Latest News Article

[A.I.]

It is my understanding that strict gun control is not conducive to the end goals of public or national safety.

[Redstone_Fanatic]

3 mod (okay one is retired but whatever) posts in a row, did my thread get shared on the mod forum or something?
Anyways.

Pork Master, on 01 January 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

They will eventually. If you want a short-term effect, you would have to go door-to-door confiscating firearms to immediately stop the shootings. Banning firearms and the sale of them will only help in the long term, because those people will still have those firearms for some time.

Though, it wouldn't be hard to get a warrant to confiscate a firearm from a registered gun owner should they become illegal.

I really don't even think it'd work short-term. How would the confiscation work? You have all these people that have built up these elaborate gun collections over the years, and suddenly they just want to take them. Is it with or without compensation? What's being done with them? Are they choosy with the guns depending on if they have any 'value' as relics or otherwise? It's not much of a short term solution considering that'd be an even grander project than a few new laws.

[futuredeveloper]

I'd like to know why someone needs to own an assault rifle with ammo? Using a hunting rifle will kill game easier.

[Randomness3333]

futuredeveloper, on 02 January 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

I'd like to know why someone needs to own an assault rifle with ammo? Using a hunting rifle will kill game easier.

The simple answer is they don't.

[futuredeveloper]

Randomness3333, on 02 January 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

The simple answer is they don't.

I can see why people want to collect assault rifles. It's a hobby, and a sense of accomplishment to fill sets of things. Now being able to sell ammo legally for these guns is ridiculous. Then we find gun shows which convicted criminals can get guns, since their are no background checks, it's all based on what the seller see's when he looks at you. I believe gun shows should be illegalized or heavily regulated. It's stupid that civilians can even carry guns around when not hunting. Even in your homes it's a stupid idea, since most gun deaths in homes are family members or friends of the family.

My basic belief on gun control is regulate it so people can only use for hobby's such as hunting. This will greatly decrease gun violence in america.

The cons of this situation are american gun manufactures will take a big hit.
It'll be difficult to get every gun.

What's more important though? Keeping Americans alive to work longer or keep huge gun manufactures around to kill civilians?

[Jocopa3]

The side that is right is usually the side with the shortest answer...Short answer against gun control is: guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Long answer against gun control: Putting controls on guns is like putting controls on anything else that can hurt others. If someone wants to cause damage they'll make their own weapons, guns are just an easier way than doing that. People who do want to hurt others don't need to have restrictions on guns, they can just make bombs or something else the government can't prevent as easily. The psychology realm is so unknown, we should be looking at trying to cure or dim down the mental illnesses that tempts people to want to hurt others, not try and restrict everything that one could use to hurt others.

[futuredeveloper]

Jocopa3, on 02 January 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

The side that is right is usually the side with the shortest answer...Short answer against gun control is: guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Long answer against gun control: Putting controls on guns is like putting controls on anything else that can hurt others. If someone wants to cause damage they'll make their own weapons, guns are just an easier way than doing that. People who do want to hurt others don't need to have restrictions on guns, they can just make bombs or something else the government can't prevent as easily. The psychology realm is so unknown, we should be looking at trying to cure or dim down the mental illnesses that tempts people to want to hurt others.

The short answer is right, but guns make it easier to kill people since they are easy to get and a fast killer in the right hands.

The long answer I think is bull. Most gun violence isn't planned. It is a spur of the moment type of reaction. Many people going to rob a gas station don't think "I'm going to go to the gas station, kill everyone inside and then take the money." They actually think "I'm going to go rob that place." Now without a gun the second person would have a hard job killing people if he got enraged at the gas station. Gun control stops the amount of death by violence in other countries. I'll post statistics if you would like some.

[warobsessive]

If there's one thing I learned from listening to the pro-gun side, its that we have to know what constitutes and assault rifle. AR's have a full auto setting, determined by a switch on the side.

off/safety
semi-auto
3 round burst
full auto.

If the Bushmaster doesn't have a 3 round or full auto setting, it's not an assault rifle.

[Chimeratech]

As much as I love guns and a 50 caliber sniper rifle would be cool to own, I would rather high power weapons not be available for civilians. I know a 50 cal is already illegal but I mean anything greater than a simple hand gun or a hunting rifle is unnecessary. People who think that the government should stay away from their guns really need to view things from a different angle. At least in America we believe that all men are treated equal and deserve the same rights, this applies to those with a mental insanity that could cause violence. When I view my ability to buy guns as the same as a mentally unstable person, I can see why a rapid fire semi-auto rifle could be a bad idea. I would rather give up my shiny cool gun than be a hypocrite and say no to only another portion of the population. And I would also rather say good bye to said shiny gun than have someone with homicidal tendencies have the same caliber of weapon.

[Jocopa3]

futuredeveloper, on 02 January 2013 - 06:47 AM, said:

The short answer is right, but guns make it easier to kill people since they are easy to get and a fast killer in the right hands.

The long answer I think is bull. Most gun violence isn't planned. It is a spur of the moment type of reaction. Many people going to rob a gas station don't think "I'm going to go to the gas station, kill everyone inside and then take the money." They actually think "I'm going to go rob that place." Now without a gun the second person would have a hard job killing people if he got enraged at the gas station. Gun control stops the amount of death by violence in other countries. I'll post statistics if you would like some.

People also use knives and bats to rob places, not just guns, and even though those aren't as lethal, they still cause damage. People hospitalized due to violence should be treated just as equal as fatalities due to violence, I know there are plenty of people wounded in violent muggings and beatings. If gun control is a method to stop violence, it doesn't deal with the cause, only the correlation, it'd only decrease the statistics by so much only to be out-weighed by something else to cause controversy.

Short answer: people enraged in robberies don't have a goal of killing people, they have the goal of hurting them enough to get away, and there are plenty of common alternatives to guns to do just that.

[Chimeratech]

Jocopa3, on 02 January 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

People hospitalized due to violence should be treated just as equal as fatalities due to violence

Tell that to the people whose family members never came home. I personally would rather break a leg than die

[Jocopa3]

Chimeratech, on 02 January 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

Tell that to the people whose family members never came home. I personally would rather break a leg than die

Tell that to the people who suffer the after effects of war, muggings, and robberies, I would personally rather solve conflicts from the start than face any sort of harm mentally or physically.

[Chimeratech]

Jocopa3, on 02 January 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

Tell that to the people who suffer the after effects of war, muggings, and robberies, I would personally rather solve conflicts from the start than face any sort of harm mentally or physically.

If you throw that into the equation then of course I would rather solve the problem, that does not change the fact that death is worse than temporary injury

[futuredeveloper]

Jocopa3, on 02 January 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

People also use knives and bats to rob places, not just guns, and even though those aren't as lethal, they still cause damage. People hospitalized due to violence should be treated just as equal as fatalities due to violence, I know there are plenty of people wounded in violent muggings and beatings. If gun control is a method to stop violence, it doesn't deal with the cause, only the correlation, it'd only decrease the statistics by so much only to be out-weighed by something else to cause controversy.

Short answer: people enraged in robberies don't have a goal of killing people, they have the goal of hurting them enough to get away, and there are plenty of common alternatives to guns to do just that.

Then lethal violence decreases and that is a great win for everybody. Now some mother won't have to go to her 5 year old's funeral for a shooting.

Your short answer again is somewhat right. They want to get away and get what they want. They are still human however. Most people don't fully understand a gun until they shoot another human with it. The power is to great for non-recreational uses.

[Jocopa3]

Chimeratech, on 02 January 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

If you throw that into the equation then of course I would rather solve the problem, that does not change the fact that death is worse than temporary injury

When I think of gun violence, I either think of people who grew up in a ghetto and in bad environments, people in acts of war or terrorism or people who have some sort of mental inefficiency to judge right from wrong. Gun violence can end with fatalities or injuries, just as any other weapon combat could, but instead of taking the quick less-beneficial route of banning just guns, we should focus more on the long-term beneficial route of cleaning up impoverished ghettos, terrorism and helping those with mental inefficiencies.

Gun control sure might be the quick and easy route, but the quick and easy route is not always the best route in a long-term setting.

[Chimeratech]

Jocopa3, on 02 January 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

When I think of gun violence, I either think of people who grew up in a ghetto and in bad environments, people in acts of war or terrorism or people who have some sort of mental inefficiency to judge right from wrong. Gun violence can end with fatalities or injuries, just as any other weapon combat could, but instead of taking the quick less-beneficial route of banning just guns, we should focus more on the long-term beneficial route of cleaning up impoverished ghettos, terrorism and helping those with mental inefficiencies.

Gun control sure might be the quick and easy route, but the quick and easy route is not always the best route in a long-term setting.

I know schools where you go to school in the morning and there are bullet holes in the wall, fresh ones even; this is hardly an environment in which a child can grow up to be an average citizen. Accessibility to weapons is instrumental in sustaining this malicious state. By controlling guns we enable kids to grow up normally and then integrate normally back into society.

I know many of you might be thinking that kids are not allowed to have guns, but by their parents owning firearms they often can gain access to weapons they are not supposed to. I mean I know the passcode to my father's gun safe, I would never use it but there are other kids that may.

[Jocopa3]

Chimeratech, on 02 January 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

By controlling guns we enable kids to grow up normally and then integrate normally back into society.

I mean I know the passcode to my father's gun safe, I would never use it but there are other kids that may.

Just some variables I want to add into question...are those schools in impoverished areas, and did you grow up in a supporting family in a less impoverished neighborhood? Just some things to consider when debating in whether the issue is environment or weapons that are the problem...

[Chimeratech]

Jocopa3, on 02 January 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

Just some variables I want to add into question...are those schools in impoverished areas, and did you grow up in a supporting family in a less impoverished neighborhood? Just some things to consider when debating in whether the issue is environment or weapons that are the problem...

I fail to see the relevance of my economic state, they are there and wether or not it is a rich violent school or a poor violent school, alas it is a violent school and should be treated equally

[Jocopa3]

Chimeratech, on 02 January 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

I fail to see the relevance of my economic state, they are there and wether or not it is a rich violent school or a poor violent school, alas it is a violent school and should be treated equally

What I'm trying to get at is the reasons people have to put them there. Schools in poor neighborhoods will succumb to violence more often because of their environment, schools in less impoverished areas will succumb to violence more often due to mental illness. I have a friend who now lives in Kansas city and goes to a school with bullet holes in the walls as well, but the school is also in an area ridden with crimes. Columbine was riddled with bombs and bullets because the perpetrators succumbed to a mental state where it was okay to hurt or kill others.

Short answer: we should eliminate the reasons to hurt others, not the ways to do it.

Also, your economic state has a lot to do with it, if you have no reason to use guns, then why use them at all? Some people feel they have reasons to use guns in order to deal with problems or believe they will gain something from using guns against others. Ideas like that don't just come from no where unless (again) you have some sort of mental illness, if not they come from your environment.

Second short answer: provide people with other ways than guns to deal with problems, removing guns wont fix or improve their problems.

[Chimeratech]

Jocopa3, on 02 January 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

I have a friend who now lives in Kansas city and goes to a school with bullet holes in the walls as well, but the school is also in an area ridden with crimes. Columbine was riddled with bombs and bullets because the perpetrators succumbed to a mental state where it was okay to hurt or kill others.

Wouldn't you rather stop the shootings, unless you're proud of the bullet holes. There does not appear to be any point to this, yes there are people with bullet holes in the wall, but that does not mean we should give them guns...

Jocopa3, on 02 January 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

Short answer: we should eliminate the reasons to hurt others, not the ways to do it.

Why not both? Start with one to help the other.

Jocopa3, on 02 January 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

Also, your economic state has a lot to do with it, if you have no reason to use guns, then why use them at all?

I don't

Jocopa3, on 02 January 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

Some people feel they have reasons to use guns in order to deal with problems or believe they will gain something from using guns against others. Ideas like that don't just come from no where unless (again) you have some sort of mental illness, if not they come from your environment.

I would rather force them to look towards other solutions such as the peace you suggested

Jocopa3, on 02 January 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

Second short answer: provide people with other ways than guns to deal with problems, removing guns wont fix or improve their problems.

Calming a young kid down will not teach him anything, but have you ever tried to teach a hyper kid? It is a message without response