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

[Singularly Datarific]

The purpose of an armed civilian population is to safeguard against a hostile government, however personal protection and hunting are positive side effects of this intention. To elaborate: an armed civilian population does not need to own tanks and jet fighters to defend against a hostile military(this has been proven in the past and present, such as the current conflict with Al Qaeda).

With this in mind I would allow nearly all individual weapons, barring devices which in normal operation with a trained operator still presents significant risk to people who are not intended targets. Bullets are precise, IEDs are not. A landmine will not discriminate between a soldier and a civilian. It is this same distinction that bars the use of gas in warfare (it's not that it is deadlier or more horrifying, but that when used in warfare against a military force, it is largely ineffective against that force while posing a serious threat to unintended civilian targets).

So the line I draw is difficult to say, and I can't really flesh it out well at the moment. I am against background checks in the current system as they add extra fees to owning a firearm, making it difficult for low-income households to have one. I can summarize some main points, however:

-Background checks are okay, but they must not keep records of firearm sales or charge processing fees to the buyer. Records will eventually get leaked, and knowing who doesn't have a gun will mean easy pickings for criminals. Knowing who does makes it easier to confiscate and deprive people of a means to defend themselves.
-Don't confiscate. It's already happening in California, and they're expanding their list of who to confiscate to include attributes that have no legal basis.
-All semi-automatic rifles are allowed, there's no point in allowing one 5.56mm rifle and not another, they all shoot and hit roughly the same.
-Magazine caps don't stop crime or stop mass shootings, as Virginia Tech has supported.

 

[Soundwave]

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

Unless of course I was arguing that your source information was biased. Which I've clearly proven that it was. Which means your claim of being scientific was unfounded.

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

The entire point of my exchange with you here is the simple suggestion that you avoid using information from recognizably biased sources. If for no reason, because nobody will believe you if you're using tainted information. If you're willing to use false information to prove an argument, what does that say of your character? I hope you see where I'm going with this and not mistake what I'm saying as a personal attack.

 

[WanderingFool]

Honestly, I would prefer the government going all "Big Brother" when it comes to "Assault Weapons". Background checks, pysch exams and profiles, all that shit. If a person is found to be at a high risk of hurting themselves or others, denied.

Not a perfect plan, mind you, but what is...

Maybe you should read up a bit on the subject, you know, for science. How often firearms are used in self-defense: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html Large scale international study into the effectiveness of gun control in reducing murder and suicide rates. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Some information on the "gun-show loophole": http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows Large amount of facts about gun death and gun control: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Some mass shooting data: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/ How criminals get their guns: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html And lastly an opinion piece offering a logical explanation for why gun ownership is a good thing: http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

A lot of people like gun control for emotional reasons. It's nice to think that with just a few strokes of a pen your government could take the guns out of the hands of criminals, because who wants to be on the receiving end of a bullet? It's nice to think that we can do something about all those senseless deaths in places like Newtown. However, just because a law makes you feel good doesn't mean that it will work as intended, and the overwhelming majority of the data on the topic supports loose restrictions and high gun ownership.

Yeah, no... Ive read enough gun statistics from the last round of gun regulation threads.

 

[Fidelias]

I think the current gun laws in the US are pretty good as they are right now.

You are currently NOT allowed to legally own an automatic rifle or handgun in the US. In case you don't know, that means that any gun that you can simply hold down the trigger and spray fire is already illegal in the US, except under very very strict circumstances. (My parents, both of whom are ex-military and extremely safe gun-owners can't even get a permit to own automatic weapons. So there's no way an average citizen could legally obtain them.)

You are not legally allowed to own military grade explosives.

"Assault" weapons aren't really as dangerous as people make them out to be. In reality, the term "Assault" weapon was created by the media as a way to scare people about the idea of military-looking firearms. The military don't even use the term "Assault" weapon, because most of the traits the government use to classify something as an assault weapon are purely cosmetic, and have nothing to do with the power or potential danger a weapon possess. Ask someone in the military, they'll tell you the same thing.

The only thing I might change is to possibly make extremely high-powered handguns and rifles like the Barret 50 cal and Desert Eagle illegal, because there really isn't a good reason to own something like that.

Also the idea to have to obtain a license by taking tests to measure your knowledge of gun safety and mental health, that's actually a great idea! Speaking as someone who's against gun control, I'm totally up for that. I don't care what the 2nd amendment says, guns aren't toys, and if you can't use one properly, you shouldn't be allowed to use them at all.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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

Why?

If you want to legislate the minimum length of the weapon, why not just legislate the minimum length of the weapon?

Allow telescopic of folding stocks, as long as the weapon as above the minimum length when they are folded.

Barrel length isn't a good indication of overall length either. WW2 submachine guns had very short barrels compared to the overall size, this was changed with later weapons such as the Uzi. With bullpup weapons, the action is behind the trigger, you could have a barrel which didn't protrude beyond the stock if you wanted. A 12 inch barrel and a 14 inch stock could easily have a total length of between 30 and 15 inches.

(Mind you, Australia has similar laws.)

 

[Souplex]

I honestly have no problem with people owning hunting rifles.
It's concealable weapons, (Pistols) things that can easily be modified to be concealable (double-barrel shotguns) and automatic weapons that I have problems with.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You are currently NOT allowed to legally own an automatic rifle or handgun in the US. In case you don't know, that means that any gun that you can simply hold down the trigger and spray fire is already illegal in the US, except under very very strict circumstances. (My parents, both of whom are ex-military and extremely safe gun-owners can't even get a permit to own automatic weapons. So there's no way an average citizen could legally obtain them.)

You are actually. You aren't allowed to have any automatic firearm registered since 1986 though, so they are relatively few and far between, and you need to get all sorts of fiddly licences, but it's possible.

As an aside, you are also allowed to buy or make bump-fire apparatus to get around that ban.

You are not legally allowed to own military grade explosives.

Define "military grade explosives". You are allowed (in at least some parts of the US) to own grenade launchers. Again, loads of licencing issues there, and each grenade has to be registered individually.

 

[Keiichi Morisato]

most of the bad stuff you hear about guns are committed mostly by really dumb people, abusive people, or people who buy illegal guns. most gun owners are responsible with their guns. and getting angry over what a few people do with guns is like getting angry that a few people committed a crime after play GTA and then trying to get video games as a whole banned. i think extensive back ground checks, training, and psychological analysis is the best way to deal with gun crime. other than that, i am fine with people owning just about anything, i don't think civilians should have easy access to explosives. and most if not all owners of high grade military guns are most owned by collectors who like to fire a few rounds at a range.

 

[Skeleon]

@Queen Michael
Interesting. I live in a rather strict gun control country (at least compared to the USA) and am for stricter gun control still, but even I don't think there should be no access at all. So perhaps I qualify to answer.
I'd say nobody should take guns home with them. If you are a sport-shooter, you should have to leave your weapons locked up at the club. If you are a hunter, you should have to leave your weapons in the forester's hut or similar. If you are a cop, you should have to leave it at the station etc..
The rare cases of shootings we had were usually traceable to young members of sport-shooting clubs, the children of members, the children of hunters etc.. So it's the access to those weapons outside their intended purposes that's probably the main problem.
Limit that while not limiting their work/hobby with those weapons and you'd be on the right track, I'd say.

 

[Psychobabble]

I support gun control, and don't think that the public should have access to firearms at all. But those of you who disagree with me: What's the heaviest weapons you think the public should be able to purchase and own? (Obviously excepting people with a history of violent behavior, mentally ill people, etcetera. Keeping guns from them is just common sense, especially the etcetera. An etcetera almost killed my dad once.)

None. I do not feel any of the public should have access to lethal weapons what so ever. The public are dumb panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Firearms are designed for one reason and one reason only, to kill. Allowing them in the hands of private citizens can only have one eventual outcome. And just forget all the firearms can be tools, or used for recreation, or as a nonlethal deterrent malarkey. One simple squeeze of a trigger at the wrong time or for the wrong reason and someone gets a free ticket into the great unknown.

Also I find the idea that there is some acceptable level of lethality allowed to private citizens patently ridiculous. Murder is murder regardless if the number of dead is 1 or 100. Saying its ok to own a weapon that has the potential to kill a few fellow humans is ok, but no you can't have one that can kill 30 without reloading as that would be excessive, sounds more than a bit silly.

And on the subject of guns and the private citizen, why is it when we rightly don't trust the average citizen to own lethal weapons we seem quite fine with the idea of law enforcement and the military owning them and being hailed as our so called protectors, when those groups easily cause the largest numbers of fatalities per year. Does a shinny uniform and a silly hat somehow make the slaughter of another fellow human being acceptable or just? I really have to question the sanity of a society that thinks in this manner.

One more niggling detail, how is it that while many here would agree that firearms are too dangerous to be in the hands of the average citizen, the same people also believe there is no negative impact of glorifying these tools of death in every form of entertainment media we have. Is it any wonder that when the average citizen is bombarded with images of gun violence on a daily basis as a form of entertainment many will feel these lethal weapons can't be all that bad. The idea that the butchering of another human being can be seen as entertaining needs to be expunged from our global consciousness if we are ever going to make any progress towards peacefully disarming society.

Anyway those are my livid and ill-informed opinions on the subject take them as you will. I figure the best thing I can do is just try to live my life the way two of my biggest heroes did. The man who had a dream, and the one who said you may think him a dreamer. Brilliant men with hearts of gold who only wanted to help others free themselves from the tyranny of hatred and violence and usher in an era of peace and understanding. Too bad some vicious bastards had to go and shoot them for their trouble.

"How many times must good men die?
How many times will the children cry...
Till they suffer no more sadness?
Oh, stop the madness.
Oh, stop all the madness."

 

[dystopiaINC]

I would draw the line at military grade weapons. Assault rifles, no. Assault weapons, sure (for the most part, the term has very broad meaning).

I don't even draw the line there BUT there is a stipulation the more "dangerous" the weapon is (such as military grade assault rifles) should be VERY DIFFICULT TO GET. As in a system of licenses like in driving you have classes of vehicles. weapons can be put in classes and as such military grade weapons should be in a very high level, there should be mandatory background check at that level, there should be a required mount of supervised handling classes that cover the necessities of safety, and the relevant laws about handling and the do's and don'ts of owning a military grade weapon. but having a system like that in place I wouldn't draw the line anywhere on a gun, EXPLOSIVES on the other is a big NO for me though.

 

[Agayek]

I support gun control, and don't think that the public should have access to firearms at all. But those of you who disagree with me: What's the heaviest weapons you think the public should be able to purchase and own? (Obviously excepting people with a history of violent behavior, mentally ill people, etcetera. Keeping guns from them is just common sense, especially the etcetera. An etcetera almost killed my dad once.)

I wouldn't draw a line. Make anything and everything legal as long as they can afford it. And when I say everything, I do mean everything. From fully automatic AR-15s to Predator drones and even nuclear warheads, assuming they can afford it.

But, before anyone jumps down my throat, I also believe there should be ludicrous background checks and strict requirements to purchase anything more dangerous than a .22LR, and it should become more ludicrous the more dangerous the weapon becomes.

Private citizens should be able to acquire any weapon they can afford, but it should be a difficult and extremely tedious process that's actively designed to be disheartening and mindnumbing.

 

[RicoADF]

Hunting rifles. What more do you need beyond a hunting rifle and/or a pistol anyways? If you need an assault rifle or sub machine gun to "protect" yourself, then you probably arent living in the US. Or zombies took over.

That's where Australia drew it's line, bolt action rifles and pistols. If you want anything above that you need some bloody good reasons (eg: work) to get a licence. Seems reasonable to me and much prefer this to how the US has it in some states of "everything goes".

 

[greasypaws]

I'm against a majority of gun control, and as I'm quite cynical, I'm going to take a stab (not a shot, dear God, no) in the dark and say that whoever asked this has no intentions of starting a debate or discussion over gun control and just wants to get people worked up over something for which the Internet is a horrible medium for talking about. Just my opinion.

 

[Jak23]

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.

Exactly!
It's wise to be afraid of bad people with guns, it is unwise to make sure they're the only ones that have them.

 

[loc978]

Well... I'm actually pro-gun control, but I'm anti-ban. As a bit of a collector and a former firearms instructor, I feel we need something more up-to-date governing gun ownership than "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ...which pretty much only covers the existence of the National Guard.

I'm entirely for mandatory background checks, waiting periods, federal and state gun registries that track every firearm from its manufacture or import. I'd also like the system to grade weapons based on type, restricting semi-auto more than bolt-action (et cetera), full auto more than semi, and handguns over all.
snip

Actually, in those days there was a citizen militia, which included every able bodied male of fighting age, so the 2nd amendment allows all men(and now women) of fighting age.

Those days are long past. Back then, we had no standing army, and a good portion of our founding fathers were dead-set against maintaining one. They had no way of knowing that an on-call militia would simply have no means to keep up technologically.

Our state militias have evolved into the National Guard to stay relevant (and have become attached at the hip to the massive standing military force we now maintain federally), while the second amendment has remained static. Not hard to see which idea is more outdated.

 

[Platypus540]

I think that the current US gun restrictions would be fine, if they were appropriately enforced. There are a hell of a lot of loophooles and such that let people buy guns either undocumentedly or who outright shouldn't. If we could just fix the freaking enforcement it would be ok.

Edit: the very basics of the laws are no automatic weapons without major restrictions, and no short-barreled rifles or submachine guns, for those unaware.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

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.

1.) you're exactly right. It is out of legal control. so that leaves those of us who want to follow the law helpless? We can't legally do anything about those who breaks the law... so we'll legally limit those citizens who choose to follow it? What's the point of that? What's the point of restricting those who would only use guns to protect their family, property and neighbors?

2.) Again, you're exactly right. Knives wouldn't be able to do that. Arson [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/26/fire-at-northeastern-china-nursing-home-kills-10-residents-report-says-arson/], on [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419803/Five-people-arrested-connection-arson-attack-killed-mother-teenage-children.html] the [http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/8265135.html] other [http://www.thv11.com/news/article/268474/2/Arson-suspected-of-killing-Donald-Creer-and-Donna-Creer-in-Little-Rock-house-fire] hand [http://nypost.com/2013/09/13/fire-ravages-jersey-shore-boardwalk/]... very easy to do, does a lot more damage to property and lives than guns, and you can do it with just about anything. I mean, sure. We can focus on knives and how they probably will never reach the mayhem as guns can. But I don't think guns can touch the sheer mayhem that a match could.

 

[Yuuki]

2.) Again, you're exactly right. Knives wouldn't be able to do that. Arson [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/26/fire-at-northeastern-china-nursing-home-kills-10-residents-report-says-arson/], on [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419803/Five-people-arrested-connection-arson-attack-killed-mother-teenage-children.html] the [http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/8265135.html] other [http://www.thv11.com/news/article/268474/2/Arson-suspected-of-killing-Donald-Creer-and-Donna-Creer-in-Little-Rock-house-fire] hand [http://nypost.com/2013/09/13/fire-ravages-jersey-shore-boardwalk/]... very easy to do, does a lot more damage to property and lives than guns, and you can do it with just about anything. I mean, sure. We can focus on knives and how they probably will never reach the mayhem as guns can. But I don't think guns can touch the sheer mayhem that a match could.

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

If a psycho wants to inflict maximum body-count with high reliability that is easily concealable, nothing even comes close to a gun.