The Vice President of the United States is officially retarded.

[ravenshrike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWpIXPqdJqY

 

Dubba barrel shotgun solves all your problems, especially if you discharge it into the air when you don't see anybody. Of course, doing so is illegal in both his home state of delaware as well as many other states, but I can understand why he doesn't understand that's a problem as I'm sure he and the cops would come to some kind of understanding.

 

Not to mention his utter bull**** where he claims that it is easier to handle than an AR-15 which, besides being as misogynist as ****, is asinine. Not only is the AR-15 lighter but it has a ****load less recoil. And since women have no problems operating the controls in a car, issues with spacial awareness notwithstanding, I somehow doubt the 4 controls on an AR-15 are going to be too complex.

 

Then of course there's his own flipping admission that an AWB won't do anything.

 

Edited February 21, 2013 by ravenshrike

[rjshae]

I don't think you would enjoy a barrel full of buckshot in the gut. But if that has no deterrent value for you, then I suppose that speaks for itself. Troll.

[Calax]

I'd suggest a shotgun hits a man sized target at household ranges much more easily than any form of AR... for the inexperienced user.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F0icW2-ovk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imdr0249M1w

 

I couldn't find both parts in the same spot because of the fact that each one specifically supports a separate side (and cbs was the only one I could find of the second clip), but it makes the point that even though they were trying to say EXACTLY what you're saying here (that AR's shouldn't be banned because they work for self defense) they couldn't find a story about that, so instead the co-opted one that used a shotgun, and tried to be fuzzy about the weapon used.

 

And yes, I freely admit that the stats she gives about concealed carry could be true, but they could also be heavily edited so that murder rates aren't per 1000 people or whatever.

[Volourn]

"Then of course there's his own flipping admission that an AWB won't do anything."

 

Anybody with any intelligence at all coudl tell you that more gun control laws will not stop massacres.

[BruceVC]

"Then of course there's his own flipping admission that an AWB won't do anything."

 

Anybody with any intelligence at all coudl tell you that more gun control laws will not stop massacres.

 

Yeah you right, except for the fact that throughout the world strict gun control laws has reduced massacres. But you right, lets not look at evidence and rather make incorrect and controversial comments

[Volourn]

"Yeah you right, except for the fact that throughout the world strict
gun control laws has reduced massacres. But you right, lets not look at
evidence and rather make incorrect and controversial comments"

 

No, they don't. There is no connection. There are other factors that lead to less massactrd. L0L Controevrsial comment. Don't be a ditz. But, hey, Kanada has its sahre of gun laws yet we e've had oru assacres too. As have other countries.   Strict gun laws do no stop criminals from commiting heinous crimes.. it stops law abiding citizens from committingc rimes theyw eren't gonna commit in the first place. L0L

[Bartimaeus]

Treat the source of the problem, not a symptom...

[Calax]

"Yeah you right, except for the fact that throughout the world strict

gun control laws has reduced massacres. But you right, lets not look at

evidence and rather make incorrect and controversial comments"

 

No, they don't. There is no connection. There are other factors that lead to less massactrd. L0L Controevrsial comment. Don't be a ditz. But, hey, Kanada has its sahre of gun laws yet we e've had oru assacres too. As have other countries.   Strict gun laws do no stop criminals from commiting heinous crimes.. it stops law abiding citizens from committingc rimes theyw eren't gonna commit in the first place. L0L

In the short term? No, it probably wouldn't curb the amount of shootings and/or massacres with these weapons.

 

HOWEVER in the long term, restricted access to something like AK-47's and AR-15's would cause the overall number of those to drop in the USA. Simply because the amount of effort somebody would need to put in, usually wouldn't be worth the "reward" (people are lazy). Eventually there'd be effectively none in the US, but you'd still have your Shotguns, Rifles, and pistols for self defense.

 

And before you get into "LOL criminals will jsut get it anyway!" consider the fact that they're criminals. Criminals are committing murder too, does that mean we shouldn't legislate to prevent murders? Also, whoever is going to be doing the shooting is probably gonna be able to be stopped by a hand gun, shotgun, or rifle. So stating that "You need AK's to stop AK's" is about as valid as saying that the Stuart Kings should be returned to power.

[Bartimaeus]

And before you get into "LOL criminals will jsut get it anyway!" consider the fact that they're criminals. Criminals are committing murder too, does that mean we shouldn't legislate to prevent murders? Also, whoever is going to be doing the shooting is probably gonna be able to be stopped by a hand gun, shotgun, or rifle. So stating that "You need AK's to stop AK's" is about as valid as saying that the Stuart Kings should be returned to power.

 

The difference, of course, being that shooting a rifle in itself is not an abhorrent act, while a murder always is...we legislate laws against murder because we generally believe murder to always be wrong. We legislate laws against stealing, because we generally believe stealing to be always be wrong, (though, at this point, I'm not so sure about this one in our country...at least with less direct forms of stealing...but this is mostly besides the point). We don't legislate laws against driving, however, because we believe that, while cars are generally dangerous, (and can be used to carry out crimes), they are a tool that can be used in a manner we do not consider to be destructive...(or at least wholly destructive). The same goes for guns.

 

If criminals start using cars to run people over and brutally murder them, (or use them to perform some other type(s) of crime in a way that would not otherwise be possible without them), should we start outlawing them as well? No...because they serve another purpose, one that is used by most other people besides criminals that own them - one considered, by most, to be non-destructive. Like I said earlier, look at the source of the problem, not a symptom...shootings, (and [mass]-murders), are a symptom, and guns can be a tool to create that symptom...but they are not the source. People, (and our society in general), are the source.

 

On the other hand, if you disagree with the use of guns entirely, I can see where you're coming from. If the majority agree that guns, or even specific types of guns, are not worth the costs...then, by all means, outlaw them entirely. It may be what I consider to be completely arbitrary, in the case of only specific types of "normal" bullet-based guns, but at that point, it's irrelevant. We are a democracy, (or close enough to one), after all. God forbid we should actually vote on anything...

 

As an aside...some other types of weapons, such as nuclear bombs, cannot be used constructively, (constructive in the sense of something that is not directly harmful to other humans...and perhaps the environment/other species of animals, if you are so inclined) - at least not that I can think of. That's what (I believe to be) the reason why such things are outlawed for most people to own. Perhaps there are other reasons, though.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[Walsingham]

I would like to field a sideways argument:

 

Any US president has only enough time and political capital to push through one or two big changes in their term.  I think that's pretty self-evident.

 

So MY question becomes:

 

"Of all the many things that Obama could do, is gun control the thing I want most? "

 

To which my personal answer is "**** no."

[Oerwinde]

 

 

And before you get into "LOL criminals will jsut get it anyway!" consider the fact that they're criminals. Criminals are committing murder too, does that mean we shouldn't legislate to prevent murders? Also, whoever is going to be doing the shooting is probably gonna be able to be stopped by a hand gun, shotgun, or rifle. So stating that "You need AK's to stop AK's" is about as valid as saying that the Stuart Kings should be returned to power.

The difference, of course, being that shooting a rifle in itself is not an abhorrent act, while a murder always is...we legislate laws against murder because we generally believe murder to always be wrong. We legislate laws against stealing, because we generally believe stealing to be always be wrong, (though, at this point, I'm not so sure about this one in our country...at least with less direct forms of stealing...but this is mostly besides the point). We don't legislate laws against driving, however, because we believe that, while cars are generally dangerous, (and can be used to carry out crimes), they are a tool that can be used in a manner we do not consider to be destructive...(or at least wholly destructive). The same goes for guns.

 

But to own a car you still need to register it. And to be allowed to use one you must be properly trained in its use and maintain a license and insurance in case of its misuse. And some vehicles of high enough power levels that using them for normal uses is ridiculous are not allowed on the road. Guns should be treated similarly.

[Morgoth]

American society is deeply violent historically and culturally speaking, so you won't get a ban on high-rapid assult rifles and other weapons that can inflict massacres in the near or medium term future.

 

A maniac with a hand gun or a knife will think twice to inflict a massacre (because he can be stopped/wrestled down easier) than a guy with an sub- or full automatic assult rifle, which will give him the feeling of a god like creature, thus removing a psychological barrier.

 

Why no ban on such weapons? --> Business, as always.

[Bartimaeus]

 

 

 

And before you get into "LOL criminals will jsut get it anyway!" consider the fact that they're criminals. Criminals are committing murder too, does that mean we shouldn't legislate to prevent murders? Also, whoever is going to be doing the shooting is probably gonna be able to be stopped by a hand gun, shotgun, or rifle. So stating that "You need AK's to stop AK's" is about as valid as saying that the Stuart Kings should be returned to power.

The difference, of course, being that shooting a rifle in itself is not an abhorrent act, while a murder always is...we legislate laws against murder because we generally believe murder to always be wrong. We legislate laws against stealing, because we generally believe stealing to be always be wrong, (though, at this point, I'm not so sure about this one in our country...at least with less direct forms of stealing...but this is mostly besides the point). We don't legislate laws against driving, however, because we believe that, while cars are generally dangerous, (and can be used to carry out crimes), they are a tool that can be used in a manner we do not consider to be destructive...(or at least wholly destructive). The same goes for guns.

 

But to own a car you still need to register it. And to be allowed to use one you must be properly trained in its use and maintain a license and insurance in case of its misuse. And some vehicles of high enough power levels that using them for normal uses is ridiculous are not allowed on the road. Guns should be treated similarly.

 

I do not disagree with the first or second statements, but the third one I am not entirely sure about. Isn't that more about pollution than anything else? What exactly is the analogue there?

[BruceVC]

American society is deeply violent historically and culturally speaking, so you won't get a ban on high-rapid assault rifles and other weapons that can inflict massacres in the near or medium term future.

 

A maniac with a hand gun or a knife will think twice to inflict a massacre (because he can be stopped/wrestled down easier) than a guy with an sub- or full automatic assault rifle, which will give him the feeling of a god like creature, thus removing a psychological barrier.

 

Why no ban on such weapons? --> Business, as always.

 

I agree with some of what you are saying, the reality is simple. In most cases you cannot prevent a mentally deranged person from trying to kill other people, but you can reduce the amount of damage he can do.  Also we all know that a criminal will still be able to get any weapon even if semi-automatic weapons are banned, but what people are missing is that  its not criminals that are committing these acts of mass murder. Its mentally unbalanced people who get these semi-automatic weapons from there parents or themselves by just walking into gun shops. Therefore by banning certain weapons or making gun legislation  more controlled you will reduce the overall causality  rates. 

 

This concept works all over the world where even though you have killings you don't have the  high number of victims or frequency of these mass shootings as there is gun control in most countries.

[Malcador]

Haven't most shootings been done with pistols ? Even Sandy Hook, I think he left the AR-15 in the car or outside, no ? Weird obsession with 'assault weapons' in this.

[BruceVC]

Haven't most shootings been done with pistols ? Even Sandy Hook, I think he left the AR-15 in the car or outside, no ? Weird obsession with 'assault weapons' in this.

 

Nope incorrect. He used a Bushmaster assault rifle, so there is no weird obsession with the  banning of  semi-automatic rifles as this would reduce the casualty list as has been explained many times.

[Malcador]

Hm, must have been mistaken then - could have sworn I heard a report that he used the two Glocks rather than the rifle. Reducing casualty list with no semi-auto rifles, maybe, not much less than with pistols. Although the idea of a ban working is pretty funny.

[BruceVC]

Hm, must have been mistaken then - could have sworn I heard a report that he used the two Glocks rather than the rifle. Reducing casualty list with no semi-auto rifles, maybe, not much less than with pistols. Although the idea of a ban working is pretty funny.

 

It might be funny if it wasn't working in other parts world like Australia and the UK that were victims of mass killings using these types weapons. Of course you can still get the weapons illegally but thats not the issue, its the fact normal citizens in the USA can

[Malcador]

Have there been that many mass shootings in the UK ? Quick search indicated there was 3, two with rifles although one used a bolt action. Might have missed some. In any case, banning just 'assault weapons' (whatever one chooses to define it as) is a fairly incomplete solution, makes good PR I suppose.

[BruceVC]

Malc I want to share with you another statistic that reinforces my point. On the same day of Sandy Hook in China a deranged man went into a school and started stabbing children.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html

 

22 Children were wounded, but none were killed. Why was that? The Chinese man had every intention of causing mass carnage so why were there no deaths compared to the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook.The answer is clear, the Chinese man didn't have access to guns of any sort. I think my point is obvious

[Malcador]

Yes, as I said banning just 'assault weapons' is incomplete - your point is aimed for a total ban on all guns. As seen around here there's been 3 teenagers that have been shot to death by pistols, actually pretty much every murder in this city for the last decade has been by pistols. Heh, but small body counts so no one cares .

[BruceVC]

Have there been that many mass shootings in the UK ? Quick search indicated there was 3, two with rifles although one used a bolt action. Might have missed some. In any case, banning just 'assault weapons' (whatever one chooses to define it as) is a fairly incomplete solution, makes good PR I suppose.

 

I was referring to Dunblane, and the result of that was the banning all private firearms. Of course you can't expect that in the USA, and I wouldn't ask for that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

[Hurlshort]

Guys, we need to pace ourselves.  We had this debate a month ago, you are supposed to wait at least 6 months before starting anew.

[BruceVC]

Guys, we need to pace ourselves.  We had this debate a month ago, you are supposed to wait at least 6 months before starting anew.

 

Funny

 

But you are right, this has been discussed to death.

Edited February 21, 2013 by BruceVC

[Calax]

 

 

 

 

And before you get into "LOL criminals will jsut get it anyway!" consider the fact that they're criminals. Criminals are committing murder too, does that mean we shouldn't legislate to prevent murders? Also, whoever is going to be doing the shooting is probably gonna be able to be stopped by a hand gun, shotgun, or rifle. So stating that "You need AK's to stop AK's" is about as valid as saying that the Stuart Kings should be returned to power.

The difference, of course, being that shooting a rifle in itself is not an abhorrent act, while a murder always is...we legislate laws against murder because we generally believe murder to always be wrong. We legislate laws against stealing, because we generally believe stealing to be always be wrong, (though, at this point, I'm not so sure about this one in our country...at least with less direct forms of stealing...but this is mostly besides the point). We don't legislate laws against driving, however, because we believe that, while cars are generally dangerous, (and can be used to carry out crimes), they are a tool that can be used in a manner we do not consider to be destructive...(or at least wholly destructive). The same goes for guns.

 

But to own a car you still need to register it. And to be allowed to use one you must be properly trained in its use and maintain a license and insurance in case of its misuse. And some vehicles of high enough power levels that using them for normal uses is ridiculous are not allowed on the road. Guns should be treated similarly.

 

I do not disagree with the first or second statements, but the third one I am not entirely sure about. Isn't that more about pollution than anything else? What exactly is the analogue there?

Actually, most higher end cars have a limiter built in to prevent them from passing a certain top speed. Because beyond that speed things would be way to dangerous and it'd be to easy for them to completely loose control. This is done by the companies because if the car can go faster than where it's limited (around 150 mph) all of a sudden insurance premiums skyrocket due to the fact that beyond that point it's really easy to get into a crash.

 

Now, this isn't direct government legislation, but it's part and parcel to the requirement of insurance to even think about driving a car.