• 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!

ban the fucking guns

http://freebeacon.com/issues/gun-store-sold-30000-ar15s-orlando-massacre/

Hunter’s Warehouse sold 30,000 AR-15’s in the five days following the terrorist attack. The online shop offers between 300,000 to 400,000 weapons.

“Shootings don’t push up gun sales. It’s when the government starts talking about banning particular guns and up go gun sales,” the shop’s owner Tom Engle told Fox Business. “When people lose their right to buy a particular gun or a particular type of gun, they go after them and they want them then.”
Click to expand...

No easier profit than buying stock in gun companies when a shooting occurs.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I think I've made it pretty clear on here that I see no positives for guns in society at all. I don't think we need them, and I sure as hell don't trust the average joe to go out and bear the responsibility that comes with being a gun owner.
Click to expand...

A position like this can make it difficult to see the other side of the argument. Just because you don't think society "needs" them, can you understand the position of others that feel differently?
 
scooter84 said:
A position like this can make it difficult to see the other side of the argument. Just because you don't think society "needs" them, can you understand the position of others that feel differently?
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

It's not that I'm being intentionally obtuse. I just don't understand how any rational person can look at the current climate with guns and say "we need more of them to fix it". It flies in the face of the way we would address almost any other problem.

I get the "well the bad guys will have guns and the good guys won't," argument, but how do you explain the precipitously lower death rates by guns in countries that have instituted stiffer penalties/bans on guns? Of course it will take time to get to that point, especially if we were to do "buy-back" plans and other things to get guns off the streets, but it's much, much better than doing nothing and just waiting for the next mass shooting to take place.

This is especially infuriating because America is the only place on planet earth with rates of gun violence that are this high. You can argue causation or correlation, but I think the former is the most rational thought, clearly there are people that disagree with me on this.

The bottom line is---I understand that we will never have a ban on guns. It's woven into the fabric of our society, and it is apparently a big part of who people are that are carrying. That's why I'm not suggesting a removal of guns or ban on all guns. I merely think taking baby steps---like removing the ban on research about gun violence (absolutely absurd), or limiting magazine capacity, or removing assault/semi-auto/auto weapons from the market, or at the very least make them much easier to obtain, especially for those with a history of a violent past or mental illness.

None of these steps are being taken. We are just being obstinate and waiting for the next one to happen. Then we will send thoughts and prayers, refuse to pass meaningful legislation, argue about it on message boards, and repeat the entire cycle without doing a damn thing about the problem at all.

Finally---the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was originally written to protect against an oppressive or tyrannical government. I understand that the interpretation has changed on that with some SCOTUS decisions, but if we take it at it's real purpose, it's just obsolete. There are no amount of guns that will protect anybody from the government if they really want you dead or to eliminate thousands of people from America. It will do absolutely nothing if rogue, independent fighters are going up against the US Military.
 
Last edited:
http://onion.com/28LT4lQ

“I feel like there’s absolutely nothing we can do to stop these killings from happening over and over except for all the first things you’d think of,” said San Jose, CA resident Megan Ortiz, echoing the sentiments of tens of millions of her fellow citizens who were uncertain how to prevent such tragedies from happening again in the future aside from the most basic, common-sense solutions that immediately come to mind whenever a mass shooting occurs.
Click to expand...
 
scooter84 said:
A position like this can make it difficult to see the other side of the argument. Just because you don't think society "needs" them, can you understand the position of others that feel differently?
Click to expand...

The family of the person who invented the AR-15 said his father created it as MILITARY hardware and not for the general public.

Read the link from earlier. I believe the word they used to describe what he would think about a regular person owning one is "horrified".
 
MysteryMen said:
Right, which maybe plays well with some people. Not with me though. This isn't a fucking game, people are dying
Click to expand...

That's the crazy part - the US public overwhelming supports background checks and no-fly list bans.

Congress is being held hostage by one organization.
 
I think a ban on recreational handguns and large magazine rifles would be effective. Hunting and sport shooting would still be legal with yearly registration and magazine limits. Handguns would be limited to employment or a demonstrated need for personal protection

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
While I'm all for reducing the number and types of guns out there, I hate the idea of "demonstrated need" for keeping a gun inside your own house.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
While I'm all for reducing the number and types of guns out there, I hate the idea of "demonstrated need" for keeping a gun inside your own house.
Click to expand...
I mean I'm just spit balling, I'd rather that no one own a handgun, but I recognize that some people need them for personal protection, and there should be an accessable, easily affordable process for those people

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
I also believe there should be nationwide gun buy backs and blind turn-ins, along with harsh and punitive criminal penalties for people caught with unregistered weapons.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I mean I'm just spit balling, I'd rather that no one own a handgun, but I recognize that some people need them for personal protection, and there should be an accessable, easily affordable process for those people

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

no they don't
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Yes and no.

It's not that I'm being intentionally obtuse. I just don't understand how any rational person can look at the current climate with guns and say "we need more of them to fix it". It flies in the face of the way we would address almost any other problem.

I get the "well the bad guys will have guns and the good guys won't," argument, but how do you explain the precipitously lower death rates by guns in countries that have instituted stiffer penalties/bans on guns? Of course it will take time to get to that point, especially if we were to do "buy-back" plans and other things to get guns off the streets, but it's much, much better than doing nothing and just waiting for the next mass shooting to take place.

This is especially infuriating because America is the only place on planet earth with rates of gun violence that are this high. You can argue causation or correlation, but I think the former is the most rational thought, clearly there are people that disagree with me on this.

The bottom line is---I understand that we will never have a ban on guns. It's woven into the fabric of our society, and it is apparently a big part of who people are that are carrying. That's why I'm not suggesting a removal of guns or ban on all guns. I merely think taking baby steps---like removing the ban on research about gun violence (absolutely absurd), or limiting magazine capacity, or removing assault/semi-auto/auto weapons from the market, or at the very least make them much easier to obtain, especially for those with a history of a violent past or mental illness.

None of these steps are being taken. We are just being obstinate and waiting for the next one to happen. Then we will send thoughts and prayers, refuse to pass meaningful legislation, argue about it on message boards, and repeat the entire cycle without doing a damn thing about the problem at all.

Finally---the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was originally written to protect against an oppressive or tyrannical government. I understand that the interpretation has changed on that with some SCOTUS decisions, but if we take it at it's real purpose, it's just obsolete. There are no amount of guns that will protect anybody from the government if they really want you dead or to eliminate thousands of people from America. It will do absolutely nothing if rogue, independent fighters are going up against the US Military.
Click to expand...

Good read, but I take issue with a couple of points.

Granted that there is less gun violence in countries where guns are illegal. Is there less overall violence or just less gun violence? If only the latter, then not much is accomplished while removing a constitutional right. I imagine there might be less overall violence, but that is an important point.

I agree that the original guarantee of the 2nd amendment was designed to protect against government tyranny. I disagree that part is obsolete. It would take certain exact and unlikely circumstances, but if the government so overstepped their powers that the vast majority of citizens wanted to revolt, then an armed citizenry could be successful. While this scenario is extremely unlikely, there is an argument that having an armed citizenry is a preventative against government tyranny.

We agree that there are many things we can do, but there are valid arguments against a gun ban.
 
Milhouse said:
no they don't
Click to expand...

True that. The police can conduct an investigation and apprehend those responsible for any violence committed against those po' folks. They don't need to provide for there own defense. That's why we pay taxes.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
That's the crazy part - the US public overwhelming supports background checks and no-fly list bans.

Congress is being held hostage by one organization.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct on background checks. On the no-fly list, people that know how that really works are concerned about the due process issues.
 
knowell said:
Good read, but I take issue with a couple of points.

Granted that there is less gun violence in countries where guns are illegal. Is there less overall violence or just less gun violence? If only the latter, then not much is accomplished while removing a constitutional right. I imagine there might be less overall violence, but that is an important point.

I agree that the original guarantee of the 2nd amendment was designed to protect against government tyranny. I disagree that part is obsolete. It would take certain exact and unlikely circumstances, but if the government so overstepped their powers that the vast majority of citizens wanted to revolt, then an armed citizenry could be successful. While this scenario is extremely unlikely, there is an argument that having an armed citizenry is a preventative against government tyranny.

We agree that there are many things we can do, but there are valid arguments against a gun ban.
Click to expand...

Image1466546749.955724.jpg
 
I see this argument often, where gun advocates consider all types of violence as equal. That is an illogical way of thinking because gun violence is much more deadly than most any other type. Of course a gun ban won't end criminal violence, but it will certainly save a LOT of lives.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top