M3J Posted March 23, 2019 Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 But banning assault rifles and military grade weapons make it even more difficult to get the weapons and make it more likely for the person to get caught. On top of that, we don't even need guns like those at all. The gun owners shouldn't have anything to be angry about, especially if it results in a safer environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WNX Posted March 23, 2019 Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 I'm not getting back into the convo surrounding "need" again but the legislative wording in this new law better be air tight cause like I said, there are other weapons that don't come off quite as threatening as the ones they're trying to ban that could do as much or more damage. This is false security. And why would some gun owners feel safer by LOSING an essence of their safety? They should be gaddamn furious. ONE bad actor just ruined it for all of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedmaniac Posted March 23, 2019 Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 I'm not getting back into the convo surrounding "need" again but the legislative wording in this new law better be air tight cause like I said, there are other weapons that don't come off quite as threatening as the ones they're trying to ban that could do as much or more damage. This is false security. And why would some gun owners feel safer by LOSING an essence of their safety? They should be gaddamn furious. ONE bad actor just ruined it for all of them Ruined what? Lol, I don't understand why people will get so upset over losing the right to own something that isn't really necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted March 23, 2019 Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 I'm not getting back into the convo surrounding "need" again but the legislative wording in this new law better be air tight cause like I said, there are other weapons that don't come off quite as threatening as the ones they're trying to ban that could do as much or more damage. This is false security. And why would some gun owners feel safer by LOSING an essence of their safety? They should be gaddamn furious. ONE bad actor just ruined it for all of them Why in the entire *Censored* would you need an assault rifle when you can use a handgun? Can handguns be modified to have a huge magazine and fire rapidly like assault rifles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WNX Posted March 23, 2019 Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 I wouldn't doubt it. That'd be a Bdon question, but I'm more concerned about other rifles that don't fall into the category of military grade. ONE bad actor just ruined it for all of them Ruined what? Lol, I don't understand why people will get so upset over losing the right to own something that isn't really necessary. Why "IT" of course Casting deadliness completely aside for a moment, what do you post on? PC? Laptop? Smartphone? Let's say it's a smartphone or tablet. "Necessity" is subjective. Do you need it for your job? What aspect of it exactly? Can you do everything you need from your home PC? Find then, you can talk and text with a flip phone, right? I'm yoinkin that. You can use the flip, you don't need a smartphone Matter of fact, do you really need a PC at your house anyways? Can't you just go to the library? Let's yoink that too. Oh, you're a gamer right? PS4? Yoinked for the trifecta, because your hobbies are damn sure not necessities. Let's take everything that you enjoy in life, everything that isn't 100% essential to your survival, and take that sheeit. "Whatchu so upset for? It's not a necessity" Ownership of a firearm is no different from the ownership of anything else you possess. You don't want people telling you to give up something you worked for and bought, was gifted to you, whatever. It's your stuff, thus your decision as to rather or not you want to keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted March 23, 2019 Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 wut Phones, computers, and video games don't kill people. Guns do. Guns don't have any use but hurting or killing a living thing. Comparing guns to knives is dumb as it is, but actually comparing it to phones? You can't cast deadliness aside when that's literally the main reason why people want stricter gun control laws and to have assault rifles and the likes banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King RyderFan Posted March 23, 2019 Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 I wouldn't doubt it. That'd be a Bdon question, but I'm more concerned about other rifles that don't fall into the category of military grade. ONE bad actor just ruined it for all of them Ruined what? Lol, I don't understand why people will get so upset over losing the right to own something that isn't really necessary. Why "IT" of course Casting deadliness completely aside for a moment, what do you post on? PC? Laptop? Smartphone? Let's say it's a smartphone or tablet. "Necessity" is subjective. Do you need it for your job? What aspect of it exactly? Can you do everything you need from your home PC? Find then, you can talk and text with a flip phone, right? I'm yoinkin that. You can use the flip, you don't need a smartphone Matter of fact, do you really need a PC at your house anyways? Can't you just go to the library? Let's yoink that too. Oh, you're a gamer right? PS4? Yoinked for the trifecta, because your hobbies are damn sure not necessities. Let's take everything that you enjoy in life, everything that isn't 100% essential to your survival, and take that sheeit. "Whatchu so upset for? It's not a necessity" Ownership of a firearm is no different from the ownership of anything else you possess. You don't want people telling you to give up something you worked for and bought, was gifted to you, whatever. It's your stuff, thus your decision as to rather or not you want to keep it. Dumb as hell comparison. PCs, Laptops, PS4s, phones all have postive uses. The only use a gun has is to damage and injure. You can't communicate to other people with it, you can't use it as a mode of transportation, you can't use it to heal people, why the hell do you need one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedmaniac Posted March 23, 2019 Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 Yeah I was waiting for other people to chime in on how absurd that comparison was. Also, it is never about banning ALL guns, just these incredibly dangerous military-grade weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WNX Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 That's why I started with "casting deadliness aside" which I knew every one would ignore as soon as I typed it. It wasn't about killing 50 people with a laptop, it was about the generalization of your comment, why someone would be upset about losing the right to own something that wasn't necessary. It's gaddamn theirs, that's why, end of story. I'm not even reading those responses because I know what they say And again, hopefully for the last time, "military grade" isn't the issue. There will be weapons that don't fit the bill that could potentially do the same damage or more so the wording has to be airtight in this legislation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 And I said you can't just "cast deadliness aside." It's about people being killed, that's literally the only reason why there's a debate over gun control laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nWo_Kevin Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 And I said you can't just "cast deadliness aside." It's about people being killed, that's literally the only reason why there's a debate over gun control laws. But if it was only about people being killed, than handguns would be banned too right? In the USA handguns are used in more mass shootings than any other weapon. And to answer your other question...yes they can be modified. Also, to defend WNX's original point about one bad actor ruining it for everyone.... As the article mentioned, 35 murders were committed in 2017. The majority were NOT gun related. So lets say 15 murders with a gun in 2017. Fair? Then we have 2.1 million guns. So say 800,000 gun owners. Fair? Assuming some have more than one gun. So now we are saying that in 2017 you had .0001% gun owners who murdered someone. So yes one could argue that its wrong for the government to punish 99% of good gun owners for the .0001% of bad ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WNX Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 And I said you can't just "cast deadliness aside." It's about people being killed, that's literally the only reason why there's a debate over gun control laws. You're actually gonna make me read the post I intentionally skipped because I knew what it said, aren't you, because this quote is exactly what I figured it said. Still doesn't change the fact that people will be angry they're having their possessions snatched and have every right to be. As much as I love Bdon and Kev's responses in these topics and the dogpile on their opinions, I understand even more why they stay away from it. I try to see both sides of it all, a side that one party or the other tend to omit, but I think Bdon and Kev tend to exclude a side simply because it's the majority accepted one so why dive into it any further when they can focus on the opposing end. Plus I think they enjoy watching people squirm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 Handguns aren't as likely to kill multiple people so quickly though, are they? And you didn't answer my question at all. How are gun owners being punished when they can still buy and own handguns? And it's called taking action. Why wait for more mass shootings or deaths by gun to finally do something about it? This is exactly what USA needs to do, start taking action to reduce gun violence. And I said you can't just "cast deadliness aside." It's about people being killed, that's literally the only reason why there's a debate over gun control laws. You're actually gonna make me read the post I intentionally skipped because I knew what it said, aren't you, because this quote is exactly what I figured it said. Still doesn't change the fact that people will be angry they're having their possessions snatched and have every right to be.As much as I love Bdon and Kev's responses in these topics and the dogpile on their opinions, I understand even more why they stay away from it. I try to see both sides of it all, a side that one party or the other tend to omit, but I think Bdon and Kev tend to exclude a side simply because it's the majority accepted one so why dive into it any further when they can focus on the opposing end. Plus I think they enjoy watching people squirm Exclude? They're both pro-gun, and I thought that was clear. I don't think anyone's squirming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WNX Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 Well I am most definitely not pro gun and I can still see both sides of this. Not sure why no one else seems to want to. As far as bans in the US, There was the Federal Assault Weapons ban in 94, though there isn't any definitive proof that it curbed any gun violence during the period of its implementation and from the sounds of it, there weren't even that many people who owned these kinds of weapons in the grand scheme. Peeps started ramping up purchases of them after the ban lifted in 04. And there were all kinds of crazy ass loopholes in that legislation, much attributed to their failure to define what assault weapons were Right now, they could only give you a fraction of an idea of how many of those weapons are in the country. The last number I saw was 300 million non military guns in circulation. Dont know how many of those are "military grade" that would fall under the ban specs but Australia in their buyback dropped 395 million Us dollars for like 640,000 weapons, about the third of the country's inventory. Almost 400 million bucksa for not even a million guns and you want to try to commence a buyback for 100 million guns? And that math is hella loose as I'm sure there are plenty more. That might work for Aussie and New Zealand, not Murika. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted March 24, 2019 Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 I am seeing both sides of this, it's why I don't support banning all guns. However, we've got to do something. There's also a partial research that did state stricter gun control curbed gun violence as well, but I can't be assed to google it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEGION Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Welp...Article 13 went through... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted March 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Welp...Article 13 went through... It's going to affect the whole of the internet, not just the UK, and they can bite me for it. Government overreach is at an all time high these days, and this 'new world order' shit can take a hike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King RyderFan Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Welp...Article 13 went through... And people wonder why I voted leave and am proud of it. *Censored* the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Can someone summarize Article 13? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted March 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Can someone summarize Article 13? In all seriousness...I believe it just holds companies like Youtube and Facebook personally responsible for the distribution of copyrighted material being shared. So...a creator like Botchmania for example, would be in direct violation of said rules. They would need to announce that WWE owns the content in the video, and WWE would need to allow them to continue to exist...or something like that. And if they don't do that, then Youtube would have to remove the content, or risk legal action from the copyright holders. I think...it's something like that. Just more extreme (and wholly unrealistic) expectations for filtering copyrighted material that will lead to a crackdown of sharing even the most innocent of clips. Even going as far as gifs, I think. It's basically a bunch of ass. * Cue James Rolfe saying "ASSSSSSSS" * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Oh, I was hoping I was misunderstanding that. v.v Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WNX Posted March 27, 2019 Report Share Posted March 27, 2019 They're gonna have as much of a tough time as YT moderating all the content, but once they get you, it's over with. I thought they were holding off til like May 22 or something to make a final decision. Or was that the Brexit related stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bdon Posted April 9, 2019 Report Share Posted April 9, 2019 I am seeing both sides of this, it's why I don't support banning all guns. However, we've got to do something. There's also a partial research that did state stricter gun control curbed gun violence as well, but I can't be assed to google it again. Never heard an actual good source come up with a good gun control argument or that it actually works. School shootings are in gun free zones so we already know laws don't really work. Seems like a witch Hunt more than anything usually. I think what you fail to understand in your arguments is something many others also fail to understand or see. And it's mostly from ignorance. Doesn't mean stupidity, just ignorance. You don't know much about weapons which leads you to believe AR-15's are much deadlier than any other. Many people believe this because misinformation spreads usually much easier than the truth. Many other rifles are customizable and modifiable and can do the same or more damage than a .223 round, yet the scary black looking gun gets the bad rap. Also handguns are modifiable and capable of extended magazines as well. None of this however means there is a correlation between gun violence and availability nor does it mean access can cause the deadliest shootings. The Virginia tech shooter had two handguns, one being a .22 and he did a considerable amount of harm. So it isn't just the AR rifles and I know you'll say it still makes it easier but that just simply isn't the case despite what the anti gunners want you to think. It's easy to believe when you have no knowledge though. Finally I think it was you or someone that said something about necessity and safety and I want to say one last thing. No matter the need, you taking away anything from someone especially on a false narrative and that thing is protected by the constitution, you're gonna fail. You're going to have blow back. The biggest thing is the ignorance though. No one will give up a right for someone that doesn't understand the difference. Also giving up freedoms for the illusion of safety will get you neither. And don't kid yourselves, safety is definitely an illusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted April 9, 2019 Report Share Posted April 9, 2019 School shootings happen in gun-free zones in a country where guns are legal. People use Chicago as examples that stricter gun laws don't work, but they also fail to mention that Illinois's neighboring state/s have lax gun control laws that make it easier for people to get guns. And there have been stats citing how gun homicide is higher in states with lax gun control laws than in states with strict gun control laws. No argument or proof is going to be good enough for people intent or crazed on wanting to own thousands of guns for no reason but "protection." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warbotter Posted April 9, 2019 Report Share Posted April 9, 2019 ...everyone wants to be John Wayne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.