Guns : A simple solution

[M-E-D The Poet]

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?

You're right in a way I can agree.
The ammo limiting was a hypothetical answer or in other cases a sweetener for the opposition ( because the limit doesn't need to be that tight, there just has to be a limit).

From my line of thinking came this "There has to be a line somewhere."

But that's just the practical philosophical answer

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

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)

I have no problem with faulty terms as long as you don't call magazines "clips".

The fact is that you do not understand what guns actually do. Would you try to pass legislation about eating meat if you didn't know what caused meat to become improper to be eaten?

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?

Do you mean "own" or "walk around"?

Because you can't define how much ammo a person "needs". I don't have to justify the number of ammunition I own.

"Walk around"? What if a person says he's going to the range? That justifies carrying ammo on his car/bag.

What if a person is simply on a hunting trip that might last days? Or even if the person is actually living in the woods?

but then again this is all just an idea to put a halt to all the "BAN ALL GUNS" discussion to satisfy both sides.

Some people won't be satisfied until you ban all guns. In my language there is a saying that goes "You can't please Greeks and Trojans".

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!"

1. I merely made a "bold" list, not shouted

2. Do you know what actually takes to change a constitution? And whoever wants it changed is just delusional.

3. My constitution does not give me 2nd Amendment rights. I am not American, despite your prejudice.

4. "Kill all firstbornes"? That is a Slippery Slope Fallacy.

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.

So if the anti-gun crowd is being irrational, why are you treating them like sane, level-headed and rational individuals?

We don't have to reach a middle ground until they become a political influence big enough to change the constitution.

The Brady Campaign has less than 28,000 members. The NRA has a 4.3 million.

Should we remove all references to the Holocaust in school books because a few thousands of religious extremists don't agree with the First Amendment, which grants free speech?

Because we always treat every person as a sane person unless they openly threaten us or seem a threat to themselves.

Trust me there's a reason why people like Breivik are actually on trial or why people like Wilders even get told they're right in court.

I assumed you were an american because you were defending like you are an american.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

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.

Although it's a tough thing to crack I'd say you would have to start taking in those guns (offering a cash value in return to get people to cross that line easier)
And following that of course the ban for future sales.

I can't say it's THE solution, I can see where the difficulty lies here but it's A solution.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Also while I am at it banning some stuff dose not take away the outcome of any shoot rampage, no automatic? A shotgun with the right load and a few rounds can do as much damage, 6 pistols(2 hips,2 under the arm and 2 on the back) with 7-9 rounds with the right load can do as much over all damage. Being proactive with crazy makes us all criminals....

snip

snip

Iz not my comment desu is
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.383657.15193718

---------------------------------------------------

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip.

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.

It is disingenuous to ban or ridiculously restrict them when there are more dangerous things out there, being the lesser of dangers makes the specific definition of the item kinda moot.

I am against banning things its a cop out to ignore the real problem.

One can still get automatics,explosives and silencers via a federal permit so it kinda makes things silly.....

Now with that said I am for throwing out all gun law and creating a set of basic rules.


1.States can not ban the right to own a firearm unless under a felony or a constitutional amendment.States must follow these rules, these rules cover all weapon/firearm permits, licnses or special privileges.


2.Under this rule individuals may be baned from firearm ownership if a local or federal level judge feels the level of violations are significant enough to warrant fines, suspensions or permanent removal of the permit/license, one can appeal this process .


2.Misuse or abuse of not having a firearm locked, misfire resulting in death, damage or injury, misplacement, brandishing, shooting in the ground or air, shooting wildly,ect,ect,ect


3.Some rifles,shotguns or pistols will require joining the firearm registry.


4.All reasonable weapons(no WMDs plz) listed in the firearm registry by the weapons maker shall not be banned but rather restricted to a advanced permit.


5.All automatic weapons, explosives, suppressors and silencers automatically fall under the firearm registry.


6.The firearm registry may do a full background check, physical health check and a mental health check that focuses on outgoing emotional issues uncontrolled or random violent issues, one can appeal this process but good luck telling a judge that....


7.All extended and or advanced firearm or weapon accessories fall under advanced permit and firearm registry.


8.All gun sells must be processed though the firearm registry.(if one can do it with credit I see no reason why one can not do it with firearms)


9.To pay for this system a 1% tax is placed on ammo, weapon/firearm accessories and firearms.


10.Under a permit/license suspension or permanent ban one may still own the item the permit covers but it can not be kept on or near the owners property or the owner or the owners intimidate friends or family, under a permanent ban you have 6 months to sell off the items covered under the permit/license. It would be nice if ranges and gun shops offer cheap weapon storage.


11.One may get a temporary moving permit (up to 90 days) to move a firearm or advance weapon from one location to another. Items must be unloaded, locked and locked within a metal container inside the vehicle.

As much I am for states rights they can be rather duplicitous and inbreed for gun rights and human right issues things need to be handled from the fed down. Well as long as gun rights are forced to focus on individual rights,freedoms and responsibility.


Uhg I hate it when I try and out think politicians and lawyers ><
---------------------------------------------------------------------

snip

snip.

snip

You're right. We're not even halfway to civilized. I mean, people still think it's a good idea to take a knife and threaten to stab people if they don't give up all of they money they were on the way to the supermarket to buy groceries with.

And that's why guns are, at worst, a necessary evil.

And its nice to have the freedom to become a skilled marksmen that only shoots inanimate objects.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

That's not defense, that's deterrent through the threat of offensive use. Guns can be good for that, too, as demonstrated by the police force. Sometimes they use them defensively, and other times they use them to deter resistance (Stop or I'll shoot).

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?

Not at all. Guns have selective targeting -- if I want to shoot Person A, I don't also have to risk killing Persons B through Z -- while nukes do not -- Kill one, kill 'em all. It's like the difference between the police arresting a particular suspect, or the police arresting everyone within a square mile of the suspect.

With guns, it is entirely possible to only harm the one person who is posing an immediate threat. With nukes, it is impossible to target one person, and impossible to use the weapon when the alleged threat is actually within a threatening range. Completely different.

 

[WanderingFool]

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.

OH No! Im not saying thats a bad thing, Im saying thats a good thing. Kill themselves before they kill others, I say thats nature dueing its part...

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.

Honestly, Im from Pennsylvania, and when I took my hunters safety course (a waste of time as after 2 years of not seeing a damn thing while hunting, I gave up and just stuck with target shooting) Semi-auto rifles were not allowed for hunting. Seni-auto shotguns were Okay, but if you put slug rounds in it, than it became a rifle, and was not allowed.

But with rabbits (I agree with you footnote), I dont see what wrong with exterminating them from your garden with extreme prejudice.[footnote]Having had a garden destroyed by rabbits, fuck'em.[/footnote]

 

[Dastardly]

Now with that said I am for throwing out all gun law and creating a set of basic rules.


1.States can not ban the right to own a firearm unless under a felony or a constitutional amendment.States must follow these rules, these rules cover all weapon/firearm permits, licnses or special privileges.

That's not how the Constitution works. States have the rights to pass their own laws, some of which interpret the Constitution differently from other states (but don't violate it). That power is given to the states by the Constitution itself.

3.Some rifles,shotguns or pistols will require joining the firearm registry.

The criteria will need to be specific, observable, and universally applied. What is it about certain rifles/shotguns/pistols that warrants joining the registry?

6.The firearm registry may do a full background check, physical health check and a mental health check that focuses on outgoing emotional issues uncontrolled or random violent issues, one can appeal this process but good luck telling a judge that....

Probable cause is still a factor. That kind of background check, for the purpose of determining criminal activity, is considered a "search." So this could be done at registration, but not afterward without probable cause.

7.All extended and or advanced firearm or weapon accessories fall under advanced permit and firearm registry.

See above -- each item must have specific guidelines. Blanket "all accessories" kind of language won't fly.

8.All gun sells must be processed though the firearm registry.(if one can do it with credit I see no reason why one can not do it with firearms)

This will be an issue of enforcement. It'll require more than a 1% tax to cover the establishment of what is basically a DMV for firearms.

10.Under a permit/license suspension or permanent ban one may still own the item the permit covers but it can not be kept on or near the owners property or the owner or the owners intimidate friends or family, under a permanent ban you have 6 months to sell off the items covered under the permit/license. It would be nice if ranges and gun shops offer cheap weapon storage.

If someone is guilty of an infraction that warrants the permanent removal of gun privileges, they should not be given six months. That'd be like saying, "You're going to jail, so we'll give you another three months of freedom to get your stuff ready." Permanent bans? Confiscate immediately. We could debate whether or not financial reimbursement is warranted on a case-by-case basis.

11.One may get a temporary moving permit (up to 90 days) to move a firearm or advance weapon from one location to another. Items must be unloaded, locked and locked within a metal container inside the vehicle.

Requiring the unloaded/locked is already pretty much there. Metal case? That's a bit superfluous. But mostly, getting a permit to move the weapon is ridiculous. Change of ownership? Sure, I can see that. Moving to a new location? No -- it's registered to YOU, not to an address.

 

[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.

Although it's a tough thing to crack I'd say you would have to start taking in those guns (offering a cash value in return to get people to cross that line easier)
And following that of course the ban for future sales.

I can't say it's THE solution, I can see where the difficulty lies here but it's A solution.

Well offering a solution is still better then watching left and right scream at each other. So thank you for this civil conversation. It reminds me of the toys for guns drive from Christmas 1993. Some people may give up their guns but I won't be among them I'm afraid.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Now with that said I am for throwing out all gun law and creating a set of basic rules.


1.States can not ban the right to own a firearm unless under a felony or a constitutional amendment.States must follow these rules, these rules cover all weapon/firearm permits, licnses or special privileges.

That's not how the Constitution works. States have the rights to pass their own laws, some of which interpret the Constitution differently from other states (but don't violate it). That power is given to the states by the Constitution itself.

3.Some rifles,shotguns or pistols will require joining the firearm registry.

The criteria will need to be specific, observable, and universally applied. What is it about certain rifles/shotguns/pistols that warrants joining the registry?

6.The firearm registry may do a full background check, physical health check and a mental health check that focuses on outgoing emotional issues uncontrolled or random violent issues, one can appeal this process but good luck telling a judge that....

Probable cause is still a factor. That kind of background check, for the purpose of determining criminal activity, is considered a "search." So this could be done at registration, but not afterward without probable cause.

7.All extended and or advanced firearm or weapon accessories fall under advanced permit and firearm registry.

See above -- each item must have specific guidelines. Blanket "all accessories" kind of language won't fly.

8.All gun sells must be processed though the firearm registry.(if one can do it with credit I see no reason why one can not do it with firearms)

This will be an issue of enforcement. It'll require more than a 1% tax to cover the establishment of what is basically a DMV for firearms.

10.Under a permit/license suspension or permanent ban one may still own the item the permit covers but it can not be kept on or near the owners property or the owner or the owners intimidate friends or family, under a permanent ban you have 6 months to sell off the items covered under the permit/license. It would be nice if ranges and gun shops offer cheap weapon storage.

If someone is guilty of an infraction that warrants the permanent removal of gun privileges, they should not be given six months. That'd be like saying, "You're going to jail, so we'll give you another three months of freedom to get your stuff ready." Permanent bans? Confiscate immediately. We could debate whether or not financial reimbursement is warranted on a case-by-case basis.

11.One may get a temporary moving permit (up to 90 days) to move a firearm or advance weapon from one location to another. Items must be unloaded, locked and locked within a metal container inside the vehicle.

Requiring the unloaded/locked is already pretty much there. Metal case? That's a bit superfluous. But mostly, getting a permit to move the weapon is ridiculous. Change of ownership? Sure, I can see that. Moving to a new location? No -- it's registered to YOU, not to an address.

Not really making blanket statements just giving an ideal of how things should work in the real world trying to limit the trouble caused by overreaching local rules and mindsets.

The trouble is under some states moving a firearm(specifically pistols) without a carry permit can get you a fine or worse.

There are other things that are only barely protected and some not so much, also the Constitution has been sold to the highest bidder so it matters more we have rules and law that seek and enforce basic protections for the individual that can not be easily fudged with by our out corporate sponsors in office otherwise we are pretty much doomed. Even tho we are already pretty much doomed.

 

[Guybythestreet]

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.

(I'm anti-gun control)

When you look through these gun control threads you see that the people anti gun control will cite all kinds of facts and then of course also argue about self defense.

When you see pro gun control posts the vast majority of them say "GET RID OF GUNS CUZ GUNS CAUSE GUN CRIME", gun crime isn't worse than any other kind of crime. I don't see gun crime being worse than the crazy amount of car accidents, or worse than being stabbed, crippled, etc. And yes, NO SHIT no guns means no gun crime, but that doesn't mean no death. We can look to England where after gun control was implemented violent crime RATES went up.

On the matter of rates to all the people, both pro gun and anti gun control citing some flat number about gun deaths or gun crime really doesn't mean anything. Lets say we have two imaginary countries A and B. You don't know the exact (or approximate) population either country (You probably didn't bother to do any research before making up garbage arguments). In country A has no gun control and there are 70,000 gun related deaths per year. Country B has gun control and has 30,000 gun related deaths per year. O HAY CLEARLY GUN CONTROL WORKS. Ok and what if country has a population of 10 million while country B has a population of 200,000. And maybe, you are right, Maybe A has 500,000 people while B has 800,000 people. THE POINT IS THAT FLAT NUMBERS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. Give me a statistic(hopefully accurate, and even better, a link to a credible source) and I am MUCH more willing to agree with your points.

Furthermore, you shouldn't just limit rights because "oh hey you don't need those rights so lets just take them away because someone might do something dangerous". Prove that those rights are causing so much harm that they need to be limited.

Also, IF YOU AREN'T AN AMERICAN CITIZEN THEN STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT AMERICAN LAWS. Jesus Christ, if you don't live in America or aren't an American citizen then what makes you think we should consider your opinion on how we govern ourselves. (Just to all those people who aren't Americans or living in America and post like its their god damned business). Oh what, are you going to vote for someone that sanctions America until they raise their gun control. As far as I'm aware (and I might be shooting myself in the foot here) America is the only country that tells other countries what to do under the guise of Justice, Freedom and Democracy.

And lastly, to jump into the baseless name calling, the guy I quoted is an asshat. "OH HUR LETTING PEOPLE HAVE DANGEROUS THINGS MEANS YOU GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO KILL EACH OTHER"

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm - yes the site is anti-gun control but they have sources so don't judge unless you hate on their sources

 

[Malyc]

I have a theory that will end all the arguments for or against gun control: STOP MAKING THREADS ABOUT IT!!!

 

[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 ...

You're right. We're not even halfway to civilized. I mean, people still think it's a good idea to take a knife and threaten to stab people if they don't give up all of they money they were on the way to the supermarket to buy groceries with.

And that's why guns are, at worst, a necessary evil.

OK, again, this isn't Hollywood! A guy who threatens you with a knife is going to be in stabbing distance (even the most dense muggers isn't going to try to stab you from 10 meters away), so what do you think you are going to do? Whip out your gun, aim and fire before he stabs you? I doubt you would even touch your gun!

Also in a country where you can get a gun with a loaf and a 12 pack, why would you be mugged by a guy with a knife?

 

[senordesol]

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 ...

You're right. We're not even halfway to civilized. I mean, people still think it's a good idea to take a knife and threaten to stab people if they don't give up all of they money they were on the way to the supermarket to buy groceries with.

And that's why guns are, at worst, a necessary evil.

OK, again, this isn't Hollywood! A guy who threatens you with a knife is going to be in stabbing distance (even the most dense muggers isn't going to try to stab you from 10 meters away), so what do you think you are going to do? Whip out your gun, aim and fire before he stabs you? I doubt you would even touch your gun!

Also in a country where you can get a gun with a loaf and a 12 pack, why would you be mugged by a guy with a knife?

You could run, gain distance, turn and draw.

You could draw if he gets distracted.

You could try to get something between you and he and then draw.

If he does manage to stab you, that's not necessarily an instant kill; you can draw while the knife's still in.

You could try forcing him back a few steps with a physical maneuver and then draw to provoke a full retreat.

There's several scenarios in which you can gain the upper hand even at an initial disadvantage, hell the greatest stories in any sort of contest of combat start from such a premise.

Plainly, if you're in a situation where a gun can't help you; it doesn't matter if you're carrying or not. But if you're in a situation where a gun CAN help you, it certainly matters if you're carrying or not.

Further, criminals tend not to be the tactical geniuses you make them out to be. They're prone to all types of stupid mistakes and there are plenty of robberies here in America where the assailant chose not to use a firearm.

Like a palm branch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hO8vA0EO7U

A Stick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIqoC8ZWnF0

Also Knives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIqoC8ZWnF0

 

[mirage202]

Completely avoiding the main topic of gun control, so apologies in advance.

and the majority of Americans are rightfully unwilling accept false promises of safety in exchange for their personal liberties.

I just had to pick up on this part.

What exactly do you consider the Patriot Act, and the 2012 NDAA? I see or hear nothing about Americans rising up in mass protest at the prospect of indefinite military detention just because you said something the Govt doesn't like. (Honestly, anyone that believes the powers that be wouldn't abuse this, or any other method open to them in a heartbeat to suit themselves are incredibly naive, that applies to any Govt, not just in the US)

When the media across the western world seems intent on keeping everyone on the brink of mass hysteria, draconian laws like this slip through while Joe Public drools over the latest episode of Jersey/Geordie Shore, again, where are the mass protests from this supposed majority of unwilling Americans?

Take away my guns? NEVER! Erase the Constitution one section at a time? Eh, who cares? TV!

 

[omega 616]

You could run, gain distance, turn and draw.

You could draw if he gets distracted.

You could try to get something between you and he and then draw.

If he does manage to stab you, that's not necessarily an instant kill; you can draw while the knife's still in.

You could try forcing him back a few steps with a physical maneuver and then draw to provoke a full retreat.

There's several scenarios in which you can gain the upper hand even at an initial disadvantage, hell the greatest stories in any sort of contest of combat start from such a premise.

Plainly, if you're in a situation where a gun can't help you; it doesn't matter if you're carrying or not. But if you're in a situation where a gun CAN help you, it certainly matters if you're carrying or not.

Further, criminals tend not to be the tactical geniuses you make them out to be. They're prone to all types of stupid mistakes and there are plenty of robberies here in America where the assailant chose not to use a firearm.

Like a palm branch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hO8vA0EO7U

A Stick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIqoC8ZWnF0

Also Knives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIqoC8ZWnF0

Run? Just hope you're faster?

He could get distracted? Really? "oooh, a shiny!"?

What? "Wait there while I go hide"? Or is this another run tactic?

So he stabs you, you don't grab the wound in pain? Your more manly than me! Even if you shrug off the pain and go for your gun it's still quicker for him to pull the blade out and stab again....then again as you aim.

So body check the guy holding a blade between you and him? Even if you push him away, he is going to react half a second later by stabbing you.

I didn't say they were tactical geniuses, it's just a normal reaction. If you are willing to threaten somebody with something, I am betting they are willing to harm with it.

I have heard some stories of stupid people but the majority aren't that fucking daft.

Also, this isn't Hollywood, so the average idiot thug with a knife isn't exactly going to be pulling off complicated combat maneuvers. Also, he generally doesn't assume that his target is going to be fighting back, figuring that just the existence of the knife is enough of a threat. He's hoping his target will just decide to hand over his money, instead of putting up a fight.

What do you think you are going to do? You take a step backwards as you draw your gun, point it in the general direction of the mugger, and they run away.

Sorry, are you arguing with me or agreeing? 'cos your first paragraph is pro guns and the other is anti gun.

 

[kickassfrog]

Would it not be easier to, say, mount some sort of tracking chip/ general ID (this is a combo slash, not an either-or situation, they should have both) into every gun manufactured (like with micro-chipping pets.
Then introduce a campaign of having all pre-tagged guns either tagged and documented, or exchanged for one that does.
Then declare ownership of an untagged gun is an offence you can be killed on the spot for.

This allows us to monitor the location and ownership of all guns, (with sufficient accuracy, it could help you track a nutcase on a killing spree) and assume anyone past a certain time frame who doesn't have a tagged gun to be a criminal or a terrorist, and thus gets shot on sight anyway.

I'm away out for a few hours, but I'll check back later. If someone gets the ideal solution I would love to read it.

EDIT: Yes, it seems extreme, and should probably be revised for the purpose of not killing innocent civilians.
Also, in answer to one quote, it would be ideal to put the chip somewhere that means dismantling the entire gun to get to. And which goes off when activated. And continues broadcasting when smashed with a hammer.


P.S. I don't really care for guns. Personal forcefields would be an obvious solution, but a bit wishy and sci-fi.

 

[Sami Veillard]

As a conscript, I was made to use, keep and take care of my assault rifle, and I have to say, the only time I ever was scared of a firearm it was a pistol. Long-arms are designed to be engaged at a certain distance, pistols are close range weapons, and those are the weapons that can be decently engaged by civilians against civilians. Handguns are so much more "dangerous" that it ain't funny. And for those that claim a concealed weapon can be effective to prevent an attack on your person, most people who suffer knife wounds don't ever see the blade.

 

[senordesol]

Run? Just hope you're faster?

You don't need to be 'faster' it will take him a moment to react to the sudden motion. You only need to get a few steps and get the weapon out.

He could get distracted? Really? "oooh, a shiny!"?

You don't think getting caught will be concern? Glancing around to make sure there aren't witnesses or hears a noise or starts counting the money in your wallet.

What? "Wait there while I go hide"? Or is this another run tactic?

Partially a run tactic, just getting something between you and him; table, chair, whatever.

So he stabs you, you don't grab the wound in pain? Your more manly than me! Even if you shrug off the pain and go for your gun it's still quicker for him to pull the blade out and stab again....then again as you aim.

In high-stress situations, humans have been known to not notice traumatic -even fatal- injuries. It's part of the fight-or-flight response, you're not going to escape or topple your adversary if you're doubled over in pain.

So body check the guy holding a blade between you and him? Even if you push him away, he is going to react half a second later by stabbing you.

A half-second may be all you need, especially if you're reaching for the weapon in the midst of the act.

I didn't say they were tactical geniuses, it's just a normal reaction. If you are willing to threaten somebody with something, I am betting they are willing to harm with it.

I have heard some stories of stupid people but the majority aren't that fucking daft.

Not daft, but likely desperate. None of the above choices listed offer any guarantees, but there's no guarantees about anything when dealing with desperate people. The only thing that matters is that all of the above things are possible, but are only possible if you have a weapon.

I can offer you case after case where victims suffering the initial disadvantage came up and thwarted their attackers. The key is usually speed, surprise, and violence of action -again; tried and true elements of any successful combat action. Allow an assailant to think he's in control and he may take that control for granted.

 

[nexus]

Would it not be easier to, say, mount some sort of tracking chip/ general ID (this is a combo slash, not an either-or situation, they should have both) into every gun manufactured (like with micro-chipping pets.
Then introduce a campaign of having all pre-tagged guns either tagged and documented, or exchanged for one that does.
Then declare ownership of an untagged gun is an offence you can be killed on the spot for.

This allows us to monitor the location and ownership of all guns, (with sufficient accuracy, it could help you track a nutcase on a killing spree) and assume anyone past a certain time frame who doesn't have a tagged gun to be a criminal or a terrorist, and thus gets shot on sight anyway.

I'm away out for a few hours, but I'll check back later. If someone gets the ideal solution I would love to read it.

Ugh.

People like you are the exact reason we need to continue owning firearms.

Since you advocated for "shooting someone on sight" for breaking the law. Then I advocate shooting people like you on sight for being a fascist.

The person who could get suspended/banned for saying what they said, either him or myself, will prove to everyone what kind of society we live in.

 

[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.

(I'm anti-gun control)

When you look through these gun control threads you see that the people anti gun control will cite all kinds of facts and then of course also argue about self defense.

When you see pro gun control posts the vast majority of them say "GET RID OF GUNS CUZ GUNS CAUSE GUN CRIME", gun crime isn't worse than any other kind of crime. I don't see gun crime being worse than the crazy amount of car accidents, or worse than being stabbed, crippled, etc. And yes, NO SHIT no guns means no gun crime, but that doesn't mean no death. We can look to England where after gun control was implemented violent crime RATES went up.

On the matter of rates to all the people, both pro gun and anti gun control citing some flat number about gun deaths or gun crime really doesn't mean anything. Lets say we have two imaginary countries A and B. You don't know the exact (or approximate) population either country (You probably didn't bother to do any research before making up garbage arguments). In country A has no gun control and there are 70,000 gun related deaths per year. Country B has gun control and has 30,000 gun related deaths per year. O HAY CLEARLY GUN CONTROL WORKS. Ok and what if country has a population of 10 million while country B has a population of 200,000. And maybe, you are right, Maybe A has 500,000 people while B has 800,000 people. THE POINT IS THAT FLAT NUMBERS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. Give me a statistic(hopefully accurate, and even better, a link to a credible source) and I am MUCH more willing to agree with your points.

Furthermore, you shouldn't just limit rights because "oh hey you don't need those rights so lets just take them away because someone might do something dangerous". Prove that those rights are causing so much harm that they need to be limited.

Also, IF YOU AREN'T AN AMERICAN CITIZEN THEN STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT AMERICAN LAWS. Jesus Christ, if you don't live in America or aren't an American citizen then what makes you think we should consider your opinion on how we govern ourselves. (Just to all those people who aren't Americans or living in America and post like its their god damned business). Oh what, are you going to vote for someone that sanctions America until they raise their gun control. As far as I'm aware (and I might be shooting myself in the foot here) America is the only country that tells other countries what to do under the guise of Justice, Freedom and Democracy.

And lastly, to jump into the baseless name calling, the guy I quoted is an asshat. "OH HUR LETTING PEOPLE HAVE DANGEROUS THINGS MEANS YOU GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO KILL EACH OTHER"

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm - yes the site is anti-gun control but they have sources so don't judge unless you hate on their sources

Ah, a gun-nut. Well actually the figures I was looking at were deaths per 100k so the total population of the country doesn't really matter. The US was 10.27 per 100k, Canada at 4.78 and England and Wales at 0.46. Trending towards... guns are bad. Interestingly enough in the US, 68% of murders are with firearms and approx 70% of those are handguns. Trending towards... handguns are bad. But I am fully aware that solid facts and figures can't win over crazy so feel free to ignore all that because Jesus didn't kill the devil with a knife...

Though I sort of agree with the non-Americans shouldn't complain about laws in the United States. The only reason we would have to complain is if there should be a need for "the voice of reason" anywhere in the arguement. I mean, there's no way that a sane solution would occure locally now is there?