| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| Mass Shooting Megathread | Rancho Tehama, CA | 5 dead, shooter down |
| << < (24/54) > >> |
| Headcrab Zombie:
--- Quote from: RedGajin on November 07, 2017, 04:47:54 PM ---for the pro-gun boys, what about states where lax gun control is failing and leading to more deaths? prime case is indiana, which has p reserved gun control and funnels a lot of guns out to different states. people always bring up Chicago in these debates with something like: “strictest gun laws in the country, but highest death rate!”. a huge number of confiscated guns from chi comes from indiana. safe to assume that a fair number of the non-confiscated or untraceable guns come from there as well. do you think weaker gun laws would make Chicago safer? would making access to firearms easier for everyone stop gun violence? from my perspective, the arguments for gun control revolve around the idea that you make it harder for guns to be obtained legally, and then sold illegally to criminals. in chi’s case, the guns are bought legally in indiana at things like guns shows (which is a controversial topic in itself), and then transported to chi. by doing that, you lower the rate of gun-related murders, which in turn means you would also put stricter regulation on types of guns that are allowed to be sold (clip size, caliber, etc). also things like psych evals mass shootings are a lil seperate from this, as i believe most shootings have been unconvicted individuals whose biggest problems stem from mental health issues, so this is a lil off topic, just curious to hear some opinions --- End quote --- Chicago also has one of the biggest (or is it the biggest?) problem with gang violence. That's the root of the problem here. Guns are just the tool with which the problem is carried out. Banning guns is just a feel good measure to make politicians look like there doing something, instead of addressing the root problem. The more time we spend bickering about "ban assault weapons!!!" the less time we spend addressing the root issue. Speaking of which, has anyone every looked into the specific legislation some states have passed against "assault weapons"? The only difference between a legal gun and an illegal "assault weapon" could be something like the addition of an adjustable stock. Now, can anyone who is advocating the banning of "assault weapons" explain to me how an adjustable stock makes a weapon more dangerous? It becomes even sillier when you release it works in reverse: that you can make an otherwise illegal gun suddenly become legal, simply by removing such harmless features. |
| Red Spy:
nuking indiana sounds like a good idea |
| Kidalex90:
i was friends with the shooter and the reason he did it was because he couldnt find any import subwooferzz for his ride |
| Headcrab Zombie:
--- Quote from: Kidalex90 on November 07, 2017, 07:03:34 PM ---i was friends with the shooter and the reason he did it was because he couldnt find any import subwooferzz for his ride --- End quote --- ban assault subwoofers |
| RedGajin:
--- Quote from: Headcrab Zombie on November 07, 2017, 07:01:20 PM ---Chicago also has one of the biggest (or is it the biggest?) problem with gang violence. That's the root of the problem here. Guns are just the tool with which the problem is carried out. Banning guns is just a feel good measure to make politicians look like there doing something, instead of addressing the root problem. The more time we spend bickering about "ban assault weapons!!!" the less time we spend addressing the root issue. --- End quote --- well yeah chicago has a gang problem, but wouldn't you consider guns to be a huge contributor to that problem as a whole? yeah theres other issues like stuffty schooling, horrible housing problems, etc. guns are just another factor, and this applies to cities outside of chicago as well. getting rid of guns wouldnt remove the problem tomorrow obviously, but the deathrate would no doubt go down, and itd be harder for gangs to operate overall. you dont think any sort of additional laws should be passed at all in indiana to help stop this? why? whats the downside? do those benefits outweigh helping to deter 4000+ gun-related incidents per year (using only chicago as an example)? is regulating these weapon sales too much government interference? again, i dont think something like this specific situation is a catch-all solution to everything, but it helps, and benfits the general public. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |