Gun Control II

Post Reply New Topic

It seems that a more blaring commonality in the high profile shootings is that the shooters are basically unhappy bad tempered children that hate “Skool”.

Aaah, yes, because those kids don't exist in other countries.

It's the guns. It's always been the guns. It'll always be the guns. And until America accepts it and gets rid of a bunch of guns, it's citizens will continue to splatter each other and their kids all over the place.

Thankyou.


No the AR-15 has a much smaller bullet (both in weight and diameter) than a standard 9mm.


DPS is the most important factor for determining if a weapon is OP. For instance a bow and arrow is more deadly than a standard pistol but no mass shooter would choose it as their weapon of choice. Similarly a hunting rifle would be a low priority weapon.


What is special about it is the AR-15 not the bullet. The bullet travelling a long distance is not why rifles are dangerous, it is just a consequence of it being dangerous. For instance a .22 can travel over a mile I think.



That's quite an offensive thing to say. It would be like a Nazi saying that Jews were stupid for not leaving Germany, after all they had 7 years. When the main reason people do not leave countries that hate them is because of poverty. And I've met quite a few incels who actually have left the country to find prostitutes. Its not practical to expect all incels to leave a country permanently. And if enough incels leave then they now have to compete with other incels and the population becomes saturated. Like if all white men went to Thailand because Thai girls are easier, then white men there would start to lose value, the girls over there are easy for white men because the place isn't saturated with white people yet.


It may be new but it should be obvious. A nation full of sexually frustrated males means more violence. In nations where prostitutes are legal there are much less mass shootings.


It was far easier to get guns legally in the 60's without all the bureaucracy and red tape. The only thing that changed is the culture. Modern culture is the cause of shootings, guns are just a killing tool of convenience. And the main cause of the surge of AR-15 sales is because of gun control, people are buying AR-15s as a way to donate to the 2A political movement and to get them before its illegal.


You are not the enemy. You probably believe in this "common sense gun control" notion of yours. But I know that is not their real goal. If I actually believed these politicians believed in common sense gun control then you'd have my support. But their real goal is probably total disarmament, such as the UK or Australia where pepperspray and nerf guns aren't allowed. And total disarmament may just be the beginning, a stepping stone, to pave the way for even more dystopian goals than that...



And what about the people who splatter each other with cars? If you said to ban SUVs I'd unironically get behind you on that, SUVs are a blight on civilization...

Anyway, banning guns might make crime fighting even harder than before, who's to say these people won't just start poisoning foods at groceries or killing people with grenades and bombs?

I admire your lack of adherence to weak-willed social norms, but I think your suggestions are somewhat dystopian. After all I don't think someone like Ted Kaczynski should be censored. I don't agree with all his views but he had some intelligent things to say and offered alternative perspectives. Censoring those people could lead to a slippery slope of a total cancel culture society and we already have that as is. Not offering graves seems uncivilized, although shooting unarmed civilians isn't honorable to begin with.

I could maybe agree with limiting media coverage but if you don't give coverage the victims may start to demand there be more coverage. And if shooters felt the need to shoot because society is dystopian, I don't think the correct response would be to try to censor the dystopian aspects of society, as that could lead to even more of a dystopian future society.


Didn't Canada still have much less mass shootings than the States even when they had less restrictive gun laws?

Uuuh, whataboutism doesn't change the fact that guns are now the number one killer of children in the USA, surpassing car accidents last year sometime.

There are physics & death statistics arguments for banning large SUV's and trucks as they kill a lot of people in cars/pedestrians, but that's an entirely different topic.

Banning guns doesn't make fighting crime harder. Restricting guns makes for fewer deaths by gun, and fewer violent crimes by gun - which is about the easiest weapon to quickly do serious damage to or kill someone with. Just because it's possible to kill people by other means doesn't mean that the easiest way shouldn't be controlled/restricted.

Didn't Canada still have much less mass shootings than the States even when they had less restrictive gun laws?[/quote]

Canada's gun laws were still more restrictive than America's prior to recent rule changes. We also do not have a culture of arming ourselves to the teeth as our "right," to blow away fellow citizens on a whim. Culture is a huge part of America's problem, but changes in laws can help shift it.

The statement: "arming ourselves to the teeth as our "right," to blow away fellow citizens on a whim" is misleading.
It is not part of American culture and never was.

Example: If you walk into a firearms store and say you want a gun because you have a "right" to blow away fellow citizens on a whim, you will be probably barred from the store and have a talk to with the police.

Gun laws in the 1960's were far more lax than they are now and there wasn't a mass shooting problem then.

Mass shootings exist in fantasy movies but to say it defines America as a culture is inaccurate, because by that logic any random movie that depicts any random culture could be said to define America as a culture.



No I was directly referring to people intentionally running people over with large motor vehicles. If you ban guns the amount of that will probably increase.

A different analogy could be Ai driven cars. Driving a car is a priviledge, AI driven cars would save lives, perhaps we should save lives by banning human driven cars?

I was being sarcastic about the Ai driven cars but its an important point, your "common sense gun control" might benefit humanity in the short term but are you thinking about the potential long term consequences of such policies? It would probably result into some Half-Life 2 style government where people have 0 rights at all.

The laws may have been less restrictive in the '60s, but there were basically only three types of assault rifle around at that time and only the carbine version of one of them had a 30 round magazine, although to be fair fully automatic machine guns were around and loosely regulated. Also, there were hardly any school shootings at the time; only the UT Tower Incident comes to mind and the NRA wasn't really an extension of the Gun Lobby just yet.

Do you realize that a 9mm bullet is less than an inch long and an AR15 bullet is 3 inches long? An AR15 bullet is 4 times as long give or take. Granted, someone could be talking about the size of the projectile. Even talking about the size of the projectile I doubt a 9mm is larger in weight than a AR15 bullet. I think people are talking about diameter. I have both bullets and have shot both. Sure, someone can quote some numbers but .... hold the bullets in your hand. One is 4 or 5 times the size of another. Shoot them at lumber. The AR15 bullets go through lumber like butter. It is a noticeable difference.

In regards to a 22 rifle. That is not dangerous. A 22 rifle is like a bb gun. People shoot 22s up into trees when hunting squirrels. You can not shoot a powerful rifle up in the air without risk of killing someone. Anyone who does that should be thrown in jail forever. It is hard to find a place to safely shoot a high powered rifle. There is a reason people don't use a 22 for personal defense.

This is debatable but a bullet falling from a great height can kill someone by gravity alone. A rifle is dangerous because it is a rifle. It is made to reach out and kill something. The bullets are much more powerful than a 9mm or a 45 caliber. I think anyone who has shot both knows that.

I don't doubt my comments about prostitution. I think yours about white people being a rare commodity is some kind of fairy tale. You mentioned Thailand. White people are not rare in Thailand with prostitutes. It is simply not the case. Prostitutes do it for the money not because someone is white. Sometimes, they prefer to stay away from their social circles. That does occur for obvious reasons. Thailand is actually really weird in regards to prostitution and I don't think representative of what most people encounter. Also, it takes at least 24hours to even fly to Thailand. Thailand is the last place on anyone's radar in the U.S. looking for prostitution.

The thing about incels being poor and can't travel is wrong. They are obviously stupid or misguided. They throw their lives away at a young age. I would guess they are less poor than the average person. Eliot Rodger was rich and privileged. He was running people over in his black BMW and I doubt he ever had a job in his life. Everything he wrote was dumb. He said "Look at me I'm beautiful, but the girls don't like me so I'm going to shoot people, and then shoot myself". That is unquestionably stupid.

I haven't come across any of the profiles of shooters that were poor. The guy with fetal alcohol syndrome had adopted parents. Parents that adopt have to have some stability in their lives I imagine.

Being poor alone doesn't lead to crime contrary to what some people think. People like to think that ... but people like to think a lot of things. It doesn't make it true.

Have you ever seen the James Bond movie from the sixties where he shoots down a helicopter with a collapsible 22 rifle from the Sears and Roebok catalog? I am not sure what anyone wants to glean from that but I think it is an interesting example.

Yes, that rifle was designed by the inventor of the Armalite "AR"/M-16 family of rifles and owner of the Armalite corp, Eugene Stoner. There was a time before the '60s when you could buy Thompson Sub-machine guns from sporting goods stores and still virtually no mass shooting in the academy or work place, but per capita firearm ownership was much lower than now.

This is nuts, IMO.

Because it's Possible to murder people in other ways, one of the easiest ways to murder people shouldn't be restricted. :screwy:

It's not a mere guess or theory that gun control laws work to reduce murders and accidental deaths. It's reality. The USA doesn't even have to look to Canada or Japan or Australia or the UK etc for examples. Just compare the states with stricter gun control laws to the ones that are practically free for alls -> spoiler: The states with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun related deaths. (Surprise surprise! ..not.)

You are talking about the bullet platform, including the cartridge, primer, gunpowder, casing etc. I am talking about the actual bullet itself is smaller in every way. The rifle bullet has more pressure behind it causing more damage.



I challenge anyone who claims that .22s are safe to ask someone to point a .22 at their head and shoot them. Noone will ever agree to it because at that moment they will realize .22s are dangerous.


The word bb gun is somewhat meaningless as low velocity bb guns are sort of safe while high velocity ones can kill people.


Now I know I'm just talking to an unhinged zealot. Discharge, negligent as it may be is not worthy of such stiff penalties. For instance the penalty for accidental death (such as someone accidentally knocking over a construction worker) is just involuntary manslaughter. And with shooting in the air there isn't even a guarantee someone is dead or even injured, the probability would be low.


Whites are a minority in Thailand or else Thailand would be considered a white nation. And Thailand is a top pick for hookers, people travel to asia for hookers more than they do europe.


Eliot might have been dumb but the average incel is not the same as him. Most incels have probably tried to approach women and got rejected. Eliot didn't even try. Although there is still inequality if males are required by society to do all the approaching.


I posit that it is actually easier to mass murder using motor vehicles than it is with guns. Have you heard of a game called Carmaggedon?


That's not how Science works. Correlation does not equal causation. Japan is a fascist ethnostate with a completely different culture than the USA. One thing about the culture they do share is cops get false confessions out of people. Japan also tries to censor the amount of homeless they have, probably much more than the US tries to censor the data. They claim to have 0 homeless but they have much more. If they are lying about the statistics of that, what other statitistcs are they fabricating?

And newsflash, the UK doesn't have a bunch of dangerous wild animals like the US. US has feral hogs, bears and giant beasts that attack humans. So UK people who walk in the woods don't actually need guns as much as people in the US.


The data seems to be somewhat random. For instance Chicago and NYC has a lot of crime, yet strict gun control. And there is a state with strict gun control yet has a lot of violence.

Also what does gun related deaths even mean? Suicide should be a right in a dystopia so it shouldn't even be counted as part of a debate about gun violence. So you can scratch suicides out of the gun deaths statistics. And what about self-defense shootings? People killed by guns in self-defense shouldn't be counted as part of the "gun related deaths" in this particular context.

And I'm not even sure if, hypothetically, banning guns would save the net amount of lives. Irc there were over 1.5 million uses of guns for self-defense (forgot if per year or every 10 years.). I think gun control might reduce mass shootings, but I am skeptical if it would actually reduce crime. If there were no guns then instead of 1.5 million uses of guns for self-defense, there might be 1.5 million crime victims.
You can hear more about gun statistics in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrQesd2ZVsU
Some tell me the CDC censored their own website and deleted the statistics because it disproves gun control.

And if, hypothetically speaking, gun control did save lives (which I don't believe, but hypothetically speaking) and if you built an all powerful all knowing Leftist robot that made people obey, the Leftist robot would say we need to ban all cars, because the people who die from cars vastly exceeds gun deaths, and that you have to obey the Leftist robot and only ride in Ai driven cars for the greater good, who are we to disagree with cold calculated robot logic. But I would still disagree because people should have the freedom to drive cars.

This is ridiculous. Cars are not the weapon of choice of mass murders. Guns are. It's POSSIBLE people could mass murder people with all sorts of other things that aren't weapons, so that must mean there should be no gun control measures in place to prevent mass murders by gun. Absolutely ridiculous argument. What in the NRA is going through your mind.. ?

Guns are a tricky topic in the US. Pistols are the biggest problems followed, for some reason, by the AR15 despite it being in a family of many similar weapons.

The assault rifle class seems to be the biggest problem recently and a class of weapon that has little in the way if legitimate civilian use. Pistols on the other hand do have some degree of of civilian use.

I am beginning to think you can’t possibly be serious and are just trolling.