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

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I believe people are scared of guns. Rightfully so, I'm scared of them too. I spent most of my childhood in fear of drive bys, and literally dodged fire more than I like to account. I wasn't raised around weapons like some of our Texans friends in the positive way. I was raised around weapons in a law of the jungle manner. Those who have the best teeth and claws will rampage over those who do not. And if you believe for a second these drive bys were committed by people who follow the law, got a fire arm legally, and would be really affected by a fire arm ban... you'd be wrong.

Our history is filled with attempts to ban something, to only make it more popular or those who still held on it illegally more powerful. Alcohol, Weed, Hell, even when slavery was abolished, some plantation owners still quietly held onto slaves while other plantations had to buckle under because no one could work the field.

A few things that people always like to gloss over.

Sweden, one of the countriesy with the least gun homicide rates in the entire world has one of the higher gun ownership rates per militia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland.

I live twenty minutes away from NYC. Pretty soon, I'm going to work and move there. Do you know how many people there are in New York City? Around 34,500 [http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/faq/faq_police.shtml]. That total is for the Five Bourughs that make up NYC (The Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island). Do you know how many people work and live in Manhattan on a given day? 3.9 million. And again, that's just Manhattan. NYC as a whole's population is around 8 million.

34,500 cops are supposed to protect you, me, and the other millions at any given time? Do you think they are just sitting there waiting for us to call? The logistics of 'people don't need ways to defend themselves' is mind mindbogglingly stupid. And I know this is about gun control, but do you know what is legal to carry in NYC to protect yourself?

I don't either.

Pepper Spray seems to be illegal, self defense batons, tasers, things designed to maintain the assailant's life while protecting yours is forbidden. The only thing you can do is run. And let me tell you as someone who has been chased before by a group of people... sometimes you can't always do that.

Yes, America has the highest gun crime compared to most other cultures. But it's not because of the proliferation of them, I feel. It's because of the wide spread poverty and outdated healthcare system. This leads people to either be desperate enough to commit crime or lets those people who are crazy go unmediated. Removing guns does not make these people less desperate. Removing guns does not make these others sane again. Other things will happen. People will get more creative. I don't want to die, but I think I'd rather get shot than sliced to death by roving gangs of people.

Well I'm not American but I'd draw the line at anything beyond bolt action or semi automatic.
No home owner needs to own a weapon that can fire 300 rounds a minute.
I mean just look at the guns they had at the time of the Constitution.

Spoiler

I know you were already quoted for this, so excuse me for doing it again, but I think you touched on a really good point that most people forget when they are citing the idea of what those who drafted the constitution couldn't foresee the weapons we have now.

I believe they did.

Because it wasn't a fact that they had the idea that we would have M16 and ARs, but more to the fact that if our enemies can obtain such weapons (Foreign and Domestic, as it's worded), then we should have the right to have the same. If you're enemy is stronger than you, you have problems. I think the drafters of the constitution would shudder in fear at the thought of a Government limiting it's population's ability to defend itself, while that Government spends more and more money arming itself to the teeth.

And that's not an American Problem. That's a Problem all over the world.

 

[siomasm]

Pretty much everything EternallyBored said.
Most weapons require a background check, automatic and more deadly weapons especially so, along with wait periods and flags on their personal files.

But that's the thing, most people who purchase these weapons legally do not use them illegally. I would love to see a study on legally owned weapons used in crimes by those that purchased them vs illegally obtained or modified weapons used in crimes. =/

I do tend to agree however that pistols are fairly sketchy. I would think anyone who obtains a standard or concealed carry license needs to not only undergo a background check, but a mandatory training course as well. The training can be provided by private institutions certified by the state for those looking to go above and beyond.

Ironically, I would much rather have people buying rocket launchers through the current method with the insane amount of red flags and tape, rather than them having to be clever about it and use homebrew explosives instead, which are far more difficult to trace.

Someone commits a crime with a rocket launcher, well hell. Look up the 5 people in the tri-state area that owned one. Someone commits a crime with home brew explosives...yeah good luck.

 

[The Event]

4. Ammunition should be limited to basic "ball" or "shot".
Obviously no one needs to hunting deer with expanding super-turbo-peneration incidenary ammo. A case could be made for civilian ownership of "less lethal" ammunition, but ultimately I feel that any round designed primarily for use against a human target should be illegal.

You do realise that in Britain it's illegal to shoot deer with anything other than expanding ammunition?

 

[Yuuki]

People will get more creative. I don't want to die, but I think I'd rather get shot than sliced to death by roving gangs of people.

1) What gangs do is out of legal control, even if guns were completely banned gangsters would have no trouble getting their hands on the untold millions of firearms circling around US on a constant basis. Guns are simply too common and easily available to enforce any sort of effective nation-wide ban, it would be like trying to outlaw USB sticks.

2) People may get more creative, but I'd love to hear how an angry teenager can walk into a school/cinema and massacre 20 people with a KNIFE. Hell, lets give him a longsword/Katana just to step things up. I doubt he'll even be able to wound/kill even 1 person (by complete surprise) before he's taken down by a mob of angry adults and beaten senseless.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Snip

Regardless, you might as well scrap driving licenses then? You will never stop stupid people from drink driving etc or just plain accidents. Thing is there would be way more accidents if no-one was told to take a test before hand. That is a fact. An you agree with the safety thing, that's great, i guess i took what you said as argumentative. So I guess its best to say some kind of gun safety test would be great.....in theory. Just the way to go about it is another discussion all together.

As I said, cars are a false analogy. They cause over 30,000 accidental deaths each year, guns cause less than 800 accidental deaths each year. They aren't remotely comparible. You're saying that we should impose regulations aimed at reducing the 800 accidental firearm fatalities each year instead of the approximately 15,000 firearm murders each year, or the approximately 25,000 firearm suicides each year in order to reduce firearm-related fatalities. That isn't like licencing drivers to reduce car-related fatalities, that's like licencing jacks users in order to reduce car-related deaths from them falling on people.

Sigh. Are you really going out of your way to prove everyone wrong? You cant stop people have accidents and killing with cars. You cant stop people killing others with guns. But having a driving test has lowered the amount of deaths via vehicles. Or do you disagree with that? Im not comparing thing in whatever weird way you think i am. Driving test limit deaths....not all deaths. Gun safety courses will limit gun deaths. Even if it stops 1 kid dying its worth it and it then works.

Licencing jacks? If you make that analogy thats just stupid. Suicide isnt an accidental death. What planet do you live on? How about dont leave a loaded gun lying around? How about safe way to hold a gun if it is loaded? How about safest way to store a gun in your house? How difficult is it to say, fair enough, we need certain people to have lessons to use a gun safely and responsibly? Why is that so difficult for you?

 

[Soundwave]

I'm saying that you can't just say: "It's biased because cato is bad." If you want to make an argument for the data I posted being bad, go ahead. So far, all you've done is expect me to dismiss the data because it was posted on a website that you consider to be biased. You haven't even made an argument to establish that the website is biased at all, which would still be ad hominem. You made absolutely no mention of why you think that the relevant ATF data that happens to be posted on this website is inaccurate, except that it has been posted on a website that you consider biased. If you want to dismiss it as invalid you need to make some argument to show that is flawed.

The CATO Institute is a well known libertarian think tank. It's been ranked as #2 of the top 10 conservative websites by usconservatives.com. It has frequently been cited by well known biased news corporation Fox News, and was founded by the Koch brothers, who in turn were the founders of recent TEA Party, one of whom who still serves on the CATO Institute Board of Directors. Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of FOX has also served on their board of directors. With that background information in mind, one can see how they might share loyalties with certain big businesses (in other words the industrial sector, which of course includes the gun industry).

They are also well known climate change deniers, as can be seen here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/cato-institute/

Prominent CATO member well known for being an "ENEMY OF SCIENCE"

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/16/404832/cato-patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data/

Here they are claiming that smoking apparently doesn't kill people

http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/CATO_lies.pdf

Here they are being recognized by Philip Morris (a tobacco company) as an "National Ally" in a corporate memo.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iqg76c00/pdf

John Yoo, a prominent member of CATO was one of primary lawyers that authorized the use of tortune by US personnel in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq.
http://www.salon.com/2008/04/02/yoo_2/singleton/


These are just some examples I've found. So yeah, CATO is biased.

 

[Fox12]

I draw the line at explosives. I have no problem with semi-automatic rifles being made available to mentally stable individuals with no history of major violence. Heck, I kind of like Switzerlands way of doing things, where every citizen is GIVEN a gun by the government, and then trained to use said gun. People just walk around in public with rifles slung over their backs.

People argue that these weapons are unreasonable for self defense purposes, or think that people who support gun rights are just a bunch of rednecks who want to shoot at deer with assault rifles. Many argue that the only reason Americans were given gun rights was because the United States needed a national militia for self defense, and because that's no longer necessary we should get rid of guns. The real reason people support gun ownership is a little bit more complex.

The citizenry should always have a way to defend itself against its government. Armed citizens are the chief deterrent against a corrupt government. The founding fathers believed that, is the government became corrupt, then the people had the right to overthrow said government and install a new one as a last resort. That's why dictators are always quick to disarm their populace if they can. This is why I believe Americans should have easy and ready access to assault weapons as long as the individual is mentally stable. Even the idea of a national weapons registry strikes me as unsavory, because I dislike the idea of the government keeping track of its citizens guns in case they want to collect them all in the future. It makes it easier to disarm the American people.

Do I think the current government should be violently overthrown right now? Of course not, but the American government has been growing tremendously, and with the advent of the NSA and internal spying programs I can't say I'm filled with confidence. If the government were to ever threaten our freedoms in the future, and we had exhausted every other possible peaceful alternative, then the American people should always have revolution opened as an absolute last resort. We don't just have guns to shoot criminals, we have guns to shoot tyrants.

 

[Mirrorknight]

1. Automatic rifles are out. They're not for hunting. If you need to own one to "defend yourself", you need to use that money for rifle to move to a better neighborhood.

2. High capacity clips and drums are out. If you need that many bullets, give up hunting, or see above for "defending yourself".

3. Training and licencing required to own a gun. Gun folks always use the reasoning "Oh, well you can people with cars! You going to take cars away!?" No, but to legally use a car, you need to pass a basic competency exam, with both written and a live test. No reason guns can be the same way.

4. Gun shows need to be made to follow the restrictions that are in place. This is the year 2013. There's no reason why background checks can't be done even in the middle of a fairground or whatever. Legal weapons can be shipped if the background check takes more then the day. The commies aren't going to invade in the 5-7 business days it will take for you to get your rifle. Deal with it.

5. Don't give me that line about how criminals won't follow the laws, so why make more. If that's your reasoning, why bother have any laws? Hey, let's get rid of stealing laws. The people that break them don't follow them, so why bother having laws against stealing? Or murder? Heck with it. Look at all these murders! It's more then obvious that your so called "laws" don't work. Criminals just go and murder out of hand! Let's just get rid of murder laws. It's pretty damned flawed logic there.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I'm pretty pro-gun-control (so feel free to disregard what I'd say in a thread asking for the opinions of anti-gun-control people), and I feel that civilians should only have access to rifles and shotguns with fairly limited capacities. Handguns, combat rifles and automatic weapons have no business being in civilian hands, as they're designed specifically to commit murder, which is of course, illegal.

I couldn't agree more. Shotguns and rifles have legitimate uses in the hands of rural landowners and hunters, but there's no reason any civilian needs a handgun or automatic weapon except for the killing of another person.

 

[Daverson]

1) handguns are used far more often for self defense than crime.
2) again, all your banning is effective self-defense. Unless you have a plan for taking these weapons away from criminals? And probably a plan that lets physically weaker people defend themselves against possibly armed, physically stronger attackers.
3) Now you're banning self-defense in the home, unless you're suggesting that home invaders supply warning far enough in advance for the homeowner to unlock his safe, put his AR-15 back together, and load it in time to defend himself.
4) Expanding highly engineered rounds are the norm for hunting. From the box of my cheap hunting ammo: "Core-Lokt Bullets are designed with a jacket and core that are mechanically "Lokt" together providing just the right combination of Expansion, Penetration, and Weight Retention for Deadly Hunting Performance." Besides, the idea that most crimes use some kind of hyper-advanced armor-penetrating, incendiary, or otherwise super-engineered rounds is fallacious. They're using basic hollow-points, which are usually far less engineered than hunting ammunition.
5) No one's really arguing here, though I do think that someone other than the government should be the one making the determination of who is fit enough. We wouldn't want another literacy test type fiasco. I'd suggest a civilian run organization, after all government officials have armed security, I don't think it's fair to let them make determinations on what is ok for use in self-defense for the rest of us.

1. Concealed weapons aren't a deterrent, for obvious reasons. I know there's a sort of cult surrounding handgun in the US ("big money, big cars, tiny guns". I don't know what Freud would have made of that...), but ultimately, a shotgun is better weapon for self-defence than a pistol. If someone's carrying a gun for legitimate reasons, it's best if everyone knows they're carrying a gun. Likewise, if someone's carrying a gun with the intent to "do evil", not knowing they're armed could cost someone their life. (if you're doubting this, go out to a crowded place, point at a random person and yell "he's got a gun". See what happens.)
2. A folding stock doesn't aid a home defence weapon.
3. How so? If you know where the key is, it takes seconds to unlock a cabinet, and loading magazine-fed guns can be done in under a second, unless you're facing an extremely well organized home invasion by ninjas, this is a moot point. (If your home is being invaded by ninjas, then having a gun probably isn't going to help.)
4. Super-engineered was a bit of an exaggeration, I'll admit. Still, ammunition designed exclusively to kill a person shouldn't be something you can pick up at a corner store. I wasn't aware there was a humane argument concerning hollow-point ammo while hunting, I'll admit considerations should be made for this. (perhaps needing a hunting licence to buy it?)

I know it's a common saying that criminals won't obey gun laws, but it's also a bit foolish to assume they automatically have access to everything other citizens don't. Your garden variety gang-banger isn't backed by some sophisticated worldwide smuggling ring.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Alright, *finger crack*, lets do this.

2. High capacity clips and drums are out. If you need that many bullets, give up hunting, or see above for "defending yourself".

5. Don't give me that line about how criminals won't follow the laws, so why make more. If that's your reasoning, why bother have any laws? Hey, let's get rid of stealing laws. The people that break them don't follow them, so why bother having laws against stealing? Or murder? Heck with it. Look at all these murders! It's more then obvious that your so called "laws" don't work. Criminals just go and murder out of hand! Let's just get rid of murder laws. It's pretty damned flawed logic there.

2. Look at how any gun fight takes place, a vast majority of bullets miss. This is true for any engagement that takes place beyond point blank range. This is true for military and police. Also, taking away high capacity magazines doesn't help much. The Virginia tech shooter used legal 10rd magazines. Also, as a side note, see this picture [http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg246/jfvac/clipvsmagazine.jpg]. Learn it please, even if you don't change your position, you will have more of an idea of what you're talking about.

5. That argument doesn't make sense when the purpose of the laws against guns are to prevent people from attaining an inherently harmless object. Only when it is used for nefarious means or used stupidly is it dangerous. By your argument we should bring back prohibition. Never mind that it was unenforceable and made more crime, alcohol is just as(if not more) dangerous then firearms.

I couldn't agree more. Shotguns and rifles have legitimate uses in the hands of rural landowners and hunters, but there's no reason any civilian needs a handgun or automatic weapon except for the killing of another person.

Or you know, defending themselves from others who'd see harm come to them.

Guns are made for hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face. It doesn't take much for the former, and with the advent of ICBMs, Tactical nukes, etc. they aren't of much use for the latter.
But seriously, gun rights were put in place so that the government couldn't just walk all over it's citizenry, but what the military has now and in such quantity makes that a moot point.

I would have to disagree. Syria proves that a civilian group can fight effectively against far superior forces with effective use of unconventional warfare, modest armament(US civilians are far better armed then Syrians at the outset of war), and of course mass desertion of military personnel bringing all their cool toys. Armed rebellion anywhere depends on at least fraction of the military, the previous armament of civilians aids in ensuring initial survival of a rebellion, but only if it has popular support. So only truly just ones would survive.

Dave's Preposition: (I'm British, so I'll be drawing upon existing firearms laws in my country, which I happen to strongly agree with!)
1. Handguns should be completely outlawed.
This should be a no-brainer. Handguns, and other easily concealed weapons, are of limited use for sport shooting or hunting. Admittedly, there's a minor case when it comes to home defence, but when you look at the figures, almost every gun crime is committed using a pistol.

2. All guns must have fixed stocks, and a barrel at least 12 inches long.
Pretty much the same reasoning as rule 1.

3. All guns should be required by law to be stored in a locked contained and unloaded, and if possible, in such a way they cannot be easily fired
Ie, in the case of something like an AR15, the upper and lower receiver should be stored in separate locked containers. This will prevent gun theft, and drastically reduce the number of accidental gun injuries. Again, a no-brainer.

4. Ammunition should be limited to basic "ball" or "shot".
Obviously no one needs to hunting deer with expanding super-turbo-peneration incidenary ammo. A case could be made for civilian ownership of "less lethal" ammunition, but ultimately I feel that any round designed primarily for use against a human target should be illegal.

5. Anyone who wishes to own a firearm must be medically and psychologically fit to do so.
Another no-brainer. You wouldn't want someone who can't stop their trigger finger from twitching holding a loaded gun, and you certainly don't want someone prone to hallucination or paranoid delusions anywhere near a weapon.

1. Most handguns in the US are illegally acquired and used by repeat offenders. That also would create a massive market for illegal weapons that would be on the scale of prohibition and alcohol. Add to that you'd take away any means of self defense from common p

2. Thats just stupid. Do you know what a short barrel and adjustable stock's main purpose is? To move about easily. It is also so small framed people can effectively used rifles. I have a friend in the military, shes about 5' 3", and can easily use an M-4 with an adjustable stock despite the M-16 being a massive pain in the ass. All that idea would do is hamper people who want to use weapons indoors and short people. SBRs(short barreled rifles) aren't even what most people would consider concealable.

3. So basically make it useless in a home defense scenario?

4. Those expanding rounds are also typically used by police to prevent over penetration and collateral damage. Other side of the coin. Worse for the target, better for the innocents around it.

5. No argument here.

 

[spartan231490]

Snip

Regardless, you might as well scrap driving licenses then? You will never stop stupid people from drink driving etc or just plain accidents. Thing is there would be way more accidents if no-one was told to take a test before hand. That is a fact. An you agree with the safety thing, that's great, i guess i took what you said as argumentative. So I guess its best to say some kind of gun safety test would be great.....in theory. Just the way to go about it is another discussion all together.

As I said, cars are a false analogy. They cause over 30,000 accidental deaths each year, guns cause less than 800 accidental deaths each year. They aren't remotely comparible. You're saying that we should impose regulations aimed at reducing the 800 accidental firearm fatalities each year instead of the approximately 15,000 firearm murders each year, or the approximately 25,000 firearm suicides each year in order to reduce firearm-related fatalities. That isn't like licencing drivers to reduce car-related fatalities, that's like licencing jacks users in order to reduce car-related deaths from them falling on people.

Sigh. Are you really going out of your way to prove everyone wrong? You cant stop people have accidents and killing with cars. You cant stop people killing others with guns. But having a driving test has lowered the amount of deaths via vehicles. Or do you disagree with that? Im not comparing thing in whatever weird way you think i am. Driving test limit deaths....not all deaths. Gun safety courses will limit gun deaths. Even if it stops 1 kid dying its worth it and it then works.

Licencing jacks? If you make that analogy thats just stupid. Suicide isnt an accidental death. What planet do you live on? How about dont leave a loaded gun lying around? How about safe way to hold a gun if it is loaded? How about safest way to store a gun in your house? How difficult is it to say, fair enough, we need certain people to have lessons to use a gun safely and responsibly? Why is that so difficult for you?

Actually I do, since most experts guess drivers are no safer than they were before drivers tests, it's the airbags, speed limits, safer roads, and better enforcement that decreased deaths, but that's besides the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying that you are attempting to reduce an already small number. If your goal is actually to save lives, then reducing the 800 accidental gun deaths is not the way to do it. It would work, but it wouldn't work well enough to justify the time and effort going into it. With the same time and effort, you would accomplish a lot more by reducing a high number, like accidental falling deaths or poisoning deaths.

I never said suicide was an accidental death, that's why there can be 25000 of them when there are only 800 accidental. I used that number to point out that you are ignoring over 98% of gun deaths in your attempt to reduce them via gun registration, doesn't that seem a little stupid?

As to why it's so difficult for me, it's not, I already said that. How difficult is it to acknowledge that isn't a big enough problem to justify government time and money? There are a lot of problems the government needs to address before they get way down the list all the way accidental gun deaths.

 

[spartan231490]

I'm saying that you can't just say: "It's biased because cato is bad." If you want to make an argument for the data I posted being bad, go ahead. So far, all you've done is expect me to dismiss the data because it was posted on a website that you consider to be biased. You haven't even made an argument to establish that the website is biased at all, which would still be ad hominem. You made absolutely no mention of why you think that the relevant ATF data that happens to be posted on this website is inaccurate, except that it has been posted on a website that you consider biased. If you want to dismiss it as invalid you need to make some argument to show that is flawed.

The CATO Institute is a well known libertarian think tank. It's been ranked as #2 of the top 10 conservative websites by usconservatives.com. It has frequently been cited by well known biased news corporation Fox News, and was founded by the Koch brothers, who in turn were the founders of recent TEA Party, one of whom who still serves on the CATO Institute Board of Directors. Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of FOX has also served on their board of directors. With that background information in mind, one can see how they might share loyalties with certain big businesses (in other words the industrial sector, which of course includes the gun industry).

They are also well known climate change deniers, as can be seen here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/cato-institute/

Prominent CATO member well known for being an "ENEMY OF SCIENCE"

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/16/404832/cato-patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data/

Here they are claiming that smoking apparently doesn't kill people

http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/CATO_lies.pdf

Here they are being recognized by Philip Morris (a tobacco company) as an "National Ally" in a corporate memo.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iqg76c00/pdf

John Yoo, a prominent member of CATO was one of primary lawyers that authorized the use of tortune by US personnel in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq.
http://www.salon.com/2008/04/02/yoo_2/singleton/


These are just some examples I've found. So yeah, CATO is biased.

Congratulations, that's still just an ad hominem fallacy, so it doesn't actually address this discussion.

 

[spartan231490]

1) handguns are used far more often for self defense than crime.
2) again, all your banning is effective self-defense. Unless you have a plan for taking these weapons away from criminals? And probably a plan that lets physically weaker people defend themselves against possibly armed, physically stronger attackers.
3) Now you're banning self-defense in the home, unless you're suggesting that home invaders supply warning far enough in advance for the homeowner to unlock his safe, put his AR-15 back together, and load it in time to defend himself.
4) Expanding highly engineered rounds are the norm for hunting. From the box of my cheap hunting ammo: "Core-Lokt Bullets are designed with a jacket and core that are mechanically "Lokt" together providing just the right combination of Expansion, Penetration, and Weight Retention for Deadly Hunting Performance." Besides, the idea that most crimes use some kind of hyper-advanced armor-penetrating, incendiary, or otherwise super-engineered rounds is fallacious. They're using basic hollow-points, which are usually far less engineered than hunting ammunition.
5) No one's really arguing here, though I do think that someone other than the government should be the one making the determination of who is fit enough. We wouldn't want another literacy test type fiasco. I'd suggest a civilian run organization, after all government officials have armed security, I don't think it's fair to let them make determinations on what is ok for use in self-defense for the rest of us.

1. Concealed weapons aren't a deterrent, for obvious reasons. I know there's a sort of cult surrounding handgun in the US ("big money, big cars, tiny guns". I don't know what Freud would have made of that...), but ultimately, a shotgun is better weapon for self-defence than a pistol. If someone's carrying a gun for legitimate reasons, it's best if everyone knows they're carrying a gun. Likewise, if someone's carrying a gun with the intent to "do evil", not knowing they're armed could cost someone their life. (if you're doubting this, go out to a crowded place, point at a random person and yell "he's got a gun". See what happens.)
2. A folding stock doesn't aid a home defence weapon.
3. How so? If you know where the key is, it takes seconds to unlock a cabinet, and loading magazine-fed guns can be done in under a second, unless you're facing an extremely well organized home invasion by ninjas, this is a moot point. (If your home is being invaded by ninjas, then having a gun probably isn't going to help.)
4. Super-engineered was a bit of an exaggeration, I'll admit. Still, ammunition designed exclusively to kill a person shouldn't be something you can pick up at a corner store. I wasn't aware there was a humane argument concerning hollow-point ammo while hunting, I'll admit considerations should be made for this. (perhaps needing a hunting licence to buy it?)

I know it's a common saying that criminals won't obey gun laws, but it's also a bit foolish to assume they automatically have access to everything other citizens don't. Your garden variety gang-banger isn't backed by some sophisticated worldwide smuggling ring.

1) source? concealed weapons are a great deterrent, more criminals are scared of concealed carry than they are of the police. I'll post a source for that after I get home from work, I would feel bad about not posting one now, but you haven't posted one at all, so I don't.
2) self defense doesn't always occur in the home, and for outside the home self-defense, full-sized rifles are a bit inconvenient.
3) You've never actually handled a firearm have you? It takes a lot longer than you seem to think to load a firearm from out of a safe. Seconds matter with a home invader. You also are conveniently ignoring your assertion that they should be "prevented from easily being fired" such as by disassembly.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

Given the parameters of this exercise- No boundaries, no limitations.

The idea is to protect the citizenry from history repeating itself, the government crushing the populous under tyranny is checked by having a citizen militia capable of defending the people against their own government. The "right" of firearms ownership is a good thing.

*sighs* Unfortunately, some people fail to live up to the responsibility this carries with it and they do bad things. Human condition. The fear-based response is to surrender this freedom then to defend us from our own incompetent and irresponsible citizens.

HOWEVER- the same argument can be made (and far more strongly, I'd say) for having genitals and the capacity to reproduce and I seldom see any congressional bills about banning the irresponsible and dangerous use of fucking. *laughs*

 

[Rebel_Raven]

just want to throw in my two cents so here I go. I like the gun regulation in my state Wyoming, we follow every requirement by the federal government, but have a no permit concealed carry law which basically means you don't know whos got what on them unless they show you. Now because of this law and the fact that everyone here is armed we have very low violent crime(a murder makes my states news paper any time one occurs and its front page news) and people are nicer, see I think what some people don't understand is that gun laws only work so well but the threat of retaliation works better. I know I know this sounds like an oxymoron but the threat of violence is usually what it takes to stop violence. so yeah that's my two cents, take it or leave it.

I'm really glad that I'm not the only person posting here that has this outlook,

Criminals are cowards, bluntly. They prey on the weak. They're going to be less likely to pull a gun on someone that can do the same.

There's an old saying:
"God created all men, but Samuel Colt made them all equal."
A pistol can make a 120 lbs woman give a 250 lbs man pause. It could save her life.

I'd be willing to say public mass shootings don't really happen in places where people are commonly armed.

If you saw a celebrity you hated, and I mean absolutely hated, seeing a gigantic bodyguard might dissuade you.

OT:
I really doubt you can prevent people from getting guns. I mean people have made zip guns before. Basically a metal pipe, a pin, a bullet, and a rubber band.

So you manage to outlaw guns. Criminals make their own, smuggle them in, then what? Even if they don't do that, and they move on to some other deadly impliment, then what? Outlaw those? Then they move on to something else. You outlaw that, then what? It's a slippery slope.

As it is USA's gun control is fine. But I say there's just not enough guns out there. Schools need several security officers (JOBS! We need'em!) armed with pistols. If one manages to flip his lid, there's other security to stop'em.

It can be argued that people without the means for firing a ton won't do it, but they could do something worse for mass damage (Like a bomb), or at the least use a knife.
Then again I blame society, and schools for that more than anything. The way people can get tormented in school while there's generally not a damn thing done to prevent it? There's just no excuse for it. If someone's being tormented in school, it needs to be stopped somehow before that kid decides to stop it with violence.
Talking around, I know a few people that get fucked with on a daily basis, and the3 school does not a damn thing to try and stop it. They're states away, though.

Of course all these scapegoats ignore the critical factor of every act of violence humanity's ever perpetrated. Humanity. The people that treat others like shit, and those that eventually snap coz they're outcasts pushed too far. Or unhinged somehow, and no one gives a damn.

People are so busy demonizing all sorts of firearms, but I'd be willing to bet that a pistol has saved a lot more lives than the news reports. People needng to scare off a mugger, shoot a wild animal after them.

Google "gun sales go up, crime goes down" for some articles on the matter. It all boils down to the simple fact that criminals want the advantage in the criminal act. If they don't think they have it, they'll not likely do the criminal act.

As for accidents, there needs to be mandatory gun safety classes with the purchase. Ignorance is what kills more than anything. A person well versed with firarms, and responsible aren't bloody likely to be killed by their own weapon.
And that means people get work teaching.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

SNIP

Again i feel you are arguing against common sense. You pick at every little thing using statistics that no one gives a crap about and i think you are here with your own agenda that you will never admit or feel is wrong. You have never agreed with anyone on this thread, an even when it matches what you think you still pick out stupid things just so you think you are right and have the last say. So either your a troll or just plain stubborn. But i guess your happy to live in fear that maybe some one may attack you. So sad to live that way. So sad that you cant accept gun safety would save you and those you love from some dumb ass that didnt unload his weapon properly. You contradict yourself in these comments just to be right. And you are very naive. You use facts and figures that mean nothing, as if only 800 accidental gun deaths is good. When 0 accidental gun deaths would be better. Do you really think the facts and figures count if your kid or family member was killed accidentally?

By the way, all these guns in the USA. How safe is it to live there? High crime. High death rate via firearm. Yeah, guns have made america a really safe place. lol. Even your police carry guns.....yep still have a high crime rate. So when is this whole gun carrying deterrent going to happen? In fact the criminals carry because people can.

Thing is, reducing those 800 deaths is worth the money. The USA can take it out there military budget. Why do you think they start driving test etc in the first place? To lower the road deaths. The thing is you are looking at all this like they are attacking gun ownership. Personally, i dont give a shit. Yes murders and suicides are high, but as i said before in my original reply, which is why you wernt listening, i said you cant prevent them. People will kill or suicide regardless. BUT you can limit the accidental deaths if people who bought a gun for protection actually were educated in how to carry, look after and shot a gun safely. I dont care about the murders or the suicides, they will happen regardless. But one kid uses his dads gun like a toy and shoots his friend by accident. This needs to be dealt with. Why are you so unable to grasp such a simple fact?

 

[Ashadowpie]

im against any form of guns, my children wont even have Nerf Guns in my opinion. but besides that, i draw the line on military grade weapons. you do not kill a deer with an assault rifle! you do not kill rabbits with a M16 or whatever you call it. Hand guns are the only "if you really think you need a gun for "protection" i'd allow, and i wouldnt allow anyone in my home to own a weapon. shot guns are hunting guns. if your a hunter keep the damn thing away from your damn house and keep it at your happy animal massacre haven place so no moron can get to it besides you.

lack of guns, less bullets spraying everywhere. put two and two together people.

i live in Canada so yah. guns are meant to kill, why the hell would you allow that in your house?

Guns are bad...Mmmkay?