Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[FlatAssembler]

It's supported by fifteen different studies, that used different methodology but arrived at the numbers of defensive gun uses of the same order of magnitude. And even if all those studies are somehow a huge overestimate, gun control can still kill more people than it saves because (and this cannot be stressed enough) gun control affects law-abiding citizens much more than it affects violent criminals. Gun control will not take away guns from criminals any more than the war on drugs takes away marihuana from drug abusers. In the age of 3D printing, manufacturing guns illegally is just as easy as manufacturing marihuana illegally.

Also, if you think banning automatics and semi-automatics will stop mass shootings... Do you think that there used to be no mass shootings before automatics and semi-automatics were invented? As far as I know, mass shootings were more common in the beginning of the 19th century than they are today.

When have you EVER heard me suggest that semiautomatics and automatics (or any other firearm for that matter) should be banned?

I can’t keep having this same conversation.

Boru

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by gun control (that you are advocating)? As far as I know, gun control usually means two things:
1) Preventing mentally ill people from owning a gun.
2) Banning high-tech guns (automatics, semi-automatics...).
Do you mean something different (and hopefully less ridiculous) by "gun control"?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

When have you EVER heard me suggest that semiautomatics and automatics (or any other firearm for that matter) should be banned?

I can’t keep having this same conversation.

Boru

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by gun control (that you are advocating)? As far as I know, gun control usually means two things:
1) Preventing mentally ill people from owning a gun.
2) Banning high-tech guns (automatics, semi-automatics...).
Do you mean something different (and hopefully less ridiculous) by "gun control"?

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

[FlatAssembler]

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by gun control (that you are advocating)? As far as I know, gun control usually means two things:
1) Preventing mentally ill people from owning a gun.
2) Banning high-tech guns (automatics, semi-automatics...).
Do you mean something different (and hopefully less ridiculous) by "gun control"?

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Boru

I've looked up those words in a dictionary, and I still don't understand that. "Lather" means "to foam" and "rinse" means "to wash".

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Boru

I've looked up those words in a dictionary, and I still don't understand that. "Lather" means "to foam" and "rinse" means "to wash".

It’s an English idiom that means to do something over and over and over. In this instance you can take it to mean that I’m tired of repeating myself to you. As I said, I can’t keep having this same conversation.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Boru

I've looked up those words in a dictionary, and I still don't understand that. "Lather" means "to foam" and "rinse" means "to wash".

Oh, FFS! 

[The Grand Nudger]

"What is word?", said the guy publishing papers in linguistics.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by gun control (that you are advocating)? As far as I know, gun control usually means two things:
1) Preventing mentally ill people from owning a gun.
2) Banning high-tech guns (automatics, semi-automatics...).
Do you mean something different (and hopefully less ridiculous) by "gun control"?

The vast majority of americans, either side of the aisle, strongly support enhanced gun control measures..and we're nuts.  Boru might have something more aggressive in mind as a non usian, but my impression after having heard him speak at length on this topic over years, is that he's actually just this side (the conservative side, in case that wasn't clear because: english) of the "rational conservative" end of the spectrum in usian parlance, the only thing that you....yet another non-usian, apparently, understands - and poorly.  

As for your 1, absolutely and ofc.  Even in the swampiest parts of the magaverse, it's already illegal for crazy to have a gun. That's not even a gun control issue with respect to passing new or more stringent laws, it's a current law enforcement issue. Do you have any idea the number of people who commit gun crimes every year that by the laws in their own area at that time (to say nothing of actual competence) do not actually possess any legal firearms? Are you aware that, from the leo perspective, it;s mostly an issue of lacking some place to store confiscated weapons and worrying that a wingnut will win an extralegal or civil challenge to their confiscation? Insane...right?

As for your 2, no, a thousand times no.  Should there be enhanced background and licensing (to say nothing of insuring) and monitoring and leo action around "high tech guns"?  Yes, again, and again ofc?  Bans - though..... what's the fucking point?  They're already out there in the millions and pre-existing firearms and owners are always always always grandfathered in to any new regs.  Truthfully, no conceivable usian ban will even impact me. I can sign my name and register my shit anywhere, anytime. I'm the right shade of lipstick. Some gun guys worry about putting their name on a government list, but mines been on one since I was 18, lol.

In general, the kind of shit you think you're arguing against would make me a criminal by default in an instant, and is probably too far, even, for Boru - in usian context.  I'm an american "super user" and former groundpounder with a closet full of guns and you, for whatever reason, think that you are the pro-gun advocate here. I think that I should be able to own a goddamned vtol attack aircraft mit missiles if I fill out the paperwork and provide adequate storage. It's my 50milUSD after all, and I have never once been (and never will be, trust that) convicted of any crime in the us justice system....right? Roll that around in your head a bit. You might realize that it's exactly the sort of wingnut shit you're stuck on that is going to ruin guns for everybody. They will be banned, rightly or wrongly, if this is all we can expect of the opposition. We need a better class of advocate as gun owners and buffs. I've had it up to here with mealy mouthed bullshit about how people need ar15s for "pests". Unless your pests are 160lb bipedal primates with access to medical care..and so..the need of a more damaging round...... no. No you do not. I can't stand people bullshitting other people about lawless hellhole usa where you need a gun to successfully navigate to the 7-11. Bullshit. Rank...fucking...bullshit.

This is why you fail.  You want to have a wingnut argument with wingnut statistics.  Work on that, for guns sake?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Goddamnit, I want a $50M F-35 too ... that's like a 50% discount.

[arewethereyet]

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by gun control (that you are advocating)? As far as I know, gun control usually means two things:
1) Preventing mentally ill people from owning a gun.
2) Banning high-tech guns (automatics, semi-automatics...).
Do you mean something different (and hopefully less ridiculous) by "gun control"?

The vast majority of americans, either side of the aisle, strongly support enhanced gun control measures..and we're nuts.  Boru might have something more aggressive in mind as a non usian, but my impression after having heard him speak at length on this topic over years, is that he's actually just this side (the conservative side, in case that wasn't clear because: english) of the "rational conservative" end of the spectrum in usian parlance, the only thing that you....yet another non-usian, apparently, understands - and poorly.  

As for your 1, absolutely and ofc.  Even in the swampiest parts of the magaverse, it's already illegal for crazy to have a gun.  That's not even a gun control issue with respect to passing new or more stringent laws, it's a current law enforcement issue.  Do you have any idea the number of people who commit gun crimes every year that by the laws in their own area at that time (to say nothing of actual competence) do not actually possess any legal firearms?  Are you aware that, from the leo perspective, it;s mostly an issue of lacking some place to store confiscated weapons and worrying that a wingnut will win an extralegal or civil challenge to their confiscation?  Insane...right?

As for your 2, no, a thousand times no.  Should there be enhanced background and licensing (to say nothing of insuring) and monitoring and leo action around "high tech guns"?  Yes, again, and again ofc?  Bans - though..... what's the fucking point?  They're already out there in the millions and pre-existing firearms and owners are always always always grandfathered in to any new regs.  Truthfully, no conceivable usian ban will even impact me.  I can sign my name and register my shit anywhere, anytime.  I'm the right shade of lipstick.  Some gun guys worry about putting their name on a government list, but mines been on one since I was 18, lol.

In general, the kind of shit you think you're arguing against would make me a criminal by default in an instant, and is probably too far, even, for Boru - in usian context.  I'm an american "super user" and former groundpounder with a closet full of guns and you, for whatever reason, think that you are the pro-gun advocate here.  I think that I should be able to own a goddamned vtol attack aircraft mit missiles if I fill out the paperwork and provide adequate storage.  It's my 50milUSD after all, and I have never once been (and never will be, trust that) convicted of any crime in the us justice system....right?  Roll that around in your head a bit.  You might realize that it's exactly the sort of wingnut shit you're stuck on that is going to ruin guns for everybody.  They will be banned, rightly or wrongly, if this is all we can expect of the opposition.  We need a better class of advocate as gun owners and buffs.  I've had it up to here with mealy mouthed bullshit about how people need ar15s for "pests".  Unless your pests are 160lb bipedal primates with access to medical care..and so..the need of a more damaging round...... no.  No you do not.  I can't stand people bullshitting other people about lawless hellhole usa where you need a gun to successfully navigate to the 7-11.  Bullshit.  Rank...fucking...bullshit.  

This is why you fail.  You want to have a wingnut argument with wingnut statistics.  Work on that, for guns sake?

There are entirely too many words here if your intended audience is FlatAss.  j/s

As for crazy people not being allowed to have guns...I see a couple issues.  One is, what sort of crazy shouldn't have a gun?  The other issue being that a person cleared today of not being crazy may well be crazy tomorrow, or in a week, or in a couple years.  That's a tough one to plan for.