Firearms

[Rehab]

Ah, danke for the gentle correction.

[Brendor]

While true, there's a small difference. For example, a fork can be used as a weapon, but a gun is a weapon. It has no other use, whereas a fork's primary function is a tool for cooking and eating. A gun's primary function is to shoot things, living or nonliving.

Outlawing guns and reforming gun laws are two completely different things. I'm for the latter, but my solutions include not allowing normal citizens to purchase assault rifles. (I mean really? You're just ASKING for trouble with a name like that.)

Wrong! As I said previously, firearms are sporting equipment. I could bash in someone's skull with a baseball bat so we should outlaw bats and destroy the entire game of baseball right? Think sir, think.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Brendor the Brave

[Rehab]

You'd have a hard time topping Holmes' high score of 70 casualties with just a baseball bat, though.

[Brendor]

You'd have a hard time topping Holmes' high score of 70 casualties with just a baseball bat, though.

It's a hypothetical example to prove a point. You hurt the law-abiding users of the "weapon" when you outlaw it.

[Rehab]

Yes, well, I'm sorry about that, but I don't think it's worth letting people take the things home with them, because outside of a shooting range I can't imagine what you'd use an assault rifle for, if not "assault." Come to think of it, I don't have a problem with assault rifle target practice, or assault rifle competitions as sport, that actually sounds like it could be kind of sick, given the right format. (Er, the good kind of sick.) But I'd prefer the weapons stay at a gun club or something, given the chance that somebody with the capability to do what Holmes did managed to pick one up from a state with lax requirements, assuming ownership is legal.

At the very least, really really thorough procedures on who gets to own an assault rifle seem like the bare minimum of responsibility to me. The owner of the place that sold Holmes the rifle made it clear that despite a technically clean record, he wigged the owner out enough that Holmes wouldn't have been able to get into a half-decent club.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Rehab

[Brendor]

they do stay at the range. I already said automatic weapons aren't legal for sale or transference. outside of the range, civilian owned firearms ideally should either be used for hunting or home defense. that' when the responsibility falls onto the buyer.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Brendor the Brave

[Rehab]

Then there's obviously a disconnect here. Holmes was able to acquire a weapon capable of a disproportionate amount damage in a short time, as a civilian, and acted about as irresponsible as he possibly could've acted with it. If it hadn't jammed, it would've easily been even more horrific than it already was with 30 out of 100 rounds in that clip fired. I mean, fuck, dude, 100 bullets! No reloading necessary! That's legal, apparently! Holy shit, usually not even video games give me that much! I'm overdoing the exclamation points, but people don't need that many! Seriously!

Again, keeping automatics at the range and thoroughly screening prospective buyers seems like it should be the bare minimum effort to me. I still do not understand what anybody would take that home and use it to do, that they couldn't just use a less overkill gun for.

If not the weapons themselves, then at least the magazines should be treated with some scrutiny. Seriously, 33 rounds on a pistol? 100 rounds on an assault rifle? Even if you were justifiably defending yourself from somebody using a weapon like that, would you really need an equivalent weapon just to take down that one dude?

Edited August 26, 2012 by Rehab

[Brendor]

fully automatic weapons are illegal for civilians. Period. Maybe he was using a semi-automatic?

I do see what you're saying but the fact is most of the really heavy duty stuff does stay at the range and the wholesome gunowners only need say a pump action 12gauge shotgun for their home and/or to go hunting. I agree with you on the lighter magazines though that's actually a pretty good idea. only problem is the criminal murderers don't worry about the laws so even if these things are/do get outlawed, they'll find a way to get them anyway.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Brendor the Brave

[Zanarkin]

only problem is the criminal murderers don't worry about the laws so even if these things are/do get outlawed, they'll find a way to get them anyway.

It does stop mentally unstable people from getting these weapons and also cuts the choices that people have when they are enraged by something.

[Brendor]

It does stop mentally unstable people from getting these weapons and also cuts the choices that people have when they are enraged by something.

that's why I said "criminals" young man. As in people with malicious intent to harm others and/or commit crimes.

[Rehab]

Yeah, he was using a semi-automatic. I was actually surprised he did that much damage without an automatic, myself.

At least we have some common ground. I can agree it'd kinda be a fact of reality that as long as there's a gun being manufactured in the world that people want, maybe also as long as it just plain exists for all I know, at least a few people are going to be wily enough to get it. The situation right now, though, being somebody can just pick up (at least in parts of the U.S.) a weapon basically made for warfare, even if the person selling it to them thinks they're creepy as hell, that just seems so

Despite not knowing off the top of my head whether an outright ban on automatic or semi-automatic weapons or heavy-duty magazines would provably and substantially damage gun violence, I'm at a doubtful starting position that it wouldn't do anything, and I haven't seen a convincing reason to keep something capable of killing or injuring over 10 people without reloading easily accessible by civilians.

Man, at least making them illegal would take the "and this dude got a military-grade weapon legally how??" spat off the table the next time somebody goes nuts.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Rehab

[Brendor]

he probably had some prior knowledge or training.

it'd be like Prohibition #2. Shit would just hit the fan. You can't blame the guy who sold it. If Holmes had a clean record then that's technically all you need and the guy was just doing his job abiding by the laws.

Like I've been saying, in reality, all you really need is a simple shotgun doesn't even have to be semi-automatic. But these legitimate big game hunters need heavy firepower so it's readily available if you meet the criteria and people take advantage as always

[Esau of Isaac]

Problem: An average knife is generally not made to kill or injure a lot of people really fast.

Guns are generally not made for murder, either, but the opposing team here seems to be under the influence that if it's one, it can't be the other.

It really doesn't matter how multi-faceted the item is. You don't need a reason not to ban something.

You're going to have a tough time telling me an assault rifle and other automatic weapons aren't. The average pistol is IMO a grey area, because it has the potential to kill a lot of people quickly with a skilled or lucky user, but I would assume given its smaller magazine size that it's more commonly used to completely stop (so to speak) or injure a few people, rather than a dozen, in a single clip. A pistol with a magazine holding 33 rounds obviously circumvents that, and is IMO worthy of attention/scrutiny.

They can both be incredibly dangerous, in different ways. The average pistol is a concealable weapon, and thus easy to carry around on a person without others knowing. The assault rifle can harm more people in a given area, but you don't need skill to harm a lot of people in a crowded area with a handgun, either. In said killer's hands they're both going to cause wanton destruction so it's a meaningless distinction. And, hell, go ahead and ban guns, and what then? Well, still a lot of dead people. Hell, they killed four times more people than the person that shot up my school years ago, and he had a gun himself.

Yes, well, I'm sorry about that, but I don't think it's worth letting people take the things home with them, because outside of a shooting range I can't imagine what you'd use an assault rifle for, if not "assault."

Outside of the range I can't imagine what you'd use a bow and arrow for other than feathering people. Should we ban bows and arrows?

Edited August 26, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Zanarkin]

that's why I said "criminals" young man. As in people with malicious intent to harm others and/or commit crimes.

Yes but you kinda made it sound outlawing things would make it useless. Which isn't totally true.

[Brendor]

I think outlawing firearms would do more harm than good

[Zanarkin]

I think outlawing firearms would do more harm than good

I don't particularly see how. At the very least it takes away one of the things dumbasses can use to hurt themselves or others. Sure knifes are there and stuff. But it sure as hell is easier to run away from a knife than a gun.

[Brendor]

well it takes away basic fundamental freedoms and affects the lawful owners more than the criminals

[1st Mate Bob]

Wrong! As I said previously, firearms are sporting equipment. I could bash in someone's skull with a baseball bat so we should outlaw bats and destroy the entire game of baseball right? Think sir, think.

No, sorry. Guns are weapons. The ancestor to modern day firearms were invented in China in the 12th century and their purpose was for war. (ie: being used as a weapon). Nowadays they can(and are) used for sport, but that doesn't change the fact that they are weapons. I'm just saying that your comment of "a weapon is only a weapon if you make it one" is inaccurate (specifically the "only" part).

And please, don't try and imply I'm not thinking my arguments through or don't have logical reasons for having my opinions. It's belittling and rude.

It's a hypothetical example to prove a point. You hurt the law-abiding users of the "weapon" when you outlaw it.

well it takes away basic fundamental freedoms and affects the lawful owners more than the criminals

Which is why reforming gun laws would be a much better solution than outlawing them. Perhaps change the way the license screening works. Or don't allow someone to buy as many guns as they want in a short window of time.

The problem with this at the moment, though, is that a lot of gun laws vary from state to state.

[Esau of Isaac]

No, sorry. Guns are weapons. The ancestor to modern day firearms were invented in China in the 12th century and their purpose was for war.

So are fireworks weapons?

Though I think it's silly to disagree with the statement that guns are weapons, his point is that people can solely buy them for use recreationally rather than for fighting. Which is true.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Brendor]

in what way is my statement inaccurate? an inanimate object is incapable of harming or killing a person, a person has to use the object in an irresponsible or malicious manner for it to actually do harm. an object can be used properly or improperly for different results, it all depends on the person using the object.

sorry I didn't mean to sound rude, hearing a firearm referred to as a weapon is just a pet peeve of mine.

[Raven]

Yes, if only we lived in glorious Scotland where no one is ever mentally unbalanced and murders people, because people have no access to guns.

No need to put words into my mouth. I simply stated that news of gun crime in the US doesn't surprise me any more. Key word: Gun.

[Phoenix Wright]

Everything with given mass makes someone more dangerous in terms of pure ability to cause harm.

When do we stop banning things from people, and start admitting that it's crazy people that are wrong and not guns?

Yes, but not everything can be quite as destructive so quickly. Holmes would have had a much harder time killing 14 and injuring 50 with a fork, or a paper towel. This issue, I think, is best solved looking at individual weapons in a case-by-case basis. You'll generally find that assault rifles have the largest potential for destruction (aside from firepower stronger than that still, like bombs, mines, et cetera).

I understand the handgun (I don't understand why some people want to conceal their weapon). Hell, I even get the shotgun! But there is simply no use for an assault rifle to be in any civilian's hands. Collector? OK, fine, maybe. Other than that, I think those weapons should be kept at the range.

And I'd agree with you to an extent--it really is only insane people that follow through with these shootings, but why make them more dangerous by allowing them to handle assault weapons?

I suppose the counter-argument to this is that those willing to kill innocents will probably try to get their hands on assault rifles anyway, but to that I'd argue that even if that were the case, certainly some wouldn't want to go through the hassle. So it'd prevent something.

We can't, and shouldn't, try to stop people from acquiring most guns, but to me, assault rifles serve absolutely no purpose and should be banned from the public.

You're going to have a tough time conveying that assault rifles are built only to murder but pistols aren't.

Assault rifles are built for usage by the military. My word choice was poor, I'll admit, but it's generally regarded that these weapons are meant to 'defend.' If you were to intend for the person to live, it's probably smarter to go with the conventional handgun anyway.

[Aere]

If somebody really wants to go on a killing spree, why would the legality of their weapon matter? It's not extremely difficult to get contraband stuff. Take marijuana, for example. It would even eliminate the pseudo-safety of a license/psychological evaluation.

[Zanarkin]

If somebody really wants to go on a killing spree, why would the legality of their weapon matter? It's not extremely difficult to get contraband stuff. Take marijuana, for example. It would even eliminate the pseudo-safety of a license/psychological evaluation.

Because it would make them less accessible and if someone wanted to go on a killing spree they would need more money with illegal weapons than a legal one.

[Aere]

Because it would make them less accessible and if someone wanted to go on a killing spree they would need more money with illegal weapons than a legal one.

I think it would make guns more accessible, tbh. I dunno about the cost, are guns taxed?

I'm not sure if I'd be able to compare guns to weed, so I'm gonna wait here.