Question for people Pro-guns....

[gufftroad]

Firearms aren't necessarily a bad thing, Shooting is an interesting sport which also happens to be olympic sport (not that snipers ever enter it) Hunting is also popular, the question really is, is it necessary? In Australia, we had a brutal massacre in a southern tourist city, 35 people were killed and 23 wounded he was using an AR-15 Rifle, plenty of children amoung the dead. After the incident, we tightened our grip on weapons laws to prevent caes like this, ever since we havent had any major massacres. Bolt Action Rifles are still in common use, but semi-automatic weapons are banned if you do not have a military/police liscence. its not really the weapons, its what type of weapon, and more importantly who you give the weapon to. Firarms shouldnt be outright banned, but the fact that you can own an assualt rifle in the US, a civillian should not be able to posess that firepower. Thats just my opinion, though I will mention one thing, just becuase such weapons are illeagal, there is still a black market out west, sadly gangs seem to be getting these kinds of weapons too often

i seem to remember that shooting didn't a mentally handicapped man with an iq of 66 get blamed interrogate and thrown in jail without a trial

also in our constitution we have the second amendment that was written to prevent the government from preventing us form having guns this is a form of keeping the government in check so if the government ever over stepped its boundaries the citizens would be able to over throw it (i shit you not read up on it) also a semi auto is not an assault rifle assault rifle implies select fire capability which you do not have on civilian "assault weapons"

 

[Thaluikhain]

Firearms aren't necessarily a bad thing, Shooting is an interesting sport which also happens to be olympic sport (not that snipers ever enter it) Hunting is also popular, the question really is, is it necessary? In Australia, we had a brutal massacre in a southern tourist city, 35 people were killed and 23 wounded he was using an AR-15 Rifle, plenty of children amoung the dead. After the incident, we tightened our grip on weapons laws to prevent caes like this, ever since we havent had any major massacres. Bolt Action Rifles are still in common use, but semi-automatic weapons are banned if you do not have a military/police liscence. its not really the weapons, its what type of weapon, and more importantly who you give the weapon to. Firarms shouldnt be outright banned, but the fact that you can own an assualt rifle in the US, a civillian should not be able to posess that firepower. Thats just my opinion, though I will mention one thing, just becuase such weapons are illeagal, there is still a black market out west, sadly gangs seem to be getting these kinds of weapons too often

All firearms are banned in Australia without a licence, it's just that some licences are easier to get than others.

Only assault rifles registered before 1986 can be legally owned by US civilians, and those are in short supply.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Because many people enjoy shooting orange clay disks and/or animals as an fun outdoor activity and we don't want it made illegal. Also many people view guns as collector items.

Also because if some guy breaks into my house, I want to be able to stop him from attacking me.

Those are all arguments for recreational guns, or for home-only weapons. I, for one, think that sporting guns (hunting rifles, for instance) are perfectly fine, insofar as they stay in approved hunting regions, or are unloaded (a gun is just a hunk of metal if you ain't got no bullets!). And guns in the home, while probably superfluous[footnote]If someone breaks into your home, unless you have lots of long hallways, a close range weapon like a bat or a knife (or pepper spray, or a taser, or a bean-bag gun, or a fist) are probably going to be more effective, and have a lower risk of misfiring and killing your house-mate/wife/kid who is ten metres away trying to stay out of the fray.[/footnote], are at least understandable (though due to their range, they actually put your neighbours at risk unless you live on a large property) but should never be taken from your private property (unless safely contained away from ammunition), because the moment you enter the public sector, you are putting everyone else in unnecessary risk, in a place that they should be safe to travel. On top of which, should you ever have reason to use it in a public place, unless you are alone at night, every shot you fire in 'self-defense' is putting anyone and everyone nearby at risk (and unless they are the ones putting you at risk in the first place, you have no right to do that to them).

So yeah, 'self-defense' doesn't really cut it, because while you have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to put other people at risk doing so (hence why non-lethal or close-range alternatives are better/more appropriate, and guns are long-range and VERY dangerous), and in the hands of anyone who isn't an expert marksman, they're a risk to innocent bystanders.

 

[Thaluikhain]

i seem to remember that shooting didn't a mentally handicapped man with an iq of 66 get blamed interrogate and thrown in jail without a trial

No, he got a trial. Open and shut case, though, but Australia can't gaol people without a trial.

He was severely mentally handicapped, yeah.

 

[gufftroad]

Because many people enjoy shooting orange clay disks and/or animals as an fun outdoor activity and we don't want it made illegal. Also many people view guns as collector items.

Also because if some guy breaks into my house, I want to be able to stop him from attacking me.

Those are all arguments for recreational guns, or for home-only weapons. I, for one, think that sporting guns (hunting rifles, for instance) are perfectly fine, insofar as they stay in approved hunting regions, or are unloaded (a gun is just a hunk of metal if you ain't got no bullets!). And guns in the home, while probably superfluous[footnote]If someone breaks into your home, unless you have lots of long hallways, a close range weapon like a bat or a knife (or pepper spray, or a taser, or a bean-bag gun, or a fist) are probably going to be more effective, and have a lower risk of misfiring and killing your house-mate/wife/kid who is ten metres away trying to stay out of the fray.[/footnote], are at least understandable (though due to their range, they actually put your neighbours at risk unless you live on a large property) but should never be taken from your private property (unless safely contained away from ammunition), because the moment you enter the public sector, you are putting everyone else in unnecessary risk, in a place that they should be safe to travel. On top of which, should you ever have reason to use it in a public place, unless you are alone at night, every shot you fire in 'self-defense' is putting anyone and everyone nearby at risk (and unless they are the ones putting you at risk in the first place, you have no right to do that to them).

So yeah, 'self-defense' doesn't really cut it, because while you have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to put other people at risk doing so (hence why non-lethal or close-range alternatives are better/more appropriate, and guns are long-range and VERY dangerous), and in the hands of anyone who isn't an expert marksman, they're a risk to innocent bystanders.

i keep several loaded weapons in my house i have a serious tweeker problem in my neighborhood and have had them break into my garage twice now

and up untill very recently i open carried everywhere for those unfamiliar open carry is having an unloaded pistol in a holster in plain sight my guns with the exception of my milsurp have never hurt anyone and as long as i own them never will banning semi auto rifles would make many many guns like the M1Garand M1A SKS and others illegal yet these don't fall into the evil assault rifle category but they function the same way

 

[Ryotknife]

Because many people enjoy shooting orange clay disks and/or animals as an fun outdoor activity and we don't want it made illegal. Also many people view guns as collector items.

Also because if some guy breaks into my house, I want to be able to stop him from attacking me.

Those are all arguments for recreational guns, or for home-only weapons. I, for one, think that sporting guns (hunting rifles, for instance) are perfectly fine, insofar as they stay in approved hunting regions, or are unloaded (a gun is just a hunk of metal if you ain't got no bullets!). And guns in the home, while probably superfluous, are at least understandable (though due to their range, they actually put your neighbours at risk unless you live on a large property) but should never be taken from your private property (unless safely contained away from ammunition), because the moment you enter the public sector, you are putting everyone else in unnecessary risk, in a place that they should be safe to travel. On top of which, should you ever have reason to use it in a public place, unless you are alone at night, every shot you fire in 'self-defense' is putting anyone and everyone nearby at risk (and unless they are the ones putting you at risk in the first place, you have no right to do that to them).

So yeah, 'self-defense' doesn't really cut it, because while you have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to put other people at risk doing so (hence why non-lethal or close-range alternatives are better/more appropriate, and guns are long-range and VERY dangerous), and in the hands of anyone who isn't an expert marksman, they're a risk to innocent bystanders.

Im guessing you never heard the saying "dont bring a knife to a gunfight"

Not to mention you are asking someone to put themselves at very REAL risk in order to eliminate the possibility that they MAY put someone else in risk despite the fact that the attacker is putting the person and others in REAL risk with his gun.

In fact, your situation is actually MORE dangerous than having the person defend him/herself with a gun, especially since you are putting the defender at a massive disadvantage.

 

[scully745]

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Guns are also used for sport. There are a lot of people who like hunting bucks with a rifle. The United States (of America) expressly gave citizens the right to "keep and bear arms" so that if the government started stepping on toes and shoving it's nose in places it shouldn't, the people would have the power to change that. The founders of the United States didn't want the citizens led around on a leash, but many citizens are.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but you're saying that the concept of the "right to bear arms" was made with the intention of shooting or threatening to shoot government members if they screwed up? Do I need to go into what's wrong with that?

 

[gufftroad]

Because many people enjoy shooting orange clay disks and/or animals as an fun outdoor activity and we don't want it made illegal. Also many people view guns as collector items.

Also because if some guy breaks into my house, I want to be able to stop him from attacking me.

Those are all arguments for recreational guns, or for home-only weapons. I, for one, think that sporting guns (hunting rifles, for instance) are perfectly fine, insofar as they stay in approved hunting regions, or are unloaded (a gun is just a hunk of metal if you ain't got no bullets!). And guns in the home, while probably superfluous, are at least understandable (though due to their range, they actually put your neighbours at risk unless you live on a large property) but should never be taken from your private property (unless safely contained away from ammunition), because the moment you enter the public sector, you are putting everyone else in unnecessary risk, in a place that they should be safe to travel. On top of which, should you ever have reason to use it in a public place, unless you are alone at night, every shot you fire in 'self-defense' is putting anyone and everyone nearby at risk (and unless they are the ones putting you at risk in the first place, you have no right to do that to them).

So yeah, 'self-defense' doesn't really cut it, because while you have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to put other people at risk doing so (hence why non-lethal or close-range alternatives are better/more appropriate, and guns are long-range and VERY dangerous), and in the hands of anyone who isn't an expert marksman, they're a risk to innocent bystanders.

Im guessing you never heard the saying "dont bring a knife to a gunfight"

Not to mention you are asking someone to put themselves at very REAL risk in order to eliminate the possibility that they MAY put someone else in risk despite the fact that the attacker is putting the person and others in REAL risk with his gun.

In fact, your situation is actually MORE dangerous than having the person defend him/herself with a gun, especially since you are putting the defender at a massive disadvantage.

It is rather amusing that he thinks we're allowed to defend ourselves, as long as it's nothing that'll hurt the person trying to kill us.....

qft i do support less then lethal though my shotgun is loaded with salt rock... and some bird shot just in case

 

[gufftroad]

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Guns are also used for sport. There are a lot of people who like hunting bucks with a rifle. The United States (of America) expressly gave citizens the right to "keep and bear arms" so that if the government started stepping on toes and shoving it's nose in places it shouldn't, the people would have the power to change that. The founders of the United States didn't want the citizens led around on a leash, but many citizens are.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but you're saying that the concept of the "right to bear arms" was made with the intention of shooting or threatening to shoot government members if they screwed up? Do I need to go into what's wrong with that?

yes that is the exact reason it was to prevent the government from overreaching in its power ill invite you to read up on what went into the constitution and why we have a bill of rights

 

[scully745]

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Guns are also used for sport. There are a lot of people who like hunting bucks with a rifle. The United States (of America) expressly gave citizens the right to "keep and bear arms" so that if the government started stepping on toes and shoving it's nose in places it shouldn't, the people would have the power to change that. The founders of the United States didn't want the citizens led around on a leash, but many citizens are.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but you're saying that the concept of the "right to bear arms" was made with the intention of shooting or threatening to shoot government members if they screwed up? Do I need to go into what's wrong with that?

yes that is the exact reason

I was under the impression it was introduced during America's fight for independence and then solidified later in the constitution, something to do with shooting British colonials as I recall. My American history's a little rusty due to me living an ocean away.

 

[gufftroad]

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Guns are also used for sport. There are a lot of people who like hunting bucks with a rifle. The United States (of America) expressly gave citizens the right to "keep and bear arms" so that if the government started stepping on toes and shoving it's nose in places it shouldn't, the people would have the power to change that. The founders of the United States didn't want the citizens led around on a leash, but many citizens are.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but you're saying that the concept of the "right to bear arms" was made with the intention of shooting or threatening to shoot government members if they screwed up? Do I need to go into what's wrong with that?

yes that is the exact reason

I was under the impression it was introduced during America's fight for independence and then solidified later in the constitution, something to do with shooting British colonials as I recall. My American history's a little rusty due to me living an ocean away.

actually after the war was over and we were working on our second government after the articles of confederation we had a split in the founders the federalist and the anti-federalist the anti-federalist pushed for the bill of rights to guarantee the citizens rights they would not sign the constitution without the second as a countermeasure to the strong federal government being pushed by the federalists. they started with over 200 amendments which were narrowed to 17 only 12 were approved and only the 10 were ratified

Some quotes from the founders:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."-Alexander Hamilton

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." - George Washington

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose rulers are afraid to trust them with arms." - James Madison

History is fun

 

[Keltrick]

Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

1) You can be pro-guns but please don't be stupid. You know the answer and its pretty obvious by the OPs statement of reduced gun crime that it does work.

By making guns illegal you make them exponentially harder to obtain, and overtime can work on shrinking the available pool of firearms from the market, legally obtained or otherwise. Yes you can obtain handguns still, but ONLY from illegal dealers and with no new ones being fed in, overtime it will only get harder to get them. Yes you can smuggle in whatever you like, but its a hell of a lot harder than just popping into a legal place of business and acquiring one. It doesn't take some genius intellect to figure out making an item illegal might not eliminate but certainly impedes it being available.

2) I have no doubt you may be very well versed in gun safety. I actually don't know if I believe handguns should be all the way outlawed, because there are smart people who go about things just as you've stated you do. The problem is it isn't safe to assume everyone treats them with the same respect you do. In fact, most don't. All criminals don't (see above making them harder to obtain).

According to your beliefs every common joe SHOULD be considered competent enough for a firearm, but in your eyes our trained law enforcement ISN'T? How do you assign trust like this? You can't defend firearms as a whole based on how you specifically would treat them.

 

[RaginDoomFire]

i actully dilike guns but it is inrooted in my system [from family] to dislike the idea of oulawing guns. SO the only reason i can think for them is: Its America ,in a red neck voice [not to be ofensive im american and several people in my family are rednecks]

 

[Pyro Paul]

You can be pro-guns but please don't be stupid. You know the answer and its pretty obvious by the OPs statement of reduced gun crime that it does work.

By making guns illegal you make them exponentially harder to obtain, and overtime can work on shrinking the available pool of firearms from the market, legally obtained or otherwise. Yes you can obtain handguns still, but ONLY from illegal dealers and with no new ones being fed in, overtime it will only get harder to get them. Yes you can smuggle in whatever you like, but its a hell of a lot harder than just popping into a legal place of business and acquiring one. It doesn't take some genius intellect to figure out making an item illegal might not eliminate but certainly impedes it being available.

Incorrect. A majority of weapons used in crimes are not regestered and often obtained through illegal means... Infact, you are less inclined to be shot by a regestered weapon obtained in a legal place of business then one would acctually think.

And it really isn't as simple as popping into a legal place of business and getting a firearm. All gun shops conform to a ridgid set of rules and regulations which demands the up-most responcibility in selling weapons with a several day waiting period, extensive background check, and regestration of that weapon into a national regestry.

Because they're, you know, illegal. That means you can't buy them without the right underworld connections and a shitload of money.

Generally only the big criminals can afford firearms, and those that do don't use them against the public, because after that the entire police force will be after them, and they've just wasted something worth ? 3000+ on a lousy robbery that brings in ? 10-50. Criminals are commercially oriented people; if it's not profitable, they won't do it.

You can acctually buy gun parts then construct the gun yourself... individual parts are not held to the same measure of control as an entire gun is. And all you need for that is a credit card and an internet connection.

And honostly... what gun are you buying?
At that price point i could buy a .50 BMG rifle (Anti-tank rifle).

Most pistols run for ~?100 in parts alone.
Rifles are not that much more expensive either.

 

[Vanitas likes Bubbles]

Because if they do restrict gun laws, the terrorists would win.

 

[gufftroad]

You can acctually buy gun parts then construct the gun yourself... individual parts are not held to the same measure of control as an entire gun is. And all you need for that is a credit card and an internet connection.

And honostly... what gun are you buying?
At that price point i could buy a .50 BMG rifle (Anti-tank rifle).

Most pistols run for ~?100 in parts alone.
Rifles are not that much more expensive either.

here in USA you cant buy the parts like that the lower receiver or receiver are actually considered the gun adn have to go through a licensed FFL store to be purchased you would be unable to purchase all the parts required to make a gun without going through an FFL and having an ATF background check

 

[Rafael Dera]

Simple solution: legalise guns. Have bullets cost 10000$ each.
No harm having people walk around wielding what are in essense metal clubs.

Government gets the taxes, obviously

 

[gufftroad]

Simple solution: legalise guns. Have bullets cost 10000$ each.
No harm having people walk around wielding what are in essense metal clubs.

Government gets the taxes, obviously

if ammunition cost that much people wouldn't buy it and the government would get less money not to mention it would kill the ammunition industry here and people would lose jobs putting more strain on the government. people would probably manufacture bullets themselves they would just save their brass and go out and salvage their lead and melt it down to form it into new bullets most of the people i know at the range already reload their own ammo and i'm willing to bet most would just salvage lead