Huh. That's interesting. I live in Ottawa and I would have said nearly the opposite to what you said. I've never even seen a gun all my life (I'm 22) and I cant remember the last time I heard about a gun crime in Ottawa.
So personally I'd say the gun control is working pretty well here.
As another Ottawa dweller I'll back that up. The only guns I've seen in the city were either ceremonial or being worn by cops. And I live one of the somewhat sketchy neighborhoods in the city too. Homeless people? Numerous. Guns? Not so much.
Give us stricter laws but make sure the people who are safe to won are capable of getting what they want, make sure people with any criminal record or mental issues can't get guns or can only own very small calibers like 22.'s.
First of all I'm not American, so I can't be sure, but don't you already have laws in place to prevent those with criminals obtaining guns legally?
But in the case of the later, I have to say that it's outright discrimination. What you're proposing is to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to that of criminals, just because of something beyond there control.
Canada doesn't allow the sale of any but hunting-type guns, really (there are exceptions), but people still get shot here all the damn time. My city is full of guns (not Toronto) and people are killed all the time. Banning guns doesn't work - it's all a societal and social issue. Most crimes wouldn't happen if the poor and marginalized people were better taken care of and given the same respect as everyone else. ... That gets into big issues, especially here in my city, though, as my city is incredibly racist. It's hard to deal with, how badly we treat certain peoples. I would go so far as to say we're as bad as the south 50 years ago - except it's all done under the guise of "political correctness". It's no wonder we're the murder capital of Canada.
DISCLAIMER: I'm British, I'm talking from a British perspective here, and will be talking about gun laws and how they would affect Britain.
I disagree. In Britain, guns are very much restricted. Handguns are, for all intents and purposes, completely illegal (since the Dunblane massacre), the only guns you may own are rifles and shotguns, because those are the guns needed by hunters and farmers.
Edit: Just to clarify, I support the British method of gun-control.
I see no reason for people to own handguns, other than "self defence", which I do not count as a valid reason (again, in Britain). When the general public is armed, the only outcome will be criminals arming themselves, which just leads to the police arming themselves.
ok to start with I believe the media is very much to blame for most peoples misconception about firearms. To start with most of the firearms used in recent shootings were semiauto, not fullauto(aka assault riffles). There are many other uses for a rifle or pistol other then self defence, and firmly believe that that is a piss poor reason for owning any. But saying we should ban them because of a few peoples irresponsible use of them or because a few people were not mental stable to begin with, does not solve anything. As they probably would have found another way to kill people. There has always been and always will be violence in human history, and banning firearms will not change this. Are we going to ban cars, or knives, or cigarettes? they kill more people a year then guns. Are we going to ban basball bats, metal pipes or 2x4s because they are used in crimes? No probably not, so whether or not you see the point of people owning firearms, it is stupid to punish those in society that use them with in the law because of those who do not. Taking away firearms from members of society who obey the laws will not stop criminals. When was the last time you saw a criminal care about the law?
I think the conclusion should be its absurd to own anything other than a handgun unless you're a licensed huntsman which should allow you a rifle, or a soldier which should allow you any weapon you've been trained to use as long as you're on duty.
Handguns are more concealable than rifles. Rifles have sporting purpose, such as precision shooting at long ranges (handguns also allow sporting purpose, of course).
Most gun crimes are committed by handguns.
M-E-D The Poet said:
For example : A M1911 with 1-3 clips is by law acceptable and registered to the person that owns it, an AK74 is now banned under all circumstances.
Civilian ownership of NEW machine guns (which includes assault rifles) has been banned since 1986 which only allows weapons grandfathered by the ATF registry to be owned - in the event of a their destruction (or even the destruction of the registered receiver) they will be NOT replaced which makes them TOO EXPENSIVE for criminals to obtain. They also require a VERY expensive background check in which the ATF will investigate your life and determine if you are suitable to own a machine-gun.
TL;DR: you were kind of hasty to say that you had a "simple" solution. And I say hasty so that I don't have to get a warning.
I respect your opinions, but please take some time to actually learn some about the subject you are talking about before trying to pass your opinions as valid.
orangeban said:
I see no reason for people to own handguns, other than "self defence", which I do not count as a valid reason (again, in Britain). When the general public is armed, the only outcome will be criminals arming themselves, which just leads to the police arming themselves.
Look, just because you are British that doesn't mean you have to agree with the rest of the country. Handguns are legit for competition and as quick "dispatchers" during hunting (so that you don't have to waste a 2? high powered round at close range, causing a huge mess).
Anyway, what caught my attention was that of all the citizens, criminals and police, the ones that you want armed the least are the police.
Was that a "Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking" joke or an actual concern?
I think the conclusion should be its absurd to own anything other than a handgun unless you're a licensed huntsman which should allow you a rifle, or a soldier which should allow you any weapon you've been trained to use as long as you're on duty.
Handguns are more concealable than rifles. Rifles have sporting purpose, such as precision shooting at long ranges (handguns also allow sporting purpose, of course).
Most gun crimes are committed by handguns.
M-E-D The Poet said:
For example : A M1911 with 1-3 clips is by law acceptable and registered to the person that owns it, an AK74 is now banned under all circumstances.
Civilian ownership of NEW machine guns (which includes assault rifles) has been banned since 1986 which only allows weapons grandfathered by the ATF registry to be owned - in the event of a their destruction (or even the destruction of the registered receiver) they will be NOT replaced which makes them TOO EXPENSIVE for criminals to obtain. They also require a VERY expensive background check in which the ATF will investigate your life and determine if you are suitable to own a machine-gun.
TL;DR: you were kind of hasty to say that you had a "simple" solution. And I say hasty so that I don't have to get a warning.
I respect your opinions, but please take some time to actually learn some about the subject you are talking about before trying to pass your opinions as valid.
orangeban said:
I see no reason for people to own handguns, other than "self defence", which I do not count as a valid reason (again, in Britain). When the general public is armed, the only outcome will be criminals arming themselves, which just leads to the police arming themselves.
Look, just because you are British that doesn't mean you have to agree with the rest of the country. Handguns are legit for competition and as quick "dispatchers" during hunting (so that you don't have to waste a 2? high powered round at close range, causing a huge mess).
Anyway, what caught my attention was that of all the citizens, criminals and police, the ones that you want armed the least are the police.
Was that a "Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking" joke or an actual concern?
Canada doesn't allow the sale of any but hunting-type guns, really (there are exceptions), but people still get shot here all the damn time. My city is full of guns (not Toronto) and people are killed all the time. Banning guns doesn't work - it's all a societal and social issue. Most crimes wouldn't happen if the poor and marginalized people were better taken care of and given the same respect as everyone else. ... That gets into big issues, especially here in my city, though, as my city is incredibly racist. It's hard to deal with, how badly we treat certain peoples. I would go so far as to say we're as bad as the south 50 years ago - except it's all done under the guise of "political correctness". It's no wonder we're the murder capital of Canada.
what city might you be in, sir? im just curious, and we were always taught that toronto [where i live] was the most dangerous city in canada, because we have a lot of projects, including the terrible area of jane and finch.
Why? Because my grandpa trained me to fire a gun when I was 8, and him and my dad hammered it into me that while they are tools, they can be dangerous if used in the wrong way? Most gun owners realize that. It just seems like people dont because the stupid/crazy/violent ones are the only ones to make the news. You could try and make guns less common based on that, but its like the old saying goes "You cant legislate stupid." The only thing I could think of to fix that would be include a gun safetly coarse in school, but of course the anti-gun people would flip shit (outside the South/Midwest anyway). I know at my school we had a hunter safetly course because it is something so common around here, so why not guns.
Call me stupid but the M1 garand was what I thought of when I was thinking about guns that could be used for hunting (Although I'm assuming it absolutely isn't anything in that category but it's an example)
Please don't kill me for making the M1 Garand=Hunting rifle argument I just simply have no clue what all these other guns are called I'm simply looking at the weapon type that works in this particular way.
Well, technecally, there is no such thing as "classes" of guns, and most of them are very aribtrary, unless you are talking about the firing style (full-auto, bolt-action, single-action, etc.). But you can use any gun for any reason given enough training. For instance, you said that the Garand would be good for hunting. While I am sure there are people who use it for that, the thing weighs 9.5 lbs. For a gun, that is pretty heavy. (another popular hunting rifle, the Remington 700, weighs only 4 lbs, for example).
Pistols: Can range from being just slightly better than throwing your shoe at them to handcannon. Its all in the gun. Mag sizes can range from 6 shots-22 shots.
Revolvers: The original handcannon. Usually very powerful and using high-caliber "magnum" rounds. Cylinders usually number 5 or 6 shots, but some can go higher (highest I know of is 9 shots+1 shotgun shell)
Shotgun: WILL destroy ANYTHING at close range. Spread increases power and accuracy at short range, but makes it lose range very quickly. Usually holds 8 shots. Can be pump-action, lever-action, or semi-auto.
Bolt Action Rifle: Very good for long range shooting, and usually using high-caliber rounds. They, however, have very slow rates of fire and small mags. Usually only has 5 shots, and you have to work the bolt before firing another shot. Also have a tendency to be TOO accurate in CQB.
Semi-Auto Rifle: Good all-arounders. Decent rate of fire, mag size, and accuracy.
Full-Autos: More Dakka, More Dakka, and More Dakka. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoreDakka] And what is this thing you refer to as "accuracy"?
But since your beef seems to be with Full-Autos, I will let you in on a little secret...They are fricking expensive to get legally, even in the states where they are legal. For instance, my state of Kansas allows ownership of full-auto rifles[footnote]And while I am not trying to say corrilation, it is worth noting we have not had a single mass shooting here for quite some time, dispite the fact you can legally own a machinegun.[/footnote]. I would love to have an M14 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle], the assualt rifle version of M1. However, I want it only because I like the design of it, and I dont want to pay out the nose and fill out ATF paperwork for something that is just going to sit on my wall and look pretty. How much is it? $5,000+$200 tax to ATF+Local Sales Tax (thats 8.8% at my house)+Month long wait on background checks. NOT worth it. Ill just get the Airsoft version. Just to further prove my point about expense, here is a show from the discovery channel
....But you only really need to see the first 4 min unless you want to see the whole thing.
Done? Ok. Now, tell me, is someone who is dropping $150,000 on a gun likely to be the type of person robbing a bank with said gun? No, I think not.
Anyway, your new ideas do not change the fact that shotguns fire multiple projectiles comparable to handgun rounds.
Barrels and stocks can be sawn-off, making a shotgun as concealable as a pistol.
If you buy a rifled barrel/use slugs on smoothbore barrel you have now turned your shotgun in something comparable to a rifle.
There is no reason to restrict bolt action rifles. They are too long to be concealable and shortening one is asking to get a sore wrist from all the recoil.
You didn't even mention pump action rifles and level-action rifles.
You also failed to mention how would you ban weapons that are not registered and can just be hidden from the police.
Forcing a buyback would cost millions or even billions. Not enforcing a buyback would lead people to sell their guns on the black market to recover their investment.
>soldiers on duty use the firearms they were issued, and not every time they are on duty they have to carry firearms
>most of the restrictions are against the second amendment
>a rifle at the range is useless if you have to defend yourself
>shooters are ALREADY SUPPOSED TO UNLOAD THEIR GUNS when they leave the range
>limiting the amount of ammunition is silly. People need ammunition for training. Someone shooting on his private range would have to run back to the city to buy more ammo. PLUS, LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF AMMUNITION IS USELESS WHEN LOTS OF PEOPLE CAN JUST RELOAD SPENT AMUNTION IF THEY WANT TO STOCKPILE.
TL;DR: yet again you have tried to pass your opinions as a "simple" sollution
At the same time you want to restrict people's hunting, you allow them to have a supply of ammo because "you don't know how skilled he is". THEN WHAT IS THE POINT OF LICENSING AND REGISTERING EVERYTHING?
10/10.
Yes, I am mad. You're free to suggest those laws to your country. BUT AT LEARN LEARN A FEW THINGS ABOUT GUNS AND SHOOTING if you're actually serious.
Canada doesn't allow the sale of any but hunting-type guns, really (there are exceptions), but people still get shot here all the damn time. My city is full of guns (not Toronto) and people are killed all the time. Banning guns doesn't work - it's all a societal and social issue. Most crimes wouldn't happen if the poor and marginalized people were better taken care of and given the same respect as everyone else. ... That gets into big issues, especially here in my city, though, as my city is incredibly racist. It's hard to deal with, how badly we treat certain peoples. I would go so far as to say we're as bad as the south 50 years ago - except it's all done under the guise of "political correctness". It's no wonder we're the murder capital of Canada.
not meaning to be insulting, but you should take a second look at the law regarding firearms in Canada. yes we do have very strict laws, but we can buy Handguns in Canada, provided you meet the licencing requirements and do not have a criminal record, as well as different types of riffles(not full auto as they are prohibited by law). I do agree with you on the treatment of marginalized peoples, and i have always argued that this is why we need a national cost of living wage in Canada. As in my opinion it would mean less people living in poverty and desperation, thus less crime and a lower national debt. There is unfortunately a lot of racism in Canada that a lot of people don't see or acknowledge, and it is not even just towards visible minorities. A lot of people are pushed to crime because they have no other option. sorry for the bit off topic.
Only problem is handguns are easy to conceal and are designed for shooting people.
Here is how we do it in New Zealand:
Categories of firearms
Firearms in New Zealand fall into one of four categories:
Pistols are firearms shorter than 762 mm (30 in).
Restricted Weapons include machine guns, selective-fire assault rifles, grenades and rocket launchers. This category also includes some non-firearm weapons such as pepper spray. Cabinet can declare things to be restricted weapons by regulation.
Military-Style Semi-Automatics (MSSAs) include semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have one or more of the following components:
A folding or telescopic butt
A bayonet lug
A military pattern free-standing pistol grip
A flash suppressor
A magazine that holds (or looks like it could hold) more than 15 rounds of .22 rimfire ammunition or 7 rounds of a centrefire calibre.
A Category firearms are those that do not fall into any other category, and are the vast majority of legally-owned firearms in New Zealand.
Registration is not required under the law but the police carry out a regime similar to registration for all but "A Category" firearms. Firearms in any other category require a "permit to procure" before they are transferred.
Except under supervision of a licence holder, owning or using firearms requires a firearms licence from the police. The licence is normally issued, under the conditions that the applicant has secure storage for firearms, attends a safety lecture and passes a written safety test. The police will also interview the applicant and two referees (one must be a close relative and the other not related) to determine whether the applicant is "fit and proper" to have a firearm. The applicant's residence is also visited to check that they have appropriate storage for firearms and ammunition. Having criminal associations or a history of domestic violence almost always leads to a licence being declined.
A standard firearms licence allows the use of "A Category" firearms. To possess firearms of another category a person is required to get an endorsement to their licence. There are different endorsements for different classes of firearm but they all require a higher level of storage security, stricter vetting requirements and the applicant must have a 'special reason' for wanting the endorsement.
Each endorsement type has additional requirements
B Endorsement - Target (Competition) pistols
Applicant must be a current member of a pistol club, a financial member of Pistol New Zealand (or in some cases membership of an approved club) and have attended at least 12 club shoots in the last 6 months before they can apply
Applicant must be sponsored by their club
The endorsement holder must attend at least 12 club activities (either at their home club or to another recognised club) in a financial year
Normally limited to no more than 12 pistols registered to their licence
Pistols must be of an approved sporting type i.e. barrel length of more than 10 cm (3.9 in)
Pistols can only be carried to and from the range in a locked container with ammunition in a separate container or to a gunsmith
Pistols may only be shot on a Police approved pistol club range.
C Endorsement - Restricted Weapons Pistols can also be held on the C endorsement instead of the B. Common special reasons include:
Collecting (must provide evidence in the form of books, club membership, collection of A type firearms), Museum curator, Family heirlooms and Theatrical.
C category firearms must be stored in an inoperable condition
Can never be used with live ammunition, but blanks are allowed for movie making and re-enacting
Can only be taken to an approved display venue, re-enactment event or to another collector for sale.
D Endorsement - Dealers licence
For those that make an income from firearms. To sell restricted weapons the dealer also needs to have the appropriate endorsements.
Renewed annually
Further security requirements
Must maintain a record (usually a book or register) of firearm purchases and sales.
E Endorsement - Military Style Semi-Automatics (M.S.S.A)
New class of restricted weapon that was created after the Aramoana tragedy. At the time anyone with an M.S.S.A that wanted to keep it in that configuration was given a E endorsement (after going through the vetting and extra security requirements). But presently few are issued. Common reasons for wanting an E endorsement are professional pest destruction, collecting, 3-gun and service rifle shooting. Those people that did not want the extra hassle and expense of the endorsement converted their rifles into 'A' configuration by removing the components that made it an 'E'.
F Endorsement - Dealers Staff Licence
This class allows a person working for a dealer to demonstrate a Pistol, Military Style Semi Automatic or a Collectable weapon without having to have that class of licence. They can demonstrate one but not possess one for personal use. This is not a well known endorsement
[edit]Buying and selling
Anyone buying firearms or ammunition, whether privately or from a dealer, needs to show their firearms licence. In addition, a permit to procure must be obtained prior to the transfer of pistols, military-style semi-automatics and restricted weapons. Sales can be made by mail-order, but a police officer must sign the order form to verify that the purchaser has a firearms licence.
All seems pretty logical. Our gun crime rate is very low.
The point about handguns is that it comes down to the "But I want to be able to protect myself" argument that the gun lovers come to and in my opinion have every right to do so (Under heavy legislation).
As far as I can tell Handguns are indeed easy to conceal, but they're also easy to defend against (Martial arts) and there is a good decent way to keep track of them.
So under heavy legislation a handgun should be fine.
Yes, shots will still be fired but we'll know who's done it and it won't be as casualty heavy as it was before.
I also argue for a limit on clips to that purpose because there's simply no need to be carrying around enough ammo to down the army.
I have no problem with people being able to have handguns. I just think it's foolish to allow them to be the default entry level gun type that people can get. As handguns are in most cases designed for shooting people there should be extra processes and checks that someone has to be subjected to before they can be assigned the privilege of being able to own a handgun. I'm sure the "I need protection" group agree that criminals should be prevented from owning guns and therefore should have no problem with going through a rigorous process to separate themselves from the rest.
Well have you ever shot a firearm on a range? You'd know how fucking awesome that is and why so many people want one.
Criminals obtain a shipload of M4s and use it to kill and intimidate people, regardless of whether it's legal or not.
Have you seen how profitable slavery is and how many business owners would want to employ slave labour?
And if you keep slavery banned, criminals will still do it anyway. And with responsible use of your slaves, nobody will get hurt. Slaves don't get harmed, people harm people. Slavery doesn't contribute to that.
Clearly this proves slavery should be legalised again in the US.
I have no problem with people being able to have handguns. I just think it's foolish to allow them to be the default entry level gun type that people can get. As handguns are in most cases designed for shooting people there should be extra processes and checks that someone has to be subjected to before they can be assigned the privilege of being able to own a handgun. I'm sure the "I need protection" group agree that criminals should be prevented from owning guns and therefore should have no problem with going through a rigorous process to separate themselves from the rest.
Depending upon how you choose to define rigorous in this context, yes.
There is a segment that would apparently like to see guns sold basically on a whim, with few if any checks in place. But the majority of us are well aware why they exist and could willingly deal with more, at least so long as they make sense.
In fact, I would like to see a handgun licensee go through a process similar to what is currently required for concealed carry, though not quite as rigorous. Part of the concept behind the guns for self defense crowd is that a moderately trained and equipped individual is capable of protecting others, both directly and indirectly. However, an individual with zilch training with a gun is potentially more of a danger to himself and others than criminals ever were.
Anyway, your new ideas do not change the fact that shotguns fire multiple projectiles comparable to handgun rounds.
Barrels and stocks can be sawn-off, making a shotgun as concealable as a pistol.
If you buy a rifled barrel/use slugs on smoothbore barrel you have now turned your shotgun in something comparable to a rifle.
There is no reason to restrict bolt action rifles. They are too long to be concealable and shortening one is asking to get a sore wrist from all the recoil.
You didn't even mention pump action rifles and level-action rifles.
You also failed to mention how would you ban weapons that are not registered and can just be hidden from the police.
Forcing a buyback would cost millions or even billions. Not enforcing a buyback would lead people to sell their guns on the black market to recover their investment.
>soldiers on duty use the firearms they were issued, and not every time they are on duty they have to carry firearms
>most of the restrictions are against the second amendment
>a rifle at the range is useless if you have to defend yourself
>shooters are ALREADY SUPPOSED TO UNLOAD THEIR GUNS when they leave the range
>limiting the amount of ammunition is silly. People need ammunition for training. Someone shooting on his private range would have to run back to the city to buy more ammo. PLUS, LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF AMMUNITION IS USELESS WHEN LOTS OF PEOPLE CAN JUST RELOAD SPENT AMUNTION IF THEY WANT TO STOCKPILE.
TL;DR: yet again you have tried to pass your opinions as a "simple" sollution
At the same time you want to restrict people's hunting, you allow them to have a supply of ammo because "you don't know how skilled he is". THEN WHAT IS THE POINT OF LICENSING AND REGISTERING EVERYTHING?
10/10.
Yes, I am mad. You're free to suggest those laws to your country. BUT AT LEARN LEARN A FEW THINGS ABOUT GUNS AND SHOOTING if you're actually serious.
Dude would you stop?
I've already documented in my responses that I have no accurate knowledge of the guns and any new info is handy (Although I knew about Bolt-Action etc but I wasn't sure if that was from games and didn't want to come off a laughing stock with you guys with throwing faulty terms into the pit)
The huntsman argument was worded a bit faulty yeah, what I meant was : how about we don't allow people to walk around with more ammo than they could possibly need?
but then again this is all just an idea to put a halt to all the "BAN ALL GUNS" discussion to satisfy both sides.
also : your arguments and rage took over when you shouted the 2nd amendment at me, this is no argument whatsoever and this is exactly what we're looking to change here.
I respect your views and your constitution but don't defend yourself with that as a divine shield, if the second amendment was "Kill all firstbornes" and I came to take your son and you would want to change that law you wouldn't be there sitting "Yes sir! it's in the constitution sir!"
Now I don't know if you've noticed it but the Anti-Gun crowd views every gun-owner as a potential murderer you have to reach a middle ground here.
Why? Because my grandpa trained me to fire a gun when I was 8, and him and my dad hammered it into me that while they are tools, they can be dangerous if used in the wrong way? Most gun owners realize that. It just seems like people dont because the stupid/crazy/violent ones are the only ones to make the news. You could try and make guns less common based on that, but its like the old saying goes "You cant legislate stupid." The only thing I could think of to fix that would be include a gun safetly coarse in school, but of course the anti-gun people would flip shit (outside the South/Midwest anyway). I know at my school we had a hunter safetly course because it is something so common around here, so why not guns.
Call me stupid but the M1 garand was what I thought of when I was thinking about guns that could be used for hunting (Although I'm assuming it absolutely isn't anything in that category but it's an example)
Please don't kill me for making the M1 Garand=Hunting rifle argument I just simply have no clue what all these other guns are called I'm simply looking at the weapon type that works in this particular way.
Well, technecally, there is no such thing as "classes" of guns, and most of them are very aribtrary, unless you are talking about the firing style (full-auto, bolt-action, single-action, etc.). But you can use any gun for any reason given enough training. For instance, you said that the Garand would be good for hunting. While I am sure there are people who use it for that, the thing weighs 9.5 lbs. For a gun, that is pretty heavy. (another popular hunting rifle, the Remington 700, weighs only 4 lbs, for example).
Pistols: Can range from being just slightly better than throwing your shoe at them to handcannon. Its all in the gun. Mag sizes can range from 6 shots-22 shots.
Revolvers: The original handcannon. Usually very powerful and using high-caliber "magnum" rounds. Cylinders usually number 5 or 6 shots, but some can go higher (highest I know of is 9 shots+1 shotgun shell)
Shotgun: WILL destroy ANYTHING at close range. Spread increases power and accuracy at short range, but makes it lose range very quickly. Usually holds 8 shots. Can be pump-action, lever-action, or semi-auto.
Bolt Action Rifle: Very good for long range shooting, and usually using high-caliber rounds. They, however, have very slow rates of fire and small mags. Usually only has 5 shots, and you have to work the bolt before firing another shot. Also have a tendency to be TOO accurate in CQB.
Semi-Auto Rifle: Good all-arounders. Decent rate of fire, mag size, and accuracy.
Full-Autos: More Dakka, More Dakka, and More Dakka. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoreDakka] And what is this thing you refer to as "accuracy"?
But since your beef seems to be with Full-Autos, I will let you in on a little secret...They are fricking expensive to get legally, even in the states where they are legal. For instance, my state of Kansas allows ownership of full-auto rifles[footnote]And while I am not trying to say corrilation, it is worth noting we have not had a single mass shooting here for quite some time, dispite the fact you can legally own a machinegun.[/footnote]. I would love to have an M14 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle], the assualt rifle version of M1. However, I want it only because I like the design of it, and I dont want to pay out the nose and fill out ATF paperwork for something that is just going to sit on my wall and look pretty. How much is it? $5,000+$200 tax to ATF+Local Sales Tax (thats 8.8% at my house)+Month long wait on background checks. NOT worth it. Ill just get the Airsoft version. Just to further prove my point about expense, here is a show from the discovery channel
....But you only really need to see the first 4 min unless you want to see the whole thing.
Done? Ok. Now, tell me, is someone who is dropping $150,000 on a gun likely to be the type of person robbing a bank with said gun? No, I think not.
Well see you've definitively given me more insight into the matter.
My beef is not plainly with "Full Automatic's" , actually my Beef isn't with anything.
My thread here wasn't the "final solution" it was meant to be an opening for there to be a middle ground.
There are people out there fighting so that you can no longer have ANY guns.
I want with the help of decent intelligent understanding gun owners like you to reach a middle ground in this discussion in this "fight".
What I'm asking for is simply this keep guns legal but change some things in legislation and take some absurd options off the market, don't just keep track of what guns people are buying but what and where they're using them.
Now you may see this as someone interfering with your privacy, but you cannot deny that a gun is a tool developed to shoot people, the tool gun is meant to have the result Kill when utilized.
Be it animal or Human that's what guns do.
I've seen people here who told me "YOU WOULDN'T GO BANNING BATS/CROWBARS NOW WOULD YOU?"
Well no, bats are used primarily in baseball which is a sport children play and crowbars are tools used for fixing things,opening things etc.
You get my point, any man who says a gun was not meant to shoot and kill probably cuts his bread with a sword and heats his house with nuclear waste because you know that's what you could also use those things for.
Dude would you stop?
I've already documented in my responses that I have no accurate knowledge of the guns and any new info is handy (Although I knew about Bolt-Action etc but I wasn't sure if that was from games and didn't want to come off a laughing stock with you guys with throwing faulty terms into the pit)
The huntsman argument was worded a bit faulty yeah, what I meant was : how about we don't allow people to walk around with more ammo than they could possibly need?
but then again this is all just an idea to put a halt to all the "BAN ALL GUNS" discussion to satisfy both sides.
also : your arguments and rage took over when you shouted the 2nd amendment at me, this is no argument whatsoever and this is exactly what we're looking to change here.
I respect your views and your constitution but don't defend yourself with that as a divine shield, if the second amendment was "Kill all firstbornes" and I came to take your son and you would want to change that law you wouldn't be there sitting "Yes sir! it's in the constitution sir!"
Now I don't know if you've noticed it but the Anti-Gun crowd views every gun-owner as a potential murderer you have to reach a middle ground here.
Look, I for one applaud the attempt to find some middle ground. It feels like an uphill battle to convince people for heavy regulation or outright bans that your average legal gun owner is NOT Yosemite Sam waiting every night by his door just a-hopin' that someone will try to break in.
But let's talk facts. Regulating ammo is inefficient as a law. First, any yahoo with internet access can make his own ammo easily if he has a mind to. Also 'more ammo than you could possibly need' can be a bit misleading.
How much could I possibly need in a given space? Well I can easily go through 50 shells after one day at the range. Say I'm a guy with disposable income who likes to practice regularly (once a week), that's 200 shells a month/2,400 shells a year. Is that more than I could possibly need? Is that really even unreasonable?
What about pistol or rifle ammo (far cheaper in many cases) with the regimen I just outlined (just for practice, not for practical applications) one could go through maybe 8,000 rounds in a year. Is that unreasonable?
But I do think they are just a symptom of America's problem, not the cause.
Most first world countries have lower crime rates, esp. murder. So clearly the protective factor of weapons is questionable. But some of these countries (most notably of course Switzerland) have comparable gun ownership rates, so guns are not an automatic death guarantee.
It seems to be the American psyche and the American society, that are at the root of this problem.
In those other countries, there would not be a discussion about whether open carry would have ended the latest shooting spree sooner.
Give us stricter laws but make sure the people who are safe to won are capable of getting what they want, make sure people with any criminal record or mental issues can't get guns or can only own very small calibers like 22.'s.
First of all I'm not American, so I can't be sure, but don't you already have laws in place to prevent those with criminals obtaining guns legally?
But in the case of the later, I have to say that it's outright discrimination. What you're proposing is to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to that of criminals, just because of something beyond there control.
Well that's a point I get tired of arguing, most of the weapons criminal's use are obtained illegally, especially most of the assault weapons and full auto's.
But as far the the mentally ill you should know what I mean, I don't want to take guns away from autistic's I mean form those who have been maybe been diagnosed with anger issues or bi-polar disorder. I understand that it's not my grandma's fault she's bi-polar but I don't want to be afraid of her blowing her brains or actually hurting someone else in one of her violent episodes.
There is very little difference between <link=http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/firearms-images-products-437l.jpg>this and <link=http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/ar15.jpeg>this other than cosmetics. Yet the former is subjected to heavy regulations and laws because it's regarded as an "Assault Weapon", even though it is nearly identical to the former (Aside from the action and furniture). Both of them are chambered in .223 Remington and 5.56x45 NATOYou can chamber a .223 in a 5.56mm rifle, but not the other way around, pressure differentials., both of them have nearly the same barrel length, have nearly endless after market upgrades, both internal and external, and are both used as hunting rifles. Automatic Weapons have been heavily regulated since the mid-1930s, requiring them to be registered and owned with a $200 tax stamp, they were then banned outright in 1986, making it illegal to produce FA weapons and sell on the civilian market and illegal to own one made after May of 1986. The 1986 NFA was something the NRA supported.SBR (Short Barreled Rifles) and SBS (Short Barreled Shotguns) were also regulated in the 1930s NFA.
Generally when theirs a shooting in a public place, such as the Aurora Shooting, the media is quick to jump all over it and fling around terms like "Assault Weapon" and "100 capacity clips"Which is incorrect terminology. and generally scaring the millions of people who have never been around a firearm into thinking that they're only used for evil. What they're failing to mention is that the high capacity magazines, are the reason the shooter's AR jammed, along with the poorly manufactured brand he bought. Instead of bringing one or two of <link=http://www.bravocompanyusa.com//v/vspfiles/photos/BETA%20C-MAG%20SYSTEM%20M16%20XV-2T.jpg>these and brought ten to twenty of <link=http://www.policestore.com/userdocs/skus/p_078000160_1.jpg>these, it could have ended a lot worse. Quantity does not always equal quality. I see no reason why any sane individual should not be allowed to own anything up to a <link=http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m249saw-2.jpg>theseGranted he can prove to the gov't that he will not be a harm to himself or others with it..
You want to stop gun crime? Make it harder for crazed individuals/criminals to get their hands on them without punishing the law abiding citizen. Making it harder to file off serial numbers would be a good start, as well as making mental health centers far more available.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
