Poll: american only gun poll

[Chunga the Great]

I'm gonna throw this out there: It's called China. China once had a population that owned as many guns as the USA does. Then Mao (look him up if you don't know who I'm talking about) and the government banned them, and physically removed them from everybody that owned them. Today, even the sound of a homicide in China is so extremely rare its almost unbelievable. And oh, China has by far the highest population of any country in the entire world. IT's not video games. Get a clue America.

It has no homicide and has the highest population of any country in the world....and is also governed by a totalitarian regime that imprisons thousands of people for speaking out against the government and actively censors information coming into and going out of the country.

I'll take my chances, thanks.

 

[Souplex]

People who make repeat threads should not be allowed to have guns, or the internet.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.146207-Poll-Fun-control#3329136

 

[kgpspyguy]

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...

You do realize that about 80% of America's solders and law enforcement are pro gun, so they would probably team up with the gun lovers.

 

[EHKOS]

We all need slow firing low caliber revolvers with three bullets. Nothing more powerful should be had.

 

[devotedsniper]

I wonder how many of the violent crimes in the UK are actually drunken fights? We british/scottish/welsh/irish like our drink...we like it a lot.

Not trying to say that's the reason our crime is so high but i suspect it has a somewhat hefty percentage of those violent crimes. As for the US i would say ban citizens from having guns but that will never work because they let it get this far out of hand, the best they can do is try to control new guns better i guess.

 

[teebeeohh]

you know what i love about the "when push comes to shove the military will not directly fight the population since the military is made up of real people"-argument? IF there is a significant interest in your nation to use the military against the population somebody on the military side of things thought about how to make it happen without everyone deserting.

oh and i really like all them gun threads, less people talking about rape.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You do realize that about 80% of America's solders and law enforcement are pro gun, so they would probably team up with the gun lovers.

Little difference between "pro-gun" and "pro-treason", though.

 

[alphamalet]

I feel this entire issue is divided into two subissues. The two subissues being:

1) Can we take guns away?
2) Should we take guns away?

In terms of the latter, I don't see why people should be walking around with firearms. I don't think they are doing much of anything productive, and never once have I personally ran into someone who has actually used one for "self defense".

Now Can we take guns away? This question gets far more murky. When you force gun owners to hand over their weapons, you are essentially circumventing two different amendments in the Bill of Rights:

Ammendment 2: Right to bear arms
Ammendment 4: Right for the people to be secure from unlawful search and seizure

Do I think we should circumvent the Bill of Rights? No, and I wouldn't like such a precedent to be set. Do I think that people should walk around with firearms? No, I don't think it is a good idea, even though it has never affected me.

So honestly, I don't know what the answer is.

For the poll, I guess I'll vote for changes to be made, but these changes won't be easy to implement. Stronger background checks are always a good idea though.

 

[Nghtgnt]

so i was watching a jon stewart bit today and the audience seemed universally in acceptance of gun control. i understand jon stewart attracts a certain viewer base but it got me to thinking. do we only hear from "the gun nuts"? is the only reason this is an issue because gun advocates are more vocal?

please do not answer the poll if you are not american

I think that episode showed really well one of the problems with the debate: the anti-gun lobby has little actual knowledge of firearms. Specifically look to the bit where they showed a clip of Senator Graham stating that it only takes him a few seconds to change a magazine (in reference to the proposed ban on high-capacity magazines) and Stewart mocks him for this, implying that no one else can change magazines that fast. The truth is that with 5 minutes of practice anyone can change a magazine in about 5 seconds. If the anti-gun group was more familiar with firearms they would know this and not tout the high-capacity magazine issue as such a cure-all, and allow us to dig deeper into the debate: should we limit the number of magazines a person can purchase? Is a 5 second pause in a shooting that significant? Should a mechanism be implemented to make magazine changes slow and annoying? How would this affect people using firearms for home defense?

On the other side of the debate, the NRA leadership and the spokespeople for the pro-gun faction are not as politically savvy as they would like people to think, and by being so intractable they are alienating a lot of potential support as well as painting themselves as people that cannot be reasoned with. If they were really smart, they would meet a lot of the proposed regulations halfway, if not more, but add a 5 or 10 year sunset clause into the legislation - the U.S. congress can't even pass a budget when the consequences of failing to do so are dire, do you think they'd be able to renew gun control legislation in 5 years?

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

No new assault rifles have been made available to the US public since 1986, and noen have been used in crime.

When the media says "Assault rifle" it almost always means "semi-automatic civilian variant of an assault rifle" and has got the terminology round.

Assault rifles are assault rifles, civilian variants or not. My questions still remain completely unanswered.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

So has anyone come up with a justifiable answer as to why civilians should be able to own Assault Rifles? Just a genuine question here. So far all I've heard is "2nd amendment etc etc, we should be able to protect ourselves etc etc".

It still doesn't answer the question - why Assault Rifles with big magazines? Is it that hard to protect yourself with a pistol? Or shotgun? Or even an air rifle?

Is it that hard to pass a background check, are you so scared (or guilty) inside?

Nowhere in the new proposed gun laws am I seeing the words "ban all guns". I can't see it. I see a ban on Assault Rifles, big magazines and thorough background checks.

You can keep all your other weapons, isn't that enough protection? Buy 10 shotguns and 15 pistols, is that enough protection for you?

No new assault rifles have been made available to the US public since 1986, and noen have been used in crime.

When the media says "Assault rifle" it almost always means "semi-automatic civilian variant of an assault rifle" and has got the terminology round.

The magazine capacity is because the military uses volume of fire to gain fire superiority and to suppress the enemy. If a unit fails to do this as soon as possible, they risk being wiped out. For this reason, the military needs that extra capacity so they can open up hell on whatever fires on them.

M4's fire at around 15, 5.56mm rounds a minute. It takes a few seconds to reload. The 240B, which is the main killer, fires 100, 7.62mm rounds a minute. It's belt-fed. Statistics place the 240B at producing around 90% of a platoon's firepower.

A lower magazine capacity will make a gunman more likely to kill his target as he has to concentrate on aiming.

Firstly, the LMG is used for suppressing fire. Assault rifles, as a rule, are not. The m4 has a Rof of 700-900 odd a minute, not 15 (blazing away at full auto). That's the entire magazine gone in seconds, which isn't very useful.

Maybe you meant 15 rounds a second. Anyway, the 240B doesn't have that much greater rate of fire.

Secondly, if that was the case, why do police use 30 round clips? They are expressly not allowed to use suppressing fire (assuming their weapons even have automatic fire).

You're talking to an infantryman about an infantryman's job. Yes, you can use the M4 to keep someone's head down. The sustained rate of fire for the M4 carbine is 15 rounds a minute. One shot is fired every four seconds so that someone is firing once every second. You're talking cyclic which is only true on M4A1's. All other M4's are 3-round burst which caps their rate of fire at 90 rounds a minute. And, yes, the 240B has that much firepower.


I don't know why police choose to use them. I explained why the military uses them.

 

[Kingpopadopalus]

I think posting in an international forum with international guests frequenting it, your results are going to be skewed, especially because we're on the escapist this is a place that leans more to the left.

 

[PxDn Ninja]

I am very liberal, and rarely agree with the conservative movement in this country (the whole meaning of conservative is to resist change, and change is where progress comes from), but in this regard I agree with conservatives. We have an ATF with no director, and no way to enforce laws we currently have. If start enforcing the laws we have, and allow the ATF to do it's job, then we will have a much safer country to live in.

I am in full support of psychological tests for certain class weapons, and even forced education for gun ownership, but outright banning a pistol because it holds 10 rounds is extreme and illogical.

 

[BleedingPride]

Personally I think vast changes are in order, while in a perfect world I'd say lets go the way of the UK and Japan and ban them all, but there is a case to be made for self defense (personally I'm in favor of tazers and stun guns and martial arts to defend one's self but not everyone in the country is). However assault weapons? completely unneeded. a bullet's a bullet, a simple revolver could put down someone attacking your family, there's no need for Light Machine Guns or Assault Rifles.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Also, these gun threads are now even worse and more numerous than the drowning threads...

Gun threads and "Video games cause violence" threads are both now drowning in a lake, which do you save?
A.Gun Threads.
B.Video games cause violence threads.
C.Pull up a seat and watch them both drown.

Make your choice.

*smashes C so hard it breaks the button, then keeps mashing it*

The Laws we have are fine, then real issue is enforcing them properly, course >.> that applys to more then just fire arms

 

[Generic4me]

'Murrican.

I voted vast changes.

Honestly I don't feel that people need high-capacity fast-firing rifles, or assault weapons, or explosives, and we should ban that shit, because if you need an AK to hunt a freaking deer then you are not a very good hunter.

Bolt-action rifles, low capacity and weaker shotguns, and low-caliber and low capacity pistols. America has guns in it. America will continue to have guns in it, regardless of whether anti-gun laws pass, because of how prevalent they are, and all the people that would resist the legislation. I believe you should be able to have a weapon to defend yourself against all the people that are going to have illegal firearms, but don't need heavier weapons.

Also, we should start advertising non-lethal ways of defense as an alternative to a firearm. Stun guns can be just as effective as a gun without the whole "killing people" thing. Plus it'd be a lot easier for everybody in court.

 

[AgedGrunt]

so i was watching a jon stewart bit today and the audience seemed universally in acceptance of gun control. i understand jon stewart attracts a certain viewer base but it got me to thinking. do we only hear from "the gun nuts"? is the only reason this is an issue because gun advocates are more vocal?

The question is a bit of a non-starter. Very few people listen to or even understand the NRA/gun owners. We constantly hear from politicians, communities, lobbyists, media and the Internet; it's overwhelmingly from a gun control/anti-violence perspective. The NRA went to the Obama administration in talks that should have put everything on the table and it was nothing but anti-gun policy thrown in their faces.

This is an issue because the mainstream has made guns the issue.

This mass propaganda leads people to believe that only fringe groups, extremists (you call them "nuts") and violent people desire nothing more than to have powerful weapons and hurt people. There are millions of people out there who safely own and operate firearms and millions more that fundamentally support this right. However it's clear to me that nearly all people who speak out against gun rights are those that are not affected by such power grabs; they don't own or ever intend to own a firearm, so what do they care?

But watch the government go after something they or people they support make use of (privacy, property, the Internet, speech, justice) and suddenly they turn into Constitution-thumping patriots.

 

[mrhappy1489]

I used to for gun control, but then this wonderful gentleman from the NRA showed me how wrong I was:


It's the pills, man! The suicide pills!

Ev'ry free man need to git 'emselves a shootin' iron so's they can protect themselves from the gorrament!

And I thought we had some stupid personalities over here, this guy seriously takes the cake.

 

[Xan Krieger]

You do realize that about 80% of America's solders and law enforcement are pro gun, so they would probably team up with the gun lovers.

Little difference between "pro-gun" and "pro-treason", though.

What if congress commits treason?

Aside from some asinine "assault weapon" designations, I'm fine with the level of control we generally have.

What I want fixed is better enforcement, and better background check systems and criteria.

I agree with Ms Kitten here. To those of you who want to ban all guns, that makes me laugh and I say "Over my dead body".