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

Hammartroll

New member
Mar 10, 2011
199
0
0
The vast majority of deaths by guns come from handguns and almost none from anything else. It would make more sense to ban handguns first, but people don't like thinking so they decide to ban the scary looking guns first. The scary looking guns (other names could be "military grade" "assault" and so on) are by and large owned by trust worthy law abiding citizens who say they use them for self defense or hunting but really (and there's nothing wrong with this imo) are just gun enthusiasts who like shooting cool guns at the range.

The reasoning in the OP should be reversed, it should be concerned about the small concealable weapons, unless the OP just doesn't like people who like guns because he has some kind of twisted, not-based-in-reality, squeaky clean, totalitarian society in mind. Hey OP, just because you don't like someone's hobby doesn't mean you get to ban them from participating in it, hoplophobe.

I personally think if a person doesn't seem to be mentally unstable or criminally inclined they should be allowed to have anything they want, short of a nuclear bomb I suppose.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,795
1,413
118
farson135 said:
Yes it is, but not to the extent you argue. Physics tells us you are completely wrong. Every time a bullet impacts something it loses a huge amount of energy. To come back at you, the bullet would have to lose 100% of its energy and then energy would have to be introduced for it to come back. Alternatively somehow it would have to ricochet multiple times off of something hard enough that maximum energy could be maintained. So you would have to be living in a bullet proof box. And even with that the bullet would lose energy with every hit AND your first shot and all subsequent ricochets would have to be glancing blows so as to minimize energy absorption. Newton?s Laws of Physics. If you can manage that kind of shot then I want to see it. When that guy shot that steel target with a .50BMG round we got peppered but no one was hurt. Basically all that happened was that the steel took the shot but the bullet shattered and pieces of it came up and back. I shoot steel with .45 ACP rounds regularly and it is not a problem. You are wrong-
As an aside, I remember hearing from someone about how, at a firing range, at least part of the bullet came directly back at him, and made him glad he was wearing safety glasses, but otherwise not being a problem. He attributed it's lack of momentum (at least in part) to its un-aerodynamic shape, though not sure how true that is.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
chuckdm said:
Yanno what? Nevermind. I've read everyone else's replies and it's clear none of you have ever handled a firearm.
That's actually pretty funny. Almost everything you've said is wrong, whereas we've been right, so your experience is the only one in question.
And to the man who "did Navy time" (as if volunteering for the armed forces was like prison, lol): fuck you too buddy. Preferably with a supermodel. Really, I thank you for your service, but your attitude could use some work.

But back on everyone else, I'm not going to watch this thread and respond any more, this is all I'll say.

1) Barrel length is irrelevant and you're wrong anyway. Nobody shoots sporting clays with anything less than a 28" barrel, and usually a 32" if you can afford it. Length narrows shot pattern and makes the spread tighter,
false. Longer barrels are preferred because they get more muzzle velocity and longer sight radius(important for hitting moving targets) not to effect spread, spread is effected by the choke.
and helps you hit clays. That said, the barrel length of an AR isn't relevant because, if it isn't a bullpup, the stock sticks out at least 9" to 13" past the chamber, farther on some models, while a shotgun is often as low as 5".
Barrel length is important because barrel is much heavier than stock. Bullpup or not doesn't matter, civilians are limited to weapons with an overall length of 26 inches
The shorter barrel doesn't mean a shorter weapon. And if you're buying a shotgun FOR home defense, you could easily go with a 20 or 28 guage, or even a .410, and the weapon will weigh less than a 9mm M92.
a 20 guage would still kick far harder than a carbine rifle, requiring a heavier weapon. Further, the ammo would be far heavier, adding even more weight to the loaded weapon. While it's true that a 9mm carbine(which would not be a M92) would weigh less, the limited stopping power makes it unideal for home defense. You further prove your ignorance because the M92 is a rifle carbine firing 7.62x39, not 9mm. The Baretta 92 fires 9mm, but that's a handgun and no 4.10 shotgun in the world weighs more than even that full frame 9mm handgun.
2) Spread on a shotgun is a function of the choke used. With a Skeet or Improved Modified choke, yes, you could easily keep the spread pattern as narrow as 2-3 feet at 80+ yards.
with an improved modified choke you'd be lucky to have that spread at 40 yards. At 80 yards even a turkey choke is going to have a spread of five feet or more, if it's even still moving in pattern.
However, for a home defense weapon, a full choke will rapidly expand to a 3 foot diameter at as little as 20 feet.
a full choke is designed for a narrow spread . . . it would have a 3 foot spread at between 35 and 40 yards. Not 20 feet. The widest spread is accomplished with improved cylinder choke, and at 20 feet an improved cylinder choke would have a spread of about 1 foot. Even that choke wouldn't get a 3 foot spread until it was at over 20 yards, long past expected home defense range
As above, this is a matter of buying the right tool for the job. If you want to shoot clays, Skeet (or in my case, an Improved Modified). If you want to kill an intruder, full choke.
It is about tool for the job, but typically home defense shotguns are equipped with a tight pattern choke, to ensure the shot does sufficient damage to stop an attacker, and because they typically use buckshot and since each buckshot pellet is similar in mass and energy to the bullet fired from a handgun, even one missed pellet could punch through several walls potentially killing a neighbor or a family member, and you're legally responsible for every single pellet.
3) Velocity on a shotgun pellet is very low compared to a handgun or rifle.
compared to a rifle yes. You're average centerfire rifle will boast a muzzle velocity of about 2000 feet per second(fps) and magnum rifles top in at a wopping 3000 fps, compared to a shotgun that boasts between 1200 and 1500 fps depending on barrel length and load size. However, the popular self-defense handgun calibers(9mm parabellum and .45acp) boast muzzle velocities much lower than shotgun rounds, 700-1000 fps for .45acp and 1000-1200 fps for 9mm. So even the fasted self-defense handgun load will barely overtake the slowest shotgun load.
That doesn't mean it's slow, and I wasn't saying it was. Whereas a rifle bullet will simply pass right through a wall, and a 9mm or .357 pistol round will richchet if it hits a wall stud
actually they'll punch clean through a wall stud no problem[/quote], a standard Size 8 or 9 buckshot will simply embed itself in the sheetrock.[/quote]now you're just being ludicrous. I can put my fist through sheetrock, are you really suggesting I punch harder than buckshot hits it's target? Buckshot will tear through both pieces of sheetrock for several walls.
This I know from my cousin's encounter with the intruder. While he did shoot the guy through a door, it was a hollow plyboard door. The man had to have about 30 splinters pulled out of him at the hospital, but he was very much alive. I wish he hadn't been on some level, but he was. The intruder had filed down a Mac-10 to fire full auto and showered my cousin's living room with 31 9mm rounds (a 30 round extended mag, plus the chamber round) which fortunately woke him up. They found a lot of pockmarks but all of the bullets eventually settled on the floor, albeit some on the floor in adjacent rooms. Pistol rounds ricochet like crazy. This is a fact.
see why didn't you lead with that? Now I know you're lying. Unless your cousin lives in a metal house. 9mm rounds will punch through several walls, and will in no way ricochet around after hitting sheetrock.
So that's all. I'm not going to check back here or counterpoint yall any more. Argue or don't. My opinion remainds: revolutionary war era weapons, including shotguns. Nothing else should be legal.
Well, after discovering that you are obviously lying only at the end of this post, I feel like I can only justify the time I spent on it if I post it anyway.


Blindswordmaster said:
I believe we should use a method of gun ownership more similar to car ownership. You'd need to get a gun license after you can prove that you're responsible enough to possess a gun. Of course I would also allow a non user gun owner status, in case you collect antique firearms or inherit any guns.
This is a poor analogy for 2 reasons.
1) You don't need a licence to own a car, you only need a licence if you're going to drive it on public roads.
2) The majority of car deaths are caused by irresponsible or unsafe use. In contrast, only a very small number of gun deaths are caused by irresponsible or unsafe use. The majority of gun deaths are caused intentionally, proving that you know how to use the gun safely won't stop you from harming yourself or attacking others with it.
Hammartroll said:
The vast majority of deaths by guns come from handguns and almost none from anything else. It would make more sense to ban handguns first, but people don't like thinking so they decide to ban the scary looking guns first. The scary looking guns (other names could be "military grade" "assault" and so on) are by and large owned by trust worthy law abiding citizens who say they use them for self defense or hunting but really (and there's nothing wrong with this imo) are just gun enthusiasts who like shooting cool guns at the range.

The reasoning in the OP should be reversed, it should be concerned about the small concealable weapons, unless the OP just doesn't like people who like guns because he has some kind of twisted, not-based-in-reality, squeaky clean, totalitarian society in mind. Hey OP, just because you don't like someone's hobby doesn't mean you get to ban them from participating in it, hoplophobe.

I personally think if a person doesn't seem to be mentally unstable or criminally inclined they should be allowed to have anything they want, short of a nuclear bomb I suppose.
The problem with this logic is that the majority of handguns are also owned by trustworthy law abiding citizens. Also, small concealable weapons are also the only guns that can really be used for self-defense outside the home, and evidence would suggest that they are used for self defense many many times more often than they are used to commit crime.
 

Numb1lp

New member
Jan 21, 2009
968
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.
Allowing people to buy firearms of any caliber is completely irresponsible. There are military grade firearms capable of taking a commercial airliner out of the sky. You want to give that to anyone who passes a background check? Let's just assume that nobody who passes a background check will ever use the weapons nefariously. Let's also assume that the weapons won't be purchased for a criminal by a normal citizen. Let's even go as far to say that no criminal will ever be able to steal the weapon. Just think about the accidents that could occur with such weapons. Unless you're planning to overthrow the government, you shouldn't have any need for a .50 cal Barrett (also, I don't think you would even care about its laws).
 

rasputin0009

New member
Feb 12, 2013
560
0
0
Semi-Automatic or single shot long guns (rifles, shotguns) only should be available to the public. No fully automatic anything. And absolutey no handguns because they're too easy to conceal and have a lot of other implications. All guns should be stored in lockers (or have trigger locks) separate from locked-up ammo. No registry, but mandatory background checks into criminal, rehab, and mental health with a minimum one month wait period upon purchase of gun. All of this is completely fair and incredibly easy/cheap to implement while driving down firearm violence.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,386
1,709
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Numb1lp 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.
Allowing people to buy firearms of any caliber is completely irresponsible. There are military grade firearms capable of taking a commercial airliner out of the sky. You want to give that to anyone who passes a background check? Let's just assume that nobody who passes a background check will ever use the weapons nefariously. Let's also assume that the weapons won't be purchased for a criminal by a normal citizen. Let's even go as far to say that no criminal will ever be able to steal the weapon. Just think about the accidents that could occur with such weapons. Unless you're planning to overthrow the government, you shouldn't have any need for a .50 cal Barrett (also, I don't think you would even care about its laws).
Really? Tell me more about these hand held rifles that one can take down a commercial airliner with.

No no, please, I'll wait.
 

Mersadeon

New member
Jun 8, 2010
350
0
0
For the record, I am pro-gun control. But hypothetically, if was no other way? My line would be at pistols, with special exceptions for hunting rifles. As in, not fully automatic, obviously. Everything above that? No. A pistol I can understand, in order to defend yourself, and hunting rifles to, well, hunt. You don't need anything automatic. No deer needs 3 round burst-fire. No single mugger requires a fully automatic pistol to be scared off. Hunting rifles are already sketchy, as most assassinations by snipers are done with hunting rifles.
I also think that there should be a limit to the kind of pistol itself - now, that could be a long debate about what specific trait should be regulated at what point and I don't want to be specific (because really, that would just invite loophole abuse) - but I don't think a civilian should have need of a Desert Eagle that breaks your bones if you accidentally limp-wrist it.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Semes said:
spartan231490 said:
The problem with this logic is that the majority of handguns are also owned by trustworthy law abiding citizens. Also, small concealable weapons are also the only guns that can really be used for self-defense outside the home, and evidence would suggest that they are used for self defense many many times more often than they are used to commit crime.
The evidence does not suggest this at all. I believe you are making things up! First post page 9 for more details.
I already replied to that post, it's not logically sound. All of those links are nothing but conjecture, they have no data or empirical evidence at all. You can't dismiss a study with nothing but conjecture. They keep referring to the NCVS, a survey that has been abandoned as a reliable source of DGUs by even it's staunchest supporters. He does a much better job of pointing out why those sources aren't meaningful than I do. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm Conjecture is nice, but other than a method for revising and improving your experiments, it's useless from a scientific standpoint.
 

Mazza35

New member
Jan 20, 2011
302
0
0
Desert Punk said:
I am on the side of "if they can buy it, let them have it" other than explosives.

Going out shooting is fun, its something I feel sad for Brits and Aussies that they likely wont ever experience. Anyone who has lived around firearms knows that they are no more to be feared than a knife or a hammer, anyone with murderous intent will find a way to murder, its not the tools fault some people are insane fucks.
Just feel sorry for the Poms, in Aussieland, well, basically states bar one. It's not too hard to get a A+B License, which is centerfire rifles and shotguns (Nothing semi auto basically) and a hunting permit is pretty easy.
It's just pump action shotguns and semis are a **** to get, so is handguns. Self-Protection is not a legal excuse or even LEGAL in my country.

OT:

I do think the line is fully auto weaponry, I've actually been in situations hunting where I needed a semi auto (Dangerous motherfucking massive boars charging) but have a decent background checking system and psych checks. Handguns for self protection? Same above, but make it mandatory training, maybe a good 3-4 classes initially, then must report to a certified range 3-4 times a year and be good enough.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,795
1,413
118
Dirty Hipsters said:
Really? Tell me more about these hand held rifles that one can take down a commercial airliner with.
It's not hard to take down an airplane with rifle [sub]from the inside[/sub]

Mazza35 said:
Self-Protection is not a legal excuse or even LEGAL in my country.
Hey? You can't get a weapon for self-defense, but you can use something you had for some other reason for self-defense.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Mazza35 said:
Desert Punk said:
I am on the side of "if they can buy it, let them have it" other than explosives.

Going out shooting is fun, its something I feel sad for Brits and Aussies that they likely wont ever experience. Anyone who has lived around firearms knows that they are no more to be feared than a knife or a hammer, anyone with murderous intent will find a way to murder, its not the tools fault some people are insane fucks.
Just feel sorry for the Poms, in Aussieland, well, basically states bar one. It's not too hard to get a A+B License, which is centerfire rifles and shotguns (Nothing semi auto basically) and a hunting permit is pretty easy.
It's just pump action shotguns and semis are a **** to get, so is handguns. Self-Protection is not a legal excuse or even LEGAL in my country.

OT:

I do think the line is fully auto weaponry, I've actually been in situations hunting where I needed a semi auto (Dangerous motherfucking massive boars charging) but have a decent background checking system and psych checks. Handguns for self protection? Same above, but make it mandatory training, maybe a good 3-4 classes initially, then must report to a certified range 3-4 times a year and be good enough.
You do realize those training requirements are significantly harder than those required for police officers, right? You do realize that armed civilians make mistakes much more rarely than police, right? http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
 
Jan 29, 2009
3,328
0
0
farson135 said:
Numb1lp said:
Allowing people to buy firearms of any caliber is completely irresponsible. There are military grade firearms capable of taking a commercial airliner out of the sky.
That is a myth. The most powerful handheld round known to man is the .50BMG. The longest kill shot in world history was about 1.5 miles. Your average commercial airliner is about 30,000 feet in the air. That is about 6 miles in the air. They also travel at about 500 MPH. Combined with that is the extreme wind patterns of the atmosphere which will make taking an accurate shot impossible. And of course, once the bullet gets there it will have virtually no energy (if it will even reach that high).

Even if I allow that you mean a commercial airliner 10 feet off the ground it is still impossible. First of all, armor piercing ammo is not easily obtainable in the US which means that you bullet will not pierce anything of consequence. And even if I allow you armor piercing ammo you still will not be able to destroy even one engine in one shot. You would have to empty hundreds of shots to get one of those planes down. And of course, the plane isn?t sitting still while you do this.

Let's also assume that the weapons won't be purchased for a criminal by a normal citizen. Let's even go as far to say that no criminal will ever be able to steal the weapon.
Not a bad assumption to make given the fact that a .50BMG round has never been used in a major crime in the US.

Just think about the accidents that could occur with such weapons
Like what? Do you have examples? This round has been around since the early 1900s. surely you have hundreds of examples to draw upon.

Unless you're planning to overthrow the government, you shouldn't have any need for a .50 cal Barrett
I am a 1,000 rifle shooter. I use .50 BMG fairly often.
It's true that the .50BMG is used against aircraft, but the point in history we really relied on it there were about 6 machine guns each firing 750 rounds per minute, with Korean War Sabre jets using a variant that gets 1,300 rounds per minute. World War 2 bombers could and would take hundreds of hits with .50BMG rounds before being shot down. The notion that a modern jet aircraft could be shot down with the 10 round magazine of the usually-referenced Barrett rifle is completely ridiculous.
 

Mazza35

New member
Jan 20, 2011
302
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
Really? Tell me more about these hand held rifles that one can take down a commercial airliner with.
It's not hard to take down an airplane with rifle [sub]from the inside[/sub]

Mazza35 said:
Self-Protection is not a legal excuse or even LEGAL in my country.
Hey? You can't get a weapon for self-defense, but you can use something you had for some other reason for self-defense.
Even if you just pick up a rock of something, the criminal has every right to charge YOU with assualt and half of the time they fucking win. Shows how fucked up of a legal system we have. Example: Someone breaks into my house, they have more rights then I do, I cannot attack them, I cannot stop them, not even if they attack me. I can use equal force but thats a blurred line, so if he had a knife, and I picked up one from the Kitchen, I have to actually wait until he attacks me with it before I can do the same to him.

Also wanna know something more fucked? You get raped in my country, all the government says is 'You obviously shouldn't of been in that place, in that time alone.'
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,795
1,413
118
Mazza35 said:
Even if you just pick up a rock of something, the criminal has every right to charge YOU with assualt and half of the time they fucking win. Shows how fucked up of a legal system we have. Example: Someone breaks into my house, they have more rights then I do, I cannot attack them, I cannot stop them, not even if they attack me. I can use equal force but thats a blurred line, so if he had a knife, and I picked up one from the Kitchen, I have to actually wait until he attacks me with it before I can do the same to him.
If "a reasonable person" (I think that's how it goes in most states) would believe that you were in genuine fear of your or someone else's life, then you can't be charged with assault or murder.

So, you can't use force to defend your house, but you can to protect yourself or someone else. Make sure you look really scared when the police come, though.

Mazza35 said:
Also wanna know something more fucked? You get raped in my country, all the government says is 'You obviously shouldn't of been in that place, in that time alone.'
Unfortunately true, though that's often the case in most places.
 

Flunk

New member
Feb 17, 2008
915
0
0
Up to semi automatic handguns and rifles of .45 or smaller. No concealed carry, background checks and all firearms licensed. Why? Look at countries with low levels of gun crime like the UK, France, Canada. Reasonable limits do work.
 

BabySinclair

New member
Apr 15, 2009
934
0
0
Kheapathic said:
I draw the line at training and responsibility. The gun laws are pretty lax in regards that if you can pass a background check, you can get a gun. So while many people do have access to guns, they're not all properly trained in safety, maintenance, and other important parts of gun ownership. For me, if people want to own a gun not only would they have to pass a FBI background check, but also pass a FBI weapons safety course. Now people may say the government doesn't have time or shouldn't regulate that, so they don't need to; have them train the NRA's safety instructors (which they already have) and let the NRA train the public. Now along with your background check and safety course, you should be required to own a gun safe that isn't just open to anyone. These would be three fields I want met before a person can own a firearm.

Now in regards to that, if you find yourself using your weapons to commit a crime, you will get burned. If your weapon was used in a crime by a person that wasn't you, but your lack of securing the weapon is what led to the person getting their hands on it; you will be held liable, not to the extent of the criminal, but you will be fined (at the very least). And if you steal or otherwise illegally acquire a firearm to commit crime, you and anyone that can be traced to the weapon will be going down as well.
Pretty much this^.

There are a lot of incompetent people who buy guns and proceed to shoot themselves or leave their firearms where their kids can get access. The background check process should probably be cleaned up to include better mental health screening and be mandatory for all firearm purchases, but the big part is mandated NRA training courses and a gun safe (which is impossible to really prove without an inspector but some solution could be found.) The serial number should also be registered to you and tracked, just like a car. The laws on car ownership are tighter than gun ownership. If I want a license, I need to pass a performance test. If I want to sell it, I need to transfer the deed of the vehicle (with its VIN #) and there's a certain quality of maintenance that I am legally bound to keep my car at. Just saying.