|
Post by Mr. Glow on Jan 16, 2013 22:07:13 GMT 1
Why didn't Obama ban the vidya instead? Everyone knows that's why the shooting happened.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Jan 16, 2013 22:47:12 GMT 1
From what I read he needs congress on board for most of it so it isn't gonna happen. Even the Dems are skittish on this issue and they are in the minority anyway.
I don't have any supporting links on this but the executive branch cannot make such wide sweeping changes without involving both houses. In other words it is sound and fury signifying nothing.
In the mean time the conspiracy theory nutjobs are already out in force with nonsense claims that the whole thing was a fabrication to make excuses to bring in more gun laws. Can we at least take their guns away? They are clearly too unbalanced to be allowed firearms if they can concoct and believe this shit.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Jan 17, 2013 0:45:32 GMT 1
This is probably the best view on the issue I've seen that correlates with mine. Basically to sum it up, the guy says (without any amount of angry white dude vitriol) "You should all know that the amount of guns doesn't curb to the amount of violence, and I support guns. But please don't go down the dark path and act like a power tripping asshole when you first get a gun."
That said, I have no idea what Obama is thinking with these executive orders, other than he's just trying to be a "people pleaser". I understand that he thinks he's trying to do the right thing, but the United States has always been well known for it's undying black market, and it has been said before that people will get something regardless of the law if they want it enough. I sure as hell wouldn't go through those lengths to get a firearm, but meh.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jan 17, 2013 0:47:24 GMT 1
(Buch re-states that he opposes legalised guns, considers the pro-gun mob deluded.)
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Jan 17, 2013 0:49:43 GMT 1
Before we get started on this old debate again, need i remind you all...
That you should go read "Fellowship of the Blue Lady". Am I being a publicty whore now? Yes. Do i feel bad? Heeeeeell no.
In All seriousness can we just leave it at here, we are only upsetting each other here.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Jan 17, 2013 0:50:28 GMT 1
I have a feeling every argument people bicker about nowadays is destined to become one bigass Mobius Strip.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jan 17, 2013 0:52:48 GMT 1
You know where the idea of guns and their usefullnes and effects on society is explored fully?
In 'The Fellowship of the Blue Lady' by Gorvar, updating daily.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Jan 17, 2013 0:57:54 GMT 1
Another possible solution to everyone's problems:
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Jan 17, 2013 0:59:26 GMT 1
You know where the idea of guns and their usefullnes and effects on society is explored fully? In 'The Fellowship of the Blue Lady' by Gorvar, updating daily. At all fine web forums
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jan 17, 2013 1:00:25 GMT 1
Only the best, in this case!
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Jan 17, 2013 1:25:18 GMT 1
*resurrects this thread* A month after the shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, the US President Barack Obama has signed 23 executive actions on gun control and asks Congress to pass gun-control laws, specifically on stronger background checks, restoring the ban on magazine capacities with more than ten rounds, and a ban on military-style assault weapons. The question I have to ask is: will this policy work? If so, how? EOs can't write new laws; only clarify ones that already exist. In order to do universal background checks, a national database would have to be established with everyone's personal information readily available. Considering that the Privacy Act of 1974 forbids such a database from being established, I don't think that'll have much of a chance. Military-type weapons (full autos, short barreled rifles, etc) have been severely restricted since 1934 due to the National Firearms Act of 1934. The "military assault weapon" bit is a misnomer propagated by the politicians and mass media; what they call an "assault weapon" is nothing more than a semi automatic firearm (one shot per trigger pull) that has largely cosmetic features that do nothing to affect the function of the firearm. Magazine restrictions are also ineffective. The VA Tech shooter used a 10 round capacity pistol as his primary weapon. He simply reloaded when empty. Same goes for the Aurora shooter; his AR15 malfunctioned (a very common occurrence when using a 100 round magazine) very early on into his assault so he switched to a shotgun that holds 5 rounds in its magazine (eye witnesses have stated that they heard a small number gun shots and a several second pause before the shooting resumed; rinse and repeat. Some even said they saw him using the shotgun). In the Cumbria shootings that occurred in the UK in 2010, the perpetrator used a break-action double barreled shot shotgun as one of his weapons with the other being a low capacity bolt action .22 rifle; both legally obtained despite the UK's gun laws. Also consider this: Canada recently got rid of their gun registry due to the cost and how it was nearly impossible to enforce (I can't recall the noncompliance numbers of the top of my head, but it wasn't an insignificant number). Some further information.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Jan 17, 2013 1:30:24 GMT 1
Are you certain of this? I thought Cho used a Walther P99 (which holds 16 shots) and a Glock 19 (which holds 15).
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Jan 17, 2013 1:34:24 GMT 1
Are you certain of this? I thought Cho used a Walther P99 (which holds 16 shots) and a Glock 19 (which holds 15). He had a Glock 19 (15 round standard magazine as you pointed out) and a Walther P22 .22 caliber pistol (10 round standard). While he used both guns, according to reports I've read, the majority of his magazines were 10 round capacity with some 15s mixed in. Edit: the point I'm trying to make is magazine capacity doesn't affect someone who's on the attack. They'll simply reload when empty and continue the attack. Conversely, on the defensive, capacity can be a big deal. In a gun fight, people tend to move to avoid being shot while firing back, not really conducive to good accuracy. Now add in the reports of cops getting good hits on bad guys with multiple rounds and the perp just wouldn't go down; which are legion (not Geth-affiliated) and the rising trend of multiple armed attackers. Finally, if 10 rounds could get the job done, why not restrict the police weapons to 10 round capacity?
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Jan 17, 2013 1:46:02 GMT 1
Hmm. Never knew this.
Kinda creepy to think what a poodle shooter like a little .22 caliber handgun can do to a human being, considering the amount of people that asshole murdered.
I will probably never own a gun used by infamous mass murderers, since I'm positively chilled by the mere sight of ones that were. The Glock 19 and 20 have already been crossed off my list, as have most Armalites, as well as the TEC-9 and M4.
I gathered. Just thought I might bring it up.
I should also add that during a home defense situation, the stress it has on the individual that is having his/her home invaded is so high, that they mostly aren't able to get more than one or two shots off, even when trained. Aside from the fact it is his/her home, the burglar/agitator has quite an advantage. That is if the agitator himself isn't scared/reluctant/stressed as well, or on any drugs. It all depends on something, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Jan 17, 2013 2:09:39 GMT 1
I will restate as I did on the past that the removal of the gun registry in Canada was strictly political. All the current government did by removing it was make the cost that went into setting it up (inflated by idiotic non compliance by "lawfull" gun owners) meaningless. It was a matter of vote buying by the incredibly corrupt and incompetent government we have right now. The registry being restricted to long guns was largely useless and rather irrelevant to this issue.
Otherwise I agree with most points. Carry on.
|
|