Question for anti-gun:

[SenseOfTumour]

When I said about keeping beasties off your property, I should have included rifles, when I said handguns and shotguns, I've got no problem with people owning rifles.

It's the idea that everyone should be allowed to take the gun out of their mother's thigh holster 3 seconds after they've left the birth canal, and then at 18, they get a free chain gun like in 'Predator'.

No-one seems to feel that they should have the right to have axle blades sticking out of their car's wheels and bayonets strapped to the grille, like something out of Death Race 2000, so why can't basic guns be enough when it comes to the right to be armed?

I'd say that if you don't feel 'defended' enough, owning a rifle, a shotgun, and a couple of handguns, then I don't really want you having machine guns on top of that.

I'm fairly sure there's people who'd like the right to place landmines in their front garden, to keep cats out, but it doesn't make it a reasonable act of defending their property.

Sure, you may get a burglar who's armed and wearing body armour. Where do you draw the line however, in spending on weapons to outgun this mythical invader?

Personally I'll spend the money on insurance and just let him take the damned TV instead of risking my life.

Again, I'm not entirely against people owning rifles, shotguns, handguns etc... I just think there should be some kind of limit when it comes to machine guns, there's no 'sport' in emptying 70 rounds in 5 seconds into a squirrel. (yes I know it's a ridiculous example, but so is hunting with uzis.)

It's a similar reason to why I'm against fox hunting, by all means hunt a fox, but not 30 of you on horseback, with packs of hunting dogs, against one fox.

If you want to 'battle the cunning of the fox', you get to be on foot, with a pointy stick. Alone. It's still unfair, but then foxes aren't fair to what they prey on.

I'd also say that, just as over here in the UK, I've got no problem with people wishing to own things for collector's purposes.

In short, by all means have guns, but I don't feel that there's a place in the home for the kind of ordinance you'd normally have to unlock in a FPS. I'm not trying to take your guns away, America, just saying that if you can't do what you want to do with a handgun, rifle or shotgun, I don't trust you with a minigun or rocket launcher.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I should also direct a reply to Boomheadshot, who I haven't been aiming my replies at directly:

Firstly, just an oversight on my part, fully understand you'd prefer a rifle and I support that entirely.

Secondly, damned pleased to hear you're in the majority of sensible, careful gun owners.

I'm with you that if you just want one for display and the price is prohibitive, why not go for a replica, or Airsoft version

Now, to all, not just to Boom...

One bit I still don't get as a non US citizen.

Why does this mean quite so much to Americans, considering how many important rights are laid down in the Constitution and its amendments? I'm sure it isn't but it feels like it's more important than slavery, freedom of speech, equality or anything else.

I'd personally find it interesting if one day it came around that they were going to fully enforce things, but put it to a national vote first.

'You guys can keep your guns, hell, we'll relax the laws and let have all the guns you like, but to do so, we're going to have to fully enforce the rules about seperation of church and state. Religion out, no more tax breaks for churches etc.'

I really don't mean to troll, but there's an evil part of me that'd enjoy watching the shitstorm rise up over the choice between guns and god.

 

[crazyarms33]

I am pretty sure .30-06 will do fine against coyotes.

Actually the 30.06 is going to be tremendous overkill on a coyote, but I understand your point. Owning a Garand myself is one of my distinct shooting pleasures. You will not go wrong with one and you can hunt just about anything with one except pronghorn because they are fast as shit and moose because they are bloody giant animals. My hunting rifle is a Savage 30.06 bolt action rifle with an 8 power scope. I freaking love the 30.06 round, it's pretty sweet. But if you just want to weed out some coyotes a 5.56 will do that in spades for you and ammo for it is pretty common as well.

 

[the doom cannon]

I'm with you that if you just want one for display and the price is prohibitive, why not go for a replica, or Airsoft version

Why does this mean quite so much to Americans, considering how many important rights are laid down in the Constitution and its amendments? I'm sure it isn't but it feels like it's more important than slavery, freedom of speech, equality or anything else.

Funny you mention airsoft guns. You know there are tons of people pushing to make them all clear plastic. Check out California SB798 from last year, or California SB 1315 from this year. Some silly people here in the states seem to think replica firearms kill people too. As for wanting to own a weapon, I do. Since I live in California where gun laws are the strictest in all the states, I have to go through all sorts of background checks and tests to purchase a handgun. I could walk in the store and get a rifle or shotgun today, but I would have to wait a month to actually pick it up.

I see so many silly opinions in these gun control threads it really confuses me how mis/un informed people are on this topic. With regards to wild animals: we have large game, unlike a lot of other countries. Bears, bison, moose, boars, and that sort of animal won't even be phased by handgun rounds. Handgun rounds don't even penetrate their hide sometimes. low caliber(.22) rifle rounds won't do the trick either. Shotgun pellets will do even less. So there's a reason for people in those areas of the country.

Now on to the average citizen. I agree that the average citizen should not own a gun. I feel that gun safety should be taught in our schools because of how prevalent they are in the US, but alas that will never happen because of silly people who think guns are the devil and that their babies don't need to know anything about them.

We love our guns so much because it's part of our culture. It would be like banning tea in England(obviously I'm hyperbolizing to make a point). And contrary to popular belief, you can't just walk into a store in America and walk out with a pistol. And getting a concealed carry license is next to impossible for the average civilian. I couldn't get one even if I wanted to. You need to have a valid reason for one, and the agencies that hand them out are VERY strict as to who can get a concealed carry. Which means that most people who tote handguns in the crotch of their pants are doing so *gasp* illegally!. We also don't sleep with guns under our pillows.....well unless you live in a rather unfriendly part of town.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Guns may not kill people, but guns allow you to kill ten people as opposed to the one or two you might beat or stab to death in a crowd before everyone else escapes.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

snip

OP, just to help you out, since all these people from foreign countries like to post about the UK and lack of gun violence... all you need to do is look at the England riots and how the police did nothing (since they had no firearms) and had to wait for backup to confront looters, who by that time where done and ran away to coordinate another attack via social media.

EDIT: it's a very interesting read and look into a country that has to handle modern situations with lack of firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

The fuck would we do with fire arms in that situation? Just open fire on citizens? Sorry but the lack of potentially lethal fire arms in these cases is more so a blessing as we have seen even with Armed response units suffering media backlash from a decision made based on what was there and visible at the time.

I think the way the UK is run in regards to lá policia and their access to firearms is done in the best way possible for what we are, if you start handing guns out willy bloody nilly is the damn reason why there's not a year I can remember when there hasn't been some shooting in a school in some backwards state in the US, not even weeks since the Aurora shooting.

Guns and access to guns should be highly legislated and not be so simply accessed by civilians, to define that "A person not in the armed services or the police force."

Gadzooks, ARMED read that? ARMED... when you start giving arms to the masses shit will hit the fan, don't be surprised when you throw shit in the air that it one day gets slapped by the fan and shit sprays over everything your people, your food and heck even your gold fish caught a little floater in his bowl too.





tl;dr guns are to civilians as shit is to fan.

 

[Exocet]

I can understand owning a few sane guns, to fire on a firing range. Or even a hunting rifle, granted that person goes through an annual check to see if he's fit to use it correctly.
Also having proper safety containers and protocols for storing the guns.

For example, in my country, guns have to be locked up in a locked steel armory, and if the weapon is bolt action, the bolt has to be removed from the rifle.
The only semi-auto guns allowed for the common civilians are handguns, and very, very few people are allowed to purchase military grade weapons, but those are extremely strictly controlled, and those people are generally from a military background.

Why the common civilian is allowed to buy automatic weapons, and not required to store them somewhere sage is beyond me.
But the thing that boggles my mind the most is the right to have a concealed weapon.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME USA?

Who in their right mind thinks that people walking in the streets with guns is a good idea?
What if a shooting that starts up? How can the guy that's going to try to defend himself know in all the confusion who is the shooter, and who is another schmuck with a concealed weapon trying to do the same?
Or worse, what if it's just a hostage situation or mugging, and some hero decides to take action and turns it into a bloodbath by pulling out a gun? Why should MY life be in the hands of someone with no real training or qualifications other than filling out a form?


Lastly, second amendment this, third amendment that.... You guys realize that a constitution can be changed to stay in touch with current times, right?
You don't HAVE to keep amendments exactly how they were 250 years ago. The fore-fathers don't give a shit about anything, they're dead. You're free to modify all they wrote to keep up with the times. Every other place in the world has changed their rule book a few times, why can't you do the same?

 

[lemby117]

snip

OP, just to help you out, since all these people from foreign countries like to post about the UK and lack of gun violence... all you need to do is look at the England riots and how the police did nothing (since they had no firearms) and had to wait for backup to confront looters, who by that time where done and ran away to coordinate another attack via social media.

EDIT: it's a very interesting read and look into a country that has to handle modern situations with lack of firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

Yes look how awful it is that because the police were not carrying guns they could not callously end the life of a human being.

If the police felt it was necessary we would have used rubber bullets and water cannons, instead we waited a couple of days and moved in, arresting many of the rioters and only one death occurred. In the UK you could not equip just the police with weapons, the civilians would want them, if they had them those riots would have had a death toll in the 1000's

Edit: I should also point out that those riots started because a policeman shot somebody dead.

 

[ElPatron]

No-one seems to feel that they should have the right to have axle blades sticking out of their car's wheels and bayonets strapped to the grille, like something out of Death Race 2000, so why can't basic guns be enough when it comes to the right to be armed?

Uh, I would actually love to have those axle blades, oil slick, smoke, steel caltrops, smoke emitters and a parachute.

With a flamethrower on the driver's side to fend off carjackers. Look for it, it was actually considered and developed for South Africa.

OT: Look, machine guns are heavily restricted, rare and expensive. Nobody is hunting with Uzis.

The problem in gun control arguments is that people don't know shit about guns. Which is okay by itself. But you kind of need to know about something before you hate it, right?

If the police felt it was necessary we would have used rubber bullets and water cannons, instead we waited a couple of days and moved in, arresting many of the rioters and only one death occurred. In the UK you could not equip just the police with weapons, the civilians would want them, if they had them those riots would have had a death toll in the 1000's

Because everyone would riot if they had the knowledge that the police were armed, and so would the civilians.

The Koreantown in the LA riots was attacked, so the Korean store-owners climbed to their roofs with rifles and bandanas on their head. Problem solved.

 

[ElPatron]

I'm not against the idea of people being allowed to own guns, but I think it is too easy to buy a gun in America, particularly ones that are inordinate in what a person would need for home or self defence (what possible reason would you need an AK-47 to defend yourself with, or a grenade launcher).

If a person wants to buy any gun they should be trained, tested and have full background checks (yes I know some guns you do need licences and such). Especially since the main amendment that advocates the ownership of guns actually says "A well regulated militia".

Buying a gun requires a clean record. Buying an AK-47 pattern assault rifle requires you to track down one of the rare AK-47s in existence (milled receiver, they were replaced by the AKM with stamped receivers) and pay a huge sum - I am not sure how expensive an AK-47 is because it's a very special piece of memorabilia. However it's probably close to 10,000 bucks or even higher.

You will have to convince the owner to sell it and then pay a $200 tax stamp for the ATF to accept the transference of a machine gun. Their background check is even more thorough an can take some time. They will investigate your life and probably call former employees.

If you want a grenade launcher, you will have to pay a $200 tax stamp for every live grenade you want to own and it will have to be accepted by the ATF since it's a Destructive Device.


TL;DR you have no idea how things work in America so please don't complain about it until you do

Spoiler: let me tell you about your country and how their people live!

 

[the doom cannon]

Why the common civilian is allowed to buy automatic weapons, and not required to store them somewhere sage is beyond me.
But the thing that boggles my mind the most is the right to have a concealed weapon.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME USA?

Lastly, second amendment this, third amendment that.... You guys realize that a constitution can be changed to stay in touch with current times, right?
You don't HAVE to keep amendments exactly how they were 250 years ago. The fore-fathers don't give a shit about anything, they're dead. You're free to modify all they wrote to keep up with the times. Every other place in the world has changed their rule book a few times, why can't you do the same?

So first paragraph on automatics. We aren't allowed to purchase or own automatics. Get your facts straight pls. Now modding a semi-automatic AR-15 into an automatic is fairly simple, but that doesn't mean we hand out machine guns all willy nilly. Despite popular belief we DO have gun control laws. Some crazies and criminals just don't like following them.

Second paragraph on the constitution. Please understand what it is and the process for getting it changed before saying ANYTHING relating to it.

TL;DR you have no idea how things work in America so please don't complain about it until you do

Spoiler: let me tell you about your country and how their people live!

THANK YOU SIR!

 

[HellsingerAngel]

Stuff about pro-gun laws.

You're right. There are a lot of facts to support that guns reduce crime rates of things like theft. No one is stupid enough to try and steal from someone when there's the distinct possibility that they have a firearm, even if the thief has a firearm as well. The risk is too great for the reward.

The problem with your argument is within statistics that you posted yourself.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

When you have less gun control, you have more fatal encounters. Within the fifteen countries that had the most gun related deaths under the age of fifteen, the U.S. not only is the highest on the list but it almost tripled the second highest country. I might also note that Finland has pretty relaxed gun control laws as well, but they are much stricter than the United States.

The problem isn't so much in the fact that gun control doesn't stop crime, the problem is that it also creates an influx of much more violent crime. Murder might be down by a percentage, but the flat numbers are still grossly out of proportion from other countries. The U.S. still leads the first world in homicide. This isn't even going into the fact that the U.S. also has a very poor health care program which only exacerbates the issue or how many individuals are acquitted because of self defense. Guns promote violent solutions, unfortunately, which is the entire problem of a system with little to no gun control.

As a side note, I'm glad you posted something that was pro-gun control, if unknowingly, because it shows you use fair statistics. =)

Captach: know your rights. How appropriate.

 

[Exocet]

Why the common civilian is allowed to buy automatic weapons, and not required to store them somewhere sage is beyond me.
But the thing that boggles my mind the most is the right to have a concealed weapon.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME USA?

Lastly, second amendment this, third amendment that.... You guys realize that a constitution can be changed to stay in touch with current times, right?
You don't HAVE to keep amendments exactly how they were 250 years ago. The fore-fathers don't give a shit about anything, they're dead. You're free to modify all they wrote to keep up with the times. Every other place in the world has changed their rule book a few times, why can't you do the same?

So first paragraph on automatics. We aren't allowed to purchase or own automatics. Get your facts straight pls. Now modding a semi-automatic AR-15 into an automatic is fairly simple, but that doesn't mean we hand out machine guns all willy nilly. Despite popular belief we DO have gun control laws. Some crazies and criminals just don't like following them.

Second paragraph on the constitution. Please understand what it is and the process for getting it changed before saying ANYTHING relating to it.

First of all, automatic weapons aren't allowed? Funny, FPSRussia has plenty, and he lives in the USA.
Also, I'll link you these videos, showing automatic weapons being used in gun shows in the US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X_JuKcjmf4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnU1t7UzgM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f7wTMnWbqQ&feature=related

So illegal to own automatic weapons? I think not.
You may have some gun control laws, but they are pathetic, and frankly, the laughing stock of the world.

As for the constitution, why should I need to understand the full process of the American legal and juridic system? It's a constitution, it can be changed, I don't see what your problem is with me saying it...
It's not fucking sacred text written by God, handed down to worship and pray to, it's a series of laws that can, and should be changed to fit the society's needs.

But yeah, you are right, defending a country where you can buy fucking live grenades is ok, as long as you pay a tax for every one you own, because nothing bad can happen with civilians owning grenades and automatic weapons.
Also, the rest of the world can't express how absolutely ridiculous it is.

tell yourself this, maybe there are so many threads and topic and whatnot ridiculing the USA for their stances because they're outdated or plain stupid, and that it makes the rest of the world laugh how one of the most important nations in the world, and probably the most well developed can be backwards when it comes down to a few key subjects.

 

[Exocet]

It's illegal to own automatic weapons... without a hefty licensing procedure, including close examination by the government, and certification that you have the proper premises for collecting these weapons. So while it's not entirely illegal, the average citizen cannot legally obtain automatic weapons.


AGAIN. The average citizen can NOT get their hands on this sort of equipment. Please actually get your shit together before you start spouting such uninformed bullshit.

But one CAN have them. Tell me what I got wrong, please.
A civilian can get an automatic weapon if he so desires.
How is it uninformed bullshit?

They are. A friend of mine was the volunteer fire chief out in Bastrop, where all of those wildfires happened last year. He also has many Class III firearms. His house burned to the ground and the only thing that remained was his gun safe, which is required by law to store his firearms.

Tell that to the 214 unintentional gunshot victims between 0 and 19 years old, according to the university of Michigan Health System
http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

First of all, it is highly improbable that there will be two CHLs that do not know each other in the same area as a shooting.

It's improbable, so let's ignore the problem. Great idea.

Second of all, can you find a single instance where that has actually happened? No.

You first. You seem awfully sure, put your money where your mouth it.

First of all, training is required in most states.

I love the "most" states.

Second of all, CHLs are trained to NOT intervene in such situations.

And yet, at the batman screening shooting, they all pulled out their guns.