Orlando Shooting

[alotofyarn]

More people are killed from knife injuries or alcohol related accidents. Why don't we ban those?

Sent from Tapatalk

[MsSassyBaskets]

Like I said, I'm not interested. People who vote for pro-gun policies and politicians are responsible for the outcomes, and I see people shirk that responsibility every day through the argument of "responsible gun owners". No more. They shouldn't be gun owners at all, so every individual's responsibility is irrelevant to me. People who vote for guns have blood on their hands.

[rufflesanddots]

More people are killed from knife injuries or alcohol related accidents. Why don't we ban those?

Sent from Tapatalk

Alcohol is regulated. There are programs in place to help people with addiction. Responsible consumption is the message preached. College campuses are making effort to stop the normalization of binge drinking. Doctors ask about alcohol consumption as a part of medical and social care. They can advise patients about the risk alcohol plays in their lives.

The same is not true for gun ownership or gun use. The NRA has lobbied so hard and spent so many billions of dollars that we can't even research the effects of guns on public health. That doesn't seem weird to you?

I haven't looked into knife issues, so I can't respond to that part of your question.

ETA: knives also serve a utilitarian purpose--they can be used as tools for carving, cutting, etc. What other purpose is there for a gun than to kill something?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[MrsK]

More people are killed from knife injuries or alcohol related accidents. Why don't we ban those?

Sent from Tapatalk

Well, we do control alcohol. Banning it didn't work but there a lot of limitations like who can legally buy it, use it. Limits to driving with it. When and where you can buy it. Who can sell it and their authority to cut you off.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[alotofyarn]

I'm ok with gun control and research. It's the banning part, especially specific types arbitrarily, that I don't think is an effective response.

Sent from Tapatalk

[alotofyarn]

What is the purpose of alcohol other than getting drunk? Some people enjoy collecting and building guns. It's a bonding activity with families. Shooting and hunting is a sport that requires you to learn how to do it well, and it can be a good stress relief. I like to knit or take pictures, my family members like to build guns and shoot paper targets.

Sent from Tapatalk

[fluffhead]

The argument against alcohol is a valid one - it was made 100 years ago, and outlawed. And even when it was outlawed, exception were made for religious observances, etc. I can see the same type of thing being viable for weapons, and I think it would work a whole lot better than prohibition. If some sportsmen truly see the need for exceptions, let them make the case and we can make exceptions. But why this paralysis? Something should be done - if it needs a constitutional amendment, then so be it!

[alotofyarn]

The argument against alcohol is a valid one - it was made 100 years ago, and outlawed. And even when it was outlawed, exception were made for religious observances, etc. I can see the same type of thing being viable for automatic weapons, and I think it would work a whole lot better than prohibition. If some sportsmen truly see the need for exceptions, let them make the case and we can make exceptions. But why this paralysis? Something should be done - if it needs a constitutional amendment, then so be it!

Automatic weapons, or machine guns, are already very tightly regulated and difficult to obtain. An AR-15, which is usually what people think about when they think about "assault weapons" is not an automatic weapon - it shoots one bullet at a time from a magazine that must be reloaded.

[SoonerTexan]

All gays are immoral
All blacks are lazy
All Hispanics are illegal
All Christians are bigots
All doctors are greedy
All Muslims are terrorists
All liberals are Communists
All Southerners are uneducated
All Jews are tight fisted
All gun owners are terrorists

Let's continue with the generalizations and stereotypes, shall we? They make the world a much better place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SoonerTexan]

huh? was this directed at me? I apologize if I came off as attacking - it wasn't meant as such - I truly am undeducated about weaponry.
And admins, please don't lock the thread when things get heated - it's valuable debate.

No. The assertion that all gun owners are terrorists and have blood on their hands.

I get people wanting a gun ban. I don't think it is realistic, but I get it.

The name calling though? Seriously?

[spotty_dog]

Automatic weapons, or machine guns, are already very tightly regulated and difficult to obtain. An AR-15, which is usually what people think about when they think about "assault weapons" is not an automatic weapon - it shoots one bullet at a time from a magazine that must be reloaded.

An assault rifle shoots one bullet at a time -- very very rapidly, 30 bullets to a magazine, easily swapped magazines, easily adapted to take a 50 or 60 bullet magazine. Have you seen the advertisement from Sig Sauer for the MCX Carbine that was used in Orlando? In context it is horrifying. "Battle-tested." "Adverse conditions." "Configure…in the field." They aren't talking about paper targets. They are talking about human beings face to face with other human beings and ending their lives. That is what that weapon is designed and marketed for. And it's just. not. necessary.

[corn poffi]

There's absolutely no need for a civilian to have an assault rifle. No reason at all.

[alotofyarn]

An assault rifle shoots one bullet at a time -- very very rapidly, 30 bullets to a magazine, easily swapped magazines, easily adapted to take a 50 or 60 bullet magazine. Have you seen the advertisement from Sig Sauer for the MCX Carbine that was used in Orlando? In context it is horrifying. "Battle-tested." "Adverse conditions." "Configure…in the field." They aren't talking about paper targets. They are talking about human beings face to face with other human beings and ending their lives. That is what that weapon is designed and marketed for. And it's just. not. necessary.

This isn't unique to an "assault weapon" though. I haven't seen the ad, but a stupid ad doesn't mean the item itself should be banned. Wasn't there a time when cigarette companies were marketing to kids, and we had to make laws to prevent that?

Sent from Tapatalk

[corn poffi]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who wouldn't be against completely banning cigarettes either...

[alotofyarn]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who wouldn't be against completely banning cigarettes either...

That's sort of my point. Cigarettes kill significantly more people per year than guns. Why don't we ban everything that kills people? Why is the focus only on guns?

Sent from Tapatalk