Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
No, I do not believe they need to be better more note regulated (in general). If my odds of being killed by something are less than that of being killed by someones bare hands, I don't consider it a sufficient risk to make it hard to get
.
It's on anyone proposing a regulation to state why it would help. A back ground check would not have helped prevent any sort of the crimes that have spurred these discussions since the preferred weapon of criminals is the hand gun, not the rifle (which AR and AK derivatives are). In fact, no degree of tighter regulation would have prevented Sandy Hook since the shooters back ground was irrelevant compared to the owner (who was murdered for her guns). Combined with the two pistols and shot guns he had, simply removing the AR derivative would not have stopped the shooting itself from taking place. Limiting the mag size would also not have helped, as according to wikipedia, he didn't empty his magazines, he frequently changed them.
AR and AK derivatives are pretty much sport/hobby rifles because they're bad at committing crimes with. They're designed with a balance of various traits between hand guns and rifles so that they can be used in multiple scenarios for that purpose. The number one thing that makes an effective weapon for crime/spree shootings is conceal-ability which those models of weapons are not, compared to things like pistols.
As pointed out, the way "dangerous people" lists are generated is not sufficiently transparent for me to trust it, any more than I would trust someones word on whether or not somebody needs their ability to talk to lawyers taken away.
edited 20th Jan '13 3:14:47 PM by Deboss
Fight smart, not fair.
Separation of Church and State. Just because the Vatican says something, doesn't mean that it is the same opinion being held across the world, after all. There's plenty of disagreement with the Holy See as it stands.
It's like people trying to bring MLK into the debate earlier. Or the whole "Demand A Plan" campaign from Hollywood. Just because there's a plea to emotions, doesn't automatically mean that it is the right way to go.
The right to self-defense is seen as much a natural right as it is a "God-given" right, there is a very simple and practical reason for human beings to have that right.
edited 20th Jan '13 3:22:27 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
That statistic says that 8,775 were killed with a firearm in 2010, while only 742 were killed with someone's Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.).
edited 20th Jan '13 3:22:09 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016![]()
The statistic says that less than 400 were killed with a rifle (a statistic that includes both hunting rifles and AR-15s and AK types, the types that are primarily being targeted by the proposed bans). Handguns are -far- more prevalent, but are basically not being affected much at all.
edited 20th Jan '13 3:25:42 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!The National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) identified 413 criminal and civil cases across 44 states involving the arrests, detentions and equivalent deprivations of pregnant women's liberty between 1973 and 2005. NAWP said that it is aware of a further 250 cases since 2005. Both figures are likely to be underestimates, it said.
This is all in spite of Roe v. Wade being passed. Does federal law matter, really? That's just one example of local law trumping federal law.
edited 20th Jan '13 3:27:27 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.The statistics say that 358 people were killed by rifles (which is what an assault weapons ban would target), and 742 people were killed by someones Personal Weapons.
@ Native Jovian, you won't find a good definition of assault weapon because it's legal bull shit created by the people making the ban.
So, essentially, it's a ban on cosmetic features. There was, however, a ban on magazines above ten rounds capacity. It expired and little to no effect occurred.
edited 20th Jan '13 3:31:13 PM by Deboss
Fight smart, not fair.There's a lot of different ways you can define weapons, but the people who ban the cosmetic features are obviously not going to give good advice. The best way to do it would be to look at the conceal-ability of the weapon.
We can use the ones listed by the FBI: handguns, shotguns, and rifles.
Fight smart, not fair.The argument is whether the types guns themselves are worth regulating (they are already regulated), as opposed to the types of people who are allowed access.
Everyone is for better vetting of buyers, eliminating the mentally disturbed and criminals. Better mental healthcare and better background checks. Is that enough? The answer on one side is no, the other side says yes.
edited 20th Jan '13 3:36:23 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Deboss: If anything the link you posted explains fairly adequately why we need harsher controls on all guns. Around 3/4 of all murders were committed with firearms. That is a truly appalling statistic.
It is actually making me contemplate a total ban. I mean compare the number of firearm murders to knife murders. The difference is shocking. Would all of those murders have been prevented without guns? Probably not but a lot of them probably would have. Japan and Britain certainly don't have this problem and they also consumed violent media fairly often.
edit: Okay a total ban is too extreme. Perhaps a ban on handguns would be effective. Rifles can be used to guard your home and hunt but you can't easily sneak them into a public spot.
edited 20th Jan '13 3:47:06 PM by Kostya
Senate Democrats promise to pass a budget this year.
All I want out of this is an end to the Gun Show Loophole and Universal Background checks for all guns. That is it. I don't care for all the other stuff being suggested. Is that so wrong?
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016That's the only regulation that'll have any serious effect.
Honestly, if we really wanted to stop shootings like Sandy Hook we'd censor the media so nobody could report on a school shooting. But short of that, school shootings will continue. Even if you strip every American of his or her guns, they'll continue with bombs.
They're the price we pay for having a massive country filled with powerless people, all living in a culture that glorifies fame.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.I'm thoroughly convinced that gun control's effectiveness depends largely on a nation's culture.
Japan cracked down on guns and it saw a large drop in firearm-related homicides.
Jamaica cracked down on guns and its murder rate has soared to become one of the highest in the world,
If Chicago and Washington D.C. are any indications, its that banning guns probably isn't the way to go for America.
Rick Santorum: Obama doesn't want immigration reform
edited 20th Jan '13 4:14:40 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Yeah, banning guns outright won't work in America. Remember that Japan banned guns literally from the very beginning—back when Europeans first arrived with muskets. So it wasn't too hard for them to say "You know what? Too many shootings. They're all gone."
America is pretty much the exact opposite.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.I'm up for a allowing media black outs on school shootings. Shootings are better than bombings anyway.
You are aware that AR 15 and AK derivatives are rifles, are you not? Which is, you know, what any "assault weapon bans" would cover.
The ban would have to be effective to begin with. Most gun bans in the US have seen effectiveness in the same sense as digital piracy bans. Only the law abiding and "meh" gun users will turn over their guns , everyone else hides them.
Considering the number of knife murders to the number of gun murders is an interesting idea since knives are much harder to kill someone with, we've got more usage of them to make up for it. Or the profound misunderstanding that knives aren't dangerous and that you can outfight someone with a knife.
It would also be much safer if the leading cause of death wasn't "other arguments" or arguments in general.
But, I'm willing to allow handgun access to anyone that passes a CCW license procedure (provided said procedure is reasonable). No sense in giving up the gains from personal weapons
.
Can you think of one that would work and be something that people are willing to implement?
edited 20th Jan '13 4:28:06 PM by Deboss
Fight smart, not fair.
Yes. I'm saying you ban hand guns but let those stay legal. That way people can still hunt and defend their home. The crazies that think they can take on the government can also be happy since they are allowed to have a weapon that's a lot more effective against the military. Unless it isn't. I'm not an expert.
For the ban to be effective we'd have to remove the guns already in circulation. That is probably the biggest stumbling block since that's actually doing what the conservatives say we will even if we're doing it for different reasons.
I'm not saying knives aren't dangerous but if I'm up against someone that wants to kill me I'd prefer them having a knife than a gun. If I can outrun them then they can't just shoot me and I could probably get it away from them before they hurt me easier than if it was a gun. That isn't to say it's not dangerous but it would probably be less dangerous than a gun.
No I can't think of one that would work without giving the crazies an actual reason to flip out which is why I'm not sure if I'm in full support of such a measure.

Senator Schumer (D-NY): NRA ‘just dumb’ to oppose any restrictions on guns
Senator Cruz (R-TX): Gun show loophole ‘doesn’t exist’
Senator John Barrasso (R-WY): Gun Control Bills Won’t Pass In Congress, Reid Won’t Bring Vote
Senator Warren (D-MA) Sponsors Three Gun Control Bills
Newt Gingrich: Let’s Hold Gun-Control Hearings in Chicago
The Vatican gives its blessing to Obama's gun control proposal
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016