Board 8 > It is time for gun reform

(+) Yeah! (+)

More guns will surely prevent future tragedies.

In other news, in order to combat obesity, we're now requiring all children to drink 2 liters of Coke a day, and requiring ice cream at every meal.
---

SantaRPidgey posted...

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Please cite a first world country that outlawed firearms and it caused an INCREASE in gun related deaths.

I can name several that increased in tyranny

Do you see how that's a completely different thing than what we were talking about?

I can understand the belief that the fundamental right to own firearms is more important than the societal loss of safety that results.

I don't remotely agree, but i can understand that viewpoint because it says "i recognize that guns make society less safe, but i prefer it this way."

What i cannot understand or tolerate is Andy trying to insist that we are currently safer from gun violence as a society compared to if we outlawed guns. There is no data supporting that or examples of similar countries experiencing that as a reality.

So back to what we were actually talking about:

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Please cite a first world country that outlawed firearms and it caused an INCREASE in gun related deaths.

I'll wait.

---

I already made a couple big topics about this

1. Disband standing army (reserve only)
2. Disarm cops
3. Disarm citizens

That's the only way to do it

I'm guessing everyone ITT is talking about some BS that doesn't actually address to the problem so just forget my ideas
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIwf3d7hP9g" data-time="

Topic over.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

Leafeon13N posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

get rid of pointless restrictions so that gun wielding criminals will have the fear of being shot down immediately when they try dumb shit that only works in gun free zones

How many of these shooters end up killed or killed themselves. Most aren't exactly planning on life after the shooting.

yeah so would you rather have them end up dead immediately or dead after killing 10 people

hmmmm

I dunno but more people shooting during a mass panic when everybody is running around doesn't seem like a super great idea, either, unless they're John Rambo
---

seemed like a fine idea all the times an armed gunman was shot and the entire world didn't blow up but hey it's not like we can trust the responsible gun owners who went through the trouble to legally obtain firearm licenses and practice with them to responsibly and safely use them for the exact purpose they were created.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

seemed like a fine idea all the times an armed gunman was shot and the entire world didn't blow up but hey it's not like we can trust the responsible gun owners who went through the trouble to legally obtain firearm licenses and practice with them to responsibly and safely use them for the exact purpose they were created.

Judging by the fact that a study found like 42% (I think it was 48 but I can't remember which so I'll go with the lower one to be safe) of criminals committed their crimes with legally obtained guns, I'd say you're right that we can't, really!

It's easy to assume there's gonna be a John Rambo at literally every shooting ready to stop it

But it's also just as easy to assume that normal people make mistakes, and you could run into situations like Civilian 1 pulling out his gun to stop the shooter, and then Civilian 2 shooting Civilian 1 because Civilian 1 is the only one he sees shooting
---

StealThisSheen posted...

But it's also just as easy to assume that normal people make mistakes, and you could run into situations like Civilian 1 pulling out his gun to stop the shooter, and then Civilian 2 shooting Civilian 1 because Civilian 1 is the only one he sees shooting

so why don't we hear about cases of this happening constantly, but we do hear about cases of active shooters being stopped? could it be that your hyperbole about stopping a shooter requiring literally john rambo is not accurate?
---

MariaTaylor posted...

but we do hear about cases of active shooters being stopped

We do?
---

People will still have guns one way or another.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

But it's also just as easy to assume that normal people make mistakes, and you could run into situations like Civilian 1 pulling out his gun to stop the shooter, and then Civilian 2 shooting Civilian 1 because Civilian 1 is the only one he sees shooting

so why don't we hear about cases of this happening constantly, but we do hear about cases of active shooters being stopped? could it be that your hyperbole about stopping a shooter requiring literally john rambo is not accurate?

...We don't hear cases of active shooters being stopped by civilians constantly, though. We hear it once in a blue moon, because it takes a special type of person to be trained enough and calm enough to end such a situation safely. Your average gun owner is not that person.
---

http://www.villanovan.com/opinion/list-of-mass-shootings-since-columbine-massacre/article_be837bb6-16ae-11e8-b9dc-bfbfd95854b5.html

According to The Washington Post, since 1966, 1077 individuals have been fatally shot and wounded as a result of mass shootings in which more than four people perished; Children and teenagers compose about a tenth of these fatalities. Almost 300 guns have been obtained by authorities in these shootings, and over half of them were obtained legally. The AR-15 rifle has been increasingly used in such shootings, with the latest being in this months most recent high school shooting in Florida. It is estimated that more than 8 million of these weapons are owned in American households. The trend in mass shootings has been rising notably since 2006-07.
---

Shaduln posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

but we do hear about cases of active shooters being stopped

We do?

---

This topic wasn't flagged for politics - I'm informing the police
---

banananor posted...

This topic wasn't flagged for politics - I'm informing the police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcGPHV5-mjA" data-time="
---

SwiftyDC posted...

People will still have guns one way or another.

Less people would have guns ifb they are illegal.

Im not going to pretend that nobody will still have some. Countries that banned guns still have the occasional shooting.

But it happens so much less in those places than in the United States. Not just in general if you are comparing places with less population, but per capita.

I dunno about you, but "so much less" death from guns sounds like a good thing and something that is better than our current situation. It doesn't get magically invalidated because of the (less) deaths that do occur.
---

Shaduln posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

but we do hear about cases of active shooters being stopped

We do?

well, maybe you don't. I have no idea how dedicated you are to maintaining your delusional version of reality where no active shooter has ever been stopped by a gunman.
---

After doing some digging, the FBI released data on 6 mass shootings over 2016/2017 where civilians intervened with guns. 3 of those were stopped, 3 weren't.

There have also been several simulations/tests done to see how people handle themselves with a gun in an active shooter situation. More people failed to stop the shooter or harmed others than those that successfully stopped it.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

SwiftyDC posted...

People will still have guns one way or another.

Less people would have guns ifb they are illegal.

Im not going to pretend that nobody will still have some. Countries that banned guns still have the occasional shooting.

But it happens so much less in those places than in the United States. Not just in general if you are comparing places with less population, but per capita.

I dunno about you, but "so much less" death from guns sounds like a good thing and something that is better than our current situation. It doesn't get magically invalidated because of the (less) deaths that do occur.

serious question what do you think the death to guns to population ratio is in the united states and how do you think this compares to the rest of the world? do you even know? or are you just committed to believing whatever you want without ever looking up any relevant information?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

After doing some digging, the FBI released data on 6 mass shooting where civilians intervened. 3 of those were stopped, 3 weren't.

um if something is classified as a mass shooting then you're only including the cases where the gunman succeeded in killing a large number of people already. do you even realize you are willfully and intentionally discarding from the data set the cases where the civilian stops the shooter after 0-2 kills, which wouldn't fall under your 'mass shooting' statistic?
---

Feel free to provide that data then.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

After doing some digging, the FBI released data on 6 mass shooting where civilians intervened. 3 of those were stopped, 3 weren't.

um if something is classified as a mass shooting then you're only including the cases where the gunman succeeded in killing a large number of people already. do you even realize you are willfully and intentionally discarding from the data set the cases where the civilian stops the shooter after 0-2 kills, which wouldn't fall under your 'mass shooting' statistic?

If you'd like to provide that data, then by all means, go ahead, because while I've heard of a few cases where a killer was stopped after already killing people, I sure haven't heard of many cases where a shooter was able to draw a gun in an attempt to carry out a mass shooting and then was stopped before shooting anybody at all

I can't imagine in the case where a shooter begins to shoot up a club or other crowded public spot that even a trained civilian is going to have time to assess the situation and stop them immediately before anybody is shot, much less one without training beyond what is required to own a gun.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Do you see how that's a completely different thing than what we were talking about?

I guess unjust death doesn't matter, its only the type of weapon that causes that death, my bad.
---

lordloki12 posted...

Feel free to provide that data then.

I have in previous topics and the same people are still arguing on the same side. anyone who remotely cares about the truth and has even an ounce of intellectual curiosity could go look it up for themselves.

StealThisSheen posted...

If you'd like to provide that data, then by all means, go ahead, because while I've heard of a few cases where a killer was stopped after already killing people, I sure haven't heard of many cases where a shooter was able to draw a gun in an attempt to carry out a mass shooting and then was stopped before shooting anybody at all

I can't imagine in the case where a shooter begins to shoot up a club or other crowded public spot that even a trained civilian is going to have time to assess the situation and stop them immediately before anybody is shot, much less one without training beyond what is required to own a gun.

one of two things is happening/will happen here

1. you are absolutely delusional and somehow have convinced yourself that these cases don't happen, even through they do

2. you are the kind of person who will look at 3 examples I post and somehow that convinces you that it's real when you didn't believe before, in which case you're an idiot
---

So ya got nothing then. got it
---

lordloki12 posted...

So ya got nothing then. got it

feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't think it's even possible to conceptualize how little I care about your opinion.
---

I mean, you care enough to argue your point but apparently don't care enough to share data, so... Okay?
---

Thats because it is a point he believes in because he wants it to be true but has no actual evidence to support it.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I mean, you care enough to argue your point but apparently don't care enough to share data, so... Okay?

going out, finding data, compiling it, and sharing it takes effort. you seem to mistakenly be under the impression that I'm actually trying to convince people here of anything. I'm not.

been in way too many topics already where people were forced to come face to face with irrefutable, data-driven conclusions, and you know what they do? almost every time? they run away. they just do. only to appear again in the next topic about the same subject posting the same crap as if they've never seen an opposing argument before. it's absolutely not worth it to me to engage in the effort needing to try and engage with these people on an even level.

as far as I'm concerned I'm basically just shooting the shit here, talking about the stuff that I have an interest in talking about, and it just so happens that most of the people in this topic disagree with me on this subject. which is really unfortunate because the right to own property, and to defend yourself, is probably one of the most essential things to human existence. anything less and you are a slave.
---

Problems with the current system:

1) too easy in some places to get a gun

Example: Florida, where the Parkland shooter was able to basically walk into a store and walk out with a leagal firearm

2) gun laws are not the same state-to-state

Example: Chicago. While it does have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Indiana has some of the most lax. Criminals can easily drive 30 minutes from Chicago to Gary, get a gun and drive back.

3) there are very few (if any) training requirements to purchase a firearm

Example: all the stories we see about kids accidentally shooting themselves/their friends/their siblings/their parents. Many of those could have been prevented by proper care, maintenance and storage.

4) any discussion on gun control is immediately construed as an attempt to forcibly take all guns

Example: this topic.

So what should be done?

1) nationalize the gun laws.

Im typically of a more limited government, pro-states right mind, but the issue will never be solved unless laws are standardized across the states. By having laws consistent, then you remove the possibility of someone ducking a more strict system in favor of a looser one. I would personally include a requirement for training and mandatory waiting periods before being allowed to purchase, as well as an ammunition limit. Theres no reason to have enough ammo to ride into battle on you at any time.

2) implement training requirements before you can purchase a firearm

When you wanted to learn how to drive a car, you didnt just walk to a dealership and drive one off the lot. You have to go through classes, supervised use, and take written and practical tests. You had to learn the rules of the road, and how to properly care for and maintain your vehicle before you were allowed to operate one. You had to get an identification card that you have to renew when you change addresses and every few years regardless. The same should be true for using a firearm. That way, everyone who has a gun understands what the have in their possession, and what it means to use it.

3) realize that attempts to reign in this out of control situation is not an attempt to undermine freedom.

The second amendment exists for a reason. I will never question or refute that. However, even though we have the right to bear arms, it doesnt mean there arent limitations. You cant go out and buy a bazooka. You cant go out and buy a fully-operational tank. Im not even saying we shouldnt allow people to buy things like assault weapons, like we do those other weapons. But there needs to be some kind of restriction on it so this doesnt keep happening
---

You can't buy an assault weapon.
At least, that's if you mean an assault rifle. That's been illegal for many decades. If it's a more nebulous term then the devil would be in the details there.
---

DoubleTangicide posted...

Theres no reason to....

the absolute worst argument for any gun control related subject ever given legitimacy in a debate, and yet it somehow still gets repeated to this day.

hey DoubleTangicide you might not know this but there's no reason to play Skyrim either. should playing Skyrim also be illegal? what's your favorite food? there's no reason to eat that either. might as well just eat vitamin paste every day and eating your favorite food should be illegal. I dunno why. there's just 'no reason' why you need to eat it so I guess I'm gonna argue in favor of banning it.

Kinglicious posted...

You can't buy an assault weapon.
At least, that's if you mean an assault rifle. That's been illegal for many decades. If it's a more nebulous term then the devil would be in the details there.

so I guess doubletangicide is in favor of less strict gun laws and doesn't even realize it.
---

Kinglicious posted...

You can't buy an assault weapon.
At least, that's if you mean an assault rifle. That's been illegal for many decades. If it's a more nebulous term then the devil would be in the details there.

Perhaps that is why he said weapon and not rife?
---

On the top of my head...

1. Make it so you can no longer legally buy or sell guns outside of an official gunstore. No Walmart, no gun shows, nothing.

2. Mandatory background check with no way to bypass. It's absolutely insane that it gets skipped if takes "too long". Background checks should take as long as they take. Additionally, background checks should be done in the most advance and effective way possible to minimize the chance of mistakes.

3. Mandatory training. If you're a dumbass, you don't need a gun. If you don't know what you're doing, you don't need a gun. In addition, one must take a yearly test to prove that they still know how to use a gun safely.

4. National gun registry. It's crazy that some states don't require this. If you buy a gun, it needs to be registered. If someone commits a crime with a gun under your name, that's your ass if you don't have a good justification. Guns aren't Pokemon cards, don't sell them to random assholes on Craigslist.

5. Limits on guns owned, and strict limits on ammo used. Unless you're in the army, you don't need the firepower to take down an army.

And if you commit any violent felony, you don't get to own a gun. Ever. If you're hurting someone, you have proven yourself to be untrustworthy.

I feel like we've been far too soft on this issue. We probably won't fix this in our lifetime, but if it's going to be fixed then we need to be strict about it.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

hey DoubleTangicide you might not know this but there's no reason to play Skyrim either. should playing Skyrim also be illegal? what's your favorite food? there's no reason to eat that either. might as well just eat vitamin paste every day and eating your favorite food should be illegal. I dunno why. there's just 'no reason' why you need to eat it so I guess I'm gonna argue in favor of banning it.

My playing Skyrim or eating my favorite food doesn't result in the possibility of anyone getting killed, let alone dozens of people
---

I wants knights, samurais, vikings to all come back.

But guns.
---

In depth background check. And actually perform them. Ban all automatic weapons. Only handguns can be legally purchased. Automatic weapons are basically for maxing damage output, not defending oneself. If a shooter goes on a rampage with a hand gun, the damage done is not nearly as bad as an automatic weapon. And the shooter can be realistically have a chance to be stopped. Ideally, ban all guns, but thatll never happen.

And arm all the school teachers with guns so they can protect them. Hell, lets arm the students too
---

Dark Young Link posted...

I feel like we've been far too soft on this issue. We probably won't fix this in our lifetime, but if it's going to be fixed then we need to be strict about it.

^ good example of a person that I debated with extensively in a previous topic, still repeating the same unchanged stance despite being 'enlightened' in the past.

edit: well actually if I remember correctly SEP himself was one of them, so I doubt he needs any specific examples to know what I'm referring to. I more just remember DYL specifically because he is the type who always starts off ridiculous, can be talked down to a more reasonable stance, and then begins each new topic from his original ridiculous position.

DoubleTangicide posted...

My playing Skyrim or eating my favorite food doesn't result in the possibility of anyone getting killed, let alone dozens of people

ah so we should start legislating people's freedom based on how "possible" it might be for them to do something wrong, rather than on whether a person has actually done anything wrong on not. what if they need to own 100 bullets instead of 10 bullets because the nearest ammunition supply is far away and it's a pain in the ass to keep going out there every single week to go hunting?

not exactly a fan of this stance!
---

ah so we should start legislating people's freedom based on how "possible" it might be for them to do something wrong, rather than on whether a person has actually done anything wrong on not. what if they need to own 100 bullets instead of 10 bullets because the nearest ammunition supply is far away and it's a pain in the ass to keep going out there every single week to go hunting?

Solid logic, 10/10
---

pxlated posted...

Solid logic, 10/10

the sad part is that board 8 is so entrenched in really dumb positions, and defending them with sarcasm, that I can't actually tell if you're being serious or not. but uh... yeah. I do believe that legislation should be based around punishing people who have committed crimes, not preemptively punishing people who might potentially do something bad (ie literally everyone).
---

I disagree that the stances I stated in this topic are ridiculous, though I'm not against having a discussion. I'm only human, and if someone feels that I'm mistaken they are free to comment why.

What I'm not a fan of is me being dismissed so casually, because that kills any potential for understanding(It's also quite rude, but I'm used to far worse).

I understand my stances can come off as harsh, but I sincerely believe that we have been far too lax when it comes to this sort of thing. It's a situation that should be taken with the upmost seriously, and I feel our lawmakers don't do that.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

What I'm not a fan of is me being dismissed so casually, because that kills any potential for understanding

what if you're being dismissed because you have a tendency to revert to previously established positions after the other person already went through way too much effort trying to have a reasonable discussion with you in the past? honestly I think dismissing people based on past experiences is fine.

when board 8 users get upset that I'm too "mean" to them and stop listening to me, put me on ignore, or stop taking me seriously, I don't get upset about it or anything. I don't crave some kind of reality where I can force them to listen to my arguments. who really cares? my ideal world isn't one where everyone agrees with me. it's one where people take seriously well thought out positions which reflect observable reality.

unfortunately, your positions don't seem to be based on that. it's just not worth it for me to engage you on that level.

Dark Young Link posted...

I understand my stances can come off as harsh, but I sincerely believe that we have been far too lax when it comes to this sort of thing.

right, and the fact that you SINCERELY believe this somehow despite being shown contrary data in the past is a good indication for why your opinion can be dismissed.
---

lordloki12 posted...

Kinglicious posted...

You can't buy an assault weapon.
At least, that's if you mean an assault rifle. That's been illegal for many decades. If it's a more nebulous term then the devil would be in the details there.

Perhaps that is why he said weapon and not rife?

nah, it's just a useless term. most people who use it tend to be referring to assault rifles or things that look rifle-y because they don't know the words they're actually saying or how to distinguish guns from one another. assault rifles are capable of full auto - that's one of the key important distinction. some hear that and then decide that maybe we should be banning semi-automatic guns without realizing just how stupid they sound for that.

a national standard of some kind ain't necessarily a bad idea and better, more in depth training could definitely be useful. education can go a long way and it might help with some suicide figures, which would be a nice boon. but if you're gonna talk about restricting certain guns, well, you shouldn't be using "assault weapon" because that's too useless of a term as you'll end up sounding like you don't know what you're talking about.
---

wang assault weapon isn't a useless term. the fact that it doesn't have any consistent meaning is actually incredibly valuable to pedantic dipshits looking to quote people and go 'heh heh GOTCHA!'
---

Wanglicious posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Kinglicious posted...

You can't buy an assault weapon.
At least, that's if you mean an assault rifle. That's been illegal for many decades. If it's a more nebulous term then the devil would be in the details there.

Perhaps that is why he said weapon and not rife?

nah, it's just a useless term. most people who use it tend to be referring to assault rifles or things that look rifle-y because they don't know the words they're actually saying or how to distinguish guns from one another. assault rifles are capable of full auto - that's one of the key important distinction. some hear that and then decide that maybe we should be banning semi-automatic guns without realizing just how stupid they sound for that.

a national standard of some kind ain't necessarily a bad idea and better, more in depth training could definitely be useful. education can go a long way and it might help with some suicide figures, which would be a nice boon. but if you're gonna talk about restricting certain guns, well, you shouldn't be using "assault weapon" because that's too useless of a term as you'll end up sounding like you don't know what you're talking about.

Ok so you "corrected" him into the wrong term just to refute the mistake you were admittedly unsure he even made.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

wang assault weapon isn't a useless term. the fact that it doesn't have any consistent meaning is actually incredibly valuable to pedantic dipshits looking to quote people and go 'heh heh GOTCHA!'

okay, that's completely true. useless for any meaningful discussion, then.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

what if you're being dismissed because you have a tendency to revert to previously established positions after the other person already went through way too much effort trying to have a reasonable discussion with you in the past? honestly I think dismissing people based on past experiences is fine.

I agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately, it's hard to recall that ever happening with me. Usually it's people who distort my argument into something it's not, or someone who starts off condescendingly who never had a plan to have a civil conversation in the first place.

I mean, I get that I can be a stubborn bastard at times. I'm not the type of person who would intentionally disregard a valid point, though I can be scatterbrained at times so there's a chance I'm just not remembering something.

MariaTaylor posted...

when board 8 users get upset that I'm too "mean" to them and stop listening to me, put me on ignore, or stop taking me seriously, I don't get upset about it or anything. I don't crave some kind of reality where I can force them to listen to my arguments. who really cares? my ideal world isn't one where everyone agrees with me. it's one where people take seriously well thought out positions which reflect observable reality.

unfortunately, your positions don't seem to be based on that. it's just not worth it for me to engage you on that level.

Only time I stop taking someone seriously is when they have proven to be trollish time and time again. Normally I just block that person, but I haven't blocked you(obviously). I'm not the type to complain about someone being mean... because I'm so used to that, it would be like complaining about the 36th hair on my arm.

(Unless you're going above and beyond, but at that point it just falls back under "Not even attempting to have a conversation")

MariaTaylor posted...

right, and the fact that you SINCERELY believe this somehow despite being shown contrary data in the past is a good indication for why your opinion can be dismissed.

Contrary data? Please show me that. I would love to verify that our lawmakers actually give a shit.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

I agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately, it's hard to recall that ever happening with me. Usually it's people who distort my argument into something it's not, or someone who starts off condescendingly who never had a plan to have a civil conversation in the first place.

Dark Young Link posted...

Contrary data? Please show me that. I would love to verify that our lawmakers actually give a shit.

go look at the original topic where foolmo first outlines his plan on gun reform (the one he mentions earlier in this topic). honestly, I don't know if it's archived or not. but it is all in there. we've all had this discussion before. me, you, lordloki, I think SEP was in there but I'm not 100% confident on that.

I'm just not having it again. it's straight up insanity to think that I would do the same exact shit over again when it's clearly been proven to have no effect.

also in fairness we all know that's not what will happen anyway. if anyone does bother to actually go back and look at the archived topic it would be for one reason; to read my posts, try to find ways they can be posted here out of context, and go for the ultimate 'heh heh GOTCHA!'

this is why I no longer treat you people with trust or respect. it's not random. it's not something that just happened with no explanation. actions have consequences. I lose respect for people who act this way. I don't just forget about it. the way I treat you now is a direct result of the way you have behaved in the past.
---

and that data takes time to produce because it involves looking up figures from multiple different data sets, comparing them, and coming to your own conclusions. I wouldn't even be upset if people looked at the data and came to their own conclusions but what we're literally seeing is people REFUSING to acknowledge the data, and then 6 months later asking me to go and produce it again as if I'm just constantly looking at the same information and have it ready to post at all times... as if I'd even bother to do it in the first place if I knew it would have a 0% chance of penetrating the defensive shields that protect your brains from absorbing any information.
---

Original topic?

I mean, I know the site but could you give me the name of the topic title so I don't just take several hours looking through every topic with the word "gun" in it(The load times are dreadful so I want to make sure I'm on the right page).

When you say "you people" I hope you don't mean the board as a whole, otherwise I'd be confused as to why you still hang around.

But eh, it's fine if you don't trust or respect me. I appreciate the honestly really. I prefer that to someone yanking my chain by saying otherwise... then showing they they actually don't.
---