• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

he's tight with rulz just like you, didn't you know?
 
Apparently SkyDiving is going on a neg rep fest instead of trying to respond to legitimate points that people make.
 
Yeah, I'd be interested to see SkyDiving's service time in the military compared to yours.

Dude, you want to shoot some high powered guns? Go sign up.

That bolded part just shows me that you're not really paying attention to what I've said. I'm not here screaming about the U.S. Gov't taking our guns away or wanting to hoard 'high-powered guns.' I'm simply saying that it is lawful for someone to do that, and I think any responsible gun owner has that right. I also think that most people are irrational when it comes to their stance on certain things and get swept up in the emotion of the hour, so it's frustrating to see the lack of balance in both sides of the argument.

With that said, though, I'm also generally against the idea of gov't intervention in most things. It just adds inefficiency. That's simply my opinion, and nothing more, but it's been proven time and again that in this country, outlawing certain things (yes, including guns or magazines that hold 'X' amount of bullets) doesn't solve the problem. It seems that we have this uncanny ability to hit the bullseye on the wrong target (no pun intended) and some fresh thinking seems necessary. I don't know what the answer is, but I think a reasonable compromise is some kind of incentive. You specifically mentioned safes and insurance on cars as being somewhat similar and that's a good analogy. Just like with most auto insurance companies, though, if you are 'safe' for 'x' amount of years, you get a discount on your premiums. Could we do the same thing with guns? I mean, if the gov't wants to get involved (which they clearly feel a mandate to at this point) why not give tax credits to ammunition manufacturers that give discounts to people that have a certain type of safe or go to a yearly training session on gun safety led by local law enforcement?

Kind of a fleeting thought, but it's just an idea based on an incentive. A local buy-back program of some sort may also help, but I just don't see the point of enacting some new law that prohibits certain types of firearms or magazines. It will not work. If someone is crazy enough to want to go shoot a bunch of kids, I contend that that person could do just as much damage with a shotgun as they could with a high-powered rifle. So at some point, we'd also get into defining what is and isn't necessary with civilian weaponry which I think is a slippery slope as well as short-sighted.

Also, per IrishSlim's post...yeah, I'm not sure how I would feel if I had gone through what he went through. But again, he's entitled to his own opinion. My best friend did three tours in Irag and suffered from PTSD for two years and almost killed himself. He hates guns, and will probably never shoot one again and that is an honest-to-god story. However, comparing military service to someone who just wants every responsible gun owner to have the continued right to protect themselves or their loved ones doesn't make much sense.

And as with most things, that are heated, people just don't do a good job listening to the other side. So I'm sitting this one out. You guys feel free to continue debating over who is more right and who is more wrong, though. I'm sure it will solve something...
 
If someone is crazy enough to want to go shoot a bunch of kids, I contend that that person could do just as much damage with a shotgun as they could with a high-powered rifle.

That is fucking insane. And you really could not be more wrong.
 
That's definitely not a debate I want to think about too much.
 
Apparently SkyDiving is going on a neg rep fest instead of trying to respond to legitimate points that people make.

You're so sensitive. I said, "you're not making much sense" in my feedback.

I've also spread some positive rep. amongst people that I've disagreed with because I thought they made legitimate points (Ph, Dmceatw, etc...)
 
Neither elkman nor skydiving nor anyone else has come up with a legitimate reason for having 20,30 or 100 round capabilities. We know for a fact the shooter in Phoenix was stopped when he had to reload.

Skydiving, please give us a rational reason for having those devices.

P. S. Because you want one is not a rational reason.
 
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

"Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon."
 
That is fucking insane. And you really could not be more wrong.

Really, really? Wow. This just goes to show how silly you're being.

You didn't even read the point being made there, and yes, someone could honestly do just as much damage if it were in the same setting as Newtown. A morbid thought, no doubt, and not one I'd like to think about but saying I really couldn't be more wrong is exactly why there's no point in having this debate. You're picking out snippets of people's posts and then interpreting them in their singularity.

So, let's take an AR-15 in CT. To meet state laws, it can't have a magazine capacity of more than 10 + 1. You can walk into Walmart, tomorrow, no permit required no background check, no nothing and buy a Mossberg Tactical shotgun with a 5+1 capacity and a bandolier with 30 rounds on it and walk out. You're telling me that someone couldn't do just as much damage with that as they could an AR-15 in a school with a bunch of kids? Why do you think a shotgun like that is the number one choice for home defense or the lead weapon for SWAT teams? It's incredibly destructive. Have you ever shot an AR-15 or a shotgun or any gun for that matter, or do you just toss around the 'you're wrong' card at will?
 
Really, really? Wow. This just goes to show how silly you're being.

You didn't even read the point being made there, and yes, someone could honestly do just as much damage if it were in the same setting as Newtown. A morbid thought, no doubt, and not one I'd like to think about but saying I really couldn't be more wrong is exactly why there's no point in having this debate. You're picking out snippets of people's posts and then interpreting them in their singularity.

So, let's take an AR-15 in CT. To meet state laws, it can't have a magazine capacity of more than 10 + 1. You can walk into Walmart, tomorrow, no permit required no background check, no nothing and buy a Mossberg Tactical shotgun with a 5+1 capacity and a bandolier with 30 rounds on it and walk out. You're telling me that someone couldn't do just as much damage with that as they could an AR-15 in a school with a bunch of kids? Why do you think a shotgun like that is the number one choice for home defense or the lead weapon for SWAT teams? It's incredibly destructive. Have you ever shot an AR-15 or a shotgun or any gun for that matter, or do you just toss around the 'you're wrong' card at will?

Dude, a shotgun with a small capacity is not going to do nearly as much damage as a high capacity gun that can shoot very very quickly that you don't have to stop and reload. When there is more time in between shots, people can stop you. When shooters have to reload, there is more of a chance that somebody can tackle them or take them out. People can't take them out if you are spraying bullets at a very high rate without having to stop and reload. That's the whole point.
 
Neither elkman nor skydiving nor anyone else has come up with a legitimate reason for having 20,30 or 100 round capabilities. We know for a fact the shooter in Phoenix was stopped when he had to reload.

Skydiving, please give us a rational reason for having those devices.

P. S. Because you want one is not a rational reason.

I've said time and again, that I can't think of a rational reason for having a gun with a magazine capable of firing 20, 30 or 100 rounds. Wanting to have guns like that is not the point I'm making and never have made.

My contention is that responsible gun owners have the right to obtain legal firearms if they follow the rules. If they want to buy an assault weapon, I don't really have an issue with that. However, if you're trying to limit crime by outlawing XYZ model or magazine, the people that are going to commit those crimes are probably going to side-step those same regulations again and again or find another way.

For example, if you fail the two minute instant check for a weapon by a licensed dealer, that is supposed to be a felony. You know how many people failed it last year? Over 50,000 (according to the NPR special I reference previously). You know how many people actually got convicted of a felony? Less than 50. Is that not something that should be a red-flag more so than how many rounds a gun is capable of firing?
 
So, let's take an AR-15 in CT. To meet state laws, it can't have a magazine capacity of more than 10 + 1. You can walk into Walmart, tomorrow, no permit required no background check, no nothing and buy a Mossberg Tactical shotgun with a 5+1 capacity and a bandolier with 30 rounds on it and walk out. You're telling me that someone couldn't do just as much damage with that as they could an AR-15 in a school with a bunch of kids? Why do you think a shotgun like that is the number one choice for home defense or the lead weapon for SWAT teams? It's incredibly destructive. Have you ever shot an AR-15 or a shotgun or any gun for that matter, or do you just toss around the 'you're wrong' card at will?

I get the gist of your argument, but I don't agree with it at all. Reloading a shotgun with 5+1 rounds takes quite some time. Adam Lanza fired 150 rounds. There is a reason he left his shotgun in the car.
 
I've said time and again, that I can't think of a rational reason for having a gun with a magazine capable of firing 20, 30 or 100 rounds. Wanting to have guns like that is not the point I'm making and never have made.

My contention is that responsible gun owners have the right to obtain legal firearms if they follow the rules. If they want to buy an assault weapon, I don't really have an issue with that. However, if you're trying to limit crime by outlawing XYZ model or magazine, the people that are going to commit those crimes are probably going to side-step those same regulations again and again or find another way.

For example, if you fail the two minute instant check for a weapon by a licensed dealer, that is supposed to be a felony. You know how many people failed it last year? Over 50,000 (according to the NPR special I reference previously). You know how many people actually got convicted of a felony? Less than 50. Is that not something that should be a red-flag more so than how many rounds a gun is capable of firing?

You still haven't come up with a single reason not make a law banning the future sales of those devices and possession of them a felony.

As to charging those people who failed the background check voiding the reason for banning the magazines that's crazy talk.

Just because we don't catch every drink driver should we stop enforcing other laws? Your point is ludicrous.

There's also no reason whatsoever that every gun sale shouldn't require a background check and if you don't do it and your gun is used to commit a crime you should be liable.
 
I've said time and again, that I can't think of a rational reason for having a gun with a magazine capable of firing 20, 30 or 100 rounds. Wanting to have guns like that is not the point I'm making and never have made.

My contention is that responsible gun owners have the right to obtain legal firearms if they follow the rules. If they want to buy an assault weapon, I don't really have an issue with that. However, if you're trying to limit crime by outlawing XYZ model or magazine, the people that are going to commit those crimes are probably going to side-step those same regulations again and again or find another way.

For example, if you fail the two minute instant check for a weapon by a licensed dealer, that is supposed to be a felony. You know how many people failed it last year? Over 50,000 (according to the NPR special I reference previously). You know how many people actually got convicted of a felony? Less than 50. Is that not something that should be a red-flag more so than how many rounds a gun is capable of firing?

You're making it sound like these crazy people go out there and say "I want to kill exactly X number of people. How can I go about that?" This shit isn't planned like that. The crazy people are trying to create as much destruction as possible with the tools that they have. If you limit the tools that they can have, then you limit the destruction they can cause.

If Adam Lanza had to stop and reload every five shots, do you think he would have killed as many people?
 
Dude, a shotgun with a small capacity is not going to do nearly as much damage as a high capacity gun that can shoot very very quickly that you don't have to stop and reload. When there is more time in between shots, people can stop you. When shooters have to reload, there is more of a chance that somebody can tackle them or take them out. People can't take them out if you are spraying bullets at a very high rate without having to stop and reload. That's the whole point.

Yes, the little kids were going to tackle the crazy guy with a gun.

Small capacity? I would say that 12 shotgun shells is far from small capacity. And not to mention that there are bandoliers that can feed shotgun shells without the need for reloading.

Again, the point being, where do you draw the definition of what's reasonable and what's not reasonable? My Glock carries 15 + 1. I can reload it in less than three seconds. Is that now an assault weapon as well?

And had I made my shotgun statement with say a bow and arrow in its place, then I could understand your initial logic of 'no fucking way duuuude.' But again, have you ever shot an AR-15 or a shotgun, ever?

This is just too morbid for me, but clearly we disagree with the shotgun thing and that's fine. I just think leaving the gov't to say what is and isn't illegal won't solve anything without some kind of incentive. And maybe I'm wrong. But clearly, that same approach hasn't worked so far.

I'm done. Debate away
 
Clearly we disagree. I am of the opinion that we need to make it really, really hard for people to carry out mass murders of children. Your view seems to be "welp, they're gonna do it anyway. What can ya do?"
 
I have nothing to say about shotguns. You haven't given any rational reasons for either large magazines or not doing background checks on every sale.
 
Clearly we disagree. I am of the opinion that we need to make it really, really hard for people to carry out mass murders of children. Your view seems to be "welp, they're gonna do it anyway. What can ya do?"

Exactly. I love guns, I love loud noises and I love blowing shit up BUT I love kids more and I want to make it as hard as possible for anyone to carry out mass murder of kids.
 
Clearly we disagree. I am of the opinion that we need to make it really, really hard for people to carry out mass murders of children. Your view seems to be "welp, they're gonna do it anyway. What can ya do?"

I take offense to that statement. I really do. You think I think it's alright that a bunch of little kids were shot to death and that we shouldn't do anything about it?

I'll be the bigger person here and just ignore the sentiment there.

...

My view is that, the larger issue is the people getting the guns not the guns themselves. Look at my comment about the NICS approach. 50 people of about 50,000 were held accountable for not passing a background check. Clearly I have a huge problem with that and the loopholes at gun shows.

And again, my contention is that defining what is and isn't an assault weapon is the problem and is the wrong way of thinking. Look at VT in 2007. Cho used two handguns and killed, what, over 30 people? So are handguns now assault weapons?

Clearly, if there was a database/registry that showed that he (Cho, Lanza and most of the others) had continued problems with a recorded mental illness throughout his life, he wouldn't have ever been able to buy a gun. So again, let's go ahead and put a ban on XYZ weapon because, again, that's clearly worked so well before...
 
Just like elkman and other gun people who are way out of the mainstream in America, Skydiving won't come up with a reason why large magazines shouldn't be made illegal.

Because other crimes aren't prosecuted is not a reason.

Because criminals would likely still get them is not a legitimate reason.

We know for a fact lives were saved in Phoenix when the shooter had to reload.

Please answer this directly.
 
Back
Top