Anti-gun control people, where would you draw the line?

[ecoho]

just want to throw in my two cents so here I go. I like the gun regulation in my state Wyoming, we follow every requirement by the federal government, but have a no permit concealed carry law which basically means you don't know whos got what on them unless they show you. Now because of this law and the fact that everyone here is armed we have very low violent crime(a murder makes my states news paper any time one occurs and its front page news) and people are nicer, see I think what some people don't understand is that gun laws only work so well but the threat of retaliation works better. I know I know this sounds like an oxymoron but the threat of violence is usually what it takes to stop violence. so yeah that's my two cents, take it or leave it.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I don't draw the line. Generally speaking, most people don't have the money/need for bazookas, so I don't feel like people need a law to keep them from possessing bazookas. I guess I'd draw the line at home weapons manufacturing. That's when it becomes a public safety issue to me. I don't want my neighbor trucking in explosive materials that could damage me or my property or require tax dollars to put out their fire. I feel the same way about drugs. I'm good with people using crystal meth, I'm just against people making their own crystal meth. But then again, if we lived in a free country, they wouldn't have to make it themselves because it would be stupid cheap and easy to obtain.

(Yes I know this sounds crazy and I know I'll never get my way. I won't ever know for sure, it's just how I feel.)

 

[Mausthemighty]

Well... I'm actually pro-gun control, but I'm anti-ban. As a bit of a collector and a former firearms instructor, I feel we need something more up-to-date governing gun ownership than "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ...which pretty much only covers the existence of the National Guard.

I'm entirely for mandatory background checks, waiting periods, federal and state gun registries that track every firearm from its manufacture or import. I'd also like the system to grade weapons based on type, restricting semi-auto more than bolt-action (et cetera), full auto more than semi, and handguns over all.

Also, I'd draw the line at mounted weapons and explosive ordinance.

It's better to have no weapon at all. I'm totally against guns. I guess it's a part of the American culture that everyone needs to have a gun. Here in Europe we don't have guns, and I'm fine with that.

...yes you do. Not too sure about the Netherlands, but I've been shot at in Germany and Romania within the past 7 years. I mean, I was kinda asking for it, wearing a US Army uniform and carrying an M4 while checking IDs at a gate (both times!)... but there are guns in Europe, both legally owned (I used to hang out with some German hunters) and illicit.

This is true, but if you have a particular target in mind, particularly one that isn't weary of you, a knife is just an effective weapon as a rifle.

Well, then I'd compare the knife vs firearm homicide rates.

For that matter, attaching bayonets to rifles is going out of favour as well.

Do that, and then check handguns versus all other firearms... then check knives versus all firearms except handguns. You might be a little shocked.

Well yes there are guns, but what a meant with "we" was the general populace. Of course there are a few people with guns. In Rotterdam or Amsterdam there are always punks who shoot at people, but those are lowlifes, who got the guns illegally. The few people who have guns from the normal people (that means the non-criminals) are the police, the army and people with a gun-license like hunters or people from shooting ranges.

 

[loc978]

This is true, but if you have a particular target in mind, particularly one that isn't weary of you, a knife is just an effective weapon as a rifle.

That is of course very true but in order to use a knife effectively you have to get very close to the person and if your target is relatively fit and has some very basic hand to hand skills they could potentially disarm you. whereas a gun can kill easily someone at 25 meters (with very little training) and a good rifle can kill someone at about half a mile away (possibly more so with a skilled shooter). Not to mention you can only use a knife on one target at a time so against a few people you dont stand a chance, a rifle can carry a lot of rounds and can take multiple targets simultaneously.

And yet... as big, obvious and loud as rifles tend to be, they're rarely used in crime. Almost never if the perpetrator doesn't intend to confront the police. Most criminals want to get away with what they're doing. For that they need something concealable. This is why a knife or a handgun is more popular than a sword or a rifle.

I agree, chances are if someone came out you with a big rifle or a sword they would be trying to intimidate you rather than actually do any damage (i wouldnt like to hang around to find out though). The more i hang around here the more is start to agree with you

as i said before if it primary purpose is to kill it should be illegal. A handgun is obviously designed to kill a person but a rifle or shotgun has more sporting, hunting and pest control usage. so I think we can all agree that handguns should definately be illegal as they have very little use in hunting or pest control and designed to shoot people

however a rifle or shotgun can still be lethal in the wrong hands, if the law was strictly regulated then I dont see a problem with legality. In the UK the police do a good job of controlling it (of course theres still a lot that slip through the net) whereas with guns being so widely available in America it must be so difficult for the police and authorities to control the firearms properly.

Well, you're on the right track, but handguns do have more uses than just killing people. I wouldn't want to ban the hunter's last line of defense. I would certainly regulate and track everything much more strictly than we currently do, though.

Well... I'm actually pro-gun control, but I'm anti-ban. As a bit of a collector and a former firearms instructor, I feel we need something more up-to-date governing gun ownership than "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ...which pretty much only covers the existence of the National Guard.

I'm entirely for mandatory background checks, waiting periods, federal and state gun registries that track every firearm from its manufacture or import. I'd also like the system to grade weapons based on type, restricting semi-auto more than bolt-action (et cetera), full auto more than semi, and handguns over all.

Also, I'd draw the line at mounted weapons and explosive ordinance.

It's better to have no weapon at all. I'm totally against guns. I guess it's a part of the American culture that everyone needs to have a gun. Here in Europe we don't have guns, and I'm fine with that.

...yes you do. Not too sure about the Netherlands, but I've been shot at in Germany and Romania within the past 7 years. I mean, I was kinda asking for it, wearing a US Army uniform and carrying an M4 while checking IDs at a gate (both times!)... but there are guns in Europe, both legally owned (I used to hang out with some German hunters) and illicit.

This is true, but if you have a particular target in mind, particularly one that isn't weary of you, a knife is just an effective weapon as a rifle.

Well, then I'd compare the knife vs firearm homicide rates.

For that matter, attaching bayonets to rifles is going out of favour as well.

Do that, and then check handguns versus all other firearms... then check knives versus all firearms except handguns. You might be a little shocked.

Well yes there are guns, but what a meant with "we" was the general populace. Of course there are a few people with guns. In Rotterdam or Amsterdam there are always punks who shoot at people, but those are lowlifes, who got the guns illegally. The few people who have guns from the normal people (that means the non-criminals) are the police, the army and people with a gun-license like hunters or people from shooting ranges.

and that is a wonderfully sane system. A little too strict with the banning in my opinion, but one that the US could learn from.

 

[shootthebandit]

Er, very little of this is true. Hitting a target at 25 meters (82.5 feet for imperial) with a pistol is actually pretty damn hard, Untrained you are not going to be landing hits on a person at that range. I am an armed bodyguard for a living and believe me when I tell you, those shots are not easy. If you wanted to kill someone at the ranges you are talking about you would need a decent level of training and practice, (From here on is speculation as I am not a hand to hand person) for the same level of proficiency to land solid shots at those ranges you could become fairly deadly in hand to hand with a knife or other bladed weapon.

And your assumption of them being fit and basic hand to hand skills only matters if you come at them from the front, and basic hand to hand doesn't train you to deal with the pain of someone slashing you with a knife, basic stuff deals with other unarmed opponents, if you want to deal with an armed person you need more specialized training.

sorry but I meant to say 25 feet, which is still quite a big distance to get the drop on someone before they can retaliate.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, anyways, no mechanized weaponry. The assault rifle ban was, quite frankly, garbage, and didn't do anything except get people in trouble if they had more than one or two otherwise legal modifications. "Certain type of stock? OK. Certain type of magazine? Sure. A certain type of stock AND certain type of magazine? Off to the spice mines of Kessel with you!" Seriously, its fucking stupid. I'm not necessarily against assault rifle bans, but we should be much more careful with who gets what as the firearms being purchased become more and more advanced. An imported Kalashnikov should face significantly more checkpoints to ownership than a beginner .22. That being said, they should be road-blocks, not brick walls. The point of a police checkpoint is to weed out any potential danger - drunk drivers, fugitives, abductors. Its not there to throw everybody who drives down that particular road into prison.

You mean "assault weapon" not "assault rifle" there. An assault rifle needs a selective fire capability, an assault weapon has to be semi-automatic.

Also, assault rifles need to fire intermediate power cartridges, a .22 LR isn't powerful enough to count.

As an aside, though, with weapons like the AR-15, only the lower receiver counts as being the weapon. You can swap the upper receiver, which could let you fire different ammunition, without changing the legal status of the weapon (not sure if you change it to one of those zany musket or crossbow uppers which exist for no good reason). So you can't restrict calibres the same way.

 

[spartan231490]

I would look at the data. Even before they were restricted, fully automatics weren't crime guns(except for powerful gangs, who continued to use them after they were restricted) so I wouldn't restrict them. Suppressors, also not commonly used for crime, so I wouldn't restrict them. Same with Bayonets pistol grips and all the other things that make a weapons look scary. Handguns are a bit of sticking issue, they're, by far, the majority of the guns used in crime however, when used in crime they are also almost always illegally purchased outside the realm of any legal restrictions. Legal handgun purchases are also used with a remarkably high frequency for self defense, far higher than all the times guns are used in crime, so restricting them would be ineffective and would hurt a lot of innocent people. So no restrictions on handguns. Registries don't track the guns that are used in crime anyway and all too often lead to confiscation, so no registry either.

I think I wouldn't draw the line on any firearms. I would probably draw the line at military vehicles. Maybe explosives, they're used so infrequently in crime or legally that there's really no way to tell if keeping them banned or allowing them for civilian purchase would have any impact at all. I see no reason to legalize them so I would probably draw the line there too.

Anything else should be available to civilians.

 

[Kennetic]

I like the laws we had before Sandy Hook. Mind you, the Fast and Furious operation had me absolutely livid and I'm still pissed about it. I live in Georgia so our laws are fairly lax and I like it that way. I live in the suburbs so I can't just fire willy-nilly where I live since there would be a house within the range of any of my guns but ranges are close by so no issues there. Rifle ranges are further away so I usually have to make a day out of going to zero my hunting rifles but that's fine as I like the city I live in. When I'm in Georgia, I conceal carry and it makes me more comfortable because I'm really skinny and can't overpower you're average person and my fighting skills are abysmal (I really gotta get on that but the Army's combatives program isn't very practical). Shooting is fun and I was taught by my dad at a very young age the importance of safety and the Army further drilled that point home. I've never had an accident and when I take my friends shooting for the first time, I drill that point home just as strong. I take safety very seriously with ANY dangerous object (homie don't play with unsafe drivers for example) and I surround myself with safety-conscious shooters.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Assuming you're a law abiding citizen and have the funds for it, I don't see why you can't have any weapon your gun loving heart desires.

So you don't mind if a few billionaires stock up on nuclear warheads?

I'd rather no one, not even my own military, have nuclear warheads. But I see your point. Specifics are important.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I would look at the data. Even before they were restricted, fully automatics weren't crime guns(except for powerful gangs, who continued to use them after they were restricted) so I wouldn't restrict them.

If you mean the 1936 National Firearms Act, automatic weapons weren't nearly so common back then. 1936 was back when most nations used bolt action rifles, the year when the US military adopted the semi-automatic M1 Garand as their service rifle, a decade or so before the first assault rifle.

I'd imagine they'd be a lot more popular with criminals nowdays, especially as there are lots of illegally converted automatics in the US.

(Mind you, automatic weapons aren't necessarily better at killing people, especially if it's one that's been converted by a questionable gunsmith)

I agree about bayonets and stuff.

 

[Vivi22]

Just for the record up front, I'm not against having gun controls in place.

But I would absolutely draw a hard and fast line at explosives, military grade hardware, pretty much anything which will fire fully automatic either stock or with minimal modifications, and certainly do not think the public should have access to things like armour piercing rounds. That said, I'm perfectly fine with people being able to own things like hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns of pretty much any caliber. Even things like civilian variants of fully automatic assault rifles or SMG's are perfectly fine by me so long as the ability to fire them full auto is removed.

 

[spartan231490]

I support gun control, and don't think that the public should have access to firearms at all. But those of you who disagree with me: What's the heaviest weapons you think the public should be able to purchase and own? (Obviously excepting people with a history of violent behavior, mentally ill people, etcetera. Keeping guns from them is just common sense, especially the etcetera. An etcetera almost killed my dad once.)

I'm pretty pro-gun-control (so feel free to disregard what I'd say in a thread asking for the opinions of anti-gun-control people), and I feel that civilians should only have access to rifles and shotguns with fairly limited capacities. Handguns, combat rifles and automatic weapons have no business being in civilian hands, as they're designed specifically to commit murder, which is of course, illegal.

I mostly prefer the system the U.S. uses now. you can pretty much own anything that isn't automatic without any special licensing. Fully automatic weapons require extensive wait periods, background checks and licensees, and getting them pretty much puts you on every FBI and ATF watch list for the rest of your life. Grenades and rocket launchers in the U.S. need even more stringent licensing and are registered by the round rather than by the weapon. The only civilians with legal military explosives and machine guns in the U.S. are seriously loaded collectors or businesses that rent out the weapons for training or entertainment purposes.

That said, I would like to see longer wait periods on basic weapons to discourage suicide plans and crimes of passion. U.S. gunshow loopholes that allow the sale of weapons without significant background checks should also be closed (I realize this will basically kill the gun show industry as it currently exists, but modern technology should allow purchased weapons during the show to be shipped at a later date). Silencers are really the only accessory I would see being regulated and requiring extensive paperwork to purchase (which is mostly how it is here now, but previously mentioned gunshow loopholes make it really easy to get one with little effort).

Training would be another issue I would like to see increased, not necessarily mandatory but at least heavily encouraged especially in getting licensed for a concealed carry permit that allows you to hide a handgun on your person legally. I just got my CCW license a year or two ago and it required only a single eight hour class and a target test so easy the World War II vet in the class with us managed to pass it despite being mostly blind and half deaf. That one 8 hour class certified me to carry a hidden weapon on my person or in my car in every state west of the Mississippi except California. They really should at least make the test a little more comprehensive than that.

Of course I accept that different states have different standards and am happy to comply with them when crossing the interstate border, I may be a little loose in my beliefs on gun control, but if the American people decide they want stronger gun laws then I'm ok with that, I tend not to take the second amendment as some sort of iron clad rule that can never be challenged or changed.

Hunting rifles. What more do you need beyond a hunting rifle and/or a pistol anyways? If you need an assault rifle or sub machine gun to "protect" yourself, then you probably arent living in the US. Or zombies took over.

I'm pretty middle of the road when it comes to gun laws.

I'm absolutely all for folks owning guns, but I also thing the requirements to get one should be significantly harder and the laws governing their misuse should be much more severe.

As for what should and shouldn't be allowed. To me there's really no need for anything automatic, armor piercing or explosive.


And yeah I know..."Criminals don't care about gun laws." That ass-backward logic works on any law you feel like disagreeing with and shouldn't pass the lips of any self respecting human being.

I probably shouldn't be in this thread since I'm pretty pro gun control, but I think hunting rifles and shotguns serve a use and should be legal. Here you need a hunting licence to purchase such a weapon, but it's not extremely difficult to get one.

The problem when we are discussing gun control is that we are always discussing making it impossible to obtain weapons through legal means and there's always a smartass mentioning how criminals don't care about laws (fallacy since most weapons used in mass shootings are obtained legally). Gun control is about making to more difficult to obtain and carry weapons and to crack down on illegal weapons.

Anything large enough to fling peas. Why yes, I am very much anti gun.

A pistol is good enough for self protection. Anything else is just stupid....or are you worried you will have 50 people robbing your house? Why do Americans live in fear? Although granted if you live in a high crime area then you may have good reason to fear. Or maybe its just that responsible gun owners are aware that there are many irresponsible gunowners to protect themselves from? lol. For me, a civilian owning an assault rifle isn't a weapon for self protection. The lines already been crossed and there is no way of crossing back over it, its to late. Only thing you can do now is make laws that state anyone who wants to buy a gun also has to pass a gun safety course to get the license that can allow them to legally buy a gun. An hopefully you will atleast limit accidental deaths.

LA Riot of '92.

snip

OT: Pistols, double barrel shotguns and specialised hunting rifles. I really can not see how the self defence argument defends anything higher than them. (I know I don't know enough about guns and someone will probably call me out with some gun that fits into those categories but oh well)

Maybe you all should read up a bit on the subject, you know, for science. How often firearms are used in self-defense: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html Large scale international study into the effectiveness of gun control in reducing murder and suicide rates. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Some information on the "gun-show loophole": http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows Large amount of facts about gun death and gun control: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp And lastly an opinion piece offering a logical explanation for why gun ownership is a good thing: http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

A lot of people like gun control for emotional reasons. It's nice to think that with just a few strokes of a pen your government could take the guns out of the hands of criminals, because who wants to be on the receiving end of a bullet? It's nice to think that we can do something about all those senseless deaths in places like Newtown. However, just because a law makes you feel good doesn't mean that it will work as intended, and the overwhelming majority of the data on the topic supports loose restrictions and high gun ownership.

 

[Sansha]

As a gun owner, and a fan of shooting sport (sport meaning targets, not animals), I'm of a mind that guns are a net positive in most cases. Maybe it's just upbringing (Texas if you're wondering), but I've always been around guns, been taught the danger of guns, and been taught to respect the weapon.

Of course some choose to use guns for bad purpose. And that is regrettable certainly. I feel horrible for the people who've suffered loss from gun related crimes. My empathy goes into overdrive when the news tells some horrid tale of a person gone over the edge who decided to take innocents with them. It is true tragedy in purest form.

That said though, there are any number of reasons other than paranoia that one would choose to own a gun. Skill of shooting is a thrilling bit of sport. The self defense issue is certainly valid as well. And many people do like to hunt. Personally I don't like hunting because I don't want to make any creature suffer and I can't imagine a worse bit of suffering than having hot lead rip through your flesh then slowly bleeding out while your body turns cold from blood loss. But Venison isn't readily available in stores and there are those who enjoy it's gamy taste (obviously I don't), so whatever. That's up to the individual.

Personally, I'm happy to jump through whatever hoops the lawmakers decide for guns. I will continue to own mine legally regardless. If that means they want me to take a class to renew my Conceal and Carry License, I'll line up and sit at the front of the class. If they want to do background checks, I have a spotless record and intend to stay that way.

And even though I'm an avid pro-gun person, I don't think anyone needs automatic weapons unless they are accompanied by a set of fatigues. There is simply no legal reason why a civilian needs an automatic weapon. Those should be relegated to national defense and video games.

I was going to type out this big thing about how terrible gun crimes are, and the key is to restrict what types of firearms people can own, not outright ban them, but you went ahead and said what I think.

I think the trouble with changing gun laws now, is that guns are so heavily ingrained in America's very culture and society, even internationally, that changing what people do and don't have access to is going to be difficult to gain majority support for.

 

[spartan231490]

I would look at the data. Even before they were restricted, fully automatics weren't crime guns(except for powerful gangs, who continued to use them after they were restricted) so I wouldn't restrict them.

If you mean the 1936 National Firearms Act, automatic weapons weren't nearly so common back then. 1936 was back when most nations used bolt action rifles, the year when the US military adopted the semi-automatic M1 Garand as their service rifle, a decade or so before the first assault rifle.

I'd imagine they'd be a lot more popular with criminals nowdays, especially as there are lots of illegally converted automatics in the US.

(Mind you, automatic weapons aren't necessarily better at killing people, especially if it's one that's been converted by a questionable gunsmith)

I agree about bayonets and stuff.

Maybe they would, but I doubt it. Fully automatic weapons are terribly inefficient, in the hands of a criminal or a civilian trying to defend himself, anything full auto can do, semi-auto can do better. There's a reason that the main service rifle of most militaries remain semi-auto even today. I mean, volume of fire is important when you have two groups of armed men standing 100 yards apart and in light cover, not so much when you're shoving the barrel in someone's back to take his wallet. Not so much when it's just two or three guys standing 7 yards away in no cover, then precision and target acquisition is more important.

Regardless, the burden of proof really should be on the side trying to restrict freedom, the only data available, limited as it may be, doesn't support any reason to restrict fully-automatic weapons, so they shouldn't be restricted. If you want to do it in a trial period and carefully collect data in one state first, go ahead, but I'm betting the still powerful and much more concealable semi-automatic handgun will still be the weapon of choice for both criminals and civilians.

 

[Thaluikhain]

military grade hardware

Again, what is military grade hardware? Various militaries use various pistols, shotguns and bolt action rifles, for instance.

Maybe they would, but I doubt it. Fully automatic weapons are terribly inefficient, in the hands of a criminal or a civilian trying to defend himself, anything full auto can do, semi-auto can do better. There's a reason that the main service rifle of most militaries remain semi-auto even today.

You mean selective fire, capable of semi-automatic fire?

But I agree with your point. I meant they'd be popular with criminals, not that criminals would select them based on efficiency. Having said that, an argument perhaps could be made that automatic fire is indiscriminate, and is more likely to kill innocent bystanders, Not entirely sure what the reasoning behind the US restricting automatic weapons was, though given the way automatic fire was treated in WW2, perhaps they'd just over-estimated it.

 

[Ishigami]

I?m in favour of gun-control.
Where I would draw the line? Personally I would consider the main purpose of the weapon in question.
If it was made for ?stopping power? then it has no purpose in the hand of ordinary civilians.
Machine guns, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, hand guns and automatic sniper rifles or anything with an automatic mode were made to kill other human beings. There is no reason for civilians to possess anything like that.

Hunting rifles, sport guns or rifles those are okay. There is a sport behind it and while of course they can be abused to kill someone there were not designed with that in mind.
And that?s the difference for me.

So to make some examples:

I would ban a Beretta 92FS but I would allow a Baikal IZH-35M.
I would ban the Colt M4 but I would allow a Feinwerkbau 2700 Super Match.
I would ban the M40A3 but allow a Gebrüder Merkel Drilling.

So yea my process would be to have a look at the weapon and then decide on a case by case basis if the design feature make it a hunting/sport tool or a weapon.
The only automatic process would be that any weapon proposed for military or in actual military use would be banned without looking into it any further.

 

[Vivi22]

military grade hardware

Again, what is military grade hardware? Various militaries use various pistols, shotguns and bolt action rifles, for instance.

Pretty sure that should have been clear by the time I more specifically mentioned things like explosives, fully automatic weapons, and things with armour piercing capabilities.

 

[Taurus Vis]

I support gun control, and don't think that the public should have access to firearms at all. But those of you who disagree with me: What's the heaviest weapons you think the public should be able to purchase and own? (Obviously excepting people with a history of violent behavior, mentally ill people, etcetera. Keeping guns from them is just common sense, especially the etcetera. An etcetera almost killed my dad once.)

If you are a responsible gun owner, there shouldn't be any regulations. Proper mental health screenings are all that are needed. Also, your stance on guns is deplorable. The main reason the second amendment exists is to protect us from government tyranny. Considering the legislations that have been enacted in the last 12 years (Patriot act, NDAA 2012,2013) Saying that the government should have the monopoly on violence is idiocy. Don't let nationalism and naivete cloud judgement. The US government is just as corrupt, if not more so than other countries.

Let us also remember those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.


Austrian woman talks about rampant gun control before Nazi takeover:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvLdRz5pF7s&feature=player_detailpage

PS: Will someone please tell me how to embed videos?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Pretty sure that should have been clear by the time I more specifically mentioned things like explosives, fully automatic weapons, and things with armour piercing capabilities.

So, military shotguns, pistols and sniper rifles don't fit your definition of "military grade"? I'm not trying to attack your point, just clarify it.

So yea my process would be to have a look at the weapon and then decide on a case by case basis if the design feature make it a hunting/sport tool or a weapon.

Dunno about a case by case basis, although it could solve a lot of problems with classifications, you'd probably end up with lots of inconsistencies.