New posts

"Assault weapon" ban 2.0

Jan. 29, 2013, 2:35 p.m.
Posts: 11462
Joined: June 29, 2006

So you think its worthwhile to focus all our energy on a very small part of the problem? Seems like a very inefficient way to spend our time and money, when it could be allocated to the other 99% of the problem.

Maybe that is because if anyone suggested banning hand guns the gun advocates would go apeshit. People in America want some kind of gun control and at the moment assault weapons is about as far as they can get. Maybe the gun advocates could put some skin in the game.

Jan. 29, 2013, 2:42 p.m.
Posts: 7707
Joined: Sept. 11, 2003

So you think its worthwhile to focus all our energy on a very small part of the problem? Seems like a very inefficient way to spend our time and money, when it could be allocated to the other 99% of the problem.

In 2007, 144 deaths were caused by drunk driving in BC. After 5 years of more enforcement, stiffer penalties, lower alcohol limits, last year 73 people in BC died from drunk driving. So about 70 lives were saved. What's the big deal, right? People die from cancer, people are murdered etc. Why not fix those problems first?

The reason is that drunk driving is an unnecessary, preventable and randomly kills innocent people. These laws may be a slight hindrance to some people, but most accept these measures if they prevent/reduces PREVENTABLE, RANDOM, SENSELESS deaths and injuries.

Most gun homicides in America tend to affect people in poor neighborhoods and young "minority" males and involve drugs and gangs:

This is a whole different kettle of fish and there is a whole socio-economic side to this story, but it doesn't help that it is so easy to own, buy, sell and resell guns in America. I don't consider myself a likely candidate for getting shot over a bad drug deal, but it would really suck if I was shot over a parking space or because of a domestic incident because that's what tends to happen when any dickwad with a few bucks in their pocket can pack heat.

Jan. 29, 2013, 2:48 p.m.
Posts: 14985
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

This is a whole different kettle of fish and there is a whole socio-economic side to this story, but it doesn't help that it is so easy to own, buy, sell and resell guns in America. I don't consider myself a likely candidate for getting shot over a bad drug deal, but it would really suck if I was .

Thats what I'm talking about when I say its a nasty place down there

In comparison consider the Vancover downtown eastside is as bad as it gets but I don't hear about a lot of gun deaths

Jan. 29, 2013, 3:26 p.m.
Posts: 4905
Joined: Aug. 7, 2007

That is argument he is making. I am struggling with it because it doesn't make any sense. Of course bad guys don't follow the rules, but all the guns the bad guys use start out in a gun shop.

Like it or not the sea of guns the US is floating on pretty much all started as guns sold to a law abiding citizen practicing their 2nd amendment rights. If you don't want cheap high powered weapons in the hands of thugs it has to start with the original buyers, AND IMO, an aggressive buy back program where the government pays more than street value (use greed for good). Unless of course you can suggest a form of regulation that is recognized by the criminal world and you are holding out on us.

Holy Fuck feel like I should copy paste shit over and over again.

I made the 99 Percent argument just to counter go ts argument.

My original argument always has been,
The changes ( banning of assault weapon, limiting magazine) won't make anyone safer. Use that resource that would have been used to enforce such changes to millions of citizens , on making deterrence in places that are targeted,(gun free zone).

If someone can come up with a better , realistic, plan, I will adopt it.

Jan. 29, 2013, 3:33 p.m.
Posts: 4905
Joined: Aug. 7, 2007

Another game of twist words to make retarded points.
Laws are important, but everyone has a different desire of where government steps in.
It's not on, or off.
So don't twist my words on the fact that murderers won't follow magazine laws into me saying laws are stupid.

Also kenn, really? You're gonna compare traffic violators to mass murderers, durrrrr.

Jan. 29, 2013, 3:38 p.m.
Posts: 4905
Joined: Aug. 7, 2007

Ladies and gentlemen, I present the overly emotional gun owner.

One very simple and indisputable fact remains in this argument - if there are drastically fewer guns then there will be fewer gun related crimes. Good enforcement of strict gun control laws will solve America's problems - bleating about how it can't be done because criminals won't listen is essentially useless, because that's where the enforcement part of the strategy comes in.

Put your hands up if you live in Canada and you also carry a gun on a regular basis for self defense. I'm gonna go ahead and guess that zero people do that on this board.

Only shit pissing me off is your "common sense", choosing to allocate, limited resource on less than 1 percent of the problem vs 99 percent. I'd rather you say ban all guns so you are consistent.

Again, you make direct correlation of gun law and gun crime as if it's the only variable.

Jan. 29, 2013, 3:42 p.m.
Posts: 4905
Joined: Aug. 7, 2007

Even if it's only one percent, it's still a problem.

It's amazing how people act like they are being violated if they are told they cannot pack an Uzi. Hey, I'd like an RPG. It's great for moose hunting - cleans and quarters the moose for me!

I m not opposed to ban projectile explosives. But I'd imagine people with the license for those must be interviewed, trained, and background checked more than anything.

Jan. 29, 2013, 3:50 p.m.
Posts: 4905
Joined: Aug. 7, 2007

In 2007, 144 deaths were caused by drunk driving in BC. After 5 years of more enforcement, stiffer penalties, lower alcohol limits, last year 73 people in BC died from drunk driving. So about 70 lives were saved. What's the big deal, right? People die from cancer, people are murdered etc. Why not fix those problems first?

The reason is that drunk driving is an unnecessary, preventable and randomly kills innocent people. These laws may be a slight hindrance teto some people, but most accept these measures if they prevent/reduces PREVENTABLE, RANDOM, SENSELESS deaths and injuries.

Most gun homicides in America tend to affect people in poor neighborhoods and young "minority" males and involve drugs and gangs:

This is a whole different kettle of fish and there is a whole socio-economic side to this story, but it doesn't help that it is so easy to own, buy, sell and resell guns in America. I don't consider myself a likely candidate for getting shot over a bad drug deal, but it would really suck if I was shot over a parking space or because of a domestic incident because that's what tends to happen when any dickwad with a few bucks in their pocket can pack heat.

I agree one percent is important. But how are the
changes that are being proposed going to help?,

Let's divide crimes done by "assualt" rifles into two category,
Illegally , and legal.ly obtained.
The law won't affect the illegal owners from commiting murder,
The ones that obtained it legally, will resort to betr guns(glock, shotgun, etc according to Biden),
So does that really help?

Jan. 29, 2013, 4:05 p.m.
Posts: 4905
Joined: Aug. 7, 2007

I see people perform stupid, illegal things every day while driving.

If the criminals are just going to ignore the laws, we should totally repeal all motor vehicle laws - clearly they don't work anyway.

Kn.

Speeding, running red light, drinking and driving can all cause harm to people,
How is having 15 bullets instead of 10 in a magazine going to harm more people

How is having assault rifles which are harder to shoot you going to affect anything?

Any firearm even .2 caliber is dangerous in the wrong hands. But so are baseball bats, hammers, knives, cars, etc

Jan. 29, 2013, 4:16 p.m.
Posts: 5329
Joined: Feb. 3, 2006

Any firearm even .2 caliber is dangerous in the wrong hands. But so are baseball bats, hammers, knives, cars, etc

We should probably just arm our military with baseball bats and hammers then eh? There is no reason that they shouldn't be just as effective right?

Jan. 29, 2013, 4:22 p.m.
Posts: 4905
Joined: Aug. 7, 2007

We should probably just arm our military with baseball bats and hammers then eh? There is no reason that they shouldn't be just as effective right?

You are retarded

Jan. 29, 2013, 4:26 p.m.
Posts: 5329
Joined: Feb. 3, 2006

Holy Fuck feel like I should copy paste shit over and over again.

I made the 99 Percent argument just to counter go ts argument.

My original argument always has been,
The changes ( banning of assault weapon, limiting magazine) won't make anyone safer. Use that resource that would have been used to enforce such changes to millions of citizens , on making deterrence in places that are targeted,(gun free zone).

If someone can come up with a better , realistic, plan, I will adopt it.

You realize that your own 99 v 1% argument can be used against you in the case of "gun-free zones' right? Out of the 11000ish gun deaths per year, only an minuscule portion of those take place in gun free zones. Most shooting deaths take place in the streets and in private homes. So you're criticizing people for supporting regulation that will only target '1% of the problem', while hypocritically pushing the abolition of gun-free zones that only has the potential of 'solving' (most people believe that this would actually make children less safe and increase the risk of putting firearms in the hand of children) '1% of the problem'.

Either way, you're still over simplifying the issue as a whole. Your argument is essentially "Why waste time solving 1% of the problem while ignoring 99%, especially while resources are so limited" right? The reality is that there is NO simple solution to 99% of the gun violence 'problem', the reality of the situation is that it's more likely that there are 99 solutions, each accounting for 1% of the problem, but when enacted together can make a difference.

I agree with you though that the AWB is largely toothless and will do little if anything to curb gun violence, as far as I'm concerned it's simply to passify the public after Newtown. Unfortunately though, the proposed regulations are the only issues with which the public supports in large numbers and with which lawmakers can conceivably come to a consensus on, but this is the political climate we're living in right now.

Jan. 29, 2013, 4:28 p.m.
Posts: 5329
Joined: Feb. 3, 2006

You are retarded

Reductio ad absurdum.

Jan. 29, 2013, 4:38 p.m.
Posts: 3202
Joined: Aug. 4, 2009

I m not opposed to ban projectile explosives. But I'd imagine people with the license for those must be interviewed, trained, and background checked more than anything.

See, now I'm starting to convince myself that you're trolling.

All or none, did you not express that sentiment a few minutes ago? Hell, open up the Abrhams factory to the general public. TANKS FOR ALL!

Why not make this an even larger gap?

Decent legislation and enforcement will be a good thing for the US; if they can't get there, well, oh well. There are other countries that don't slaughter themselves waiting in the wings to step into a more powerful role. By all means, keep blowing the shit out of yourselves - the rest of the world will cope with the eventual self destruction.

Jan. 29, 2013, 4:40 p.m.
Posts: 4905
Joined: Aug. 7, 2007

You realize that your own 99 v 1% argument can be used against you in the case of "gun-free zones' right? Out of the 11000ish gun deaths per year, only an minuscule portion of those take place in gun free zones. Most shooting deaths take place in the streets and in private homes. So you're criticizing people for supporting regulation that will only target '1% of the problem', while hypocritically pushing the abolition of gun-free zones that only has the potential of 'solving' (most people believe that this would actually make children less safe and increase the risk of putting firearms in the hand of children) '1% of the problem'.

I agree one percent is important. But how are the
changes that are being proposed going to help?,

Let's divide crimes done by "assualt" rifles into two category,
Illegally , and legal.ly obtained.
The law won't affect the illegal owners from commiting murder,
The ones that obtained it legally, will resort to betr guns(glock, shotgun, etc according to Biden),
So does that really help?

If someone can come up with a better , realistic, plan, I will adopt it.

not gonna type same shit again.

Forum jump: