Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[mrscott137]

Being British, the closest gun I know of is in the police station in town, the closest civilian I know is my friend's father in the next town over.
I honestly don't see why any civilian would need a gun, it just promotes violence and gun crime.

 

[Raytan941]

Certainly, there are many many laws that could save many many lives. however the question is that of outweighing the benefits. Limiting cars to 40 MPH (actually where i live the limit is 45 MPH, so close) would save a lot of lives, certainly, but it would also remove the benefits of safe, long roads. try driving 800 miles at 40MPH, its not fun.

This is exactly the kinda response I was looking for. Your right of course a 40 MPH country wide speed limit is a ridiculous idea and that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Even if it would save thousands of lives for your average everyday driver the benefits DO NOT outweigh the restrictions. But yet when the anti-gun lobby talks about their so called "common sense gun laws" they are shocked and appalled that gun owners don't immediately side with them in placing more restrictions on their gun's. All because we don't think the benefits outweigh the restrictions, they call us callous and uncaring about the lives of innocent children when I guarantee these same people would rabidly fight against a nationwide 40 MPH speed-limit even if it would save the lives of thousands of innocent children. It's because as I said earlier gun control is not now nor has it ever been about saving lives gun control is people control plain and simple that's all it has ever been throughout history.

A lot of people on both sides of this debate like to throw around statistics because stats are easily manipulated and can easily be taken out of context or just plain lied about to make one side or the other side argument look more effective. There are some stats though that cannot be dismissed, fact of the matter is violent crime numbers in the US has dropped about 50% in the last 20 years. I have yet to hear any arguments to the contrary on this one from the anti-gun side, usually when it's thrown out in a debate the anti-gun people just do their best to ignore it. Also in the last 20 years gun sales and ownership have skyrocketed, again there is no arguing this fact there are far more guns in circulation now then there were 20 years ago.

This would seem to indicate more guns = less crime, and that's the argument a lot of pro-gun groups like the NRA use. For the record I disagree with that statement I don't think its that simple, that black and white. There are far to many factors at work to say that more guns = less crime, but the same goes for the other side of the coin. A lot of anti-gun groups like to say more guns = more crime (they like to use murder over crime but murder rates have also dropped in the last 20 years) and it is just not true.

So whats the answer to stopping all these gun murders, the answer is that there is no answer, at least no easy answer. A better mental health system and better educational system are certainly good places to start more after school programs and programs to prevent gangs and gang violence are also good steps. I'll even go as far as to say that optional gun turn in and buyback programs might be a good step, though I am admittedly on the fence on this one but if people want to turn in their guns for Walmart gift cards (lol) then that's their decision. At least it might at least get some guns out of the homes of people who don't want them. What I don't think is a good idea and I know will not work is taking away or restricting the rights of lawful gun owners and enthusiast's. And if the anti-gun lobby is really only interested in saving lives then maybe they should focus their efforts on education on and prevention of obesity instead of trying to remove or restrict people's constitutional right to bear arms.

 

[the7ofswords]

Gun Control≠Confiscation of all guns. The NRA is trying to make that argument, but they're being dishonest and trying to spread fear among their supporters.

ALL of our rights are limited in some way.

Freedom of religion? We don't allow human sacrifice.

Freedom of speech? You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or lie under oath.

Right to bear arms? Anyone try to buy a short-range missile lately?

The question is WHERE do we want to draw that line. I see no reason for assault weapons for hunting or home defense. Guns should be registered and tracked, just as cars are. Gun owners should be licensed, just as drivers are.

None of this is unreasonable, except to the fringe gun-nut crowd who have fallen under the spell of unreasoning fear.

At least that's my 2 coppers, for what they're worth.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Gun Control≠Confiscation of all guns. The NRA is trying to make that argument, but they're being dishonest and trying to spread fear among their supporters.

Actually, no, their fear is a reasonable one. Look up the NY Safe Act. All guns specified in the Act cannot have their rights transferred, and so the State will more or less collect the gun once the owner dies. Thing is, the Act is extremely lax in their description of what is banned, and so yes, it's a problem because New York is essentially looking to disarm it's citizens.

 

[General Vagueness]

If that happened a bunch of people would immediately go to court, the court would almost definitely find there was harm done, and if that didn't get it changed it would go to a higher court, and keep going, it it had to, to the Supreme Court, which would almost definitely find the law unconstitutional. If there was an amendment passed first that allowed the government to do this then all bets are off, and the law(s) probably wouldn't take effect or even be passed until after the amendment was, so people would probably leave the country or hide their guns between the amendment being passed and the new laws(s) being passed or enforced.

 

[WitherVoice]

Like someone would come around to TAKE your guns. Like they can afford to send people around to COLLECT all the stupid fucking chunks of metal.

If the US gov't passes gun control laws, at MOST this will mean that having an illegal gun would be a problem if you happen to come under police scrutiny for some other reason. They're not going to come around to pick up your guns. Any idea that they would is a ridiculous paranoid delusion.

 

[the7ofswords]

Gun Control≠Confiscation of all guns. The NRA is trying to make that argument, but they're being dishonest and trying to spread fear among their supporters.

Actually, no, their fear is a reasonable one. Look up the NY Safe Act. All guns specified in the Act cannot have their rights transferred, and so the State will more or less collect the gun once the owner dies. Thing is, the Act is extremely lax in their description of what is banned, and so yes, it's a problem because New York is essentially looking to disarm it's citizens.

Actually, no it isn't. I just did as you asked, and I looked up the NY Safe Act. Under its provisions all sales of assault weapons require a background check with the EXCEPTION of transactions between family members. There are new restrictions on magazine size (down to 7 rounds), as well as other provisions regarding mental health services and reporting on stolen weapons. There are extra penalties for assault on first-responders or weapons in schools. There's a redefinition as to how "assault weapon" is defined, but they're not banned. They're creating a registry of assault weapons (much like already exists for automobiles).

There is NO blanket confiscation of guns in this bill. The only way you'll have your precious weapons taken from you is if you've been diagnosed as mentally unstable.

I don't know where you got your "facts" ... but you might want to shy away from FOX or NRA press releases and the like.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Gun Control≠Confiscation of all guns. The NRA is trying to make that argument, but they're being dishonest and trying to spread fear among their supporters.

Actually, no, their fear is a reasonable one. Look up the NY Safe Act. All guns specified in the Act cannot have their rights transferred, and so the State will more or less collect the gun once the owner dies. Thing is, the Act is extremely lax in their description of what is banned, and so yes, it's a problem because New York is essentially looking to disarm it's citizens.

Actually, no it isn't. I just did as you asked, and I looked up the NY Safe Act. Under its provisions all sales of assault weapons require a background check with the EXCEPTION of transactions between family members. There are new restrictions on magazine size (down to 7 rounds), as well as other provisions regarding mental health services and reporting on stolen weapons. There are extra penalties for assault on first-responders or weapons in schools. There's a redefinition as to how "assault weapon" is defined, but they're not banned. They're creating a registry of assault weapons (much like already exists for automobiles).

There is NO blanket confiscation of guns in this bill. The only way you'll have your precious weapons taken from you is if you've been diagnosed as mentally unstable.

I don't know where you got your "facts" ... but you might want to shy away from FOX or NRA press releases and the like.

Those are the guns they claim are not covered by the ban. As for the guns that are, this is the relevant section:

Current owners of these banned weapons may transfer the weapons only to a firearms dealer or transfer to an out of state buyer. http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013

However, between the ban and the ridiculously low magazine capacity size, only a small number of Shotguns and Revolvers aren't covered by this, so it's essentially a blanket ban regardless. (Even standard issue Glock 22's have a capacity of 15-16)

They can't take my guns away regardless since I don't like in NY, and I will shortly become an LEO, who are exempt from the Act anyway.

 

[Ryotknife]

Gun Control≠Confiscation of all guns. The NRA is trying to make that argument, but they're being dishonest and trying to spread fear among their supporters.

Actually, no, their fear is a reasonable one. Look up the NY Safe Act. All guns specified in the Act cannot have their rights transferred, and so the State will more or less collect the gun once the owner dies. Thing is, the Act is extremely lax in their description of what is banned, and so yes, it's a problem because New York is essentially looking to disarm it's citizens.

Actually, no it isn't. I just did as you asked, and I looked up the NY Safe Act. Under its provisions all sales of assault weapons require a background check with the EXCEPTION of transactions between family members. There are new restrictions on magazine size (down to 7 rounds), as well as other provisions regarding mental health services and reporting on stolen weapons. There are extra penalties for assault on first-responders or weapons in schools. There's a redefinition as to how "assault weapon" is defined, but they're not banned. They're creating a registry of assault weapons (much like already exists for automobiles).

There is NO blanket confiscation of guns in this bill. The only way you'll have your precious weapons taken from you is if you've been diagnosed as mentally unstable.

I don't know where you got your "facts" ... but you might want to shy away from FOX or NRA press releases and the like.

There are some segments that are worded...kinda strangely. For example, one can make the argument that there is a provision where if you had to reapply for a permit for whatever reason, the government can take away all of your guns, even the ones grandfathered. The same weapons that you can not get BACK as while they were legal when you bought them, they are illegal now. It is a loophole to retroactively apply their new law.

I am not saying that it how it IS, just how it can be easily interpreted due to semi vague language.

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

Gun Control≠Confiscation of all guns. The NRA is trying to make that argument, but they're being dishonest and trying to spread fear among their supporters.

Actually, no, their fear is a reasonable one. Look up the NY Safe Act. All guns specified in the Act cannot have their rights transferred, and so the State will more or less collect the gun once the owner dies. Thing is, the Act is extremely lax in their description of what is banned, and so yes, it's a problem because New York is essentially looking to disarm it's citizens.

Actually, no it isn't. I just did as you asked, and I looked up the NY Safe Act. Under its provisions all sales of assault weapons require a background check with the EXCEPTION of transactions between family members. There are new restrictions on magazine size (down to 7 rounds), as well as other provisions regarding mental health services and reporting on stolen weapons. There are extra penalties for assault on first-responders or weapons in schools. There's a redefinition as to how "assault weapon" is defined, but they're not banned. They're creating a registry of assault weapons (much like already exists for automobiles).

There is NO blanket confiscation of guns in this bill. The only way you'll have your precious weapons taken from you is if you've been diagnosed as mentally unstable.

I don't know where you got your "facts" ... but you might want to shy away from FOX or NRA press releases and the like.

Those are the guns they claim are not covered by the ban. As for the guns that are, this is the relevant section:

Current owners of these banned weapons may transfer the weapons only to a firearms dealer or transfer to an out of state buyer. http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013

However, between the ban and the ridiculously low magazine capacity size, only a very small number of Shotguns and Revolvers aren't covered by this, so it's essentially a blanket ban regardless. (Even standard issue Glock 22's have a capacity of 15-16)

They can't take my guns away regardless since I don't like in NY, and I will shortly become an LEO, who are exempt from the Act anyway.

...You didn't actually read the whole list have you? The point that is most likely concerning you is this one.
8. Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.
Meaning the actual gun is not being banned, assuming you pass all the necessary background and mental health checks they are not going to take it away from you.
The magazine on the other hand is what is being confiscated, as such the dirty grubby government is taking your magazines, not your guns.
And just in case I haven't come off as an ass enough already, I'd love to hear your justification for owning a magazine with a capacity higher than seven rounds.

 

[Not Matt]

Norway. Don't have guns anyway. But if I lived in the US I would probably have been glad they were gone.

 

[TornadoADV]

...You didn't actually read the whole list have you? The point that is most likely concerning you is this one.
8. Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.
Meaning the actual gun is not being banned, assuming you pass all the necessary background and mental health checks they are not going to take it away from you.
The magazine on the other hand is what is being confiscated, as such the dirty grubby government is taking your magazines, not your guns.
And just in case I haven't come off as an ass enough already, I'd love to hear your justification for owning a magazine with a capacity higher than seven rounds.

Because most weapons have mags that are by default larger then 7 rounds. Such as your typical S&W or Glock have a default magazine cap of 15. Most rifles with detachable mags can't function with a size smaller then 10 as the mag disappears inside the mag guard. It's basically a round about way of banning entire classes of handguns and rifles.

What the 2nd amendment actually says is ignored basically 100% of the times it's referenced. There's a first qualifier sentence in there that people like to pretend doesn't exist.

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

Nowhere in that sentence does it say that murdering law enforcement officers for doing their jobs becomes justified, legal, or encouraged upon the US government deciding to use their employees to steal people's firearms.
Also, is a paranoid nut owning 5 guns and carrying them around concealed at all times really necessary to the security of a free state? What about those who have already committed violent crime, or the obsessed and/or mentally deranged people who think it's a great idea to massacre a schoolfull of children, are they protecting the security of their free state? Was Jared Loughner part of a well regulated militia? What percentage of private gun owners are required to be members of well regulated militias, or even have to earn a licence these days?
The 2nd amendment does not say anyone can do anything they like with a deadly, offensive weapon wherever and whenever they like. Guns give their owners power over whether the people around them live or die, and it's insane to say that everyone has a right to that power.

So basically your argument boils down to only the government should have firearms? The Second Amendment is the vehicle by which the US People can protect the other nine from a corrupt government. You take away the Second, the rest in the Bill of Rights stay as long as it at the government's pleasure and that's exactly what the founding fathers didn't want.

 

[Kopikatsu]

And just in case I haven't come off as an ass enough already, I'd love to hear your justification for owning a magazine with a capacity higher than seven rounds.

As Tornado said, most rifles can't handle a magazine that small.

And like I said, it's mostly them extending the Assault Weapon Ban even further, which is already ridiculous. Telescopic stock to make a longgun more comfortable to use? Gun is banned. Pistol grip for ease of use? Gun is banned. Do you know what a pistol grip is, even?

That is a rifle with a pistol grip.

That is a rifle without one.

But no, that's considered too dangerous to have on the streets. If only the Newtown shooter didn't have a pistol grip, think of all the lives that would have been saved!

I can't think of any modern rifles or shotguns without a pistol grip; and most have telescopic stocks. The reason is that they're comfortable, convenient, and easier to use, so there's no reason not to use them. It's entirely possible to design a modern gun without those things, and they will be if the ban goes through, but it's retarded regardless.

I can think of a lot of reasons why you'd need more than seven rounds. Competition, hunting, pest control, self-defense.

Yes, self-defense. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people are not perfect shots and are panicking when they pull a gun; there are cases like these: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0

Seven bullets may not be enough to kill a normal person, much less, say, someone hyped up on certain kinds of drugs can take a lot of firepower to bring down. I wish I could have found the video, but there was a fairly recent instance of a man being shot by police outside of a McDonalds. One cop shot him 6~ times, and the guy only staggered back before righting himself, at which point the cop emptied the rest of the magazine into him, which finally put him down. Real life isn't like the movies; where people go down in a single shot and then that's it for them. People can survive for a while even after being mortally wounded, so it's entirely possible that you can fire your seven rounds, hit with five of them, and then the other guy pulls a weapon and shoots/stabs you before he dies. That's also why, if the situation allows, you're supposed to empty your magazine into an assailant, to make sure they're dead.

If they actually gave a damn, then they would be more concerned with restricting calibers. Because a 7 round magazine with .45 ACP is more deadly than a 12 round magazine with .22. However, that would hurt hunting worse than it would anything else; since most large animals can take more punishment than most humans can. (Not that .45 is a hunting round, because I'm 90% sure that it isn't.)

 

[the7ofswords]

Gun Control≠Confiscation of all guns. The NRA is trying to make that argument, but they're being dishonest and trying to spread fear among their supporters.

Actually, no, their fear is a reasonable one. Look up the NY Safe Act. All guns specified in the Act cannot have their rights transferred, and so the State will more or less collect the gun once the owner dies. Thing is, the Act is extremely lax in their description of what is banned, and so yes, it's a problem because New York is essentially looking to disarm it's citizens.

Actually, no it isn't. I just did as you asked, and I looked up the NY Safe Act. Under its provisions all sales of assault weapons require a background check with the EXCEPTION of transactions between family members. There are new restrictions on magazine size (down to 7 rounds), as well as other provisions regarding mental health services and reporting on stolen weapons. There are extra penalties for assault on first-responders or weapons in schools. There's a redefinition as to how "assault weapon" is defined, but they're not banned. They're creating a registry of assault weapons (much like already exists for automobiles).

There is NO blanket confiscation of guns in this bill. The only way you'll have your precious weapons taken from you is if you've been diagnosed as mentally unstable.

I don't know where you got your "facts" ... but you might want to shy away from FOX or NRA press releases and the like.

There are some segments that are worded...kinda strangely. For example, one can make the argument that there is a provision where if you had to reapply for a permit for whatever reason, the government can take away all of your guns, even the ones grandfathered. The same weapons that you can not get BACK as while they were legal when you bought them, they are illegal now. It is a loophole to retroactively apply their new law.

I am not saying that it how it IS, just how it can be easily interpreted due to semi vague language.

OK, but this applies only to weapons classified under "assault weapons" ban. This is them grandfathering in the current owners of the weapons that will be banned, but not allow them to be passed on to people who do not currently own them. Other guns are unaffected by this?their sales must be tracked, though, except in the case of transfer to family. They're banning a certain class of weapons, but not TAKING them from anyone who currently has one. I'm not seeing the problem here.

The magazine limits are going to be more problematic, sure, but no one is actually coming to take anyones guns away.

 

[Kenkurogue]

People don't seem to understand why America needs to own guns. Our right to bear arms was not put into the Constitution so we could go do some hunting. We had to win our liberty through force of arms. We are guaranteed our right to keep and bear arms ensure that the citizens always have enough power to protect themselves from threats, including the government. The government works for US. Not the other way around. I would also like to point out that NONE of the regulations the president put into place recently would have stopped the Sandy Hook killings. The killer stole the gun from his mother, who had the gun illegally in the first place. See the problem is criminals don't follow the laws. Not that long ago ( historically speaking ) America banned alcohol and we all know how well that worked.

 

[DataSnake]

People don't seem to understand why America needs to own guns. Our right to bear arms was not put into the Constitution so we could go do some hunting. We had to win our liberty through force of arms. We are guaranteed our right to keep and bear arms ensure that the citizens always have enough power to protect themselves from threats, including the government. The government works for US. Not the other way around.

The government has drones, tanks, attack choppers, stealth bombers, and nukes. I don't think the presence of armed civilians is what's stopping the country from turning into a police state.

I would also like to point out that NONE of the regulations the president put into place recently would have stopped the Sandy Hook killings. The killer stole the gun from his mother, who had the gun illegally in the first place.

So any measure that wouldn't prevent 100% of shootings isn't worth doing?

See the problem is criminals don't follow the laws. Not that long ago ( historically speaking ) America banned alcohol and we all know how well that worked.

Any idiot can brew up moonshine, grow pot, or cook meth. The same idiot would be hard-pressed to build their own an AR15. The harder something is to manufacture, the more effective restrictions on it are.

 

[chadachada123]

That's without even bringing into account how absolutely fucktarded it is that "defending my goddamned life" isn't considered a "valid" reason in the UK,

Heh, I recently heard a bit on NPR (only caught the tail end, couldn't get any references) talking about how gun purchases for traditional gun uses (hunting, sport shooting) are down as the population urbanizes. And how despite how violent crime is down year-on-year across the US, a major reason people choose to buy guns is for their personal safety, a reason encouraged by gun manufacturers.

In other words, despite you being safer than ever in the US, gun manufacturers create the impression that you are not in order to sell more guns and therefore compensate for losses. According to this story, major gun companies are basically encouraging paranoia in order to make money...

Even if gun manufacturers did push that image (and they don't appear to be), isn't the fact that gun crime has been going down while gun ownership is going up...show that more gun control isn't necessary at this point?

At the very least, it shows that gun ownership is not correlated nor causally related in and of itself to gun crime.

That's without getting into the fact that gun owners (in Texas) who go through the Concealed Handgun Licensing process (with a training course and written test) and purchased their firearm legally are fourteen times less likely than the average citizen to commit a crime, and seven times less likely to commit a violent crime. That is, the armed and educated citizen is far safer and less violent than the unarmed, uneducated one. It's almost as if...they value their liberty and don't want to risk it.

Source:
http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm (article and graphs)
http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant.pdf (original study)

 

[Kenkurogue]

Yeah, right, a breach of this part of the constitution?
"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"
Do Americans know what a militia is? I read this and thought of the Swiss system of gun laws built around every 20 - 30 year old (Male?) being part of a trained militia with the option to keep semi-automatic versions of their issued rifle afterwards because they had proper training and respect for the firearm BEFORE being allowed to own it.

You're thinking of "militia" as "a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies." Most pro-gun folks would argue the Founders wrote the Second Amendment with "a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers" in mind, who could be "a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government" if shit went down. And they'd say "regulated" as in "adjusted so as to ensure accuracy of operation" rather than "controlled or directed by a rule, principle, method, etc." (defs from dictionary.com)

What does " a well regulated militia" mean?

I get the feeling that if a group of citizens rose up against the government's "tyranny" we'd end up with an IRA type situation, those people would be branded domestic terrorists and the Patriot Act would be invoked...doesn't sound like it'd really work post 9/11.

Not having a go, genuinely intrigued.

At the time the Constitution was written "militia" meant every able bodied adult male pretty much every guy 15 or older with no major health problems. And "well regulated" meant they knew how to handle a firearm and could fight. With our cultural changes I would say militiwould now be every adult over 18. But that first sentence in the second amendment is not a "qualifier" as I have heard it called, its a preamble.

 

[Gitty101]

That would not be good...

Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't each state in America maintain the rights to basically veto the government's policies if they feel they aren't within the state's best interest? If that is the case I can see America splitting right across the waist - it'll be a less violent version of the Civil War all over again.

That's not correct, though you could be forgiven for thinking it given how often states try to pretend that Federal law doesn't apply to them.

But Federal law trumps state law. Otherwise there would be no federation. There would just be 50 states that effectively have treaties with each other if they want to. Which would be an absolute nightmare.

Ah, thanks for the correction.

 

[theheroofaction]

keep quiet until the end of the inevitable bloody revolts.