It's a joke. Liberals really think "gun free zones" will do something, and yet with some of the tightest gun restrictions in the country, these guys still shot up a place with modified weapons.

Liberalism is a mental disorder. Nothing proves it more than this.

since they attempted to modify them to be full automatic.

I'm not going to go in detail again because I really can't be bothered to say the same things over again, but here's some general remarks.

Gun control needs to be a nation wide solution. Imposing stricter regulations in a single state or county while leaving its neighboring areas untouched does not work. This is backed up by both pretty common sense and actual evidence as brought forward by research and police reports. Looking at certain areas with stricter gun control measures like Chicago and NY, it's been demonstrated that up to 90% of all guns used in crimes are brought in from other states. Creating an island of stricter regulations while leaving it so that any person can drive over county or state borders, easily obtain a firearm and bring it back in without many issues is pretty ineffective.

Restrictions on things like magazine sizes can yield positive (albeit minor) results. If I remember correctly, in the wake of laws restricting the usage and sale of these magazines, law enforcement found significantly less of them being used in crimes. Additionally, shooters are often overcome by police or bystanders as they are reloading. Making it so that a person has to reload more often can provide more opportunities for people to flee, hide or take other actions against him. Furthermore, even small disincentives have been found to work.

And no, (mass) shootings do not "as always" take place in gun free zones. The idea that mass shooters seek out these areas because they'd face no resistance is more or less a myth and rarely ever takes place in reality. Furthermore, a large part of mass shootings do take place in people were legally allowed to carry firearms.

Also, on the topic of gun free zones, they are not supposed to exist as a countermeasure against a planned attack by a deliberate mass shooter. The people who support these zones generally do not believe that the gunman is simply going to turn around because a sign on the door says it's the policy that no guns are allowed on the grounds. These areas exist to stop other, more impulsive shootings and accidents. Every year in the US, tens of thousands of people are injured by (accidental) gun fire, a lot of it taking place in public spaces. Accidents aside, it happens rather regularly that a conflict or misunderstanding devolves and leads to a fight or a situation where someone pulls out a firearm and potentially uses it in a dangerous and illegal fashion. Finally, many people agree that the presence of guns in an area might stifle productivity. The availability and carrying of such weapons in the office, government grounds or schools is likely to perceived as a threat or intimidating factor to some. The reason gun free zones exist is not to change the mind of a deliberate mass shooter, but to prevent accidents and impulsive gun use, and to try to ensure a safer environment as a whole.

I'm not going to go in detail again because I really can't be bothered to say the same things over again, but here's some general remarks.

Gun control needs to be a nation wide solution. Imposing stricter regulations in a single state or county while leaving its neighboring areas untouched does not work. This is backed up by both pretty common sense and actual evidence as brought forward by research and police reports. Looking at certain areas with stricter gun control measures like Chicago and NY, it's been demonstrated that up to 90% of all guns used in crimes are brought in from other states. Creating an island of stricter regulations while leaving it so that any person can drive over county or state borders, easily obtain a firearm and bring it back in without many issues is pretty ineffective.

Restrictions on things like magazine sizes can yield positive (albeit minor) results. If I remember correctly, in the wake of laws restricting the usage and sale of these magazines, law enforcement found significantly less of them being used in crimes. Additionally, shooters are often overcome by police or bystanders as they are reloading. Making it so that a person has to reload more often can provide more opportunities for people to flee, hide or take other actions against him. Furthermore, even small disincentives have been found to work.

And no, (mass) shootings do not "as always" take place in gun free zones. The idea that mass shooters seek out these areas because they'd face no resistance is more or less a myth and rarely ever takes place in reality. Furthermore, a large part of mass shootings do take place in people were legally allowed to carry firearms.

Also, on the topic of gun free zones, they are not supposed to exist as a countermeasure against a planned attack by a deliberate mass shooter. The people who support these zones generally do not believe that the gunman is simply going to turn around because a sign on the door says it's the policy that no guns are allowed on the grounds. These areas exist to stop other, more impulsive shootings and accidents. Every year in the US, tens of thousands of people are injured by (accidental) gun fire, a lot of it taking place in public spaces. Accidents aside, it happens rather regularly that a conflict or misunderstanding devolves and leads to a fight or a situation where someone pulls out a firearm and potentially uses it in a dangerous and illegal fashion. Finally, many people agree that the presence of guns in an area might stifle productivity. The availability and carrying of such weapons in the office, government grounds or schools is likely to perceived as a threat or intimidating factor to some. The reason gun free zones exist is not to change the mind of a deliberate mass shooter, but to prevent accidents and impulsive gun use (both of which claim a lot more lives and injuries each day than actual mass shootings), and to try to ensure a safer environment as a whole.

Quote from: Kernel Kraut on December 05, 2015, 06:02:24 PM

No.

What an insightful response debunking my entire argument. That'll teach me to bring common sense and facts into this debate.

Quote from: Kernel Kraut on December 05, 2015, 06:38:12 PM

Quote from: Flee on December 05, 2015, 06:04:39 PM

Quote from: Kernel Kraut on December 05, 2015, 06:02:24 PM

No.

What an insightful response debunking my entire argument. That'll teach me to bring common sense and facts into this debate.

Listen, I've argued this for years. I'm tired of it. My answer is no. I will not trade Liberty for someone else's perceived security. It's not going to happen.

Want to solve the murder problem? Fix the cultures the breed violence. I, and the Millions of other legal gun owners do not cause violence. We do not murder or steal. We merely want to be left alone to and not have the government punish us because some hood rat decided to shoot up a drug dealer on the corner.

You can scream, bitch, and moan for more gun control; but it'll do jack and shit. Thugs are going to thug, peddlers are going to peddlers, and busta's going to get busted. It's as simple as that. Be that with guns, knives, or fucking spears. You fix that culture of crime, you fix the violence.

So, like I said, No.

You can make all the comparisons to other countries you want, but you're comparing Apples to fucking grape fruit. Belgium is not a good comparison. Belgium is a homogeneous country. The United States is not. There will ALWAYS be more friction in a place where many cultures come together than a place where there is one defined culture.

Gun control is becoming an even hotter topic with increasing amounts of politicians openly supporting it, including the woman who is likely going to be a presidential nominee soon. While the number of privately owned guns is obviously still on the rise, gun ownership is on the decline while the number of people supporting gun regulations has been increasing. Next year, there will be more people dying by guns than by vehicles in your country, which is not even close to being rivaled by any other developed country. Gun free zones are becoming more prevalent and increasing amounts of better and more recent research is supporting the benefits of gun control measures. Mass shootings have been becoming more frequent and they sway the public opinion quite a bit. You can say "no, I'm not ever going to let this happen, don't you tread on me" all you want. Albeit slowly and gradually, this is happening. Your country will almost definitely but slowly shift towards stricter gun control.

As for your other points: Legal gun owners are not perfect. They commit crimes just like the rest of us. It's also been demonstrated that the easy and legal access to guns directly fuels the illegal market, making it cheaper, easier, faster and less risky for criminals to get their hands on firearms. People don't just care about the millions of "good law abiding gun owners". They care about the broader implications that such a system holds. Also, substitution mechanisms when guns are taken out of the equation have often been found to be minimal and significantly less effective.

I also never compared the US to my own country, nor have I ever advocated a direct implementation of a European style gun control system in the US. No one in the right mind would think that it'd work.

And Belgium quite literally is a country made up out of several groups of people from different backgrounds and nations. We're a bunch of Frenchies, Dutchmen and Germans crammed together in a single country with 6 different governments, 3 official national languages and over a million foreigners living here (which is a lot for a country as small as this one). It's not as diverse as the US, but there are far more homogeneous countries in the EU if you want to make this comparison.

Quote from: Kernel Kraut on December 05, 2015, 06:38:12 PM

Quote from: Flee on December 05, 2015, 06:04:39 PM

Quote from: Kernel Kraut on December 05, 2015, 06:02:24 PM

No.

What an insightful response debunking my entire argument. That'll teach me to bring common sense and facts into this debate.

Listen, I've argued this for years. I'm tired of it. My answer is no. I will not trade Liberty for someone else's perceived security. It's not going to happen.

Want to solve the murder problem? Fix the cultures the breed violence. I, and the Millions of other legal gun owners do not cause violence. We do not murder or steal. We merely want to be left alone to and not have the government punish us because some hood rat decided to shoot up a drug dealer on the corner.

You can scream, bitch, and moan for more gun control; but it'll do jack and shit. Thugs are going to thug, peddlers are going to peddlers, and busta's going to get busted. It's as simple as that. Be that with guns, knives, or fucking spears. You fix that culture of crime, you fix the violence.

So, like I said, No.

You can make all the comparisons to other countries you want, but you're comparing Apples to fucking grape fruit. Belgium is not a good comparison. Belgium is a homogeneous country. The United States is not. There will ALWAYS be more friction in a place where many cultures come together than a place where there is one defined culture.

Gun control is becoming an even hotter topic with increasing amounts of politicians openly supporting it, including the woman who is likely going to be a presidential nominee soon. While the number of privately owned guns is obviously still on the rise, gun ownership is on the decline while the number of people supporting gun regulations has been increasing. Next year, there will be more people dying by guns than by vehicles in your country, which is not even close to being rivaled by any other developed country. Gun free zones are becoming more prevalent and increasing amounts of better and more recent research is supporting the benefits of gun control measures. Mass shootings have been becoming more frequent and they sway the public opinion quite a bit. You can say "no, I'm not ever going to let this happen, don't you tread on me" all you want. Albeit slowly and gradually, this is happening. Your country will almost definitely but slowly shift towards stricter gun control.

As for your other points: Legal gun owners are not perfect. They commit crimes just like the rest of us. It's also been demonstrated that the easy and legal access to guns directly fuels the illegal market, making it cheaper, easier, faster and less risky for criminals to get their hands on firearms. People don't just care about the millions of "good law abiding gun owners". They care about the broader implications that such a system holds. Also, substitution mechanisms when guns are taken out of the equation have often been found to be minimal and significantly less effective.

I also never compared the US to my own country, nor have I ever advocated a direct implementation of a European style gun control system in the US. No one in the right mind would think that it'd work.

And Belgium quite literally is a country made up out of several groups of people from different backgrounds and nations. We're a bunch of Frenchies, Dutchmen and Germans crammed together in a single country with 6 different governments, 3 official national languages and over a million foreigners living here (which is a lot for a country as small as this one). It's not as diverse as the US, but there are far more homogeneous countries in the EU if you want to make this comparison.

Again, gun purchases/registration/etc. should be just as regulated as automobiles.