Anti-gun control people, where would you draw the line?

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
I think the public should be allowed to buy and own just about any rifle or pistol or shotgun or submachine gun out there. Full auto, semi-auto, doesn't matter.

Anything beyond that, RPG, Stingers, grenades, land mines, flame throwers, tanks, artillery, etc. are all weapons I don't think anyone outside of the military should own, and I include the police in those who shouldn't be allowed.
 

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that people bring up on both sides of this debate, lots of statistics being used and misused, but if you look at violent crime it ends up being the worst in places with the strictest gun control laws.

Of course as long as the second amendment exists you will only ever have very limited forms of gun control in the US, because the constitution is the ultimate law of the land.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,809
1,425
118
Yuuki said:
Arson is a horribly, horribly unreliable and unpredictable method to use for deliberately killing people - especially not in public places like schools/cinemas/malls, a matchstick isn't going to do much good there. Torching entire structures in order to kill people is pretty stupid (especially when in a typical fire the majority of people escape), and it's people that matter most here.

If a psycho wants to inflict maximum body-count with high reliability that is easily concealable, nothing even comes close to a gun.
One of the highest death count attacks on the LGBT community in the US was arson, mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack

Admittedly the circumstances were unusual in that case.
 

Flames66

New member
Aug 22, 2009
2,311
0
0
Queen Michael said:
I support gun control, and don't think that the public should have access to firearms at all. But those of you who disagree with me: What's the heaviest weapons you think the public should be able to purchase and own? (Obviously excepting people with a history of violent behavior, mentally ill people, etcetera. Keeping guns from them is just common sense, especially the etcetera. An etcetera almost killed my dad once.)
I think the state should have as little influence over peoples lives as possible. That includes keeping their ugly noses out of what weapons people can own.
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
Yuuki said:
ObsidianJones said:
2.) Again, you're exactly right. Knives wouldn't be able to do that. Arson [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/26/fire-at-northeastern-china-nursing-home-kills-10-residents-report-says-arson/], on [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419803/Five-people-arrested-connection-arson-attack-killed-mother-teenage-children.html] the [http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/8265135.html] other [http://www.thv11.com/news/article/268474/2/Arson-suspected-of-killing-Donald-Creer-and-Donna-Creer-in-Little-Rock-house-fire] hand [http://nypost.com/2013/09/13/fire-ravages-jersey-shore-boardwalk/]... very easy to do, does a lot more damage to property and lives than guns, and you can do it with just about anything. I mean, sure. We can focus on knives and how they probably will never reach the mayhem as guns can. But I don't think guns can touch the sheer mayhem that a match could.
Arson is a horribly, horribly unreliable and unpredictable method to use for deliberately killing people - especially not in public places like schools/cinemas/malls, a matchstick isn't going to do much good there. Torching entire structures in order to kill people is pretty stupid (especially when in a typical fire the majority of people escape), and it's people that matter most here.

If a psycho wants to inflict maximum body-count with high reliability that is easily concealable, nothing even comes close to a gun.
I'm not an expert on Arson and I thank everything for that, but if someone was trying to send a message, it's easy to just set something to scare them.

A lot of people do die from Arson in their sleep, as we've seen in the articles. And again, if you pick what wackos call 'soft targets', your chances go up. I don't have the palate to go into conjecture with this, but I'm sure you can do that on your own.

Also, I'd argue that backpack bombs are more easily concealable and more deadly than a gun. Most people don't think anything about backpacks, we probably lose count in how many we see a day. Car bombs are very popular too. Things we see but don't see. Lean up against and don't worry about. And the wacko doesn't put himself in harm's way. I mean, I'd link how many people die per day to car bombs in the middle east, but I'm sure you keep up with news.

Bomb line, I don't mind Gun control. I mind obsessive gun control. I don't even necessarily want to have a gun, but I want a means to defend myself. And slowly and surely, almost every option to keep my life going has been taken away from me. For other people's perceived safety? When I have no need, want, or lose morals enough to go kill anyone?
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,809
1,425
118
ObsidianJones said:
Also, I'd argue that backpack bombs are more easily concealable than a gun.
Er...what? How are they any different from guns that happen to be concealed in backpacks?
 

BOOM headshot65

New member
Jul 7, 2011
939
0
0
Anything short of Guided MIssiles, really. I am going by what it is here in Kansas, which has a much lower murder rate than the US at large and could give some Western European States a run for thier money. And what is it here:

1) Conceal Carry is "Shall Issue", meaning if you apply for a carry permit and dont have anything on your record that would disqualify you, the state MUST give you a permit.
2) Full Auto is completely legal. In fact, you can even buy some newer than 1986 thanks to the Commerce Clause (althought these are usually reserved for gun ranges since it can be sure this gun will not leave the state and violate the Commerce Clause).
3) Guided Missiles are Illegal, but Unguided Rockets are not. Meaning you cant have a stinger missile, but a Bazooka or RPG is A-ok. However, each individual rocket must be registered (rather than the firing device) and you must meat the same rules as explosives (see below).
4) Anything firing a round less than 40mm in diameter is legal, excluding rockets (see above). However, if the round is explosive (like a 40mm grenade), then again each individual round must be registered.
5) Tanks and other military vehicles are legal. However, if the cannon is over 40mm, it must be decommissioned as per state law (the breach must be welded shut in a state police facility), and you still must meet weight limits on local roads. In addition, while wheeled vehicles can be driven anywhere so long as they are light enough, tracked vehicles must be moved on a trailer and can only be driven off road on private property. And assuming you have a place to keep it and take off, retired military aircraft are legal too, but these must be completely disarmed even if their guns are otherwise legal under other laws. I dont know if you can have retired military jets (though I would be fine with people owning those), but there are plenty of people out there with old WW2 aircraft they fly, ranging from simple trainers to B-24 bombers.[footnote] There is also a guy who owns the only flying B-29 left, but he is from another state.[/footnote]
6) It is against state law to require anyone to have a permit to own a gun, as well as being illegal to force people to take safetly classes before owning a gun. This might stem from the fact that around here people learn guns from an early age, and will know how to use a gun by the time they are at least 13, so the state says "Why bother, everyone already know how to use them."
7) Explosives are a bit bizarre. You can buy most explosives (although fireworks are restricted), and you can build your own homemade ones, but there is a catch: You cant build or use them inside urban areas, except on specific days, like the 4th of July. If you want to make explosives, or set them off, you must have 20+ acres of land, the landowners consent (and if you ARE the land owner, it makes it that much easier), and permission from the local fire department (which will usually be a rural volunteer force).The Fire Department will give you the go or no go. IE, if there is a high grass fire danger that day they will forbid you from setting them off, and if you do anyway, you will be held criminally responsible. This applies to control burns as well.

And yet with all that, we have a murder rate of 2.1 and dropping, compared to the US average of 4.2 and dropping. California is the Gun Nazis, and yet they have a murder rate MUCH higher than the rest of us. So call me crazy for thinking guns arent the problem.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
I am not anti-gun. However I do support much tighter background checks and regulations in regards to how large a clip size one can own for a particular gun, and which models should be allowed to be sold to the public.

That being said in this day and age, the times of worrying about someone breaking into your house and robbing your stuff are fast disappearing.
Now a days thieves would rather use the internet and steal your identity then make the effort to pillage your house.

Honestly a simple handgun is more than enough to quell any threat to your person. There is no need for someone to protect themselves with a weapon that can shoot 30 rounds a second.
 
Jul 31, 2013
181
0
0
Supernova1138 said:
I'd say restrict gun ownership to weapons available at the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted, so smoothbore muskets and flintlock pistols for everybody. Miss your one shot? Too bad, better pray the other guy misses too, and that you have brushed up on your swordsmanship and/or other hand to hand combat skills. You get your right to bear arms exactly as the founding fathers intended, and you eliminate the whole mass shooting problem the US has.

No I'm not being particularly serious about this, but I don't have much of a stake in this debate, I don't live in a country where half of everyone is armed to the teeth because they are afraid the other half is going to show up, kill them, and burglarize their miscellania.
I like your train of thought. We should get a virtual cup of tea and a bagel from time to time.
 

CrazyGirl17

I am a banana!
Sep 11, 2009
5,141
0
0
I'd draw the line up to assault rifles and the like. You do not need an assault rifle unless you are in the army!
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
I tried, god knows I tried. I made information available, but I was insulted and ignored. Why do people insist on arguing in this debate with no greater evidence than their feelings? Stop believing everything the media says and do some research people, guns are not the problem, and if you look at the real world data scientifically, the idea that they are is so laughable that it makes me sick so many people blindly believe it.
 
May 29, 2011
1,179
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
I draw the line at explosives, not firearms.

No one should be able to buy bazookas, or grenades, or RPGs. Other than that, I'm an anything goes kind of guy so long as the person buying the gun can pass a thorough background check and can prove that they can safely and effectively use the gun that they're purchasing. If someone wants to buy a .50 cal Barrett or an M240 they should be free to do so if they can afford the thing.

Now mind you, I do have some stipulations on what I just said, I'm not completely anti-gun control or anything of the sort. I just don't think that there are specific features, or calibers that should be outright banned from being owned, because more often than not the features banned are completely arbitrary, or are banned because they look "scary."
I hear this alot but a RIDICULOUSLY small minority of murders are committed with explosives.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

29 out of 53,800 murders between 2007-2011 were committed with explosives.

Then again I've never found any good information on explosive ACCIDENTS, but it's probably a safe assumption that the majority of those are people who are messing around illegally anyway (or not, fucked if I know).
 

asinann

New member
Apr 28, 2008
1,602
0
0
krazykidd said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
I draw the line at explosives, not firearms.

No one should be able to buy bazookas, or grenades, or RPGs. Other than that, I'm an anything goes kind of guy so long as the person buying the gun can pass a thorough background check and can prove that they can safely and effectively use the gun that they're purchasing. If someone wants to buy a .50 cal Barrett or an M240 they should be free to do so if they can afford the thing.

Now mind you, I do have some stipulations on what I just said, I'm not completely anti-gun control or anything of the sort. I just don't think that there are specific features, or calibers that should be outright banned from being owned, because more often than not the features banned are completely arbitrary, or are banned because they look "scary."
Dude . What about Sniper rifles? Those things are dangerous , and they aren't really used for self defense ( since they are long ranged weapons ). There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have a sniper rifle .

[small] I know little about guns, and have no idea if those are available to the general public[/small]

OT: I, as a non-gun owner , think it should be limited to hunting rifles ( for hunting ) , handguns and shotguns ( for self protection). Anything more is excessive . Hell i think shotguns are excissive , but i think people should be able to own one of they want.
You DO know that any hunting rifle is essentially a sniper rifle, right? As far as everything else goes, short of WMDs I don't care what people own as long as they can afford it and get the proper permits for it. The whole reason for the second amendment was so that in case the government needed to be reset violently, we could do it: that's what a lot of gun-control people seem to be forgetting.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,809
1,425
118
asinann said:
You DO know that any hunting rifle is essentially a sniper rifle, right?
Especially those rifles used for hunting snipes.

(Ok, human sized snipes)
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Soundwave said:
spartan231490 said:
Congratulations, that's still just an ad hominem fallacy, so it doesn't actually address this discussion.
Unless of course I was arguing that your source information was biased. Which I've clearly proven that it was. Which means your claim of being scientific was unfounded.

Furthermore, your entire initial argument was based on the false presumption that people in favor of "some gun control" need to be "educated" on "actual facts". If your "facts" are in fact "libertarian propaganda" then your position is not credible.

The entire point of my exchange with you here is the simple suggestion that you avoid using information from recognizably biased sources. If for no reason, because nobody will believe you if you're using tainted information. If you're willing to use false information to prove an argument, what does that say of your character? I hope you see where I'm going with this and not mistake what I'm saying as a personal attack.
But it's not the source, it's a relay. The source is the ATF, if anything a source that is biased in the other way. Besides that, it's called an ad hominem fallacy for a reason. It is logically fallacious to say that just because Cato is biased, the information they relay is wrong. I wasn't relying on them for conclusions, just raw factual data that they posted from the ATF. I chose their site because it presented the data in the most accessible manner. If you had taken the time to run a simple google search on "how do criminals get guns" you would find dozen other sites that give you the same data. I chose Cato because it was easy to read and the important data was within the first few paragraphs, and the others I looked at rambled on with introductions. Sorry for trying to give people a little more scientific grounding in the debate without wasting their time.

Also, you know what, a relay site that has bias is better than no source at all. Look through this entire thread, 6 pages of discussion. How many sources besides mine did you see? How many did you post? The vast majority of posters here offered no sources, yet you attack me because my relay source, not even the source for the data just a convenient place to find it, has bias. In what world does that even make sense? Worst part is, you're far from alone, how many of the people I quoted made any kind of response to the data? I didn't keep a hard count, it was close to three, and one of them just said basically, "No, I read enough stats the last time." Yet you attack me because one of sites, not even the source of the data, just a place to find it, is known to be biased.

I really shouldn't be surprised. I've been debating this for far too long to expect anything but dogmatism and personal attacks, but god dammit if I don't expect a little better from the escapist, a group of at least somewhat scientific individuals. I keep doing it because I've seen a bare handful of people come into the debate with an open mind and actually be interested in the data, but that hasn't happened in a long time. So few people have an open mind. I don't even remember who it was now, someone accused me of just being stubborn and worse, but how many of you can honestly say that you have read every source that someone has posted against you? I have. Because I actually care, I do read the data. I then go and look up responses and reviews to that data. Yet I'm the close minded one. I read data that's published by the Brady campaign, because I know that just because a source has bias doesn't mean they're automatically wrong, but I'm the dogmatic one.

Did you know, I already changed my opinion on this because of data? Yeah, back when I was young and uneducated, I too supported gun control. I was a stereotypical red-neck gun owner, as was my father, and we both believed in a handgun ban and a gun registry. Up until I looked at the data, and that's when I saw that the science just isn't there, and I changed my mind. I mean, look at the public figures of gun control. The likes of Gabby Giffords, Piers Morgan, Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama. Politicians and talk show hosts who don't let their guests finish a sentence. Did you know that during their presidencies Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama both ordered studies into gun control? Did you know that both these studies have anti-gun-control results? Yet neither of these studies are ever mentioned by the Mass media. Barrack, went and said that we cannot act out of ignorance, and that we had to do more studies, and then turned around and ignored his own data. How wrong do you have to be that you can't even bias a study into being useful to you?

You know, I'd forgotten why I stopped caring. Thank you so much for reminding me.
 

Soundwave

New member
Sep 2, 2012
301
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Look through this entire thread, 6 pages of discussion. How many sources besides mine did you see? How many did you post?
The question was asking gun advocates what their opinion was. Not what the effects of gun ownership vs. crimes committed were. It's certainly reasonable for you to present the data to aid in illustrating your opinion, and as I said multiple times my opposition was simply that avoiding biased information was a good thing.

spartan231490 said:
Did you know, I already changed my opinion on this because of data? Yeah, back when I was young and uneducated, I too supported gun control. I was a stereotypical red-neck gun owner, as was my father, and we both believed in a handgun ban and a gun registry. Up until I looked at the data, and that's when I saw that the science just isn't there, and I changed my mind. I mean, look at the public figures of gun control. The likes of Gabby Giffords, Piers Morgan, Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama. Politicians and talk show hosts who don't let their guests finish a sentence. Did you know that during their presidencies Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama both ordered studies into gun control? Did you know that both these studies have anti-gun-control results? Yet neither of these studies are ever mentioned by the Mass media. Barrack, went and said that we cannot act out of ignorance, and that we had to do more studies, and then turned around and ignored his own data. How wrong do you have to be that you can't even bias a study into being useful to you?
this would have been an interesting contribution to the thread.
 

nepheleim

New member
Sep 10, 2008
194
0
0
From an American historical standpoint Colonists had access to muskets, rifles, and (which nobody ever brings up) cannons. So people should be allowed whatever it is they want, provided they can afford it.
 

Dimitriov

The end is nigh.
May 24, 2010
1,215
0
0
I don't think any weapons should be restricted. It just seems like lazy cowardice to me. Sure someone might do something you don't like, but so what? Deal with those problems when they arise.

But then I also think we should still be allowed to settle our differences with duels.


And no, I don't like the state regulating my life.