Gun control thread #4387

[Crni Vuk]

DB doesn't realize that it is a fallacy to think the internet would be a legal vacuum.

- Any kind of culture which "loves" their activity has eventually trouble to be rationally and self-aware. It is one skill of some intelligent person to be even critical with the things he "loves". It is not so much about facts and numbers but simply being reasonable. Weapons have a very distinctive place in the history. And even if you love those as hobby or for sport you still don't have to create some ideology around it. Just as how it has not to be "un-american" or "un-patriotic" if you don't support your country in war. You can be a member or supporter of the military and STILL be critical regarding their actions. Anything has good sides and bad sides. THe trick is to know the difference. Extremes particularly in opinions usually lead not to good results.

I might be wrong with this but when I read some comments I get the feeling like people "worship" guns/weapons in some form ... almost like a religion.

 

[Wintermind]

yeah and then some kido shoots his own face with a machine pistol on a gun show.

*Edit
What I don't understand is how someone can feel fine with his 5 or 10 year old shooting a tec 9 or just a handgun but giving them driver lessons sounds suddenly "wrong".

What I am worried about is if you get children "used" that early to weapons they might be losing the respect regarding those objects where it suddenly starts to be about love and any rational thinking is thrown eventually over board. A "gun culture" if you want so. And that can lead to the same dangerous habits like people which love their cars and always drive to fast. You might go well with it. But at some point you will be facing issues. Careless use of something with a potential to harm you or others cant be a good thing. Regardless if we are talking about guns, cars or medications.

Yes, people will do stupid things. Adults who do respect their firearms and handle them properly can still ND in to their leg while cleaning their gun. Or ND into someone else. Familiarity can breed complacency. Which is why actually respecting and being careful with things that can be dangerous, whether it's a gun or lathe or a car is important. If you teach people (and children) to have that respect and maintain it, you can vastly reduce the chance of accidents happening.

And your car analogy is flawed. There are no hideously complex rules for handling a firearm. There are only four basic rules that you need to know to properly handle a firearm.

1) The gun is always loaded.
2) Never point a gun at something you are not wiling to destroy
3) Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to destroy whatever your gun is pointing at.
4) Be aware of your target. Is there anything behind it? could the round travel through and hit something else?

I'm pretty sure that if Damnitboy has any little damnitboys running around, they've been taught this right along side "Don't run with scissors" or "cut away from your body and hands".

If people know these rules and still do something stupid and kill themselves? Well, Darwin awards.

Also, Sabirah, that's not really regulation so much as a thing you could do. Regulation is the government forcing Skype to modify itself so they could tap calls on it. Or, more accurately, passing a law/regulation thing forcing all VOIP companies to make sure their software can be tapped by the government.

 

[Per]

The internet has been used by pedophiles.

Don't forget playgrounds. For sure, we can ask ourselves questions such as these:

How many people get hurt or killed by guns?
How many people get hurt or killed by the internet?
How many people get hurt or killed by playgrounds?
How much utility do we get out of guns?
How much utility do we get out of the internet?
How much utility do we get out of playgrounds?

If we find that the risk/reward ratios seem to be different for different things in the world, is it possible for us to treat them differently with respect to laws and restrictions? If it seems like we should allow unrestricted access to cinnamon buns, must we be compelled to also allow unrestricted access to guns?

 

[Crni Vuk]

And your car analogy is flawed. There are no hideously complex rules for handling a firearm. There are only four basic rules that you need to know to properly handle a firearm.
...

I think I will simply quote someone who explained the case better then I ever could.

...
If we find that the risk/reward ratios seem to be different for different things in the world, is it possible for us to treat them differently with respect to laws and restrictions? If it seems like we should allow unrestricted access to cinnamon buns, must we be compelled to also allow unrestricted access to guns?

 

[Wintermind]

So your retort is just to parrot somebody else? Nice.

That said, Per, you could make the same arguement about knives. People stab the shit out of each other too. People cut themselves, too. Clearly we need to regulate knives much more heavily. And cinnamon buns can make people fat as shit if they don't respect the contents and take proper care around it. And obesity is a fucking problem like a motherfucker. Clearly that shit should be regulated so we can protect people from getting too much fattening food. Oh and cars. Cars kill people like fucking crazy. They should be far more regulated.

Everyone should have access to firearms until they've proven that they can't be trusted with them. All kinds of firearms. No restrictions should be made on the quantity or kind of firearms owned by any law abiding citizen. Nor should there be any restriction on attachments or little bullshit like that (like bayonet lugs).

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

And cinnamon buns can make people fat as shit if they don't respect the contents and take proper care around it. And obesity is a fucking problem like a motherfucker. Clearly that shit should be regulated so we can protect people from getting too much fattening food.

Obesity is the top most avoidable cause of death in the states, and fatties shouldn't have their bad decisions subsidized by everyone else's health care premiums either - smokers pay higher premiums.
Besides, how does the "it's not necessary" notion about target shooting and hunting not apply to the Cheesecake Factory? Seriously, look at the size of Americans and tell me why Krispy Kreme is necessary? Plus, big people are statistically easier to hit (larger, slower) probably resulting in more gun mayhem. It's a vicious circle.

 

[Kyuu]

Cars kill people like fucking crazy. They should be far more regulated.

Cars are regulated to hell and back, and they're getting more regulated all the time. Plus, cars are obviously in a completely different class of... things than guns. Trying to draw parallels between them (or between guns and cinnamon buns) is asinine.

Everyone should have access to firearms until they've proven that they can't be trusted with them. All kinds of firearms. No restrictions should be made on the quantity or kind of firearms owned by any law abiding citizen. Nor should there be any restriction on attachments or little bullshit like that (like bayonet lugs).

I'm no anti-gun fanatic; I'm far away from someone who suggests guns should be totally outlawed. I myself would like to own a gun or two. But, your position here is completely unreasonable and indefensible.

There's no reason a private citizen should have access to something like a SAW, a high-powered sniper rifle, an RPG, and the like. I don't care how "careful" and "respectful" you think you are. Luckily, most reasonable people agree with this so I don't even really have to worry about arguing the point. Note: I wouldn't disagree that they do some silly things when classifying guns that result in ludicrous rules. But that's the details; the idea of classifying and banning some classifications is fine. As are the ideas of waiting periods, background checks, mandatory licenses, etc.

 

[Wintermind]

Cars kill people like fucking crazy. They should be far more regulated.

Cars are regulated to hell and back, and they're getting more regulated all the time. Plus, cars are obviously in a completely different class of... things than guns. Trying to draw parallels between them (or between guns and cinnamon buns) is asinine.

Everyone should have access to firearms until they've proven that they can't be trusted with them. All kinds of firearms. No restrictions should be made on the quantity or kind of firearms owned by any law abiding citizen. Nor should there be any restriction on attachments or little bullshit like that (like bayonet lugs).

I'm no anti-gun fanatic; I'm far away from someone who suggests guns should be totally outlawed. I myself would like to own a gun or two. But, your position here is completely unreasonable and indefensible.

There's no reason a private citizen should have access to something like a SAW, a high-powered sniper rifle, an RPG, and the like. I don't care how "careful" and "respectful" you think you are. Luckily, most reasonable people agree with this so I don't even really have to worry about arguing the point. Note: I wouldn't disagree that they do some silly things when classifying guns that result in ludicrous rules. But that's the details; the idea of classifying and banning some classifications is fine. As are the ideas of waiting periods, background checks, mandatory licenses, etc.

You'll know why Krispy Kreme is necessary after eating there.

 

[TheWesDude]

here is all the gun regulation i think we need.


1) no carrying a handgun without a gun dealer license or a "concealed/carry" license unless you can show papers showing you just bought it. a handgun is any weapon shorter than 3 feet from end to end.

2) no automatic weapons. a gun is only considered automatic when the "full auto" setting works. if the firing pin/mechanisim has been modified to where it does not work, then that is fine.

3) any shotgun capable of holding more than 2 shots before a reload should require a license.

4) no weapon with larger than a 10 bullet clip/magazine without a license.

5) no rifles that fire a larger bullet than say a 30-06

6) no handguns that fire a bullet larger than 45 calibre without a license

7) if you have ever served a jail sentance over 91 days, you cannot own a firearm unless it was a non-violent crime. if you have ever served more than 366 days, no.

8) anyone found to be mentally unstable. if reviewed in the past 5 years of at least annual reviews and given a clean bill of mental health for each one.

9) no "massive" weapons where the ammunition is explosive, or of a denser material than steel.


i think that is pretty all encompassing and reasonable.

 

[Wintermind]

Not really. What's a license? What's not having a license? What does it require to obtain one? What about weapons with detachable magazines? Is it okay to own magazines for them that are less than ten rounds, but to own one with more you need a license?

Caliber limiting is dumb also.

IF I haven't said this before:

Federal Firearms Ownship ID. (FOID or FFOID, or maybe another class of FFL).

Anybody can get one after reaching the age of majority after passing a few basic tests to prove you understand the concepts of gunsafety. Disqualify factors would be violent felony convictions or any conviction involving a firearm being used in a violent crime (EG, for use in a robbery but not for discharging within city limits) or any diagnosed mental issues that make you a danger to yourself or others without a doctors expressed written OK.

FFLs would have to be regularly renewed and updated, and while they would not be just "valid card > get gun", what with local copies of paperwork for redundancy and all, though maybe what with the move towards digital ID's and such the records could be kept digitally. It could also ease private transactions to an extent.

I'm also open to having allowing second chances to people felony convictions, with the approval of the parole officer/etc.

 

[WillisPDunlevey]

here is all the gun regulation i think we need.

1) no carrying a handgun without a gun dealer license or a "concealed/carry" license unless you can show papers showing you just bought it. a handgun is any weapon shorter than 3 feet from end to end.

This is already the law in most states.

2) no automatic weapons. a gun is only considered automatic when the "full auto" setting works. if the firing pin/mechanisim has been modified to where it does not work, then that is fine.

Full auto weapons are not used in crimes. Of the 250k + LEGALLY owned full auto weapons, only two have ever been used in crimes and one of those was by a dirty cop. (IIRC) I think this is the reason they restrict all those Indy cars that people insist on running around inside shopping malls.

3) any shotgun capable of holding more than 2 shots before a reload should require a license.

Good luck convincing hunters on that one. just about Every deer hunter in the USA uses a 5rd pump or auto loader.

4) no weapon with larger than a 10 bullet clip/magazine without a license.

Unfortunately this did not create a dent in crime during the 10 years it was in effect. but the 2 or three hi profile cases really caused a huge effect as far as perception is concerned.

5) no rifles that fire a larger bullet than say a 30-06

thats about 1/2 the deer rifles out there... anything over 7.62mm... so thats all 7.9 and 8mm mausers plus all the 9.35s on up?

6) no handguns that fire a bullet larger than 45 calibre without a license

Why? .50 caliber bullets are not very good at going through vests if this is your issue... nobody but Arnold Schwartzenegger or Barb Wire use them for anything other than "dood watch this youtube videos"

7) if you have ever served a jail sentance over 91 days, you cannot own a firearm unless it was a non-violent crime. if you have ever served more than 366 days, no.

All felonies already do this as well as many drug or violence misdemeanors.

8) anyone found to be mentally unstable. if reviewed in the past 5 years of at least annual reviews and given a clean bill of mental health for each one.

The big problem with this is subjectivity and the fact that they would have to disarm most of the army after a few weeks of combat.

9) no "massive" weapons where the ammunition is explosive, or of a denser material than steel.

This is already covered under federal law (destructive devices and the AP bullets rules)

i think that is pretty all encompassing and reasonable.

I would add ill informed

 

[popej]

Does easy access to guns increase the likelyhood of gun crime being commited?

The answer is yes. You don't need sources or insider knowledge, you simply need some common sense in your noggin.

Should that mean that laws governing the possession of guns should be strict? Yes, absolutely.

Stricter than they already are? Probably yes, albeit with a healthy dose of common sense involved in the law making process.

Guns are cold hard emotionless, inanimate objects that can be used to kill and maim with ease on a scale that just isn't possible through other means (we're talking about the public here which is the demographic this almost exclusively concerns).

Therefore the laws governing their use should also be cold, hard and emotionless. Ie,, "My Raaaart to baaar arms" is not an argument, it's just a stupid statement made by stupid people. This is primarily where the NRA get it wrong. they've gone for the emotional argument to gain support but unfortunately it doesn't work on people with any common sense.

In summary I believe that guns do have a place in our (gross generalization ecompassing Western demographics) society but complaining about strict, sensible laws governing their use is stupid.

 

[Wintermind]

If you want to claim that the availability of guns increases gun crime, then provide a fucking source, and not just "Common sense". Until then you can and will be safely disregarded.

 

[popej]

If you want to claim that the availability of guns increases gun crime....

That's not what I said though is it. Read it again. Until you've understood the English, your knee jerk reaction can be safely disregarded. Lets try an analogy... Does the availability of potatoes increase the likelihood that potatoes will be eaten?

I'm not picking sides. I'm merely adding what I believe is a bit of common sense to a stupid argument in which you and others repeatedly miss the point.

 

[Wintermind]

OK then, can you prove that the availability of guns increases the likelihood of 'gun crime' (also define that please)?

 

[Crni Vuk]

well if you're going to commit a crime like robbing a bank. Would you prefer a knife or a gun ? Same goes for gang crime or Organized crime. Guns are usually the preferred tool in many situations - if they are available. Not because people are crazy. But rather pragmatic. Guns give you a possibility to deliver a lethal force in a more accurate way then many other things like knifes. This isn't saying anything about the value of "weapons".

But it has a reason why we call "weapons" that way and a hammer a "tool". People ignore the fact that the semantics here IS important.

What ever if more weapons lead to more crimes is a point to debate. And I am ready to accept that it depends more on the environment then the number of weapons - it is much more likely that a poor district in a huge city will see much more gun related crimes then some wealthy rural town. But weapons like rifles or hand guns give you the opportunity to use lethal force more effectively then many other weapons or objects.

 

[DammitBoy]

here is all the gun regulation i think we need.


1) no carrying a handgun without a gun dealer license or a "concealed/carry" license unless you can show papers showing you just bought it. a handgun is any weapon shorter than 3 feet from end to end.

2) no automatic weapons. a gun is only considered automatic when the "full auto" setting works. if the firing pin/mechanisim has been modified to where it does not work, then that is fine.

3) any shotgun capable of holding more than 2 shots before a reload should require a license.

4) no weapon with larger than a 10 bullet clip/magazine without a license.

5) no rifles that fire a larger bullet than say a 30-06

6) no handguns that fire a bullet larger than 45 calibre without a license

7) if you have ever served a jail sentance over 91 days, you cannot own a firearm unless it was a non-violent crime. if you have ever served more than 366 days, no.

8) anyone found to be mentally unstable. if reviewed in the past 5 years of at least annual reviews and given a clean bill of mental health for each one.

9) no "massive" weapons where the ammunition is explosive, or of a denser material than steel.


i think that is pretty all encompassing and reasonable.

I think your "rules" are completely unreasonable.

 

[the_cpl]

Here it comes. Revision of the norwegian gun laws. *sighs*

Yeah, a guy killing 70 people with legal assault rifles doesn't warrant a revision of gun laws. Clearly. Norway is the very first country is history to react harshly to a terrorist attack, after all.

Uh, he converted his gun to an illegal one. The full-auto guns were illegal, and he used a full-auto gun.

Crni Vuk

Otherwise. if you come up freedom. Then I want have access to nuclear weapons.

For what? Are you going to use it for self defense or for target shooting?

Ilosar

I mean, if you need to defend yourself, surely a pistol would do, no?

No. Why would you tell me how should I defend myself. If you prefer pistols, buy pistols. I buy pistols and rifles too.

Sabirah

A shotgun is the most a civillian should get. Not machine guns and other advanced stuff

Why? Do you think criminals care about laws? They have everything, but you want to tell I shouldn't own my AR-15 rifle? It's a semi-auto, but I bet you are talking about semi-auto rifles too.



What about banning crazy people and criminals? They are the cause of crazy things and crime.

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!

They all had firearms like 20 years ago. Do you remember the horror? I don't. They had less crime back then. But they have really serious knifing problem. When do they ban knives?


I mean if you want to take away my firearms, because something retard shooting, the government should take away your car, because there are drunk drivers, they should take away your knife, people most of the crimninals in Europe use knives, they should take away your shoes too, because some people are kicking others to death. Don't forget to chop your hands, becasue some people getting beaten to death. Don't forget, the Internet is used by criminals, and they do crime with the help of the Net. Should governments ban the Internet? What a joke.

TheWesDude

1) no carrying a handgun without a gun dealer license or a "concealed/carry" license unless you can show papers showing you just bought it. a handgun is any weapon shorter than 3 feet from end to end.

UZI?

Guess what, the license is freakin expensive in my state. So richer people has rights, but no rights for poor people? That's nice.

2) no automatic weapons. a gun is only considered automatic when the "full auto" setting works

Well, the full-auto firearms needed a special license anyways. I don't see the point of it, but buying a full-auto firearm means you must pay a lot money, you must fill a lots of forms, you must give your fingerprint, etc.

3) any shotgun capable of holding more than 2 shots before a reload should require a license.

You mean about 97% of all the shotguns? Wow.

4) no weapon with larger than a 10 bullet clip/magazine without a license.

So you GET a license if you are not a criminal, but you must pay money for it. Sounds like a scam.

5) no rifles that fire a larger bullet than say a 30-06

Because many people got killed by .50BMG by civilians? No. Then what is the point of banning it?

6) no handguns that fire a bullet larger than 45 calibre without a license

The .357 magnum is one of the most popular selfdfense caliber.


Gun-ban threads make no sense.

 

[popej]

The car & knife argument is a leaky barrel that's been riddled with bullets from your AR-15. If you fail to spot the massive glaring difference between knives/cars and guns then you shouldn't be arguing.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Crni Vuk

Otherwise. if you come up freedom. Then I want have access to nuclear weapons.

For what? Are you going to use it for self defense or for target shooting?

Why do I have to explain this ? Weapons are weapons no ?

Maybe I want it for both. Self defence (like the Iran) and target practise (bikini atoll ... well that might be difficult. ).

Its quite obvious that with "nuclear weapons" I was exagerating the topic. Unlimited access to weapons. Certain things are simply restricted. And I dont see why people now demand "all for us! or it cuts our freedoooom!". Thats the point. It does not have to be you in particular. Just saying it in general. I dont mind guns in the hands of civilians. I just dont see why everything has to be out there.