Banning guns = higher crime rate.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Jallen289, Jul 21, 2012.

  1. Jallen289

    Jallen289 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks lizard, lol. How are you still on this thread? I see you've still done no homework. Read Herodotus, words from Socrates, even Plato. Do some small fraction of research. I cannot bear to argue with someone who knows nothing of the subject.
     
  2. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please summarise. What was their contribution to the gun debate?
     
  3. lizarddust

    lizarddust Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,350
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What on Earth are you prattling on about? You still haven't answered my question, has it gone over your head?

    What Europeans aren't white? Are you referring to Greeks, Italians, Portugese, Spaniards?

    Now,, please stay on topic..
     
  4. Awryly

    Awryly New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    15,259
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah. Those Greeks were fanatical gun nuts.
     
  5. Awryly

    Awryly New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    15,259
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. woodystylez

    woodystylez Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,188
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As an Independent there is a middle. Don't take away handguns and their conceal and carry anywhere. Colorado had a "no guns in theaters" because of the state which the right preaches should always have the power. I would never take away the right of anyone to have a HANDGUN anywhere if they passed the right tests.

    Assault Rifles are where the law is drawn. The guns were made to kill people. Yay, the manufacturer made one of them that you can't fire fully auto but it still has the light weight and the high magazine discharge. I PERSONALLY don't believe we should ban Assault Rifles but as long as these crazy Republicans say that this gun isn't an Assault Rifle the Democrats WILL start pushing to ban everything because common sence was taken out of the equasion. This has happened in the past over and over.

    Healthcare. The Left wanted it as an option. The Right woulnd't have it because they designed it and mandated it first. The Left mandates it and, "OMG YOU ALL ARE CRAZY".

    The Right is out of control. I wanted to vote Right this year but they have completely lost touch with their base beliefs and have turned Anarchist. I hope they don't win because of "Guns and God" again this year just like the 8 years of Bush..........
     
  7. Awryly

    Awryly New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    15,259
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then live with the possibility that some crazed woman pushing a pram will shoot you.
     
  8. endfedthe

    endfedthe Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    awsome!!
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1968. If you are talking about the AWB, then there were other semi-auto rifles with exactly the same capabilities but were not banned because the ban is not about the rifle's capabilities but about cosmetics.
     
  10. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's make sure the next one focuses on capabilities.
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then you would have to ban all long guns because they can all kill. On top of that, the long guns that the gun grabbers want to ban account for a very small minority of gun violence. The effort is laden with emotion and not with rational thought.
     
  12. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't say ban anything that can kill, I said make sure the next ban is focused on capabilities.
    You were complaining that the last ban was more about cosmetics as opposed to capabilities,
    so I say just make sure the next stays focused on capabilities. Do you disagree that a ban should be focused on capabilities?
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think focusing on guns that have the capabilities that have been around for 100 years and used for hunting and sport shooting will do anything. The reason Congress had to focus on cosmetics is because there is no real difference between semi-automatic guns with the exception of using a magazine or a clip.

    One of the things that you should be aware of is that either the AR-15 or the AK will be used in crimes because they are the most popular long rifle in existence and the most in quantity. Before that other long guns were used like the Texas Tower shooter that used a bolt action rifle.

    Most gun crime is caused using handguns. The most deadly mass shooting, Virginia Tech, Cho had two handguns and one was a 22.

    We would be better off concentrating on the cause of mass shootings which is not the gun.
     
  14. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good points,

    1. Yes, I definitely think we need to be concentrating on the differences between guns that actually make a real difference to the capability.
    Magazines/clips seem like they would be a good place to start.

    2. I also agree with you that we need to take a good look at all of the contributing causes of these shootings.
    Where shootings are involved, guns are a necessary component, but as you implied, they are not sufficient;
    a gun isn't going to go out and shoot up a crowd of people all on its own (at least not any of the guns of today),
    what is also required and what we also need to look at are the people who actually go out and pull the trigger,
    the criminals, the mentally ill, etc. we need to figure out ways to prevent these people from "cracking"
    while also doing our best to try to make it harder for them to get a hold of weapons.

    -Meta
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The magazine or clip makes very little difference. Lanza shot as many as 10 rounds before changing his 30 round magazines for whatever reason. Cho at Virginia Tech had 10 and 15 round magazines but just brought a bunch of them in his backpack. Arbitrary limits are just that arbitrary and make little difference.
     
  16. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm totally in favour + support the idea of Americans having more guns - assault /rapid firing firearms / hand grenades + all sorts of explosives .

    I'm also in favour of letting them continue slaughtering each other . The world might become a better place with less of them. .

    (wink)
     
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Racist!
     
  18. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Go learn the meaning of the word "racist"

    GO LEARN
     
  19. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #

    Looks like you've got a reading problem.


    Where in my post did I say "Black people"?


    ....

    ......
     
  20. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh ff sake - are you deliberately being stupid ? what is said was - I repeat exact words :

    Now tell me where the F k is there any mention of Blacks ?
     
  21. Riot

    Riot New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2013
    Messages:
    7,637
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So who are u wishing death on ?
     
  22. eathen grey

    eathen grey New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would like to see your stats if only for the purpose of my own edification.
     
  23. Riot

    Riot New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2013
    Messages:
    7,637
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry this isn't even possible. It's too late people. Keep wish but it's only a wish. 3D printer will allow anyone to print out a gun. There won't be anything y'all can do about it. It's a program. How will y'all stop people from handing someone a program that some nerd wrote In Their basement. Hell there is no stopping them from printing fully auto guns. Look them up on YouTube. They are already printing them and the price of these printer are falling to unbelievable prices. These things will change everything we do.
    So this whole thread is mute.
     
  24. Marlowe

    Marlowe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    AMERICANS irrespective of race will very likely continues killing each other as they've done throughout their bloody history , irrespective of , my or anyone else's wishes .

    FACT


    . Now plese go find some one else to play with. It's near my bedtime _ your argument is pathetically childish. Grow up.

    Zzzzzzzzzz.:bored:
     
  25. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The exact cut off line for a magazine limit may be arbitrary, but the idea of limiting capacity itself is not.
    You said it yourself that magazines make a real difference to the capabilities of a gun,
    and I don't think anyone can dispute that the more a shooter needs to reload,
    the more effort they exert, the longer it takes for them to kill in large numbers,
    the more likely they are to make a mistake, the more opportunities there are to stop them,
    and the harder it becomes for them in general.

    This is illustrated clearly in the Giffords shooting. Recall that Loughner was only stopped once he had to reload and fumbled while doing so.
    However marginal such a change may be, I believe it is worth it when the margin in question is a life, or 20 lives.
    And again, that we cannot produce an exact number for a specific limit that would not be arbitrary, in no way means the number cannot be based off of the capabilities added to the weapon and the needs of the people.
    For one to suggest otherwise is to commit the continuum fallacy.

    -Meta
     

Share This Page