Jon Stewart's plea for gun control (1 Viewer)

[SUGrad03]

Did any of you guys watch the Interview that Stewart had with Gen. McChrystal? I believe he sums up my views quite well.

He talked about how the assault weapons like the M16, M1 Carbine, etc. were developed with a larger round and higher muzzle velocity to inflict maxium damage on a human target on the Battlefield. I.E. they were develped for combat and to be used by highly trained military personel. He said there is no reason for civilians to have these types of weapons and to be commercially available. This is coming from one of the top commanders of the U.S. military.

Now, I don't want to start a big fight or anything here, but can someone calmly and rationally tell me why you would be against an Assault weapons ban? Why do you need an AR-15 or something comprable? How would not having that weapon that was designed and built to be used on the battlefieild by trained soldiers negatively impact you?

And let me say that I am neither anti-gun or pro-gun per se. I like shooting guns, I like to hunt, I believe people should have the right to own some guns legally. But I also believe we have a responsibilty to protect citizens and especially young children. Lots of people have brought up other issues like mental health, alcohol, entitlements, welfare, etc. and I think these are are logical and debatable points. But can we just start with one topic and then move to the next. Let's start with assault weapons please, then we can move on to the other issues. IMO, there is no need for anyone outside the trained military to own or operate a semi or automatic weapon. But that is just my personal opinion. You can disagree, that is what makes this country great, just please give me a sound logical reason why someone needs an automatic weapon?

If you truly hunt and "like shooting guns" then you would know what the General said is BS. People talk about the .223 like it's some kind of magical super bullet; my 30-30 can inflict more maximum damage to a human than a .223. Not to mention every other round from .243 thru 45/70. Do we need to be highly trained to use those?

No civilian needs an AR; just as no one needs more than one pair of shoes, a car that does 72 mph, R/C airplanes, or leather jackets. Why do people have those? No ones life would be adversely affected if ARs went away. That still doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to legally own one if they want to. We all have our recreational preferences.

 

[Big_L]

That's kinda the point though. YOU have training and understand how to employ your weapon. There is a high percentage of people out there that don't have a clue on what they are doing, they think they do, but they don't. Those of us charged with carrying an assault weapon for duty go through countless hours of classroom and practical training. The average active shooter with an assault rifle has little to no training and yet is able to inflict serious damage to multiple victims.

I would dare to say most active shooters use a pistol vs a rifle. A rifle just isnt effective in close quarters. That was the point I was trying to make in a round about way. It is way easier to conceal a pistol and get to shooting, even surpressing the sound if necessary than a rifle. Just the size and shape alone make sneaking a rifle in difficult. I am more affraid of responding to an active threat where the perp is using a pistol than a rifle only because the pistol can be concealed and when the adreneline is pumping and tunnel vision is setting in, I could miss that pistol. Now if I had to respond for across an open field or something, then yeah, I would be affraid of said rifle more so than a pistol.

 

[Blackcricket]

I still stand by my statements from another thread. Guns are a very inefficient way to kill a large number of people.

Bombings kill 115 people in Pakistan, including 81 in sectarian attack on billiards hall - The Washington Post

Don't think it will happen here? Already has, including the deadliest school killing in US history.
Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bath School disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Centennial Olympic Park bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You just aren't going to stop crazy by making gun laws.

The incidents you point out do not happen at the frequency gun violence does.

 

[bclemms]

The incidents you point out do not happen at the frequency gun violence does.

Back to my original point, gun violence doesn't happen at nearly the frequency that alcohol related deaths do. Do you support banning of alcohol or limiting the amount people can buy so nobody can drink beyond the legal limit or reducing the alcohol by volume to levels that people can't drink fast enough to get drunk?

More people are killed in auto accidents than people are murdered by guns. Do you suggest we make cars that can not exceed 70mph?

Fast food, sweets, soft drinks, etc are the leading cause of heart disease, diabetes and other diseases that kill at thousands of a percent higher rate than gun homicides. Do you suggest we get rid of all red meat, fast food, sugar products?

Most likely you enjoy having an alcoholic beverage and a steak with dessert sometimes and feel like banning these items are foolish. Thousands of people love to take their firearms to a range to shoot, hunt or find comfort in being able to protect themselves, family and property but feel banning an item that contributes to hundreds of thousands of less deaths per year than the items above is foolish.

If we did completely ban alcohol do you think it would work this time or would it be a disaster just like prohibition or the war on drugs? People would still want alcohol and they would get it. Just like if you ban guns people will still be able to get them. The gun manufactors couldn't have dreamed of a better advertising campaign than Sandy Hook and the following weeks of gun control. They are selling guns at a rate never seen in this country and many of those weapons are assault rifles. The crazy thing is many of these people would have never purchased an assault rifle but when you tell a human they can't have one then it becomes all they desire.

It just baffles me how this is so difficult to understand.

 

[redlandssaintsson]

I enjoyed the emphasis Stewart made about the part of the second amendment people love to leave out: "a WELL REGULATED militia".

But as for a suggestion, can't we just reduce the number of guns available to everyone, and make the just a little, not a lot, but a little harder to own? Not buy, but own. I don't know the first thing about gun registration, but can we treat it like car registration and car licensure? You have to renew the gun every year, your license every 4 (with a "looney" test). It's annoying, but the "don't take my guns" people get to keep their guns and the "more gun control" people get more control of the guns.

 

[bclemms]

I enjoyed the emphasis Stewart made about the part of the second amendment people love to leave out: "a WELL REGULATED militia".

But as for a suggestion, can't we just reduce the number of guns available to everyone, and make the just a little, not a lot, but a little harder to own? Not buy, but own. I don't know the first thing about gun registration, but can we treat it like car registration and car licensure? You have to renew the gun every year, your license every 4 (with a "looney" test). It's annoying, but the "don't take my guns" people get to keep their guns and the "more gun control" people get more control of the guns.

I wouldn't argue against that as long as the registration doesn't turn into a firearm tax like liscense plate tags have. I also wouldn't argue against a required gun safety class in school that operates much like sex ed. Even if you don't own a gun and don't think your kid will be around them you are wrong. Many of the accidental shooting deaths in the country happen with kids at another kid's house. Plus this way everyone has a better understanding of guns.

I doubt either would help very much but it would be a start. This wouldn't change that the majority of gun crimes take place with illegal firearms to begin with and the people doing a large percentage of the killing wouldn't be included in the registration processes.

 

[Big_L]

I enjoyed the emphasis Stewart made about the part of the second amendment people love to leave out: "a WELL REGULATED militia".

But as for a suggestion, can't we just reduce the number of guns available to everyone, and make the just a little, not a lot, but a little harder to own? Not buy, but own. I don't know the first thing about gun registration, but can we treat it like car registration and car licensure? You have to renew the gun every year, your license every 4 (with a "looney" test). It's annoying, but the "don't take my guns" people get to keep their guns and the "more gun control" people get more control of the guns.

I don't see having to register a gun every year. Maybe recertifying on a background check. Those of us that are police officers and/or ccl should be exempt.

 

[redlandssaintsson]

I wouldn't argue against that as long as the registration doesn't turn into a firearm tax like liscense plate tags have. I also wouldn't argue against a required gun safety class in school that operates much like sex ed. Even if you don't own a gun and don't think your kid will be around them you are wrong. Many of the accidental shooting deaths in the country happen with kids at another kid's house. Plus this way everyone has a better understanding of guns.

I doubt either would help very much but it would be a start. This wouldn't change that the majority of gun crimes take place with illegal firearms to begin with and the people doing a large percentage of the killing wouldn't be included in the registration processes.

I'd be all for a gun safety class. You're right, I've been around many guns in others houses. I also agree that my idea does nothing to stop illegally obtained guns, but plenty of these crimes are done with weapons that were legally obtained, and any reduction is a reduction. Glad, thought, that there's at least one here willing to reasonably discuss some sort of restriction without screaming about rights and insulting people.

 

[wowatkin]

Tax ammunition out the wazoo and be done with it. And I mean make bullets prohibitively expensive.

Our 2nd Amendment isn't violated and we still get "gun control".

In my opinion, there's nothing "normal" about a private citizen going to the range several times per month and firing off several hundred rounds on each trip, and there's nothing "normal" about a private citizen having an armory of firearms in their residence. I'm not saying that either one should be against the law, but I'll never understand the fear that motivates said people (or whatever it is that compels them to do so).

I know many disagree but oh well.

 

[Superfuzz]

At the end of the day, a "Gun Ban" on Assault Rifles was already tried. The FBI stated to Congress it had zero effect on crime/homocide rates during the effective time-frame.

The only thing ANOTHER gun ban accomplishes is taking said weaponry out of the hands of the good/law-abiding citizen (they'll be the only ones giving them up/not purchasing them). Those who mean harm will still utilize whatever means they feel necessary to accomplish their objective (i.e. use an Assault Rifle). When you strip all the conjecture and hyperbole...this fact remains; glaring.

 

[Blackcricket]

Back to my original point, gun violence doesn't happen at nearly the frequency that alcohol related deaths do. Do you support banning of alcohol or limiting the amount people can buy so nobody can drink beyond the legal limit or reducing the alcohol by volume to levels that people can't drink fast enough to get drunk?

More people are killed in auto accidents than people are murdered by guns. Do you suggest we make cars that can not exceed 70mph?

Fast food, sweets, soft drinks, etc are the leading cause of heart disease, diabetes and other diseases that kill at thousands of a percent higher rate than gun homicides. Do you suggest we get rid of all red meat, fast food, sugar products?

Most likely you enjoy having an alcoholic beverage and a steak with dessert sometimes and feel like banning these items are foolish. Thousands of people love to take their firearms to a range to shoot, hunt or find comfort in being able to protect themselves, family and property but feel banning an item that contributes to hundreds of thousands of less deaths per year than the items above is foolish.

If we did completely ban alcohol do you think it would work this time or would it be a disaster just like prohibition or the war on drugs? People would still want alcohol and they would get it. Just like if you ban guns people will still be able to get them. The gun manufactors couldn't have dreamed of a better advertising campaign than Sandy Hook and the following weeks of gun control. They are selling guns at a rate never seen in this country and many of those weapons are assault rifles. The crazy thing is many of these people would have never purchased an assault rifle but when you tell a human they can't have one then it becomes all they desire.

It just baffles me how this is so difficult to understand.

Alcohol is better regulated than gun violence. Right now, gun violence is being addressed.

Prohibition is a good reason to show that the 2nd Amendment is not going away. Lesson learned.

 

[DesertKajun]

Where did he say it isn't anything special? He did say that laser sights are worthless on an assault rifle but never said that assault rifles are nothing special, nor did he say attachments are nothing special.

One of these guns kill thousands of people a year. Same style and caliber.

The other two combined kill less than 400 a year (all styles and calibers).

One of these guns look really scary.

One of these guns looks like something you would see in old westerns.

The one that looks like it would be in the old westerns uses a massive round that inflicts an incredible amount of damage. It needs to though, it is used to kill Elk, Moose, Bear, Deer and other large game.

The one that looks really scary shoots a relatively small round. It is a high speed round and it is very useful when hunting feral hog and other animals with tough skin and/or thick fat.

The name assault rifle is used because these weapons are based off of military style weapons that are lightweight, offer large capacity, can be customized for many different situations, offer range but aren't oversized for tight spaces. Military assault rifles can come in single fire, 3 round burst, 4 round burst, fully automatic or select fire that can be switched from single shot, burst or fully automatic.

The civilian style assault rifles do have a purpose but with extremely limited numbers (and highly watched) only come in semi-automatic. The best example is feral hog hunting. The gun is lightweight which is terrific since chasing hogs can cover many miles, can be equipped with a flashlight since most hog hunting is at night, more durable and easier to clean. They also offer higher capacity since many times you need several rounds or can get on a group and can take out several at a time. The civilian style is great to shoot at a range since it is lightweight, comfortable and the ammo is relatively cheap.

What people like me don't understand is why go after the type of gun that is used to kill the fewest amount of people? All rifles account for so few murders every year that there are so many different items that kill more people. Screwdrivers, knives, baseball bats, etc all kill many more people. Shotguns and handguns kill more people.

As for the mass shootings, a pistol was used in all of the 11 deadliest with the only exception being the UT sniper. Some had other weapons to go with the pistols, some were rifles some shotguns some all three. Many are saying that the only reason for the really high death numbers are from assault rifles but the Virginia Tech shooting is still the second deadliest and nothing more than pistols were used.

The anti-gun crowd is going after the assault rifle because it has a limited use, it looks scary and it is the gun they will have the least resistance to getting banned. They are trying to ban assault rifles just to say they got it banned. The pistol also has a limited use but they already know that is a losing battle. They don't look scary, a huge number of people have them and even though it is hands down the most popular murder weapon in the US, they aren't going down that road.

Here are the guns pictured below. Also included is a chart, the bullet with the red arrow on the left is the .223 round used in the assault rifle. The red arrow to the right is the one used with the winchester .300 (old western gun). Don't for one second think that buying or making high capacity magazines for the hunting rifle isn't common.

Id rather face someone with the wimpy .223 then the 12 gauge.

 

[SUGrad03]

Tax ammunition out the wazoo and be done with it. And I mean make bullets prohibitively expensive.

Our 2nd Amendment isn't violated and we still get "gun control".

In my opinion, there's nothing "normal" about a private citizen going to the range several times per month and firing off several hundred rounds on each trip, and there's nothing "normal" about a private citizen having an armory of firearms in their residence. I'm not saying that either one should be against the law, but I'll never understand the fear that motivates said people (or whatever it is that compels them to do so).

I know many disagree but oh well.

So how will taxing ammo stop someone who is planning on killing others AND themselves from maxing out a credit card or getting a payday loan to buy it; especially when they don't plan on repaying it? This is another ridiculous idea that will punish law abiding citizens.

 

[billinms]

So how will taxing ammo stop someone who is planning on killing others AND themselves from maxing out a credit card or getting a payday loan to buy it; especially when they don't plan on repaying it? This is another ridiculous idea that will punish law abiding citizens.

It won't, but it will make it unaffordable for people like me who enjoys going to the range with my wife and firing 500 rounds on Sat morning.

 

[seandroog]

I still stand by my statements from another thread. Guns are a very inefficient way to kill a large number of people.

Bombings kill 115 people in Pakistan, including 81 in sectarian attack on billiards hall - The Washington Post

Don't think it will happen here? Already has, including the deadliest school killing in US history.
Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bath School disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Centennial Olympic Park bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You just aren't going to stop crazy by making gun laws.

Since your idea is to "legalize everything" should we just legalize bombs for public use? And if you're trying to show that we can all die from bombings, so we need protection, I don't know what owning a gun will do if someone drives a car bomb into a church.

The fact that cancer kills infinitely more people than guns doesn't mean that we should keep guns. Gun violence is it's own issue.

Back to my original point, gun violence doesn't happen at nearly the frequency that alcohol related deaths do. Do you support banning of alcohol or limiting the amount people can buy so nobody can drink beyond the legal limit or reducing the alcohol by volume to levels that people can't drink fast enough to get drunk?

More people are killed in auto accidents than people are murdered by guns. Do you suggest we make cars that can not exceed 70mph?

Fast food, sweets, soft drinks, etc are the leading cause of heart disease, diabetes and other diseases that kill at thousands of a percent higher rate than gun homicides. Do you suggest we get rid of all red meat, fast food, sugar products?

Most likely you enjoy having an alcoholic beverage and a steak with dessert sometimes and feel like banning these items are foolish. Thousands of people love to take their firearms to a range to shoot, hunt or find comfort in being able to protect themselves, family and property but feel banning an item that contributes to hundreds of thousands of less deaths per year than the items above is foolish.

I find it baffling how far you can get off of the point. People die from chemo theropy, should we ban cancer drugs? I mean anyone can throw out these statements, and they may sounds like you're comparying apples to apples but you're really not.

70MPH - A lot of states have lower speed limits than louisiana to try an cut down on the fatalities that car crashes cause. But as you keep mentioning cars, I will keep mentioning that cars are not designed to harm a human being. That is what a gun is designed to harm a living creature. You can argue until you're red in the face that they are designed for sport, but they are designed to maim and kill things, and the higher bullet capacity is designed to harm more things in a shorter amount of time.

Sugar and alcohol - Many cities are already implimenting taxes and bans on sugar drinks, alcohol and cigarettes. You say you could never see a gun tax or taxing bullets. Here in NYC alcohol is taxed heavily, and adults pay for it. Cigarettes here in NYC cost like $12 a pack. You know what people would do if they taxed guns and bullets? nothing. No militia would form. We're adults, and if you're saying that shooting is for sport then it is a luxury, not a necessity. Pay a little more for it and register your gun like you have to register your car (the death machines you keep going on a bout.) Oh, and there are dry counties. These people aren't rioting.

And sugar? here in NY bloomberg is banning sugar drinks over a certain size. I like to have my large soda in the theater, but after seeing honey boo boo child sized children with their faces buried in big gulps I don't think it's a big issue. You know what people did? complained. No riots, no militia formed.

And have you forgotten a ban on supersize at mcdonalds, thanks to "supersize me". People complain, but people deal with vice taxes. They are luxuries.

These are all things that have been curbed to protect people from themselves and we are talking about products that are designed for transportation, get inhebriated and quench a sweet tooth. Guns are designed to harm things. I don't understand how you can't see the difference.

Again, I'm not saying we should ban guns. But lets keep the discussion logical. This country is not going to legalize cocaine, heroine, crack, meth, crocidile and weed and start handing out legal guns to everybody. We have to keep our ideas within the realm of possibility.