Poll: american only gun poll
- Thread starter lechat
- Start date
Recommended Videos
We've already proven that its too damn easy for nut jobs to buy guns legally. I propose that its moderately easy to get a semi-automatic weapon like a 6 revolver that needs the bullets to be locked in a chamber by hand. When you think about it, if you need a gun for self defense from like a break in or something anything more is unnecessary and dangerous (firing a lot of shots in doors for example). Then save the assault rifles for the crazy southern bearded guys who have been firing guns since they were 5 years old.
And for the record, trying to disarm the entire country would be completely insane. Some people would rather go down in a hail of bullets before giving up their guns
And for the record, trying to disarm the entire country would be completely insane. Some people would rather go down in a hail of bullets before giving up their guns
I think psych evaluations should be mandatory for all gun license applicants and those deemed mentally unstable/unfit should be disqualified for legally purchasing/owning guns. I also think gun safety courses should be more...enforced? Would that be the word? Anywho, one should be required to have all that important information crammed into their noggins with such force, you'd need a silverback gorilla with a pair of pliers for any hope of removing it from their brain cavity.
I voted "Some changes" because while I disagree with the Assault Weapons ban I will gladly concede that I do not need magazines that hold 20+ rounds. 10 should be sufficent for any civilian need and most Hunting laws state that a gun can be loaded with no more than 10 rounds anyway.
Thanks for the video man, too many people just immediately scream "AHHHH GUN NUTS AAHHHHH BAN ALL GUNS CAUSE THAT WILL MAKE CRIMINALS LAW ABIDING AHHHH" Opinions based on ignorance really grind my gears...Vardermir said:
As for large, vocal minorities, statistics show it's Jon Stewart's audience, not gun owners, that's in the minority. BTW he's a comedy show that just happens to feature current events. That doesn't make him credible as a news anchor. There is no impartiality there, and anyone he dislikes is a target of ridicule without fair representation. I watch his show for laughs, but I go elsewhere to get my news.lechat said:
Generally, I see banning guns as reactive and short-sighted. I think that gun violence is the symptom of a deeper societal problem related to cultural alienation and economic disenfranchisement which can be resolved without taking away a man's rights. Banning guns just attempts to bury a problem which can be more perfectly solved through other means. I like the ideas which Geoffrey Canada implemented in Harlem to help solve the root problems which cause gun violence.
In a perfect world, I don't believe there should be any restriction on the acquisition of firearms. It really is no other man's business why a man would choose to own a gun. And I find it disgusting that men should think that another man must have a reason to explain why he owns a gun as if he's a criminal. No man should be treated like a criminal in his own home when he's done nothing. Which is what simply owning a gun is: nothing. How can a civil society function when neighbors are suspicious and fearful of their own neighbors? We live in a society where you're supposed to be presumed innocent. I just wish more people would realize that.
In a perfect world, I don't believe there should be any restriction on the acquisition of firearms. It really is no other man's business why a man would choose to own a gun. And I find it disgusting that men should think that another man must have a reason to explain why he owns a gun as if he's a criminal. No man should be treated like a criminal in his own home when he's done nothing. Which is what simply owning a gun is: nothing. How can a civil society function when neighbors are suspicious and fearful of their own neighbors? We live in a society where you're supposed to be presumed innocent. I just wish more people would realize that.
When more stringent gun laws are put in place, look out for more cop killings, and massacres done with homemade explosives. The worst school massacre in American history was committed with dynamite. In an age where every gentleman felt the need to be armed as a matter of culture.Alexander Bradley said:
I just responded in another gun thread, so I'll copy/paste it here.lechat said:
I believe that a gun should be just as difficult to get as a Car. Cars kill people too, so we have a long, difficult process to get one. Gun licenses should be just as hard to get as Drivers Licenses. Guns should also require insurance like Cars.
Just making guns as hard to get as Cars would help keep them out of the hands of minor crazies. Not criminals - black market sucks that way - but random teenagers would be a start. And, to be fair, criminals don't do school shootings - random teenagers do school shootings.
1. Who says ALL of them would obey said order?Bhaalspawn said:Lately the big reason I support gun control is simply because of the number of paranoid lunatics who think that the US Government is some kind of tyranny waiting to happen. I'm no fan of the US, but they're not evil. These lunatics have no ground to stand on. They aren't going to spark some revolution. And even if they did...
2. While deserters may have kept their weapons while running, those who resign would not.
3. American government has long acknowledged that it governs with the consent and permission of the governed, not because they themselves have inherent authority. The reason guns are to protect from government is because it really is the biggest unwritten punishment for becoming a dictatorship: for your people to revolt and have no choice but either massacre them or surrender.
4. Piggybacking on point 3, of course civilians would lose in a straight up fight. That isn't the point. The point is the act of defiance and the refusal to be ruled as opposed to governed.
5. If you really want me to, I can cite scenarios where a society has banned weapons and their government wasn't quite so gentlemanly about the trust that requires. I just won't unless you're willing to do more than pass me off as a gun nut even though you know nothing about me.
This, because it still irks me that gringos use the word american to describe themselves.Keoul said:I am not American but I voted anyway BECAUSE I CAN
Gun control seems fine in america, the crime hate has been going down for years. People only care because of small, short violent outbreaks of crime like the massacres.
I figure we get three main groups
1. People who look at the whole thing calmly and argue either way
2. People who hate anything associated with violence.
3. People who think the government is out to get them.
I don't even understand what a "credible news anchor" is. Do we even have these anymore? Other than one PBS?
1. People who look at the whole thing calmly and argue either way
2. People who hate anything associated with violence.
3. People who think the government is out to get them.
He wasn't arguing Jon's credibility.Nieroshai said:
I don't even understand what a "credible news anchor" is. Do we even have these anymore? Other than one PBS?
We have enough laws. How about instead they enforce the ones already in place? Oh wait...that would make sense. Scratch that then.
This is what I've been thinking. If the US government did indeed decide to stage a war against its own people for whatever reason, they have hundreds of thousands of soldiers equipped with the latest in weapons technology and armor, much of which will never be commercially available, not to mention devices like tanks, UAVs, satellites, missiles, etc., plus an incredibly capable information-gathering network at all levels. Not to mention the troops have undergone military training specifically intended to enable them to kill other human beings. In short, even if there had never been restrictions on gun ownership in the US, the public still would not stand much of a chance should the government decide to stage a war against them. With that in mind, we might as well restrict gun ownership. An outright ban on guns is impossible and unnecessary, but as Obama put it, exercising your Second Amendment rights does not justify permanently taking away someone else's ability to exercise their First Amendment rights, and with that in mind, gun laws at the moment are too loose.Bhaalspawn said:Lately the big reason I support gun control is simply because of the number of paranoid lunatics who think that the US Government is some kind of tyranny waiting to happen. I'm no fan of the US, but they're not evil. These lunatics have no ground to stand on. They aren't going to spark some revolution. And even if they did...
The magazine capacity will do nothing. Here's why: it doesn't take that long to reload if you've had practice and aren't an idiot about taking cover and having a secondary weapon if someone decides to be heroic. Say I had the equipment to machine weapons. It's not so far-fetched, many mechanics have similar equipment and many civilians already smith guns. Or I could just have myself and several friends buy up legal guns. Now let's say I want to go on a rampage with a duffel full of derringers. Do you see where I'm going? Two shots each, single action weapons. But I can pop them off quickly, discard when empty, and draw another from the sack slung from my shoulder. I could do the same with revolvers, but they'd be vastly harder to make and more conspicuous to buy more than two. It's no automatic weapon, but then you can't have those in America without a special license granted from law enforcement. A class-3 I think? My point is, skill determines the usefulness of a weapon. The Tuscon shooter was no marksman, and fumbled to reload his mag. Imagine if he was a Marines vet with PTSD? He'd have done the same damage with a revolver, a speed loader, and a third of the bullets.Subscriptism said:
We keep losing track here of a big point. Almost every single one of these mass murderers was on medication for mental illness. As the rate of medication for mental illness has increased, the number of mass shootings has increased. Guns and mags are a red herring.
I feel that we have the right to protect ourselves. In this day and age, it'd be stupid not too. That being said, I have no qualms about re-working or strengthening some of the current regulations if it will lessen gun crime even slightly. So I voted for the first option.
You realize that a revolver isn't semi-automatic. Completely different concept.PoolCleaningRobot said:
OT: I think we need a few changes, stricter control and registration. As well as some form of mental health check, and mandatory gun safety courses. I do not think we need to ban any type of gun currently legal. There is very little difference between what they call assault weapons now and what they intend to impose with the exception of the number of bullets they control or what attachments they are allowed. If the ban goes through as intended a musket rifle from the 1850s would be illegal to own because you could add a bayonet to it and that is ridiculous.