Gun Control - a Liberal/Socialist Fantasy Solution

[Nazaroo]

Of course the first thing following the California attack
has been a Liberal/Socialist whine about gun control,
all the way up to the idiot-president.

However, here are the facts:

(1) California has the toughest gun control laws in the USA.

(2) The weapons used (AR-15s) were acquired and possessed illegally.

(3) The response of 300 armed men ended it in 4 minutes,
with wounded evacuated in less than 20 minutes.

(4) The two 9mm pistols legally owned by the shooters were apparently not used.

(5) Along with illegal AR-15s, the shooters had a garage full of explosives.

(6) Gun control would not have disarmed the shooters or prevented the attack.

 

[This Charming Manc]

(1) Still very lax by international standards

(2) The illegal availability of these guns is made possible by lax gun laws in other states and the high number of guns available in the states. Gun control has to have the primary aim or reducing supply not expecting criminals to comply in the moment.

(3) Police need to be armed if a society is armed, no ones is arguing that case.

(4) Because of the availability of high powered semi automatic rifles.

(5) Explosives killed no one today, explosives are used to kill less than 10 Americans a year, guns are used to kill over 8,000. Thus the debate centres round guns.

(6) The truth is we don't know what it would do to this situation.

What I do know is that in the UK we have a larger and more radicalised Muslim population, our security services have been dealing with between 5 and 20 active threats at any time since the bombings of 2007. To my knowledge none of viable threats concerned the use of firearms.

We know that current US gun laws means if a terrorists want to get hold of guns to kill people they can without fault, I cant see how that keeps you safe?

(1) California has the toughest gun control laws in the USA.

(2) The weapons used (AR-15s) were acquired and possessed illegally.

(3) The response of 300 armed men ended it in 4 minutes,
with wounded evacuated in less than 20 minutes.

(4) The two 9mm pistols legally owned by the shooters were apparently not used.

(5) Along with illegal AR-15s, the shooters had a garage full of explosives.

(6) Gun control would not have disarmed the shooters or prevented the attack.

 

[ok doser]

btw manc - naz is canadian

 

[Nick M]

It is not a fantasy solution to disarm the people so they cannot stop a take over.

 

[patrick jane]

It is not a fantasy solution to disarm the people so they cannot stop a take over.

A takeover by who ? And how does a vote for Obama kill all the victims of mass shootings. You jump to some strange conclusions.

 

[Quetzal]

Before I tackle this, let's remember that no one is suggesting that stricter gun legislation is a silver bullet, so to speak. But in other use cases it has been effective at limiting gun violence.

(1) California has the toughest gun control laws in the USA.

Correct, but it does not affect gun legislation in other states where gun laws are more lax. Inconsistency is a big issue nationwide.

(2) The weapons used (AR-15s) were acquired and possessed illegally.

This is an argument for stricter gun legislation across the board, as well as increased funding toward task forces to help enforce them.

(3) The response of 300 armed men ended it in 4 minutes,
with wounded evacuated in less than 20 minutes.

An armed police force is necessary. No arguments from this camp here.

(4) The two 9mm pistols legally owned by the shooters were apparently not used.

I do not think this is relevant to the discussion when the more powerful weapons were acquired illegally.

(5) Along with illegal AR-15s, the shooters had a garage full of explosives.

Yes, they did. But this is not relevant to firearm legislation.

(6) Gun control would not have disarmed the shooters or prevented the attack.

Maybe, maybe not. It is a thankless piece of legislation. If it is working, you will never hear about it.

 

[Nick M]

A takeover by who ?

Can you think of some groups or entire nations that were disarmed and then exterminated?

 

[This Charming Manc]

because he is a strange person

A takeover by who ? And how does a vote for Obama kill all the victims of mass shootings. You jump to some strange conclusions.

 

[badp]

Remember that time Muslims attacked a police station?

 

[patrick jane]

Can you think of some groups or entire nations that were disarmed and then exterminated?

gotcha :think:

 

[Nick M]

gotcha :think:

The list is much longer than the Jews by the Nazis. Disarmed, then exterminated so they cannot fight back.

 

[rexlunae]

(1) California has the toughest gun control laws in the USA.

Maybe, but federal law limits what they can do.

(2) The weapons used (AR-15s) were acquired and possessed illegally.

That's not true. They were acquired legally. Presumably, the weapons were carried illegally into California.

(3) The response of 300 armed men ended it in 4 minutes,
with wounded evacuated in less than 20 minutes.

Trained men and women conducting an official investigation. Not a random mob of armed yahoos. It's notable that the police didn't put out a call for any random idiot with a gun to show up for a shoot-out.

(4) The two 9mm pistols legally owned by the shooters were apparently not used.

Because why would you use pistols when you have assault rifles for an attack like this?

(5) Along with illegal AR-15s, the shooters had a garage full of explosives.

None of those that were used actually worked. It's unknown if any of them would have, but there's a clear advantage for attackers to having proven, commercial weapons rather than improvised ones. That's not to say that improvised weapons can't be extremely deadly, but it's a higher bar that these people failed to clear.

(6) Gun control would not have disarmed the shooters or prevented the attack.

It could have ensured that all of their weapons would have been improvised.

 

[Nazaroo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazaroo
(6) Gun control would not have disarmed the shooters or prevented the attack.

It could have ensured that all of their weapons would have been improvised.

It DID ensure that no one at the scene of 14 murders and 21 woundings
fired back and ended it early.

 

[Nazaroo]

It is not a fantasy solution to disarm the people so they cannot stop a take over.

I'd rep this but already repped him.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

It's notable that the police didn't put out a call for any random idiot with a gun to show up for a shoot-out.

Ulster County NY Sheriff Paul Van Blarcum

The country needs more responsible Sheriffs like Paul Van Blarcum.

 

[rexlunae]

It DID ensure that no one at the scene of 14 murders and 21 woundings
fired back and ended it early.

Ah, the mythical never-happens solution that gun nuts are convinced would work out. Because clearly someone would have brought their weapons to the holiday party. Like you do.

 

[badp]

Ah, the mythical never-happens solution that gun nuts are convinced would work out. Because clearly someone would have brought their weapons to the holiday party. Like you do.

Oh, how about this? Pass a law to eliminate all guns. While we're at it, pass a law to eliminate all sickness. That way nobody will ever get sick and die. So easy!

 

[intojoy]

Obama is a eunuch
There is no allah

 

[intojoy]

@obama everyone's buying up guns lmbo

 

[Crucible]

What part of 'shall not be infringed' do liberals not understand? The purpose of the Constitution is to maintain rights above societies' spasms.
Come up with any solution you want, but stop trying to bypass the Constitution. I know damn well liberals didn't just go and raid public schools and courts with the Lemon Test and are now trying to get over on supreme law.

Of course not, because that would be crazy