Guns : A simple solution

[tsb247]

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.

How could I have guessed? Another firearms thread, and yet again more irrational responses. Do I detect still more racial undertones here with your references to slavery in what I am assuming is a shot at the U.S. and our gun laws? That would certainly fit a pattern for you as of late.

*sigh*

Please, demonstrate to me how slavery is akin to firearms ownership. I'll wait.

*checks watch*

Ok... Moving on.

Your analogy falls flat on its face because you are attempting to compare to completely unlike things in a vain attempt to demonize something that you simply do not understand or have any first-hand knowledge of.

Again, how many gun owners do you know personaly, as in, have actually met in person? How many rifles, shotguns, or handguns have you ever fired? Do you know what the laws in many U.S. states actually require? Are you aware that those who choose to break the law with firearms are by far, the vast minority of gun owners.

At this point, given your responses in past threads, I am reasonably certain that you are just trolling at this point. Then again, I simply just can't resist. This is just too much fun.

Just for fun, I will throw this in as well:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

I will also point out that the criminal in this story was not harmed in any way. He made the right decision and surrendered to the armed civilian; saving his own life by his own doing. This is how concealed weapons permit carriers are trained, and this is how it should always end.

Of course, we can't call this a happy ending can we? After all, the hero in this story is a demonic child-eating gun owning, "NRA troll," right?

My point, you continually try to demonize something that you, quite frankly, have about zero applicable knowledge of. In the end, firearms can, and do have a legitimate place in society, and they can be used in the legitimate defense of one's own life or the lives of others should the need arise.

 

[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.

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

Hmm, I thought that was part of the Assault Weapon ban that expired a few years back...

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.

And with fair luck they will injure or kill themselves when they use it, and not take doezens of innocent lives with them.

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.

Well, with th...

Would that actually create jobs in the US?

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.

Like the above...

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?

Those would actually go under the part with semi-auto rifles as well.

 

[psijac]

Anyway, why are automatic weapons such a big deal anyway? I don't get it why semi-auto is okay and auto isn't. I don't see the difference and actually I think automatic weapons would be more effective for defense - no burglar will approach you if you first shoot 10 rounds in the (soft) ground.

Because in 1986 late at night(around 10 pm iirc) an asshole democrat named Hughes got an amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act(which alleviated the most egregious bullshit from the 1968 GCA) deemed passed without quorum or recorded vote. Rather than scrap FOPA and start over they just passed it because Full-Auto weapons were a relatively small portion of the firearms community given that they are more expensive to shoot with given increased ammo and maintenance costs as well as the whole Title II bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btNtV7JIMTE

 

[psijac]

The moot point here seems to be : I want to protect vs I don't want people to get hurt.

I thought you had used the word moot improperly but it I was wrong.

moot
adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law . not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.

 

[psijac]

Gun sales are hard to keep track of. All sales normally are.

The easiest way to get a gun for a criminal would be to go to an illegal shop. A gun shop that doesn't follow the law, or skirts the law for "special customers."

a Federal Firearms License (FFL) Requires those that sell weapons for profit to keep a sales record for 10 years and to run a background check. Face to face private sales require no such scrutiny. A shop like that would get shutdown quick. The BATFE is zealous in nature and often shutdown legitimate business for any infraction. Heavy jail time the kind wallstreet people should see but never will is involved here.

The ONLY way to make sure the law is being followed is to have a cop in every shop. We don't have the resources for that kind of thing.

Even then, cops could be corrupt as well.

You can't fix the gun issue without going into a fantasy world where a cop is on every corner and everyone follows the law. Guns will always slip by, you can't just "end it."

That's not a fantasy world that is a fucking nightmare. Imagine a cop ready to ticket you anytime you go over 65 miles an hour. Or some with a sniper bead drawn on you any time you get in a argument with your girlfriend just in case things turn you are a women beater. Imagine your bedroom a cop giving a breathalyzer test to make sure the girl you are with is not too drunk to give consent. How often have you jaywalked or littered. You will never be able to smoke weed again.

 

[soes757]

No, no, no.
If we heavily ban the guns, people will get them illegally, we need to constrict factories and contain imports better. If we allow people to have them, and say, add GPS to guns (new guns) and make the sale illegal (used guns) (Parentheses are fun!)we could keep better track of who is using them, and if someone get's shot, they track the serial off the bullet, to the GPS to the person, and if the gun has been ditched somewhere, we have the address on tab, moving without reporting and address change, or listing a false address (someone will have to check your home and see ID before you acquire a gun) would be a felony, see, Soes fixes the universe, again.
Also, this won't work, just stating ideas for people to change, alter, and fix, though, it fixed the universe.
It makes sense, really, it does, I swear.

 

[psijac]

No, no, no.
If we heavily ban the guns, people will get them illegally, we need to constrict factories and contain imports better. If we allow people to have them, and say, add GPS to guns (new guns) and make the sale illegal (used guns) (Parentheses are fun!)we could keep better track of who is using them, and if someone get's shot, they track the serial off the bullet, to the GPS to the person, and if the gun has been ditched somewhere, we have the address on tab, moving without reporting and address change, or listing a false address (someone will have to check your home and see ID before you acquire a gun) would be a felony, see, Soes fixes the universe, again.
Also, this won't work, just stating ideas for people to change, alter, and fix, though, it fixed the universe.
It makes sense, really, it does, I swear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Bullets tend to break up on impact. Those that don't can often pierce body armor

 

[Smagmuck_]

Hmm, I thought that was part of the Assault Weapon ban that expired a few years back...

The NFA that bans FA guns after 1986 was written in without an expiration date. It can be repealed though. Fun Fact; it did not pass as its own bill, it had to be written into another bill to pass.

The one you're thinking of was the '94 AWB, making "Assault Weapons" illegal, basically if it looked like it belonged in the military it was prohibited from civilian ownership. It expired federally in '04.



And with fair luck they will injure or kill themselves when they use it, and not take doezens of innocent lives with them.

And you're saying that like it's a bad thing. If some hick, or thug, or terrorist wants to turn a SA Mac-10/11 into a FA, it's at their risk of blowing their hands off. They'll either turn to other methods or learn the hard way.

And if they manage to do it, it's going to be hard as fuck to control, and highly prone to jamming unless they've had prior experience with the weapon platform.

Well, with th...

Would that actually create jobs in the US?

Yes, yes it would. FNH already opened a couple of plants here, and they've done wonders for the local economy where they're located. Izmash (Makers of the AK and Saiga) briefly thought about it, but decided not to. I have no idea why.

Like the above...

Likewise.

Those would actually go under the part with semi-auto rifles as well.

So someone could go pop rabbits in their garden with an AR if it's registered and properly stored?This is something I've done plenty of times. Rabbit are douche bags if they're allowed to breed in large numbers.

 

[Lupus80]

The problem with arguing over what people [i/]need[/i], is that much of what we own and aspire to own comes from [i/]want[/i].

So lets say I want a fully automatic AK-47, to own and use. I demonstrate, through licensing and education, that I am a mature, knowledgable and responcible person who takes the time and effort to use the rifle safely. Now what justification is there for denying me the right to purchase such a weapon?

Should people need to demonstrate they will be responcible gunowners through licensing? Yes.

Should people have there guns taken away if they demonstrate they are irresponcible and criminal? Yes.

If my guns get stolen is it my responsibility to report it as soon as possible? Yes.

Is there anything inheriently [i/]wrong[/i] with the desire to own such things assault rifles, miniguns, and other weapons that are not "reasonable" guns like shotguns and pistols? No.

For those who support banning certain types of firearms and weapons, how would you respond to someone who wanted to collect the firearms you want to ban? Perhaps they collect them out of cuiriosity, or perhaps they are a private citizen who is into gunsmithing and wants to experiment with various designs, or maybe they want to do some MythBusters style experiments. These people are mature and knowledgable and spend time and resources to use and enjoy these weapons responsibly.

Banning does not work, and is unjustifiable. Licensing makes sense, and education is a must, but on the whole many gun owners who already own, or desire to own, such dangerous weapons are mature people who you shouldn't be afraid of.

 

[soes757]

No, no, no.
If we heavily ban the guns, people will get them illegally, we need to constrict factories and contain imports better. If we allow people to have them, and say, add GPS to guns (new guns) and make the sale illegal (used guns) (Parentheses are fun!)we could keep better track of who is using them, and if someone get's shot, they track the serial off the bullet, to the GPS to the person, and if the gun has been ditched somewhere, we have the address on tab, moving without reporting and address change, or listing a false address (someone will have to check your home and see ID before you acquire a gun) would be a felony, see, Soes fixes the universe, again.
Also, this won't work, just stating ideas for people to change, alter, and fix, though, it fixed the universe.
It makes sense, really, it does, I swear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Bullets tend to break up on impact. Those that don't can often pierce body armor

Bullets break on impact with something hard, not flesh, also, casings.

 

[chadachada123]

No, no, no.
If we heavily ban the guns, people will get them illegally, we need to constrict factories and contain imports better. If we allow people to have them, and say, add GPS to guns (new guns) and make the sale illegal (used guns) (Parentheses are fun!)we could keep better track of who is using them, and if someone get's shot, they track the serial off the bullet, to the GPS to the person, and if the gun has been ditched somewhere, we have the address on tab, moving without reporting and address change, or listing a false address (someone will have to check your home and see ID before you acquire a gun) would be a felony, see, Soes fixes the universe, again.
Also, this won't work, just stating ideas for people to change, alter, and fix, though, it fixed the universe.
It makes sense, really, it does, I swear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Bullets tend to break up on impact. Those that don't can often pierce body armor

Bullets break on impact with something hard, not flesh, also, casings.

A bullet that goes through a person would continue into the wall behind it, shattering on that instead.

Besides, bullets are far, far too numerable to be serialized, when millions or billions of rounds are fired every single day, even if the casing could be recovered and wasn't picked up by the perpetrator.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

No, no, no.
If we heavily ban the guns, people will get them illegally, we need to constrict factories and contain imports better. If we allow people to have them, and say, add GPS to guns (new guns) and make the sale illegal (used guns) (Parentheses are fun!)we could keep better track of who is using them, and if someone get's shot, they track the serial off the bullet, to the GPS to the person, and if the gun has been ditched somewhere, we have the address on tab, moving without reporting and address change, or listing a false address (someone will have to check your home and see ID before you acquire a gun) would be a felony, see, Soes fixes the universe, again.
Also, this won't work, just stating ideas for people to change, alter, and fix, though, it fixed the universe.
It makes sense, really, it does, I swear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Bullets tend to break up on impact. Those that don't can often pierce body armor

Bullets break on impact with something hard, not flesh, also, casings.

Depends on the bullet. Hollow point and fraggable ammo (such as those used by police forces) will bend and twist in a way that won't leave any serial numbers left, even in just the human body. They are made to make sure as much of the force goes to the person your aiming at, and not the person behind them.

Spoiler: Here is an example

You also have the problem of if the bullet gets stuck in a person and they don't die. Since the bullet is preventing the wound from bleeding as badly, or it could lodge itself in where it doesn't pose much risk to the person, but removing it does (say, if it is against your heart or lungs), you won't be able to get it anyway.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Honestly can anyone PROPERLY explain to me why you'd need a rifle a shotgun an assault weapon or anything other than that in an urban environment?

This is where I think is the difference of thought. Freedoms, as the US views them, generally anyway, is the ability to do things without having to explain oneself or justify why one is doing it. Do you really need a Xbox 360? It isn't attributing to your job, it only is making your health worse since your not using a lot of energy while doing it. Why do you need a game console?

You don't NEED it, you want it. It was your money you earned, and it is your life, so you think you get to choose how you spend it. Nobody should be able to tell you otherwise, regardless of the risks to your health. Then why do other people, government or otherwise, get to decide what I do with mine?

Guns are a hobby, having cool guns is great for people like me because we like then. It is like supercars. Fast, a bit dangerous if your reckless, soaks up my money, and doesn't get the job done of getting me from point A to point B, but it still my choice to buy it. Over 30,000 people a year die in car crashes in the US alone, should the government be able to limit how I get from home to work because of this?

My gun has never hurt anyone. All the people I know who own guns have never hurt or been hurt by them. Why should we have limits on a hobby because somebody with a sick mind maybe will take one that they bought under questionable legality and hurt another with it? Why should we be punished for the actions of others?

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

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.

Hmm, I thought that was part of the Assault Weapon ban that expired a few years back...

No, but the language of the bill was obviously meant to make you think that. Congress loves to mis title bills to get support from those that don't read it. Oh, the 1986 bill? It was called the "Firearm Owners Protection Act."

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.

And with fair luck they will injure or kill themselves when they use it, and not take doezens of innocent lives with them.

Do you really want to leave that up to a dice roll? Is having a bullet spraying pipe bomb really sound like the way to make sure less people are injured?

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.

Well, with th...

Would that actually create jobs in the US?

Only a couple, since a lot of the process can be done by robots. Besides, a the problem a bill fixes should be the problem the bill was intended to fix. If a bill doesn't do anything to stop the original attempt, but has some random side benefit, that is a failed bill in my book.

 

[Luna]

Yeah. I don't see the point in civilians owning automatic weapons anyway. The only problem with this is if a civilian is unable to defend themselves against a criminal with an automatic weapon due to their weapon not being powerful enough, but the benefits probably outweigh the costs.

we have not been legally allowed to own assault weapons since the 1930s. we do not have people running around armed with hks and m16s this is not afghanstan.

really wish you anti gun people would bother to learn something about gun laws before you presume to tell us what we should or should not own.


any modern day "assault weapons" ban, does not ban any assault weapons, the ban single fire weapons with magazines of over XX rounds, so they ban extended clips and things like that for standard everyday rifles.

i am so sick of the anti gun stuff period, how about you live your lives, we live ours, and using every and any tragedy that pops up because some mentally derranged moron decides to take a few people out for the lulz because he is in a state that does not allow anyone to be armed anywhere so it is like shooting fish in a friggin barrel, is disgusting at best.

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.

or those armed burglers, if one neighborhood is a no guns zone, and another is armed to the teeth, which neighborhood would they burgle with impunity?

And I really wish you labeling judgementals' would think before judging. I'm not anti guns.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you want to argue about guns who's not necessarily against them in the first place. Learn to read effectively please.

 

[mooncalf]

Any gun that can be used to lethal effect is necessarily a risk to human life, you could ban all of them ("Not good!") or ban some of them ("Also not good!") or you could advance a society that values love, acceptance and outreach rather than hate, prejudice and insularity. ("Too Hard, Did Not Bother.")

I hope for a world when nobody's so messed up as to intentionally misuse a firearm.
Forget (you already have, haven't you?) "No child left behind.", we need "No PERSON left behind."

 

[Mr Binary]

Well, one idea would be to make the more powerful weapons (such as automatic rifles) under heavier restrictions to purchase. The problem with this though, is most criminals would get their weapons illegally. That would then leave the civilians under-armed against the criminals, causing complaints and escalation. This whole debate just seems like a never-ending cycle.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, one idea would be to make the more powerful weapons (such as automatic rifles) under heavier restrictions to purchase.

The only automatic weapons that can be legally owned by civilians in the US are those that were registered before May 1986. You can't get new ones legally.

 

[Bloodtrozorx]

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.

So my question is, what happens to those of us who own an ak74/47?

Originally I wanted to quote that crazy ole bastard Charlie Heston and say "From my cold dead hands" but I own a semi-automatic AK-47 clone. I don't want to kill scores of people, I want to target shoot with my family and hunt deer for their delicious meat. Sure there are other firearms for that purpose but this is the one I chose. Maybe people fear the firearm I own but I've followed the letter of the law.

this is the only viable reason I could accept to own such a weapon although my counterpoint would be that in my opinion Hunting is either a proffesion or a sport and you should restrict that to guns that were meant for hunting in the first place (Not oldskool soviet military kit)

Please pardon my inability to properly explain my opinion because I don't have that kind of vast knowledge of guns because we simply don't have them here.

All I wanted was to put a halt to the eternal debate and conclude that in a simple solution:
Allow the usage of guns that is sensible and then stop complaining.
Meaning : A Huntsman is allowed to own a rifle, A civilian a Handgun and Law enforcement/Military their standard kit.

Honestly can anyone PROPERLY explain to me why you'd need a rifle a shotgun an assault weapon or anything other than that in an urban environment?

First let me say that I appreciate where you're coming from. I could compromise and argue that we should make it harder to obtain an assault rifle but I cannot agree that those weapons should be banned. My question originally however was, let?s say assault rifles are banned, do you ban future sales only or do you take them from the owners with some sort of monetary offset or trade system? However if you only ban future sales you effectively contribute to a black market that already existed but then would be booming. Unfortunately there is no easy fix for the gun question in America.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

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).

Okay fine you make a good case.
I would like to point out that pointing a nuke at someone who's threatening you usually scares them off (Cold war), so in that sense it is a defensive weapon.
However is it really a difference of scale? if you look into the situation more deeply and ethically, shouldn't it be the same discussion?
(I'm not intentionally being ignorant I know what you mean but you or someone before pushed a very similar absurd comparison in favor of guns so I'm wondering how this fares on the other end because the comparison ethically is a valid one sadly)