This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Discrimination on... gun holders?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Nathanyal
I'm just curious as to why civilians think they need assault weapons. Pistols, rifles and shotguns should be enough to protect ones self as well as recreational use.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Why do you need more than 5 rounds in self defense?
Post by
Magician22773
Why do you need more than 5 rounds in self defense?
More than 2 hostile's would require more than 5 rounds, assuming you use the "double-tap" method. (Tactical training teaches you to always fire 2 rounds to neutralize a target).
As for "why does anyone need an assault rifle?". Two things here. First is the definition of "assault rifle". Many rifles that have been demonized as "assault rifles" actually do have practical uses. Many of the "M" class rifles...M4 and M14, are actually very accurate rifles, and have use in both hunting, and target shooting. I will concede that there are equally suitable hunting weapons out there, but for sport shooting, there is nothing in a high caliber rifle that beats some of these guns.
If you move down the line to other weapons like most AK style rifles, most SKS style, and on down into some of the civilian versions of sub-machine guns like the MP5...there really is no "need", other than defense and being collectibles. These guns are not normally accurate enough for sport shooting or hunting.
But second...banning any "type" of gun, will only result in crimes being made with other types of guns. I have no doubt that these killers are choosing these types of weapons for the "mystique" that surronds them, but the fact is, a psycho can do just as damage with a deer rifle or squirrel gun, as they can with an AR-15. Ban high-cap magazines, and they will just bring more clips. The difference between shooting one 30 round clip, or three 10 round clips is a matter of maybe 5 seconds, less if the shooter is skilled.
The sad fact is, what happened in Connecticut would have been the same if the shooter had entered the building with a Ruger 10/22 as it was with the Bushmaster.
So I still stand behind what I have said from the very start. Something does need to be done, but stop focusing on the guns, and start focusing on the people pulling the trigger. Nothing is going to stop the killings, but controlling people that show violent tendencies, or that have severe known mental issues would stop way more of them from happening, then pulling assault rifles and high-cap magazines off store shelves would.
Post by
Squishalot
Nothing is going to stop the killings, but controlling people that show violent tendencies, or that have severe known mental issues would stop way more of them from happening, then pulling assault rifles and high-cap magazines off store shelves would.
In the RB, you advocated keeping a closer eye on those with mental health issues through the use of electronic tagging and the like. Would you accept advocating keeping a closer eye on the weapons themselves through the use of electronic tagging and the like? If not, why not?
Post by
Nathanyal
Thanks Magician, I'm not a big gun person so I don't know many differences between them. I know you can still kill just as many with a rifle/pistol/shotgun as you can an assault rifle. And I'm not saying ban those types of guns, just have a better system with dealing with them.
Something like squish suggested could help, but it would only help track where a gun is. Unless there are people sitting in a room tracking where all these weapons are going, it wouldn't help much.
About the only thing that will hinder the amount of gun is the regulations we have on them. Making sure those that have guns are in the right state of mind is probably one thing that could help. The problem that happened in Conn. is that the shooter used someone else's gun. And his mother was showing him how to use these weapons, only to have him use it on her. Now I'm not sure of something that could help prevent something like this situation from happening again.
I don't mind people having gun, I thought about getting me one when I get older and have a place of my own.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Nothing is going to stop the killings, but controlling people that show violent tendencies, or that have severe known mental issues would stop way more of them from happening, then pulling assault rifles and high-cap magazines off store shelves would.
In the RB, you advocated keeping a closer eye on those with mental health issues through the use of electronic tagging and the like. Would you accept advocating keeping a closer eye on the weapons themselves through the use of electronic tagging and the like? If not, why not?
Within strict confines, yes.
Keep in mind, I suggested that people who had been diagnosed by a medical professional to have violent tendencies, or those to be known sociopaths, severe bi-polar, schizophrenic, or someone who had made credible threats, would be the ones being monitored.
So I would expect the same principles to be applied if you wanted to monitor weapons. You should no more expect every weapon to be tracked, anymore than you should expect every person to be tracked. So, if you wanted to track weapons deemed to be of no use for sport, than I would be fine with that. If you wanted to track high-cap magazines (those with more than a 10 round capacity), I would be fine with that.
But, I will state, as I have in nearly every post, that this still only affects the people in possession of legally registered weapons, and would have a very limited impact, if any, on overall gun crime.
Again, addressing only the weapon, and ignoring the people that pull the trigger is unlikely to have any significant affect on gun crimes. Increased control of mental patients would have a much more profound impact, at least on spree killings.
And no gun control measure addresses the real issue, and that is the thousands of individual gun crimes that occur every day, that do not make national headlines. If you just take a simple average, there were probably around 20-25 other homicides by gun in the US on Thursday, not counting Newton. Unless you have some plan to get the guns away from the gang bangers, drug dealers, and every other criminal, controlling anything is only like putting a band-aid on cancer.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
But, I will state, as I have in nearly every post, that this still only affects the people in possession of legally registered weapons, and would have a very limited impact, if any, on overall gun crime.
I believe I linked a list of facts that noted that the vast majority of serious gun events were committed using legally obtained weapons.
Keep in mind, I suggested that people who had been diagnosed by a medical professional to have violent tendencies, or those to be known sociopaths, severe bi-polar, schizophrenic, or someone who had made credible threats, would be the ones being monitored.
So I would expect the same principles to be applied if you wanted to monitor weapons. You should no more expect every weapon to be tracked, anymore than you should expect every person to be tracked. So, if you wanted to track weapons deemed to be of no use for sport, than I would be fine with that. If you wanted to track high-cap magazines (those with more than a 10 round capacity), I would be fine with that.
Agreed, but this is the issue - in the same way that you can't reasonably draw a line of 'concern' with weapons, you can't reasonably draw a line of 'concern' with 'violent tendencies', especially when more than half of mental illnesses go undetected because people don't actually see the medical professionals. Treating people with schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, aspergers (which isn't even violent most of the time) as criminals-in-waiting is inhumane and unwarranted and won't go to help reduce crime most of the time anyway. Around 1 million people in the US have a diagnosed autism spectrum disorder. Are you going to track all of them? How would you define a credible threat? Are you going to track everybody who posts a concerning photo on Facebook?
In hindsight, it may seem like all of these items add up to a killer's profile, but there are literally millions of false positives who you'd catch once you tried to clamp down on them.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
I believe I linked a list of facts that noted that the vast majority of serious gun events were committed using legally obtained weapons.
That's because the guns are available legally. If you take away the legal supply, yet cannot do anything to curb the illegal supply, the only group you have disarmed are the law abiding citizens.
The exact same principle applies to drug users. There is just as much pot smoking going on in states where it is fully illegal as there is in states where pot has been legalized (in some form, either "medical", or the new recreational legalization). The only difference is where they get the pot.
You could drop me off in any major city in America right now with $1000 cash, and in less than 1 hour, I could purchase an automatic weapon. I would be willing to guess that I could do the same in Sydney as well, or England, or any other country with whatever gun control you want.
As for people with mental disorders, I am suggesting that we drastically change the way we look at people with mental disorders. If you are willing to change an amendment to the Constitution to prevent tragedy, then you should be willing to make sweeping changes to the way we approach mental health. Or, you accept that neither of the ideas will work, and things remain as-is.
Neither of the ideas are "good", but one of them would actually have a chance of stopping these crimes. As I pointed out, the Colorado shooter, and the Arizona shooter were both under the care of a psychiatrist at the time of their rampage. So had my idea been in place, and these two had been under lockdown, the shootings
could not
have happened. Under the gun control idea, they both could have happened, albeit they would have had to seek other means of obtaining their weapons.
Post by
Squishalot
That's because the guns are available legally. If you take away the legal supply, yet cannot do anything to curb the illegal supply, the only group you have disarmed are the law abiding citizens.
You're assuming that everybody who commits a crime like this would otherwise go out and acquire a weapon illegally to do so. That's far too great an assumption for me to accept without basis.
If you are willing to change an amendment to the Constitution to prevent tragedy, then you should be willing to make sweeping changes to the way we approach mental health.
Who said anything about changing the Constitution? We're not talking about outlawing weapons outright here. Even what we're talking about now is just tagging/monitoring, which wouldn't require changes at all.
The reason I'm raising the question about mental health is that you're infringing on the same rights that people are up in arms about in relation to internet privacy and government monitoring, which to most people, seem to be more important than a restricted right to bear arms.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
b4xx
Three have died in a shooting in Switzerland.
Apparently, the guy had mental health issues, and his legal guns had been taken away, so he had gotten some illegal ones.
Post by
gamerunknown
Three have died in a shooting in Switzerland.
this
I like the juxtaposition (link died so I replaced it).
Post by
UnholyDeciever
Why do you need more than 5 rounds in self defense?
Have you ever shot at a moving target? Especially in a combat situation where I'm guessing the gun holder isn't as proficient as the military when it comes to shooting I would say they would need more then 5 rounds. (sidenote= I am in the military and work with weapons every time I work and shoot regularly and would find it difficult to neutralize a moving target with only 5 rounds.)
Post by
UnholyDeciever
. Secondly hold people accountable if their gun is stolen and used to kill someone.
So someone breaks into my house while I'm out / work / etc. even if my weapons are locked up you want to hold me accountable? you sir/ madam are an idiot.
Also sorry for double post just cbf to add to my other post.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.