AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Gun Control Legislation

92 25017
samiel
offline
samiel
421 posts
Shepherd

personaly i stand by the logic that steel is nothing without the flesh that wealds and that people that say that guns kill are wrong that its the people that kill guns are tools for the intentions of the user and that gun bans and gun control are unproperly used and moniterd thats were the black market comes in people that really to get a weapon can what are your thoughts

  • 92 Replies
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

A few thousand lives being lost, when they could easily have been saved isn't very significant? I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Even if it were just a fraction of a percent, these lives can very much have been saved with tighter gun control. And to reiterate, when we view this relatively to other nations, the proportion of gun violence is much much higher in the USA.


Considering there are millions of gun owners, I see no reason why a few thousand deaths should force everyone to give up their arms.

More importantly, we should look into why there's this demand for murder in the first place. For example, many murders occur to secure boundaries so that gangs can maximize profits from selling illegal drugs. One way to lower this incentive is to end the war on drugs.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

One way to lower this incentive is to end the war on drugs.

Or take the extreme, rather Old English way to handle uprisings and...make examples of people. The odd, ahem, execution, should scare them. And if not, attack outright. It may seem inhumane, but aren't drugs? And hey, it worked for the English. Sort of.
But I do concede with your point. If we stop trying to get rid of drugs, they'll stop warring back. It's called "The will to power", more prominent in men, an example is if you ask him to sit down he'll stay standing. In this case, it's us saying "Don't do drugs!" and what'd they do? Drugs. So if we stop caring as much, they'll stop warring with it.
Maybe.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

He could only use one at a time, the only thing that would change would be rate of fire, damage done, accuracy, and ammunition. There would really be no point in bringing more then one gun...


Instead of being forced to reload between clips, he could simply have switched guns until all three ran out, and then he would have reloaded. If he only had one gun-a pistol-his damage would have been lower, lower accuracy, and slower reloads.

Did you just suggest that a bunch of unarmed, untrained, and frightened out of their mind movie goers could take down an insane armed man?


I'm suggesting the odds of that occurring would have increased greatly had he only had one gun, which would have taken more time to reload.

Assuming that someone armed with "Just a pistol" could be taken down by an unarmed man is simply insane.


One person, that is unlikely. 3 people, maybe 50/50 chance. 5-10 people? Definitely.

Why do you assume that his pistol would be slower then his other weapons?


Because of the rate of fire, and reload time. Plus he couldn't just switch guns and continue shooting.

Why would you think that a pistol would give the people more time?


1) I still contend that it would have taken more time for him to amass the casualties he did with only a pistol

2) The likelihood of a brave civilian trying to take him down would have increased, at least buying time for everyone else if not stopping him completely

3) Because his firing rate would have been slower, more people could have simply run out faster
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

We should look at the reasons why people commit crimes. For example, many gangs use guns to defend their turfs so they can monopolize the drug trade, which is very profitable due to the black market. We can destroy that black market by legalizing drugs and giving these gangs less incentive to use guns.

or you can make a unit like B.O.P.E to kill those crooks.
Mad people are bad period. Lets say there is an insane person with a truck, something that no one looks up. People who go into shooting rages like this know they are going to die, so what would stop him from ramming his truck into a bus? Or a movie theater, if he really hated movies or something, or really anything else. What would stop him from using explosives? What would stop him from knifing? Having a gun and being mad is exactly the same as having anything else and being insane.

That is why a doctors panel decides if man is sane or not in saudi arabia before issuing a gun liscence.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

It's true that if this man had fewer guns, more people would have likely come out of the situation unharmed. But this man was a sociopath. His guns may have been legally owned, but he had tear gas on him and booby trapped his own home.

If gun laws were so strict to where he could only carry around 1 gun at a time, then he would have broken the law and carried all 4 of them. That, I am completely certain of. As for a law restricting people to owning only a single gun, such a law would do almost nothing to stop gun crimes, yet it would do a HUGE MO-FO DEAL of damage to the innocent people who own multiple firearms and don't use them to kill anyone.

If we forced EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN, over 70,000,000, to hand over all but one gun, maybe we could have saved 6 people from death and a number of people from being injured in this one, very rare, case.

Instead of being forced to reload between clips, he could simply have switched guns until all three ran out, and then he would have reloaded. If he only had one gun-a pistol-his damage would have been lower, lower accuracy, and slower reloads.


If he had only been equipped with a single gun, I'm sure less people would have been killed or wounded. However, as I said before, this is a VERY rare incident. Considering our population, it just isn't very common, let alone common enough to take away guns from over 70,000,000 people.

But even if he had only one gun. Nobody would have been able to stop him. Less people may have died, but nobody would be able to take him out while he is reloading. That's not how it works. When someone is in the middle of reloading, you don't try to attack him, because he can still shoot you. If he has to load the gun one bullet at a time, he can simply lock and load and kill an attacker. If he's using clips, well, clips are very quick to load.

If more people were carrying guns while watching the movie, their odds of survival would have increased quite a bit. The killer was wearing a gas mask! I am very confident that if a few movie goers were armed, they could have easily taken out this visually impaired psychopath.

When people carry around firearms, it doesn't mean they will deter all crime or stop every villain, but it will increase their odds of survival. It will increase the chances that innocent people will come out of these situations, not as victims, but as unscathed survivors.

I'm suggesting the odds of that occurring would have increased greatly had he only had one gun, which would have taken more time to reload.


If any of the movie goers had a gun, it would have increased their odds of survival. If more than one of them had a gun, it would have increased their odds of survival even further. But, unarmed, no.

One person, that is unlikely. 3 people, maybe 50/50 chance. 5-10 people? Definitely.


People don't have zombie mentality. They aren't going to send in a bunch of people to rush an armed criminal, knowing he'll kill half of them before the rest are able to hold him down.

If he had only a single gun, could 5 - 10 people have taken him out? 1. They would all have to rush him at the same time. 2. They would have to rush towards him WHILE being shot at. 3. They would have to rush him KNOWING that at LEAST half of them are going to die. 4. They would have to be willing to risk their own life, each and every one of them, to save everyone, despite the incredibly low odds of survival.

I know I'm pulling this out of my arse, but I believe 2 citizens who legally own firearms are going to have far greater chances of success than 10 unarmed men who have absolutely no fear, total commitment, and total control.

In conclusion, I agree that if the madman was only carrying a pistol, he would have killed less people. However, I do not find it worth while to take away guns from every single gun owner simply because this one mad man was carrying around multiple guns. Also, the man was carrying around multiple guns, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL. Just because you can legally own a gun doesn't mean you can legally carry it around, let alone 4 guns WHILE WEARING A GAS MASK.

I believe more good civilians should carry around guns. It could have saved many lives.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Instead of being forced to reload between clips, he could simply have switched guns until all three ran out, and then he would have reloaded. If he only had one gun-a pistol-his damage would have been lower, lower accuracy, and slower reloads.


Do you get all your knowledge of guns from video games?

He was using great guns with a clip, made for military use, it would literally take the time it takes him to pull out a clip and put it in his gun to reload. Really, it could even be faster then pulling out the weaker guns. Not to mention, once again, this was a random insane man, with no training. He had no training with the gun, I read in the newspaper at lunch that his auto gun jammed, and he had no idea how to fix it. The only way he managed to kill anyone is to spray his bullets everywhere. That is why we have 50 injuries and only 12 kills, this is a maniac wearing a gas mask coming into a dark room from the light outside. He had no aim, all he had was daka. The only thing that effected his kill count was the rate of fire of the guns, if anything he would aim more with the pistol. Tell me, how long does it to change weapons for a man who is not trained to do so? Tell me, how long does it take that same man to reload?

I'm suggesting the odds of that occurring would have increased greatly had he only had one gun, which would have taken more time to reload.


I was right! You have never touched a real gun in your life.

You are suggesting, in a serious manner, that a group of unarmed, untrained, scared, and ambushed movie goers could take down a man with a pistol? Killing him would be impressive if they where ex- Spetznaz, let alone random people trying to enjoy a movie.

One person, that is unlikely. 3 people, maybe 50/50 chance. 5-10 people? Definitely.


What the hell do you think this is? Lets say that he uses a pistol with a five round clip. That means he could easily kill all three people running at him. He could even miss if he wanted. Now for ten people? In theory it would be possible, but they would ALL have to run at the same time, be in amazing physical shape, must be incredible close to the door, and must be able to run past movie seats WHILE a group of INSANELY SCARED people rush in the opposite direction. So if for some reason a group of marines was here, had planned ahead, and where willing to get at least five of them killed, and where sitting right next to the door (But of course somehow managed to survive the initial fire), then it might be possible.

Because of the rate of fire, and reload time. Plus he couldn't just switch guns and continue shooting.


While the rate of fire may be lower, all that means is that he would have to aim rather then closing his eyes and yelling "DAKADKADAKAKDAKDKA", which seems to be what this guy did. Reload time is almost exactly the same for both of them, hell the pistol is probably easier to reload. If anything, clip size would be a much bigger factor, and that would be changed do to the aiming thing I mentioned earlier.

Do you really learn everything about guns from video games?

1) I still contend that it would have taken more time for him to amass the casualties he did with only a pistol


But it would probably have more fatalities, if less casualties. As I said, he is just a random idiotic insane moron who decided to kill someone, by spraying bullets into a crowd. If he decided to only use a pistol, he would probably happen to actually aim.

2) The likelihood of a brave civilian trying to take him down would have increased, at least buying time for everyone else if not stopping him completely


You are a moron if you truly believe that. How much time would one man make for the rest of them? It takes less then a second to pull a trigger. It takes less than a second to reload. It would take ten civilian sacrifices to stop him for ten seconds, and that is if they are lucky.

3) Because his firing rate would have been slower, more people could have simply run out faster


But like I said, he would actually aim with his pistol, meaning that there would me more fatalities, even if somehow there was less casualties.

or you can make a unit like B.O.P.E to kill those crooks.


Since that works so well for Brazil?

That is why a doctors panel decides if man is sane or not in saudi arabia before issuing a gun liscence.


We don't let insane men have guns here, but having a whole panel of doctors would be an ineffective use of resources.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

Instead of being forced to reload between clips, he could simply have switched guns until all three ran out, and then he would have reloaded. If he only had one gun-a pistol-his damage would have been lower, lower accuracy, and slower reloads.


You do realize how easy it is to reload most pistols?
Eject magazine.
Insert new one.
Pull slide to **** first round.
Done.

And who's to say his accuracy would go down because of the fact he had only one gun? If I was the killer, and had just one gun, I'd be shoot-to-kill, and would attempt to not miss a single shot.
Wait wait wait, SLOWER RELOADS? So it takes longer to load one gun then it does four? What world is this?
And taking him down as an unarmed, unready, scared, mostly adrenaline fueled civilian? Unlikely.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

-_^
The word used to describe readying a round in a gun and to describe a male chicken is blocked?
Well, for step 3 of reloading a pistol, I'll change it to: Pull slide to ready first round.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

This is not actually discussing the question, this is just throwing out hypothetical alternatives to what would have happened. Close to no one here except the adults, might have just an inkling on guns and their specification. So can we move on?

@Nemo

I have my reply ready and all thought out, pity that I can't type that out on my phone without a bunch of mistakes or just going nuts with thus tiny screen. So, thou has to wait.

EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,220 posts
Nomad

Close to no one here except the adults, might have just an inkling on guns and their specification. So can we move on?


Or, you know, kids with a few (or many, it depends) guns in their house and plenty of experience using them. Just saying.

Refer to gun culture argument.


So banning guns will change this? If guns were illegal, I would still buy myself an AK47 for my 18th birthday as I plan to do already. Banning guns just means I'll get a fully automatic version instead.

Yet, a 1991 study in The New England Journal of Medicine compared Washington to its suburbs before and after the gun law took effect.


Which gun law? Brady Bill?

the proportion of gun violence is much much higher in the USA.


Like you say, it's the gun culture. It has almost nothing to do with current gun regulations. All any kind of heavy, Britain-esque gun laws here would do is create a bunch of well armed, pissed off rednecks who are constantly getting locked up for having repeating arms around. While the murder and other violent crime (excluding armed robbery using a firearm, that would probably rise) rate might reduce 5-10% (about the percentage of legal arms used in violent crime (estimated)) temporarily, the overall effect would be a four or five fold increase in other gun related felonies, as people previously awarded concealed carry permits are not likely to stop, even with pistols and other weapons banned, and many citizens will simply spit on law enforcement and keep their weapons.

Heavy gun control, especially within a few years, would be an utter failure. Modern gun laws that we have now are already overly strict for what they are, including bans on .50 caliber rifles and automatic weapons (both of which account for such an insanely tiny fraction of murders, it's not even measurable on a yearly basis). Increased pistol regulations would prove effective, of this I have no doubt, but how effective?

no citizen should have the right to carry such dangerous items.


This, quite frankly, just pisses me off. Why should a citizen, who has not proven themselves a danger to the public or anybody else, not be allowed to possess a metal tube that slings lead? Other than an unfounded ideological belief, what possible legitimate reason is there? Guns are tools, nothing more. They can be used for sport, recreation, hunting, and for that 0.01%, killing and harming others. A civilian should not be allowed to possess a dangerous item simply because a few bad apples kill and maim others with it? You may as well just throw people in prison for thought crimes, as that would be preferable to throwing them in prison for no crime at all.

including the illegal gun market wouldn't be present.


Oh yes it would.

Even as people claim that it's all the fault of the illegal gun market, we don't see such a problem on such a significant scale in other countries.


Maybe because they don't have a failed state to the south, or 300,000,000 guns just ripe for theft? Unless you want to consider banning them on the grounds they might be stolen and used for illicit purposes, in which case, I think there might be a special place in hell for that.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

I myself own a revolver, as some of you may know, and I own it simply to have it. A gun is a simple, mechanized weapon that can be used for almost good or great evil. As such, seeing as the evil population is not the majority, not all people who own guns are evil. And those who do own guns for no real reason are probably spitting in the face of gun laws. They own guns 'cause they're not supposed to. If you relax the laws, they won't have such a need to prove themselves.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

They own guns 'cause they're not supposed to. If you relax the laws, they won't have such a need to prove themselves.

I doubt that it's as simple as that. There's also the aspect of gun collections, that are encouraged by relaxing the laws too much. They have to proove themselves to other collectors. Yes, I know gun collectors aren't usually madmen shooter or criminals. I'm just saying.
SubZero007
offline
SubZero007
883 posts
Peasant

I don't know if anyone has made this point yet, but even if we tightened down gun control or even made guns illegal, criminals would still get them. The only people you would stop from getting guns if you tightened down gun control is the good guys. Believe it or not, guns prevent about 40% more crimes then they commit. What I'm trying to say is, if we made guns illegal, criminals would just continue to acquire them illegally, while the good guys who only use guns for self-defense have suddenly been reduced to using pepper spray.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Or, you know, kids with a few (or many, it depends) guns in their house and plenty of experience using them. Just saying.


One more reason to just regulate guns more. Simply letting children use guns or have access to them is absurd. Soldiers go through months of training before being allowed live ammo.

Which gun law? Brady Bill?


No.

So banning guns will change this? If guns were illegal, I would still buy myself an AK47 for my 18th birthday as I plan to do already. Banning guns just means I'll get a fully automatic version instead.


It won't immediately change mindsets; it is a step in that direction.
Also, even the most conservative jurists held for decades that the Second Amendment was meant to protect state militias rather than an individual right to own weapons. More recently, the Supreme Court overturned total bans on all gun ownership, such as the Washington, D.C., law overturned in Heller v.District of Columbia by a 5-4 decision. But Heller did not establish an individual right to own all weapons, such as assault rifles. When the Framers wrote the Constitution, it was over 200 years ago, when the best weapons were early rifles and muskets. They never could predict the vast range of weaponry we would have today; but simply termed it as ''arms'' and ''guns''. Where are we to draw the line then? Times change, and that's why the Constitution's details can never remain static; they should be adapted to the times instead of being subservient to dogma.

Like you say, it's the gun culture. It has almost nothing to do with current gun regulations. All any kind of heavy, Britain-esque gun laws here would do is create a bunch of well armed, pissed off rednecks who are constantly getting locked up for having repeating arms around. While the murder and other violent crime (excluding armed robbery using a firearm, that would probably rise) rate might reduce 5-10% (about the percentage of legal arms used in violent crime (estimated)) temporarily, the overall effect would be a four or five fold increase in other gun related felonies, as people previously awarded concealed carry permits are not likely to stop, even with pistols and other weapons banned, and many citizens will simply spit on law enforcement and keep their weapons.


Banning or controlling guns won't immediately change the gun culture and mindset; mindset changing has always been a long drawn out process. And banning guns doesn't mean you'll get your fully automatic guns. I don't see any link there. And the way deal with this pervasive gun culture is to start regulation. Gun regulation does play a part in the amount of guns people have, it's not the sole overriding factor, but making it illegal to own a gun, or harder to own a gun, will decrease the level of ownership.

Saying that gun regulation won't work because in the short term, people will be ticked off, and hence increase the crime rate will increase ''five or fourfold'' is a red herring. As Nemo said earlier, crime occurs when there is a motive for crime, if a person is involved in a violent turf war, or robbery, or has a revenge motive. Regulating guns hardly provides this motive to commit a crime and rob a bank. I won' t turn a law abiding citizen into a criminal with a motive. Strict gun regulation would not just entail restricting sales of guns, but also entail the slow recall of all weapons deemed inappropriate, such as assault rifles and the like.


Maybe because they don't have a failed state to the south, or 300,000,000 guns just ripe for theft? Unless you want to consider banning them on the grounds they might be stolen and used for illicit purposes, in which case, I think there might be a special place in hell for that.


The Western Mediterranean nations are near the ME, yet they don't have such lax gun laws, and can hardly get one. China is next to Central Asia, yet it has strict gun laws. Japan most arguably, is right next to an almost complete failed state, yet the laws there are strictest in the world. The law, police, and enforcement exist for a reason, to protect you.

This, quite frankly, just pisses me off. Why should a citizen, who has not proven themselves a danger to the public or anybody else, not be allowed to possess a metal tube that slings lead? Other than an unfounded ideological belief, what possible legitimate reason is there? Guns are tools, nothing more. They can be used for sport, recreation, hunting, and for that 0.01%, killing and harming others. A civilian should not be allowed to possess a dangerous item simply because a few bad apples kill and maim others with it? You may as well just throw people in prison for thought crimes, as that would be preferable to throwing them in prison for no crime at all.


The Aurora shooter never proved himself a major danger until the Batman premiere, he certainly was a law abiding citizen before. Are we going to allow most people the right to arms then? And only comment in hindsight that they shouldn't have been allowed it? The difference between this ''metal tube'', and other objects, say a baseball bat, which can kill, is that the ''metal tube'' was designed to harm and incapacitate, and the bat wasn't. Germany has proven via very strict gun laws, that sportsmen, hunters, can own guns, but at the same time, limit the vast ocean of guns floating around. It's not an impossibility. Nor do I see any link between regulating guns and thought crime, unless you care to make the leap more explicitly?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

I don't know if anyone has made this point yet, but even if we tightened down gun control or even made guns illegal, criminals would still get them. The only people you would stop from getting guns if you tightened down gun control is the good guys. Believe it or not, guns prevent about 40% more crimes then they commit. What I'm trying to say is, if we made guns illegal, criminals would just continue to acquire them illegally, while the good guys who only use guns for self-defense have suddenly been reduced to using pepper spray.


If you're going to regulate guns, you're going to regulate the suppliers as well, which would in turn, make the supply decrease. Gun control cannot be enacted by itself; it should be used in tandem with other policies, such as strengthening enforcement, to make up for the shortfall. Between trained, trusted personnel, and my own lack of training, I would vastly prefer the former
Showing 31-45 of 92