1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

American Gun Control

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by chess-z, Oct 3, 2017.

  1. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Its not pedantic to provide proof that the "only muskets" and "no one could have known" claim doesn't hold water.

    Horse apples. Heck, elephant apples. The prosecution went in wanting a conviction and couldn't pull it off.

    I'm going to pass on the 40 minute video made this year. I'll stick to the evidence as presented in court rather than a random opinion piece. As to what would I have done? Used my cell phone to call 911? Run home to my folks? Not attacked the guy.

    I agree that the groups should have said something. Wouldn't have done any good.

    Your opinion is noted. Would you feel safer and more in control if guns were heavily restricted or banned? How does that differ from me?

    I don't agree that it is outdated. The principles on that paper still matter. What about the lives and well being of those protected by guns? Do they not matter?

    LCP Edit:

    I've provided ideas. Fix the healthcare system, fix the current background check system. Find and address what drives the suicides and homicides.

    My point stands. You use various things in life that people consider "rights". You did not make, think of, or create those items. Most areas in the US, if you keep it of the public roads, you don't need a license or lessons to drive.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2017
  2. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    How so? (also yea it totally is pedantic because the majority of guns at the time were single shot, but hey a few anomalies destroys my entire argument right?)
  3. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    It shows that people were always researching ways to improve weapons. Show me where the signers meant only muskets? How does that supposed restriction only apply to the 2nd?

    Edit: Where's the logic in arguing that the evolution of the firearm from crude black powder to flintlock doesn't show the possibility of further improvements?

    2nd edit:

    Last edited: Nov 10, 2017
  4. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    The Bill of Rights was written with the intent that the states would be separate states (in the non-American sense)held together by treaties, take a look at the 10th amendment. And I never said muskets only, that's something you've invented for yourself.
  5. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    What was that about being pedantic? Its a common argument to claim that only muskets were meant for the 2nd. Most muskets and most flintlocks only fire one round at a time.
  6. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    But I never claimed that. Please stop putting words in my mouth, or you're arguing from bad faith.
  7. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    To summarize the video, it goes over several times where Zimmerman contradicted himself, and presented his statement that night where he decided to follow Martin with a gun despite police telling him to stay put. Like I said, if someone confronted you with a gun in the dark, are you really going to act rational? Or do you think all the police shootings that mysteriously lose camera footage shouldn't go to court either. If you think court cases with minorities aren't skewed in any way you are in some weird little bubble.

    But you keep talking about rights rather than people, so I'm still convinced you don't care about people as much. If a school was shot up tomorrow you wouldn't even be affected by it, because no matter what measure would be proposed you would probably be against it.
  8. lemoncatpower

    lemoncatpower Cynical optimist

    Fix the healthcare system... as in make it more accessible? Make it free? Improve mental health services in terms of accessibility, awareness, and understanding? Ensure everyone goes through nurse/therapist training?

    Either way, none of this will happen with the Repubs.

    Making background check systems more difficult would go against what you preach, no? I thought you wanted everyone to be able to walk into a gun shop and walk out with a gun because it's the second amendment. Or do you finally realize we aren't all like BAN GUNS FOR EVERYONE and that we have been saying that we want to improve the background check system as well as ban semi-automatics? I'm not against guns, but only for hunting wild animals (not humans), which I would never use anything semi auto.

    Either way, I see, within 5 years, the gun laws getting a huge shaft and people like you will be threatening to kill everyone over it :p but no way with societal evolution that the states will keep the current gun laws forever.

    that's what I'm also getting from him... this is why we need improved awareness on gun laws and awareness what people want to change, imo. And improved mental health services.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2017
  9. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    It was certainlyimplied. Otherwise why mention state that
    Please clarify what you meant.

    Ah, the "do it for the children" argument. Pulled out when you can't come up with a logical response.

    The first more than the second. Of course some people won't believe they have issues. May need forced commitment for some. Why the hell the Texas shooter was walking around free?? Do you mean the second for everyone or those that are in the medical field?

    Yes, its the Rs fault. The Ds only push various types of gun bans and never anything about improving the mental health aspect but its the Rs fault.

    Why make it more difficult? FIX IT. When a guy is able to buy guns despite a DV conviction because the Air Force failed to send the information over, the system is clearly broken in some areas.

    Never said that. The current system to ban convicted felons is fine.

    Right there. BAN SEMI-AUTOMATICS! That is most of the firearms in existence. The 2nd is not about HUNTING! Get over that aspect. And depending on what you are hunting, a semi-auto is better than a single shot.

    Doubt it. Can't remove guns from the public without becoming a fascist police state. People won't stand for that.

    Amusing that the people that seem to be paranoid about gun owners going on killing sprees (despite the huge lack of this, millions of gun owners every day don't kill anyone), think I have issues because I'm not into punishing myself for the actions of other people.

    Say, the Nice attack was a truck. Any of you trying to get restrictions on trucks passed? No reason a truck needs to go over 20 miles an hour. So what if it takes longer to deliver things. At least at that speed, a person can get out of the way easier.

    Drunk driving kills 29 every day! Lets ban alcohol again! Or eliminate all parking at bars! You have to take a cab or walk to all places that sell alcohol. Breathalyzers on all vehicles! Think about the children!
  10. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    Dude's devolved into a strawmanning himself. This is what I'd write to make the pro-gun side look absolutely nuts.

    So you wouldn't be emotionally impacted by another mass shooting. Have you no empathy?
  11. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    This kind of crazy nukes most of your (partly credible) argument. This particular brand of cultural madness is what really sets the US apart - gun ownership isn't a mark of moral status in the rest of the civilised world.
  12. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    I have empathy. I am not controlled by it. Do you give money to every beggar you see? Call and donate to every abused animal fund you see on tv? Do you cry at night over the people you couldn’t help that day in a foreign country? Why not? Where’s your empathy??

    The US is completely different from the rest of the world. I enjoy that difference. Tell me how a ban on any particular weapon would work? Again, NY and Conn have required registration of “assault weapons”. Less than 15% registered. How do you find and force register/remove banned weapons from the people? No one seems to want to answer/debate my points. They just switch to implying I’m heartless for not agreeing.
  13. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    That wasn't your argument. I agree that certain widespread bans are very hard to implement because of the proliferation of such weaponry. It's not fascistic to decry that proliferation.

    The difference is a wholly negative one. There's a deep strain of fetishism in American gun culture that isn't found in other advanced countries; many European nations are quite comfortable using guns as tools or for sport without assigning virtue to ownership itself.
  14. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    That’s not what I said. To clarify, if a ban or mandatory registration was passed and the vast majority of the gun owners ignored it, how would you enforce it?
    If you want to decry something, go ahead. Free speech and all.

    your opinion. I don’t see it as a negative. I laugh at the UK and their latest attempts to ban knives.
  15. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    With police. Just like every other law. And it wouldn't be remotely fascistic.

    This is usually shorthand for 'I don't know how to address your argument'.

    The UK has issues with knife crime, because it doesn't have issues with guns, because it doesn't fetishise the things. It's a straight-up improvement over the American situation.
  16. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    Tu quoque, my stance doesn't cost people their lives.
  17. Daniel31

    Daniel31 HopingGaryReturns

    Banning all firearms or becoming like Australia isn't going to solve the situation of what's been going on this country or in the world, generally speaking. One can make all the gun laws they want, make background checks more extensive, or limit firearms to only single shot, and it's still not going to work. I mean, look what happened at the Boston Marathon a few years ago; two people made homemade bombs, using pressure cookers, and three people were killed, several hundred others were injured, including 16 who lost limbs. Are we suppose to ban pressure cookers or items than can be used to make bombs? People use guns because they're more convenient and easier to use, but that's not the real problem. If somebody wants to harm others and injure/kill multiple people in a public setting (like what happened in Vegas), then they'll find a way to do it (probably in the form of using a bomb). The problem is our society and the people in it. It's also the way the world has changed.


    In the last 10 years alone, there's been 18 mass shootings. Before that, there was only 15 that occurred within a span of about 60 years. That's a huge difference IMHO. I'd like to point out that there's always been access to automatic and semiautomatic firearms during this time frame as well. I'd also like to point out, that there's been more gun laws and background checks made/enforced overall, within this time frame too.

    So, you tell me what the REAL problem is, and why mass shootings have been more frequent in the last 10 years, as opposed to the previous 60 years before that. If people wish to blame the guns, go ahead, but it's not to going to solve the real issues going on in this country and why these occurrences are becoming more and more frequent. Like I said, you can take away all the guns, and people will just find another way to harm/kill others, and then we as a society will be pointing the finger at that next, instead the real issue, which is the people and what's causing them to commit these acts.

    That's all I wish to say, carry on.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017
  18. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Banning all guns and doing nothing else wouldn't immediately solve problems yes. It's why we talk about mental health treatment along with other solutions. The issue is we've done nothing, so any progress will take time now, time people refuse to give. So now that the church shooting is over by mass shooting standards, the talk will probably die down until we see a hospital shot up, and we hear about how if the doctors were armed it would have never happened. It's the same with things like nuclear power. It takes 10 years to get a plant running, so people just think that's too long for a better effect.

    I can't think of a solution that just immediately fixes the problem, because there isn't one. Either you want progress and safety and people living and want to take the right road, which isn't a 6 month fix, or you say "Well better to just do nothing, and only change my mind if my immediate family gets killed", which again, shows you care more about a false sense of safety for yourself than actual lives.

    And yeah, saying America is different is kinda negative here, because it implies that Americans are just inherently violent compared to other countries.
  19. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    You seem to be ignoring the part where, based off of the lack of response to the Conn and NY Safe Act, the majority of gun owners simply don't cooperate. Do you expect the police to go door to door? If people refuse to let the police search the home for guns, then what? Warrants to search all the homes in the country? Police have more immediate issues to worry about.

    Most likely, nothing will happen and in the next election, the registry or ban gets scrapped.

    You expressed an opinion. You didn't express a solution to argue. "I decry the spread of stupidity." See? Nothing to debate.

    I see it more as the UK doesn't trust its citizens to protect themselves from criminals who will use whatever they can. But the US is not the UK, and the UK is not the US.

    Or truck or arson. Both items used to commit mass murder. Guns also make it easier for granny, grandpa, the slender girl, boy, person in a wheelchair to defend themselves against an attacker.

    Could be. I don't think the 24 hour news cycle helps the matter any. A deranged person is guaranteed attention these days if they go for a mass murder event. Extra attention if you break a record.
    I would point out that some of those events don't fit the FBI definition of a mass shooting. At least three are terrorism. A couple are known to be mentally unstable people. Heck, Whitman, the Texas Tower sniper was revealed to have a brain tumor that was causing headaches that he tried to get help for. A survivor of the Luby shooting testified to Congress that she left her firearm in her car because of the laws about carrying a firearm in that building.

    Part of it could be how things got reported. I wouldn't be surprised if CNN "missed" a few.

    I feel the need to point out that a doctor did kill an attacker in his office that had already killed one other person. The idea of letting people carry more often is a good one. There are plenty of incidents of armed people stopping an event before it reaches mass shooter levels. Which means antigun people claim that a mass shooting was not prevented. How would you know if it was?

    Again with the either/or choice. It isn't an either/or choice. I kind of feel like throwing out that Franklin quote about giving up liberty for safety.

    Here's a solution. Work to fix the healthcare system so that people with mental issues can get the help the need. Money, more help, better drugs, whatever. Ask the people working there what they need. Fix the cracks in the background check system. Find out why people aren't being added when they should be. Fix that. Address the stolen firearm thing. Get discounts for better home security, better gun safes, whatever. Not an easy one. Police response time in some areas allows burglars to be in and out before they arrive. Add gun classes to high schools and colleges. Basic NRA classes. I don't trust anti-gunners to do proper classes. Get a national conceal carry going so that people don't get arrested for driving into the wrong state.

    If you look at the numbers, the US is way down the list of violent countries. Its also an example of what I said earlier. People with an agenda carefully select what numbers they want to show so they can argue "but this group is MORE violent" when reality doesn't reflect that.

  20. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    So if violence crime is down, but gun violence isn't, it's totally not guns that are part of the problem.

    Plus giving more people more guns is always a good idea. Like the times where it results in the wrong person being shot.


    The thought process kinda victim blames the people who get shot, while allowing gun owners to go "Well if they had a gun they wouldn't be dead". It allows certain gun owners to take this sick high ground, while ignoring the other solutions when they come up.

Share This Page