With the recently news about President Obama's gun control legislation push, I thought it would be interesting to see the views of Forgehub members. You can read up on the legislation with this LINK here, I found it very informative and interesting. Now I'm not going hit every point right now, but just address the overall ideas proposed in accordance with my opinion. I don't think that they really is a huge issue with the current laws about background checks and whatever else, other than the gun show loophole (which I agree with). It is just very difficult to enforce those types of laws so usually they are not. However, I support what this section of the legislation does. The "assault weapons" ban is really the only problem that I have with this legislation. First of all, there really is no such thing as an "assault weapon," it is just a buzz word used by the media and political figures to stir up fear in support of gun control legislation. Second, banning pistol grips, foregrips, and other features on a firearm does not make it any more or less effective. It still has the same capacity as it did before to do damage to whatever its' target may be. In regards to high-capacity magazines, I can see the logic there, but it takes a second, maybe two at the max to change magazines in a gun. There really is no point in that ban because it can easily be countered by other means. Also, just so everybody knows, I believe that Connecticut also had an "assault weapons" ban in the legislation at the time of the Sandy Hook shooting. Which by the way is being used to capture the hearts of Americans to push for gun control legislation. To simply make schools safer would be fantastic, but that kind of thing just does not happen easily. It takes time, a large amount of money. Two things that are not in large demand, especially the former with the public school system being the way that it is, but that is a whole different issue. It would be great if this would be taken seriously and teachers actually cared enough, but I really don't think that enough would try to even make it worthwhile to spend money on such plans. By far, the best part of this legislation is the effect that it has upon mental illness services. People with mental illnesses have been neglected and mistreated for far too long in my opinion. I completely agree with this.
eh, it's just a bad PR move to shut up the critics imo, making "assault weapons" (which by the way is defined as any self-chambering weapon) illegal will just render people unable to defend themselves against criminals The bottom line remains that the bad guys are bad for a reason, that is, they don't follow law, taking away a law abiding citizen's ability to defend oneself is a terrible idea, and I fully expect this legislation to be repealed, or for it to be flat out forgotten. They just need to keep up the façade long enough to shut up the angry moms.
All of this came about after the assault on the elementary school in Connecticut and to be honest I thought people had forgotten about it. There was a huge deal for a long time then suddenly nobody was talking about gun control anymore. The NRA says the answer is "more guns" they want to put guns in the hands of the teachers. I disagree with this, many schools are simply too violent to have guns on the premises. Many schools have mentally ill students. What I would like to see is not an increase in guns or an increase in gun laws. Many people use guns for survival,once I move I will be hunting to put food on the table myself. If you take away guns completely out of the equation, what will happen to us? What I feel needs to happen is that if you purchase a firearm then you should be forced to purchase a way to keep that firearm locked up so it is not stolen(as in so many cases like new town.) that's a start. An increase in school security by setting up more checkpoints for visitors to pass and metal detectors at the doors. My school already has metal detectors at the door, but they are never used, they are just off to the side at the doors. Many schools do have them. Use them.
Because clearly it's impossible to scare away or kill in self defence with a single-shot firearm. Because clearly that's what's being discussed. And bows don't exist.
What if you miss in a high stress situation? Yes they do, but the criminals would most likely have guns, even if they were illegal to obtain. Also, bows are difficult to conceal, have longer draw times, and cannot be used in close quarters as efficiently. [br][/br]Edited by merge: In regards to the gunlock issue, here in California, at least my county, that is already a law, and really all it does is make a pile of locks in my closet because I have a safe.... I agree that more guns in schools is not the answer.
What if the person attacking you misses because it's a high stress situation, and you're able to disarm them because they didn't have a semi-automatic weapon? What if the person attacking you is wearing bullet proof armour? I mean, you'd need armour piecing rounds. What if they're trying to run you over with an armoured Humvee? They should legalise hand-grenades while they're at it. We can play "hypothetical situations" all day. I was talking about hunting animals. It's possible to hunt animals with a hunting bow. It's also possible to hunt animals with singe-shot firearms.
What if we all were actually dead, what if this is just a dream, what if the world ended tomorrow, so what, extremely unlikely situations are not necessarily worth preparing for. It is less of a high stress situation for the attacker, robber, whatever else, because they are prepared to carry out the act, have thought it out (at least in some capacity) and know that it is going to happen before it actually happens. Also, they have time to aim their weapon and get you in their sights. Pretty improbable that somebody would be wearing body armour in a mugging or killing or other violent act, at least in the grand scheme of things. Then you move out of the way of the humvee, and I really doubt that somebody would do that, at least on purpose. I am not talking about extremely improbable and a generally unlikely chain of events, I am talking about things that happen to people everyday. Robberies, muggings, murders, etc. You didn't specify, so I assumed you were in the same train of thought as your previous situation.
I believe what Shuman is driving at panda is what if the tools that make those robberies, muggings, murders, etc were harder to come by. The problem with a "mutually assured destruction" argument centered on the premise that if my enemies have weapons that can kill me, I must arm myself with the same weapons to defend myself or at least scare them into not attacking me, is that where do you draw the line in that argument with weapons that cause instant death? If my enemy has a rocket launcher, should I get one too? Obviously the ultimate parallel is nuclear weapons and while great our nuclear-boner prevents other countries with nuclear boners from getting any ideas, the side effect is other countries want the boner and the ones that do sit on weapons that can kill the planet. Maybe this is the news fault, but I rarely, I mean extremely rarely, hear of reports where the victim of a potential crime fended off their attacker by being armed. I've heard more cases of a taser fending off attackers or mace. Two non-lethal forms of self-defense. I also find it a little odd, out of all the ammendments of the constitution that we uphold to the letter, we choose the second ammendment to be the most relaxed in its wording. How the NRA reads that statement, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Mind you that ammendment was written when our country was occupied by much better armed, unfriendly soldiers and the deadliest weapon was a musket. But hey, **** it, deer deserve to die in the most spectacular fashion.
If your argument really boils down to a belief that the abundance of semi-automatic/automatic as opposed to single-shot weapons reduces crime and/ or reduces the amount of non-suicide, non-accidental discharge related gun fatalities... Spoiler I clearly quoted Waterfall.
Considering that rocket launchers, as you used, are more expensive, far more regulated, and the ammunition is regulated, that isn't a very good example. Let me clarify my argument. I would be all for the removal of firearms from the entire world if it were actually possible. The knowledge is out there and cannot be taken away. There are far too many firearms in existance to make it feasible to go door to door and check homes for them and confiscate them if found. So called assault rifles are rarely used in crimes in comparison to handguns, shotguns etc, so why ban those types rather than the ones actually used? That is because it supports the media's agenda (sorry for sounding so tin foil hatish, but it is true). I really don't want to go find the evidence again, I used to have it bookmarked, but my comp crashed , but it was something about the number of violent crimes prevented due to firearms involvement (on the defender's side). Also, take a look at the UK's violent crime statistics and tell me (once you've factored in the population difference) that stricter gun control reduces violent crime. I see your second amendment and raise you the first amendment. The most sophisticated (don't quote me on this) mode of communication was the written letter. Do you think that the founding fathers could have imagined the internet, email, cell phones, telephones, radio, etc? It is a similar argument. It depends upon your definition of militia, really. Who is to say that the millions of gun owners across the country who go out to target shoot (shoot paper) at a range are not a part of a "militia"? [br][/br]Edited by merge: I think you are not quite understanding where I was going with what I was saying or I was not presenting it clearly. Most violent crimes committed with firearms (do I need to cite this?) are committed with guns that were not legally acquired. In a country with a population of over 300 million people it is simply unfeasible to stop every crime from occuring, that includes straw purchases, stolen property (and guns), etc. If it were possible to confiscate all firearms in the world, I would be all for it, but in all likelyness, that will not happen. The scale at which they are distributed and the ease of hiding them makes it ridiculous. Do you really think that it is possible for something like that to happen? bringing it back to Pac's point about the wording of the second amendment, considering the circumstances. Do you believe that the military, as well as other nation's militaries, who are armed with firearms that are capable of dishing out more rounds than are possible with a single shot or bolt action, etc, are even close to the capabilities that the colonists had in comparison to the British? [br][/br]Edited by merge: PS, I'm going to bed now, I'll check back in the morning, but I might not have time to reply
I feel like you missed the point of that example. It was not to be taken literally. It was the ramp up of a situation to point out the flaws in the underlying argument for it. The very fact that there are more regulations making rocket launchers hard to impossible to obtain makes it a great example of weapon regulations that normal people seem to be ok with. No one's saying remove them from the world (though the world would be better for it). Removing them from regular people on the other hand. I want to quote a line from the first men in black movie because I think it is very apt here. While personally I think no one should have guns, I still respect people who put the work into knowing how to use them responsibly and in safe environments and I know better than to just suggest going door to door and taking guns from peoples' hands, so I'm not suggesting that here. In the massacres that happen from time to time, it's generally assault weapons that are the culprit. Yes, crimes with handguns, shotguns, and semi-autos happen all the time as well, and those kind of crimes should be better investigated and prosecuted but remember this is about prevention so any little bit helps. I live in Philadelphia. When I say media I'm talking local media, which is people being shot usually every day. Also, "the liberal media" is a myth. Maybe MSNBC is but only because they perceive they have to be that way in response to fox. Media is all about ratings and what stories will best get those ratings, not political bias. ...Our population is focused in a handful of cities...where massive amounts of gun violence happen. All the empty space states are of little concern for this issue. England being a smaller country means a more densely packed populace. I'm pretty sure no statistic exists that makes them look bad in the area of violent crimes compared to the USA. It really is the one think the UK has over us no matter what argument we make up to make ourselves feel better. How is that a similar argument? That right there is the definition of a false equivalency. The press existed back then. Therefore freedom of the press, free speech, and religion were all concepts that do not change no matter the time period and the specific technologies that evolve for each thing. Guns on the other hand went from something people had to have because the times were such that if they did not have a gun they might die that week, whether by British troops or a bear romping about. Guns also at the time were horribly inaccurate and disease killed people more often than the guns did. On top of that guns took real skill to aim, reload, and fire. We now live in an age where any gun can kill and kill very efficiently. We are not constantly under the threat of being invaded or are being occupied nor are we being attacked by wildlife constantly so the very use of a gun is not a necessity as it was back then. Militia | Define Militia at Dictionary.com Though nice use of, "well that depends on what the definition of is, is" counter-point. Really side-stepping the point I made instead of answering it. No, every single citizen is not a "militia". I think you are not quite understanding what gun control laws are for. They are not to stop all gun related crimes. They are to act as a trend and a statement. They act as steps in the right direction to making events such as massive school shootings harder to do. Will they stop them completely? Of course not, but harder to do is still a positive thing. They act as a statement to make public opinion change toward the government instead of against it. No, and is not the point anyone is trying to make. My personal opinion is far from my practical opinion. War is a different argument not related to this discussion. Seeing as the constitution is not written for the armed forces the amendments do not apply to them. Soilders do not have freedom of speech while they are enlisted nor do they have any other right given to regular citizens under the Bill of Rights. So the whole point is moot.
Compared to Australia, America has ~40 times as many firearm homicides per 100,000 people, but only 4.8 times as many homicides per 100,000 by any means. I doubt U.K is vastly different. If it is, break it down for me. Being unable to legally purchase semi-automatic firearms would make it impossible to straw purchase semi-automatic firearms. Lets put it this way: if my friend wanted red jelly-beans, but red jelly-beans were illegal, I wouldn't be able to legally purchase my friend the red jelly-beans legally. This would make it that much harder for my friend to find a way to get his hands on some red jelly-beans to blow someone's brains out with.
I think there is a distinction being missed here between the minority of mass-killings which could have involved the legal purchase and registration of a firearm, and the vast majority of gun crimes which seem to survive from the constant circulation of stolen and black-market firearms. ATF estimates at least 1/4 gun trafficking violations are stolen, and as long as people continue to want guns to feel safe, there will always be a source for criminals to tap into.
I tought y'all might find this article interesting: Gamasutra - News - Vice President Biden's warning to the video game industry If anything remotely close to this gets passed, the video game industry is going to ****.
no way this can be enforced if it is, we always have the hundreds of past games though, very few AAA titles have been any good lately...
If anything close to what gets passed. They don't discuss doing anything. From the comments: It really is.
Lol I knew someone was gonna call me out if I didn't word my statement more precisely. I'm just saying if something ever gets passed (not tied directly to this article) then future games are gonna suck.