March for our lives is flawed.

You need to show banning these will effectively decrease gun crime. Most gun homicides are already committed with illegally obtained firearms and guns can be near effortlessly fabricated with a 3d printer. Additionally rifles are used in a near negligible amount of homicides (iirc around 350 in a country of 320,000,000).
Reference - Pastebin.com <- my sources (I wanted to avoid spamming so I used pastebin)

 

Aren't we talking about mass shootings and not homicides? I rarely hear people calling for gun control because of homicide rates.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 4, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 4, 2018 ---

Most people aren't wild west shooters who can take down an assailant in a short times notice. The chances that you are going to have a semi-full automatic weapon on you at a given moment when you are being threatened is low, you need to keep your gun somewhere secure so that it isn't stolen or used by someone else. In a home defense situation it would make far more sense to have a gun that you could actually have on your person. Unless you are a person who lives in close proximity to their gun ready to fight an attacker, the attacker inherently has the upper hand.

 

If they're out in the open of my home, and i have a gun that can shoot fast (granted I have access to it) I should be able to take them down, even if im not the most accurate person ever.

It's still very possible that it could happen.

Why not both?

 

Why would we talk about mass shootings? They are statistically insignificant. Even if mass shootings were important gun bans still suffer from not stopping unethical people from getting guns due to 3d printing.

 

Well that text isn't very big but we have more mass shootings than any other country by far, and we have more guns. It would logically follow because we have more tools to do something that because of that the task is getting done more often. Can you explain what you mean when you say mass shootings are statistically insignificant?

 

what do you do with guns that ensures against tyranny ?(Hint: Starts with "killing", ends with "things")

 

This statement betrays the laziness behind it.
1) if your statement was true Cody Wilson wouldn't have been able to make a fully functional pistol named "The Liberator" in 2014
2) 3d printers can print in a variety of materials varying in quality
3) you wouldn't be required to 3d print an entire gun, you would 3d print the parts that are illegal to purchase and use legally purchased parts to assemble the rest of the gun.
4) since Cody Wilson's pistol numerous people have improved on his design and there is no reason to think people won't continue to improve (google Derwood Shuty-MP1)
If you had done even a basic google search you would have seen your statement is counterfactual.
List of 3D printed weapons and parts - Wikipedia
I 3D-Printed An AR-15 Assault Rifle — And It Shoots Great!
Someone (Mostly) 3-D Printed a Working Semi-Automatic Gun

 

Only if one is threatened though. I don't go out and kill people saying "I'm doing this to ensure against tyranny"?

 

In this one he wasn't responding to you, and I think you missed some context cause I have no clue what you mean. (I did it earlier on accident)

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 4, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 4, 2018 ---

These 3D printed guns are pretty weak... seemed capable of a one time incident yes I give you that, but the Cody Wilson gun was still highly destructable and the Deputy Shuty-MP1 gun used a bought Glock barrel, hammer, and firing pins among smaller less impacting bought items. These don't seem to be weapons that an average Joe would take rather than just getting a legal gun or buying from someone shady.

 

If I could snap my fingers and magically make everyone no longer have guns and prevent people from getting new guns I would. You have yet to show any feasible policy would reduce the number of gun homicides, mass shootings, etc. A gun ban might decrease guns but as I have pointed out a there is no reason for a gun ban to decrease gun crime as the ability to get a gun illegally is present.

In the period of time between 2000-2013 486 people died in "mass shootings" (In quotes because what a mass shooting is defined as often changes). This number is so small individual actions will have an effect on the data set (ex: Stephen Paddock changed the average amount of people killed in mass shootings). When making predictions and analyzing data you want a sample size large enough to eliminate unique individual circumstances.

F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000 <- My source for the 486 number

 

486 makes a lot of sense, and I concede to your points on mass shootings. However, I never called for a full weapons ban, or even a ban at all but a reason for why we need semi-full automatic weapons to be legal. I still don't really have one, because I still don't regard home defense as an adequate reason.

 

While the 3d printed guns are definitely not up-too-snuff with a mass shooter's weapon of choice today this is largely because 3d printers exist at the bleating edge of human knowledge right now. It is inevitable that technological progress and innovation will create 3d printed guns on par with mass produced "assault rifles". While conceivably you could label this assumption of technological progress as conjecture it seems naive to act like 3d printed guns have hit a ceiling for advancement and will never be widely accessible.

Their is no real "reason" besides maybe the hobbying aspect (it is fun to shoot and build guns).

 

And for that reason I say we should have more gun laws, not necessarily taking peoples guns but having pysch tests over time and make it harder to get guns that significantly increase your lethality, in my opinion more than anything else like it. I think imposing gun laws would make it harder for bad people to get guns, not good people. People say criminals don't follow laws so they would be ineffective, but that is extremely reductive.

 

I would share this opinion if I could see data to back it up.

I would like to see some data showing these psych tests would reduce gun crime.

 

I agree that we can, I disagree we should

This would include essentially all guns. Inside of a building a weapon such as an AR-15 provides little benefit above that of a handgun. You're not shooting any distances here, you're pointing and pulling triggers.

To counter your emotional appeal

You have roughly a 0.000026% chance of being caught up in a mass shooting.

You have roughly a 0.0074074074074074% chance of being struck by lightning.

Do you stare at the sky each time you go out as well, since you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be caught up in a shooting.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 4, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 4, 2018 ---

I know we're in the age of Trump - But emotion and opinion simply are not relevant to fact and when compared emotion and opinion are meaningless to fact.

When having a debate or discussion, fact is the only thing that matters.

 

those stats are wrong though.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 6, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 6, 2018 ---

god i wish

 

*Attention grabbing quote about me being canadian*

Simple solution, ban the sale/import of ammo (mild sarcasm)

 

.00089 is not significant. More people drown than get caught in a "mass" shooting, should we ban water?

(Also there may be discrepancies in the numbers since there are different qualifications for "mass")

This chart is beyond foolish. "Leading" is not how I'd phrase 1/315, hell, suicide is above it. Should we ban people? What about poisoning, that's above it too! Guess we ought to ban medicine and rat poison huh?

(This isn't to attack you, rather to show how little sense unconditional bans really make. It makes no sense to ban water, people, or medicine; and it makes no sense to ban guns (to the point they're useful))

 

You don't see the difference between banning something that has the sole purpose to kill others and banning water? This is a common argument, but a bad one. Maybe not ban water because water has actual valid uses.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 6, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 6, 2018 ---

 

Killing people can be a valid use.