Gun Control

NM11046 said:
So quick question to those who think that by civilians carrying guns we lesson the chance of attacks (because when a gunman tries to rob, or attack there would be a bystander with concealed carry who could stop the event).

In Texas, where gun ownership is high (I think the last official stat I saw, and it was 2 or 3 years old said 37% of people in the state owned a gun, and I'm assuming based on politics, the color of the state overall and our current debates that this number has gone up significantly). How can one explain how Dallas happened? Statistically there were a significant number in the crowd who were carrying.

This is not a trolling question, I'm sincerely interested in how this argument makes sense to some.
Click to expand...
That is simple, you had an evil military trained racist who ambushed people from a parking garage. With the acoustics with all of the tall buildings nobody could figure out where he was firing from. Not to mention he was running between several points to shoot from to make it seem like there were more than one shooter. Which is something that he looked up online.

More laws don't help because all you have to do is look at San Bernardino once again two days ago. But it just involved black men, so the national media doesn't cover it because it doesn't portray it's pathetic agenda. And California is one of the most liberal states in the country and has the strictest gun laws in the country. The pathetic part is the grandstanding that the Dem's did in the Senate over gun control to blame this on the Republicans. Well, if they cared so much about the issue why didn't they pass anything in 2008-2009 when they had the 60 votes in the Senate and a Democratic President? Of course they don't want the focus on that, so they want to grandstand to make it look like they care about an issue during an election year so they can get reelected and continue to do nothing.

Here's the article about the senseless San Bernardino shootings, very sad that it was likely a gang related shooting that took two innocent lives including a 9 year old boy. If you read the article, I can't imagine the pain that mother went through.

9-year old boy, father killed in triple shooting in San Bernardino
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-child-shooting-20160709-snap-story.html

 
BIGREDIOWAN said:
NM11046 said:
So quick question to those who think that by civilians carrying guns we lesson the chance of attacks (because when a gunman tries to rob, or attack there would be a bystander with concealed carry who could stop the event).

In Texas, where gun ownership is high (I think the last official stat I saw, and it was 2 or 3 years old said 37% of people in the state owned a gun, and I'm assuming based on politics, the color of the state overall and our current debates that this number has gone up significantly). How can one explain how Dallas happened? Statistically there were a significant number in the crowd who were carrying.

This is not a trolling question, I'm sincerely interested in how this argument makes sense to some.
Click to expand...
The trouble with the Dallas shooting is I don't think anyone knew where this guy was shooting from initially. The sound of the gunfire was bouncing off of all the buildings and nevermind facing a rifle with a pistol is a real bad situation to be in, but it can obviously be done. People also reported that he was initially fighting from the position of advantage, elevation. Rifle, elevation, unknown location, means find cover or run your a$$ off real quick and get out of there. Talk about a GIANT **** sandwich to take a bite out of if you're responding to that.

My main guess is the people that showed up to protest aren't the type to carry firearms based on their beliefs and feelings so there probably wasn't a huge number there that even had a weapon on them IMO.
Click to expand...
Some were carrying firearms and smartly gave their weapons to the police when it started. That was very smart not only to take any suspicion from them and prevented any confusion that could have led to more incidents. The way people reacted to that evil person, that is the country is all about. Police and protesters (who were protesting the police, get the irony of that) working hand in hand to limit the damage by that evil POS.

 
Are you f'ing kidding me? Sonny boy is aligned to the NRA (no surprise), but to be advocating for silencers? This is yet another example of the kids getting involved in areas that are inappropriate for them to be tied to with their new roles.

And on a side note - why in the world do we need this change? Selling it as a "health" issue is ridiculous. What benefit do the 2nd amendment folks see this in providing? Why is it a right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-silencers-are-hard-to-buy-donald-trump-jr-and-silencer-makers-want-to-change-that/2017/01/07/0764ab4c-d2d2-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_silencers-715pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2c9bc5b94bdf

 
NM11046 said:
Are you f'ing kidding me? Sonny boy is aligned to the NRA (no surprise), but to be advocating for silencers? This is yet another example of the kids getting involved in areas that are inappropriate for them to be tied to with their new roles.

And on a side note - why in the world do we need this change? Selling it as a "health" issue is ridiculous. What benefit do the 2nd amendment folks see this in providing? Why is it a right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-silencers-are-hard-to-buy-donald-trump-jr-and-silencer-makers-want-to-change-that/2017/01/07/0764ab4c-d2d2-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_silencers-715pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2c9bc5b94bdf
Click to expand...
I don't really get what the big deal with suppressors are anymore. They don't actually silence the weapon. If a criminal wants to use one, nothing is stopping them from making one anyway (pop bottles or pillows can work in a pinch), It's no more difficult than a 200 dollar tax and 9 month wait. You can probably buy them from over seas anyways.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the gun lobby's argument that they aren't used very often in crimes and therefore have a negative stigma attached to them is somewhat of a fallacy. One of the biggest reasons they aren't used in crimes is because of how difficult it is to get them. If you significantly increase the supply and ease of purchase then their use in crimes will also likely increase by a significant margin.

I know a few guys who run a gun/suppressor retailer in Nebraska. They're some very cool guys - most of them are vets - and they really know what they're talking about. They're naturally big proponents of the suppression effect and the impact it has on their hearing and the hearing of their clients.

But, even they think the laws in place are probably a good idea. You need to be 21, a U.S. citizen, produce passport photos, pay $200 and wait 4-6 months (among other requirements) to get one. And if you want another one you have to go through the whole same process again.

 
NM11046 said:
Are you f'ing kidding me? Sonny boy is aligned to the NRA (no surprise), but to be advocating for silencers? This is yet another example of the kids getting involved in areas that are inappropriate for them to be tied to with their new roles.

And on a side note - why in the world do we need this change? Selling it as a "health" issue is ridiculous. What benefit do the 2nd amendment folks see this in providing? Why is it a right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-silencers-are-hard-to-buy-donald-trump-jr-and-silencer-makers-want-to-change-that/2017/01/07/0764ab4c-d2d2-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_silencers-715pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2c9bc5b94bdf
Click to expand...
Even countries that have more strict gun laws than the U.S. don't regulate suppressors like we do. They don't work like the movies, and the only reason they were even put on the NFA list in the first place was because of ignorance. The $200 "tax stamp" was established in the 30's as a workaround in attempt to effectively ban them.

Many states now allow you to hunt with them, because they realized the benefits, and how silly the NFA classification is. I know people who use them just for target shooting on their own property, simply to not annoy the neighbors.

It's akin to banning mufflers on cars.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
saunders45 said:
Even countries that have more strict gun laws than the U.S. don't regulate suppressors like we do. They don't work like the movies, and the only reason they were even put on the NFA list in the first place was because of ignorance. The $200 "tax stamp" was established in the 30's as a workaround in attempt to effectively ban them.
Click to expand...
My whole life is a lie. Next you're going to tell me TIE fighters wouldn't make that noise in space because sound doesn't travel in a vacuum.

 
knapplc said:
saunders45 said:
Even countries that have more strict gun laws than the U.S. don't regulate suppressors like we do. They don't work like the movies, and the only reason they were even put on the NFA list in the first place was because of ignorance. The $200 "tax stamp" was established in the 30's as a workaround in attempt to effectively ban them.
Click to expand...
My whole life is a lie. Next you're going to tell me TIE fighters wouldn't make that noise in space because sound doesn't travel in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


 
knapplc said:
saunders45 said:
Even countries that have more strict gun laws than the U.S. don't regulate suppressors like we do. They don't work like the movies, and the only reason they were even put on the NFA list in the first place was because of ignorance. The $200 "tax stamp" was established in the 30's as a workaround in attempt to effectively ban them.
Click to expand...
My whole life is a lie. Next you're going to tell me TIE fighters wouldn't make that noise in space because sound doesn't travel in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
Yeah they wouldn't make the noise but they can do banking turns in space. #fact

 
Back
Top