Renault on 3/10/2017 at 16:47
Quote Posted by Draxil
Suppressors. And they're already legal in 42 states
The fact that your call them "Suppressors" tells me everything I need to know about you. You're a gun person.
And the fact that they're already legal in 42 states just proves my point. Wacko Americans and their obsession with guns.
heywood on 3/10/2017 at 16:52
Quote Posted by icemann
If you look at the rate of mass shootings in countries who introduced tight gun control, you'd see the positives that come with it. Which is a MASSIVE drop in gun related violence. Not absolute 100% reduction (since guns can always be obtained via black markets etc), but it's certainly a huge drop.
I agree that there is an obvious connection between the availability of guns and gun ownership in the US and the rate of gun-related violence. But that is largely due to suicides (about 2/3) and the sort of routine gun violence that plagues most US urban centers related to drug distribution and gangs. Chicago alone has suffered 485 gun deaths so far in 2017. Terrorism and other mass attacks account for just a very tiny percentage of US gun deaths, and they happen in other countries with much stricter gun control. In Britain for example, they use bombs, vehicles, knives, and acid instead.
If somebody wants to talk about how to use gun regulation to help reduce the rate of suicides and inner city drug/gang violence, I'm all ears. But don't pretend that terrorism and similar indiscriminate violence is solvable by legislators enacting gun control. It isn't.
Starker on 3/10/2017 at 21:46
I don't think anyone here suggested solving terrorism with gun control. Also, it is true that a lot of the gun violence is driven by gang violence and yes, a lot of the US gun violence is due to guns being used in a disproportionate amount of suicides, but even then, excluding the suicides, firearm homicide rate is (
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2815%2901030-X/fulltext#sec2.3) 25 times higher in the US than it is in other high income countries. And that can't be accounted for by gang violence alone.
SubJeff on 3/10/2017 at 22:01
Quote Posted by Draxil
Watch the video. It was an automatic weapon.
No, it was a semi-automatic that had been modified.
The fact that Bump Stocks are legal is nuts.
Quote Posted by heywood
Since gun control has proven so effective in preventing terrorist attacks outside of the US... oh wait, no it hasn't.
What's this got to do with terrorist attacks?
This is mass shootings by people who've flipped for some reason .
Gryzemuis on 3/10/2017 at 22:41
I know there's no point in me posting this image.
But I'm doing it anyway.
I like the directness of this cartoon.
Inline Image:
https://i.redd.it/zp934hre0jpz.jpgIn retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate.
Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.
derfy on 4/10/2017 at 09:44
Quote Posted by Brethren
The fact that your call them "Suppressors" tells me everything I need to know about you. You're a gun person.
Disagree with this. 'Silencers', to many, conjure images of movie silencers where you can barely hear the sound. Suppressors do NOT do this. Draxil may just be wanting to separate the two thought processes.
Gryzemuis on 4/10/2017 at 10:07
Quote Posted by derfy
Disagree with this. 'Silencers', to many, conjure ...
To many gun-persons.
A normal person doesn't concern himself with technical details like this.
hopper on 4/10/2017 at 10:21
Quote Posted by heywood
It's too early to establish the shooter's motive, but this sure looks like terrorism to me even if it isn't Islamic terrorism.
One thing I'll agree with is that the number of people killed and injured in this attack would have been lower if the attacker had used guns that couldn't be made automatic, or guns with lower capacity magazines. So I'm not unconditionally opposed to gun control.
The main thing that bugs me is the inevitable "how many more must die before we act to stop this" nonsense arguments that come out after every act of terrorism, as if legislating more gun regulations is going to stop terrorists from killing people. It didn't stop 86 people from being killed by a truck in Nice last year or 13 in Barcelona this year, or 23 killed by a bomb in Machester, or the 168 killed by McVeigh's bomb in the 90s, or the thousands killed by suicide bombs and car bombs every year in the Middle East and Africa. It's like trying to solve the opioid addiction problem by banning the sale of sterile syringes and needles.
First off, this thread isn't really about preventing terrorism. Not in the narrow sense, anyway. It's about reducing gun-related deaths and injuries, because that's what gun control is about. But since you've already gone there, "as if legislating more gun regulations is going to stop terrorists from killing people" is a strawman argument, since nobody believes this. And your examples of successful terrorist attacks only disprove a point nobody made.
The analogy to traffic incidents is instructive. Safety features work. That they don't eliminate incidents, is not a good argument against implementing them. Making some kinds of guns, or gun features, illegal means making them harder to obtain for everybody, including terrorists and gangsters. This matters. Being a gangster, terrorist, or run-of-the-mill fruitcake doesn't macigally open any backdoor channel for you to obtain any kind of illegal weapon you want at no extra risk or cost. It will certainly be an obstacle to their efforts, which will reduce the likelihood of such weapons being used. It won't eliminate it, but reducing it is worthwhile in and of itself.
heywood on 4/10/2017 at 11:41
It's not a strawman that I made up. The thread title itself links this event and gun control. The original poster in the thread, in his very first sentence, implies that gun control could have prevented this tragedy. Over the last two days the media has been full of articles and blog posts making the same connection.
The same thing happened after the Orlando nightclub shooting last year, and the San Bernardino shooting & attempted bombing the year before. Every event like this immediately triggers a flood of people saying we need gun control to prevent this from happening again.
Goldmoon Dawn on 4/10/2017 at 12:22
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
To many gun-persons.
A normal person doesn't concern himself with technical details like this.
Well, I realise that the bulk of humanity is dimmer than a 2 watt light bulb, but there *are* intelligent folk among us, who are just so darn smart, they can actually search out and absorb details about a subject they may not even have interest in, merely for the sake of more aquired knowledge.
Assuming, on the other hand... is never an optimal choice.
