The Gun Control Debate Thread

[boozeman]

Cut back social programs and use the savings to station armed guards in public places.

Private places, like stores, should also start hiring armed security and marketing it as a feature for why I should shop there.

Done.

Your move.

Placing armed security everywhere is a ridiculous notion. It is even more ridiculous the way you phrased it.

You honestly think that stores are going to absorb the additional expense and think that marketing that HEY YOU WON'T GET SHOT HERE would be an effective way to recoup the loss?

 

[Smitty]

Placing armed security everywhere is a ridiculous notion. It is even more ridiculous the way you phrased it.

You honestly think that stores are going to absorb the additional expense and think that marketing that HEY YOU WON'T GET SHOT HERE would be an effective way to recoup the loss?

If there was a movement to apply pressure to say, Walmart, it would happen pretty fast, actually.

People start a social media firestorm saying "Boycott Walmart till they hire armed guards for every store?" It'd be done in like a week. Walmart would absolutely take on that expense.

The problem is, social media is too busy worrying about fake race incidents and the results of the Bachelorette to put any real pressure on.

And anyway, maybe it's not the best idea, but it's AN idea.

And since you refuse to try it, maybe the blood is on YOUR hands, not mine.

No? Then stop claiming that these incidents need to be stopped "at all costs." No, they just need to be stopped at a cost that is efficient for you (I'm speaking generally about the public, not about boozeman per se).

 

[boozeman]

If there was a movement to apply pressure to say, Walmart, it would happen pretty fast, actually.

People start a social media firestorm saying "Boycott Walmart till they hire armed guards for every store?" It'd be done in like a week. Walmart would absolutely take on that expense.

The problem is, social media is too busy worrying about fake race incidents and the results of the Bachelorette to put any real pressure on.

And anyway, maybe it's not the best idea, but it's AN idea.

And since you refuse to try it, maybe the blood is on YOUR hands, not mine.

No? Then stop claiming that these incidents need to be stopped "at all costs." No, they just need to be stopped at a cost that is efficient for you (I'm speaking generally about the public, not about boozeman per se).

Yeah, we all know how movements make an impact against big business. People have been protesting the NRA and gun manufacturers for years.

Wal-Mart would just laugh these protests off just the same.

 

[Smitty]

I don't think Walmart is as dogmatically entrenched as the NRA.

I think if we've seen anything, it's that corporations will kowtow to even just a little social media pressure. And putting armed guards in stores is likely to appeal to their customer base anyway.

I don't think it would take much.

 

[jsmith6919]

 

[Cotton]

If you use the terms assault and rifle in a gun debate you immediately lose all credibility with me on the subject.

 

[L.T. Fan]

The solution is simple according to our betters. By opening the borders, repeal the 2nd and having a mandatory recall of all firearms, allow women to kill their children up until 18, slavery reparations, mandatory sex changes, free college, universal basic income, and tax every middle class citizen and up 100% of their assets. Then and only then can this be resolved.

With this mindset the congressional group who is in majority, and who thinks an outcome can come from their agendas, will gut this country unless the voting power shifts. The sad truth however, is the Republican Party squandered their opportunity to take over the political leadership because they were too afraid to be linked to the president.

Actually it’s beginning to look like he,with all his quirks, seems to have more care and feeling about this country than the entire political body. It’s eventually going to come down to what happens in the next national general election of what ideology usurps their.will in the election so that the political body can vote their true convictions. 2020 will be a crossroad year and will direct the countries future for quite a while.

 

[Texas Ace]

If you use the terms assault and rifle in a gun debate you immediately lose all credibility with me on the subject.

Simple question then:

If the Vegas shooter or the El Paso shooter had used a handgun instead of the weapon they did use, do they kill as many people and do they do so in the same amount of time?

I don't need to be a weapons expert to know the answer is no to both.

But I'll let you answer now.

What say you?

 

[jsmith6919]

Simple question then:

If the Vegas shooter or the El Paso shooter had used a handgun instead of the weapon they did use, do they kill as many people and do they do so in the same amount of time?

I don't need to be a weapons expert to know the answer is no to both.

But I'll let you answer now.

What say you?

I'd agree on Vegas because of his elevated position but not on El Paso. Again, all semi-autos fire at the same rate and the .223 is basically a varmint round. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded numerous others with handguns. And we all see that those would be banned next if we let yall ban AR's

 

[boozeman]

When you are arguing technical differences on the specs of a firearm, it is clear deflection from the point at hand.

I wouldn't expect a liberal millennial that has likely never held a fire arm to be any more savvy than I would be talking about avocado toast. So it is dumb. Stick to the real issue.

 

[Smitty]

Simple question then:

If the Vegas shooter or the El Paso shooter had used a handgun instead of the weapon they did use, do they kill as many people and do they do so in the same amount of time?

I don't need to be a weapons expert to know the answer is no to both.

But I'll let you answer now.

What say you?

The El Paso shooter, maybe he does kill the same number with a semi automatic hand gun. No way of really knowing that. Maybe he kills more with increased mobility. Maybe he kills less with decreased accuracy. The damage per bullet, the fire rate, and the magazine capacity before reloading or switching magazines all would be similar.

The Vegas shooter is a specific circumstance. He was way too far to do any mass harm with a semi automatic rifle. Once a couple people got shot, the crowd would have scattered. He was in no position to inflict mass casualties to fleeing targets who were hundreds of yards away and moving fast.

He did his damage by using a bump stock with made him able to simulate fully automatic fire. IE what they call “suppressing fire.” So many bullets being sprayed that everyone tucks away and puts their head down for fear of getting hit. And thus it was like fish in a barrel, exactly what he wanted.

And I don’t think many people here would say boo about banning bump stocks.

 

[Smitty]

I'd agree on Vegas because of his elevated position but not on El Paso. Again, all semi-autos fire at the same rate and the .223 is basically a varmint round. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded numerous others with handguns. And we all see that those would be banned next if we let yall ban AR's

Impossible. Hand guns cannot be banned by legislation in this country any longer. The Supreme Court expressly forbade hand gun bans.

Come on folks. Read DC vs. Heller.

But your point about bullet caliber and fire rate are important and I think mostly completely misunderstood (or misrepresented).

 

[Cotton]

Simple question then:

If the Vegas shooter or the El Paso shooter had used a handgun instead of the weapon they did use, do they kill as many people and do they do so in the same amount of time?

I don't need to be a weapons expert to know the answer is no to both.

But I'll let you answer now.

What say you?

Okay, I'm going to send it back into your court. What all rifles do you think should be banned? Just ARs (Armalite)? Because a Remington semi-auto .223 hunting rifle can do the exact same damage as a PSA AR-15 .223. So, do you want all .223s banned? Do you want just the scary looking ones banned? Do you want all rifles banned? Because, if you want ARs banned, you would have to want all semi-auto rifles banned, because they all do the exact same thing. Oh, and a .223 is a tiny round. The 7.62 round is much more lethal and can hit from a much further distance. It's just more expensive.

 

[Cotton]

Stick to the real issue.

And, what is the real issue? I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Cotton]

And I don’t think many people here would say boo about banning bump stocks.

Outside of the slippery slope of banning weapons and weapon accessories, I have no issue with bump stocks being banned. They serve zero purpose in defending your home (unless you're being overrun by zombies).

 

[Cotton]

I'd agree on Vegas because of his elevated position but not on El Paso. Again, all semi-autos fire at the same rate and the .223 is basically a varmint round. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded numerous others with handguns. And we all see that those would be banned next if we let yall ban AR's

This is exactly right. You ban AR-15s, the next would be all .223 weapons. Then all semi-auto rifles. They would not be content with just ARs.

 

[NoDak]

I'm all for having weapons to protect your home, but why on earth does a civilian NEED to have the right to buy an assault rifle? There is no logical reason for that.

Not interested in joining in to this discussion, but if you want to be taken seriously during these discussions, you should know that the public does NOT have the right to buy an actual assault rifle. AR10s and AR15s are not assault rifles. They are nothing more than "scary" looking semi automatic rifles. Just because they look like military style weapons, does not mean they perform like military style weapons. Which are actual assault rifles. Just because the media and left insist on calling them by the scary sounding name of assault rifles, does not make it so. Don't fall for it.

 

[NoDak]

And here we go with the lies. Assault rifles have been effectively banned for years with the NFA. An ar15 is no different than any other semi-auto, it shoots 1 round per trigger pull.
Tell me, which of these shoots faster?-

Thank you. Guess I should have finished reading the thread before posting.

 

[bbgun]

This is exactly right. You ban AR-15s, the next would be all .223 weapons. Then all semi-auto rifles. They would not be content with just ARs.

I’m old enough to remember when gun control people said they weren’t interested in long guns. It was handguns that they wanted to ban. "Ban the Saturday Night Special! You can’t conceal a rifle!" But all that changed when AR's became the weapon of choice for mass murderers.

 

[Smitty]

I’m old enough to remember when gun control people said they weren’t interested in long guns. It was handguns that they wanted to ban. "Ban the Saturday Night Special! You can’t conceal a rifle!" But all that changed when AR's became the weapon of choice for mass murderers.

Yeah, I mean, has Texas Ace even bothered to research the stats?

Because I'd be willing to bet that handguns are nearly infinitely more dangerous, in terms of the lives they take annually, even on a per-gun per capita rate. And also on the amount of incidents of these "mass shootings," I bet the vast majority are also performed with handguns.

At the end of the day, the handgun is actually a much more dangerous weapon from just about any angle you look at it.

It's much easier to manipulate and misuse if you are a smaller child (a child simply will not be able to hold and aim the weight of a full long rifle). A handgun can be concealed and brought into close range much easier than a rifle.

The advantage of a rifle is that it's easier to get accuracy at a distance of more than about 10 feet. Any further than that, and if you are an amateur, you ain't hitting anything with a handgun. Whereas if you are a novice with a rifle, as most of these people are, you might extend your effective range to about 20 yards or so.

That's pretty much it.

That scary looking rifle up there in Nodak's quoted post?

It fires a bullet smaller than many handguns. It does less damage per bullet than many handguns. It has a magazine over 10, like most handguns. It is semi automatic, like most handguns. It has a fire rate similar to most handguns.

It has better range because of the barrel, which straightens the trajectory of the fired round, and the ability to brace the weapon with the stock for aiming. A handgun cannot have that kind of accuracy because of the short barrel and fact that it's hand-held and not braced. But the handgun can be concealed and you are much more mobile with it, whereas you cannot really walk around spraying an AR with any accuracy or effectiveness.

No one wants to answer that. They just see a rifle that looks like it's out of Battlefield 3 and think "Hey! I use this in my video games! No one needs this in their home!" They simply don't know what they are talking about.