Author Topic: Gun Control?  (Read 20931 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #645 on: May 25, 2018, 02:03:43 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35592
  • Tommy Points: -27753
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.  Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I disagree somewhat. Mass shootings are terrible, of course, but statistically we’re talking about a small percentage of gun deaths.  I’d much prefer that the focus was on preventing the thousands of handgun related deaths every year.
Unless you just ban hand guns though the vast majority of the hand gun deaths just aren't preventable (at least in the sense of the word we are discussing).  And frankly even if you banned hand guns, people would just find other ways to commit suicide or murder their spouse, lover, neighbor, etc.  [/bThe reason people focus on the mass shootings, is because those are much easier to prevent with simple gun regulation (and banning of certain types of weapons or munition) as well as just being far more random and horrible.

My guess is that the same argument is true with mass shootings. A kid with a shotgun and a revolver just shot 23 people, including a cop.
Sure that can happen, but the vast majority of the mass shootings are committed with automatic (or semiauto) weapons with large clips.

Right, but why would people “find other ways” with handguns, but not assault weapons? 

(I don’t believe there have been any fully automatic mass shootings, by the way. Those guns are usually not accessible).

I just think the focus is misplaced. Taking away rifles will just lead to more handgun / shotgun deaths.
I'd much rather have hand gun/shot gun mass shootings then someone capable of just mowing people down with assault rifles.

We just had 23 people shot without “assault rifles”, though.  In an enclosed space a shotgun / handgun is no less lethal.  In fact, if I were looking to kill a bunch of sitting ducks quickly, I’d probably use the shotgun.

I mean, here’s Joe Biden talking about home defense:

Quote
"You don't need an AR-15," said Biden in the online forum. "It's harder to aim. It's harder to use. And, in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun."

They’re a pretty efficient killing machine.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #646 on: May 25, 2018, 04:25:47 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19337
  • Tommy Points: 915
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.  Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I disagree somewhat. Mass shootings are terrible, of course, but statistically we’re talking about a small percentage of gun deaths.  I’d much prefer that the focus was on preventing the thousands of handgun related deaths every year.
Unless you just ban hand guns though the vast majority of the hand gun deaths just aren't preventable (at least in the sense of the word we are discussing).  And frankly even if you banned hand guns, people would just find other ways to commit suicide or murder their spouse, lover, neighbor, etc.  [/bThe reason people focus on the mass shootings, is because those are much easier to prevent with simple gun regulation (and banning of certain types of weapons or munition) as well as just being far more random and horrible.

My guess is that the same argument is true with mass shootings. A kid with a shotgun and a revolver just shot 23 people, including a cop.
Sure that can happen, but the vast majority of the mass shootings are committed with automatic (or semiauto) weapons with large clips.

Right, but why would people “find other ways” with handguns, but not assault weapons? 

(I don’t believe there have been any fully automatic mass shootings, by the way. Those guns are usually not accessible).

I just think the focus is misplaced. Taking away rifles will just lead to more handgun / shotgun deaths.
I'd much rather have hand gun/shot gun mass shootings then someone capable of just mowing people down with assault rifles.

We just had 23 people shot without “assault rifles”, though.  In an enclosed space a shotgun / handgun is no less lethal.  In fact, if I were looking to kill a bunch of sitting ducks quickly, I’d probably use the shotgun.

I mean, here’s Joe Biden talking about home defense:

Quote
"You don't need an AR-15," said Biden in the online forum. "It's harder to aim. It's harder to use. And, in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun."

They’re a pretty efficient killing machine.
Sure, for home defense a shotgun is absolutely the best weapon.  It is not the best weapon for mass amounts of killing people, especially with any sort of distance because they quite simply lose their effectiveness as a killing machine the farther away you get (something like 40 yards is the max killing range for most shotguns).  The Vegas shooter for example would have killed no one with a shot gun and even a hand gun from that range would have had a much lesser effect.  Now sure a school shooter tends to be at a closer range, but a shotgun still has to be centered far more than an AR to be a kill shot. 

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #647 on: May 25, 2018, 04:51:35 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35592
  • Tommy Points: -27753
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.  Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I disagree somewhat. Mass shootings are terrible, of course, but statistically we’re talking about a small percentage of gun deaths.  I’d much prefer that the focus was on preventing the thousands of handgun related deaths every year.
Unless you just ban hand guns though the vast majority of the hand gun deaths just aren't preventable (at least in the sense of the word we are discussing).  And frankly even if you banned hand guns, people would just find other ways to commit suicide or murder their spouse, lover, neighbor, etc.  [/bThe reason people focus on the mass shootings, is because those are much easier to prevent with simple gun regulation (and banning of certain types of weapons or munition) as well as just being far more random and horrible.

My guess is that the same argument is true with mass shootings. A kid with a shotgun and a revolver just shot 23 people, including a cop.
Sure that can happen, but the vast majority of the mass shootings are committed with automatic (or semiauto) weapons with large clips.

Right, but why would people “find other ways” with handguns, but not assault weapons? 

(I don’t believe there have been any fully automatic mass shootings, by the way. Those guns are usually not accessible).

I just think the focus is misplaced. Taking away rifles will just lead to more handgun / shotgun deaths.
I'd much rather have hand gun/shot gun mass shootings then someone capable of just mowing people down with assault rifles.

We just had 23 people shot without “assault rifles”, though.  In an enclosed space a shotgun / handgun is no less lethal.  In fact, if I were looking to kill a bunch of sitting ducks quickly, I’d probably use the shotgun.

I mean, here’s Joe Biden talking about home defense:

Quote
"You don't need an AR-15," said Biden in the online forum. "It's harder to aim. It's harder to use. And, in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun."

They’re a pretty efficient killing machine.
Sure, for home defense a shotgun is absolutely the best weapon.  It is not the best weapon for mass amounts of killing people, especially with any sort of distance because they quite simply lose their effectiveness as a killing machine the farther away you get (something like 40 yards is the max killing range for most shotguns).  The Vegas shooter for example would have killed no one with a shot gun and even a hand gun from that range would have had a much lesser effect.  Now sure a school shooter tends to be at a closer range, but a shotgun still has to be centered far more than an AR to be a kill shot.

I would say that within the confines of a classroom you’re better off with the shotgun. Either way, they’ll both get the job done.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #648 on: May 25, 2018, 07:01:33 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16152
  • Tommy Points: 1042
Quote
I support gun control, though. I’d limit the size of clips, anything that allows guns to fire faster than designed, shut down the gun show loophole and most other non-family family transfers. I’d also support a registry of all gun owners, which can be cross-checked by law enforcement and mental health officials.

This is pretty much how I feel though I can't say it as eloquently as you.

Quote
What's so great about this? There's more info to come but this civilian acted as judge and jury, unless the suspect confronted him first and he feared for his life. Depending on how witnesses saw things this civilian could be in a lot of trouble.

The shooter did not shoot more people, he was stopped.  The sad thing is that the NRA will tout this as an example for gun rights.

Quote
Exactly what I was thinking. If the shooter was just trying to get away, you call the cops. Get a license plate on the car. Try to memorize the guys face and what he had on. If the shooter was about to confront the civilian, then shoot

If he still has a weapon he is still a threat. 

Quote
If the man confronted the suspect and just shot him, that's vigilantism which would make the judge and jury comment pertinent.

What about the shooter acting like a judge and jury in the restaurant that is ok?

Quote
Sounds like the "hero" was trying to be a police officer. He's not. He may have no training in the type of incidences and he clearly tried to detain the suspect.

I don't. I would rather police do their job and have the justice system do theirs than have someone chase down a suspect and try to detain him with deadly force..

He was more than reasonable and gave the guy a chance to put the gun down.  He didn't and we are discussing it.

Quote
In an enclosed space a shotgun / handgun is no less lethal.  In fact, if I were looking to kill a bunch of sitting ducks quickly, I’d probably use the shotgun..

Combat veteran here and I would rather be shot by an assault rifle than a shot gun.   For one thing sometimes the rounds can go through you. Sure it can be more bullets but have folks ever seen what a shotgun can do?  Take a look if you dare, Google a shot gun injury its gruesome beyond doubt.

Now they do not have accurate range or the rate of fire but a 12 gauge is the equivalent of is like a .69 or .70 caliber is US measurement of 15.6 MM.  That will put a hurt on you. 

As for banning guns or limiting that England has that and they have tons of knife crimes.

Quote
How many stabbings took place in London and other regions in the UK over the last year?
At least 37 people have been fatally stabbed - and 62 overall killed - in London since the beginning of the year.

Met Police records show 37, 443 recorded knife offences and 6,694 recorded gun offences across the UK in the year up to September 2017.

In London, the problem was even more pronounced than the rest of the country, with 12,980 knife crimes taking place in the capital - 2,452 more than the equivalent year.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/london-stabbings-2018-knife-crime-statistics-mitcham-hackney-islington-latest/

Quote
Hey another day, another school shooting.  This time at a middle school in Indiana.  No reported death, though 3 injuries, and the suspect has been caught..

It's a shame.

You're always going to have folks who solve their problems with violence.   It been happening since the dawn of time.  Banning weapons just means the bad guys have them.  Yet no one needs an assault rifle as red dawn is not happening anytime soon.   

I think parents should be prosecuted in these cases where their guns are used.   Get a gun safe and use it!   Harden schools and have a cop and metal detector in every school.   Set up checkpoints but something needs to be done.  In addition, I am for the gun control measures that Roy suggested above.   

My grandfather once told that locks on doors only keep out honest men.   Only the naive think that banning guns would stop all violence.   It might limit shootings  Folks would find another way.  Be it vehicles, or the like or propane tank bombs.   In ancient times, even the club sufficed and folks will find a way if they are trying to hurt other people.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 07:12:47 PM by Celtics4ever »