The Gun Control Clusterfuck

[Dyscivist 5686]

Okay, so are you really arguing that taking away a persons means to kill another person will make things WORSE? Of course people will always have a means to kill eachother, but that doesn't mean they should be given easy access to a VERY effective means to do so.

Please look at my post, you dunce.

[ChosenOne2000 4440]

Y'all motherfuckers need Jesus!

[Guest Fohacidal]

Y'all motherfuckers need Jesus!

You post that in one more thread without contributing to the discussion or the flames and im gonna downvote you

[ChosenOne2000 4440]

Y'all motherfuckers need Jesus!

You post that in one more thread without contributing to the discussion or the flames and im gonna downvote you

If we want to heavily regulate guns, we should heavily regulate bows and arrows. Both are used for hunting and have the potential to kill people.

But c12k, it's different. NOPE! The technology is different, but the result is the same. Dead motherfuckers...

In other words, stop blaming the equipment and start blaming the operator. School shootings weren't a problem in the 1860s. Society has changed. We as a people have changed. We need to fix ourselves, the gun laws are fine the way they are.

[Dojima 7619]

Y'all motherfuckers need Jesus!

Was waiting for this post.

[ElectronicDrug 7496]

School shootings weren't a problem in the 1860s.

• February 16, 1867: Knights Ferry, California Mr. McGinnis was shot and killed by his daughter's teacher after McGinnis threatened the teacher for expelling his daughter from school. When McGinnis's son learned of this, he went to the school and killed the teacher.^[4]
  
• June 8, 1867: New York City Arthur Day, a 13-year-old boy, secretly took a loaded pistol to Public School No. 18 to shoot a dog he said had bitten him. While playing with the pistol, Day accidentally shot and injured classmate Robert Morton.^[5]
  
• December 22, 1868: Chattanooga, Tennessee A boy who refused to be whipped by his teacher, left the school. The next day he returned with his brother and a friend for revenge. Not finding the teacher at the school, they continued to his house, where a gun battle took place and three died. Only the brother survived.^[6]
  

[Guest Fohacidal]

School shootings weren't a problem in the 1860s.

• February 16, 1867: Knights Ferry, California Mr. McGinnis was shot and killed by his daughter's teacher after McGinnis threatened the teacher for expelling his daughter from school. When McGinnis's son learned of this, he went to the school and killed the teacher.^[4]
  
• June 8, 1867: New York City Arthur Day, a 13-year-old boy, secretly took a loaded pistol to Public School No. 18 to shoot a dog he said had bitten him. While playing with the pistol, Day accidentally shot and injured classmate Robert Morton.^[5]
  
• December 22, 1868: Chattanooga, Tennessee A boy who refused to be whipped by his teacher, left the school. The next day he returned with his brother and a friend for revenge. Not finding the teacher at the school, they continued to his house, where a gun battle took place and three died. Only the brother survived.^[6]
  

I read some of the other really early ones as well. As far as the contemporary meaning of school shooting goes these arent entirely relevant, more like accidents and murders that took place in a school as opposed to mass shootings that targeted a school specifically. Also lack of training lead to like half of those early at/in school deaths.

[ElectronicDrug 7496]

School shootings weren't a problem in the 1860s.

• February 16, 1867: Knights Ferry, California Mr. McGinnis was shot and killed by his daughter's teacher after McGinnis threatened the teacher for expelling his daughter from school. When McGinnis's son learned of this, he went to the school and killed the teacher.^[4]
  
• June 8, 1867: New York City Arthur Day, a 13-year-old boy, secretly took a loaded pistol to Public School No. 18 to shoot a dog he said had bitten him. While playing with the pistol, Day accidentally shot and injured classmate Robert Morton.^[5]
  
• December 22, 1868: Chattanooga, Tennessee A boy who refused to be whipped by his teacher, left the school. The next day he returned with his brother and a friend for revenge. Not finding the teacher at the school, they continued to his house, where a gun battle took place and three died. Only the brother survived.^[6]
  

I read some of the other really early ones as well. As far as the contemporary meaning of school shooting goes these arent entirely relevant, more like accidents and murders that took place in a school as opposed to mass shootings that targeted a school specifically. Also lack of training lead to like half of those early at/in school deaths.

Yeah sorry, I meant to agree with him. That's what happens when you post at 430am. I was going to contrast the 1860s with just the past 3-4 years, which looks like this:

EDIT: It won't format right. Here

Edited March 10, 2013 by ElectronicDrug

[blob 1985]

I'm working on an angle to turn this thread into a healthcare debate.

Just give me a bit.

[Prosak 683]

while it doesn't have full auto capabilities I have the knowledge to take it apart and thus make it so,

I was under the impression that a semi-automatic rifle required more than just knowledge of its inner workings to be converted to fully automatic. Have I been mislead?

that is correct a keen touch is required but I've seen some gunsmiths do it so thats how i figured it out

[Prosak 683]

I was under the impression that a semi-automatic rifle required more than just knowledge of its inner workings to be converted to fully automatic. Have I been mislead?

It does only require knowledge of its inner workings, naturally, but it's not just a simple matter of taking it apart and messing around with a few things. It's a rather complicated job—one that I highly doubt Prosak is capable of.

I'm also fairly certain that the cost of ammunition has little to do with why he hasn't done it.

Too be honest the reason i have not done it that I simply dont have money for ammo and as i want to be a police officer I dont want to break any laws. Your assuming me to be stupid which I am not, lets please act like a mature adult its a serious topic.

Btw check prices for .223 or 5.56 nato its expensive if you want proof bud

Edited March 10, 2013 by Prosak

[Windmill 1521]

[Dojima 7619]

that is correct a keen touch is required but I've seen some gunsmiths do it so thats how i figured it out

Your assuming me to be stupid which I am not, lets please act like a mature adult its a serious topic.

Legit lmao.

[Wintergreen 1603]

that is correct a keen touch is required but I've seen some gunsmiths do it so thats how i figured it out

Your assuming me to be stupid which I am not, lets please act like a mature adult its a serious topic.

Legit lmao.

Let natural selection run its course.

[pH(x) 1]

meatspin.com

[Prosak 683]

that is correct a keen touch is required but I've seen some gunsmiths do it so thats how i figured it out

Your assuming me to be stupid which I am not, lets please act like a mature adult its a serious topic.

Legit lmao.

Let natural selection run its course.

and im just sitting here masturbating.

[ElectronicDrug 7496]

[Windmill 1521]

If anyone is interested, I have to give a speech about gun control reform this Tuesday. I'd appreciate any thoughts or advice on it. Here's the first draft of my outline:

TOPIC: Gun Control Reform (Assault weapons ban focus)

ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN: I HAVE NO IDEA

SPECIFIC PURPOSE: The purpose is to bring to light that, while gun violence needs to be solved, the current popular proposition of a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines will consume resources that could have otherwise gone to a solution that would have been more effective.

PRIMARY AUDIENCE OUTCOME: The audience should be able to examine current and proposed gun control laws and gun control arguments (for and against) critically which will bring thoughtful and reasoned conversation about the definite problem of gun violence and how to solve it effectively and reasonably.

THESIS STATEMENT: I am not going to suggest that there shouldn't be gun control reform; I think getting a license for gun ownership should be similar to getting an pilot's license, but there are things within this debate that shouldn't be ignored: the ineffectiveness of the seemingly popular assault weapons (and to a lesser extent high-magazine) ban, how the popularity of the current gun debate took traction and how little rifles account for all of crimes.

Introduction

ATTENTION GETTER: [see below]

PSYCHOLOGICAL ORIENTATION: [see below]

LOGICAL ORIENTATION: [see below]

Raise your hands if, if you had a gun in your hand, would feel like you would be that person who accidentally shoots themself in the foot. While that may be just cause for stricter gun regulation, that doesn't imply for unreasonable regulation. It's important to examine the current gun debate carefully as it affects a very serious liberty that Americans currently have. However, it can be very tricky when looking at gun issues: two perfectly sound studies can directly contradict each other. For example, the number of crimes in the UK, where there is very strict gun control, caused by guns per 100,000 people is far lower than in the US. However, in the US, where there are more guns there are also less crimes. “Correlation doesn’t always imply causation” has been tossed around, which means that a statistic gathered could be the result of one or several things, but not necessarily what a source(s) suggests it means. Things like socioeconomics, population density, culture, the effects of war on veterans coming home and so many more have to be considered before coming to any sort of conclusion; not only that, but the credibility of the study and the potential bias the source using the data from that study has to be brought to question and that is really, really hard. Understanding that, I have attempted address these problems to present a reasonable argument.

Body

I. MAIN POINT: The national assault weapons ban has been tried before.

A. SUBPOINT: In 1994 assault weapons and high magazine rounds were banned under the Clinton administration; the bill expired in 2004.

1. President Obama wants to reinstate a similar version of this bill.

2. This ban didn’t address the 24 million large-capacity magazines or 1.5 million assault weapons already on the ground.

a. In fact, it was perfectly legal and re-sell these weapons already in circulation.

875]b. Interestingly, manufacturers actually boosted production and raised the prices assault weapons when the bill was submitted to Congress for review.

B. SUBPOINT: There was also another problem: there were loopholes in the bill that largely made it ineffective.

1. Gun manufacturers could make minor modifications to assault rifles that would reclassify the guns and thereby make them legal to produce.

2. So, the AR-15 James Holmes used to shoot up the theater in Colorado would have been illegal, but a very similar Colt Match Target rifle would be perfectly legal to buy.

C. SUBPOINT: A study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania said there was “no discernible reduction in gun violence” caused by the 1994 prohibition on gun violence.

1. The same university studied what might have happened after many years of the bill and found that it’s possible it might have been more effective, but the research was “thin and the predictions tenuous.”

2. It’s also important to note that a well-made gun can last hundreds of years; so, even if the US government could disrupt every single source of new assault weapons (which it can’t) it would be quite a while until all assault weapons decayed.

Connective: While there were problems with this bill, another around the same time was enacted.

II. MAIN POINT: In 1996 Australia imposed a stricter version of the US assault weapon ban (after a mass shooting) that avoided many of the mistakes that made the US ban ineffective.

A. SUBPOINT: The Australian government also spent $500 million that bought 600,000 guns from private owners.

1. According to the British Medical Journal, it allowed for “more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides.”

2. The Brookings Institution, however, said in a study published in 2003 the impact of the ban was “relatively small.”

3. The use of handguns, knives and gasoline increased significantly in the use of violence, including mass killings.

4. Suicide with guns went down, but increased in other ways.

B. SUBPOINT: Ignoring the evidence suggesting this ban was ineffective assume for a moment that the ban was universally seen as successful.

1. The US has around 300 million guns in its borders; that is over 299 million guns more than the Australian government bought.

2. Without taking into account inflation, it would hypothetically cost the US in the ballpark of $16^16 if the rate of cost was the same per million of guns. A trillion has twelve zeros.

Connective: Before continuing, it may be a good idea to briefly consider the events that precipitated the current gun debate.

III. MAIN POINT: It seems pretty clear that the catalyst for this discussion was Adam Lanza and the 20 children he killed at Sandy Hook Elementary.

A. SUBPOINT: The horrific incident at Sandy Hook Elementary where 20 children were killed by Adam Lanza is terrifying, but it’s important not to lose perspective.

1. Since 1982 there have been 543 deaths due to mass killings

a. There have been over 560,000 homicides during that same time.

b. Mass shootings represent less than 0.1 percent of deaths.

B. SUBPOINT: I’m not trying to come off as dispassionate or discredit the immense grief that events like that warrant.

1. Sam Harris, an author, philosopher, political and sociological activist (and neurologist) said in an essay on his organizational blog, “A narrow focus on mortality rates does not always do justice to the reality of human suffering. Mass shootings are a marginal concern, even relative to other forms of gun violence, but they cause an unusual degree of terror and grief—particularly when children are targeted. Given the psychological and social costs of certain low-frequency events, it does not seem irrational to allocate disproportionate resources to prevent them.”

Connective: While a disproportionate amount of resources may be warranted to solve even a very small form of gun violence, those resources should be used efficiently.

IV. MAIN POINT: Assault weapons represent a very small amount of all gun violence.

1. SUBPOINT: The FBI reports rifles of all types, a broader classification than assault weapons, represent 3% of all murders in their Uniform Crime Report.
   

1. 6% of all murders were committed with bare hands.
   
   1. 
      
   2. 13% were committed with knives.
      
   3. Handguns represent 47% of all murders.
      
   4. It’s interesting that so much attention is brought to a classification of gun that causes comparatively so few deaths.
      
      1. Disproportionate allocation of resources may be needed to be spent, I am not disputing that, but those resources shouldn’t disproportionately be spent on something that causes so few deaths.
         

Conclusion:

LOGICAL CLOSURE:

PSYCHOLOGICAL CLOSURE:

CLINCHER:

With thoughtful discussion, effective solutions can be made. For example, a requirement to store guns in a combination safe could potentially eliminate an incredible threat. Or, perhaps, better mental healthcare should be talked about. However, banning something that is an insignificant part of the problem is solving very little. Back to Sam Harris, “It is not, as many advocates seem to believe, an important ‘first step’ in achieving a sane policy with respect to guns. It seems likely to be a symbolic step that delays real thinking about the problem of guns for another decade or more. By all means, let us ban these weapons. But when the next lunatic arrives at a school armed with legal pistols and a dozen ten-round magazines, we should be prepared to talk about how an assault weapons ban was a distraction from the real issue of gun violence.”

[Guest Fohacidal]

If anyone is interested, I have to give a speech about gun control reform this Tuesday. I'd appreciate any thoughts or advice on it. Here's the first draft of my outline:

TOPIC: Gun Control Reform (Assault weapons ban focus)

ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN: I HAVE NO IDEA

SPECIFIC PURPOSE: The purpose is to bring to light that, while gun violence needs to be solved, the current popular proposition of a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines will consume resources that could have otherwise gone to a solution that would have been more effective.

PRIMARY AUDIENCE OUTCOME: The audience should be able to examine current and proposed gun control laws and gun control arguments (for and against) critically which will bring thoughtful and reasoned conversation about the definite problem of gun violence and how to solve it effectively and reasonably.

THESIS STATEMENT: I am not going to suggest that there shouldn't be gun control reform; I think getting a license for gun ownership should be similar to getting an pilot's license, but there are things within this debate that shouldn't be ignored: the ineffectiveness of the seemingly popular assault weapons (and to a lesser extent high-magazine) ban, how the popularity of the current gun debate took traction and how little rifles account for all of crimes.

Introduction

ATTENTION GETTER: [see below]

PSYCHOLOGICAL ORIENTATION: [see below]

LOGICAL ORIENTATION: [see below]

Raise your hands if, if you had a gun in your hand, would feel like you would be that person who accidentally shoots themself in the foot. While that may be just cause for stricter gun regulation, that doesn't imply for unreasonable regulation. It's important to examine the current gun debate carefully as it affects a very serious liberty that Americans currently have. However, it can be very tricky when looking at gun issues: two perfectly sound studies can directly contradict each other. For example, the number of crimes in the UK, where there is very strict gun control, caused by guns per 100,000 people is far lower than in the US. However, in the US, where there are more guns there are also less crimes. “Correlation doesn’t always imply causation” has been tossed around, which means that a statistic gathered could be the result of one or several things, but not necessarily what a source(s) suggests it means. Things like socioeconomics, population density, culture, the effects of war on veterans coming home and so many more have to be considered before coming to any sort of conclusion; not only that, but the credibility of the study and the potential bias the source using the data from that study has to be brought to question and that is really, really hard. Understanding that, I have attempted address these problems to present a reasonable argument.

Body

I. MAIN POINT: The national assault weapons ban has been tried before.

A. SUBPOINT: In 1994 assault weapons and high magazine rounds were banned under the Clinton administration; the bill expired in 2004.

1. President Obama wants to reinstate a similar version of this bill.

2. This ban didn’t address the 24 million large-capacity magazines or 1.5 million assault weapons already on the ground.

a. In fact, it was perfectly legal and re-sell these weapons already in circulation.

875]b. Interestingly, manufacturers actually boosted production and raised the prices assault weapons when the bill was submitted to Congress for review.

B. SUBPOINT: There was also another problem: there were loopholes in the bill that largely made it ineffective.

1. Gun manufacturers could make minor modifications to assault rifles that would reclassify the guns and thereby make them legal to produce.

2. So, the AR-15 James Holmes used to shoot up the theater in Colorado would have been illegal, but a very similar Colt Match Target rifle would be perfectly legal to buy.

C. SUBPOINT: A study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania said there was “no discernible reduction in gun violence” caused by the 1994 prohibition on gun violence.

1. The same university studied what might have happened after many years of the bill and found that it’s possible it might have been more effective, but the research was “thin and the predictions tenuous.”

2. It’s also important to note that a well-made gun can last hundreds of years; so, even if the US government could disrupt every single source of new assault weapons (which it can’t) it would be quite a while until all assault weapons decayed.

Connective: While there were problems with this bill, another around the same time was enacted.

II. MAIN POINT: In 1996 Australia imposed a stricter version of the US assault weapon ban (after a mass shooting) that avoided many of the mistakes that made the US ban ineffective.

A. SUBPOINT: The Australian government also spent $500 million that bought 600,000 guns from private owners.

1. According to the British Medical Journal, it allowed for “more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides.”

2. The Brookings Institution, however, said in a study published in 2003 the impact of the ban was “relatively small.”

3. The use of handguns, knives and gasoline increased significantly in the use of violence, including mass killings.

4. Suicide with guns went down, but increased in other ways.

B. SUBPOINT: Ignoring the evidence suggesting this ban was ineffective assume for a moment that the ban was universally seen as successful.

1. The US has around 300 million guns in its borders; that is over 299 million guns more than the Australian government bought.

2. Without taking into account inflation, it would hypothetically cost the US in the ballpark of $16^16 if the rate of cost was the same per million of guns. A trillion has twelve zeros.

Connective: Before continuing, it may be a good idea to briefly consider the events that precipitated the current gun debate.

III. MAIN POINT: It seems pretty clear that the catalyst for this discussion was Adam Lanza and the 20 children he killed at Sandy Hook Elementary.

A. SUBPOINT: The horrific incident at Sandy Hook Elementary where 20 children were killed by Adam Lanza is terrifying, but it’s important not to lose perspective.

1. Since 1982 there have been 543 deaths due to mass killings

a. There have been over 560,000 homicides during that same time.

b. Mass shootings represent less than 0.1 percent of deaths.

B. SUBPOINT: I’m not trying to come off as dispassionate or discredit the immense grief that events like that warrant.

1. Sam Harris, an author, philosopher, political and sociological activist (and neurologist) said in an essay on his organizational blog, “A narrow focus on mortality rates does not always do justice to the reality of human suffering. Mass shootings are a marginal concern, even relative to other forms of gun violence, but they cause an unusual degree of terror and grief—particularly when children are targeted. Given the psychological and social costs of certain low-frequency events, it does not seem irrational to allocate disproportionate resources to prevent them.”

Connective: While a disproportionate amount of resources may be warranted to solve even a very small form of gun violence, those resources should be used efficiently.

IV. MAIN POINT: Assault weapons represent a very small amount of all gun violence.

1. SUBPOINT: The FBI reports rifles of all types, a broader classification than assault weapons, represent 3% of all murders in their Uniform Crime Report.
   

1. 6% of all murders were committed with bare hands.
   
   1. 
      
   2. 13% were committed with knives.
      
   3. Handguns represent 47% of all murders.
      
   4. It’s interesting that so much attention is brought to a classification of gun that causes comparatively so few deaths.
      
      1. Disproportionate allocation of resources may be needed to be spent, I am not disputing that, but those resources shouldn’t disproportionately be spent on something that causes so few deaths.
         

Conclusion:

LOGICAL CLOSURE:

PSYCHOLOGICAL CLOSURE:

CLINCHER:

With thoughtful discussion, effective solutions can be made. For example, a requirement to store guns in a combination safe could potentially eliminate an incredible threat. Or, perhaps, better mental healthcare should be talked about. However, banning something that is an insignificant part of the problem is solving very little. Back to Sam Harris, “It is not, as many advocates seem to believe, an important ‘first step’ in achieving a sane policy with respect to guns. It seems likely to be a symbolic step that delays real thinking about the problem of guns for another decade or more. By all means, let us ban these weapons. But when the next lunatic arrives at a school armed with legal pistols and a dozen ten-round magazines, we should be prepared to talk about how an assault weapons ban was a distraction from the real issue of gun violence.”

What drives me absolutely fucking nuts is when people throw around the term "assault weapons". Assault weapons doesnt mean jack shit and only entered popular lexicon thanks to politicians who try to fearmonger people into banning stuff.

An assault rifle is something that exists and can be easily identified and defined.

An "assault weapon" can literally be fucking anything.

Also more weapons related crimes are mostly carried out with handguns, bans of rifles have no effect on gun crime. Also ban of high capacity magazines has almost 0% effect on the efficiency of people to kill during the act of committing a gun related crime. Just look at the bozo from virginia tech

[Windmill 1521]

How would you suggest I address the identification of assault weapons in the speech.

Also, read the end to find what you mentioned about pistols and more.o

[Guest Fohacidal]

How would you suggest I address the identification of assault weapons in the speech.

Also, read the end to find what you mentioned about pistols and more.o

I read the first half and decided Id masturbate instead of finishing it so there you have it.

Try and bring in about how assault weapons literally only means scary looking weapons. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns whose only difference are having tactical gear on top such as rails, lightweight frames, cheek rests, flashlights, lasers, barrel shrouds, literally anything that goes on the muzzle, etc. Basically stuff that doesnt really make the rifle more lethal than its uncustomized form. There was a good video about a lady who was trying to put legislation in her jurisdiction in or something about banning certain attachments to assault weapons and one of them was barrel shrouds, the news guy talking to her then asked her if she even knew what a barrel shroud was and she gave some retarded response showing how obvious it was that she had no idea what one was. Id find it but Im too lazy atm, maybe later

[Prosak 683]

How would you suggest I address the identification of assault weapons in the speech.

Also, read the end to find what you mentioned about pistols and more.o

I read the first half and decided Id masturbate instead of finishing it so there you have it.

Try and bring in about how assault weapons literally only means scary looking weapons. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns whose only difference are having tactical gear on top such as rails, lightweight frames, cheek rests, flashlights, lasers, barrel shrouds, literally anything that goes on the muzzle, etc. Basically stuff that doesnt really make the rifle more lethal than its uncustomized form. There was a good video about a lady who was trying to put legislation in her jurisdiction in or something about banning certain attachments to assault weapons and one of them was barrel shrouds, the news guy talking to her then asked her if she even knew what a barrel shroud was and she gave some retarded response showing how obvious it was that she had no idea what one was. Id find it but Im too lazy atm, maybe later

Fohacidal I love you deeply for this! would you be willing to have a child together?

Most politicians are idiots, if i was her i totally would have googled stuff i was talking about banning beforehand

[Guest Fohacidal]

How would you suggest I address the identification of assault weapons in the speech.

Also, read the end to find what you mentioned about pistols and more.o

I read the first half and decided Id masturbate instead of finishing it so there you have it.

Try and bring in about how assault weapons literally only means scary looking weapons. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns whose only difference are having tactical gear on top such as rails, lightweight frames, cheek rests, flashlights, lasers, barrel shrouds, literally anything that goes on the muzzle, etc. Basically stuff that doesnt really make the rifle more lethal than its uncustomized form. There was a good video about a lady who was trying to put legislation in her jurisdiction in or something about banning certain attachments to assault weapons and one of them was barrel shrouds, the news guy talking to her then asked her if she even knew what a barrel shroud was and she gave some retarded response showing how obvious it was that she had no idea what one was. Id find it but Im too lazy atm, maybe later

Fohacidal I love you deeply for this! would you be willing to have a child together?

Most politicians are idiots, if i was her i totally would have googled stuff i was talking about banning beforehand

Gun rights is one of the things I am most passionate about, whether this warrants you carrying my baby is beyond me

[Windmill 1521]

Yay someone decided to jack off while reading something I made. SUCCESS.

[jbandito 814]

Yay someone decided to jack off while reading something I made. SUCCESS.