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

[Ninjat_126]

see im in an odd position in this. On the one hand I am an advocate of obscene amounts of freedom. So as far as I am concerned if I felt compelled to buy

http://www.ebay.com/itm/bren-carrier-universal-MKI-WWII-tank-armored-aormer-british-canadian-APC-/370897323788?forcerrptr=true&hash=item565b34070c&item=370897323788&pt=Military_Vehicles

I should legally be able to do so.

However on the other hand, even as a gun owner I am an advocate of extensively increased gun control regulations.

I personally like the autobahn approach. I do not think any manner of weapon should be off limits. (well WMD? Alright twisted arm) Virtually any kind of weapon should be legal for anyone to purchase and own if they wish. However if they DO try to purchase and own one, the weapon should require license and registration to make the owner accountable for the weapon being bought. The process of purchasing a weapon will be long and involved and the more dangerous the weaponry, the more hoops to jump through in order to do so. Not only an extensive background check, but some manner of psychiatric clearance for anything more aggressive than hunting weapons.

So Give the most extreme freedom. Do rigorous validation and compliance to "try" to keep weapons out of the wrong hands and in the event those weapons are misused make the owner accountable for that misuse or neglect.

Freedom is paramount, but no one ever said freedom was going to be free of effort.

I think this kind of says it all.

Put some MAJOR regulations on anything bigger than a single-shot bolt action rifle though. As in "not allowed to have one in your permanent residence" regulations. You want that light machine gun? Better go buy a range. Or rent out space in one.

On a basic level, I think the idea of a home defense weapon that can fire more than... 2-6 shots in succession is bullshit. If you miss once, a spare is okay. But if you miss more than 2-3 times, you probably shouldn't be firing a gun in the first place. Especially not if you're defending your home, where at-best they'll be 20 meters away if you own a mansion.

Also, no armour piercing rounds. If the people invading your home have body armour, you've made enough enemies to justify a properly authorized security force.

 

[OneCatch]

OT: I'd probably say non-concealable, non-military weapons are where to draw the line. Limited capacity, bolt or semi-automatic rifles, non-automatic shotguns. Perhaps allow handguns as well, but only open carry, and only allowed where you can demonstrate a legitimate need (professional bodyguards, low encumbrance hiking where there are dangerous animals, that kind of thing).

Maybe allow military weapons (crew served, fully automatic, etc) on licensed ranges for novelty shooting, but not for personal use.

That's idealised though - you wouldn't have a hope of legislating such a thing in America because other weapons are in such high circulation, not to mention the cultural element of firearm ownership there.

Well...high capacity is the magazine, not the weapon (assuming the weapon uses detachable magazines). Non-military semi-automatic rifles would include most assault weapons, such as AR-15s and civilian variants of AK variants and other weapons.

True, but you can legislate for magazine size as well. I'd envisage limiting magazine size or internal capacity to perhaps 5 or 6 rounds, thus neutering 'assault weapons' (generally the capacity for sustained fire rather than the actual weapon itself is what makes them difficult for law enforcement).
Alternatively, you could outlaw detachable magazines for semi-automatic weapons altogether in favour of clips or internal magazines.
Or you could outlaw the sale of assault weapons as well, though deciding on the definition would be rather difficult.

Again, this obviously isn't realistic for somewhere like the US because of the culture of firearm ownership already present.

 

[shootthebandit]

Knives are slightly different as their sole purpose is not necessarily to be used as a weapon but flick knives and butterfly knives should be illegal as they are intended for combat

Point of interest, would you outlaw the collection of swords as well? They are only intended for combat as well, and are very efficient at it.

yes they should be illegal, theyre primary function is that of a weapon.

of course someone could use a knife, metal pipe, baseball bat or a plank of wood as a VERY effective weapon but the primary purpose of these tools is not to be used as a weapon

 

[Lilani]

Assuming you're a law abiding citizen and have the funds for it, I don't see why you can't have any weapon your gun loving heart desires.

So you don't mind if a few billionaires stock up on nuclear warheads?

TEXTBOOK strawman fallacy. We're clearly talking about firearms here, not nuclear warheads. And seriously, if you're going to suggest that one person with an automatic weapon can cause anywhere near as much damage as a nuclear weapon, I'm going to have to ask you to step outside.

Strawman? What? I asked a question. Strawman is setting up a false "dummy" of your opponent and arguing against it instead of your actual opponent. Shadowstar had said "I don't see why you can't have any weapon your gun-loving heart desires," and while gun-loving was in there "weapon" is a very vague term. So I asked my question. It was based purely on his words, and I didn't even do any arguing one way or another. For all you know, I'm all for the private ownership of nuclear weapons. And nor did I say anything about how powerful they are as compared to automatic weapons. If anyone is strawmanning here, it's you. You're arguing against something I never said.

 

[Mausthemighty]

It's better to have no weapon at all. I'm totally against guns. I guess it's a part of the American culture that everyone needs to have a gun. Here in Europe we don't have guns, and I'm fine with that.

 

[shootthebandit]

its not the tools fault some people are insane fucks.

but if you give people effective tools it makes it easier for them to carry out their task. In this case the task is killing and by giving people a fire-arm it makes it easier to kill someone

 

[Cookiegerard]

As a person living in a country (Ireland), that it is completely illegal for a citizen to own a gun, christ, airsoft guns are still a really vague area as to if you can have one or not), I can see the need to use guns for hunting and self defence, but I think there is a line. If you use an assault rifle, or use armour piercing rounds to hunt deer, that's pushing it a little too far. Again, I've never been to America, so I don't know if it is just you can buy whatever the hell you want, or you have seriously big fucking deer.

 

[Thaluikhain]

A car is a very effective tool for killing people, as is evidenced by all the accidental vehicular deaths every year, if someone wanted to they could kill a lot of people with one. if its simply about removing possible tools of violence there are a lot of things we will need to get rid of.

Why then is the vehicular homicide rate much smaller than the firearms homicide rate?

I would say it's a lot easier to intentional kill a particular person with a firearm than a car, rather than ramming a crowd to kill randoms.

 

[shootthebandit]

its not the tools fault some people are insane fucks.

but if you give people effective tools it makes it easier for them to carry out their task. In this case the task is killing and by giving people a fire-arm it makes it easier to kill someone

A car is a very effective tool for killing people, as is evidenced by all the accidental vehicular deaths every year, if someone wanted to they could kill a lot of people with one. if its simply about removing possible tools of violence there are a lot of things we will need to get rid of.

like ive been saying all along if the primary purpose is to kill people it should be illegal. Of course its easy to kill someone with a car but in order to do that you would have to misuse the tool (be it accidental or on purpose)

 

[Thaluikhain]

This is true, but if you have a particular target in mind, particularly one that isn't weary of you, a knife is just an effective weapon as a rifle.

Well, then I'd compare the knife vs firearm homicide rates.

For that matter, attaching bayonets to rifles is going out of favour as well.

 

[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.

Also, I'd draw the line at mounted weapons and explosive ordinance.

It's better to have no weapon at all. I'm totally against guns. I guess it's a part of the American culture that everyone needs to have a gun. Here in Europe we don't have guns, and I'm fine with that.

...yes you do. Not too sure about the Netherlands, but I've been shot at in Germany and Romania within the past 7 years. I mean, I was kinda asking for it, wearing a US Army uniform and carrying an M4 while checking IDs at a gate (both times!)... but there are guns in Europe, both legally owned (I used to hang out with some German hunters) and illicit.

This is true, but if you have a particular target in mind, particularly one that isn't weary of you, a knife is just an effective weapon as a rifle.

Well, then I'd compare the knife vs firearm homicide rates.

For that matter, attaching bayonets to rifles is going out of favour as well.

Do that, and then check handguns versus all other firearms... then check knives versus all firearms except handguns. You might be a little shocked.

 

[The Event]

It isn't the type of gun, it's the person wielding it. If I'm OK with someone owning a shotgun then I'm fine with them also owning a pistol, a rifle or a machine gun.
So I'm for allowing people to own any type of gun providing they're licensed, the guns are registered to the owner and checked at renewal time (to prevent straw purchases etc)and they have to store them securely to prevent theft.

I'd even allow ownership of grenade launchers or bazookas but you would only be able to acquire and use explosive ammunition for them at appropriate ranges and could not remove them from the range. Storing explosives at domestic properties could be a bit unsafe in the event of fires.

 

[shootthebandit]

This is true, but if you have a particular target in mind, particularly one that isn't weary of you, a knife is just an effective weapon as a rifle.

That is of course very true but in order to use a knife effectively you have to get very close to the person and if your target is relatively fit and has some very basic hand to hand skills they could potentially disarm you. whereas a gun can kill easily someone at 25 meters (with very little training) and a good rifle can kill someone at about half a mile away (possibly more so with a skilled shooter). Not to mention you can only use a knife on one target at a time so against a few people you dont stand a chance, a rifle can carry a lot of rounds and can take multiple targets simultaneously.

 

[loc978]

This is true, but if you have a particular target in mind, particularly one that isn't weary of you, a knife is just an effective weapon as a rifle.

That is of course very true but in order to use a knife effectively you have to get very close to the person and if your target is relatively fit and has some very basic hand to hand skills they could potentially disarm you. whereas a gun can kill easily someone at 25 meters (with very little training) and a good rifle can kill someone at about half a mile away (possibly more so with a skilled shooter). Not to mention you can only use a knife on one target at a time so against a few people you dont stand a chance, a rifle can carry a lot of rounds and can take multiple targets simultaneously.

And yet... as big, obvious and loud as rifles tend to be, they're rarely used in crime. Almost never if the perpetrator doesn't intend to confront the police. Most criminals want to get away with what they're doing. For that they need something concealable (unless they're out in the middle of nowhere). This is why a knife or a handgun is more popular than a sword or a rifle.

 

[shootthebandit]

This is true, but if you have a particular target in mind, particularly one that isn't weary of you, a knife is just an effective weapon as a rifle.

That is of course very true but in order to use a knife effectively you have to get very close to the person and if your target is relatively fit and has some very basic hand to hand skills they could potentially disarm you. whereas a gun can kill easily someone at 25 meters (with very little training) and a good rifle can kill someone at about half a mile away (possibly more so with a skilled shooter). Not to mention you can only use a knife on one target at a time so against a few people you dont stand a chance, a rifle can carry a lot of rounds and can take multiple targets simultaneously.

And yet... as big, obvious and loud as rifles tend to be, they're rarely used in crime. Almost never if the perpetrator doesn't intend to confront the police. Most criminals want to get away with what they're doing. For that they need something concealable. This is why a knife or a handgun is more popular than a sword or a rifle.

I agree, chances are if someone came out you with a big rifle or a sword they would be trying to intimidate you rather than actually do any damage (i wouldnt like to hang around to find out though). The more i hang around here the more is start to agree with you

as i said before if it primary purpose is to kill it should be illegal. A handgun is obviously designed to kill a person but a rifle or shotgun has more sporting, hunting and pest control usage. so I think we can all agree that handguns should definately be illegal as they have very little use in hunting or pest control and designed to shoot people

however a rifle or shotgun can still be lethal in the wrong hands, if the law was strictly regulated then I dont see a problem with legality. In the UK the police do a good job of controlling it (of course theres still a lot that slip through the net) whereas with guns being so widely available in America it must be so difficult for the police and authorities to control the firearms properly.