Guns : A simple solution

[omega 616]

how about we ban knives? baseball bats? fists and feet? we can chop em off they are deadly weapons, there will always be sociopaths, psychos, and morons that will do heinous things, but condemning a whole society on the actions if a extreme minority like it is some epidemic. just grow up.

we can argue that if people were allowed to carry that theater thing would never went down, or that the person that did it would have thought twice about the uncertainty of maybe half the theater was armed.

Knives are designed to cut food, baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, fists and feet ... Guns are designed to kill in the quickest way possible. That is the difference, always thought this argument was stupid 'cos sure everything can kill if used wrongly but a gun used correctly kills people!

Are you trying to argue that people who are surrounded by smoke are able to effectively determine who the attacker is in the panic, then accurately shoot the attacker without harming an innocent? This isn't hollywood.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

how about we ban knives? baseball bats? fists and feet? we can chop em off they are deadly weapons, there will always be sociopaths, psychos, and morons that will do heinous things, but condemning a whole society on the actions if a extreme minority like it is some epidemic. just grow up.

we can argue that if people were allowed to carry that theater thing would never went down, or that the person that did it would have thought twice about the uncertainty of maybe half the theater was armed.

Knives are designed to cut food, baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, fists and feet ... Guns are designed to kill in the quickest way possible. That is the difference, always thought this argument was stupid 'cos sure everything can kill if used wrongly but a gun used correctly kills people!

Are you trying to argue that people who are surrounded by smoke are able to effectively determine who the attacker is in the panic, then accurately shoot the attacker without harming an innocent? This isn't hollywood.

Dose not matter, they are all weapons.
Also cars kill more people yearly than firearms, so going after firearms is disingenuous.

 

[omega 616]

how about we ban knives? baseball bats? fists and feet? we can chop em off they are deadly weapons, there will always be sociopaths, psychos, and morons that will do heinous things, but condemning a whole society on the actions if a extreme minority like it is some epidemic. just grow up.

we can argue that if people were allowed to carry that theater thing would never went down, or that the person that did it would have thought twice about the uncertainty of maybe half the theater was armed.

Knives are designed to cut food, baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, fists and feet ... Guns are designed to kill in the quickest way possible. That is the difference, always thought this argument was stupid 'cos sure everything can kill if used wrongly but a gun used correctly kills people!

Are you trying to argue that people who are surrounded by smoke are able to effectively determine who the attacker is in the panic, then accurately shoot the attacker without harming an innocent? This isn't hollywood.

Dose not matter, they are all weapons.
Also cars kill more people yearly than firearms, so going after firearms is disingenuous.

That is not the point, humans like to believe we are some civilized race but we think it's perfectly okay to make and carry things that's only reason for being is to kill? We aren't even half way to civilized 'cos it's not like we are only carrying guns in war zones, we are carrying them to the super market ...

 

[Madman123456]

Well, everyone can have a gun and those who want some already have one or more. You can't outlaw them now because then a big black market would spring up that will supply People with Guns to do whatever they want with them.

This Problem may persist until we have non lethal Weapons that have a better Range and are cheaper as well as more accurate. Guns will be around in America until we have Phasers.


One thing the U.S. could do is to make buying and owning a Gun harder. Put a tax on the Guns and ammo. People with financial Problems who still want to have a gun but can't afford them now should be able to present their yearly income and get the Gun taxfree, which would be mentioned where the Gun is registered.

More taxes for Ammo. For Practise, you go to a shooting range where you pay for the ammo you use tax free. Actually, Practise at a shooting Range should be mandatory before you can take your Gun home.
At least for new soon to be gun owners.
Back to ammo-tax:
Shooting Cans in your Garden will cost you twice as much per round.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

how about we ban knives? baseball bats? fists and feet? we can chop em off they are deadly weapons, there will always be sociopaths, psychos, and morons that will do heinous things, but condemning a whole society on the actions if a extreme minority like it is some epidemic. just grow up.

we can argue that if people were allowed to carry that theater thing would never went down, or that the person that did it would have thought twice about the uncertainty of maybe half the theater was armed.

Knives are designed to cut food, baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, fists and feet ... Guns are designed to kill in the quickest way possible. That is the difference, always thought this argument was stupid 'cos sure everything can kill if used wrongly but a gun used correctly kills people!

Are you trying to argue that people who are surrounded by smoke are able to effectively determine who the attacker is in the panic, then accurately shoot the attacker without harming an innocent? This isn't hollywood.

Dose not matter, they are all weapons.
Also cars kill more people yearly than firearms, so going after firearms is disingenuous.

That is not the point, humans like to believe we are some civilized race but we think it's perfectly okay to make and carry things that's only reason for being is to kill? We aren't even half way to civilized 'cos it's not like we are only carrying guns in war zones, we are carrying them to the super market ...

That is the point, humans will use anything to kill each other with and statistically non weapons kill more people than weapons.

Banning is just a slippery slope that always seeks to ban something else, its the easy road humanity loves to take. Its silly to think things will become better just by taking that path.

 

[Dastardly]

Okay I'll ask again sir : Why SHOULD you be allowed to own anything other than a handgun for self defense or a rifle for hunting?

Why SHOULD people be allowed to have kids without permission or licensure? You see, you're taking the wrong approach to rights.

When making a law (which is a limit of rights), the burden of proof is on the people making the law. If the law cannot provide a compelling reason why law-abiding, responsible citizens should be able to own an M-16, or a hundred 9mm handguns, or whatever else, the right remains with the people.

When we start demanding that the public defend their rights, placing the burden of proof on them, we give the law (and thus government) infinite power over us. Because at that point, ANY right can be yanked away for some "greater good."

So, to answer your question: I SHOULD be allowed to own guns other than handguns because no one has demonstrated to any degree that I am a criminal, or that I have or will do anything wrong with those items.

But I'll counter your question: Since, as it is, nearly every single crime that involves guns comes back to handguns and hunting rifles (I'm going to group shotguns in there, because they are widely used for hunting), why are you looking to ban everything else?

Or do you tell me you think everyone should have nukes too? I mean we're constantly telling Iran they shouldn't ever dare to get nuclear weaponry but hey when they have nukes it doesn't mean they intent to use them right?

It's a difference of scale, and it's extremely easy to tell the difference (if you're not being intentionally ignorant).

Guns are legitimate defensive weapons, because guns are only effective within a certain territorial range of the person. You have to be able to see the target, and you fire from within that same visual range. Furthermore, their damage is focused and reasonably predictable (one bullet goes to one target). As such, it can easily be argued that these are defensive weapons -- they are limited by effective range and low likelihood of collateral damage.

There is no legitimate argument that a nuke is a defensive weapon for an individual. You can't use a nuke on anyone within visible range, because you'd kill yourself, too, not to mention the severe collateral damage. You can't accurately predict the total damage, so you can't be even remotely sure it's only affecting the intended target. So, widely-targeted weapon that can only be used from very, very far away? Clearly no argument can be made that it is a defensive weapon.

Grenades? Same thing. RPGs? Same thing. See how easy it is to tell the difference when you look at the real-life function of these weapons in a clear, reasoned way? So, we're not perched on any kind of slippery slope by allowing Joe Blow to own a semi-automatic AK-47 (which is effectively no different from a plain ol' Remington hunting rifle, except in apperance).

 

[WanderingFool]

Sounds decent enough, but still pretty off.

My own thoughts:

1: Any weapons that have the ability of automatic fire, anything that can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger, are banned. If you have to pull the trigger with every round, its fine, if you can fire two or more bullets with one pull of the trigger, its banned.

2: Any weapon that can cause great amounts of damage per round spent, this is there for grenade and rocket launchers. God knows how a person would get one, but its there regardless.

3: Any semi-automatic weapon that could be converted into a full-auto must be given a greater level of checks, the weapon's manufacturer must examine the semi-auto weapon in question to see if it could or can be converted, and inform the government so as to apply the necessary level of restrictions. Any weapon that is found to be able to be converted into full-auto that wasnt discovered, and isnt discovered by the manufacturer, will result in massive fines for the manufaturer.

4: Any foreign made guns that are imported into the US, if automatic, will be banned. If not automatic, they will still be regulated.

5: Any and all handguns and revolvers, save those that can either be converted into full auto or come with full auto accessiblity, will be allowed with regulations and restrictions.

6: Shotguns and hunting type rifles (bolt, pump, and lever action) will be allowed with regulations.

 

[SOADandLeftWing]

just a thought-provoking idea...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

"Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders." - Chris Rock

 

[Risingblade]

nononono, not handguns, but muskets! they can still defend you, but you can't keep firing them because they only have one bullet and need 2 minutes to reload. it's genius! the only other plans I have are pointed sticks or bad music.

Aren't muskets highly inaccurate? I mean if you miss then wait? I doubt the other person is going to stand there and let you reload...



OT: Where's the I want to prepare for the zombie apocalypse option?

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Knives are designed to cut food, baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, fists and feet ... Guns are designed to kill in the quickest way possible. That is the difference, always thought this argument was stupid 'cos sure everything can kill if used wrongly but a gun used correctly kills people!

I suspect this is one of the most common misconceptions in the whole gun controversy. Actually most guns are used correctly and very few of them kill people.

By the same argument, I could say that a table saw used correctly could saw someone clean in half (provided your intention was to saw that person in half), which is not only deadly, but a probably horrific experience.[footnote]On the premise that things that can intentionally be used to kill people should be banned or regulated, so should most industrial or household appliances.[/footnote] Guns used correctly with the intent of killing someone will usually[footnote]A lot of people have suffered grievous injury from a bullet and survived, usually from sheer luck[/footnote] kill its intended target. Most gun-owners go their entire lives without having to point a gun at someone, let alone kill them. And most guns used correctly are never aimed at a human being, let alone used to kill one.

So I call bullshit on the used correctly argument.

238U

 

[Smagmuck_]

Sounds decent enough, but still pretty off.

My own thoughts:

1: Any weapons that have the ability of automatic fire, anything that can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger, are banned. If you have to pull the trigger with every round, its fine, if you can fire two or more bullets with one pull of the trigger, its banned.

If it's made after 1986, it's already banned.

2: Any weapon that can cause great amounts of damage per round spent, this is there for grenade and rocket launchers. God knows how a person would get one, but its there regardless.

This is kind of pointless considering you can kill or seriously injure someone with a cartridge as small as .17WMR.

3: Any semi-automatic weapon that could be converted into a full-auto must be given a greater level of checks, the weapon's manufacturer must examine the semi-auto weapon in question to see if it could or can be converted, and inform the government so as to apply the necessary level of restrictions. Any weapon that is found to be able to be converted into full-auto that wasnt discovered, and isnt discovered by the manufacturer, will result in massive fines for the manufacturer.

Guess what? With a fair amount of know how and firearm knowledge, you can convert any semi-automatic firearm to automatic. It's just going to be really poor quality and dangerous to the shooter, you know, exploding guns, cook offs and what not.

4: Any foreign made guns that are imported into the US, if automatic, will be banned. If not automatic, they will still be regulated.

Not hard to circumvent considering manufacturers can just open up plants on US soil.

5: Any and all handguns and revolvers, save those that can either be converted into full auto or come with full auto accessiblity, will be allowed with regulations and restrictions.

Again, just like rifles, with some knowledge and proper tools you can convert a pistol to FA, it is still going to be really dangerous to the shooter and have a higher chance of blowing up in your hands.

Revolvers? Fully automatic? Now that's just asking to have a catastrophic failure.

6: Shotguns and hunting type rifles (bolt, pump, and lever action) will be allowed with regulations.

What about semi-automatic hunting rifles? Like a Ruger Mini-14?

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

So, we're not perched on any kind of slippery slope by allowing Joe Blow to own a semi-automatic AK-47 (which is effectively no different from a plain ol' Remington hunting rifle, except in apperance).

Clarifications regarding weapons: The mounted machine guns [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47], so they shouldn't be engaging the enemy by rifle anyway when properly deployed.[/footnote]

Assault rifles use a smaller cartridge on the premise that most combat occurs at less than 30 yards. The smaller powder charge means a typical soldier can carry more ammo. The AR-15 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle] that was used in the Aurora shooting, are all assault rifles.

Someone mentioned the AK-74 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-74], which is not a typo of the AK-47, though they are easy to confuse. They're about as similar as their names.

238U

 

[Zetatrain]

how about we ban knives? baseball bats? fists and feet? we can chop em off they are deadly weapons, there will always be sociopaths, psychos, and morons that will do heinous things, but condemning a whole society on the actions if a extreme minority like it is some epidemic. just grow up.

we can argue that if people were allowed to carry that theater thing would never went down, or that the person that did it would have thought twice about the uncertainty of maybe half the theater was armed.

Knives are designed to cut food, baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, fists and feet ... Guns are designed to kill in the quickest way possible. That is the difference, always thought this argument was stupid 'cos sure everything can kill if used wrongly but a gun used correctly kills people!

Are you trying to argue that people who are surrounded by smoke are able to effectively determine who the attacker is in the panic, then accurately shoot the attacker without harming an innocent? This isn't hollywood.

Dose not matter, they are all weapons.
Also cars kill more people yearly than firearms, so going after firearms is disingenuous.

That is not the point, humans like to believe we are some civilized race but we think it's perfectly okay to make and carry things that's only reason for being is to kill? We aren't even half way to civilized 'cos it's not like we are only carrying guns in war zones, we are carrying them to the super market ...

That is the point, humans will use anything to kill each other with and statistically non weapons kill more people than weapons.

Banning is just a slippery slope that always seeks to ban something else, its the easy road humanity loves to take. Its silly to think things will become better just by taking that path.

Here's my thoughts; there are two differences between everyday object and guns

Bats, knives, cars, etc. have a lot more vital everyday uses compared to a gun regardless of what their original intent was when they were created. In other words the pros of keep everyday items far out weigh the cons of having them. You ban cars and chances are your're gonna fuck up everyone's life on a daily basis.

The other difference has to do with how they kill. With blunt and stabbing weapons you have to be within reach of the other person. This gives the person you're trying to kill(provided you he sees you coming) the chance to block, dodge, or run away. With guns its not the same. Even if the person aiming the gun at you is within reach, he is just a hair trigger pull away from ending you're life. And unless you're the Flash, you're not going to dodge or outrun the bullet if its heading straight for you.

If a man breaks into you're house and is armed with a knife or blunt object, chances are there is an everyday house hold item lying around you can you to use to put yourself on a more evening footing with the intruder. This item can be a chair, golf club, hell, even grandma's antic vase would work just as well. If the man is armed with a gun then you're fucked unless you have a gun.

Just because knives and cars kill more people it doesn't make ones attempt to ban or limit guns disingenuous. Knives and cars have killed more people because there are a lot more people out there who have them, not because they are more dangerous than guns. Just because people will continue to try to kill with or without guns it does not mean we should make it easy for them.

 

[kommando367]

So you're take on this is just allowing shottys & snipers? I would support that. I don't think anyone in my family owns a pistol anyway and I just own rifles.

On another note, why the fuck is my captcha bouncing?

 

[chadachada123]

The OP's post still doesn't mention protection while in public. If I'm walking down the street and someone or a group of someones tries to mug me (or worse), personal protection is absolutely essential. It's why I, as a 20-year old, generally walk around with a concealed knife, as it is the only thing besides pepper spray that I'm legally allowed to carry concealed at my age in my state. When I turn 21, expenses permitting, I'll graduate to a concealed firearm.

If a cop is allowed, with minimal training, to walk the streets with a firearm for protection, so too should a citizen be able to.

I hate to seem like I'm arguing with emotion with this next picture, but I feel that it is appropriate to this discussion:

 

[chadachada123]

Here's my thoughts; there are two differences between everyday object and guns

Bats, knives, cars, etc. have a lot more vital everyday uses compared to a gun regardless of what their original intent was when they were created. In other words the pros of keep everyday items far out weigh the cons of having them. You ban cars and chances are your're gonna fuck up everyone's life on a daily basis.

The other difference has to do with how they kill. With blunt and stabbing weapons you have to be within reach of the other person. This gives the person you're trying to kill(provided you he sees you coming) the chance to block, dodge, or run away. With guns its not the same. Even if the person aiming the gun at you is within reach, he is just a hair trigger pull away from ending you're life. And unless you're the Flash, you're not going to dodge or outrun the bullet if its heading straight for you.

If a man breaks into you're house and is armed with a knife or blunt object, chances are there is an everyday house hold item lying around you can you to use to put yourself on a more evening footing with the intruder. This item can be a chair, golf club, hell, even grandma's antic vase would work just as well. If the man is armed with a gun then you're fucked unless you have a gun.

Just because knives and cars kill more people it doesn't make ones attempt to ban or limit guns disingenuous. Knives and cars have killed more people because there are a lot more people out there who have them, not because they are more dangerous than guns. Just because people will continue to try to kill with or without guns it does not mean we should make it easy for them.

So, you should just hope that you're physically fit and between the ages of roughly 16 and 40 to even hope of standing a chance against an armed intruder?

The beauty of firearms, though, is that it allows a person, no matter their age and mostly no matter their handicap, to stand up against a much stronger and much more physically fit assailant assuming said person has the element of surprise. If the assailant doesn't know that you have a firearm, there's a fair chance that you'll be able to turn the tables, even or perhaps especially if you're female or weak or handicapped.

In short:
Intruder has gun, you don't: You're fucked.
You have gun, intruder doesn't: You win!
Intruder has gun, you have gun: You'll likely win.
Neither of you have a gun: He'll very likely win (against the average citizen).

Picture very related (but obviously from a pro-gun activist):

Spoiler

 

[psijac]

Saturation is at the point where even if you wanted to ban all guns or even a specific type of gun it would be a logistical nightmare.

It would be like trying to deport every illegal Mexican immigrant. Best thing to do is teach your children about gun safety and spanish...

 

[Dastardly]

... which is a downgrade of a hunting rifle or a battle rifle [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle].

When I indicated they were no different, I simply mean they aren't the "machine guns" that we see in movies.

A semiautomatic rifle just puts one round downrange for each pull of the trigger, and happens to have a magazine so the next round is chambered automatically. In that sense, what someone would consider a "normal hunting rifle" is only really different from an AK-47 in that one of them "looks like the terrorist gun."

And, bearing that in mind, it shouldn't make any difference to anyone if I choose to hunt with a rifle with a particular appearance, just because they're threatened by a particular silhouette.

 

[Dastardly]

If a man breaks into you're house and is armed with a knife or blunt object, chances are there is an everyday house hold item lying around you can you to use to put yourself on a more evening footing with the intruder. This item can be a chair, golf club, hell, even grandma's antic vase would work just as well. If the man is armed with a gun then you're fucked unless you have a gun.

This man has chosen to willfully enter MY HOUSE, where I LIVE, without my permission. He has done so with what can only be assumed the intent to TAKE MY THINGS, HARM ME, or HARM ME SO HE CAN TAKE MY THINGS.

What part of that situation makes me want to be on "even footing?" I don't want a fair fight with this asshole, I want him out of my house. That means I want a gigantic advantage, so that I can scare him right out. (ProTip: Pain is scary.)

If someone is breaking into your house and you beat him to death with a medieval mace, I don't think anyone on this planet should have an unkind word to say to you. He attacked your livelihood and your safety. He showed complete disregard for the sanctity of your home, so it's not a stretch to say he doesn't value your life much. However you get him out is your business, and that's how it should be -- no matter how "unfair" your method might be.

 

[Nimzabaat]

The problem with these threads is that the United States has a bad case of denial. So no matter how many facts, reasonable arguments and good ideas people put out, there's always the "you can take mah gu-uhns! Jesus said I could have gu-uhns! The constitution said I could have gu-uhns! (Actually it doesn't. It says members of a militia have the right to bear arms, but civilians outside of a milita... got left out). So it all comes down to trying to argue logically with crazy people and you just can't reason with crazy.

I'm of the mind that, as a country, the US should just "shit or get off the pot". Either acquit this "Joker" guy, because it is his right as an American to kill people in his vicinity if he feels the need, and quit bitching or grow up and realize there is a problem. The problem doesn't have to be solved with all out bans or drastic measures. Other countries (well civilized countries, but chin up "Umerica" you can at least try) have restricted firearms with decent success by using amnesty days (bring you illegal firearm in to the police, no question asked) and other means of legally disposing of weapons that have become restricted.