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

Frission

Until I get thrown out.
May 16, 2011
865
0
0
farson135 said:
No, I don't have to actually continue this. After spending some time trying to find a way to explain the fact your conclusion is off by real world counter examples of countries with strict gun laws, a rant about the way that your logic doesn't stand up and that you missed the point of my analogy and a somewhat tiring block that Bangladesh is unsafe due to intense corruption and that strict gun laws have nothing to do with it ( since there's no gun shops in Bangladesh, because people can't sometimes afford a proper house, which just means that I could once again say that the root cause is poverty) combined with a real attempt to find a graph comparing the severity of gun laws by country, I stopped, due mainly to the strict part of "strict" guns laws and the fact that it was annoying and boring even to me (or gun laws for short, because we're going to be squabbling on what counts as strict guns laws).

I realized that in essence I am brought down to a level where I can't use basic sociology and I'm can't make any points simply because I have to argue on your terms and I'm bogged down, so I'll just state this.

The number of guns in circulation has nothing to do with the severity of the guns, since gun laws only somewhat limit to those who truly can't use them responsibly, and mostly add regulations for the process of getting a gun. Theoretically a sound bodied and minded person can get a gun if they're patient enough.

Poor countries can't afford to have alot of guns and richer countries aren't safe because there are guns. That's the point of the yacht analogy. You could replace it with anything and it wouldn't matter. Poor countries are crime ridden because they're poor, not because they can't get guns. If it makes you happier, I'll change yachts with fancy Christmas cakes so there's no fixation on irrelevant consequences about boats.

Africa has more restrictive laws, because everything is more restrictive, because you're taking the law of warlords who are violent people and who aren't actual government. That's where the talk of laws get twisted. You could say that areas where laws against getting food or clean water are lighter are less violent as well and that would be just as relevant.

It would be better to say where areas where people aren't free and don't have any rights are violent and that would be a much more sensible and true conclusion

Stricter gun laws does not make a worse society, and the opposite is true. Gun laws are at best a possible symptom of a problem. Lax gun laws may increase crime because people who get them may be in desperate circumstances and may turn to crime (or they would turn to it anyway). That is it.

Guns just make killing easier depending on the side. Root causes like tyranny, mental problems, war and income inequality are the real reasons for dangerous areas.

EDIT: I mean you can argue about gun specification or whether or not to have stricter or laxer gun laws. I don't care. Just trying to make a connection that somehow the root problems of the development of nations is strict gun laws is intellectually dishonest.

Gun, gun laws or strict gun laws ,whichever we are talking about are only symptoms that aren't going to be fixed by relaxing or strengthening gun laws.
 

PeterMerkin69

New member
Dec 2, 2012
200
0
0
For everyone saying that hunters should be able to retain their preferred guns, why? There are fewer hunters than target shooters in the US, and they're actually harming living beings, so why do they deserve special treatment? Even if they eat what they take, how is that pleasure any more justifiable than the pleasure one gets from shooting at paper plates and exploding targets?

For everyone saying that assault weapons should be prohibited but not shotguns, hunting rifles and pistols, why? You appear to be banning them for their unrealized, imaginary potential, or perhaps because you've seen them featured in a handful of mass-murders that are relatively insignificant, rather than their actual impact on society. In 2011, ~6000 people were killed with handguns; only ~300 were killed with rifles of ANY variety. Since the actual, realized impact of assault weapons is so small, why do you pay special attention to them?
 

Aaron Foltz

New member
Aug 6, 2012
69
0
0
Assault weapons are those that are FULLY automatic. The public can't own these without a class three license and they are knowingly put on a list by the federal government. Not many people can legally own these but criminals break the law and get them on the black market or whatever. (<< very vague and generalized) If I am wrong about any of this information please correct me.

If people refer to semi-auto rifles that LOOK like "assault" or military grade weapons then they are wrong and need to be educated before making claims.

If people think there should be a limit on magazine size then I can understand. There is no reason to own anything that holds over ten rounds in my opinion.

If people have arguments about protection against the government if it decides to become tyrannical then let me just say this. If you think having a fully automatic weapon or "assault" weapon is going to save you from shelling or a squad of highly trained military operators then you are living in a dream world. They have weapons so advanced not a single person will be able to fight back.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
wont get involved this time but what Farson seems to ignore is effective gun laws and gun laws as defined are different things. strict gun laws are usually in place because regualr ones do not work. adn they do not work not becuase they are bad, but because noone is actually following them. Gun laws in africa is as effective as no-pants-for-woman laws in France - as in not at all. so in reality gun control is much more strict in the civilized world.
So your correlation is bust.
What actually exist as a correlation (but not necessarely causation) is wealth. Your image rather makes a point that weathier countries have more guns than anything else.

PeterMerkin69 said:
For everyone saying that hunters should be able to retain their preferred guns, why? There are fewer hunters than target shooters in the US, and they're actually harming living beings, so why do they deserve special treatment? Even if they eat what they take, how is that pleasure any more justifiable than the pleasure one gets from shooting at paper plates and exploding targets?
Hod dare you deny the god given right to kill everyone that moves! YOu must be some filthy liberal scum that ruined this country!
(i am of course joking, but ive heard this argument used agasint me).
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,694
1,326
118
Aaron Foltz said:
Assault weapons are those that are FULLY automatic. The public can't own these without a class three license and they are knowingly put on a list by the federal government. Not many people can legally own these but criminals break the law and get them on the black market or whatever. (<< very vague and generalized) If I am wrong about any of this information please correct me.
I was going to say you were wrong, but after a bit of research, not that simple.

It appears that the term "Assault weapon" is used differently in different places. At the US federal level, an assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine with scary features, or someone has just said it's an assault weapon. In most parts of the US you'd be wrong about that.

Certain states, however, have their own definitions just to make things confusing. In Connecticut, an assault weapon can be fully automatic.

Oh, and regarding illegal automatic rifles, I believe many of those are legal semi-automatic rifles that have been illegal modified. And have yet to explode or anything.

Aaron Foltz said:
If people refer to semi-auto rifles that LOOK like "assault" or military grade weapons then they are wrong and need to be educated before making claims.
Well...certain military weapons are semi-automatic. The commonwealth FAL, for example, would be an assault weapon in most states of the US, and has not automatic fire capability unless you stick a match into the mechanism.
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
MichiganMuscle77 said:
The current anti-gun agenda isn't about keeping people safe. It's about keeping people controlled. Don't be fooled, the evidence is all there for you to see. If you want to try to get guns banned, by all means I'll listen to your argument - but if you regurgitate the SHIT spewed by the media and the anti-gun Hollywood elites who literally know NOTHING about guns and are full of hypocrisy (Sylvester Stallone is anti-gun... yeah, this guy:
)

So if you don't believe that the anti-gun in the media don't have an ulterior motive, wake the fuck up.
please explain to me how this is hypocritical? I am massively anti-gun and being from the UK where the only people with guns are farmers (see video, its surprisingly true) so its never something i would ever be interested in but I really like the rambo films. The fact that he starred in some movies which essentially involve a lot of shooting (and i mean a lot) should not affect his opinion on the subject. The films are completely fictitious and in no way do they reflect reality. Im pretty sure Al Pacino has the right to be anti-drugs after making scarface

why is an anti-gun legislation controlling the population as opposed to the right-wing gun groups controlling the population? seriously id genuinely like to know why a right-wing gun groups (and the multinational arms manufacturers) are not controlling the population and care more about safety than a group of people trying to remove lethal weapons from the homes of citizens

There is no need for anyone to have a firearm unless they are a farmer or in the military. The whole second amendment rights thing is complete bullshit. Its a right for anyone to have a fire arm but somehow its a privilege for the wealthy to have decent healthcare

 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
shootthebandit said:
MichiganMuscle77 said:
The current anti-gun agenda isn't about keeping people safe. It's about keeping people controlled. Don't be fooled, the evidence is all there for you to see. If you want to try to get guns banned, by all means I'll listen to your argument - but if you regurgitate the SHIT spewed by the media and the anti-gun Hollywood elites who literally know NOTHING about guns and are full of hypocrisy (Sylvester Stallone is anti-gun... yeah, this guy:
)

So if you don't believe that the anti-gun in the media don't have an ulterior motive, wake the fuck up.
please explain to me how this is hypocritical? I am massively anti-gun and being from the UK where the only people with guns are farmers (see video, its surprisingly true) so its never something i would ever be interested in but I really like the rambo films. The fact that he starred in some movies which essentially involve a lot of shooting (and i mean a lot) should not affect his opinion on the subject. The films are completely fictitious and in no way do they reflect reality. Im pretty sure Al Pacino has the right to be anti-drugs after making scarface

why is an anti-gun legislation controlling the population as opposed to the right-wing gun groups controlling the population? seriously id genuinely like to know why a right-wing gun groups (and the multinational arms manufacturers) are not controlling the population and care more about safety than a group of people trying to remove lethal weapons from the homes of citizens

There is no need for anyone to have a firearm unless they are a farmer or in the military. The whole second amendment rights thing is complete bullshit. Its a right for anyone to have a fire arm but somehow its a privilege for the wealthy to have decent healthcare

It's a funny cultural divide we've got now... very little understanding from either side of the pond. You say "farmers", we see corporate farm conglomerates bigger than major cities. The farmer that still exists in the UK is extinct in the US. Anyone holding on to an acreage that small here gets their money from something else (like me. I live in the middle of nowhere, grow some of my own food, hunt some more of it, buy some more at a grocery store, and commute to the suburbs to work security... for which I need to maintain a personal handgun for use on the job. That's actually in my job description). I use firearms to keep pests off of my property, as well as to supplement my groceries. Does that make me a "farmer"?

Not that I agree with the right wing agenda on this one... that's just trying to keep our regulations from being enforced for the benefit of our arms industry.
Of course, I don't agree with the left wing agenda on this one either. Even the ones that aren't for outright bans tend not to have enough education on the subject of firearms to know what our current regulations are, much less the difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle (which is rather subtle).

We're never going to get anywhere on this issue with one side screaming "deregulate!" and the other screaming "ban!", and folks popping in with "a near-universal ban worked for my island nation with 1/40th the landmass and 8 times the population density (both rough calculations made from numbers on wikipedia), so obviously it can work for your nation!" helps even less than uneducated people on either side of the debate over here.
No offense.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,364
1,671
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
PeterMerkin69 said:
For everyone saying that hunters should be able to retain their preferred guns, why? There are fewer hunters than target shooters in the US, and they're actually harming living beings, so why do they deserve special treatment? Even if they eat what they take, how is that pleasure any more justifiable than the pleasure one gets from shooting at paper plates and exploding targets?

For everyone saying that assault weapons should be prohibited but not shotguns, hunting rifles and pistols, why? You appear to be banning them for their unrealized, imaginary potential, or perhaps because you've seen them featured in a handful of mass-murders that are relatively insignificant, rather than their actual impact on society. In 2011, ~6000 people were killed with handguns; only ~300 were killed with rifles of ANY variety. Since the actual, realized impact of assault weapons is so small, why do you pay special attention to them?
I don't think you understand hunting. You know why we hunt deer? It's not just because people like the taste of deer meat, and find deer to be fun targets to shoot at. It's because we've systematically wiped out the vast majority of large predators in the US (for the safety of people living there), and as such if we don't hunt the deer in the predators' steed the deer population explodes, and then they starve to death because they can't support their numbers.

So no, hunters aren't "harming living beings" as you put it, they are in fact keeping animal populations from destroying their environment and then starving to death from overpopulation.
 

freaper

snuggere mongool
Apr 3, 2010
1,198
0
0
Oh I don't mind people owning all kinds of weapons; pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, heavy machine guns, anti-tank weapons,...

As long as they don't have ammunition for it, of course.
 

blaize2010

New member
Sep 17, 2010
230
0
0
Just keep it reasonable. Hunting rifles, pistols, shotguns that are not automatic? Perfectly fine. You should only be able to have a handgun outside your home or hunting, though, and the permit should be incredibly difficult to get. One should have to prove that they are responsible and of sound mind before being allowed to own a weapon like that. I think it's more of a privilege than a right, but that you should always have the right to earn the privilege. My point is, any Johnny Fuckup shouldn't be able to walk into a store and purchase an AR-15. And if you've ever committed a felony, forget about it.

I think complete gun control is stupid. A relative of mine had like four AKs that he never got a permit for. They weren't legal at all, and according to him they were pretty easy to get. Only thing that'll happen if you make guns illegal is that law abiding citizens won't have them, and I don't really like the idea of that. However, nobody really needs an automatic rifle, and it's kinda stupid to want one, because the automatic part is used more for suppression, not direct combat. When, say, clearing a house, most military teams switch to semi, mostly because a single bullet is more than enough in most cases. Unless your planning an all out assault on a large group of people, you don't need one,and generally speaking the only civilians who do that sort of thing are psychopaths.
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
loc978 said:
It's a funny cultural divide we've got now... very little understanding from either side of the pond. You say "farmers", we see corporate farm conglomerates bigger than major cities. The farmer that still exists in the UK is extinct in the US. Anyone holding on to an acreage that small here gets their money from something else (like me. I live in the middle of nowhere, grow some of my own food, hunt some more of it, buy some more at a grocery store, and commute to the suburbs to work security... for which I need to maintain a personal handgun for use on the job. That's actually in my job description). I use firearms to keep pests off of my property, as well as to supplement my groceries. Does that make me a "farmer"?

Not that I agree with the right wing agenda on this one... that's just trying to keep our regulations from being enforced for the benefit of our arms industry.
Of course, I don't agree with the left wing agenda on this one either. Even the ones that aren't for outright bans tend not to have enough education on the subject of firearms to know what our current regulations are, much less the difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle (which is rather subtle).

We're never going to get anywhere on this issue with one side screaming "deregulate!" and the other screaming "ban!", and folks popping in with "a near-universal ban worked for my island nation with 1/40th the landmass and 8 times the population density (both rough calculations made from numbers on wikipedia), so obviously it can work for your nation!" helps even less than uneducated people on either side of the debate over here.
No offense.
I apologise for my ignorance but when you come from a culture where guns are pretty much pointless. We dont have any dangerous animals and like you said with a relatively small land mass you are always fairly close to some sort of amenity and because guns are not widely available amongst criminals (granted there are a lot of exceptions) there is very little need to carry a weapon for protection

So all i can see is the "guns are bad" argument because guns are not as big a part of culture as they are in america (in fact they aren't a part of our culture)

I know (and you probably know) that we sometimes see american's as the stereotypical gun totting lunatics and its really an unfair judgement. It shows that you are more civilised than us as americans (on average) can be trusted with a firearm, I sure as hell wouldnt trust the average brit if firearms were widely available and to a greater extent i dont think id have much respect for the police either. i dont know if you had much publicity of the london riots of 2011 (video below). We'd probably get shot for committing such a heinous as putting the milk in someones tea before the water, now im stereotyping but you get the point us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qmks0QVI40
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
shootthebandit said:
loc978 said:
It's a funny cultural divide we've got now... very little understanding from either side of the pond. You say "farmers", we see corporate farm conglomerates bigger than major cities. The farmer that still exists in the UK is extinct in the US. Anyone holding on to an acreage that small here gets their money from something else (like me. I live in the middle of nowhere, grow some of my own food, hunt some more of it, buy some more at a grocery store, and commute to the suburbs to work security... for which I need to maintain a personal handgun for use on the job. That's actually in my job description). I use firearms to keep pests off of my property, as well as to supplement my groceries. Does that make me a "farmer"?

Not that I agree with the right wing agenda on this one... that's just trying to keep our regulations from being enforced for the benefit of our arms industry.
Of course, I don't agree with the left wing agenda on this one either. Even the ones that aren't for outright bans tend not to have enough education on the subject of firearms to know what our current regulations are, much less the difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle (which is rather subtle).

We're never going to get anywhere on this issue with one side screaming "deregulate!" and the other screaming "ban!", and folks popping in with "a near-universal ban worked for my island nation with 1/40th the landmass and 8 times the population density (both rough calculations made from numbers on wikipedia), so obviously it can work for your nation!" helps even less than uneducated people on either side of the debate over here.
No offense.
I apologise for my ignorance but when you come from a culture where guns are pretty much pointless. We dont have any dangerous animals and like you said with a relatively small land mass you are always fairly close to some sort of amenity and because guns are not widely available amongst criminals (granted there are a lot of exceptions) there is very little need to carry a weapon for protection

So all i can see is the "guns are bad" argument because guns are not as big a part of culture as they are in america (in fact they aren't a part of our culture)

I know (and you probably know) that we sometimes see american's as the stereotypical gun totting lunatics and its really an unfair judgement. It shows that you are more civilised than us as americans (on average) can be trusted with a firearm, I sure as hell wouldnt trust the average brit if firearms were widely available and to a greater extent i dont think id have much respect for the police either. i dont know if you had much publicity of the london riots of 2011 (video below). We'd probably get shot for committing such a heinous as putting the milk in someones tea before the water, now im stereotyping but you get the point us

Quite alright. In all fairness, I wouldn't trust the average American with a firearm, if I had a choice. Mandatory training and licensing is one of the controls I would most definitely support. So long as you know that this is a much more complex and nuanced issue than simple "ban" or "deregulate" actions can possibly solve.
 

Rellik San

New member
Feb 3, 2011
609
0
0
Interesting fact for you: There are more licensed firearms in Canada than the US, but a much lower rate of gun crime.

The issue isn't the weapons themselves it's the people who own them and the society they've built around themselves that's dangerous. Not to mention, whilst its easy to comment that anyone with proper checks can buy a gun, once that gun is bought, theoretically it's available to anyone within that household.

What I think needs to be done, is a restriction on fire arms types, coupled with strict rules about the storage and transport of fire arms to ensure unlicensed and unchecked people are unable to get at them once purchased, if someone does get hold of the fire arm, then the owner should also be liable (assuming it's their fault through not following regulations on storage and the shooter didn't just steal it through forceful or duplicitous means) for whatever actions are commited with said fire arm.
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
MichiganMuscle77 said:
loc978 said:
Quite alright. In all fairness, I wouldn't trust the average American with a firearm, if I had a choice.
And why is that? Iz it becuz wer all stoopid slak jawd yokles an we fuk awer cuzins yee haw?

Turn off the TV and go learn something. Holy shit.
That's some ironic shit right there. I don't own a TV. I read my news from myriad sources (including Fox, before you say it), and I speak from experience as a firearms instructor. Untrained people should not have firearms, and the culture surrounding them is not responsible enough to be relied on for training anymore. Sorry, man.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
farson135 said:
Strazdas said:
wont get involved this time but what Farson seems to ignore is effective gun laws and gun laws as defined are different things.
And y?all ignore what I have actually wrote.

The argument was that places with strict gun control laws tend to suck. I said true due to a series of socio-economic factors but not due to gun ownership rates.

How about this, don?t say anything about my posts until you actually read them.

So your correlation is bust.
Would you cite the exact location where I implied correlation? I will wait. Nothing? Read what I wrote.
I did read what you wrote, sadly. Liek i said, you seems to mix gun control laws on paper and gun control laws in reality. as in, those countries with strict gun control laws on paper dont really actually control thier guns that much.

The fact that you said that countries with stricter gun control laws are worse countries to live in implies corelation.