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

[Thaluikhain]

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?

Basically youtube= and then everything after the "v" in the youtube link, I think you should stick that in spoilers.

IIRC, though, Hitler relaxed the gun controls of the Weimar Republic for most citizens, excepting those he was taking rights away from in general.

EDIT: That is, in Germany, not sure how Austria worked, though would have thought both would have been under the same rules under his rule. Possibly Austria had much laxer rules which were brought into line with Germany's.

 

[spartan231490]

People buy guns not just out of fear, but because they genuinely like shooting, and different guns are different. Currently own a 12 gauge O/U shotgun, AR-10, S&W .22, and S&W M&P. Saving up for an M1 Garand, I don't know what else after that.
Gun collecting can be a hobby. A dangerous, adult hobby, sure. Still a hobby though. If you want to do more thorough background checks/required safety classes I'm all for it. Too many people don't know the basics of handling guns, and we have too many deaths because of it. Straight up banning guns because crazy people are crazy just seems silly. Catch the crazies before they do something dangerous.

Gun collecting isn't a dangerous hobby, neither is gun shooting. As a sport, rifle shooting is safer by far than contact sports like hockey, football, and soccer. Accidental injuries from firearms ridiculously rare,

I draw the line at any guns. People shouldn't have the ability to conveniently murder other people at long range, and I think it's pathetic how our (my? I hate to say it) country chooses corporate profits over making any effective attempt to stem the tide of school massacres that seems to have become a thing for us as a people
I know I'm not the intended audience of this thread, but I felt the need to soapbox for a moment

Soapbox if you want, but maybe you should look at the data first. Did you know that mass shooters kill on average 6 times more people when they are stopped by police compared to when they are stopped by armed civilians? Link at bottom

All the comment here seems to be very pro-gun. I dont think we should be allowed to possess any firearms (unless you are in the military and even then it should stay at work). Knives are slightly different as their sole purpose is not necessarily to be used as a weapon but flick knives and butterfly knives should be illegal as they are intended for combat

America seems a little backward to me because its a right to own a gun but healthcare is a privelage

Im just massively anti-gun. I live in the UK and the only people that have guns are farmers who protect thier land from foxes and rabbits and other pests

snip
---------

OT: I'd probably say non-concealable, non-military weapons are where to draw the line. Limited capacity, bolt or semi-automatic rifles, non-automatic shotguns. Perhaps allow handguns as well, but only open carry, and only allowed where you can demonstrate a legitimate need (professional bodyguards, low encumbrance hiking where there are dangerous animals, that kind of thing).

Maybe allow military weapons (crew served, fully automatic, etc) on licensed ranges for novelty shooting, but not for personal use.

That's idealised though - you wouldn't have a hope of legislating such a thing in America because other weapons are in such high circulation, not to mention the cultural element of firearm ownership there.

snip

Well, depends on the source of the illegal weapon. If it was a legal weapon that was stolen, say, then gun controls could have stopped that.

Often we find the guns were purchased legally, so there is relevance here.

In crime? No they weren't, the vast majority of guns used in crime are illegally obtained. The vast vast majority. Link at bottom.

snip

This law was not written with the extreme rates of fire and ranges that a vast majority of modern firearms can achieve.

The first amendment wasn't written when technology existed for contacting thousands of people at once over the internet either, doesn't make it any less valid on the internet. In reality, this isn't about the second amendment. The US government has already displayed a complete disregard for the bill of rights so many times that it lacks any legal weight. This is about property rights and the rights to self defense. The data overwhelming shows gun ownership to have a positive net impact on crime. Links at bottom.

OT: I'd probably say non-concealable, non-military weapons are where to draw the line. Limited capacity, bolt or semi-automatic rifles, non-automatic shotguns. Perhaps allow handguns as well, but only open carry, and only allowed where you can demonstrate a legitimate need (professional bodyguards, low encumbrance hiking where there are dangerous animals, that kind of thing).

Maybe allow military weapons (crew served, fully automatic, etc) on licensed ranges for novelty shooting, but not for personal use.

That's idealised though - you wouldn't have a hope of legislating such a thing in America because other weapons are in such high circulation, not to mention the cultural element of firearm ownership there.

Well...high capacity is the magazine, not the weapon (assuming the weapon uses detachable magazines). Non-military semi-automatic rifles would include most assault weapons, such as AR-15s and civilian variants of AK variants and other weapons.

True, but you can legislate for magazine size as well. I'd envisage limiting magazine size or internal capacity to perhaps 5 or 6 rounds, thus neutering 'assault weapons' (generally the capacity for sustained fire rather than the actual weapon itself is what makes them difficult for law enforcement).
Alternatively, you could outlaw detachable magazines for semi-automatic weapons altogether in favour of clips or internal magazines.
Or you could outlaw the sale of assault weapons as well, though deciding on the definition would be rather difficult.

Again, this obviously isn't realistic for somewhere like the US because of the culture of firearm ownership already present.

Second Amendment: "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."

But then they gone and broadened what defines a militia to an Organized Militia and The Reserve Militia. So, already you're in deep amounts of doodoo because you can't use the second amendment as it was designed for its original purpose.

So, what's the Reserve Militia? Well, let's see: "Any able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia." 1) No women. 2) Nobody under aged 17 3) Nobody above 45.

Right, now we know WHO can use weapons, let's see what weapons can be used: Originally, this only included single weaponry like muskets and flintlocks. But, as we've established, things change. So, now this includes: Any handgun, long gun and Automatic Weapon.

Wait ... right, women are in Militia too, so women can use guns as well. And the NRA are selling guns to kids from ages 4 and up, so minimum age isn't an issue. Fuck, many of those old republicans are above 45 and they have guns, so that doesn't matter as well. Lest we forget that the ATF is powerless ATM, so that means everyone can buy any kind of gun at any time and sell it to whoever they want, and nobody gives two shits. So the laws on which guns are good are obsolete as well. Not even mentioning that the United States government is blatantly ignoring the vast majority of their own citizens to tighten gunlaws.

What's my point? My point is that you're asking the wrong question, really. The better question is: How do you feel about changing the law so that in order to obtain a gun, you'd need to undergo a full examination and undergo vigorous training? Or get a hunter's license.

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.

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 Some mass shooting data: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/ How criminals get their guns: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html 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.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

You know if you use statistics in clever ways you can make even the most trivial things prove something, right?

Now I could say that USA's murder rates of 4.8 VS our murder rates of 0.6 means gun control prevent it. It doesn't prove anything, but it makes for a compelling abuse of statistics that a country with strict gun control can have 1/8th the murders of one with loose gun control which should lead to lower murder rates.

Signing a paper won't do any good, that is correct. There's a lot more to do and it's not something that will be done over night or a couple years for that matter. Murder rates in USA have been gradually decreasing from 8.1 to 4.8 over the course of 18 years. I don't think this is solely because of gun control. To device the solution of how we are to decrease the murder rates further or why it has been decreasing it will take a wiser man than myself. All I know is that here where I live we don't need any changes in the laws. We have strict laws and few murders. I am happy to keep it that way.

 

[spartan231490]

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.
snip

Actually, in those days there was a citizen militia, which included every able bodied male of fighting age, so the 2nd amendment allows all men(and now women) of fighting age.

It isn't the type of gun, it's the person wielding it. If I'm OK with someone owning a shotgun then I'm fine with them also owning a pistol, a rifle or a machine gun.
So I'm for allowing people to own any type of gun providing they're licensed, the guns are registered to the owner and checked at renewal time (to prevent straw purchases etc)and they have to store them securely to prevent theft.

I'd even allow ownership of grenade launchers or bazookas but you would only be able to acquire and use explosive ammunition for them at appropriate ranges and could not remove them from the range. Storing explosives at domestic properties could be a bit unsafe in the event of fires.

Secure storing laws prevent effective home defense, and are therefore not only kind of foolish but also unconstitutional, as of DC vs Heller(I think, that's the case, it was the DC law that was address).

First, let me preface this with something - there are very, very few people who are entirely against gun control. Its to the extent of the gun control, however, that is different. Even most members of the NRA are in support of expanded background checks, and more and more are growing in favour of waiting periods. Not that I actually support the NRA, fuck most of those twats, but even then, they're not completely unreasonable.

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.

Also, btw, almost all the arguments you hear by the really pro-gun zealot-types are blatantly wrong and/or irresponsible. I hate to associate with them. Paranoid, fanatical, self-deluded, you don't want to even waste your time on them, because they simply don't live in reality.

No, most of the NRA is not in favor of expanded background checks. Universal background check laws are not supported by the NRA. You're probably remembering the line that showed up on the media about something like 70% of the public supporting universal background checks in America, which was blatant mis-information. The sample used was democratic Californians, which is in no way representative of America with regards to gun control

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.

Great example of this: http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

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.

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.

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 Some mass shooting data: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/ How criminals get their guns: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html 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.

 

[moosemaimer]

A few points on military hardware:

The Mossberg 500 is in use by the US Marine Corps.

Spoiler

The Smith & Wesson .357 is in use by the US Navy SEALs.

Spoiler

The Remington 700 is a US Army sniper rifle.

Spoiler

These are all civilian firearms, based on very old designs, that have been adopted by the military. In most cases, they've had their stocks, grips etc. replaced with tactical (read: scary-looking black) versions that cause people to think they're somehow more deadly than what you can get at Wal-Mart.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

You know if you use statistics in clever ways you can make even the most trivial things prove something, right?

Now I could say that USA's murder rates of 4.8 VS our murder rates of 0.6 means gun control prevent it. It doesn't prove anything, but it makes for a compelling abuse of statistics that a country with strict gun control can have 1/8th the murders of one with loose gun control which should lead to lower murder rates.

If you had read the links I posted, you would realize that this very argument is actually against you for various reasons. Number one) as seen in the justfacts links, the UK murder rate was far far lower than ours before either of us had any gun control laws, and the more laws they enacted the higher it went(up until the recent decline, which began several years after the last gun control law was passed).

Secondly, as seen in the harvard study link) the 9 European countries with the highest rates of gun ownership have a combined murder rate 3 times lower than the 9 European countries with the lowest rates of gun ownership. Which do you think is more likely, that socio-economic and cultural differences between the US and your country(Which I'm assuming is a European nation) are bigger than those between European nations and creating that one outlier? Or that the US is very similar socio-economically and culturally to your nation and these large scale correlations in Europe are actually caused by the unrelated socio-economic and cultural disparities between those nations?
I
think that the US is much more different from any of the countries gun control advocates compare it to than European countries are to each other. There are many factors contributing to the US high murder rate, but science doesn't support gun ownership being one of them. By the same type of 1 to 1 nation to nation comparison you are using, you could blame our higher murder rate non-nationalized health care(since the UK has nationalized health care and vastly lower murder rate) or the lack of an massive inland desert(since Australia has a massive inland desert and a much lower murder rate) or even to the fact that the US isn't an island while both those nations are. 1 to 1 nation to nation comparisons aren't valid. There is a massive cultural divide, not to mention massive differences in population densities, socio-economic distribution and differences in education ect . . .

Lastly, while I can't find an original source on it, and have not the time to do the math myself, I keep seeing reliable sites post data that if you eliminate California, Illinois, NYC and Washington DC(those places with notably strict gun control), the US murder rate drops right into line with other western nations. I wouldn't take that as gospel, or even really as a good number, but you have to admit that if gun control really decreased crime rates, it's kinda funny that the places with the strictest gun control have higher crime rates. It's also kind of funny that no nation or state that has passed a gun control law has seen any significant change in murder rates immediately following the enactment of those laws.(at least that I can find, I've looked at UK, Australia, US national, NY state, NJ state, and California state.)

Signing a paper won't do any good, that is correct. There's a lot more to do and it's not something that will be done over night or a couple years for that matter. Murder rates in USA have been gradually decreasing from 8.1 to 4.8 over the course of 18 years. I don't think this is solely because of gun control.

Well seeing as during that time gun control has been loosened, not tightened, in most places in the US, it would be pretty strange to say that it was solely because of increased gun control.

To device the solution of how we are to decrease the murder rates further or why it has been decreasing it will take a wiser man than myself. All I know is that here where I live we don't need any changes in the laws. We have strict laws and few murders. I am happy to keep it that way.

I'm fine with you keeping your laws that way, but in this country there is a debate on what to do with gun control laws, so forgive me if I have a problem with you stating that gun control absolutely reduces crime rates when the science doesn't back that up.

 

[Vivi22]

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.

I wouldn't consider military equipment which is functionally no different than its civilian equivalents and doesn't violate any of the specific criteria I mentioned a problem, no.

 

[Soundwave]

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.

You should in turn investigate the sources you're citing. The Cato Institute is well known for glossing over facts to suit their libertarian agenda.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm actually quite caught up with the subject, thank you.

Ah, so you won't be saying anything obviously wrong and easily checked like that Australia got rid of all its guns?

...

As an aside, though, immediately after the gun buybacks of the 90s[footnote]In which large numbers of civilian weapons were removed from circulation, by no means all of them. Currently there are more civilian weapons in Australia than before the buybacks anyway[/footnote], there was a quite significant drop in suicides by firearm (IIRC, predominately in rural areas, though they may simply have had more guns to begin with), without a corresponding increase in suicides by other methods.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

SNIP

See, you didnt read anything i wrote. lol. America will never get rid of guns because its to late. Way to late. It would be impossible for the government to do that. You cant stop criminals from having guns, or using guns. Though you have to admit, more people would still be alive if people had basic guns safety. No little kid using their dads gun that was left lying around loaded. No more accidents cos some idiot left a gun loaded and it went off. Innocent accidental deaths would be limited with proper gun safety licenses and if you are a responsible gun owner then you should want that. Like if you are a responsible car driver you expect every other driver to be insured and have a license to drive. Its more for your safety as well as theirs. I really couldnt give a shit about criminals being shot, gangs shooting each other in the street. But it would stop stuff like that 8 yr old that shot his mum, the man that was selling his gun and shot his kid because he forgot his gun was loaded. There are even people that are just angry and use the gun in the spare of the moment. They never meant to, just they were angry.

I am so glad i live in the UK. Zero fear of leaving my house. Your government really has you all where it wants you. Also gun ownership increases likely hood of death by suicide if you have one. Also you are more likely to be killed if you have one, because when push comes to shove, the criminal will kill you quicker.

End of the day I feel safe in my country and have no irrational fears when i live my home. I can wander round London at 3am without worrying that i will be attacked. An guns do not make people safe, if that was the case USA would have low crime, except that isnt the case. Compared to gun crime in Canada or any other gun ownership country Americas figures are through the roof. I would like to see the figures for black on black crime in USA. In UK that is where most gun crim is, gangs shooting each other, and im sure its the same in America, most of the gun crime is gang related. Anyway way, have the guns if you feel you need them. I really dont care. Just have basic safety laws so every one is protected and safe.....apart from the criminals, you can shoot those people all you want.

 

[ccggenius12]

Guns are made for hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face. It doesn't take much for the former, and with the advent of ICBMs, Tactical nukes, etc. they aren't of much use for the latter.
But seriously, gun rights were put in place so that the government couldn't just walk all over it's citizenry, but what the military has now and in such quantity makes that a moot point.

 

[WanderingFool]

Honestly, I would prefer the government going all "Big Brother" when it comes to "Assault Weapons". Background checks, pysch exams and profiles, all that shit. If a person is found to be at a high risk of hurting themselves or others, denied.

Not a perfect plan, mind you, but what is...

 

[spartan231490]

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 Some mass shooting data: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/ How criminals get their guns: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html 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.

I'm actually quite caught up with the subject, thank you. But, euh ... Australia would like to have a word with you and tell you just how effective gun control is. You just gave me an article stating how effective guns are in reducing murder and suicide rates, yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_death_rate America has more suicides/homides per 100k people than Australia, and that place got rid of all its guns. So, euh, giving everyone guns all "here, catch" like isn't exactly the right way to go, now is it?

that's a logical fallacy, you can't reduce all the differences between two nations to "one has more guns."

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.

You should in turn investigate the sources you're citing. The Cato Institute is well known for glossing over facts to suit their libertarian agenda.

You should read the links, the study was not done by CATO, all the data comes from the ATF, and if you think the ATF is libertarian or pro-gun, you have some problems.

SNIP

See, you didn't read anything i wrote. lol. America will never get rid of guns because its to late. Way to late. It would be impossible for the government to do that. You cant stop criminals from having guns, or using guns. Though you have to admit, more people would still be alive if people had basic guns safety. No little kid using their dads gun that was left lying around loaded. No more accidents cos some idiot left a gun loaded and it went off. Innocent accidental deaths would be limited with proper gun safety licenses and if you are a responsible gun owner then you should want that.snip

Like if I'm an intelligent citizen I should want literacy tests for voting? I'm all for firearm education and safety, but I have a big problem suggesting that the government is the best one to decide what education and safety means. If the government wanted to mandate that you go through a training course run and regulated by a non-government entity, I'd be all for it, but it's way too easy for a reasonable idea being taken to an extreme that de-facto bans certain owners. Imagine requiring rednecks who inherited one rifle from their father, who taught them how to use it, to go through a 30 hour training program that costs more than their rifle. That would basically ban lower-class gun ownership. The government has proven that it cannot be trusted to run something like this. Even if you wanted to trust them, they've shown they can't run anything efficiently or cheaply. I did read what you wrote, I wanted to direct you to how rare accidental gun deaths are. Estimated at least 80 million US gun owners, and less than 800 accidental deaths each year. Improper use of ladders causes many more accidental deaths each year than improper use of guns. More people accidentally kill themselves with poison than with guns, but you don't have to pass a safety exam to buy bleach.

 

[spartan231490]

Honestly, I would prefer the government going all "Big Brother" when it comes to "Assault Weapons". Background checks, pysch exams and profiles, all that shit. If a person is found to be at a high risk of hurting themselves or others, denied.

Not a perfect plan, mind you, but what is...

Maybe you 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 Some mass shooting data: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/ How criminals get their guns: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html 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.

 

[Soundwave]

You should read the links, the study was not done by CATO, all the data comes from the ATF, and if you think the ATF is libertarian or pro-gun, you have some problems.

The spin the article put on the data was certainly CATO's. Additionally it was CATO that cherry picked the data.

You can do a google search for ANYTHING, and find "STATISTICAL EVIDENCE" to back it up. If I were so inclined, I could quite easily find statistical data linking all violent gun crimes to minorities. That doesn't make it a fact, just that there is some association there, which could be because of any number of reasons.

Additionally, it's rather silly to misconstrue my statement "CATO is well known for glossing over facts to suit it's libertarian agenda" with "So the ATF is totally pro-gun and libertarian!".

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

SNIP

What has death by bleach and ladders got to do with anything? This is why these threads are pointless, its cos gun owners never want to hear anything against guns. Even when its constructive and semi pro guns. No one said it would be 30 hours? Do you drive? Did you ***** and moan because you had to pay for tests and license and insurance? NO. Do you expect every other drive to have taken their tests and have an upto date insurance? YES you do. Would you expect "lower class" people who drive to have valid license and insurance? Yes you do. So why would you moan about having to take a test to show your are a RESPONSIBLE gun owner? How to hold a gun, how to look after it safely, how to store it safely and things to watch out for aka if you have kids in the house. As for the government running tests? Dont care, have the police do it or the army. Whom ever, just as long as people have basic safety. There are countries that allow gun ownership that have hardly any gun crime. Weird huh?

800 accidents, i think its way more than that. In the end thats still to many. Why should some kid be killed just cos there retard parent left a gun lying on a bed? Now im sure you would agree basic gun safety would limit that surely?

 

[Dan Steele]

I believe we should follow Scandinavia's example: You can own up to an assault weapon, but you must go through months of intense registration, training, and psyche evals to insure you are not crazy before you get your hands on a weapon.