Gun control thread #4387

[.Pixote.]

There is no real need for people to have semi automatics.

Any weapon in my opinion...shooters should take up rock climbing or para-gilding to satisfy their thrills, surely there are plenty of exciting activities that don't require pulling the trigger, of a object that was designed to kill people quickly and efficiently...guns were invented to kill people, hunting animals just proved to be a useful side activity.

 

[alec]

Any weapon in my opinion...shooters should take up rock climbing or para-gilding to satisfy their thrills, surely there are plenty of exciting activities that don't require pulling the trigger, of a object that was designed to kill people quickly and efficiently...

So what about bow and arrow? Should they be banned as well? And crossbows? And slingshots? All of those were designed to kill.

And don't you infringe upon people's freedom if you tell them what hobby they should have?

guns were invented to kill people, hunting animals just proved to be a useful side activity.

It's probably quite different: weapons were first "invented" to protect against predators, then they were used to hunt. From defensive to offensive. The weapons themselves evolved from simple working tools like (digging) sticks and (sharpened) stones.

 

[Daimyo]

...Since you should only need one shot.
...
So what do one really need a semi automatic for? Not for hunting...

In theory.

In real life it is not always so easy.

Better to be able to fire a good second shot immediately than for the animal to get away and suffer needlessly.



Edit: Besides - the type of weapon is irrelevant in this case.
This guy had been planning this loosely for 9 years, and focused on the attack itself the last 3.

 

[.Pixote.]

guns were invented to kill people, hunting animals just proved to be a useful side activity.

It's probably quite different: weapons were first "invented" to protect against predators, then they were used to hunt. From defensive to offensive. The weapons themselves evolved from simple working tools like (digging) sticks and (sharpened) stones.

"Guns"...not "weapons" - a bag of lollies could be considered a weapon when used in a lethal manor...smacked in the head repeatedly with rock candy.

 

[Crni Vuk]

imagine the rioters in London being all armed with assault rifles.

I think it cuts their freedom that they are not allowed to have one ! I am sure that is the first thing the police would be thinking.

Yes. I know its a hyperbole.

 

[alec]

Yes. I know its a hyperbole.

Well, you used litotes in a different thread, so it evens out.

 

[SuAside]

And no, I'm not afraid of communists. They're the least of my concerns.

I'm confused. Then who excactly are you ranting against?

The thing I'm most afraid of is the civilized, wellmeaning and politically correct people who feel that their opinions about freedoms of other people should be enforced simply because they personally don't see the point of something and don't feel it a necessary freedom.

Freedom erodes easily that way... I'm not adverse to some regulation, but we're creating more and more pointless rules, more and more restrictions on what it means to be a free man. It saddens me.

Strictness of gun control CANNOT be measured by the quantity of guns available in a country. I'll let you figure out yourself why that's a logical falacy.

My claim wasn't as strong as that though. I merely asserted that your claim that a country with one of the highest rates of civilian gun ownership in the world has comparatively stringent gun control laws is puzzling at best. Given that gun control laws attempt to restrict the ability of civilians to own firearms, they can by definition not be very strict if ownership is widespread.

Strictness can only be measured or interpreted by the rules themselves.

What if a rule states that you have to go to Mekka and be over 25 years old to be allowed to get a driver's license? Would you say that this is a strict law? Yet, if enforced, you'll still find that the majority of your countrymen will indeed own a car.

Aside from a total ban on semi-automatics, there is little that you could make stricter about Norwegian gunlaws and that would actually matter in the difficulty of acquiring a gun.
People already jump all kinds of hoops. Do you think another will make any difference?

Besides, a country that requires safety courses, exams, background checks, medical checks and whatnot is already a fairly strict country. Not only that, but Norway also enforces a list of weapons that can be bought, all not on it cannot be legally owned (even if they're functionally exactly the same as others that are not on this list).

That's pretty strict. As said, next step is an even smaller list or an outright ban on semi-automatic weapon ownership.

Well, driving a car requires a license with more stringent requirements than obtaining a firearm. Dog ownership and cigarette smoking are also subject to regulations.

Again: I've never said weapons should be totally unregulated... Nor that it was a universal right.

Only a right to be cherished and protected.

PS: What would you do if someone steps over your line in the sand? Take up arms against the government?

Peaceful protest, political action, legal action, and ultimately moving out of the country to move somewhere where my personal liberties and freedoms are respected if I cannot get these guarantees in my own country. If a country like Switzerland would have me, I'd move there.

But aside from civil disobedience and refusal to pay taxes, I would not take action against "the people" or "the government". The poor cop that comes confiscate my guns has no choice himself.

Its quite simple math suaside. You do not need a semi automatic for hunting deer or whatnot. Since you should only need one shot.

If you had read the thread, you'd know I don't hunt. And you'll find most gun owners don't hunt. So yeah, your comment is pretty meaningless.

So what do one really need a semi automatic for? Not for hunting. And not for marksmanship shooting as far as I know. Can do that just well with a normal rifle. And by doing that one take away the ability to rapidly kill people by alot.

You personally don't need anything but food and shelter. So what are you doing on the internet? Datacenters around the world represent about 10% of all power usage on Earth. Let's ban the internet, Kyoto will be within reach.

I can kill just as many people with my car as I can with my guns. Just needs a tiny bit of re-enforcing. I can poison the water treatment plant in my town. Or I can fairly easily make a bomb, I've got the skills & knowledge required.

Or I could murder hundreds of people with a simple kitchen knife, with nothing but a little planning and lots and lots of patience.

Just because I can, doesn't mean I will, Loxley.

Also the norwegian labour party is not communist. Seriously..they are the typical talk left move right party you will find anywhere..the only people that think they are communist are right wing extremists like Breivik.

The USSR wasn't even actually communist btw. Also, try reading the thread before commenting, we already covered this.

As for "oh he can get it other ways" argument. The shooter did try that. He tried to get a illegal autmatic and did not manage it.

He went on one trip and failed. Just because you try once and fail doesn't mean it's actually hard to do right.

The big thing however is. There is no real need for people to have semi automatics.

You'll find that most things you own or do in life, you "don't really need". And nearly everything you own or do in life comes at a cost for either the planet or the people on it. So yeah... Where do people like you eventually stop? Which line do you draw in the sand?

imagine the rioters in London being all armed with assault rifles.

I think it cuts their freedom that they are not allowed to have one! I am sure that is the first thing the police would be thinking.

Yes. I know its a hyperbole.

And what if the store keepers and home owners had guns? Nevermind your precious 'assault rifles' that you keep bringing up. Just handguns.

LA riots. Korean-American shop keepers. Look it up.
The looters DID have guns. The shop keepers DID have guns. They DID shoot it out.

The shop keepers succesfully defended themselves and their stores (though they were first half plundered before the store owners resorted to violence). Those without guns were plundered and sometimes burned to the ground.

It's funny that this gets brought up in this thread. Your position with James Snowscoran is largely that the government will protect you when shit hits the fan. Well sorry, but your own example shows quite the opposite. People DEAD. Homes BURNED. Stores PLUNDERED. Where is your precious government? Oh, right, the police retreated and/or just stood by watching. Hell, London police is saying they don't even want to use a more powerful water cannon because "that's not how we do things. here we work with the community.", haha, yeah, that's worked so great so far.

And as said before, legal gun owners are quite unlikely to loot for obvious reasons...

 

[James Snowscoran]

And no, I'm not afraid of communists. They're the least of my concerns.

I'm confused. Then who excactly are you ranting against?

The thing I'm most afraid of is the civilized, wellmeaning and politically correct people who feel that their opinions about freedoms of other people should be enforced simply because they personally don't see the point of something and don't feel it a necessary freedom.

Freedom erodes easily that way... I'm not adverse to some regulation, but we're creating more and more pointless rules, more and more restrictions on what it means to be a free man. It saddens me.

Okay, but this isn't very applicable to Norwegian society, if that's what we're still discussing. And keep in mind that more regulations often bring about more substantive freedom.

What if a rule states that you have to go to Mekka and be over 25 years old to be allowed to get a driver's license? Would you say that this is a strict law? Yet, if enforced, you'll still find that the majority of your countrymen will indeed own a car.

If such regulations were enacted, the number of people with a driver's licence would certainly drop significantly over time, assuming they were enacted out of the blue without giving people the chance to prepare and that existing licence holders were unaffected. It would certainly show up in statistics of licensed drivers/capita.

[Aside from a total ban on semi-automatics, there is little that you could make stricter about Norwegian gunlaws and that would actually matter in the difficulty of acquiring a gun.
People already jump all kinds of hoops. Do you think another will make any difference?

Yes! It would not be hard to implement new laws that will reduce the number of guns in private possession without limiting specific calibers or firing modes. Also, I think you somewhat overestimate the number of hoops you have to jump through. Acquiring a hunting weapon has traditionally been very much a routine exercise which the police is unlikely to stir up trouble about.

Note that I'm not saying I'm in favour of further restrictions, just that it's certainly possible.

 

[Crni Vuk]

imagine the rioters in London being all armed with assault rifles.

I think it cuts their freedom that they are not allowed to have one! I am sure that is the first thing the police would be thinking.

Yes. I know its a hyperbole.

And what if the store keepers and home owners had guns? Nevermind your precious 'assault rifles' that you keep bringing up. Just handguns.

LA riots. Korean-American shop keepers. Look it up.
The looters DID have guns. The shop keepers DID have guns. They DID shoot it out.

The shop keepers succesfully defended themselves and their stores (though they were first half plundered before the store owners resorted to violence). Those without guns were plundered and sometimes burned to the ground.

It's funny that this gets brought up in this thread. Your position with James Snowscoran is largely that the government will protect you when shit hits the fan. Well sorry, but your own example shows quite the opposite. People DEAD. Homes BURNED. Stores PLUNDERED. Where is your precious government? Oh, right, the police retreated and/or just stood by watching. Hell, London police is saying they don't even want to use a more powerful water cannon because "that's not how we do things. here we work with the community.", haha, yeah, that's worked so great so far.

And as said before, legal gun owners are quite unlikely to loot for obvious reasons...

I am not going to take away the right to own firearms.

I just think that some fierarms should face more restrictions/bans then others just as this is true for many other things.

You can buy firecrackers but not dynamite.

You can buy a handgun/hunting rifle but not a machiengun

You can buy weedkiller but no anthrax

But I am just saying. Now because we talk about it. Do you agree that some guns should not end in the hands of civilians or do you think a civilian should be allowed to own ANY kind of weapon he wants (talking only about guns).

 

[.Pixote.]

LA riots. Korean-American shop keepers. Look it up.
The looters DID have guns. The shop keepers DID have guns. They DID shoot it out.

The shop keepers succesfully defended themselves and their stores (though they were first half plundered before the store owners resorted to violence). Those without guns were plundered and sometimes burned to the ground.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmsKGhLdZuQ[/youtube]

 

[SuAside]

The thing I'm most afraid of is the civilized, wellmeaning and politically correct people who feel that their opinions about freedoms of other people should be enforced simply because they personally don't see the point of something and don't feel it a necessary freedom.

Freedom erodes easily that way... I'm not adverse to some regulation, but we're creating more and more pointless rules, more and more restrictions on what it means to be a free man. It saddens me.

Okay, but this isn't very applicable to Norwegian society, if that's what we're still discussing. And keep in mind that more regulations often bring about more substantive freedom.

Euhm, how exactly is that NOT applicable to Norway? That's exactly what is happening now.

Also, please explain to me how more regulation equals more substantive freedoms? Rules and laws restrict generally, since without rules and laws "everything goes". Rules at most protect freedoms of others, but they never broaden freedoms.

If such regulations were enacted, the number of people with a driver's licence would certainly drop significantly over time, assuming they were enacted out of the blue without giving people the chance to prepare and that existing licence holders were unaffected. It would certainly show up in statistics of licensed drivers/capita.

People would just plan their holidays to go to Mekka and problem solved. Yes, there'd be less licenses to go around, but there would still be a LOT of drivers out there. This simply because people believe they need it or they simply want it enough to go through the hassle.

The point however is, that in such a situation people would still get a lot of permits. Yet the law is pretty damn strict.
Thus, you cannot measure strictness of a law by the resulting number of people who do or own something.

Aside from a total ban on semi-automatics, there is little that you could make stricter about Norwegian gunlaws and that would actually matter in the difficulty of acquiring a gun.
People already jump all kinds of hoops. Do you think another will make any difference?

Yes! It would not be hard to implement new laws that will reduce the number of guns in private possession without limiting specific calibers or firing modes. Also, I think you somewhat overestimate the number of hoops you have to jump through. Acquiring a hunting weapon has traditionally been very much a routine exercise which the police is unlikely to stir up trouble about.

Note that I'm not saying I'm in favour of further restrictions, just that it's certainly possible.

So basically you're admitting that the aim of your argument is reducing the number of guns in private hands, not to lower the likelyhood of said guns would be used for 'evil'?

I am not going to take away the right to own firearms.
I just think that some fierarms should face more restrictions/bans then others just as this is true for many other things.
You can buy firecrackers but not dynamite.
You can buy a handgun/hunting rifle but not a machinegun
You can buy weedkiller but no anthrax

Oh, thank god I can still own a flintlock musket! Thank you for your kindness!



That's like saying: I'm not taking your right to own & drive motorcycles, BUT you can't own anything over 25 kW in power.

And that's even a bad analogy, since hunting rifles are far more powerful than those evil black rifles everyone keeps getting their panties in a bunch about.

But I am just saying. Now because we talk about it. Do you agree that some guns should not end in the hands of civilians or do you think a civilian should be allowed to own ANY kind of weapon he wants (talking only about guns).

I don't have anything against legal ownership of machineguns and suppressors in civilian hands, no.

To qualify, you'd need to jump through some hoops, but if the basic checks are met and you can prove you can safely handle said weapons and safely store the ammo for them? Sure, why the hell not.

Do you have any idea how little legally owned fully automatic weapons are used in crime in say the USA or Switzerland? It's very close to absolute zero. Do you also realize that technically it's actually easier to make a fully automatic weapon than it is to make a semi-automatic one? I could make one, a REALIABLE one, in my garage if I wanted to.

Again: technically full auto is a BAD CHOICE for someone trying to massacre people.
I don't see ownership of full auto machineguns to be useful, but inherently there's not a whole lot of valid arguments against it. I'm however a big supporter of legalizing suppressors since they're illegal in my country.

 

[James Snowscoran]

The thing I'm most afraid of is the civilized, wellmeaning and politically correct people who feel that their opinions about freedoms of other people should be enforced simply because they personally don't see the point of something and don't feel it a necessary freedom.

Freedom erodes easily that way... I'm not adverse to some regulation, but we're creating more and more pointless rules, more and more restrictions on what it means to be a free man. It saddens me.

Okay, but this isn't very applicable to Norwegian society, if that's what we're still discussing. And keep in mind that more regulations often bring about more substantive freedom.

Euhm, how exactly is that NOT applicable to Norway? That's exactly what is happening now.

No. As I've mentioned before, this is a fantasy you're constructing yourself with no basis in reality. Gun laws have been under periodic review for half a year by a parliamentary committee which will eventually publish a recommendation, but unless you're privy to inside information there's no way you'd know about whether or how they'll recommend changing the law.

The longer-term trend (past 30 years or so) has been towards a more liberal society rather than furthering restrictions on personal freedom.

Also, please explain to me how more regulation equals more substantive freedoms? Rules and laws restrict generally, since without rules and laws "everything goes". Rules at most protect freedoms of others, but they never broaden freedoms.

Traffic lights, to name one obvious example. There are plenty of others.

If such regulations were enacted, the number of people with a driver's licence would certainly drop significantly over time, assuming they were enacted out of the blue without giving people the chance to prepare and that existing licence holders were unaffected. It would certainly show up in statistics of licensed drivers/capita.

People would just plan their holidays to go to Mekka and problem solved. Yes, there'd be less licenses to go around, but there would still be a LOT of drivers out there. This simply because people believe they need it or they simply want it enough to go through the hassle.

The point however is, that in such a situation people would still get a lot of permits. Yet the law is pretty damn strict.
Thus, you cannot measure strictness of a law by the resulting number of people who do or own something.

Your reasoning doesn't support your conclusion. Stricter laws are imposed, as a result substantially fewer licenses are issued; this does not support your conclusion that strictness of a law cannot be measured by the number of permits, as in your example evidently it can.

Aside from a total ban on semi-automatics, there is little that you could make stricter about Norwegian gunlaws and that would actually matter in the difficulty of acquiring a gun.
People already jump all kinds of hoops. Do you think another will make any difference?

Yes! It would not be hard to implement new laws that will reduce the number of guns in private possession without limiting specific calibers or firing modes. Also, I think you somewhat overestimate the number of hoops you have to jump through. Acquiring a hunting weapon has traditionally been very much a routine exercise which the police is unlikely to stir up trouble about.

Note that I'm not saying I'm in favour of further restrictions, just that it's certainly possible.

So basically you're admitting that the aim of your argument is reducing the number of guns in private hands, not to lower the likelyhood of said guns would be used for 'evil'?

I even pointed out specifically that I wasn't arguing for or against new restrictions. What I did was just pointing out that your assertion that

Aside from a total ban on semi-automatics, there is little that you could make stricter about Norwegian gunlaws and that would actually matter in the difficulty of acquiring a gun.

is obviously wrong. There's much that could be stricter and that would affect said difficulty that doesn't involve a blanket ban on semi-automatics.

 

[Wintermind]

It is worth saying that legal fully automatic machineguns in the US are extremely rare and expensive. And you could probably, much more easily find and buy an illegal one for a whole lot less money, what with legal FA AR-15's going for 15+ thousand dollars, if you can find one. probably a bit less for the auto-sear alone.

That said I'm all for people being able to own suppressed, automatic firearms with folding stocks, short barrels, muzzle shrouds, fore grips, and extra-large capacity magazines.

Provided they can pass a safety competence test and have no violent convictions, I'm pretty cool with just about anyone owning any sort of gun with whatever attachments.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I still don't understand why people associate "weapons" so much with "freedom" when it is clear that no society can exist without limitations.

The concept of "freedom" and "liberty" is just a catchphrase. No society not even a democracy is only about liberty.

There is usually a consensus between rights and responsibilities. That counts for the state just as much as it does for the citizen.

Just because someone might give you the "right" to own any firearm does not inherently mean they also grant you "freedom". I am sure it is a bit more complex then just that.

 

[TheWesDude]

crni, allow me to explain it to you.

citizenry owning firearms is vital to having and being free


while yes, firearms are used for illegal purposes and senseless murder/manslaughter, it also has a few key reasons why its required to be "free".

1) the possibility of owning a firearm attempts to equalize against those who legally or even illegally have them and attempt to harm you in some way. think home-defense.

2) the possibility of the citizenry being able to effectively defend themselves from a foreign attacking force if the local citizenry is allowed to band together and cooperate in defending themselves. think red-dawn, and being in europe, the chance is much higher of such a case.

3) the possibility of the citizenry to defend themselves against their government if the government because opressive.


#1 is the most common reason for guns being legal.

#2 and #3 are the main reasons it should be.

 

[mobucks]

The powers that be can create all the new laws they want, it will never end maniacs going on murder sprees. As has been brought up, guns are a tool; if my electric screw gun runs out of battery, I'll use a screwdriver instead.

Look at that Korean man in the video. Does he look like he is aiming for a kill shot? Not to me. He is protecting his buisness, not trying to take lives. That man is a better citizen in my eyes than the garbage ransacking the streets. Guns serve a useful purpose in our society and that right there is a perfect illustration.

Figures show there are way less bad apples like the norwegian shooter than responsible gun owners in civilized society. Responsible, law abiding people are the only ones affected by more and more gun restrictions, which sickens me, since the bad apple will still find a way to have his face on the news regardless of what tool he uses.

 

[James Snowscoran]

#1 is a fallacy, as lax gun control don't bring about a safer society or less violent crime.

#2 is handled by the armed forces and collective security (EU/NATO)

#3 is just lol

 

[Hassknecht]

Point 1:
I can't say anything to that, because I never had the need to defend my home or myself. Sometimes I really think that the US is more like Somalia than Europe, according to how scared of walking around unarmed some people are.

Point 2:
Civilians, even armed, defending their country is complete and utter bullshit.
Patrick Swayze is dead, so a band of civilians can't do shit against a trained and equipped military force.
Guerilla warfare is fine and working, but guerilla fighters are trained combatants, and civilians with guns are just that: Civilians with guns.
No real threat to a real military.

Point 3:
Yes, that could happen. But without some major disaster striking, no current western democracy can be turned into an oppressive police state.
Yes, there are loopholes through which a government can amass power, but they require a war to be used.
But it's still a valid point.
For example, Germany currently has no valid election law. Our Verfassungsgericht (court concerning constitutional laws) has decided that our old election law was invalid because there was a negative 'Stimmgewicht' (crappy to translate. In essence, because of secondary votes, a party can get more or less seats in the parlament than they should get). So they set an ultimate date when the parlament should have worked out a new election law.
That date was set three years or so later, but the parlament didn't give a crap, so now we don't have a valid law.
The next election is 2013, I hope we get a new law before that, because if not the government can just proclaim the election unjust because the law is not valid.
But even if that happens, there's no need for violent protests to overthrow a government.
Peaceful reforming works much better and is less likely to give way for a stupid revolutionary government.

 

[Crni Vuk]

hmm I am not sure.

What I mean is this. Lets assume that when we talk about "freedom" we mean freedom of expression - because it is a very broad term just for it self what is freedom for me has not be the same for others. Anyway.

So. What I have trouble with is to understand how "owning" a weapon (of any kind) is actually going to give your opinion more of a value. I see and respect the idea of owning weapons as a form of liberty. Just as how any adult person should get the chance to own a driving licence or to go to a college for example. Where at least in THEORY all have the same rights despite their origin.

But in which way is it all now inherently equal to "weapons" ? A state could allow all its citizens to own all kinds of weapons and still be a dictatorship. - I am just saying.

A democracy or "free" society in my eyes comes with rights and obligations. And at least from what I can see gun owners are usually a minority in most western societies. I remember the situation around Daniel Ellsberg where he leaked the so called Pentagon Papers (about the situation in the vietnam war) to the public as he thought it was something the people should know about. And they tried everything to silence him in legal ways.

Secrecy and covering up/hididing of informations and the partly manipulation of the media is a much more dangerous tool by our "western" free societies then the direct use of "force" on the population.

Weapons can here not change or help much. The only way to actually fight those situations is education and a general awareness. Being a politically educated person.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiLV-Xeh8bA&feature=fvsr[/youtube]

Just because you have eventually the right to own firearms of any kind will NOT inherently set you "free" or making sure that you have liberty.

And this is somewhat related to the warnings of former politicans which had great experience AND knoweldge.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY[/youtube]

Again I do NOT want to take away the right of people to own weapons. But we have to understand the rather complex relation between the arms industry on one hand and the politics on the other. There seems to be a conection between "liberty" or "rights/freedom" in relation with weapons. Even though it is a very profitabale industry. Not so much from the civilian market. But from a military side. There are many conections though. Particularly from the politics.

 

[Wintermind]

Idea behind having weapons is that in the event where your freedoms are not being respected or infringed upon you can go ahead and take them back. Or prevent them from being infringed upon in the first place.

Also #1 isn't a logical fallacy. Home/personal defense is a pretty common reason for owning a gun.

#2, while highly unlikely, is still possible. This is the whole point to the Green Berets.

and #3 was mentioned above. And sometimes a peaceful protest doesn't work. Sometimes violent, bloody struggle is what it takes.