Guns : A simple solution

[kommando367]

So you're take on this is just allowing shottys & snipers? I would support that. I don't think anyone in my family owns a pistol anyway and I just own rifles.

On another note, why the fuck is my captcha bouncing?

 

[chadachada123]

The OP's post still doesn't mention protection while in public. If I'm walking down the street and someone or a group of someones tries to mug me (or worse), personal protection is absolutely essential. It's why I, as a 20-year old, generally walk around with a concealed knife, as it is the only thing besides pepper spray that I'm legally allowed to carry concealed at my age in my state. When I turn 21, expenses permitting, I'll graduate to a concealed firearm.

If a cop is allowed, with minimal training, to walk the streets with a firearm for protection, so too should a citizen be able to.

I hate to seem like I'm arguing with emotion with this next picture, but I feel that it is appropriate to this discussion:

 

[chadachada123]

Here's my thoughts; there are two differences between everyday object and guns

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.

So, you should just hope that you're physically fit and between the ages of roughly 16 and 40 to even hope of standing a chance against an armed intruder?

The beauty of firearms, though, is that it allows a person, no matter their age and mostly no matter their handicap, to stand up against a much stronger and much more physically fit assailant assuming said person has the element of surprise. If the assailant doesn't know that you have a firearm, there's a fair chance that you'll be able to turn the tables, even or perhaps especially if you're female or weak or handicapped.

In short:
Intruder has gun, you don't: You're fucked.
You have gun, intruder doesn't: You win!
Intruder has gun, you have gun: You'll likely win.
Neither of you have a gun: He'll very likely win (against the average citizen).

Picture very related (but obviously from a pro-gun activist):

Spoiler

 

[psijac]

Saturation is at the point where even if you wanted to ban all guns or even a specific type of gun it would be a logistical nightmare.

It would be like trying to deport every illegal Mexican immigrant. Best thing to do is teach your children about gun safety and spanish...

 

[Dastardly]

... which is a downgrade of a hunting rifle or a battle rifle [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle].

When I indicated they were no different, I simply mean they aren't the "machine guns" that we see in movies.

A semiautomatic rifle just puts one round downrange for each pull of the trigger, and happens to have a magazine so the next round is chambered automatically. In that sense, what someone would consider a "normal hunting rifle" is only really different from an AK-47 in that one of them "looks like the terrorist gun."

And, bearing that in mind, it shouldn't make any difference to anyone if I choose to hunt with a rifle with a particular appearance, just because they're threatened by a particular silhouette.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

This man has chosen to willfully enter MY HOUSE, where I LIVE, without my permission. He has done so with what can only be assumed the intent to TAKE MY THINGS, HARM ME, or HARM ME SO HE CAN TAKE MY THINGS.

What part of that situation makes me want to be on "even footing?" I don't want a fair fight with this asshole, I want him out of my house. That means I want a gigantic advantage, so that I can scare him right out. (ProTip: Pain is scary.)

If someone is breaking into your house and you beat him to death with a medieval mace, I don't think anyone on this planet should have an unkind word to say to you. He attacked your livelihood and your safety. He showed complete disregard for the sanctity of your home, so it's not a stretch to say he doesn't value your life much. However you get him out is your business, and that's how it should be -- no matter how "unfair" your method might be.

 

[Nimzabaat]

The problem with these threads is that the United States has a bad case of denial. So no matter how many facts, reasonable arguments and good ideas people put out, there's always the "you can take mah gu-uhns! Jesus said I could have gu-uhns! The constitution said I could have gu-uhns! (Actually it doesn't. It says members of a militia have the right to bear arms, but civilians outside of a milita... got left out). So it all comes down to trying to argue logically with crazy people and you just can't reason with crazy.

I'm of the mind that, as a country, the US should just "shit or get off the pot". Either acquit this "Joker" guy, because it is his right as an American to kill people in his vicinity if he feels the need, and quit bitching or grow up and realize there is a problem. The problem doesn't have to be solved with all out bans or drastic measures. Other countries (well civilized countries, but chin up "Umerica" you can at least try) have restricted firearms with decent success by using amnesty days (bring you illegal firearm in to the police, no question asked) and other means of legally disposing of weapons that have become restricted.

 

[tsb247]

Well have you ever shot a firearm on a range? You'd know how fucking awesome that is and why so many people want one.
Criminals obtain a shipload of M4s and use it to kill and intimidate people, regardless of whether it's legal or not.

Have you seen how profitable slavery is and how many business owners would want to employ slave labour?

And if you keep slavery banned, criminals will still do it anyway. And with responsible use of your slaves, nobody will get hurt. Slaves don't get harmed, people harm people. Slavery doesn't contribute to that.

Clearly this proves slavery should be legalised again in the US.

How could I have guessed? Another firearms thread, and yet again more irrational responses. Do I detect still more racial undertones here with your references to slavery in what I am assuming is a shot at the U.S. and our gun laws? That would certainly fit a pattern for you as of late.

*sigh*

Please, demonstrate to me how slavery is akin to firearms ownership. I'll wait.

*checks watch*

Ok... Moving on.

Your analogy falls flat on its face because you are attempting to compare to completely unlike things in a vain attempt to demonize something that you simply do not understand or have any first-hand knowledge of.

Again, how many gun owners do you know personaly, as in, have actually met in person? How many rifles, shotguns, or handguns have you ever fired? Do you know what the laws in many U.S. states actually require? Are you aware that those who choose to break the law with firearms are by far, the vast minority of gun owners.

At this point, given your responses in past threads, I am reasonably certain that you are just trolling at this point. Then again, I simply just can't resist. This is just too much fun.

Just for fun, I will throw this in as well:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

I will also point out that the criminal in this story was not harmed in any way. He made the right decision and surrendered to the armed civilian; saving his own life by his own doing. This is how concealed weapons permit carriers are trained, and this is how it should always end.

Of course, we can't call this a happy ending can we? After all, the hero in this story is a demonic child-eating gun owning, "NRA troll," right?

My point, you continually try to demonize something that you, quite frankly, have about zero applicable knowledge of. In the end, firearms can, and do have a legitimate place in society, and they can be used in the legitimate defense of one's own life or the lives of others should the need arise.

 

[WanderingFool]

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.

If it's made after 1986, it's already banned.

Hmm, I thought that was part of the Assault Weapon ban that expired a few years back...

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 manufacturer.

Guess what? With a fair amount of know how and firearm knowledge, you can convert any semi-automatic firearm to automatic. It's just going to be really poor quality and dangerous to the shooter, you know, exploding guns, cook offs and what not.

And with fair luck they will injure or kill themselves when they use it, and not take doezens of innocent lives with them.

4: Any foreign made guns that are imported into the US, if automatic, will be banned. If not automatic, they will still be regulated.

Not hard to circumvent considering manufacturers can just open up plants on US soil.

Well, with th...

Would that actually create jobs in the US?

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.

Again, just like rifles, with some knowledge and proper tools you can convert a pistol to FA, it is still going to be really dangerous to the shooter and have a higher chance of blowing up in your hands.

Revolvers? Fully automatic? Now that's just asking to have a catastrophic failure.

Like the above...

6: Shotguns and hunting type rifles (bolt, pump, and lever action) will be allowed with regulations.

What about semi-automatic hunting rifles? Like a Ruger Mini-14?

Those would actually go under the part with semi-auto rifles as well.

 

[psijac]

Anyway, why are automatic weapons such a big deal anyway? I don't get it why semi-auto is okay and auto isn't. I don't see the difference and actually I think automatic weapons would be more effective for defense - no burglar will approach you if you first shoot 10 rounds in the (soft) ground.

Because in 1986 late at night(around 10 pm iirc) an asshole democrat named Hughes got an amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act(which alleviated the most egregious bullshit from the 1968 GCA) deemed passed without quorum or recorded vote. Rather than scrap FOPA and start over they just passed it because Full-Auto weapons were a relatively small portion of the firearms community given that they are more expensive to shoot with given increased ammo and maintenance costs as well as the whole Title II bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btNtV7JIMTE

 

[psijac]

The moot point here seems to be : I want to protect vs I don't want people to get hurt.

I thought you had used the word moot improperly but it I was wrong.

moot
adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law . not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.

 

[psijac]

Gun sales are hard to keep track of. All sales normally are.

The easiest way to get a gun for a criminal would be to go to an illegal shop. A gun shop that doesn't follow the law, or skirts the law for "special customers."

a Federal Firearms License (FFL) Requires those that sell weapons for profit to keep a sales record for 10 years and to run a background check. Face to face private sales require no such scrutiny. A shop like that would get shutdown quick. The BATFE is zealous in nature and often shutdown legitimate business for any infraction. Heavy jail time the kind wallstreet people should see but never will is involved here.

The ONLY way to make sure the law is being followed is to have a cop in every shop. We don't have the resources for that kind of thing.

Even then, cops could be corrupt as well.

You can't fix the gun issue without going into a fantasy world where a cop is on every corner and everyone follows the law. Guns will always slip by, you can't just "end it."

That's not a fantasy world that is a fucking nightmare. Imagine a cop ready to ticket you anytime you go over 65 miles an hour. Or some with a sniper bead drawn on you any time you get in a argument with your girlfriend just in case things turn you are a women beater. Imagine your bedroom a cop giving a breathalyzer test to make sure the girl you are with is not too drunk to give consent. How often have you jaywalked or littered. You will never be able to smoke weed again.

 

[soes757]

No, no, no.
If we heavily ban the guns, people will get them illegally, we need to constrict factories and contain imports better. If we allow people to have them, and say, add GPS to guns (new guns) and make the sale illegal (used guns) (Parentheses are fun!)we could keep better track of who is using them, and if someone get's shot, they track the serial off the bullet, to the GPS to the person, and if the gun has been ditched somewhere, we have the address on tab, moving without reporting and address change, or listing a false address (someone will have to check your home and see ID before you acquire a gun) would be a felony, see, Soes fixes the universe, again.
Also, this won't work, just stating ideas for people to change, alter, and fix, though, it fixed the universe.
It makes sense, really, it does, I swear.

 

[psijac]

No, no, no.
If we heavily ban the guns, people will get them illegally, we need to constrict factories and contain imports better. If we allow people to have them, and say, add GPS to guns (new guns) and make the sale illegal (used guns) (Parentheses are fun!)we could keep better track of who is using them, and if someone get's shot, they track the serial off the bullet, to the GPS to the person, and if the gun has been ditched somewhere, we have the address on tab, moving without reporting and address change, or listing a false address (someone will have to check your home and see ID before you acquire a gun) would be a felony, see, Soes fixes the universe, again.
Also, this won't work, just stating ideas for people to change, alter, and fix, though, it fixed the universe.
It makes sense, really, it does, I swear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Bullets tend to break up on impact. Those that don't can often pierce body armor

 

[Smagmuck_]

Hmm, I thought that was part of the Assault Weapon ban that expired a few years back...

The NFA that bans FA guns after 1986 was written in without an expiration date. It can be repealed though. Fun Fact; it did not pass as its own bill, it had to be written into another bill to pass.

The one you're thinking of was the '94 AWB, making "Assault Weapons" illegal, basically if it looked like it belonged in the military it was prohibited from civilian ownership. It expired federally in '04.



And with fair luck they will injure or kill themselves when they use it, and not take doezens of innocent lives with them.

And you're saying that like it's a bad thing. If some hick, or thug, or terrorist wants to turn a SA Mac-10/11 into a FA, it's at their risk of blowing their hands off. They'll either turn to other methods or learn the hard way.

And if they manage to do it, it's going to be hard as fuck to control, and highly prone to jamming unless they've had prior experience with the weapon platform.

Well, with th...

Would that actually create jobs in the US?

Yes, yes it would. FNH already opened a couple of plants here, and they've done wonders for the local economy where they're located. Izmash (Makers of the AK and Saiga) briefly thought about it, but decided not to. I have no idea why.

Like the above...

Likewise.

Those would actually go under the part with semi-auto rifles as well.

So someone could go pop rabbits in their garden with an AR if it's registered and properly stored?This is something I've done plenty of times. Rabbit are douche bags if they're allowed to breed in large numbers.

 

[Lupus80]

The problem with arguing over what people [i/]need[/i], is that much of what we own and aspire to own comes from [i/]want[/i].

So lets say I want a fully automatic AK-47, to own and use. I demonstrate, through licensing and education, that I am a mature, knowledgable and responcible person who takes the time and effort to use the rifle safely. Now what justification is there for denying me the right to purchase such a weapon?

Should people need to demonstrate they will be responcible gunowners through licensing? Yes.

Should people have there guns taken away if they demonstrate they are irresponcible and criminal? Yes.

If my guns get stolen is it my responsibility to report it as soon as possible? Yes.

Is there anything inheriently [i/]wrong[/i] with the desire to own such things assault rifles, miniguns, and other weapons that are not "reasonable" guns like shotguns and pistols? No.

For those who support banning certain types of firearms and weapons, how would you respond to someone who wanted to collect the firearms you want to ban? Perhaps they collect them out of cuiriosity, or perhaps they are a private citizen who is into gunsmithing and wants to experiment with various designs, or maybe they want to do some MythBusters style experiments. These people are mature and knowledgable and spend time and resources to use and enjoy these weapons responsibly.

Banning does not work, and is unjustifiable. Licensing makes sense, and education is a must, but on the whole many gun owners who already own, or desire to own, such dangerous weapons are mature people who you shouldn't be afraid of.