Current Events > No new gun laws will be happening.

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://tinyurl.com/yalkrpmz
(CNN)

Go figure.

No surprise ay?

-_-

Don't need a law. BATF can probably unilaterally ban bump-stocks, somehow.
Of course, the same effect can be achieved by duct-taping a tennis ball to the butt end.

Did anyone really expect anything different?
---

Good. There's already far too many.
---

So what new laws would leftists propose?
---

When Jimmy Kimmel can't name even one law that would have stopped the shooting in his teary-eyed diatribe, of course there shouldn't be.

But the party of muh feels doesn't care about that, they would rather pass a bad law that helps nobody than admit their agenda sucks.
---

well yeah if we ignore the problem then it will go away right?

FrenchCrunch posted...

well yeah if we ignore the problem then it will go away right?

What do you suggest?
---

"Terrorist attacks are part and parcel of living in a big city."
Rabble rabble how dare you say that!

"Gun massacres are just part and parcel of living in our democracy."
As they should be, how dare you suggest otherwise!
---

What do you suggest?

i dont have one

A_Good_Boy posted...

"Terrorist attacks are part and parcel of living in a big city."
Rabble rabble how dare you say that!

"Gun massacres are just part and parcel of living in our democracy."
As they should be, how dare you suggest otherwise!

The problem with this (which is a fair point), is that if you're arguing for stricter gun laws, you're also arguing for a harder stance on Islam since you've tied the responses together like this.
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

So what new laws would leftists propose?

Ban all guns except for people who hunt

A_Good_Boy posted...

"Terrorist attacks are part and parcel of living in a big city."
Rabble rabble how dare you say that!

"Gun massacres are just part and parcel of living in our democracy."
As they should be, how dare you suggest otherwise!

Bearing arms is a right

Immigrating to any country you want is not a right
---

No new laws, in fact we may be lessening the laws already in place in wake of this attack.
---

AlternativeFAQS posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

So what new laws would leftists propose?

Ban all guns except for people who hunt

Would love to see the logistics of this that doesn't result in attempts to seize firearms turning into a whole lot of dead cops and civilians.
---

AlternativeFAQS posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

So what new laws would leftists propose?

Ban all guns except for people who hunt

Meanwhile, in the 1960's

"Ban drugs for everyone except doctors"
---

AlternativeFAQS posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

So what new laws would leftists propose?

Ban all guns except for people who hunt

The Vegas killer was an older, white millionaire with no history of mental illness who passed every one of his background checks with flying colors. He would have still qualified for hunting rifles.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

AlternativeFAQS posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

So what new laws would leftists propose?

Ban all guns except for people who hunt

Meanwhile, in the 1960's

"Ban drugs for everyone except doctors"

this is quite possibly the worst analogy i've seen this year
---

AlternativeFAQS posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

So what new laws would leftists propose?

Ban all guns except for people who hunt

What about people who target shoot for competition?
---

the fed govt should institute a program where they give every american a sick katana if they volunteer to trade in their guns.

now home defense is more precise and badass, and hunting would be so dope with a katana, much better than sitting with a tree and waiting to snipe a defenseless deer that doesnt see you. imagine running up to a buck and slicing him with a swift dragon uppercut
---

Good.

Stop being scared.
---

Romulox28 posted...

the fed govt should institute a program where they give every american a sick katana if they volunteer to trade in their guns.

now home defense is more precise and badass, and hunting would be so dope with a katana, much better than sitting with a tree and waiting to snipe a defenseless deer that doesnt see you. imagine running up to a buck and slicing him with a swift dragon uppercut

---

tremain07 posted...

No new laws, in fact we may be lessening the laws already in place in wake of this attack.

Of course. Gun manufacturers want to sell more guns and mass shootings usually increase gun sales.
---

s0nicfan posted...

AlternativeFAQS posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

So what new laws would leftists propose?

Ban all guns except for people who hunt

The Vegas killer was an older, white millionaire with no history of mental illness who passed every one of his background checks with flying colors. He would have still qualified for hunting rifles.

You think he would've killed and injured that many people with only hunting rifles? I'm not saying stricter gun laws will completely prevent tragedies from happening but it at least could soften them.
---

Bolle_Henk_ posted...

You think he would've killed and injured that many people with only hunting rifles? I'm not saying stricter gun laws will completely prevent tragedies from happening but it at least could soften them.

Probably just would have went with a bomb, in that case.
---

mario2000 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

AlternativeFAQS posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

So what new laws would leftists propose?

Ban all guns except for people who hunt

Meanwhile, in the 1960's

"Ban drugs for everyone except doctors"

this is quite possibly the worst analogy i've seen this year

I presume you oppose the war on drugs, yeah

Why would banning guns, which can be used over and over again for many decades, be more viable than banning drugs whuch you need to keep manufacturing in order to keep up supply
---

Bolle_Henk_ posted...

s0nicfan posted...

AlternativeFAQS posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

So what new laws would leftists propose?

Ban all guns except for people who hunt

The Vegas killer was an older, white millionaire with no history of mental illness who passed every one of his background checks with flying colors. He would have still qualified for hunting rifles.

You think he would've killed and injured that many people with only hunting rifles? I'm not saying stricter gun laws will completely prevent tragedies from happening but it at least could soften them.

If we are to believe that the guns he used were illegally modified to make them full auto, and given the amount of preparation the guy had, I see no reason to think he would have killed fewer people. They also found pipe-bomb making materials in his house. If he didn't have a full auto weapon, who's to say he didn't just start chucking bombs out the window?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

mario2000 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

AlternativeFAQS posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

So what new laws would leftists propose?

Ban all guns except for people who hunt

Meanwhile, in the 1960's

"Ban drugs for everyone except doctors"

this is quite possibly the worst analogy i've seen this year

I presume you oppose the war on drugs, yeah

Why would banning guns, which can be used over and over again for many decades, be more viable than banning drugs whuch you need to keep manufacturing in order to keep up supply

just stop while you're ahead dude

it's too early in the morning for me to handle this much secondhand embarrassment
---

s0nicfan posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

"Terrorist attacks are part and parcel of living in a big city."
Rabble rabble how dare you say that!

"Gun massacres are just part and parcel of living in our democracy."
As they should be, how dare you suggest otherwise!

The problem with this (which is a fair point), is that if you're arguing for stricter gun laws, you're also arguing for a harder stance on Islam since you've tied the responses together like this.

I think the problem here is the reaction towards the two statements. It seems like the issue was never about safety or security and is merely a reaction towards the residency status of the person that's committing the massacre. Legal citizen or no, I'd just prefer not to be shot in the face while people grandstand that it's their right to do so.
---

Universal Background Checks is a start.

Agnostic420 posted...

Universal Background Checks is a start.

If you buy a gun through FFL you get a background check.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

I think the problem here is the reaction towards the two statements. It seems like the issue was never about safety or security and is merely a reaction towards the residency status of the person that's committing the massacre. Legal citizen or no, I'd just prefer not to be shot in the face while people grandstand that it's their right to do so.

Not really, because as others have pointed out you're comparing a fundamental constitutional right to something that isn't. Outside of the fact that nobody is saying that "gun massacres are part and parcel" of anything, the issue is also comparing people who may have a violent set of ideas to an object that people own. The only person losing out with tougher immigration are immigrants, but the people losing out with tougher gun laws are citizens.

And I say this as someone who doesn't even really like guns. Claiming it's all really about racism/xenophobia/etc is really just missing the point, IMO.
---

When gun advocates chose firearms over dead elementary school kids, I knew nothing would deter them.

Doesn't matter how many innocent people are killed, they need their guns
---

the current gun laws are fine

we can't make knee-jerk reactions to isolated incidents
---

people see the news sensationalizing things, but 50 people is statistically insignificant when you consider the entire population
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

FrenchCrunch posted...

well yeah if we ignore the problem then it will go away right?

What do you suggest?

Knock it off with this shit argument. There are learned professionals that should be writing new proposals. It isnt GameFaqs or FaceBook that are responsible for writing new laws.
---

Of course no gun restrictions will be done, the GOP wants less restricted access to guns.
---

Deadpool_18 posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

FrenchCrunch posted...

well yeah if we ignore the problem then it will go away right?

What do you suggest?

Knock it off with this shit argument. There are learned professionals that should be writing new proposals. It isnt GameFaqs or FaceBook that are responsible for writing new laws.

You can't just take the stance "we need more laws" and not have an educated opinion or argument.

The argument "we need more laws" is nothing more than emotional knee-jerk reaction.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

When gun advocates chose firearms over dead elementary school kids, I knew nothing would deter them.

Doesn't matter how many innocent people are killed, they need their guns

What do you propose changes?
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

When gun advocates chose firearms over dead elementary school kids, I knew nothing would deter them.

Doesn't matter how many innocent people are killed, they need their guns

That's a shit argument, though:
"When immigration advocates chose refugees over raped children, I knew nothing would deter them"
"When censorship advocates chose to condemn free speech over the bodies of charlie hebdo staffers, I knew nothing would change"

You can make that kind of argument all day, for all sorts of issues, and it's never a good one. You've just made a soap box out of corpses to shout your message from, but that doesn't make it a better message.
---

s0nicfan posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

When gun advocates chose firearms over dead elementary school kids, I knew nothing would deter them.

Doesn't matter how many innocent people are killed, they need their guns

That's a shit argument, though:
"When immigration advocates chose refugees over raped children, I knew nothing would deter them"
"When censorship advocates chose to condemn free speech over the bodies of charlie hebdo staffers, I knew nothing would change"

You can make that kind of argument all day, for all sorts of issues, and it's never a good one.

Cool bro
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

s0nicfan posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

When gun advocates chose firearms over dead elementary school kids, I knew nothing would deter them.

Doesn't matter how many innocent people are killed, they need their guns

That's a shit argument, though:
"When immigration advocates chose refugees over raped children, I knew nothing would deter them"
"When censorship advocates chose to condemn free speech over the bodies of charlie hebdo staffers, I knew nothing would change"

You can make that kind of argument all day, for all sorts of issues, and it's never a good one.

Cool bro

Glad we're in agreement, then.
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

Deadpool_18 posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

FrenchCrunch posted...

well yeah if we ignore the problem then it will go away right?

What do you suggest?

Knock it off with this shit argument. There are learned professionals that should be writing new proposals. It isnt GameFaqs or FaceBook that are responsible for writing new laws.

You can't just take the stance "we need more laws" and not have an educated opinion or argument.

The argument "we need more laws" is nothing more than emotional knee-jerk reaction.

We do need a firmer grip on gun laws. Just look at the statistics regarding the US versus....almost any other first world country.
---

We do need a firmer grip on gun laws. Just look at the statistics regarding the US versus....almost any other first world country.

i didnt engage him for a reason

mario2000 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

mario2000 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

AlternativeFAQS posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

So what new laws would leftists propose?

Ban all guns except for people who hunt

Meanwhile, in the 1960's

"Ban drugs for everyone except doctors"

this is quite possibly the worst analogy i've seen this year

I presume you oppose the war on drugs, yeah

Why would banning guns, which can be used over and over again for many decades, be more viable than banning drugs whuch you need to keep manufacturing in order to keep up supply

just stop while you're ahead dude

it's too early in the morning for me to handle this much firsthand embarrassment

---

Philoktetes posted...

people see the news sensationalizing things, but 50 people is statistically insignificant when you consider the entire population

Agreed. Its awful and tragic, so it creates a visceral emotional response. But its a blip on the screen compared to the real threats out there. You have something like a 1/15,000 odds of dying in a mass shooting. But a 1/7 chance of dying from heart disease. I dont see calls for banning fast food restaurants or junk food though. We continue to stuff our faces with chips and soda and cookies.

s0nicfan posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

s0nicfan posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

When gun advocates chose firearms over dead elementary school kids, I knew nothing would deter them.

Doesn't matter how many innocent people are killed, they need their guns

That's a shit argument, though:
"When immigration advocates chose refugees over raped children, I knew nothing would deter them"
"When censorship advocates chose to condemn free speech over the bodies of charlie hebdo staffers, I knew nothing would change"

You can make that kind of argument all day, for all sorts of issues, and it's never a good one.

Cool bro

Glad we're in agreement, then.

I mean when you're making shitty false equivalencies, its best to just leave you to your shitposting
---

Agreed. Its awful and tragic, so it creates a visceral emotional response. But its a blip on the screen compared to the real threats out there. You have something like a 1/15,000 odds of dying in a mass shooting. But a 1/7 chance of dying from heart disease. I dont see calls for banning fast food restaurants or junk food though. We continue to stuff our faces with chips and soda and cookies.

i suppose the counter argument would be that cookies are not manufactured for the sole purpose of taking life

FrenchCrunch posted...

We do need a firmer grip on gun laws. Just look at the statistics regarding the US versus....almost any other first world country.

i didnt engage him for a reason

Im gonna do the same now.
---