Firearms and Explosives:Gun Control Debate ITT

[Invicta_Veritas]

Relatively new to this part of the forums, so I don't know if this has been extensively done before, but here goes.

I know this is a highly debated issue in America, but I am also wondering about other nations as well. It is my understanding that Europe has some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, and my question would be, why? Is it truly the result of the liberal socialist agenda of many European countries, or do the governments there actually think it's working?

Also, for those of you in the States, what are your thoughts of the issue here?

Personally, I take a bit of an extremist view here...I believe anyone, anywhere should be allowed to own whatever kind of weapon they choose. I support the "it takes a finger to pull an already existing trigger" stance...any thoughts?

[monkeysonmars.]

what's the liberal socialist agenda?

as far as i can see it if you don't want to shoot an animal or hang it on your wall then you don't need a gun, seems less like an agenda and more like common sense. it probably doesn't reduce crime (i'll bet in the UK we have tons more stabbings) but that doesn't mean legalize guns that means crack down on knife crime.

[Against Miik!]

I'm definitely anti gun control. I haven't seen studies, so I can't say for sure, but common sense tells me that if a person is going to commit a violent crime, they are going to get a gun, legally or illegally. If anything, stricter gun control will result in a larger black market. The only people who are hindered by gun control laws are responsible gun owners.

Plus, I think people should be able to have guns for protection. I mean, you never know what will happen. If one day, things got a little crazy, like V For Vendetta style, I sure would hate for the cops to have all the guns.

[Knifeboy]

or do the governments there actually think it's working?


... Think?
You say this like you believe it isn't working

I assure you that there's a lot less killing with guns here in europe, so it obviously is working

[Invicta_Veritas]

as far as i can see it if you don't want to shoot an animal or hang it on your wall then you don't need a gun

In addition to the fact that those are two very valid reasons for a very large percentage of the populous to own firearms, I believe every living being has a right to own a weapon, and has had that right and used it fdrom the beginning of the human race. What kind of weapon that is is not for the modern government to decide, IMO.

I also stand by the self defense reasoning. Studies can whine all they want to about the "small" chances of anything actually happening to a person's household, but statistics don't mean a thing if you're the one staring down the barrel of an intruder's handgun while you watch your family members get raped or your house ransacked, not being able to do a thing because the government told you that you couldn't own a useful weapon.

I'm also not just talking about banning guns; I'm also talking about ridiculous laws that are implemented in some jurisdictions, stating that you can own a gun, but it must be unloaded and kept in a seperate room or locked up. Tell me, how are you going to have the time to stumble to another room in the house, in the dark, fumble for the keys, unlock the case and grab the ammunition/gun, load it, then run back and shoot the dude? You've got a far better likelihood that he'll shoot you before you're even halfway through the process.

Knifeboy: the dealiest shootings in recent history have happened in Scotland and Germany, two countries with some of the world's strictest gun laws. And simply because there may be less killing with guns in a certain country does not mean that other means haven't been excercised. What are you going to do? Ban everything, device and tactic, that can be used for self defense under the guise that it can be used for harmful things as well?

[Knifeboy]

Knifeboy: the dealiest shootings in recent history have happened in Scotland and Germany, two countries with some of the world's strictest gun laws.

Both shootings were done with legal guns, so I don't really see your point in that one

[Invicta_Veritas]

Had the countries banned guns completely, the perpetrators would have used explosives. That's my point; you can't take everything away from the people that has the capability of being used in a bad capacity. It doesn't work. Bad people will always find a way; there's no reason to take away from decent citizens in an effort to stop them.

[Against Miik!]

Had the countries banned guns completely, the perpetrators would have used explosives. That's my point; you can't take everything away from the people that has the capability of being used in a bad capacity. It doesn't work. Bad people will always find a way; there's no reason to take away from decent citizens in an effort to stop them.

and they will get guns anyways. The only way to stop crime completely would be some Draconian system. So I don't think it matters.

[Invicta_Veritas]

Well, there is no way to stop crime completely tbh. What can be done to help is more severe and effective punishments; i.e., everybody needs to quit whining aboiut how criminals need to be rehabilitated and that the death penalty is "inhumanitarian". Now that's a load of crap right there.

I believe that you murder somebody, you die. Automatically, no questions asked. That would do a lot more to stop crime than banning any kind of weapons.

[Det_Nosnip]

In addition to the fact that those are two very valid reasons for a very large percentage of the populous to own firearms, I believe every living being has a right to own a weapon, and has had that right and used it fdrom the beginning of the human race. What kind of weapon that is is not for the modern government to decide, IMO.
They'll pry the nukes from my cold dead fingers!

Knifeboy: the dealiest shootings in recent history have happened in Scotland and Germany,
Huh? :confused:

Anyways, Invicta...I understand that you're new, but for God's sake...DO SOME RESEARCH. Hell, I lean to the right when it comes to gun legislation, but I wouldn't stand near you in a debate if you offered me a million dollars.

In the most recent statistics, the United States ranks #6 in the world of # of murders a year, right behind Mexico, South Africa, Colombia, Russia, and India. The US is the only 1st world country in the top 10. Of those Commie Socialist gun-hating European countries you mentioned, France ranks the highest (#12 on the overall list, with about 10% of how many the US has). The UK (includes Scotland - ) had a staggering 850 murders (#18), and the Netherlands (#40) slaughtered through 183 hemp smoking hippies. Switzerland, Denmark and Norway were in double digits (69, 58, 49 respectively).

In case you wanted to pull the "oh, but we have so many more PPL than they do!!!!" line, the US still ranks #24 (ahead, curiously enough, of India), sharing the spotlight with Finland (#30) and France (#40) as the only 1st world nations within the top 40. Those Euro commie nations? #46 - UK, #51 - Netherlands, #53 - Denmark, #54 -Norway.

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

[Independent_CA]

I don't believe people should own say nuclear weapons and the like.

However, I don't have a problem with people owning whatever small arms they see fit. As long as they don't have a violent criminal history or anything like that, I don't see the problem.

[Amit]

gotta love people who don't do their research

[cobert]

I don't believe people should own say nuclear weapons and the like.

However, I don't have a problem with people owning whatever small arms they see fit. As long as they don't have a violent criminal history or anything like that, I don't see the problem.

I agree.

A person should be allowed to own anything up to and including assault rifles, but there needs to be extensive background checks before a person can purchase a firearm. If they have any violent history or and signs of mental disturbance they shouldnt be allowed to own a gun.

[Valhall]

They'll pry the nukes from my cold dead fingers!



In the most recent statistics, the United States ranks #6 in the world of # of murders a year, right behind Mexico, South Africa, Colombia, Russia, and India. The US is the only 1st world country in the top 10. Of those Commie Socialist gun-hating European countries you mentioned, France ranks the highest (#12 on the overall list, with about 10% of how many the US has). The UK (includes Scotland - ) had a staggering 850 murders (#18), and the Netherlands (#40) slaughtered through 183 hemp smoking hippies. Switzerland, Denmark and Norway were in double digits (69, 58, 49 respectively).

In case you wanted to pull the "oh, but we have so many more PPL than they do!!!!" line, the US still ranks #24 (ahead, curiously enough, of India), sharing the spotlight with Finland (#30) and France (#40) as the only 1st world nations within the top 40. Those Euro commie nations? #46 - UK, #51 - Netherlands, #53 - Denmark, #54 -Norway.

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Google "city versus rural murder statistics" and you'll find pages of articles and studies, most of which show a drastic increase in gun-related crimes/crime in general in urban areas, but a decrease in rural. I don't know about anywhere else, but in the U.S., the rural areas tend to have the least strict gun laws. So now we have statistics reports that are conflicting our points. This is why things need to be governed accoring to common sense, not statistics, in which case I say my rationale still stands...I have every right to own any kind of a firearm I want to, no restrictions, and with good reason.

Not to mention that the Bill of Rights explicitely grants the right to bear arms. While modern politicians spend all thier time bickering about what exactly that means, it appears to me that things don't get much simpler than that. If our founding fathers were alive to explain "what they meant", they would say" we meant what we said, you dolts."


That's a big point. In addition to the common sense of having the right to own a gun, regardless of whether anyone thinks it's right or not, in this country, our founding law dictates that we have that right....

[Det_Nosnip]

Google "city versus rural murder statistics" and you'll find pages of articles and studies, most of which show a drastic increase in gun-related crimes/crime in general in urban areas, but a decrease in rural.
lol. You might also find pages of articles and studies, most of which show a drastic increase in POPULATION in urban areas.

omg it's almost too easy to argue with you.


I don't know about anywhere else, but in the U.S., the rural areas tend to have the least strict gun laws. So now we have statistics reports that are conflicting our points.
lol. Except...not...at...all...

This is why things need to be governed accoring to common sense, not statistics,
You're right...empirical evidence is totally emo.

btw...here's some common sense: ppl who don't have guns don't tend to shoot eachother as much as ppl who do.


in which case I say my rationale still stands...I have every right to own any kind of a firearm I want to, no restrictions, and with good reason.
Why?!

Not to mention that the Bill of Rights explicitely grants the right to bear arms. While modern politicians spend all thier time bickering about what exactly that means, it appears to me that things don't get much simpler than that.
Yep...we can form militias.

If our founding fathers were alive to explain "what they meant", they would say" we meant what we said, you dolts."
Actually, they would probably say "our statements were relative to the time that they were uttered which is why the Constitution is an elastic document."

That's a big point.
Thanks for letting me know...my ignorant eyes saw only bullshit.

In addition to the common sense of having the right to own a gun,
Why in God's name is THAT common sense?

regardless of whether anyone thinks it's right or not, in this country, our founding law dictates that we have that right....

Errr...when this country was founded, we also had the right to keep slaves.

[Valhall]

Why in God's name is THAT common sense?


I didn't say that statement in and of itself was common sense lol. I was referring to ealier scenerios I posted about.....which make it clear to me that it's common sense that some of these restrictions are ridiculous...the requirement to keep gun and ammo seperate/locked up, etc.


Criminals will always have/be able to get ahold of guns no matter what; why is it such a bad idea to let decent, upstanding citizens have them as well?

Honestly, restricting a good citizen to a knife when the criminal came for a gunfight is like letting Russia nuke the U.S while telling the U.S. they can't have a military. It's bloody ridiculous.

[Against Miik!]

Errr...when this country was founded, we also had the right to keep slaves.

Yeah, that 1st amendment thing, habeas corpus, all that jazz, those are pretty outdated as well.

Honestly, how did you become a mod. I sure hope its due to your administrative skills.

[monkeysonmars.]

Google "city versus rural murder statistics" and you'll find pages of articles and studies, most of which show a drastic increase in gun-related crimes/crime in general in urban areas, but a decrease in rural. I don't know about anywhere else, but in the U.S., the rural areas tend to have the least strict gun laws. So now we have statistics reports that are conflicting our points. This is why things need to be governed accoring to common sense, not statistics, in which case I say my rationale still stands...I have every right to own any kind of a firearm I want to, no restrictions, and with good reason.

Not to mention that the Bill of Rights explicitely grants the right to bear arms. While modern politicians spend all thier time bickering about what exactly that means, it appears to me that things don't get much simpler than that. If our founding fathers were alive to explain "what they meant", they would say" we meant what we said, you dolts."


That's a big point. In addition to the common sense of having the right to own a gun, regardless of whether anyone thinks it's right or not, in this country, our founding law dictates that we have that right....


i don't know if this is what you're referring to but i clicked the first link on google and got this,

Sometimes the spatial patterns are not what one might expect. High violence in rural areas represents one case in point. In 1980, seventy-one out of the one hundred highest homicide rate counties in the United States were rural counties (Kposowa et al.).

Even if your claim were true to the points wouldn't conflict, I'm sure you could find multiple sociological reasons why crime is higher in urban areas in general which would lead to higher gun crime. If you don't take the stats cited as common sense then i don't know what common sense is.

Laws should change to reflect society's morals and reason as it matures, they shouldn't shape them. If you didn't look past any subject further than 'it's the law so it's right' then we would be stuck with some pretty archaic laws.

the only valid argument in my opinion is a liberal defense in terms of freedom, but even then freedom to act is qualified in that you can only act so far as you aren't imposing or impinging on the rights of others. I think guns are used too commonly for that very purpose therefore it is not a valid right.

[Valhall]

Yeah, that 1st amendment thing, habeas corpus, all that jazz, those are pretty outdated as well.
.

Right on the money, my friend :thumb:

I mean, I totally don't know of any morals or laws that could be universally justified :rolleyes:.

[naut]

man, someone needs to link me to an article about that dude who cut up his wife's lover with a chainsaw in Australia. that was a good read.

guy comes home...random dude banging his wife...goes to garage..."lol o dam no guns 4 me.....oh look a chainsaw..."

that's why we need greater gun control in America. if we had more imposing restrictions for the obtainment and ownership of firearms, i'd look a little less crazy when i hack someone up with a motorized bicycle chain.

[monkeysonmars.]

i'd use a chainsaw to reap bloody vengeance on society but i would be concerned about people thinking it was a bit cliche

[naut]

true. especially for me, considering my location.

[monkeysonmars.]

yeah i guess it's not so cliche in south england

[Danger Bird]

The only people who are hindered by gun control laws are responsible gun owners.

I hear this argument all the time and I just can't see the logic behind it. You could say the very same thing about crack cocaine, that doesn't mean the government should encourage it or not try to stop it.

[Smokey D]

I know this is a highly debated issue in America, but I am also wondering about other nations as well. It is my understanding that Europe has some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, and my question would be, why? Is it truly the result of the liberal socialist agenda of many European countries, or do the governments there actually think it's working?

Well, they think it's working in the sense that it actually appears to be working, or at least it part of a broader system that's working.

But not all European states have tight gun control laws. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world


Personally, I take a bit of an extremist view here...I believe anyone, anywhere should be allowed to own whatever kind of weapon they choose. I support the "it takes a finger to pull an already existing trigger" stance...any thoughts?

What about nuclear bombs?

Also, that rural vs city bullshit need not apply, since Europe is far more highly urbanised than the US, and still has lower gun crime rates per capita.

[Light Fantastic]

murder rates are more to do with the society than gun control laws

and liberal socialist agenda? liberalism = personal freedoms, ie the right to own weapons.. gun control is only strange because its usually so called libertarians that are arguing to restrict this one right

[Smokey D]

Murder rates are a product of a variety of social arrangements, access to lethal weaponry being a fairly important one.

[Light Fantastic]

yes but specifically gun control

we require access to potentially lethal equipment to improve our day-to-day lives anyway

[Smokey D]

Very little of that equipment is as specifically designed for violence as guns, and most of that stuff is regulated anyway.

You can't go blaming society for your high gun murder rate without recognising that access to guns is a very important part of that society. It's not the only factor, and I'd hesitate to say it's the most important, but nonetheless it is an important one that must be considered.

[ashman]

I personally, don't see the point in owning a gun. I can understand if you're a farmer or someone who goes hunting, but for normal everyday joes; I honestly don't see the point in owning something that was specifically designed/manufactured to kill/mortally wound someone.

More gun controls or ban them fully tbh.

[monkeysonmars.]

Very little of that equipment is as specifically designed for violence as guns, and most of that stuff is regulated anyway.

You can't go blaming society for your high gun murder rate without recognising that access to guns is a very important part of that society. It's not the only factor, and I'd hesitate to say it's the most important, but nonetheless it is an important one that must be considered.

pretty much this

[Iskandar]

Is it truly the result of the liberal socialist agenda of many European countries, or do the governments there actually think it's working?Stopped reading after this, honestly.

[Det_Nosnip]

Yeah, that 1st amendment thing, habeas corpus, all that jazz, those are pretty outdated as well.

lol. I hadn't realized how low literacy rates had sunk on this forum...your psycho buddy's quote was this:


regardless of whether anyone thinks it's right or not, in this country, our founding law dictates that we have that right....
In other words: anything that was put into law at this country's founding should be honored 100%.

This is laughably dumb. When our country was founded, slavery was a common practice. After a while, people realized how dumb it was, and they dropped it. Voting was also restricted to white, Anglo-Saxon property owners...when we realized how dumb that was, we fixed it, too.

So...placing any kind of validity in the fact that a law was put into place at our country's origin is sorta silly. This includes the Constitution and its Amendments (BTW, that's what Amendments are FOR). Sure, this means that one could theoretically repeal the right to free speech, but that's Democracy for ya.

Which brings us to the right to form a militia, or "bear arms." This right was put in place largely so that the citizenry could place a check on the federal government...this is no longer realistic, as the military industrial complex and technological advances have made resisting the federal government pretty much impossible.

The need for militias is pretty much invalidated by the presence of a standing army, making the original purposes for the 2nd amendment pretty much inconsequential. There is, therefore, no historical or constitutional reason for keeping the right to bear arms, and its continued existence is dependent solely on the whims of our population.


Honestly, how did you become a mod. I sure hope its due to your administrative skills.

lol.

I'm a D&P mod, jackass.

[Valhall]

Slavery ownership was not "founding law" or in the Bill of Rights which was meant to stand the test of time. Your argument is pointless. By founding law, I am referring to the Bill of Rights specifically, which again, was meant to serve as a permanent foundation.

It also amazes me how idiots of this generation can bend and twist the Bill of Rights to conventiently mean what they want it to mean. The language in the Bill of Rights is perhaps some of the most direct, literal language in law, specifically meant to withstand time and leave no room for "alternative translation".

"The right to bear arms" is self explanatory. And pardon me, but our standing army is our militia. Need I remind you "militia" was thier term for an army of citizens, which is exactly what our military is?


I personally, don't see the point in owning a gun. I can understand if you're a farmer or someone who goes hunting, but for normal everyday joes; I honestly don't see the point in owning something that was specifically designed/manufactured to kill/mortally wound someone.

You'll probably never stare down the barrel of a handgun.

You'll probably never stand by helplessly and watch your mother/sister/wife get brutally raped.

You'll probably never be forced out of your car at gunpoint and watch helplessly as a criminal takes off in the car with your 2 year old child in the back seat.

You'll probably never wake up in the middle of the night to a knife in your throat from an intruder.

But for those who have, apparently you are completely apathetic.

[Iskandar]

Slavery ownership was not "founding law" or in the Bill of Rights which was meant to stand the test of time.Neither was the Second Amendment.

Amendment.
You'll probably never stare down the barrel of a handgun.

You'll probably never stand by helplessly and watch your mother/sister/wife get brutally raped.

You'll probably never be forced out of your car at gunpoint and watch helplessly as a criminal takes off in the car with your 2 year old child in the back seat.

You'll probably never wake up in the middle of the night to a knife in your throat from an intruder.

But for those who have, apparently you are completely apathetic.You have done all these things?

[Valhall]

For the record, I have done two of them. But even if I hadn't, the point still stands...I have no right to sit back and judge simply because I don't have the experience.

[Iskandar]

So just making sure you read that the Second Amendment wasn't originally part of the Bill of Rights either.

Just out of curiosity, which two?

[Valhall]

First and last. Only on the last, it wasn't "in" my throat yet...

Regardless it's irrelevant. Point still stands.



But not all European states have tight gun control laws. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.

Switzerland also has an extremely low crime rate. And 44% of the violent crimes committed in the country aren't even by the citizens of the country who own them. Thereby defeating the stance that banning guns will control crime.

[Iskandar]

What point?

[RockAndRoll]

I've been threatened with a knife, I still don't want a gun.

[guitrguy]

I just don't see how owning an assault weapon is a right.

[Valhall]

What point?

The point that guns are a valid source of self and home defense. Just because something can be used for harm doesn't mean it should be banned.

Realistically, I rest my case with Switzerland.

[monkeysonmars.]

can we straighten this out so everyone's clear. we're not talking about 'can be used for harm', that is its only use in this context, killing people.

[Valhall]

Guns: Can also be used for good, such as self defense, hunting, collection, etc.

Guns: Aren't always used for bad. Case and point--Switzerland. Proves everything about my theory correct.

[RockAndRoll]

The point that guns are a valid source of self and home defense. Just because something can be used for harm doesn't mean it should be banned.

Realistically, I rest my case with Switzerland.

Are you ever going to answer people's questions about nukes?

[Valhall]

I believe any country on the planet has the right to nukes.

How an individual could own and operate a nuke himself without governmental assistance is beyond me, tbh, so it's not really an issue, methinks.

[RockAndRoll]

I believe any country on the planet has the right to nukes.

How an individual could own and operate a nuke himself without governmental assistance is beyond me, tbh, so it's not really an issue, methinks.

Were'nt you the one talking about terrorrists ocming across the border with nukes and missiles?

[monkeysonmars.]

Guns: Can also be used for good, such as self defense, hunting, collection, etc.

Guns: Aren't always used for bad. Case and point--Switzerland. Proves everything about my theory correct.

hunting and collection aren't relevant (why i referred to 'this context') because in the UK you can have a gun for hunting and collection. the only issue is general use, guns cannot be used for self-defense in any just form, unless by just you mean 'an eye for an eye'.

[Valhall]

Were'nt you the one talking about terrorrists ocming across the border with nukes and missiles?

Apparently you didn't see the humour/point in my making fun of Det Nosip.

And obviously a terrorist organisation as a force can obtain WMDs and use them. It being brought into this country and used for harm within our borders would be less of an issue with more highly enforced border security.

the only issue is general use, guns cannot be used for self-defense in any just form, unless by just you mean 'an eye for an eye'

You're saying I should let some dude kill me before I shoot him? Defeats the purpose, methinks :lol:

[Iskandar]

Guns: Aren't always used for bad. Case and point--Switzerland. Proves everything about my theory correct.They don't use their guns for anything...

[RockAndRoll]

Apparently you didn't see the humour/point in my making fun of Det Nosip.

And obviously a terrorist organisation as a force can obtain WMDs and use them. It being brought into this country and used for harm within our borders would be less of an issue with more highly enforced border security.


So you're saying that terrorists in the U.S. should be allowed to legally obtain nukes?

[monkeysonmars.]

You're saying I should let some dude kill me before I shoot him? Defeats the purpose, methinks :lol:

no if that were possible it would be 'an eye for an eye', i'm saying having a gun isn't self-defense, self-defense in the UK is taking reasonable steps to defend yourself against an attacker, ****ing shooting him isn't a reasonable step due to the high level of damage you could do.

[Valhall]

They don't use their guns for anything...

...perhaps because they don't have to.....

...and that's kinda actually my point. Banning guns doesn't do anything. It takes a bad finger to pull a trigger with a bad intent. The existance of the trigger doesn't mean anything.

So you're saying that terrorists in the U.S. should be allowed to legally obtain nukes?

Wouldn't be a problem if we prevented the terrorists from entering/weeded out the terrorists already here to begin with.

[RockAndRoll]

...perhaps because they don't have to.....

...and that's kinda actually my point. Banning guns doesn't do anything. It takes a bad finger to pull a trigger with a bad intent. The existance of the trigger doesn't mean anything.

Yes it does, you can't fire a gun without a trigger.

[Amit]

...perhaps because they don't have to.....

...and that's kinda actually my point. Banning guns doesn't do anything. It takes a bad finger to pull a trigger with a bad intent. The existance of the trigger doesn't mean anything.

if you're comparing american culture to swiss culture you might as well start talking about american national languages

[Valhall]

Yes it does, you can't fire a gun without a trigger.


You can't pull the trigger with the intent to do harm without somebody intending to do harm there to pull the trigger.

[Amit]

and you can't ban people but you can ban guns

[RockAndRoll]

Wouldn't be a problem if we prevented the terrorists from entering/weeded out the terrorists already here to begin with.

Yeah and crime wouldn't be a problem if we just weeded out all the criminals. It's not that simple though. The questions is if groups or individuals should have the ability to legally acquire nuclear weapons.

You can't pull the trigger with the intent to do harm without somebody intending to do harm there to pull the trigger.
I never said you could.

[Valhall]

and you can't ban people but you can ban guns

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

RockandRoll: Yes.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm for the right people being able to own guns. I just think the buying process needs to be strengthened.

[Amit]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

yeah not doing the right thing is great policy to follow

[monkeysonmars.]

if you let terrorists have nuclear weapons, keeping the terrorists out of america wont help :lol: you'd be so dead.

[Valhall]

if you let terrorists have nuclear weapons keeping the terrorists out of america wont help :lol: you'd be so dead.

Terrorists and hostile nations already have nukes.

I'm still alive.

[monkeysonmars.]

which terrorists have nukes? other countries have nukes but a country is kind of an easy target for a counter-strike.

[RockAndRoll]

RockandRoll: Yes.

So then you admit that you are insane.

You really think it's okay for someone to own their own nuclear arms that they could use to kill millions of people if they wished?

[Amit]

but Have U Stared Down The Barrel Of A Gun While U Got Butt Raped By A Midget

[Mr. Ron]

Unfortunately, I had the displeasure last summer.

[Valhall]

which terrorists have nukes? other countries have nukes but a country is kind of an easy target for a counter-strike.

So that makes it okay for a hostile country to own nukes but not individuals? You can't pick and choose and play favoritism over who gets to own what...

[Mr. Ron]

So that makes it okay for a hostile country to own nukes but not individuals? You can't pick and choose and play favoritism over who gets to own what...
would you trust Ann Coulter with a nuke?

[Valhall]

Not any more than I trust North Korea with a nuke.

See my point? It really doesn't matter who has a nuke, nation or individual, tbh.

[Mr. Ron]

Not any more than I trust North Korea with a nuke.

See my point? It really doesn't matter who has a nuke, nation or individual, tbh.

I'd actually rather trust NK with a nuke because they won't use them.

[Amit]

See my point? It really doesn't matter who has a nuke, nation or individual, tbh.

except countries have far more to worry about than individuals

[Valhall]

I'd actually rather trust NK with a nuke because they won't use them.

You can't say that for a fact, though.

[Surtr]

Switzerland also has an extremely low crime rate. And 44% of the violent crimes committed in the country aren't even by the citizens of the country who own them. Thereby defeating the stance that banning guns will control crime.

This more or less says it all.

Its tricky because obviously a stronger form of gun control is needed in America. BUT, also that could only lead to people getting guns illegally.

You've more or less gotta' stop and look at the situations in other countries where there is less crime and the like caused by firearms. Whats different between lets say Canada and America that makes gun control even a real issue?

[Amit]

You can't say that for a fact, though.

well if you want to follow such spineless wishy washy subjectivism

then i guess you can't say anything for a fact! lolol

[Valhall]

well if you want to follow such spineless wishy washy subjectivism

then i guess you can't say anything for a fact! lolol

The point is he's not in a position, with access to intelligence data, to justify his stance.

[Amit]

The point is he's not in a position, with access to intelligence data, to justify his stance.

except it's common knowledge that NK wouldn't use nukes if given the chance

they're crazy as **** but their craziness doesn't overshadow their desire for survival

[Mr. Ron]

The point is he's not in a position, with access to intelligence data, to justify his stance.

logic says that dictators are not stupid enough to start launching nukes when they desperately want to stay in power.

[monkeysonmars.]

You can't say that for a fact, though.

well the choice is use them and be wiped off the face of the earth, or don't. so yes, you could say for a fact they wouldn't. individuals on the other hand have freedom of movement, unlike a country...do you understand?

[Valhall]

logic says that dictators are not stupid enough to start launching nukes when they desperately want to stay in power.


History says worse and crazier things have happened.


Niether one of us are realistically in a position to make any kind of judgement. Hence why we are here, and not in Washington DC or Colorado.

[Amit]

History says worse and crazier things have happened.

umm

please name instances where countries have used atomic weapons on other countries

[Mr. Ron]

History says worse and crazier things have happened.


Niether one of us are realistically in a position to make any kind of judgement. Hence why we are here, and not in Washington DC or Colorado.

Yeah but anyone of those crazy things could have been seen coming from a mile away if you observe the events leading up to them or the warning signs, Nk is not like that in the slightest. They may shoot a missile into the ocean near Japan once in a while, but thats nothing but flexing their non-existent muscles for attention.

[Valhall]

umm

please name instances where countries have used atomic weapons on other countries

...

[monkeysonmars.]

lol pretty much

[Amit]

...

ok other than america on japan obviously

no really plz try

[Iskandar]

...It only happened once.

[Valhall]

ok other than america on japan obviously

no really plz try

Haha. Sorry, I had to.

Anyway, I never said that. Crazy and retarded things have happened in history, it's always a possibility. It's not that difficult of a concept. People that aren't in a well advised position with access to critical national security information aren't in a position to make that judgement, myself included.

[gregulus]

There's a lot of other extenuating circumstances that influence gun violence other than gun control laws. Realistically, once you're "looking down the barrel of a gun (I love your dramatics, by the way. Real gut-wrenching)" or "have a knife at your throat," it's probably going to be too late to draw a gun without dying anyway. Assuming, of course, that the assailant actually intends to do you harm. That said, an assault rifle isn't necessary for self defense (which is what your whole argument is based upon). A simple hand gun would do. Certainly it doesn't make sense that private citizens should be able to buy and operate laser-guided missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. There is absolutely no need for this, unless you're looking to provide the people who actually want to do your country harm an easy way to attain the weapons to do that.

You also seem to not be looking at the North Korea situation with any sort of logic. They have nukes, but actually launching them towards another country would, in all likelihood, mean complete annihilation of Pyongyang. This is exactly what Kim Jong-Il wants to avoid. The man wants to seem like a world power. A player amongst the other powerful nations. Having his capital city obliterated because of an idiotic decision is not how this is accomplished.

[monkeysonmars.]

Certainly it doesn't make sense that private citizens should be able to buy and operate laser-guided missiles, nuclear weapons, etc.

i love the nonchalance you said that with

[Det_Nosnip]

Apparently you didn't see the humour/point in my making fun of Det Nosip.
Wow, you ARE dense. :lol:

You...do realize that I was making fun of you, don't you? Oh...you don't...:( This happens to you alot, doesn't it?

[Smokey D]

Switzerland also has an extremely low crime rate. And 44% of the violent crimes committed in the country aren't even by the citizens of the country who own them. Thereby defeating the stance that banning guns will control crime.

Not really, since other countries with low crime rates have high gun control. Access to guns is only one of several important variables, but is undoubtedly an important one and quite probably the easiest to change. Switzerland does not 'rest your case' since a) America has high rates of both legal and illegal gun ownership, and high rates of gun violence and b) Britain has low rates of gun ownership and very little gun violence.

[Valhall]

Not really, since other countries with low crime rates have high gun control. Access to guns is only one of several important variables, but is undoubtedly an important one and quite probably the easiest to change. Switzerland does not 'rest your case' since a) America has high rates of both legal and illegal gun ownership, and high rates of gun violence and b) Britain has low rates of gun ownership and very little gun violence.

But the point is that Switzerland has high gun ownership and some of the lowest crime in the world, conflicting with both America and Britain. Therefore, the Swiss are doing something effective other than banning guns, and we might do some good to learn from it instead of just saying "guns are bad no one should have them".

There is no blanket solution, and gun law advocates claim there is.

[Iskandar]

The Swiss only have so many guns because they have compulsory military service. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Valhall]

The Swiss only have so many guns because they have compulsory military service. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Those guns could just as easily be used for harm, according to gun law advocate's own reasoning. So explain the lower crime rate.

You're missing the point.

[guitrguy]

Anomalies don't destroy proven patterns.

[Valhall]

Anomalies don't destroy proven patterns.


Anomalies prove that other conditions can exist.

[Iskandar]

Those guns could just as easily be used for harm, according to gun law advocate's own reasoning. So explain the lower crime rate.

You're missing the point.Everybody has a gun.

Also, Switzerland is a happy, prosperous society with very few poor people compared to the US. So it would seem.

[guitrguy]

Anomalies prove that other conditions can exist.

Yes, but those conditions most certainly do not exist in the US.

[Valhall]

Yes, but those conditions most certainly do not exist in the US.

They could if we worked to improve existing conditions/problems. But, instead of spending money on the homeland, we want to chase Bin Laden Around the World in 80 Years.

[gregulus]

They could if we worked to improve existing conditions/problems. But, instead of spending money on the homeland, we want to chase Bin Laden Around the World in 80 Years.

I thought you were ridiculously conservative? So now you want to adopt the dreaded "liberal-socialist" agenda so people can own more guns?

[Iskandar]

Lol, "The Homeland."

Grrreat Soviet Motherrrland!

[Valhall]

I thought you were ridiculously conservative? So now you want to adopt the dreaded "liberal-socialist" agenda so people can own more guns?

There are even conservatives who believe internal affairs are more important...

..and it's not just so people can own more guns, tbh. This nation is in a craphole for multiple reasons, and things here need far more cleaning up than people realize.

FTR, I never said I was ridiculously conservative. I hold views on both sides of the spectrum.

[Iskandar]

Nah, I'm pretty sure you're ridiculously conservative.

[Valhall]

Nah, I'm pretty sure you're ridiculously conservative.

Your words, not mine. I really don't care what you call it; I believe what I believe. Some of my beliefs fall in with conservative views, a few fall in with liberal views. Whichever way I lean is not important to me as far as labels go.

[Iskandar]

Your words, not mine. I really don't care what you call it; I believe what I believe. Some of my beliefs fall in with conservative views, a few fall in with liberal views. Whichever way I lean is not important to me as far as labels go.Yeah but to a Canadian, American liberalism is conservatism, and American conservatism is crypto-fascism.

[guitrguy]

They could if we worked to improve existing conditions/problems. But, instead of spending money on the homeland, we want to chase Bin Laden Around the World in 80 Years.

I think we should improve our conditions just not for the sake of allowing guns.

[Valhall]

I think we should improve our conditions just not for the sake of allowing guns.

Being able to have guns more "safely" (since that's what everyone is sooo concerned about) would be a by-product of improving conditions. So it would really be a win for everyone.

[guitrguy]

The conditions should be the ends not the means. Reversing that would undermine the improvement of conditions.

[Valhall]

The conditions should be the ends not the means. Reversing that would undermine the improvement of conditions.

Conditions need to improve regardless, yes. I didn't say conditions need to improve just so we can have more guns. I just said that would allow it, amongst other things.

[Amit]

conditions can't improve without a significant change in our overall culture

which isn't ever going to happen

[Valhall]

conditions can't improve without a significant change in our overall culture

which isn't ever going to happen

So we should just give up and never try to make the country better? Seems like a cop-out to me.

[guitrguy]

Conditions need to improve regardless, yes. I didn't say conditions need to improve just so we can have more guns. I just said that would allow it, amongst other things.
Whats so important about allowing it?

[Amit]

So we should just give up and never try to make the country better? Seems like a cop-out to me.

no

we should just have better gun control laws

unless

YOU ARE AT GUN POINT AND FORCED TO RAPE A BABY KITTEN IN THE EYE HOLE

you tardcons have the funniest scenarios

[Valhall]

Whats so important about allowing it?Quite frankly, to appease everyone on both sides of the arguement. If safety truly wasn't an issue and guns were completely allowed simultaneously, then nobody would have a reason to argue. I'm confused as to what your point is...

we should just have better gun control laws

Yea, that'll really fix this country right up. :rolleyes:

BAN GUNS AND EVERYTHING WILL BE OKAY. AMERICA WILL NO LONGER BE A SHITHOLE.

Get real. Seriously.

[Amit]

if safety wasn't an issue what would be the point of the majority of americans who don't hunt having guns

[Valhall]

if safety wasn't an issue what would be the point of the majority of americans who don't hunt having guns

What would be the issue of them having them, hmmm??? I think you're just anti-gun for the sake of it, lol.

[Amit]

accidents
crimes of passion
crazy people accidentally getting guns

they happen u know

[Valhall]

accidents

they happen u know

Yea, like car crashes. Let's ban cars.

Like life-threatening sports injuries. Let's ban sports.

Like stabbings. Let's ban knives.


Seriously.

Again, I think you're just anti-gun for the sake of it.

[gregulus]

YOU ARE AT GUN POINT AND FORCED TO RAPE A BABY KITTEN IN THE EYE HOLE


OH NO!!! GIVE EVERYONE A GUN.

[Amit]

Yea, like car crashes. Let's ban cars.

Like life-threatening sports injuries. Let's ban sports.

Like stabbings. Let's ban knives.


Seriously.

ah my favorite sort of tardcon argument:

the one that completely ignores utility

listen child plz grow up and then try and argue with the adults ok?

[Iskandar]

Guns have pretty much nothing to do with America's problems. Stfu.

[Amit]

idk maybe he thinks that america should move to a currency system based on deer horns and wombat pelts

[Valhall]

Guns have pretty much nothing to do with America's problems. Stfu.

America's problems create an environment favorable to firearm misuse. This point stemmed from the indication that the Swiss have a much better standard of living, low crime rate, etc., which makes it safer for them to have relatively no gun control. America does not have the same conditions.

[gregulus]

idk maybe he thinks that america should move to a currency system based on deer horns and wombat pelts

He's a real American. He probably wants a currency system based on the hides of the "liberal socialists" of Europe and Canada.

[Amit]

umm the swiss have extremely strict regulations on gun control

[Valhall]

umm the swiss have extremely strict regulations on gun control


Supposedly. But I don't call "gun control" requiring every male of age to own a handgun. Their laws conflict with thier policies. Regardless, gun ownership is extremely high.

[Amit]

Supposedly. But I don't call "gun control" requiring every male of age to own a handgun. Their laws conflict with thier policies.

not really

they require it of every swiss male of age undergoing military training

not every male of age in switzerland

as part of a militia, it makes sense for them to possess a handgun and an assault rifle

[guitrguy]

Quite frankly, to appease everyone on both sides of the arguement. If safety truly wasn't an issue and guns were completely allowed simultaneously, then nobody would have a reason to argue. I'm confused as to what your point is...


We've seen what appeasement has done.

[Valhall]

at the time of the second amendment in the late 18th century, the word "militia" meant all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. Even today, the United States Code states that the militia is all male citizens and resident aliens at least 17 up to 45 with or without military service experience

Further defense agains modern reinterperetation of the Bill Of Rights.

Wikipedia.com

Also, about the whole "ban guns because they cause crime" crap:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167

[gregulus]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the most pressing issue concerning modern America is gun control.

I especially like the way guns look locked away in a safe so my kid doesn't find it and blow his head off. Off course, if I ever need it, I can run and go unlock the safe and blast the HIV infested criminal violently raping my wife while simultaneously stealing my television with a knife to my throat.

[Iskandar]

America's problems create an environment favorable to firearm misuse.That would tell me that solving America's real problems would be a better idea than getting everyone's panties in a knot about gun control.

Problems like poverty, which has always been the chief cause of crime.

[Valhall]

The chances of having to defend your home are just as great as your child accidentally killing himself. It's common sense, really.

Also, I again refer you to above link. Banning guns has nothing to do with reducing crime.

[Independent_CA]

idk maybe he thinks that america should move to a currency system based on deer horns and wombat pelts
You interpreted that from an argument about gun control? Tell me, where do you get these marvelous powers of insight?


Problems like poverty, which has always been the chief cause of crime.
Exactly, so maybe we should have poverty control. Like if you're poor you go to jail and all of your possessions are seized...oh wait

[VomitStainedCretin]

No, banning guns would not solve America's problems but it would prevent legally obtained weapons being available to fall into the wrong hands. The assumption by many seems to be that banning guns would leave millions of householders helpless to malefactors armed to the teeth - in this case, more effort should be put into restraining illegal firearms trading.

[Valhall]

Above all, the government should stay the hell out of my business, tbh....


but oh I forgot, I'm just a typical redneck whose opinion doesn't matter.....

[Iskandar]

Exactly, so maybe we should have poverty control. Like if you're poor you go to jail and all of your possessions are seized...oh waitWait a minute, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[monkeysonmars.]

america doing something about national poverty levels is less likely then america banning guns.

[Amit]

You interpreted that from an argument about gun control? Tell me, where do you get these marvelous powers of insight?

he's the one who was equating the utility of small firearms to that of cars

so i tried to figure out how he came to that interesting conclusion

[Valhall]

america doing something about national poverty levels is less likely then america banning guns.

That doesn't make it (banning guns) more important, though.

[Amit]

n this case, more effort should be put into restraining illegal firearms trading.

i agree completely

unfortunately to work with that one will also need to really strengthen the purchasing of firearms

[Iskandar]

That doesn't make it (banning guns) more important, though.Of course poverty is way more important than guns.

[monkeysonmars.]

nah im just saying that's a whole other can of worms.

[Iskandar]

Poverty and crime are obviously related.

[Valhall]

Of course poverty is way more important than guns.

I think so, tbh.

[Amit]

so hey valhall you haven't explained how guns have as much utility in contemporary america as cars do

[monkeysonmars.]

Poverty and crime are obviously related.

poverty and gun control.

[Independent_CA]

Wait a minute, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Well, we kinda do that already. Plus it would be absurd. Two points with one joke, Christ I'm good! :smash:


he's the one who was equating the utility of small firearms to that of cars

so i tried to figure out how he came to that interesting conclusion
Oh, I see.

Who is it though that determines the exact value of the utility of cars, firearms, or anything else for that matter?

[monkeysonmars.]

so hey valhall you haven't explained how guns have as much utility in contemporary america as cars do

think of all the things you can do with a gun.

you can shoots a person, you can shoots two people, you can shoots three people...


the possibilities are endless

[Valhall]

If you all are sooo NOT concerned about armed criminals breaking into your home or whatnot, why are you so concerned with banning the firearms that supposedly contribute to these crimes?

And Amit, your child is far more likely to die in a car accident than to find a gun and shoot himself in the head with it.

[Amit]

Who is it though that determines the exact value of the utility of cars, firearms, or anything else for that matter?

idk

anyone with a pulse?

And Amit, your child is far more likely to die in a car accident than to find a gun and shoot himself in the head with it.

cars are necessary for the birth of a child

guns not so much

[Valhall]

You're avoiding the point. You can't just ban something because "it can be done".

[monkeysonmars.]

And Amit, your child is far more likely to die in a car accident than to find a gun and shoot himself in the head with it.

**** off that fact cannot be true

[Amit]

You're avoiding the point.

that's funny because it's been like a dozen posts and you still haven't talked about how guns provide an equal amount of utility as cars

You can't just ban something because "it can be done".

of course not

you ban something because "it's a menace2society"

[Valhall]

Accidents are not murder and accidents happen regardless of guns, knives, cars and /or the occasional falling ladder. Ask yourself this... “If a tree falls in the woods and kills someone, is it murder?”

Hardly grounds to ban the tree.


Also, I'm currently looking at a report that says kids are 14.5 times more likely to die in a car accident than from a fatal shooting. I'll look to see if the study is valid and link it...


Also,

Statistics are showing that firearm crimes are coming down along with
all other crimes and these numbers are happening with a new record for
gun ownership being set every year.

nowkids.com/crime

[monkeysonmars.]

Ask yourself this... “If a tree falls in the woods and kills someone, is it murder?”

Hardly grounds to ban the tree.



this thread just got way deep

[gregulus]

Accidents are not murder and accidents happen regardless of guns, knives, cars and /or the occasional falling ladder. Ask yourself this... “If a tree falls in the woods and kills someone, is it murder?”

Trees can't murder.

[Valhall]

Also, 1.5 to 3 million crimes are prevented each year by private citizens with guns.

http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/mrsdutoit.aspx

[Independent_CA]

idk

anyone with a pulse?

Well, that's obvious. Anyone with a pulse can assign any value of utility they choose to any item they want, therefore making the concept somewhat arbitrary.


cars are necessary for the birth of a child

No they aren't, a uterus is. Not that I don't find cars incredibly useful.


you ban something because "it's a menace2society"
Exactly, that's why violent behavior should be banned, because it is a menace to society. People should fight poverty too for the same reason.

Me owning and/or using a firearm under safe conditions on my own property or in other appropriate locations is not a menace to society.

[gregulus]

I stopped looking at that website after I scrolled down and saw a picture that said "I rely on my husband to keep my family safe."

[Valhall]

She gets statistics for her blogs from reliable sources.

Fine you want a credible site?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Showing a drastic drop in gun related crimes in recent history, despite higher than ever gun ownership.

//completely rests case.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Showing a drastic drop in gun related crimes in recent history, despite higher than ever gun ownership.Roe vs Wade probably has more to do with that than increased gun ownership.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I think there are prolly more idiots today than there were in recent history, with the exception of the 60's.

Edit: Example, UC Berkley.

[e p]

no more gun control please, my constitution can't take it any longer

[Smokey D]

But the point is that Switzerland has high gun ownership and some of the lowest crime in the world, conflicting with both America and Britain. Therefore, the Swiss are doing something effective other than banning guns, and we might do some good to learn from it instead of just saying "guns are bad no one should have them".

There is no blanket solution, and gun law advocates claim there is.

Well, I spose you could try and mimic their culture and economy, but I bet that's much harder than banning guns.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Well then doesn't that just show that it's more the culture and economy more than actual guns?

[Smokey D]

No, because you can't take Switzerland in a vacuum and try and apply it to the US.

Because other countries with more similar cultures to the US but tighter gun legislation also have lower gun crime. And trying to separate access to guns from the broader culture is intellectually dishonest.

[Valhall]

No, because you can't take Switzerland in a vacuum and try and apply it to the US.


This doesn't disprove his point.

[Smokey D]

I've already said it a few times, but access to guns is not separate from 'society' or 'culture' it is part of that culture. So stop trying to separate them.

[Valhall]

I've already said it a few times, but access to guns is not separate from 'society' or 'culture' it is part of that culture.

Which is exactly why banning guns in the U.S. won't reduce crime or fatalities.

[Smokey D]

No, that doesn't make sense.

[Berner]

2 cents: Gun Control laws are useless because they are designed to stop criminals from obtaining guns legally but why would legality stop a criminal? Since when has that ever concerned them?

The real problem in America is the culture and not the access to the guns.

[Valhall]

No, that doesn't make sense.

Yes, it does, because America is an inherently violence-prone society.

And what Berner said is completely true.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

To be honest, the amount of crimes probably wouldn't be any different if there were less or more gun control. This isn't an argument for or against anything, it's just the way it is. With more guns in america, there will be more stupid kids accidentally blowing each other away, and others trying to look tough who end up doing a crime they later regret. With less guns in america, criminals, who don't follow the law when acquiring guns, would be much more willing to attack someone because they can't defend themselves. It'll balance out either way.

One love.
One love.
Let's get together
and feel alright.

[Smokey D]

2 cents: Gun Control laws are useless because they are designed to stop criminals from obtaining guns legally but why would legality stop a criminal? Since when has that ever concerned them?

Not all criminals are equally committed to breaking the laws.

Even if all criminals commit crimes equally, coercive force in the form of the state restricts the ability of criminals to act freely/gives the state a wider range of activities to prosecute.

The real problem in America is the culture and not the access to the guns.

GODDAMMIT THEY AREN'T SEPARATE THINGS.


Yes, it does, because America is an inherently violence-prone society.


You don't give a violence prone society access to lethal weaponry with which to act out that violence. Duh. That's like giving a psychotic schizophrenic a shotgun.

To be honest, the amount of crimes probably wouldn't be any different if there were less or more gun control. This isn't an argument for or against anything, it's just the way it is. With more guns in america, there will be more stupid kids accidentally blowing each other away, and others trying to look tough who end up doing a crime they later regret. With less guns in america, criminals, who don't follow the law when acquiring guns, would be much more willing to attack someone because they can't defend themselves. It'll balance out either way.


This lacks empirical support in countries with nationwide and long established gun control laws.

[Berner]

Not all criminals are equally committed to breaking the laws.

Even if all criminals commit crimes equally, coercive force in the form of the state restricts the ability of criminals to act freely/gives the state a wider range of activities to prosecute.

What type of laws and prosecution do you propose then?

GODDAMMIT THEY AREN'T SEPARATE THINGS.
Got any evidence of that there chief?

[Amit]

life no parole for the illegal possession/use of a firearm

[Smokey D]

What type of laws and prosecution do you propose then?

I don't know. I'd make it a lot harder to get hold of concealable or automatic weaponry, at the least. The right to bear arms wouldn't be an unqualified one -- rather than proving you were not defective, you'd have to prove competence.

Got any evidence of that there chief?

Because, er, the laws and norms that enable and encourage a society to get hold of guns is part of that society.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

This lacks empirical support in countries with nationwide and long established gun control laws.

Not really.

[Smokey D]

Yeah it does because gun crime is low in lots of countries with tight gun control laws. That indicates that criminals don't gain mastery of the streets the moment you put gun control laws in place.

[Valhall]

I don't know. I'd make it a lot harder to get hold of concealable or automatic weaponry, at the least. The right to bear arms wouldn't be an unqualified one -- rather than proving you were not defective, you'd have to prove competence.


Define competence. If you mean "not criminally insane", then I could possibly agree. But if you mean subjecting a citizen to ridiculous amounts of exams and such so they they have to prove themselves to be fit to own a gun (according to some amiguous politicians' guidelines), I don't agree. That's pretty much what we do today in some areas, and it doesn't work, not to mention it's retarded.

[Smokey D]

Define competence.

A demonstrated ability to use a firearm effectively and responsibly.

Though, to be honest, I'd probably include a necessity requirement too.


If you mean "not criminally insane", then I could possibly agree.

No, that's demonstrating non defectiveness.

But if you mean subjecting a citizen to ridiculous amounts of exams and such so they they have to prove themselves to be fit to own a gun (according to some amiguous politicians' guidelines), I don't agree.

If they can't take the time to demonstrate competence, then they obviously don't need the weapon as badly as they say.

That's pretty much what we do today in some areas, and it doesn't work, not to mention it's retarded.

It should be made uniform across the country to limit arbitrage.

And if they don't work, improve the guidelines.

[Valhall]

A demonstrated ability to use a firearm effectively and responsibly.

Though, to be honest, I'd probably include a necessity requirement too.

No, that's demonstrating non defectiveness.



Who would set these guidelines? As I'm sure you can imagine, people who are anti-gun would like to stretch those requirements to be as ridiculously stingy as possible....that's something that needs to be unbiased, don't you think?


Non-defectiveness is a major part of knowing that a person is less accident prone...

And how do you gauge necessity? No one person has more of a right to self defense, hunting, collection, etc. than another.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Yeah it does because gun crime is low in lots of countries with tight gun control laws. That indicates that criminals don't gain mastery of the streets the moment you put gun control laws in place.

That's because the overall mentality of Americans is different from most countries. We're more violent than most countries. Use common sense.

[Smokey D]

Who would set these guidelines? As I'm sure you can imagine, people who are anti-gun would like to stretch those requirements to be as ridiculously stingy as possible....that's something that needs to be unbiased, don't you think?

I dunno. I don't think it'd bee too hard to strike a balance.

Though obviously they'd have to be reasonably restrictive to have any meaning at all.

Non-defectiveness is a major part of knowing that a person is less accident prone...

Well, clearly to be competent they'd not only have to be able to use guns effectively and responsibly, but also be non-defective.

And how do you gauge necessity? No one person has more of a right to self defense, hunting, collection, etc. than another.

Yes they do. Professional hunters and farmers have much more need for guns than hobby hunters.


That's because the overall mentality of Americans is different from most countries. We're more violent than most countries. Use common sense.

Common sense says that if you're more violent, you limit access to things that enable you to act out that violence.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

No it doesn't.

[Smokey D]

Howzat?

[BigBadBooDooDady]

Glock 22 in a Comp-tac holster with a back up 15 rd magazine full of Winchester Rangers, anywhere I go.

If I'm dressed and I leave the house, I've got a gun on me. Sometimes two.

[Independent_CA]

A demonstrated ability to use a firearm effectively and responsibly.

Though, to be honest, I'd probably include a necessity requirement too.
Should we make a necessity requirement for alcohol, tobacco, sharp objects, and other potentially "dangerous" things?


Some kind of competency requirement would be sensible I suppose, like prior military or law enforcement service, or maybe taking a short class on safe gun ownership. This and a decent background check are all that I think are needed.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Should we make a necessity requirement for alcohol, tobacco, sharp objects, and other potentially "dangerous" things?It's easier to harm/kill others with a gun than with aforementioned substances/objects. Are you suggesting smokers take classes on how to not inflict second-hand smoke damage on others?

[McP3000]

I like how no one has cited the most obvious anti gun control situation yet...

The gun ban in Washington DC has come under heavy fire because since when the ban was enacted, the crime rated has risen severely, especially with gun related deaths.

[guitrguy]

link(s)?

[Mr. Ron]

I want to know something:

Are the majority of people here for a total ban on guns, or are they comfortable with citizens owning guns that pass a much more stringent buying/background process?

[guitrguy]

I pro stricter screening, and the banning of guns like assault rifles and ****.

[Mr. Ron]

Personally, I'm for people owning semi-automatic versions of assault rifles with a VERY strict background and buying process.

[guitrguy]

My problem with that is the fact its far to easy to make them automatic. I believe its just a spring that needs to be reinserted and becomes fully automatic again.

[Mr. Ron]

My problem with that is the fact its far to easy to make them automatic. I believe its just a spring that needs to be reinserted and becomes fully automatic again.

Well, you can make pretty much any semi-auto fully automatic with the right knowledge and tools, but the more modern assault rifles are pretty damn hard to do that with. I see your concern though, it could be a problem.

[guitrguy]

tbh, you really can't tell if the rifle is full or semi until its disassembled or fired.

[Mr. Ron]

tbh, you really can't tell if the rifle is full or semi until its disassembled or fired.

Well any firearms dealer that has a FFL (federal firearms license) can only sel semi's where it is legal to, so right off the bat you know its semi-automatic.

[gregulus]

A total ban doesn't seem to be necessary. Reasonable background checks (I fully support Smokey's "competence" idea) seem to be a sufficient solution to the problem. Allowing unrestricted access to firearms, though, certainly does not seem rational. You can cite Sweden all you want to, but the social and economic differences need to be taken into account. It doesn't make sense to say something like "all we have to do is mimic Swedish culture." That's one of the most impractical solutions to gun control ever uttered.

[guitrguy]

Well any firearms dealer that has a FFL (federal firearms license) can only sel semi's where it is legal to, so right off the bat you know its semi-automatic.

I was referring to after market modifications.

[ringworm]

I want to know something:

Are the majority of people here for a total ban on guns, or are they comfortable with citizens owning guns that pass a much more stringent buying/background process?
eh, strict gun laws are the least of my concerns, its not like they will ever affect the people that avoid laws anyway

[guitrguy]

Sure as hell make things a lot harder for them.

[Illmatic]

Accidents are not murder and accidents happen regardless of guns, knives, cars and /or the occasional falling ladder. Ask yourself this... “If a tree falls in the woods and kills someone, is it murder?”

Hardly grounds to ban the tree.


Also, I'm currently looking at a report that says kids are 14.5 times more likely to die in a car accident than from a fatal shooting. I'll look to see if the study is valid and link it...


ok here's the deal:

the purpose of a tree isn't to injure or kill another living thing
the purpose of a car isn't to injure or kill another living thing
the purpose of a knife isn't to injure or kill another living thing
the purpose of power tools aren't to injure or kill another living thing
the purpose of a gun is to injure or kill another living thing

that's why none of what you're saying is relevant at all. we use cars and power tools and knives for constructive purposes.

You'll probably never stare down the barrel of a handgun.

You'll probably never stand by helplessly and watch your mother/sister/wife get brutally raped.

You'll probably never be forced out of your car at gunpoint and watch helplessly as a criminal takes off in the car with your 2 year old child in the back seat.

You'll probably never wake up in the middle of the night to a knife in your throat from an intruder.

ok, if you're at gunpoint or knifepoint, wouldn't reaching for a gun just get you killed sooner?

and also, guns make it way easier to kill someone. there's definitely a certain percentage of people who are going to kill by any means necessary, but there are also a lot of people who commit murders with guns because it's far less confrontational and direct.

I also like BRA's "common sense" line. it can be applied to anything: "I think all US citizens should be allowed to own RPG launchers. I mean, you never know when enemy tanks are going to roll down the street and rape your dog. it's common sense!"

[Valhall]

Should we make a necessity requirement for alcohol, tobacco, sharp objects, and other potentially "dangerous" things?


Some kind of competency requirement would be sensible I suppose, like prior military or law enforcement service, or maybe taking a short class on safe gun ownership. This and a decent background check are all that I think are needed.

This, in its entirity. Except I don't think prior service should be a requirement; that unfairly excludes too many people.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

ok, if you're at gunpoint or knifepoint, wouldn't reaching for a gun just get you killed sooner?

No.

and also, guns make it way easier to kill someone. there's definitely a certain percentage of people who are going to kill by any means necessary, but there are also a lot of people who commit murders with guns because it's far less confrontational and direct.

Like who?

I also like BRA's "common sense" line. it can be applied to anything: "I think all US citizens should be allowed to own RPG launchers. I mean, you never know when enemy tanks are going to roll down the street and rape your dog. it's common sense!"

:rolleyes:

[ringworm]

Sure as hell make things a lot harder for them.
eh, i guess

maybe for shootings like in VA or some of these malls shootings, I can concede to that, but it does nothing to address the people behind them or people even more intent on harm

but most people fail to realize that cheap, low calibre pistols are responsible for the overwhelming majority of homocides

[Illmatic]

No.

maybe that's true if you're in a Clint Eastwood movie, but in real life someone has you at gunpoint and you make any quick move, they're going to shoot you.

Like who?

school shooters, for one

[gregulus]

maybe that's true if you're in a Clint Eastwood movie, but in real life someone has you at gunpoint and you make any quick move, they're going to shoot you.

Dude, if someone is pointing a gun at me or has a knife at my throat, I will totally be able to draw a gun and shoot him without him even knowing what I was doing.

:rolleyes:

[Iskandar]

Excuse me, could you hold on a second while I go retrieve my assault rifle? It's my Second Amendment right.

[Mr. Ron]

The second amendment is totally up in the air by what the founding fathers meant by it...its strange and needs to be fixed imo.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

The point is that no one will rob someone else knowing that they have a gun. If you can't understand why, you need serious help.

[guitrguy]

Thats utterly retarded to think robberies will stop if everyone has a gun, if anything it would make robberies more deadly and lethal.

[Illmatic]

not to mention that not everyone always carries their gun where a potential robber can see it.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

But if the robber is in an area where there are lax conceiled-carry laws, he's not going to risk it. He's not looking to shoot anybody; he wants his money

[Illmatic]

But if the robber is in an area where there are lax conceiled-carry laws, he's not going to risk it. He's not looking to shoot anybody; he wants his money

well if he's desperate enough he'll risk it, otherwise he'll just go somewhere else and pick a weaker target.

this is the problem with arguing based on what-ifs.

[ringworm]

Thats utterly retarded to think robberies will stop if everyone has a gun, if anything it would make robberies more deadly and lethal.
well, from what i've seen and read, many places did see drops in crime when conceal permits were adopted and the populace was known to have a high carry rate, but stats can be argued, but one thing that didnt happen was a rise in shootings

[guitrguy]

well, from what i've seen and read, many places did see drops in crime when conceal permits were adopted and the populace was known to have a high carry rate, but stats can be argued, but one thing that didnt happen was a rise in shootings

My point is, that if you give every one a gun, you are thereby increase the chance of lethal crimes. Much easier to commit a gun crime when you have one as opposed the few who don't and give up at that point.

[Amit]

but most people fail to realize that cheap, low calibre pistols are responsible for the overwhelming majority of homocides

and you fail to realize that cheap, low caliber pistols are the overwhelming majority of weapons out there in america

[griftadan]

gun violence doesn't seem to correlate well with level of gun control

[Against Miik!]

Well look alcohol prohibition, the drug war...both failed miserably. A ban or severe restriction of guns would fail the same way.

[Smokey D]

Should we make a necessity requirement for alcohol, tobacco, sharp objects, and other potentially "dangerous" things?

Tobacco should be banned, but doing it for the other things would be pretty stupid.

eh, strict gun laws are the least of my concerns, its not like they will ever affect the people that avoid laws anyway

Yes they will dammit. They enable lines of prosecution.

[Amit]

Well look alcohol prohibition, the drug war...both failed miserably. A ban or severe restriction of guns would fail the same way.

because assault rifles and pistols grow on trees or can be made by rednecks

[Light_Fantastic]

I live in Arizona. There are very few gun laws. Unless you are a convicted felon on weapons charges or mentally ill, you can go out to any gun store or pawn shop and buy a guy immediately. No waiting period, no background check, just a proper ID.
We carry guns in the open in holsters , in our trucks on gun racks, in our homes, and there is very little crime in this little NW Arizona town, because the criminals know we are armed to the teeth and they would be killed while trying to break and enter into any of our homes. Arizona has it right.

You take away guns from law abiding people, you empower the criminals who use them to commit crimes.

[McP3000]

because assault rifles and pistols grow on trees or can be made by rednecks
Pistols can be manufactured by Rednecks. I live in Texas, and its almost scary how much people know about guns :P

[WhoDidTheElf]

Yeah was about to say you can make a very crude single shot riffle with out a terrible amount of time or supplies.

[Smokey D]

But to make factory quality guns on an industrial scale is reasonably difficult and relatively easy to trace.

[McP3000]

Yeah was about to say you can make a very crude single shot riffle with out a terrible amount of time or supplies.
Oh trust me, ive seen much better guns made, including a somewhat rigged .22 that i was quite impressed with.

[WhoDidTheElf]

But to make factory quality guns on an industrial scale is reasonably difficult and relatively easy to trace.

You don't need either to kill some one or many people at all though.

[Smokey D]

No, but you need that to be a major threat to prohibition on guns and for the comparison between alcohol prohibition and gun control to be relevant.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Not really, get a gang together and you can rob enough houses to cause enough people to bitch to get guns back.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Thats utterly retarded to think robberies will stop if everyone has a gun, if anything it would make robberies more deadly and lethal.

Nope.

[Smokey D]

Not really, get a gang together and you can rob enough houses to cause enough people to bitch to get guns back.

You need more than a few guns manufactured a week to get anywhere near matching criminal demand for guns. And only one or two gangs were operating with guns, they'd be reasonably easy to shut down.

[WhoDidTheElf]

You need more than a few guns manufactured a week to get anywhere near matching criminal demand for guns. And only one or two gangs were operating with guns, they'd be reasonably easy to shut down.

How sure are you? There will be no data base for any of the guns, no way to match them to any thing, let alone find since you could just disassemble them.

And with our media and the fear mongering that goes on, 2 or 3 gangs that hit every week or so would do the trick.

[Smokey D]

How sure are you? There will be no data base for any of the guns, no way to match them to any thing, let alone find since you could just disassemble them.


But ownership of guns and gun components would be illegal completely. They wouldn't need registration.


And with our media and the fear mongering that goes on, 2 or 3 gangs that hit every week or so would do the trick.

Not if you got the police on their arse quick smart.

[WhoDidTheElf]

But ownership of guns and gun components would be illegal completely. They wouldn't need registration.

Gun components are like bomb components, you can get them from a local hardware store.

Not if you got the police on their arse quick smart.

Well lets say what if.

[Smokey D]

Gun components are like bomb components, you can get them from a local hardware store.

If they had a manufacturing operation going on, it wouldn't be that hard to sting. It'd be like how they catch drug manufacturers. If they had made one or two guns for personal use, it'd be illegal, but not a threat to public order.

Well lets say what if.

Obviously if you were going to ban guns you'd need to improve police and law enforcement.

[Independent_CA]

It's easier to harm/kill others with a gun than with aforementioned substances/objects. Are you suggesting smokers take classes on how to not inflict second-hand smoke damage on others?
It's still fairly simple to kill or harm people using a number of methods and tools besides firearms.

No I'm not suggesting smokers take classes, they pretty much already do. By the time I'd hit 10th grade (about 7 or 8 years ago) I'd had several hours of tobacco, drug, and alcohol related subject matter drilled into me by the public school system. Between that and the thousands of Truth commercials on a day, I'd say the public is pretty well educated on the issue. Education about things tends to lead to increased safety and decreased accidents. That was my point.


k here's the deal:

the purpose of a tree isn't to injure or kill another living thing
the purpose of a car isn't to injure or kill another living thing
the purpose of a knife isn't to injure or kill another living thing
the purpose of power tools aren't to injure or kill another living thing
the purpose of a gun is to injure or kill another living thing

that's why none of what you're saying is relevant at all. we use cars and power tools and knives for constructive purposes.
And what is the purpose of a sword? Or an arrow? Plenty of people out there collect swords and other forms of ancient weaponry just for the fun of collecting them, or for decorating purposes. Many people take up archery as a competitive sport and some people actually hunt using arrows. The primary purpose behind these objects is to kill or injure something. But, like firearms, they have other valid uses, such as collecting, entertainment, sport, or ceremonial use.


Thats utterly retarded to think robberies will stop if everyone has a gun, if anything it would make robberies more deadly and lethal.
Right, robbers might end up more dead. Not saying it would solve crime but it would be a deterrent.

Tobacco should be banned, but doing it for the other things would be pretty stupid.
No it shouldn't. It should be prohibited in certain public areas where it would effect the health of others who do not want to be exposed to tobacco. However, what personal habits I choose to indulge in within the privacy of my own home is no business of the government or anyone else.


because assault rifles and pistols grow on trees or can be made by rednecks
You'd be surprised in some cases.

On a more serious note, they can easily be made by any factory in any country outside the jurisdiction of the US and simply smuggled into the country for illicit sale.

Someone explain to me exactly what the problem is if I want to safely own and use a firearm on my own property and in other appropriate locations? If I've been properly taught how to handle and care for a firearm and passed a background check, there is no logical problem with this scenario.

Seriously, tell me what's wrong with that?

[Smokey D]

No it shouldn't. It should be prohibited in certain public areas where it would effect the health of others who do not want to be exposed to tobacco. However, what personal habits I choose to indulge in within the privacy of my own home is no business of the government or anyone else.

If a tobacco ban couldn't be subverted as easily as it would be, I'd support 100% ban.

[WhoDidTheElf]

If they had a manufacturing operation going on, it wouldn't be that hard to sting. It'd be like how they catch drug manufacturers. If they had made one or two guns for personal use, it'd be illegal, but not a threat to public order.

I'm not talking large scale production. I'm talking a couple gangs make some weapons for them selves so they can terrorize the public.

Obviously if you were going to ban guns you'd need to improve police and law enforcement.

And that would be quite the task in it's self seeing as the police force isn't maned enough as is.

[Smokey D]

I'm not talking large scale production. I'm talking a couple gangs make some weapons for them selves so they can terrorize the public.


But if there were only a few such gangs, that'd bring the wrath of the law (fully armed with high tech weaponry and protective armour) upon them. So they'd be easily shut down.

And that would be quite the task in it's self seeing as the police force isn't maned enough as is.

Increase the pay, dedicate a section to enforcing the new gun laws. Since there would be less gun crime (assuming my theoretical model works), there'd be more police officers per offender.

[Valhall]

Honsetly, I'm from Wyoming and Idaho...in case non-Americans in here don't know where that is, they are extremely rural states where being able to own a gun unhinhibited has never been questioned.

Nor has it been an issue....it's a part of the culture, and yes, accidents happen, but our communities as a whole are rather smart about it and self-sufficient, and it's never been a huge deal.

If you absolutely want to go with the "ban guns because they are bad" mentality, then you need to leave it up to individual communities/states to decide.

[Smokey D]

Why should Idaho or Wyoming (two of the most uninhabited and therefore least important states) become safe havens for gun manufacturers when allowing them to do that inhibits gun control in the more populated and therefore more important states?

[Valhall]

Your perception of Wyoming and Idaho's importance is flawed.

Wyoming is the leading coal producing state in the U.S. by far, and both states produce massive amounts of natural products and agriculture. Not to mention that 3 million people do "count", tbh...that's 3 million votes, 3 million opinions, 3 million people that deserve to have a say in a law that is applied to them.

So, lets go force Wyoming to live the way they don't want to because California can't stop it's crime....now that's reasonable :rolleyes:.

And that's just where I'm from. Many of the nieghboring states (namely Montana and Utah) have an equal or greater population, production, and subculture in addition to the two I happen to be from.

[guitrguy]

Wyoming and Idaho are nominal economically and politically.
Honsetly, I'm from Wyoming and Idaho...in case non-Americans in here don't know where that is, they are extremely rural states where being able to own a gun unhinhibited has never been questioned.

Nor has it been an issue....it's a part of the culture, and yes, accidents happen, but our communities as a whole are rather smart about it and self-sufficient, and it's never been a huge deal.

If you absolutely want to go with the "ban guns because they are bad" mentality, then you need to leave it up to individual communities/states to decide.

Rarely does something that is banned in one area, stay in an area that is allowed in. If you allow them in one state and not another, the black market will undoubtedly move those guns in to prohibited areas.

[Valhall]

Wyoming and Idaho are nominal economically and politically.


Rarely does something that is banned in one area. If you allow them in one state and not another, the black market will undoubtedly move those guns in to prohibited areas.

Then it won't be any different then the drug trade that no one can seem to find an answer for.

Oh, wait, the solution to that, most poeple say, is to make drugs legal.

Oh, wait....but we want to do the opposite with guns...???

Also, what you speak of here moves closer to International, uniform law...and it scares me, tbh.

[guitrguy]

Then it won't be any different then the drug trade that no one can seem to find an answer for.
Strawman
Oh, wait, the solution to that, most poeple say, is to make drugs legal.
again this is faulty. Drugs are not akin to weaponry.
Oh, wait....but we want to do the opposite with guns...???
I don't see how mockery based on a logic fallacy makes your case.

[Smokey D]

Your perception of Wyoming and Idaho's importance is flawed.

Wyoming is the leading coal producing state in the U.S. by far, and both states produce massive amounts of natural products
and agriculture.

Yeah, but gun control isn't gonna change that.

Not to mention that 3 million people do "count", tbh...that's 3 million votes, 3 million opinions, 3 million people that deserve to have a say in a law that is applied to them.

Sure. But the 22 million Californians (including the 10 million Los Angeleans) or whatever it is should have more say. I mean, if everyone's opinion is equal, then 22 million > 3 million in every way.

So, lets go force Wyoming to live the way they don't want to because California can't stop it's crime....now that's reasonable :rolleyes:.

Hey man, that's democracy.

And that's just where I'm from. Many of the nieghboring states (namely Montana and Utah) have an equal or greater population, production, and subculture in addition to the two I happen to be from.

Yeah, but all those states have less people living in them combined then the big cities on either coast. If their continued freedom to produce and own guns threatens the safety of more populous regions, they should yield.

Also, what you speak of here moves closer to International, uniform law...and it scares me, tbh.

If by that you mean making a uniform national law for one country, then yes.

[Knifeboy]

guns would be in far less demand than drugs

[Valhall]

guns would be in far less demand than drugs

Supporting my arguement that we have bigger issues to worry about than guns.


Also, Smokey D, your reasoning is also the EXACT same reasoning that is used to support International law, and people that are pushing for us all to become Socialist slave nations answering to the U.N. and having no soveriegnity of our own.

Hey man, that's democracy

No, that's what's wrong with modern democracy.

[Knifeboy]

Supporting my arguement that we have bigger issues to worry about than guns.

Not at all