That is monstrous...and yet surprisingly logical...I shudder to imagine that it might actually work...along with a whole host of other problems, but the gun thing might be fixed.hellsop said:
Guns : A simple solution
- Thread starter M-E-D The Poet
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Maybe someone can explain to me why gun ownership should be restricted or regulated at all?
Say, in contrast to video games, which are also considered dangerous by the vocal public, and have been linked by experts to the recent Aurora spree shooting...
Or in contrast to cars which, by far, kill more people, whether measured per capita or per vehicle, or per driver.
Because so far, I don't get it [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.382695-Question-for-people-Pro-guns?page=4#15111098].
238U
Say, in contrast to video games, which are also considered dangerous by the vocal public, and have been linked by experts to the recent Aurora spree shooting...
Or in contrast to cars which, by far, kill more people, whether measured per capita or per vehicle, or per driver.
Because so far, I don't get it [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.382695-Question-for-people-Pro-guns?page=4#15111098].
238U
Fun, innit? Loose, available, inexpensive or untraceable guns rapidly end up vanishing from the street, 'cause EVERY ONE OF THEM is worth more than one's likely to get robbing even ten people on the street, for a lot less risk.cpt blackamar said:
I suppose the biggest risk to the plan is running out of heroin...
I have no problem with faulty terms as long as you don't call magazines "clips".M-E-D The Poet said:
The fact is that you do not understand what guns actually do. Would you try to pass legislation about eating meat if you didn't know what caused meat to become improper to be eaten?
Do you mean "own" or "walk around"?M-E-D The Poet said:
Because you can't define how much ammo a person "needs". I don't have to justify the number of ammunition I own.
"Walk around"? What if a person says he's going to the range? That justifies carrying ammo on his car/bag.
What if a person is simply on a hunting trip that might last days? Or even if the person is actually living in the woods?
Some people won't be satisfied until you ban all guns. In my language there is a saying that goes "You can't please Greeks and Trojans".M-E-D The Poet said:
1. I merely made a "bold" list, not shoutedM-E-D The Poet said:
2. Do you know what actually takes to change a constitution? And whoever wants it changed is just delusional.
3. My constitution does not give me 2nd Amendment rights. I am not American, despite your prejudice.
4. "Kill all firstbornes"? That is a Slippery Slope Fallacy.
So if the anti-gun crowd is being irrational, why are you treating them like sane, level-headed and rational individuals?M-E-D The Poet said:
We don't have to reach a middle ground until they become a political influence big enough to change the constitution.
The Brady Campaign has less than 28,000 members. The NRA has a 4.3 million.
Should we remove all references to the Holocaust in school books because a few thousands of religious extremists don't agree with the First Amendment, which grants free speech?
Considering cars and legal drugs have individually killed more people in the US than friearms have its a moot point to ban friearms.M-E-D The Poet said:
Either humans are allowed to protect themselves and own weapons(which is one in the same if you scrap beyond the surface) or they have no such right and must wait on authorized personal to come and defend you.
Also
PLASTIC UTENSILS FOR ALL!!!!
Knives are designed to cut food, baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, fists and feet ... Guns are designed to kill in the quickest way possible. That is the difference, always thought this argument was stupid 'cos sure everything can kill if used wrongly but a gun used correctly kills people!cerebus23 said:
Are you trying to argue that people who are surrounded by smoke are able to effectively determine who the attacker is in the panic, then accurately shoot the attacker without harming an innocent? This isn't hollywood.
Dose not matter, they are all weapons.omega 616 said:
Also cars kill more people yearly than firearms, so going after firearms is disingenuous.
That is not the point, humans like to believe we are some civilized race but we think it's perfectly okay to make and carry things that's only reason for being is to kill? We aren't even half way to civilized 'cos it's not like we are only carrying guns in war zones, we are carrying them to the super market ...ZippyDSMlee said:
Well, everyone can have a gun and those who want some already have one or more. You can't outlaw them now because then a big black market would spring up that will supply People with Guns to do whatever they want with them.
This Problem may persist until we have non lethal Weapons that have a better Range and are cheaper as well as more accurate. Guns will be around in America until we have Phasers.
One thing the U.S. could do is to make buying and owning a Gun harder. Put a tax on the Guns and ammo. People with financial Problems who still want to have a gun but can't afford them now should be able to present their yearly income and get the Gun taxfree, which would be mentioned where the Gun is registered.
More taxes for Ammo. For Practise, you go to a shooting range where you pay for the ammo you use tax free. Actually, Practise at a shooting Range should be mandatory before you can take your Gun home.
At least for new soon to be gun owners.
Back to ammo-tax:
Shooting Cans in your Garden will cost you twice as much per round.
This Problem may persist until we have non lethal Weapons that have a better Range and are cheaper as well as more accurate. Guns will be around in America until we have Phasers.
One thing the U.S. could do is to make buying and owning a Gun harder. Put a tax on the Guns and ammo. People with financial Problems who still want to have a gun but can't afford them now should be able to present their yearly income and get the Gun taxfree, which would be mentioned where the Gun is registered.
More taxes for Ammo. For Practise, you go to a shooting range where you pay for the ammo you use tax free. Actually, Practise at a shooting Range should be mandatory before you can take your Gun home.
At least for new soon to be gun owners.
Back to ammo-tax:
Shooting Cans in your Garden will cost you twice as much per round.
That is the point, humans will use anything to kill each other with and statistically non weapons kill more people than weapons.omega 616 said:
Banning is just a slippery slope that always seeks to ban something else, its the easy road humanity loves to take. Its silly to think things will become better just by taking that path.
Why SHOULD people be allowed to have kids without permission or licensure? You see, you're taking the wrong approach to rights.M-E-D The Poet said:
When making a law (which is a limit of rights), the burden of proof is on the people making the law. If the law cannot provide a compelling reason why law-abiding, responsible citizens should be able to own an M-16, or a hundred 9mm handguns, or whatever else, the right remains with the people.
When we start demanding that the public defend their rights, placing the burden of proof on them, we give the law (and thus government) infinite power over us. Because at that point, ANY right can be yanked away for some "greater good."
So, to answer your question: I SHOULD be allowed to own guns other than handguns because no one has demonstrated to any degree that I am a criminal, or that I have or will do anything wrong with those items.
But I'll counter your question: Since, as it is, nearly every single crime that involves guns comes back to handguns and hunting rifles (I'm going to group shotguns in there, because they are widely used for hunting), why are you looking to ban everything else?
It's a difference of scale, and it's extremely easy to tell the difference (if you're not being intentionally ignorant).
Guns are legitimate defensive weapons, because guns are only effective within a certain territorial range of the person. You have to be able to see the target, and you fire from within that same visual range. Furthermore, their damage is focused and reasonably predictable (one bullet goes to one target). As such, it can easily be argued that these are defensive weapons -- they are limited by effective range and low likelihood of collateral damage.
There is no legitimate argument that a nuke is a defensive weapon for an individual. You can't use a nuke on anyone within visible range, because you'd kill yourself, too, not to mention the severe collateral damage. You can't accurately predict the total damage, so you can't be even remotely sure it's only affecting the intended target. So, widely-targeted weapon that can only be used from very, very far away? Clearly no argument can be made that it is a defensive weapon.
Grenades? Same thing. RPGs? Same thing. See how easy it is to tell the difference when you look at the real-life function of these weapons in a clear, reasoned way? So, we're not perched on any kind of slippery slope by allowing Joe Blow to own a semi-automatic AK-47 (which is effectively no different from a plain ol' Remington hunting rifle, except in apperance).
Sounds decent enough, but still pretty off.
My own thoughts:
1: Any weapons that have the ability of automatic fire, anything that can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger, are banned. If you have to pull the trigger with every round, its fine, if you can fire two or more bullets with one pull of the trigger, its banned.
2: Any weapon that can cause great amounts of damage per round spent, this is there for grenade and rocket launchers. God knows how a person would get one, but its there regardless.
3: Any semi-automatic weapon that could be converted into a full-auto must be given a greater level of checks, the weapon's manufacturer must examine the semi-auto weapon in question to see if it could or can be converted, and inform the government so as to apply the necessary level of restrictions. Any weapon that is found to be able to be converted into full-auto that wasnt discovered, and isnt discovered by the manufacturer, will result in massive fines for the manufaturer.
4: Any foreign made guns that are imported into the US, if automatic, will be banned. If not automatic, they will still be regulated.
5: Any and all handguns and revolvers, save those that can either be converted into full auto or come with full auto accessiblity, will be allowed with regulations and restrictions.
6: Shotguns and hunting type rifles (bolt, pump, and lever action) will be allowed with regulations.
My own thoughts:
1: Any weapons that have the ability of automatic fire, anything that can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger, are banned. If you have to pull the trigger with every round, its fine, if you can fire two or more bullets with one pull of the trigger, its banned.
2: Any weapon that can cause great amounts of damage per round spent, this is there for grenade and rocket launchers. God knows how a person would get one, but its there regardless.
3: Any semi-automatic weapon that could be converted into a full-auto must be given a greater level of checks, the weapon's manufacturer must examine the semi-auto weapon in question to see if it could or can be converted, and inform the government so as to apply the necessary level of restrictions. Any weapon that is found to be able to be converted into full-auto that wasnt discovered, and isnt discovered by the manufacturer, will result in massive fines for the manufaturer.
4: Any foreign made guns that are imported into the US, if automatic, will be banned. If not automatic, they will still be regulated.
5: Any and all handguns and revolvers, save those that can either be converted into full auto or come with full auto accessiblity, will be allowed with regulations and restrictions.
6: Shotguns and hunting type rifles (bolt, pump, and lever action) will be allowed with regulations.
just a thought-provoking idea...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II
"Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders." - Chris Rock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II
"Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders." - Chris Rock
Aren't muskets highly inaccurate? I mean if you miss then wait? I doubt the other person is going to stand there and let you reload...joonsk said:
OT: Where's the I want to prepare for the zombie apocalypse option?
I suspect this is one of the most common misconceptions in the whole gun controversy. Actually most guns are used correctly and very few of them kill people.ZippyDSMlee said:
By the same argument, I could say that a table saw used correctly could saw someone clean in half (provided your intention was to saw that person in half), which is not only deadly, but a probably horrific experience.[footnote]On the premise that things that can intentionally be used to kill people should be banned or regulated, so should most industrial or household appliances.[/footnote] Guns used correctly with the intent of killing someone will usually[footnote]A lot of people have suffered grievous injury from a bullet and survived, usually from sheer luck[/footnote] kill its intended target. Most gun-owners go their entire lives without having to point a gun at someone, let alone kill them. And most guns used correctly are never aimed at a human being, let alone used to kill one.
So I call bullshit on the used correctly argument.
238U
Clarifications regarding weapons: The mounted machine guns [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47], so they shouldn't be engaging the enemy by rifle anyway when properly deployed.[/footnote]Dastardly said:
Assault rifles use a smaller cartridge on the premise that most combat occurs at less than 30 yards. The smaller powder charge means a typical soldier can carry more ammo. The AR-15 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle] that was used in the Aurora shooting, are all assault rifles.
Someone mentioned the AK-74 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-74], which is not a typo of the AK-47, though they are easy to confuse. They're about as similar as their names.
238U
Here's my thoughts; there are two differences between everyday object and gunsZippyDSMlee said:
Bats, knives, cars, etc. have a lot more vital everyday uses compared to a gun regardless of what their original intent was when they were created. In other words the pros of keep everyday items far out weigh the cons of having them. You ban cars and chances are your're gonna fuck up everyone's life on a daily basis.
The other difference has to do with how they kill. With blunt and stabbing weapons you have to be within reach of the other person. This gives the person you're trying to kill(provided you he sees you coming) the chance to block, dodge, or run away. With guns its not the same. Even if the person aiming the gun at you is within reach, he is just a hair trigger pull away from ending you're life. And unless you're the Flash, you're not going to dodge or outrun the bullet if its heading straight for you.
If a man breaks into you're house and is armed with a knife or blunt object, chances are there is an everyday house hold item lying around you can you to use to put yourself on a more evening footing with the intruder. This item can be a chair, golf club, hell, even grandma's antic vase would work just as well. If the man is armed with a gun then you're fucked unless you have a gun.
Just because knives and cars kill more people it doesn't make ones attempt to ban or limit guns disingenuous. Knives and cars have killed more people because there are a lot more people out there who have them, not because they are more dangerous than guns. Just because people will continue to try to kill with or without guns it does not mean we should make it easy for them.