Mass Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

[Jive Turkey]

I could find you a study that says the exact opposite. When you look at the overall picture, if we agree that violence in movies and videogames has increased, violent crime has decreased in the same time period, so that correlation holds little water.

[Eighties]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Well, I would agree to this point. It's ridiculous. You an add sexuality to that list too

yeah defiantly, young women and men are ridiculous sexually that is. anyways it does translate in a way. Violent media does do something though. It introduces a thought into ones mind, gives one ideas, and makes it seem easy.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Eighties

yeah defiantly, young women and men are ridiculous sexually that is. anyways it does translate in a way. Violent media does do something though. It introduces a thought into ones mind, gives one ideas, and makes it seem easy.

I don't think you're giving people enough credit. The violent crime stats are there. Society is less violent than it was 30 years ago.
People don't watch too many movies and go out to kill people. If there's already a predisposition to violence, it will be expressed one way or another

[Eighties]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Society is less violent than it was 30 years ago.
If there's already a predisposition to violence, it will be expressed one way or another

Now back to firearms, doesn't this only back Caleb and I's point of view ? granted I did some minor editing

[Pearl]

I think movies and TV shows are more violent and sexually explicit these days not because it is a reflection of our society, but because Hollywood wants to push the envelope and shock the audiences.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Eighties

Now back to firearms, doesn't this only back Caleb and I's point of view ? granted I did some minor editing

But I would also argue that America is a more violent society in general than others. If it's not the video games and movies, what is it?

Honestly, I'm not sure where in the massive grey area I stand. But I've yet to hear a compelling argument against stricter gun laws

[Caleb8844]

Unfortunately, when crises like this happen, people flee to the safety nets of their ideological corners: conservatives go further right, and refuse to see the logic of common sense proposals like background checks and lower capacity magazines, some will only be happy if there're no restrictions at all; liberals retreat to the left, and refuse to believe that assault weapons aren't the birthplace of all evil, some will only be happy if semi-automatics are banned completely.

I would agree with you, and say that I fall into that massive grey area as well. Right now, I think I'd be happy with extensive background check requirements, and magazine/ammo restrictions.

[Eighties]

I say a good background check system and laws in place where a gun owner is accountable for their registered firearm. For example if your fire arm was used in a crime you would be fined for failure to be responsible and keep it safe. All pro-gun people love to preach responsibility, so it should be an agreeable law. I wouldn't mind if you had to take a course to own a semi-automatic, a smarter society is always better off.

[Jive Turkey]

to both of those reasonable posts

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

The Virginia Tech massacre was the most deadly shooting of its kind. The shooter used two semi-automatic pistols.

Yeah, handguns on a college campus is a big problem.

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Is it illegal to defend yourself in the dark? If your house is broken into, and you're defending your family in the dark, it seems helpful to avoid being blinded by the your gun flash

You really aren't a gun guy are you? Ok, first of all using an assault rifle as your mainline of self defense is pretty dumb, there are much better options. Secondly flash suppressors are used to diffuse the flash when you have the gun up to your shoulder at eye level and using a scope. If you are scoping your target, then guess what, it's probably not self defense.

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

It is widely held opinion that the '94 assault weapons ban did nearly nothing to curb gun violence; hence, it was not renewed in 2004.

Um, no it wasn't renewed because we had politicians who's lips were sewn to the NRA's collective ass.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Unfortunately, when crises like this happen, people flee to the safety nets of their ideological corners: conservatives go further right, and refuse to see the logic of common sense proposals like background checks and lower capacity magazines, some will only be happy if there're no restrictions at all; liberals retreat to the left, and refuse to believe that assault weapons aren't the birthplace of all evil, some will only be happy if semi-automatics are banned completely.

I would agree with you, and say that I fall into that massive grey area as well. Right now, I think I'd be happy with extensive background check requirements, and magazine/ammo restrictions.

Originally Posted by Eighties

I say a good background check system and laws in place where a gun owner is accountable for their registered firearm. For example if your fire arm was used in a crime you would be fined for failure to be responsible and keep it safe. All pro-gun people love to preach responsibility, so it should be an agreeable law. I wouldn't mind if you had to take a course to own a semi-automatic, a smarter society is always better off.

Big to both of you.

I don't think(and I don't think many do) that assault rifles are the birthplace of all evil. I think they have a specific reason, and no one has ever given me one legitimate reason why civilians should have them. We don't allow Indy cars on our highways, why? Because they have a specific reason, one that doesn't belong on our streets.

[Eighties]

Originally Posted by BVS

I think they have a specific reason, and no one has ever given me one legitimate reason why civilians should have them. We don't allow Indy cars on our highways, why? Because they have a specific reason, one that doesn't belong on our streets.

Then why is almost every car made to break the top speed limits in our country ? should we outlaw mustangs, and other sports cars because they "have no place" ? Who are you or the government to say what I can and cannot have ? What extent will it lead to ? It all depends, maybe they like to do sport shooting, shooting at targets, maybe they own large amounts of property in which they need what an Ar-15 provides. Also someone has posted earlier a good argument on why militarily speaking a good reason why we should have them. It's not completely insane to think that a government can turn, look at history, look at the current news.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

But I would also argue that America is a more violent society in general than others.

It's not though. The only real difference is that America had guns.

It is the guns. They are a public health and safety issue.

[Eighties]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

It's not though. The only real difference is that America had guns.

It is the guns. They are a public health and safety issue.

Explain Switzerland then... one of the lowest crime rates in the world and nearly every person owns a gun and most are "assault" rifles. They also have a very good militia system in replacement of large armies.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Eighties

Then why is almost every car made to break the top speed limits in our country ? should we outlaw mustangs, and other sports cars because they "have no place" ?

Indy cars are not illegal on streets because of their speed, I'm pretty sure you could drive an Indy car at 70mph if you wanted to.

Originally Posted by Eighties

Who are you or the government to say what I can and cannot have ? What extent will it lead to ?

You're right, why not allow tanks, grenades, F-16s. Who's the government to say we can't own any of that shit. I want an F-16 damnitt!

Originally Posted by Eighties

It all depends, maybe they like to do sport shooting, shooting at targets,

Sport shooting was never given as a reason in the constitution.

Originally Posted by Eighties

maybe they own large amounts of property in which they need what an Ar-15 provides.

This is not a real answer. Tell me specifically what an assault rifle would give you on "large amounts of property" that a 270 hunting rifle wouldn't?

Originally Posted by Eighties

Also someone has posted earlier a good argument on why militarily speaking a good reason why we should have them. It's not completely insane to think that a government can turn, look at history, look at the current news.

And that person also failed to explained how that rifle is going to hold up against tanks, drones, missiles, machine guns, gas weapons, or anything else the government has access to.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Eighties

Explain Switzerland then... one of the lowest crime rates in the world and nearly every person owns a gun and most are "assault" rifles. They also have a very good militia system in replacement of large armies.

This is the sole exception in the Western world, and every male is conscripted. Huge, huge difference.

The comparison does not hold up.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Eighties

Explain Switzerland then... one of the lowest crime rates in the world and nearly every person owns a gun and most are "assault" rifles. They also have a very good militia system in replacement of large armies.

Switzerland requires that almost every male go through military training, the government actually issues the weapons. Switzerland doesn't have the poverty issues we have, they have extensive checks, they offer mental healthcare; you're comparing apples to oranges.

[Eighties]

Originally Posted by BVS

Indy cars are not illegal on streets because of their speed, I'm pretty sure you could drive an Indy car at 70mph if you wanted to.


You're right, why not allow tanks, grenades, F-16s. Who's the government to say we can't own any of that shit. I want an F-16 damnitt!

Sport shooting was never given as a reason in the constitution.

This is not a real answer. Tell me specifically what an assault rifle would give you on "large amounts of property" that a 270 hunting rifle wouldn't?

And that person also failed to explained how that rifle is going to hold up against tanks, drones, missiles, machine guns, gas weapons, or anything else the government has access to.

1. It's more so, the extent of them robbing us what we already have and how much more will they take ?

2. That's what people use a gun for sometimes, does everything we do have to be in the constitution to be protected ?

3. The ability to recover from a missed shot more effectively

4. Look at the Vietnam war, we lost to guys with AK-47's and no air power of any sort. Look at the current war we are in now ! we can hardly kill people in an OPEN desert. We have forest, hills, and the populous itself to hide in.. imagine that headache. Look at the news, the Syrians started out with Ak-47. Do some research on guerrilla warfare. The flag of Mozambique has an AK-47 on it because of the important role it played in their revolution.

[Eighties]

Originally Posted by BVS

Switzerland requires that almost every male go through military training, the government actually issues the weapons. Switzerland doesn't have the poverty issues we have, they have extensive checks, they offer mental healthcare; you're comparing apples to oranges.

I'll rather jump through a thousand hoops to get my semi-automatic rifle then it to be illegal and impossible to obtain.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Eighties

I'll rather jump through a thousand hoops to get my semi-automatic rifle then it to be illegal and impossible to obtain.

Agreed. I miss PCP so-ooo much