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
RE: Weapons other than guns
Yes you can kill people with a different weapon. But it's a lot harder. If that creep in Orlando had been using a knife, or even an axe, he wouldn't have been able to kill 50+ people and he'd have been taken out by the police a lot faster.
I'm not saying that taking away everyone's guns is feasible. It isn't. But saying "they'll just buy another weapon" is facetious. Yes, they will of course buy another weapon. But they won't be able to do as much damage with it.
I remember a case in China a few years back. Guy walked into a mall and attacked twenty people. All of them survived. Because his weapon of choice was a knife.
The countryside never has any wild animals? Are you serious?
Yes, it has legit uses outside of killing people. And why should the army not have a legit weapon that's needed to fight another army? I am not some fan of guns, but come on.
Why can't the cops have a gun as a backup so they don't need to get right next to a knife wielder? They don't need to even fire, but may have to before someone gets hurt.
And fyi, a knife wielder is still a weapon user that will hurt innocents. The problem is the person, not the weapon in itself. Reducing the number of casualties should be because we're able to stop the person before they can do any damage, not because their weapon choice is weaker. They will get weapons. The type of weapon is beyond irrelevant when they're still murderers or wanting to kill. You make it sound like the number of killings really matter when the fact is, they still will kill. We need to stop them first.
There's a reason I suggest mental tests. And that's because they actually work well in making sure they can keep an eye on the person. If they're heavily violent, it's quite easy to make sure the authorities are on a lookout for them. Background checks can help. They sometimes do jack. But not always. So give other ways to make sure. I don't see how extreme measures will fix this problem when there's far more to it than "guns shouldn't exist, even legit usages that don't involve killing humans".
Shadow?@hunting: How on earth does someone's choice to go out and hunt an animal trump a human being's right to safety? Why should minorities and children have to fear being murdered just because some people want to go and shoot a deer?
And when did I say we need to strip the army and police of weapons? Don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that the average citizen has no real need for a gun.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:21:03 PM by smokeycut
@Ambar: The point is, banning guns won't stop the violence in itself. That's the actual problem. And the only problem here. We need to make sure the person is unable to get the weapon. That's only doable by finding a way to properly evaluate their ability to be violent, not remove a weapon.
It's hardly ridiculous in this case. Reducing the casualties isn't enough here. The goal is to stop the violent acts. You can't do that by making guns worthless. Yes, they can do less damage. But they will do damage. And since a cop can't simply shoot them to prevent more casualties, as they have to get up close and personal, they're now at a greater risk. It goes both ways at this point. What we need to do is keep the guns away from the crazies, nothing more.
What do you honestly think making all guns unusable will do, Smokeycut? Seriously. It'll strip everyone's use of a gun. Come on, that's the argument you made. It's clear it affects everyone. I apologize for strawmanning you, but it's very obvious that your suggestion will lead to it. What else will we think? We're outright telling you that making guns unusable as a whole(you did not suggest to only do so to citizens, but if you did and I missed it, please point out the post). And I'm not going to seriously response to that very hyperbolic argument.
You don't want to have that fear? Find a way to keep the guns out of the crazy person's hands. Or better, make it so they won't be carrying a weapon, period. They're going to be crazy no matter what. Preventing them from carrying a weapon should always be the goal. The weapon is just a tool. No more, no less. The tools are never the real cause or the real problem in violent acts. All it does is at best give us an indication of how long they'll be in prison for and just the details of the crime at best.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:27:48 PM by Irene
Shadow?As an aside, some people's complaints about Sanders is that he is trying to push things to the left too fast and that Clinton is a better choice because she'll follow a more gradual push to the left that will allow it to cement itself better. Couldn't the same be said for gun control? Push sensible regulations on guns and continue doing that... Eventually, there would be enough actual political will in the United States to truly ban guns.
Wizard Needs Food Badly![]()
![]()
...I don't think anyone implied that. They were just refuting your assertion that owning a gun has no other purpose besides killing people, by giving you other purposes.
Edit: Not that it makes a difference, these mass shootings and things don't typically happen in areas where hunting your own food or protecting your livestock is a necessity.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:26:07 PM by LSBK
I would argue that police shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons that civilians aren't-they're civilians. But smokey probably wouldn't agree.
Personally, I think we need to find ways to make police responses quicker, but I'm not sure how to do that (swarms of police drones?). Mind you, we do still need laws involving how guns are sold, though I don't think that in this case it would have helped much. They probably would have used explosives or something of that nature instead.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:26:55 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Really? "We can't stop every murder, so lets make it easier for them to happen?" That's ridiculous. Had that bigot been equipped with only a knife, the death toll today would have been 1, maybe 3, instead of over 50. If he didn't have access to guns, roughly 50 people would still be alive. That's good enough for me.
@Irene
So your argument is that until we can magically have a society in which we automatically catch people before they kill, we shouldn't even bother trying to mitigate the damage? Jesus.
I mean maybe you don't mean to. But what you've just said is that when attacks like these happen it doesn't matter to you if it's five people who die or fifty, because reducing the number of victims is just totally irrelevant. I'm honestly not sure what to say to that. I'm not sure there's anything that can be said to that.
Most guns rights advocates try to claim that guns save lives or some such, or that more guns will mean fewer deaths. I disagree with them, but at least I get why they think they're right. You just admitted that killers armed with knives would be able to hurt fewer people than killers armed with guns...and then said that doesn't matter to you. That all body counts are what, equal in the name of the Second Amendment?
As to the hunting and self-defense arguments...if you need an AR-15 to hunt, I've got to ask what are you hunting, zombies? And if you need one for home defense than I can only ponder what street gang you've picked a fight with that that has become necessary.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:32:46 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
There is no realistic version of this story where the bigot wields a knife. Period.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:35:48 PM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative UsernameGuns do save lives. Buuut, when they do it doesn't make the news, for the same reason we have Smoking Gun Control-the crime doesn't get committed and most of the time, no shots are fired.
Leviticus 19:34Quick-ish perusial for statistics:
Alaska is the most extreme case. "Subsistence fishing and hunting provide a large share of the food consumed in rural Alaska. The state's rural residents harvest about 18,000 tons of wild foods each year - an average of 295 pounds per person. Fish makes up about 56 percent of this harvest statewide. Nowhere else in the United States is there such a heavy reliance upon wild foods." — Department of the Interior - Federal subsistance management program
. A at least some includes traditional hunting carried out by Native American tribes.
This site
doesn't cite its sources and is obviously arguing the pro-hunting side but it does emphasize that many rural people living below the poverty line do depend on subsistence hunting.
@LBSK - It only matters because he's arguing for a blanket ban on all guns everywhere.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:36:57 PM by Elle
@Protagonist
I'm not even debating that at this point. At this point I am solely focused on the assertion that if we could replace every mass murderer's gun with a knife or some less harmful weapon it shouldn't be done because who cares about reducing bodycounts. My attention is entirely got by that. You wanna talk about whether guns save lives you'll have to get back to me later.
All of which is great. None of which you need an AR-15 to do.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:37:04 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
The body count doesn't matter because it's above 0. That's my argument entirely.
The person is the problem, not the tool. Yes, I can agree with getting rid of a type of gun, like an assault rifle. But that won't solve the inherent issue that the person easily got the gun. Tell me, why wouldn't mental tests be good enough. I've repeated that many times and it's been ignored. Is this solution not feasible? If we can tell they're too crazy, we can keep the authorities well informed of this kind of problem. This'll prevent tons more deaths than removing weapons from every possible citizen(and cops don't necessarily count as citizens. They're trained to use a weapon to defend, but also use it responsibly. They're given the privilege of that to protect others. That's the reason for it. And they need to range to take down madmen, so no other weapon but a gun is effective. If they can stop them without killing or shooting them, that's even better, but a warning shot is the only way to do that, which requires a loaded gun). And I'm aware you're not talking about cops, Smokeycut. But that's protagonist's argument now, so I'm responding to that.
Shadow?Having 1 person die is better than having 10 people die because the remaining 9 people have the chance to live out their lives.
Non Indicative Username![]()
![]()
Mental tests are great. They aren't always enough. Not to mention that, of course, someone can buy a gun when they're stable, and subsequently lose it. Which is why I think certain kinds of guns—such as the one that was used in this shooting—should not be on the market, period. When someone loses their mind and decides they want to kill people, I want their weapons selection to be as limited as is humanly possible.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:41:29 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Having 0 people die is frankly the only legitimate point to me. Reduce the kill count to 0, and then we're good. That's the real goal. It'll take a while, but if we don't work towards that, then it's still innocent lives lost, which is unacceptable to me entirely.
You're not getting rid of every weapon no matter what. It's the most effective weapon against human lives that should be gone instead. I'm fine with banning Assault Rifles because they blatantly have a huge amount of bullets that can fire at a huge rate. A single handgun isn't worth banning because it is far easier to stop the person.
While I may have an extreme opinion on what constitutes as an acceptable death count(0 is the only one I accept as good enough), it doesn't mean I agree with all weapons being available either.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:43:58 PM by Irene
Shadow?Not to mention relatively sane (not perfectly sane because no one is) people are capable of murder.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:44:39 PM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative UsernameIrene that's a classic case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.Fine, I'll address the point of mental examinations and why they won't solve anything.
I could, if I wanted to, go out and get a permit to own a gun. I would pass all the mental health checks and background checks. Then, I could walk into my little sister's school and shoot every last one of her classmates. That is something any sane person could do, should they feel like it. In fact, they have.
Add in the fact that the mentally ill have been consistently proven to be more likely the victims of violent crimes than perpetrators, and those mental health checks are targeting the wrong group of people.
I'm not touching the "these guns are worse than others" minefield other than to say that at some point, any distinction you make is going to be at least somewhat arbitrary.
I do generally think that properly-enforced licencing and properly-enforced rules against at-risk people being issued them (even if that wouldn't have prevented anything in this case) are ok.
(Also, I do not own nor am licenced to own a gun, but if I had the means to get into it, I am interested in hunting.)
edited 12th Jun '16 10:45:45 PM by Elle

You say it's bull, but you (nor I) don't live in places like, to pull a couple randomly, Alaska, or a ranch in Wyoming.
Hell, I'm in STNY, go an hour south of you and you'll find hunting culture is still strong...maybe less of a need, but if money's tight and the ability to hunt is the difference between putting food on the table or not? There are places where that's reality.
(And people do use handguns for small game, sometimes.)
edited 12th Jun '16 10:14:32 PM by Elle