Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[misko27]

I must say that I was incorrect in my initial pronouncement of them "using handguns", they were carrying both handguns and, allegedly, AR15s.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Hahaahahah, You joking? Please? Could anyone be so damn ignorant of the past 5 years to think Obama will push through sweeping gun reforms because of this particular massacre? A guy shot 20 children with a semi-automatic, that didn't pass anything. There was a period where gun massacres were happening every half month. Hell in Colorado 2 state senators were just recalled for supporting a gun measure (A opponent of the gun measure called one of them and said "I really hate your new plan, I can't sell my guns at a Garage sale"). And the governor of Missouri just barely managed to Veto a bill stopping the Federal Government from enforcing gun laws there.

Seriously, do you think there is any real enforcement, any at all, at the Federal Level? The City of DC had a ban of Handguns overturned by the Supreme Court. You are legally allowed to own a concealed handgun in every state in the Union. Where do you get a justification for something like that? Congress can't pass things with Broad Bipartisan support, let alone things remotely controversial. Obama has not passed a single piece of Gun Legislation, ever. Even in the wake of the Sandy Hook Massacre. And no one outside of the most liberal state capitals has even considered a bill to ban Handguns.

Sure, this will raise up the issue, but with everything else going on, It'll be forgotten. There'd need to be a even larger massacre then the ones we've seen (maybe 50 people or more, a little less then double Sandy Hook), with some extraordinary circumstances (like, I don't know, it happening at a gun show), to actually manage to move through the political resistance.

You may notice I was asking the question incredulously as a rhetorical question rather than as a serious question. That said, I'd be surprised if no bills were passed involving restrictions on various things unrelated to mass shootings like high capacity magazines or folding stocks or something, you know, the whole "assault weapons" thing. They'll do their best to find something they can do; some kind of action.

It will, of course, have no effect on mass shootings because based on my incredibly superficial wikipedia research; of the 12 "notable" mass shootings that have happened in the 2010s only 4 at the most involved some kind of gun that would be considered an "assault weapon". The rest used guns Obama would have no problem with, predominantly handguns. The most common weapon used in mass shootings (school shootings excluded) are apparently handguns, usually some kind of Glock, probably because they're common. As for school shootings, semi automatic rifles have become more common since Sandy Hook, but far more common are shotguns and pistols, even a bolt action hunting rifle in one case. Indeed, these are the guns that Obama and Biden advocate.

You can never tell. You can never tell. That's all I can say. I only got upset because I wouldn't have expected that from you. I'm sorry.

[Owlbread]

Misko, it's absolutely fine, there's no problem. What you have said though is very good, useful stuff though because it shows just how much of a predicament the Obama administration is in when it comes to taking any kind of meaningful action.

[GlyphGryph]

And I think I'm the only person on the board who advocates completely banning handguns but allowing most long guns.

[Darvi]

Because one kind cannot be hidden beneath most kinds of clothing and the other can?

[Owlbread]

I think all guns should be legal in so far as people should be able to fire them at ranges or in a country home or whatever, the restrictions should just increase with the danger of the weapon.

[GlyphGryph]

And handguns are definitely more dangerous that rifles and shotguns, for a large number of reasons.

Because one kind cannot be hidden beneath most kinds of clothing and the other can?

That's certainly part of it.

[misko27]

And handguns are definitely more dangerous that rifles and shotguns, for a large number of reasons.

Because one kind cannot be hidden beneath most kinds of clothing and the other can?

That's certainly part of it.

Hmm. I can see the reasoning here, and I kinda like it, I gotta say.

[Owlbread]

And handguns are definitely more dangerous that rifles and shotguns, for a large number of reasons.

And I concur with you there, hence my criticism of Obama. I do think that they should remain legally obtainable however, it should just be more difficult.

That said, the black market in guns in the United States is enormous. In the UK, if criminals really need guns they'll get them no problem, even with our 100% handgun ban. I think people are really just trying to prevent rampage or spree killings, but is this the way to go about it?

[Leafsnail]

Not really, though?  For example, the Woolwich killers really needed handguns, but they only had an old revolver (and it didn't work).  To procure and own illegal handguns with any degree of safety you'd generally need fairly strong gang ties.

[Owlbread]

I don't think the Woolwich killers were bright enough to know that you could buy a former-Yugoslavian AK on TOR in pieces for assembly for about 400-500 euros.

Most of our terrorists haven't been very sharp-witted, which has protected us from much, much worse attacks than those we've actually received. That said, it is rare when a criminal (of the common sort, not a terrorist or spree killer) actually has to shoot someone. Most of the time robberies are committed by guys with perfectly legal deactivated guns or replicas, or other instruments.

[GlyphGryph]

Owlbread, the problem in the US is that they DO often shoot people.

[Leafsnail]

I don't think the Woolwich killers were bright enough to know that you could buy a former-Yugoslavian AK on TOR in pieces for assembly for about 400-500 euros.

Most of our terrorists haven't been very sharp-witted, which has protected us from much, much worse attacks than those we've actually received.

It's my policy to not get involved in armchair-murderer discussions

That said, it is rare when a criminal (of the common sort, not a terrorist or spree killer) actually has to shoot someone. Most of the time robberies are committed by guys with perfectly legal deactivated guns or replicas, or other instruments.

I'd rather criminals have "a thing that looks dangerous but is not capable of shooting people" than "a thing that looks dangerous and which is capable of shooting people".

[Owlbread]

It's my policy to not get involved in armchair-murderer discussions

That is fine, though I must remind you that policemen and other figures in that field do exactly that on a regular basis. It's also one of the better ways to implement effective legislation against crime rather than creating some kind of loop-hole ridden mess, created in a hurry based primarily on emotion.

I'd rather criminals have "a thing that looks dangerous but is not capable of shooting people" than "a thing that looks dangerous and which is capable of shooting people".

Regardless of what you would "rather", criminals will get their hands on a live firearm if they know how to get it. It would also be completely off the radar. You'd have to be a very silly criminal to murder someone with the same gun the police have allowed you to use and keep records on.

Owlbread, the problem in the US is that they DO often shoot people.

I agree. There are cultural differences between the UK and the USA that mean our criminals are apparently less trigger happy. That does change things a fair bit.

There are also cultural differences between the Czech Republic, a country with possibly the most liberal gun laws in Europe, and the USA. Though they have extremely liberal gun laws, their annual firearms-related deaths are a predictable 800 or so. The USA on the other hand has literally thousands of deaths per year from handguns alone. I understand that there are enormous population differences, but it's still striking nevertheless. The Czech people apparently have more liberal gun laws than most American states.

[GlyphGryph]

A lot of people are killed by very silly people then. It would be nice if that happened less.

[Owlbread]

A lot of people are killed by very silly people then. It would be nice if that happened less.

I think that can be achieved through restrictions, not necessarily "bans" though.