The Gamespot Gun Control Debate

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]Of course there is.

thegerg

If you post something like that, you could at least explain your reasoning. One sentence post... What a terrible way to get your opinion through.

Anyway, why aren't you giving the guy I quoted a hard time for not explaining HIS reasoning?

How does his post require any explanation? He couldn't think of any reason to own one. What is there to explain?

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

When someone is charged with a crime. It isn't the suspects job to prove themself innocent. It's the state's job to prove that the suspect is guilty.

Saying you don't need it isn't a reason to ban something.

thegerg

No... but the fact that you can kill tens of people with it is a good enough reason for me, especially if such a weapon is not needed for any reason whatsoever other than trying it in the shooting range.

Well, I wouldn't mind if they rented those weapons at shooting ranges. I know that you can use it in shooting ranges, that's why I wrote that. I'm not changing my mind on anything. I'm just saying that I think they should not be allowed because there's barely any reason to own one.

Even if we wanted to get guns off the street we can't practically do that. The best we can do is research more light weight comfortable bullet proof clothing.Diablo-B

There would be something a little wrong about a country that purportes to be a country of the free, yet has to send the kids to school in bullet proof vests. Doesn't sit right.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

If you post something like that, you could at least explain your reasoning. One sentence post... What a terrible way to get your opinion through.

airshocker

Because it's not an opinion.

Just because YOU have no reason to own an assault rifle doesn't mean other people don't.

That's true but the reasons are purely for entertainment purposes. We're talking about very serious weapons here. Entertainment purposes hold very little weight in the balance. At least to my eyes.

He could explain why he felt there is no reason to own one. My point requires no ore explanation than his. thegerg

Fair enough, I just don't really like to keep asking you for details because some of your posts contain too little for me to understand what you're trying to say.

So you now recognize that there is another reason to own one: to rent it out at the range. thegerg

Renting and owning are two different things...

Reason to own a gun

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]So you now recognize that there is another reason to own one: to rent it out at the range. thegerg

Renting and owning are two different things...

That people should be able to rent them but not own them... It's just too dangerous. Do you have any idea how quickly you can kill lots of people with such a weapon?

You seem to be very confused. There are reasons other than entertainment to own such weapons. thegerg

I mean, reasons to own such a fast-shooting gun? Why not just own one that fires more slowly and that has less ammunition?

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] You're right, I never said that they were the same. What's your point?thegerg

That people should be able to rent them but not own them... It's just too dangerous. Do you have any idea how quickly you can kill lots of people with such a weapon?

Well some companies would need a special permit... You know what I'm talking about.

So it's OK for companies to own these weapons, but not citizens? Why is that? Why do you feel it is safer to allow only companies, rather than real people, to own these weapons? Anyway, simply because one doesn't personally own the weapon in their possession doesn't mean they can't kill with it.thegerg

Well it would have to be regulated and they would carry only a very limited amount... Anyway I just think that those weapons are just ridiculously strong and that nobody needs such a weapon, of course people want the best gun because they can buy it, and if there was a better one they'd want that one, that's why there needs to me more gun control. These guns shouldn't be available so easily. They're just too dangerous. That's just my opinion.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]So it's OK for companies to own these weapons, but not citizens? Why is that? Why do you feel it is safer to allow only companies, rather than real people, to own these weapons? Anyway, simply because one doesn't personally own the weapon in their possession doesn't mean they can't kill with it.bloodling

Well it would have to be regulated and they would carry only a very limited amount... Anyway I just think that those weapons are just ridiculously strong and that nobody needs such a weapon, of course people want the best gun because they can buy it, and if there was a better one they'd want that one, that's why there needs to me more gun control. These guns shouldn't be available so easily. They're just too dangerous. That's just my opinion.

"if there was a better one they'd want that one, that's why there needs to me more gun control" Really? There needs to be gun control because people want a better gun. People want batter cars to, do we need more car control. Your reasoning makes no damn sense. "These guns shouldn't be available so easily." Automatic weapons are NOT easily available in the US, at all.thegerg

There needs to be more gun control because some guns are just too strong... And I saw people say that it was very easy to convert such a weapon into an automatic weapon... If it wasn't so easy, then this wouldn't be a problem. If automatic weapons are not easily available, but weapons can be easily modified to become automatic weapons, then the initial goal to reduce automatic weapons fails.

I'm sure that some guns that can easily be modified could easily get banned in some states. Other states might not vote for that. The population should be able to have a word in this.

"if there was a better one they'd want that one, that's why there needs to me more gun control" Really? There needs to be gun control because people want a better gun. People want batter cars to, do we need more car control. Your reasoning makes no damn sense. "These guns shouldn't be available so easily." Automatic weapons are NOT easily available in the US, at all.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]So it's OK for companies to own these weapons, but not citizens? Why is that? Why do you feel it is safer to allow only companies, rather than real people, to own these weapons? Anyway, simply because one doesn't personally own the weapon in their possession doesn't mean they can't kill with it.bloodling

Well it would have to be regulated and they would carry only a very limited amount... Anyway I just think that those weapons are just ridiculously strong and that nobody needs such a weapon, of course people want the best gun because they can buy it, and if there was a better one they'd want that one, that's why there needs to me more gun control. These guns shouldn't be available so easily. They're just too dangerous. That's just my opinion.

I really don't know what you are baseing these arguments on. We've established that you dont like "assault rifles" even though you can't give an accurate description of one. Even in the broadest sense of the term assault rifle. All gun crimes in total that invole a high powered rifle don't even amount to %5 of gun crimes. Assuming that gun control in the U.S. even has an affect on lessening gun crime. An assault weapons ban would only affect less than %5 of all gun crimes. If you believe in gun control, it's all or nothing. The evil black baby killing AR-15 doesn't even amount to %1 of violent crimes.

By the way, guns are only dangerous in irresponible hands. There is nothing else to it.

"if there was a better one they'd want that one, that's why there needs to me more gun control" Really? There needs to be gun control because people want a better gun. People want batter cars to, do we need more car control. Your reasoning makes no damn sense. "These guns shouldn't be available so easily." Automatic weapons are NOT easily available in the US, at all.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]So it's OK for companies to own these weapons, but not citizens? Why is that? Why do you feel it is safer to allow only companies, rather than real people, to own these weapons? Anyway, simply because one doesn't personally own the weapon in their possession doesn't mean they can't kill with it.DJ419

Well it would have to be regulated and they would carry only a very limited amount... Anyway I just think that those weapons are just ridiculously strong and that nobody needs such a weapon, of course people want the best gun because they can buy it, and if there was a better one they'd want that one, that's why there needs to me more gun control. These guns shouldn't be available so easily. They're just too dangerous. That's just my opinion.

I really don't know what you are baseing these arguments on. We've established that you dont like "assault rifles" even though you can't give an accurate description of one. Even in the broadest sense of the term assault rifle. All gun crimes in total that invole a high powered rifle don't even amount to %5 of gun crimes. Assuming that gun control in the U.S. even has an affect on lessening gun crime. An assault weapons ban would only affect less than %5 of all gun crimes. If you believe in gun control, it's all or nothing. The evil black baby killing AR-15 doesn't even amount to %1 of violent crimes.

By the way, guns are only dangerous in irresponible hands. There is nothing else to it.

I'm talking about the automatic assault rifles... I do not know them well, nor did I claim I did. I'm just giving you my opinion for what it's worth. There are steps to be taken before getting to the "nothing" part, and I just don't think that the "all" part is working very well right now. There's no miracle situation, but we must try to help it.

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

Well it would have to be regulated and they would carry only a very limited amount... Anyway I just think that those weapons are just ridiculously strong and that nobody needs such a weapon, of course people want the best gun because they can buy it, and if there was a better one they'd want that one, that's why there needs to me more gun control. These guns shouldn't be available so easily. They're just too dangerous. That's just my opinion.

bloodling

I really don't know what you are baseing these arguments on. We've established that you dont like "assault rifles" even though you can't give an accurate description of one. Even in the broadest sense of the term assault rifle. All gun crimes in total that invole a high powered rifle don't even amount to %5 of gun crimes. Assuming that gun control in the U.S. even has an affect on lessening gun crime. An assault weapons ban would only affect less than %5 of all gun crimes. If you believe in gun control, it's all or nothing. The evil black baby killing AR-15 doesn't even amount to %1 of violent crimes.

By the way, guns are only dangerous in irresponible hands. There is nothing else to it.

I'm talking about the automatic assault rifles... I do not know them well, nor did I claim I did. I'm just giving you my opinion for what it's worth. There are steps to be taken before getting to the "nothing" part, and I just don't think that the "all" part is working very well right now. There's no miracle situation, but we must try to help it.

"There needs to be more gun control because some guns are just too strong" That's much more reasonable assertion that your previous claim. However, I feel that the power of an automatic weapon is not the problem. The reason that we need better gun control is because many people are not responsible enough to own a gun. " If it wasn't so easy, then this wouldn't be a problem." Well, it's not a problem. Keep in mind that the most infamous mass-shootings in recent history (the one yesterday, Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Columbine, etc.) were not done with automatic weapons. You're not focusing on the real issue here.thegerg

It wasn't a claim, you just misunderstood what I meant, but I must admit that I might've expressed myself poorly. I meant to say "that's why I'm for more gun control" as a general conclusion to everything I said. I'm not saying that automatic weapons are used in all shootings, but they can be used. That's the problem. I'm worrying about the future, not the past.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

I'm talking about the automatic assault rifles... I do not know them well, nor did I claim I did. I'm just giving you my opinion for what it's worth. There are steps to be taken before getting to the "nothing" part, and I just don't think that the "all" part is working very well right now. There's no miracle situation, but we must try to help it.

fernandmondego_

That's up to him. Hopefully he gives a few warning shots before shooting someone. Again, I'm talking about the very best automatic weapons, not all "assault rifles".

[QUOTE="fernandmondego_"][QUOTE="bloodling"]

I'm talking about the automatic assault rifles... I do not know them well, nor did I claim I did. I'm just giving you my opinion for what it's worth. There are steps to be taken before getting to the "nothing" part, and I just don't think that the "all" part is working very well right now. There's no miracle situation, but we must try to help it.

bloodling

That's up to him. Hopefully he gives a few warning shots before shooting someone. Again, I'm talking about the very best automatic weapons, not all "assault rifles".

[QUOTE="fernandmondego_"][QUOTE="bloodling"]

I'm talking about the automatic assault rifles... I do not know them well, nor did I claim I did. I'm just giving you my opinion for what it's worth. There are steps to be taken before getting to the "nothing" part, and I just don't think that the "all" part is working very well right now. There's no miracle situation, but we must try to help it.

bloodling

That's up to him. Hopefully he gives a few warning shots before shooting someone. Again, I'm talking about the very best automatic weapons, not all "assault rifles".

That is a Bushmaster AR-15. It has been the best selling combat style rifle in the U.S. for the past decade. Do you consider this an automatic assault rifle?

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="fernandmondego_"]Again I ask, what does a rancher on the Mexican border do when he comes across smugglers going across his land? fernandmondego_

That's up to him. Hopefully he gives a few warning shots before shooting someone. Again, I'm talking about the very best automatic weapons, not all "assault rifles".

What? What is he supposed to do? Why are you asking me this?

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]"There needs to be more gun control because some guns are just too strong" That's much more reasonable assertion that your previous claim. However, I feel that the power of an automatic weapon is not the problem. The reason that we need better gun control is because many people are not responsible enough to own a gun. " If it wasn't so easy, then this wouldn't be a problem." Well, it's not a problem. Keep in mind that the most infamous mass-shootings in recent history (the one yesterday, Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Columbine, etc.) were not done with automatic weapons. You're not focusing on the real issue here.thegerg

It wasn't a claim, you just misunderstood what I meant, but I must admit that I might've expressed myself poorly. I mean't to say "that's why I'm for more gun control" as a general conclusion to everything I said. I'm not saying that automatic weapons are used in all shootings, but they can be used. That's the problem. I'm worrying about the future, not the past.

I did not mean to make that claim... That's what I just explained in the post you quoted... It's a misunderstanding...

That is a Bushmaster AR-15. It has been the best selling combat style rifle in the U.S. for the past decade. Do you consider this an automatic assault rifle?

DJ419

Why are you asking me? You tell me.

[QUOTE="fernandmondego_"][QUOTE="bloodling"]

That's up to him. Hopefully he gives a few warning shots before shooting someone. Again, I'm talking about the very best automatic weapons, not all "assault rifles".

bloodling

What? What is he supposed to do? Why are you asking me this?

So a rancher runs into smugglers that would have no hesitation in killing him just for spotting them and he's suppose to shoot warning shots? fernandmondego_

I have no idea. He can do what he wants. That's what I said. Again, why are you asking me this?

[QUOTE="fernandmondego_"]So a rancher runs into smugglers that would have no hesitation in killing him just for spotting them and he's suppose to shoot warning shots? bloodling

I have no idea. He can do what he wants. That's what I said. Again, why are you asking me this?

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

bloodling

Why are you asking me? You tell me.

Your criteria seems awfully specific. As if you have singled out automatic weapons as the prime culprit in these crimes. I am telling you that automatic weapons represent the smallest fraction of gun deaths. Automatic weapons have the strictest guidelines for ownership, and will cost you around the same as a brand new car.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] The claim ""if there was a better [gun] they'd want that one, that's why I'm for more gun control" is just as silly as "if there was a better [gun] they'd want that one, that's why there needs to me more gun control." There needs to be more effective gun control because some people are not responsible enough to own a gun, not because people want a better gun. People wanting something better (whether it be a better gun, a better car, or a better sandwich) is not an issue. The issue is that people that misuse those better guns/cars/sandwiches get their hands on them far too easily. I understand that you're worried about the future, but you're still not focusing on the real issue. thegerg

I did not meant to make that claim... That's what I just explained in the post you quoted... It's a misunderstanding...

I was trying to focus on two points, which is that weapons that are deemed too powerful should be banned, and people who have severe mental problems shouldn't be allowed to own guns (though I haven't talked much about that part). We can't go into a killer's mind and change his intentions. There's no miracle solution, but there are things that can be done. Maybe you don't think that those measures will be very effective, and that's debatable.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="fernandmondego_"]So a rancher runs into smugglers that would have no hesitation in killing him just for spotting them and he's suppose to shoot warning shots? fernandmondego_

I have no idea. He can do what he wants. That's what I said. Again, why are you asking me this?

Well, you do have a point, which is that some places are dangerous, and these extremely strong weapons are better than lesser weapons, but are they really? They're not more accurate, they just shoot faster. But sure, in some states, then I guess it could be acceptable for them to own such dangerous weapons.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

DJ419

Why are you asking me? You tell me.

Your criteria seems awfully specific. As if you have singled out automatic weapons as the prime culprit in these crimes. I am telling you that automatic weapons represent the smallest fraction of gun deaths. Automatic weapons have the strictest guidelines for ownership, and will cost you around the same as a brand new car.

I am not saying that they are the culprit in such crimes, and I never said that it was the most important thing in the world to get rid of them. I just though it was the right thing to do. I'm not an anti-gun fanatic, but this just seems to be the right direction to take, at least in a few states.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Regardless of how you wish to amend what you've posted, you're still not focusing on the real issue.thegerg

I was trying to focus on two points, which is that weapons that are deemed too powerful should be banned, and people who have severe mental problems shouldn't be allowed to own guns (though I haven't talked much about that part). We can't go into a killer's mind and change his intentions. There's no miracle solution, but there are things that can be done. Maybe you don't think that those measures will be very effective, and that's debatable.

Indeed. Of course, I'm not trying to say that only automatic weapons should be looked at, but what I personally dislike isn't a weapon that can shoot exceptionally well, but rather a weapon that can shoot down a big amount of people very quickly. That was one of my first posts in this thread.

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

Why are you asking me? You tell me.

bloodling

Your criteria seems awfully specific. As if you have singled out automatic weapons as the prime culprit in these crimes. I am telling you that automatic weapons represent the smallest fraction of gun deaths. Automatic weapons have the strictest guidelines for ownership, and will cost you around the same as a brand new car.

I am not saying that they are the culprit in such crimes, and I never said that it was the most important thing in the world to get rid of them. I just though it was the right thing to do. I'm not an anti-gun fanatic, but this just seems to be the right direction to take, at least in a few states.