Don't think I can read the entire thread after reading the idiotic posts on the first page. But, has anyone mentioned that the buckmaster rifle used was just a .22?

slimjimbadboy

It was a Bushmaster not buckmaster.

The reported caliber used was a .223. While the caliber is identical. .22 is a much different catridge than a .223. As you can see.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

Yusuke420

The last and only (except for the Civil War in the South) war where the US used all its assets was World War II. It's not often that any country truly uses all its assets in war.

Not to generalise, but I can imagine being poor makes people a higher risk than people of middle incomes and above for all kinds of reasons so it depends how you look at that.

I mean any other way I can think of to make gun control stricter would be political suicide.

Leejjohno

It'd be nice to come up with a Federal standard for gun laws. Every state has different laws, which makes it a b!tch when you travel.

In other words only crazies think this is realistic and only the extremely bored would bother spending any real time on it.Ace6301

But we can simply agree small arms are necessary to create and maintain an insurgency.

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] If you discount those people the American people would have zero hope of beating the American military as what you've just discounted is not only a huge portion of the population but judging by cross references of physical fitness maps with gun ownership maps you've just potentially lost a large group of armed individuals. Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]In other words only crazies think this is realistic and only the extremely bored would bother spending any real time on it.Palantas

But we can simply agree small arms are necessary to create and maintain an insurgency.

Take a look around at the various firearm online retailers. AR-15s are sold out across the board. People are buying up tons of them while they can before congress can enact any kind of reform. All of these guns will be allowed under any gun control measure.Pandora's box is already open and gun control laws aren't going to do anything about it. If any laws that ban AR-15 type weapons come out people will just buy so many before the ban takes place that it won't matter. The used market will have a healthy supply because of the build up to the new round of laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

My lazy attempt to argue. Japan exercises extreme control over gun rights while the US doesn't. Gun-related deaths, homocides, and suicides due to guns go down in Japan and up in the US. It's just simple logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

My lazy attempt to argue. Japan exercises extreme control over gun rights while the US doesn't. Gun-related deaths, homocides, and suicides due to guns go down in Japan and up in the US. It's just simple logic.

starfox15

You're comparing two wildly different cultures

[QUOTE="starfox15"]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

My lazy attempt to argue. Japan exercises extreme control over gun rights while the US doesn't. Gun-related deaths, homocides, and suicides due to guns go down in Japan and up in the US. It's just simple logic.

UnknownSniper65

You're comparing two wildly different cultures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

My lazy attempt to argue. Japan exercises extreme control over gun rights while the US doesn't. Gun-related deaths, homocides, and suicides due to guns go down in Japan and up in the US. It's just simple logic.

starfox15

Edit* Serbia

[QUOTE="starfox15"]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

My lazy attempt to argue. Japan exercises extreme control over gun rights while the US doesn't. Gun-related deaths, homocides, and suicides due to guns go down in Japan and up in the US. It's just simple logic.

fernandmondego_

I say we let kids have guns. That way they would have stopped this man before anything happened.

Also Hart is stupid. He believes in bigfoot and the 9/11 conspiracy. Why are you bothering with him?

MakeMeaSammitch

[QUOTE="fernandmondego_"][QUOTE="starfox15"]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

My lazy attempt to argue. Japan exercises extreme control over gun rights while the US doesn't. Gun-related deaths, homocides, and suicides due to guns go down in Japan and up in the US. It's just simple logic.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="fernandmondego_"]OK, if it goes against the narrative than it doesn't count?fernandmondego_

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="fernandmondego_"]What?fernandmondego_

I am from the UK so know a little but not really much about the Gun Laws in the United States but I'm aware of your second ammenddment and the right to bear arms. I've purposely not read any posts made so far simply because there'll be so much BS and petty arguing (it is OT after all) that it's easier just to post lol, so here goes.


I just wonder if the problem could easily be solved with an increase Nationaly in the legal age to own a gun, I don't know what it currently is in the US, but assume it may differ from state to state so wouldn't it be easier if there was a bill went through congress to raise the legal age to be able to qualify for a gun holders license to maybe 18 or 21, that way anyone under the age of 18/21 won't be able to own their weapons, but would under the right circumstances (gun clubs), be able to access weapons from say 15-18.

I know it may seem a overly simplistic view of things and while personally I disagree with the right to bear arms understand how integral it is to the constitution, and that removing it would be a major mistake, so wouldn't some sort of compromise which allowed responsible adults the right to bear arms as stated int he constitution, but with minimal access to those under a certain age be the best option. I mean as far as I remember it most spreee shootings have been by mid to late teens so surely this would eradicate the problem?

Feel free to flame or actually respond with constructive criticism (or actually agree).

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="fernandmondego_"]OK, if it goes against the narrative than it doesn't count?fernandmondego_

Except that less guns doesn't equal less murder. It just means there are less guns. The CDC published their findings in 2010 on the effectiveness of gun control laws before and after they were enacted in the US. Results were inconsistent. Except in the cases of Washington DC, New York City and and Chicago where homicides increased when the laws were put into place.

This isn't to say that there shouldn't be any laws on the books about firearms. The points of it is that there is more to homicide than the actual weapon used.

People want an easy, singular scapegoat, and guns fit the bill. But I think it's irresponsible to focus solely on one thing.

I am from the UK so know a little but not really much about the Gun Laws in the United States but I'm aware of your second ammenddment and the right to bear arms. I've purposely not read any posts made so far simply because there'll be so much BS and petty arguing (it is OT after all) that it's easier just to post lol, so here goes.


I just wonder if the problem could easily be solved with an increase Nationaly in the legal age to own a gun, I don't know what it currently is in the US, but assume it may differ from state to state so wouldn't it be easier if there was a bill went through congress to raise the legal age to be able to qualify for a gun holders license to maybe 18 or 21, that way anyone under the age of 18/21 won't be able to own their weapons, but would under the right circumstances (gun clubs), be able to access weapons from say 15-18.

I know it may seem a overly simplistic view of things and while personally I disagree with the right to bear arms understand how integral it is to the constitution, and that removing it would be a major mistake, so wouldn't some sort of compromise which allowed responsible adults the right to bear arms as stated int he constitution, but with minimal access to those under a certain age be the best option. I mean as far as I remember it most spreee shootings have been by mid to late teens so surely this would eradicate the problem?

Feel free to flame or actually respond with constructive criticism (or actually agree).

OmenUK

On it's surface, what you're suggesting seems reasonble.

However, in Connecticut, you must be 21 to purchase a firearm. And you must have a license to purchase, then must pass a background check. None of that prevented Adam Lanza, 20, from getting a hold of the guns he used. The school was a gun free zone.

Apparently, criminals and the mentally disturbed don't care about rules or laws or gun free zones. Go figure.

Any meaningful change has to be cultural. But that's an evolution that will take decades. This won't happen with simple laws about firearms.

[QUOTE="OmenUK"]

I am from the UK so know a little but not really much about the Gun Laws in the United States but I'm aware of your second ammenddment and the right to bear arms. I've purposely not read any posts made so far simply because there'll be so much BS and petty arguing (it is OT after all) that it's easier just to post lol, so here goes.


I just wonder if the problem could easily be solved with an increase Nationaly in the legal age to own a gun, I don't know what it currently is in the US, but assume it may differ from state to state so wouldn't it be easier if there was a bill went through congress to raise the legal age to be able to qualify for a gun holders license to maybe 18 or 21, that way anyone under the age of 18/21 won't be able to own their weapons, but would under the right circumstances (gun clubs), be able to access weapons from say 15-18.

I know it may seem a overly simplistic view of things and while personally I disagree with the right to bear arms understand how integral it is to the constitution, and that removing it would be a major mistake, so wouldn't some sort of compromise which allowed responsible adults the right to bear arms as stated int he constitution, but with minimal access to those under a certain age be the best option. I mean as far as I remember it most spreee shootings have been by mid to late teens so surely this would eradicate the problem?

Feel free to flame or actually respond with constructive criticism (or actually agree).

VoodooHak

On it's surface, what you're suggesting seems reasonble.

However, in Connecticut, you must be 21 to purchase a firearm. And you must have a license to purchase, then must pass a background check. None of that prevented Adam Lanza, 20, from getting a hold of the guns he used. The school was a gun free zone.

Apparently, criminals and the mentally disturbed don't care about rules or laws or gun free zones. Go figure.

Any meaningful change has to be cultural. But that's an evolution that will take decades. This won't happen with simple laws about firearms.

YES and NO.. A) these things can be circumnavitaged by the gun show loop hole. Something that is so blantant and so abusing that it is a tragedy to even exist.. And B) I will agree to a extent this doesn't stop criminals.. But where the hell do you think they get their guns from? From the said gun shows and either by the theft or the legal owners illegally selling the weapons to them.. These weapons don't come out of no where.. If this were the case wouldn't Japan be drowned in gun violence? Afterall their laws bar all the citizens from owning weapons..

I think some regulation and laws would be a welcome thing. However, I think it is also somewhat simplistic to assume that the sole reason why some countries have less gun violence is purely because of their gun laws. There are a myriad of other factors that contribute to different rates in different countries.

[QUOTE="fernandmondego_"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Do I really have to explain the concept of confounding variables?VoodooHak

Except that less guns doesn't equal less murder. It just means there are less guns. The CDC published their findings in 2010 on the effectiveness of gun control laws before and after they were enacted in the US. Results were inconsistent. Except in the cases of Washington DC, New York City and and Chicago where homicides increased when the laws were put into place.

This isn't to say that there shouldn't be any laws on the books about firearms. The points of it is that there is more to homicide than the actual weapon used.

People want an easy, singular scapegoat, and guns fit the bill. But I think it's irresponsible to focus solely on one thing.

The reason why its so hard to get common sense gun control in the United States is because its become clear that it isn't a give and take situation. Gun control groups take and take without allowing any sort of give to pro-gun groups. The NRA wouldn't have needed to become a lobbying group had gun control movements not become so over zealous.

The reason why its so hard to get common sense gun control in the United States is because its become clear that it isn't a give and take situation. Gun control groups take and take without allowing any sort of give to pro-gun groups. The NRA wouldn't have needed to become a lobbying group had gun control movements not become so over zealous.

UnknownSniper65

SMH there is just so much hilariously wrong with this post right here that it pretty much illustrates what is wrong with the United States.. You are fvcking crazy to even suggest there is anything coming close to the NRA in power for gun control.. Even Obama, some one they claimed wants to take away weapons from every one, has expanded the second amendment..

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

The reason why its so hard to get common sense gun control in the United States is because its become clear that it isn't a give and take situation. Gun control groups take and take without allowing any sort of give to pro-gun groups. The NRA wouldn't have needed to become a lobbying group had gun control movements not become so over zealous.

sSubZerOo

SMH there is just so much hilariously wrong with this post right here that it pretty much illustrates what is wrong with the United States.. You are fvcking crazy to even suggest there is anything coming close to the NRA in power for gun control.. Even Obama, some one they claimed wants to take away weapons from every one, has expanded the second amendment..

The NRA became a lobbying group in response to gun control measures

I'll be ok with citizens giving up their guns just as soon as the cops and military do the same. As long as they have guns, citizens should keep theirs.

The very idea of banning certain kinds of guns or all of them outright is insane, as it is completely contrary to the idea of self-defense and giving citizens equal footing versus criminals. The guns already exist. They are in circulation, many of them in the hands of criminals who won't adhere to a gun ban anyways.

Here are the facts-

-There are tens of millions of guns in circulation in the US

-Many, if not most criminals won't respect a gun ban, and will continue to buy/sell/trade/use them.

-Banning guns or certain types, or making it harder for citizens to obtain them will weaken their positions against armed criminals and/or tyrannical government

-20 of the last 21 "mass shootings" in the US happened in "gun free zones." Unarmed people are easier victims and more inviting targets for crazies.

The real solution?

Maybe the closest thing, albeit a bit vague, was offered by Tim Scott-

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/?hpt=hp_t2

Address the real issue. Don't seek a solution that will weaken the abilities of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Seek a solution that address the illness, and not the symptoms.

People that want gun control are fools. You're going about it all wrong. Guns dont kill people. Bullets do. Ban the bullets, and let people buy as many guns as they want. They wont be able to do anythign with them. Me so smart./

I am from the UK so know a little but not really much about the Gun Laws in the United States but I'm aware of your second ammenddment and the right to bear arms. I've purposely not read any posts made so far simply because there'll be so much BS and petty arguing (it is OT after all) that it's easier just to post lol, so here goes.


I just wonder if the problem could easily be solved with an increase Nationaly in the legal age to own a gun, I don't know what it currently is in the US, but assume it may differ from state to state so wouldn't it be easier if there was a bill went through congress to raise the legal age to be able to qualify for a gun holders license to maybe 18 or 21, that way anyone under the age of 18/21 won't be able to own their weapons, but would under the right circumstances (gun clubs), be able to access weapons from say 15-18.

I know it may seem a overly simplistic view of things and while personally I disagree with the right to bear arms understand how integral it is to the constitution, and that removing it would be a major mistake, so wouldn't some sort of compromise which allowed responsible adults the right to bear arms as stated int he constitution, but with minimal access to those under a certain age be the best option. I mean as far as I remember it most spreee shootings have been by mid to late teens so surely this would eradicate the problem?

Feel free to flame or actually respond with constructive criticism (or actually agree).

OmenUK

Most, if not all, state go by:

18: Can purchase a shotgun or rifle.

21: Can purchase a handgun.

Though parents can buy a gun in their name and transfer ownership when their kids are of age.

I did that with a series of guns of mine.

[QUOTE="starfox15"]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

My lazy attempt to argue. Japan exercises extreme control over gun rights while the US doesn't. Gun-related deaths, homocides, and suicides due to guns go down in Japan and up in the US. It's just simple logic.

fernandmondego_

Edit* Serbia

It's a difficult topic.

Very strict control infringes on our rights. (There's this thing called the 2nd amendment. Maybe you've heard of it.)

But it also COULD prevent something like the Newtown shooting from happening again.

Even then, I still don't know how effective it would be.

Gun control is only PART of the issue.

By concentrating on gun control, they're ignoring the REAL issue at the heart of this mess: The mental state of the guy who did it! (And the guy's mother who taught this mentally disturbed kid how to use guns and gave him access to them.)

But some states shouldn't be so lax about giving permits. I know New York is VERY strict, and, typically in that state, the only people who are legally allowed to carry guns are either law enforcement and people who REALLY need guns for self defense. (Important people.)

But states like Maine aren't strict enough. Just about anyone can get a gun there as long as they put in the time to take the tests. So something needs to be done in some states when it comes to gun control.

But when you look the shootings in Newtown and Columbine, the ones behind them were emotionally/mentally unstable. If someone really wants to, they'll find ways to get around the system. Stricter gun control won't solve the issue completely.

Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Access to guns is only PART of the problem. I'm not calling for complete abolishment either because reasonable people should be allowed to own weapons for self defense.

Also, I hate it when people blame video games. I've heard some people on the news throw that idea around. When the news revealed that he had played violent video games such as Call of Duty, some people started blaming video games.

A LOT OF PEOPLE PLAY CALL OF DUTY. You can't blame the game or the developer. It's like blaming pizza because he may have eaten pizza every once in a while. (Clearly there's a correlation -_-) It's just something he did with his spare time. Blame the guy's parents for not properly helping him or something. That seems to be the real issue.