Printable View
Since the current political threads have gone to hell I'm gonna try to get us back at the beginning of an argument.
The question is simple, what're your opinions on gun control? yes, no? A lot, a little? What types of things made you formulate your opinion and what're some good arguments from the other side of the fence?
There is no reason that a civilian needs a fully automatic weapon, I think the current rules by which one can own one are unnecessary when they could just restrict them.
I'm all for letting collectors collect vintage weapons (the more dangerous of which must be made unusable), hunter's having as many rifles as they want, and average citizens keeping a pistol or two and a shotgun for home defense.
But, if you think that you need an AK-47 to feel safe in your home (and don't live in Beirut) then I'm sorry, because that's where I draw the line.
I also think registered firearm owners who become parents should become re-certified and taught basic techniques on how to keep your weapon away from children and to make sure in a hostile situation that the firearm isn't used on them.
I'm not asking for full on repeal of the 2nd Amendment, but what exactly does a private citizen need an arsenal for?
The same reason that people buy lots of cars, some people enjoy shooting and collecting modern and older weapons. My uncle has a bunch of civilian-model assault rifles (AR-15, AK47, M1A) but he certainly poses no threat to anybody with them and he only owns them because he enjoys going to the range to shoot. While I don't think there is any real reason a civilian needs to own a fully automatic rifle I have nothing against the civilian models that shoot only in semi-automatic.
g0zen, I dont know if they need it, but I dont think its really up to anyone to decide. Who am I to say what John Q. Taxpayer in Pocatello, ID needs an AK-47 for? As long as he has not broken his compact with society, I say give it to him.
No, you see it's not like buying a car, or a fancy house, or lawn decorations.
A gun's purpose is to kill. That's what it's designed for.
A fully automatic rifle is designed to surpress the enemy with a saturation of fire so that troops can advance. It's not a status symbol, and it's not a viable home defense tool.
If people want to shoot fully-auto rifles, okay. I'd be fine with licensed shooting ranges having some for people to try out and enjoy. I also have no problem with civilians owning semi-automatic rifles (though anyone caught with one that's been modified back to full auto should have it confiscated unconditionally).
It comes down to this; Should I be able to buy a surface-to-air missile launcher?
If No, then why not? Is that not an 'arm' which I am entitled to 'keep and bear'?
or
If Yes, then what happens when I use that SAM to shoot down a plane (as it's designed to do) accidentally? Am I to blame?
Freedom of Speech does not give one carte blanche to say whatever they feel like. It has realistic restrictions, and I see no reason why the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be the same way.
I control the gun by pulling the trigger, as my rights dictate.
If I pull the trigger in the wrong situation, which is very possible, I get in deep fucking trouble. That's the way it is, that's the way it should be.
I don't think the average person should be able to own the high-end stuff so easily, but I'm also very conservative on anything involving monkeying around with the US Constitution. If you can redefine "the right to bear arms" you can also redefine things like "freedom of speech".
Mind if I do a tangent? On the US Constitution- you can burn all the flags you want, I don't care. There's no shortage of flags. When you touch the Constitution you've touched the soul of the country, and it had better be done with respect. Yeah, a total tangent, but mentioning the Constitution above reminded me of it and I didn't think it worthy of its own thread.
James
Sure, but you shouldnt be able to pull the trigger in the wrong situation in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaoofNee
Lets say John shoots Bob with some sort of firearm and kills Bob.
John goes on trail and is found guilty of murder. He gets life in prision or is sentenced to death. Doesnt really matter what his punishment is.
John's life is more or less over. Great. But what about Bob?
HES STILL FUCKING DEAD!
Gun control laws are useless. John kills Bob. John breaks the law and gets punished for his crime. BUT BOB IS STILL DEAD! Gun control laws sure did alot for him. Now Bob's family will never be the same because John broke the law, and the Gun Control laws did nothing.
Sure, John can find other ways of killing Bob without a gun, but thats not the point. The point is that Gun Control laws arent really doing anything. There needs to be something better.
I think Chris Rock put it best when he said that we need bullet control laws. Each bullet costs $50,000. That way when someone gets 5 in the chest, he sure as hell had it coming.
We have rules against murder too. So are you saying that there's no point in outlawing murder because the victim is already dead?
What we need is no (or relatively few) gun control laws. No matter how strict the laws are, no matter how tough they make them, people who want guns and dont care about the law are still going to be able to get them without as much difficulty as they get crack rocks. And those people are always gonna be in that position.Quote:
I think Chris Rock put it best when he said that we need bullet control laws. Each bullet costs $50,000. That way when someone gets 5 in the chest, he sure as hell had it coming.
All gun control laws do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect their family and property against those other guys.
I think it's a non-issue. If stupid people manage to off themselves with guns, I high-five Darwin, and anyone else who wants to kill with intent is going to find another way to do it.
I don't see why the hell any civilian needs an automatic, though. And diffusion's point is invalid - if an automatic isn't legal, than possessing one breaks the law. Otherwise I could say the same thing about drugs and child porn and what have you.
Where do most illegal weapons come from? If it's in the US, the authorities need to keep an eye on manufacturers and distributors. If not, customs is doing their job.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I'm pretty sure most illegal weapons come from a legal source. I doubt there are too many underground gun factories.
Dodgy Rent-a-Cops are the source of most guns.
Gun Control is stupid, but having a gun for protection is just fucking stupid. The problem comes with the mentality not the guns. You have all these dumb-assed cunts thinking everyone is against them and that owning a gun is going to protect them. Wankers.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
I just wish gun nuts would come out and say "I have my guns because they give me boners" instead of the whole its our right blah blah pretection blah shit.
You are ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Fully automatic weapons require a permit from the BATF.
They are practically impossible to get and there are maybe 1,000 civilians out of this country of 300,000,000 that would have them.
Basically, they are restricted heavily, and rightly so.
You can draw the line wherever the hell you want to but they are legal. Let me write that again legalQuote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
When something is legal, who are you to tell a person they can't have it?
Semi-automatic rifles are legal in most states of this country.
Magazines are now limited to 10 rounds or less (which, sounds silly considering most pistols used to have 15).
Simply because you don't like a weapon, does not give you the right to restrict others.
I don't like SUV's, but if it's a legal product the consumer has a right to buy them, and that's not even a constitutional right.
Beyond the basic technique of 'keep them the fuck away from children when supervised', what is this going to teach them?Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I'm for upping penalties for anyone that makes a gun available to a child through direct act or neglegence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Simple. Because it is a legal product that people want.
d.That is, by far, the stupidest thing you have ever typed.Quote:
Originally Posted by arjue
That argument makes about enough sense as sayingQuote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
"I want heroin. Can I buy it? Why not? It's a drug like alcohol and smokes and they are legal!". You flipping minge.
Your general argument is circular - it's like you're saying, "Guns are legal, so they're OK," when the question is what guns should be legal for whom.
Gun control means using both hands.
I believe that the current restrictions on guns are plenty good enough and that the guns available to the legal public are generally not used to commit crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
I would ban .50 calibur rifles and keep everything under that, for those that can buy a gun.
I'm sitting here at school, reading this rediculous thread, and I'd like to ask you all one question:
Who the Hell do you think you are to tell me what I should or shouldn't do?!
So long as I am an American citizen, and so long as I am acting within my legal rights, you might not like what I buy, or how I behave, but it's not for you to say, asshole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James
I know you didn't really mean it this way, but it's making me laugh.Quote:
I didn't think it worthy of its own thread.
Except your "right to bear arms" does not exist on par with freedom of speech, and only exists insofar as individual states and the federal government allow it.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Personally, I don't care much about gun control, let people have the guns they want, but I think some kind of PIN registry or ban/limitation on gun show sales would be a good idea.
Don't think any civilian really needs a weapon, well unless it's this
.
.
.
http://koti.mbnet.fi/tuvunen/tuomaan...t/gunblade.jpg
Guns are for pussies.
That being said, there are a lot of pussies in this world and I don't care if they can bear arms or not. It doesn't bother me in the least.
Ya know which round kills the most people? the .22LR. A tiny little round that costs a couple of cents and has about as much power as a good air rifle. As long as there are ANY guns people will kill other people with them, and usually on the cheap. You know how many people were killed with full auto weapons or the .50 BMG bogeyman round last year in all the industrialized world? zero.
The fact of the matter is it's too late in American history to get rid of all civilian arms. It's a bit like the drug trade really, there's a market and it will be supplied no matter what the government tries to do, so taking guns from lawful owners is only going to cause more innocent loss of life.
Greater gun ownership in a country does not equal greater crime rate, look at canada or switzerland for chrissake. Canada has almost as many guns per person as we do, and switzerland has a high rate of machinegun ownership, is there blood running in the streets? no. Even the great gas bag Michael Moore conceded that guns aren't the problem.
I think the aussies on this point might want to STFU as we live in completely different social climates. America has 100X the murder rate of Australia, I have been the victim of violent crime and my house has had multiple burglaries over the years. Since the badguys can get guns and the police are as ineffectual as they are, you know I'm going to be carrying! Does the human animal not have the right do defend itself with lethal force anymore? If someone comes at me with deadly force do I not have the right to respond in kind? and being a law-abiding productive citizen do I not have the right to show superior force to insure my survival? When the hell did humanity get to the point where people think it's wrong to be able to defend oneself?
And as far as full auto weapons are concerned it depends on if you think the populus has the right to overthrow their own government should it become tyrannical. I'm not gonna touch this one just now, as I think I've done enough for the more reactionary elements of the board to label me as a gun nut ;)
I'd love to cut someone, and shoot them halfway through the slice. That's like crapping on their grave.Quote:
Originally Posted by DjRocca
I agree with the feelings of frustration and helplessness you feel after being violated in either of those ways. There've been some robberies in my area recently, and I am seriously considering sleeping on the roof with a gun, waiting for someone to step on my property.Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
I thought I made it clear that I understood the system by which one could own a assault rifle was strict to the point of Draconian, I guess I didn't. My argument is that with laws this strict why not just outlaw them for civilian use? Can't the ATF search your home at any time without a warrent if you possess them legally? I don't see how it'd be worth it just to own something that you can blow target papers all to hell with.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
I understand they're legal, yes I do. The point of this topic is to express my opinions on gun control, which I did. I'm not telling a person they can't have anything, I'm just saying what sort of policy *I* would like.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
What? Now you're just talking out of your ass. If you'd actually read my post you'd see I'm COMPLETELY FINE with people owning semi-automatic rifles, I've got no problem with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
Again, I have no say on current policy, but I'd like to see SUVs restricted to people who actually have a need for them. That's my opinion, nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
Teach the parent how to make the child understand that the gun is an object to be feared and respected, not a toy. I know it seems pretty self-explanatory, but if that's the case why are so many children still blowing their brains and / or their friends brians onto the wall of Daddy's study?Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
I am in full agreement here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
This is actually an excellent point. Maybe I'm wrong in wanting any kind of regulations for gun ownership, but personally I don't see a need for people to own weapons whose only purpose is to inflict heavy causalties.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
Really though in the end, even I wouldn't support any kind of tampering with the Bill of Rights because of the floodgates it would open.
I have no idea what that is, possibly because I'm ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
meh, im against the owning of guns but wont sit there and say people shouldnt (since a lot of my girlsfriends influence has rubbed off on me, she's doing all the tests for PA State Police this year, and thus has a vastly different view on a lot of things from me).
but i feel this thread is going to explode like every other right or wrong thread on this board.
Yes the ATF can audit you. If you "lose" your class III weapon you can pay penalties in the range of $10,000. You can purchase class III weapons if you submit to barrage of paperwork and background checks (which takes months) and pay a $200 tax on each item purchased. You can also buy AOW class III's which are anything that doesn't fit the description of an assault rifle, autoshotgun, selectfire pistol, or SMG. This functionally includes short barreled shotguns and novelty guns (penguns, etc...) the transfer is only $5 for AOW, but many are "value-added" as the manufacturers have to pay an additional $200 tax to make them (SBS)Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Im a gun n00b. Whats the diffrence between semi and full automatic?
Semi you gotta pull the trigger for each shot, full you hold down the trigger to shoot.
Full auto is like the rensha option in shooting games :p
so whats so automatic about "semi-automatic"? :wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
Personally I don't think anyone needs a gun. They make me nervous and I prefer not to be around them - even when unloaded. But it's not my place to tell someone they can't have it, it's my place to remove myself from a situation I feel uncomfortable with if necessary. Everyone has the right to protect themselves and if you choose to use a gun for that purpose, that's fine.
Gun control laws are a good thing to me, in the sense of recording who owns them. People usually get really upitty about it being an invasion of their privacy, but I don't bitch when they need a copy of my drivers license to trade in games or CDs... I understand someone not wanting their privacy invaded, but when you're purchasing something thats purpose is to kill (let's be honest, guns are for killing) you should drop the "invasion" thing and let the fellow copy your stuff - it's only fair.
So basically it's cool if someone wants to have a gun, just track the sale, don't put it near me, and everything is fine in my camp partner.
automatic refers to the action of chambering a round. a semi-auto fires and places the next round in the breech with one pull of the trigger. a pumpgun or a levergun requires the user to manually chamber the next round with the pump or lever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gymkata
It isn't like the drug trade, though. Guns are inherently a lot harder to manufacture illegally and import illegally. If the government wanted to stamp all gun ownership, it could without much difficulty. Other countries do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
And while I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with gun control, the whole constitutional argument is basically a perversion. From the time of its writing, the "right to bear arms" essentially meant that citizens had a right to assemble in militias outside the influence of the federal government, not that every Tom, Dick and Harry had a right to own a gun.
HAHAHA! oh mercy.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
So you think everyone would just turn over their firearms and suddenly the illegal market would completely dry up? That's so ignorant that's almost Parcher D.O.D. level. Guns are here, they will never disappear, badguys will always have access to guns. Even if you could get rid of the legal sale and ownership of guns, the best you'd get would be like England: more stabbings and beatings, same crime rate, and innocent people left defenseless. There is a recent court case in England over a farmer that shot an intruder, popular opinion is that he should walk, but of course their asshole ruling class has another opinion
I also like the idea of collective rights vs. individuals. Like the michigan militia can have guns but I can't. :wtf:
Legal gun owners aren't the problem. Did you know conceal carry permit holders are statisically one of the most law-abiding demographic? Because the government's got you by the balls, and felonies commited with guns have huge sentencing penalties. A black market will always spring up to meet demand, look at England. Even Michael Moore has implied guns aren't the problem, it's cultural. Instead of trying to regulate guns (which quite obviously has no effect on criminals) we should be trying to fix the societal problems that cause violence. And the CDC recently released a report that could draw no relation between gun control and any reduction in gun related deaths. Are guns necessary for survival? no, but like smoke detectors you're glad it's there when you need it.
I hate to use a tired line, but guns are just a tool. Perhaps one of the most potent and inflammatory tools, but they aren't the cause of crime, it's a people problem and we should be trying to fix the people not the guns because you will never, ever get rid of all guns. There are just too many in private hands to do anything but create a huge used market, and make collectors like me a nice pile of money :D
I'd recommend any anti's read "Can Gun Control Work?" by James Jacobs. For some interesting insight into the government's failed regulatory actions and other gun control issues. Written by an NYU professor with (from what I can tell) zero political agenda.
This is absolutely false. Gun ownership is very rare in Canada. They are obtainable but they just aren't part of Canadian culture. Very few law abiding citizens have them and very few criminals have them. And this is a very good thing. A culture of guns causes many problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
Despite the massive societal benefits of a gun-less society, outlawing guns in the US probably won't work at this point in history because it's such a part of US culture.
Compared to other countries, I'd say the number of guns in canada and america is in the same order of magnitude.
31 million in canada and about 7 million guns.
292 million in US 250 million guns.
Ok, maybe a litte bigger difference than I thought, but for comparison much closer than say the UK. Also the US might have a higher rate of multiple gun ownership.
~22% is not "very rare", Neo.
Those numbers are misleading though. There's no way 22% Canadians own guns. Most of those are probably owned by the police or the army or something.
No pumping or reloading each bullet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gymkata
My Preeeeeeciousssssss. :nod:
icarusfall, you can thank decades of bullshit anti-gun propaganda for instilling that fear into you. It's bad.
John Stossel, the respected ABC journalist, on guns, and the myth of guns being evil things:
"Myth No. 3 — Guns are Bad
America is notorious for its culture of gun violence. Guns sometimes do cause terrible harm, and many kids are killed every year in gun accidents. But public service announcements and news stories make it seem as if the accidents kill thousands of kids every year.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, fewer than 100 kids 15 and under are killed in gun accidents every year. Of course that's horrible, and I understand why demonstrators say we need more gun control.
But guess what? The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that these rules have reduced violent crime.
The government wants to say things like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them.
A Justice Department study confirmed what the prisoners said. But get this: the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time in prison, but, you, another American who might be armed. [my emphasis]
It's a reason many states are passing gun un-control. They're allowing citizens to carry guns with them; it's called concealed carry or right to carry. Some women say they're comforted by these laws.
Many people are horrified at the idea of concealed carry laws, and predict mayhem if all states adopt these laws.
But surprise, 36 states already have concealed carry laws, and not one reported an upsurge in gun crime."
Those were private ownership numbers, many people own more than one gun tho :DQuote:
Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater
The real MP5 is a joy to shoot and laser beam accurate. HK makes some solid SMGsQuote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
This implies you've shot one. omgcools.Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
When I do finally get a gun I'm looking at the HK .40 USP.
Diff - It's really from having a gun pointed at me in a threatening manner. After having one pointed at me, my position changed to its current stance. I still think they're really cool machines, but just not for me.
I just think keeping track of gun ownership makes sense, and don't see the problem with authorities knowing you have one...
EDIT: Removed due to ranting. Please see other post.
I cant believe I just wasted my time reading that.
yeah, like Nazi GermanyQuote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
I don't know about that. I hear it a lot and I have to wonder, if that is really the case why has this only became a issue in the past 30 to 40 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
And why am I on that, would you like to know one of the first things that got the old gun controle issue rolling? It wasn't kids blowing their heads off with their daddies gun. It was the Black Panthers starting to arm themselves. Look up some stuff about the Gun Controle act of 1967 and the history of the Satudary Night Special.
I've fired some decent military style rifles, though I'd reccomend the .45USP over the .40, though I guess the .40 would be a decent weapon to own depending on why you want one.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
The argument "guns are for killing and nothing more" is ridiculous. It may sound preverted to some of you but does it occur to you that some people like shooting at paper targets as much as you like playing video games? Yeah you might think they're a bunch of hillbillies but these are law abiding citizens who want to do their best to NOT break any laws. People that have learned to use guns the proper away are much safer people to be around because their knowledge of firearms safety applies to other parts of their lives.
I thought I made it clear that I understood the system by which one could own a assault rifle was strict to the point of Draconian, I guess I didn't. My argument is that with laws this strict why not just outlaw them for civilian use? Can't the ATF search your home at any time without a warrent if you possess them legally? I don't see how it'd be worth it just to own something that you can blow target papers all to hell with.
You, well, one could go into a store and buy a semi-auto rifle with little laws. There is a 15 day waiting period and background check in CA but other states have their own laws.
I understand they're legal, yes I do. The point of this topic is to express my opinions on gun control, which I did. I'm not telling a person they can't have anything, I'm just saying what sort of policy *I* would like.
see next quote.
What? Now you're just talking out of your ass. If you'd actually read my post you'd see I'm COMPLETELY FINE with people owning semi-automatic rifles, I've got no problem with that.
"But, if you think that you need an AK-47 to feel safe in your home (and don't live in Beirut) then I'm sorry, because that's where I draw the line."
AK-47's can be automatic or semi-automatic. I don't see a distinction being made by you in the above quote.
Again, I have no say on current policy, but I'd like to see SUVs restricted to people who actually have a need for them. That's my opinion, nothing more.
Teach the parent how to make the child understand that the gun is an object to be feared and respected, not a toy. I know it seems pretty self-explanatory, but if that's the case why are so many children still blowing their brains and / or their friends brians onto the wall of Daddy's study?
Because people are irresponsable and do not take personal responsability.
Watch Bowling For Columbine. The person moore winds up blaming is not the uncle who left the gun out, but Dick Clark for owning a resturant that employs his mother.
This is actually an excellent point. Maybe I'm wrong in wanting any kind of regulations for gun ownership, but personally I don't see a need for people to own weapons whose only purpose is to inflict heavy causalties.
There are regulations for gun ownership. All guns are designed to Kill. That is their function. All that the laws have done is made hi capactity magazines illegal, though you can put any device on a gun that will convert it to fully automatic fire so long as it's an external modification.
I have no idea what that is, possibly because I'm ignorant.
I'm sure you do. This isn't Somalia where you can buy an automatic AK for 2 cows and a chicken.
"There is no reason that a civilian needs a fully automatic weapon, I think the current rules by which one can own one are unnecessary when they could just restrict them."
Case of such ignorance. How easy do you think it's going to be for you to buy an automatic weapon?
Impossible.
A semi-automatic gun fires once for each trigger pull and does not need to be cocked or charged to re-fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gymkata
A bolt action rifle or a pump action shotgun would not be in this category.
A Garand and most modern guns would.
MVS I think you might be a tad incorrect on the ownership of a fully automatic rifle. Basically anyone with a clean background can buy one from what I've come to understand but there is a 6 month wait and taxes. Plus the price for them might be a few thousand more then a semi-automatic version (this additional price tag is just for a few different parts). My uncle told me he could get fully automatic firearms no problem, but the additional fire-rate wasn't worth the money.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Doesn't 'keep' imply that a person keeps them?
My brother once told me he fucked 3 girls at the same time. Amusing, but probably not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Research it and let me know what you would have to do to buy one.
The only problem would be forcing people to turn over their guns. Alright, so instead of concentrating on the guns, the government comes down hard on bullets. The fact is that guns have to come from some legal source and are thus can be regulated much easier than drugs which are underground from the start.Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
The only reason why illegal guns are difficult to control are because some guns are legal. If they were all outlawed, it might take some time but they could be removed. Now, before you jump down my throat again, realize I'm not saying they should be - just that the argument "OMG GUNS ARE HERE TOO BAD" is horseshit.
It implies that a person in service to a militia has a right to bear arms. Not that a person who likes to shoot skeet has that same right.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
It doesn't mean that people shouldn't have weapons - just that the Constitution doesn't need to be dragged out every time someone discusses waiting periods.
Because the government didn't see fit to try to control guns before then.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
Pretty much everything you said before this was absolute nonsense.
Ok. Ill try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
1. The concept of need should not aplie to this debate as the concept of need has little to do with what people can own in the US.
2. There are worse things than death. Keaping people from killing themselves and increasing safety should not come at the cost of decreasing the quality of life that we all enjoy. There are some things more importent than staying alive, and keeping others alive.
3. It is silly to think that the Government should be the only ones to have controle over fire arms if you also think that the american public can not be trusted with them. The government is made up of people from the public that are sometimes as bad if not worse than the average person.
And the United States Code SAYS:Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas JeffersonQuote:
Originally Posted by The US Code, Title 10, Section 311
Note that doesnt say, "No free man who is a member of a militia like the National Guard shall ever be debarred the use of arms".
""... to disarm the people ... [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them ... I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, 1788
I really think its pretty clear that the Founding Fathers believed every man in the country had the right to own a gun in accordance with the 2nd Amendment.
1. Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
2. No, not in a society that does not generally allow even the terminally ill the choice of dying with dignity.
3. Good point, and the reason behind the second amendment.
Fair enough. But then that subconstitutional law could be repealed, and we're back beating the same dead horse.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
And AFAIK neither Jefferson nor Mason had anything to do with the writings of the Constitution, or the Second Amendment. I could be wrong about Mason, though, but I doubt it.
To clarify, the Founding Fathers heavily promoted gun ownership because it was very rare in post-Colonial times. Widespread gun ownership in America didn't occur until the Industrial Revolution, and Sam Colt's invention of the revolver.
Getting back on topic, here's the perfect solution: merge the ATF with the DMV. Gun ownership regulations get tweaked to resemble car ownership. That is, gun owners must qualify, and are tested periodically in order to keep their gun license. And, you must purchase "gun insurance", same as you'd have to do with a car.
Maybe that is something that needs to change. If the US really wants to a be a nation of quality over quanity, and a place were you can have anything you want so long as it does not hurt or infringe on the rights of others, maybe something needs to be done about that. People should have control over their owns lives. But that is a issue for another thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
The founding fathers also saw fit to make it illegal for the army to take over your house to sleep in. We don't really need that law nowadays though. They lived in a time radically different than our own and made laws that fit the time. Remember, Tom Jefferson needed a gun to shoot his food. You lived on a farm or on the frontier, you had a gun for hunting and defending yourself from Indians (the government had no problems with people shooting them). Is it the same today? Heck no. 227 years later, lots of those laws are either obsolete or have had to be greatly adapted. I think the "bear arms" thing is one that needs to be clarified.
I have no problem with people owning guns legally. I think the government should make sure they have all legal gun owners on record, but not prohibit people from buying them.
But you don't have the right to drive on public roads (or own a car for that matter). Maybe we should do the same for sex. You don't have a written down right for that either and think of all the lives you could save. People take so many lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by salmonax
Yeah I'd recommend the .45 over the .40, but you really can't go wrong with a USP. Definately my pick for polymer pistols, the glocks are great too, but I dislike the grip angle.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
blow comes from south america, so does a large percentage of the affordable (but fine quality) handguns you see in your local gunshop. Heard of Taurus? Taurus International is based in Brazil. Criminals demand, other criminals supply. Undoubtedly making guns illegal would make commercial arms smuggled into the country expensive enough that Joe Criminal might have to save longer to get his piece, but you know what? there are handguns manufactured in this country right now that cost $80 new from a dealer. Do you know how much of that is insurance costs? You could set up a simple manufacturing operation or CNC shop and make handguns for under $5. You think people wouldn't try illegal weapons manufacture with the kind of profit margins apparent with such limited costs? with a 10,000% possible profit?
Did you know the majority of firearm use in crime is by armed citizens protecting their lives? And there is much greater number of unreported instances of citizens brandishing their firearm where the badguy turned around and ran like hell. Does'nt quite jive with the BS in the media a few years ago telling us that our guns are more likely to be used against us, does it?
The government can do that though because they build and fund the roads that we drive on. They dont do anything remotely similar for gun ownership.Quote:
Getting back on topic, here's the perfect solution: merge the ATF with the DMV. Gun ownership regulations get tweaked to resemble car ownership. That is, gun owners must qualify, and are tested periodically in order to keep their gun license. And, you must purchase "gun insurance", same as you'd have to do with a car.
I think the government should keep tabs on who has a gun, CCW permits and the like, but... that's about it.
Meach = Hillbilly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
A literate hillbilly. Wearing a tie. Who drinks gin/tonics. Wait a minute... ;)
I think I speak for every European when I say that the US gun culture is revolting and that the "I need a gun to protect myself!!1" line is laughable. We can't buy guns here, nobody has them, ergo gun related crime (and of course murder in general) is rare. Why are you Americans always so scared? We have suffered terrorist attacks for decades, civilians do not have guns etc yet we manage to keep a stiff upper lip.
Shhhhh... Sidez, if you get them angry they may shoot you.
I speak for one American when I say piss off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian
England banned handguns in 1996.
Gun crime rose 40% in the following four years. I ask my cousin what calls he responds to most (He's a PC around Mosside, Manchester), the reply "Murders". By guns, I say? Yes. His division now has 2 land rovers at all times on patrol, and those police officers carry guns on them.
In Germany/France, you only need a permit and a test to own a gun.
Until 1999, handguns in Switzerland were unregulated and could be carried concealed and now they are regulated heavily.
Exactly what part of Europe do you speak for that doesn't have guns?
It has nothing to do with fear for me, shooting a gun is something that I enjoy and would rather have and not need than need and not have.
I don't know what the hell terrorist attacks have to do with gun control, that's a bit beyond me.
It doesn't matter what tests or permits are in place, as nobody has guns nor do they go out of their way to obtain them. Nobody fears them here, they are simply not a part of our lives.
Terrorist attacks was brought up as we've had to put up with IRA for decades, yet in the space of 2 years America shits itself and invades two countries. It's a fear of something that either doesn't exist and/or losing your nerve by countering a supposed threat with something that just adds to the problem.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with gun control.
I don't know how you are linking your imagined fear that a country has with gun laws, I suppose that kind of logic is beyond me.
Where do you live in the UK?
You really need to start making sense sometime in the next 10 minutes.
UK Stats:
125,363 firearm certificates were on issue in England and Wales at the end of 2000 - a 5% decrease from the end of 1999. These certificates covered 296,849 firearms. (UK Home Office)
600,733 shotgun certificates were on issue in England and Wales at the end of 2000 - a 4% decrease from the end of 1999. These certificates covered 1,320,833 shotguns. (UK Home Office)
In 1997 in England and Wales, 133,600 firearms certificates were on file covering 305,000 firearms and 623,100 shotgun certificates covering 1,343,900 shotguns. (Gun Control Network.)
In 1999 in Scotland, 30,536 firearms certificates were on file covering 73,693 firearms and 62,919 shotgun certificates covering 127,444 shotguns. (Gun Control Network.)
Of the 12,410 firearms offences in 1997 in England and Wales, roughly 60% of these involved air guns. (Gun Control Network.)
No guns in the UK, eh?
Those numbers are meaningless in your context. Canadians own plenty of guns, but most are hunting weapons or low-powered target firearms. Handguns and assault weapons for "personal defense" are tightly regulated and practically nonexistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
There's no real correlative proof of course, but most Canadians intuitively figure that the better gun control is responsible for the very small gun murder rate. It's not something that takes a rocket scientist to figure out. Nobody, even in the large cities, expects to be threatened with a gun; if you get mugged or burglarized it's usually a replica or a knife/screwdriver/hammer. Some criminals do have handguns (all smuggled from the US of course), but they are few and far between. The whole "criminals will get guns anyhow" argument doesn't seem to hold up in practice.
The flip side of the coin is that, although the gun murder rate is low, the burglary rate is apparently higher than in the US. The reason for this is thought to be that people aren't as afraid of being shot during a break-in.
Me? Coming from a pro-gun-control culture, I'm all for it. On the other hand, I do like guns a lot and I'm often tempted to buy one now that I live in the US. It's a tough call!
There's no shame in admitting that guns can facilitate crime and be detrimental to society in that manner; it's a matter of whether or not you feel the freedom to enjoy them outweighs that cost.
Yes it does. The 'rationale' behind owning a gun is that someone is going to break into your house and endanger your life. That is fear, shitting yourself over something that has yet to happen and resorting to gun ownership for reassurance.
OH NOS FARMER GILES HAS A SHOTGUN :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
What is most disturbing of all is that you think you understand and can specify what another persons rationale is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian
You can't.
Obviously, there are more than just shotguns owned in the UK, you fucking minge.
Then please do point out any other reasons behind owning a gun, you fucking northern chimp.
And away ye go.
IBFC?
the UK also has a increasing violent crime rate, and America only has significantly higher numbers now in rape (way too common) and murder. The fact of the matter violence is part of the culture and so are guns, but if you take away all guns (which is impossible, and I've already given perfectly sound reasons) will you eliminate violence? To me the anti's sound like olde thyme christians in their fear of external corruption. Gun's don't make people kill. And of course I realize that the more guns available the higher the number crimes of access, such as accidental discharge or suicide. But how many lives are saved by guns, and how many violent crimes are averted by simply displaying the firearm to a hoodlum.
I'd like to write more but I've gotta run some errands. But I'd just like to say that the people who are legally carrying would likely go out of their way to help other unarmed citizens out of a violent situation. Why trust the police with your life? you would let them carry guns, but you wouldn't trust yourself to protect your own life? Ok, I'll stop. But I'll be back in 4-5 hours.
If you believe that dealing with terrorist attacks should be the norm and there's no reason to get upset by it or respond to it, then, well, there's no hope for you guys.Quote:
Terrorist attacks was brought up as we've had to put up with IRA for decades, yet in the space of 2 years America shits itself and invades two countries. It's a fear of something that either doesn't exist and/or losing your nerve by countering a supposed threat with something that just adds to the problem.
I suppose Adrian also has not heard of the recent humiliation the BBC has had (well, one of them): The BBC put up a poll which gave people a chance to ask for what law they most want in the UK, and then the BBC will write it up, and then present it to the government. People overwhelmingly said that they wanted a law which gave them the chance to deal with intruders in their home by any means necessary. The BBC saw it, said some stuff about how stupid the populace is, and shelved it.
So, let me ask you, just how safe do British people feel when they want a law that would allow them to dispose of intruders to their house and property at will? If you ask me it's a sign of British people getting fed up with increasing crime and the police's inability to deal with it.
Face it, dude, British want what many of us have here. In fact, they want even more.
Guns don't bother me. I'd never own one because I don't live my life in fear like the typical gun owner, but sexually inadequate and powerless gun nuts should be allowed to buy whatever they want. They're of no threat to anyone but themselves.
I have access to a few rifles and two pistols if I wanted them. I don't especially like guns though. I prefer non violence or possibly sabotage for my resistance. Like wrecking bulldozers that are going to be used for clearcutting.
Does everything you say contain 99% stupidity or what? You're making quite an idiot of yourself lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfkzt
Hey, I'm just defending your right to bear arms.
Do you even understand the kind of people that own firearms? Not everybody owns them to protect their house (while a lot do). While I have no real fear of anyone breaking into my house, but wouldn't you like to defend your women and children? Guns can be objects of fun, and most of the time they are. Just because they shoot metal projectiles at targets everybody flips out...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfkzt
I think that every law-abiding citizen has the right to own a gun. We aren't in disagreement.
I go shooting once a week, I read firearm publications, and I make my own ammo. Does that mean my dipstick doesn't work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfkzt
Look: we all know that owning a gun is stupid and it's more likely to be used by your son to blow his depressed brains out than to stop a burglar, but holding a gun feels so good! Put a loaded gun in your hand and all of a sudden you're not nobody anymore, you're The Terminator.
I don't even live in America but I have to admire the way the US makes guns so freely available. It takes some guts to do that when you consider that the world is full of irrational morons! Besides, as long as you don't get killed it's OK because it doesn't affect you - let the slaughter continue. And if you do get shot dead, what does it matter? You had to die sometime.
The ignorance of people...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
You're a fucking moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
If I take a piss, and then go to watch CNN and see there was a horrible plane crash? Did I cause a plane crash by urinating?
Or did you ever think that maybe because more guns were illegal, there would be more arrests regarding owning one?
Seriously, if you don't have data that proves a direct relationship between those figures, keep them to yourself. I don't believe in Gun Control, but seriously shut the fuck up.
AstroBlue, a direct relationship wasn't even implied by that statement. All it is saying is that handgun bans and strict gun control don't necessarilly make for a safer society - and this is something that has been found time and time again.
Yeah, but how do you know Gun crimes wouldn't of risen 100% without the laws? It's anecdotal evidence.
Yes, just as the US CDC could find no correlation between laws restricting firearms and firearm related crimes. The Assault Weapons Ban and almost every piece of major firearm legislation in the past century has zero effect on crime or murder rates. Either we need a magic wand that makes firearms shoot tissue paper hearts, or we attack the societal problems that lead to violence.
Totally agreed.
I *know* that correlation doesnt imply causality. If anything, the facts that the CDC have come up with and that MVS has mentioned have supported that axiom. Banning handguns does not lead to a safer society, by any stretch of the imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
And if A doesnt imply B, then Not A doesnt imply Not B either - keeping handguns around doesnt lead to a more dangerous society.
Yay :D
Of course I have no idea how you would attack societal problems that lead to violence, but hell it sounds nice doesn't it?
Raise the standard of living? media shift to influence mass culture?
What would you have to do to American culture to stop people from killing eachother?
But the thing is, you can't prove that without doubt Gun Control laws haven't done anything. Because you don't have a control group to see what society would be like without the gun control laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
It's ok to say "crime rates are still rising" and "gun related deaths are still rising". But how can you possibly prove that without gun control these figures wouldn't be worse? There are WAY more factors relating to crime than just how legal guns are, but with that said, how can you prove that controlling that factor has absolutely ZERO affect.
I think he means you should only be allowed to own a gun if you're sexually inadequate. Better sell that bullet mold of yours!Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
On the other hand, you can look at other countries that do have tighter gun restrictions than the US, and see that they have much lower gun crime rates. Is this because people there are naturally more friendly or something? Remembering all the screwed up violent people I knew growing up makes me doubt this.Quote:
Yes, just as the US CDC could find no correlation between laws restricting firearms and firearm related crimes. The Assault Weapons Ban and almost every piece of major firearm legislation in the past century has zero effect on crime or murder rates. Either we need a magic wand that makes firearms shoot tissue paper hearts, or we attack the societal problems that lead to violence.
One could argue that the United States is this control group :pQuote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Or certain areas of the Middle East...
If you could turn back the clock, you might be able to enact some gun control that could actually lower murder rates. But I honestly think it's too late to pass any law would keep guns out the hands of criminals :(
And you clearly cant prove they have done something.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
But really all you're saying is that nothing can be proved definitively, and isnt that the truth?
Maybe if we had some sort of portal where we could go into an alternate dimension that didnt enact the handgun ban and then we could compare it, we could, but in the absence of that, you have to deal with the evidence you have.
What you're saying is basically unreasonable.
Oh hell yes. It's just like owning an expensive car. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
Quote:
originally posted by arjue at some time
Im piss d ans
8 beers a nd a wfe rums nad scoch and cocks
Not arrests for having guns, dipshit. Gun crimes. I'll make it very clear for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Gun murders have increased since gun control was iplemented in England.
Why does that irk you so much?
You're so pissy, do some reasearch of your own and let me know how it goes.
Arizona:Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Legal to carry a gun visibly in your car/can get a CCW permit few restrictions or gun control.
7.0 Murders per 100,000 Inhabitants.
Washington DC.
Illegal to carry a gun concealed, strict registration requirements for ammunition and other firearms, and prohibitions on the possession or carrying of weapons at homes and workplaces. semi-automatic firearms/,military-style assault weapons banned
48.0 Murders per 100,000 Inhabitants
But cockface, those figures would only mean something if you could isolate gun control as the only variable. If you're that fucking stupid you can't realise that, it's your own fucking problem.
England banned handguns in 1996. Gun crime rose 40% in the following four years.
YOUR FUCKED UP LOGIC:
Guns were banned but gun crimes are still going up, that must mean gun control is worthless.
NON-FUCKED UP LOGIC:
Those statistics neither prove or disprove gun control is good legislation.
The only way those statistics would mean a thing is if you made a mathematical model that factored in the probable natural increase in gun crime and couple of other factors. As they stand, they mean fuck all. As I said before, how do you know that gun crimes wouldn't of risen 60% or 100% without gun control?
Hypothetically,
In 1996 there were 2000 gun crimes,
in 2000 there were 2800 gun crimes.
Now what if the natural increase in gun crime was 60% per 4 anum.
In 2000 there would probably be 3200 gun crimes.
Now correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't 2800 less than 3200? I'm no fucking statistician or actuary; it'd be more complicated than that. But you get my drift.
Is that supposed to impress me?Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
That's like saying:
If I squeeze an orange, I get 20 mls of juice.
If I crush an apple, I get 50 mls of juice.
Therefore crushing is a more effective method than squeezing to get juice.
It's literally like comparing fucking apples to oranges.
Arizona and Washington D.C. are very different places. They have completely different socio-economic landscapes, different cultures, location, law enforcement, et cetera. The difference in prevalance of murders could be from so many different factors it's not funny. Society is so incredibly complicated and yet your basing the difference in murders on ONE factor.