Gun Control

SuAside said:
How many more times do I have to repeat this: the use of assault rifles and semi automatic sporting rifles in shooting deaths is only a small fraction of firearms related crime (for the reason that it's quite annoying to carry around and you can't as easily conceal a rifle as you can a pistol).
Your ban would have very little impact while disproportionately affect legal gun owners. How is that fair?
Click to expand...
I don't care if its fair or not.
 
SuAside said:
Luckily for most of us living in the western world, our local constitutions stipulate that such measures have to be proportional to the given thread and not unjustly targetting a group of people who are not to blame. :)
Click to expand...
You will never be able to convince me to sympathise with Assault rifle owners.
 
Last edited:
SuAside said:
Luckily for most of us living in the western world, our local constitutions stipulate that such measures have to be proportional to the given thread and not unjustly targetting a group of people who are not to blame. :)
Click to expand...
Depends on the constitution, I am not arguing that you don't have a point, I too believe that the measures we take should always be in relation to the case we're talking about. But if I take Germany as example, there is nothing in our constitution that says that weapons have to be a right - and I would argue, they are perceived by the public in Germany more as a privilige anyway. No clue how it is with the rest of Europe, but I am not aware that there would be many constitutions that explicitly mention that weapons can't be banned. Albeit, I think most people would feel very uneasy with that thought. I definetly would, as I feel that banning weapons completely because of mass shootings or crimes etc. is pretty much the most stupid thing a state could do. It would have a similar appeal, like banning video games completely to protect children or for some other silly reason, even though it doesn't solve the problem in the slightest. FOr some reason, you will have always certain groups that target some medium or object for like ALL of the problems, rape comes from porn, violence from video games (in the 90s it was TV ...), and of course mass shootings come from weapons or video games or weapons in video games, or video games in weapons ... you get the picture.

But I am very glad that we have in Germany and I think most of Europe a very responsible and level headed gun culture and most of our weapon-fanatics seem to be more on the reasonable side of the spectrum. I don't know ANY weapon owner who would feel comfortable with 5 or 6 year olds shooting automatic weapons, or any weapon at all, on a gun range, be it with or without supervision. This, kidz-with-weapons should be really the bare minimum that any weapon owner should accept as a problem in my opinion.

With saying this, I also believe that we shouldn't forget that we're talking about a hobby here. The thing is, I would even enjoy owning a weapon and shooting it on a range. And one of the weapons I would love to own would be a G3 or Fn Fal, but I understand that owning fully automatic rifles is simply not possible in Germany, and that for very good reasons in my opinion. But you can own bolt action rifles and certain rifles for the civilian market, I think like the HK8 a civilian version of the G36.
 
Last edited:
Operation Wignut said:
I can't access the last page (10) and the site is sending 500s to me but I'll agree that that seems more reasonable.
Click to expand...
Total mass shooting deaths in US so far: 244

Considering we're only halfway through the year, we're on track to beat last year's 332.

But the site only has the past 2 years up, so it's not really useful. I can't argue against an unknown number of deaths, and I don't want to count all confirmed cases under those specific criteria just to refute that number. If you want to, get back to me, but unless you just have that number on hand, my point still stands that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars killed more people than mass shooters from 1966 to 2016.

Even though the comparison itself revolts every inch of my brain dedicated to rational thinking, in the first place. It's like comparing the gun crime of Chicago to the US.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Depends on the constitution, I am not arguing that you don't have a point, I too believe that the measures we take should always be in relation to the case we're talking about. But if I take Germany as example, there is nothing in our constitution that says that weapons have to be a right - and I would argue, they are perceived by the public in Germany more as a privilige anyway. No clue how it is with the rest of Europe, but I am not aware that there would be many constitutions that explicitly mention that weapons can't be banned. Albeit, I think most people would feel very uneasy with that thought. I definetly would, as I feel that banning weapons completely because of mass shootings or crimes etc. is pretty much the most stupid thing a state could do. It would have a similar appeal, like banning video games completely to protect children or for some other silly reason, even though it doesn't solve the problem in the slightest. FOr some reason, you will have always certain groups that target some medium or object for like ALL of the problems, rape comes from porn, violence from video games (in the 90s it was TV ...), and of course mass shootings come from weapons or video games or weapons in video games, or video games in weapons ... you get the picture.

But I am very glad that we have in Germany and I think most of Europe a very responsible and level headed gun culture and most of our weapon-fanatics seem to be more on the reasonable side of the spectrum. I don't know ANY weapon owner who would feel comfortable with 5 or 6 year olds shooting automatic weapons, or any weapon at all, on a gun range, be it with or without supervision. This, kidz-with-weapons should be really the bare minimum that any weapon owner should accept as a problem in my opinion.

With saying this, I also believe that we shouldn't forget that we're talking about a hobby here. The thing is, I would even enjoy owning a weapon and shooting it on a range. And one of the weapons I would love to own would be a G3 or Fn Fal, but I understand that owning fully automatic rifles is simply not possible in Germany, and that for very good reasons in my opinion. But you can own bolt action rifles and certain rifles for the civilian market, I think like the HK8 a civilian version of the G36.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think it's necessarily okay to dictate to other people what type of laws they should have without knowing the way their society views guns first. I think it's more acceptable to have discussions about US gun laws because it's pretty apparent how we feel about guns, but even then, unless you've lived here, you're looking in as an outsider. I don't think there's any set of laws we can reach that would be accepted in EVERY country. You seem like you like your gun laws, and that's fine. More power to you. But those guns laws wouldn't really work here.

You have to consider that your idea of what guns should and shouldn't be used, and how, are completely irrelevant when you apply it to the whole of the United States of America, all 316 million people in 50 sequestered areas. That's why we have federal, state and local laws for guns. There are so many varied opinions that if you think guns should be tightly regulated, all you have to do is move a couple counties, and same thing for the other opinion. You come from a VERY DIFFERENT place, and so you probably don't really get that. But it's still a very real thing.

Just like how I don't really get your opinions and laws.
 
Operation Wignut said:
There are so many varied opinions that if you think guns should be tightly regulated, all you have to do is move a couple counties, and same thing for the other opinion. You come from a VERY DIFFERENT place, and so you probably don't really get that. But it's still a very real thing.
Click to expand...
Except that countries in Europe are situated somewhat like our connected states, each with their own local laws; a few "counties" away from Germany could be Austria, Poland, or France.
 
Gizmojunk said:
Except that countries in Europe are situated somewhat like our connected states, each with their own local laws; a few "counties" away from Germany could be Austria, Poland, or France.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, there's only Switzerland and the Czech Republic that don't require licenses for certain arms. Everywhere else requires licenses. Versus the US, where states don't require you to have a permit in order to buy a gun, open carry that gun, or shoot that gun, versus other states where they require you to have a license to buy a gun, at a may-issue basis, and where you can't carry it openly or concealed. We have some very lax gun laws here, but we also have some very strict ones. Not to mention the difference in travelling between countries vs. states. (I should've said states, sorry.)
 
Operation Wignut said:
I can't access the last page (10) and the site is sending 500s to me but I'll agree that that seems more reasonable.
Click to expand...

I can access it alright. Might be that the site is very busy.

As for you wanting to use the more higher death tally - figure for mass shooting definition, go ahead. Other people will use other definitions. Also, definitions change with the times, back in the, say, early 80's gun violence wasn't much of a problem. Then there was a massive rise in gun violence in the early to mid nineties. Since then even Americans have started to get worried about gun violence.

There's a lot of 'under the radar' policing and community programs going on that target gun violence that you probably don't know about. So a lot of money is already being poured into fighting gun violence in the US. All the gun critics are asking is that legislative changes would also be on the table.
 
MutantScalper said:
There's a lot of 'under the radar' policing and community programs going on that target gun violence that you probably don't know about. So a lot of money is already being poured into fighting gun violence in the US. All the gun critics are asking is that legislative changes would also be on the table.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for any other states, but I've participated in area action programs around some of the barrios in Southern California which aim to teach and prevent children from using guns, among other things, like dealing drugs. I'm obviously against gun violence. I don't think there's a single person in this thread who's FOR gun violence. I have educated children and teens on the very real dangers of using guns, and being in a lifestyle that promotes gun violence.

A lot of kids die because they have no other option than to deal drugs or gangbang, and they get in the wrong place at the wrong time. But a lot of guns that the gangs use are already illegal (like "choppers"), and the people that use them don't have any permits. Area action programs like the ones I've participated in are community funded and managed within communities. I've seen the real effects of these programs, and I believe they're the best idea. I don't necessarily think federal legislation does much. We have a problem with crazy people with guns in this country, but legislation won't help people get better mental health. We have a problem with gun crime in this country, but legislation won't help the lack of choice in lifestyle that these people that commit the crimes are forced into. Community programs WILL. This is a much larger problem than guns. Guns are just more efficient than knives.

We need to fight for people that have no other choice but to throw their lives away on the streets. People that are forced into desperate action because they're poor. We need to fight for people that are mentally unstable. We've had this discussion for decades but we still haven't DONE anything. We should be looking at legislation that helps these people, not legislation that blankly restricts EVERYONE'S rights. It's a simple solution to a complex problem, and just look to Afghanistan to see how that works out.
 
Well all you have to do is look at which party is the one that's in favour of helping poor communities, wants to put more money into public health care, etc. and then vote accordingly. Hint: it isn't the GOP.

To keep the legislation off the table is like fighting a boxing match with one hand tied behind the back.
 
MutantScalper said:
Well all you have to do is look at which party is the one that's in favour of helping poor communities, wants to put more money into public health care, etc. and then vote accordingly. Hint: it isn't the GOP.
Click to expand...

And yet the last 8 years a Democrat has been President. It's not any worse between both parties, it's just the same. If you mean you want the legislative, judicial and executive branches to be run by one party, then all I can say is that's too dangerous to consider in a republic democracy of this caliber.

To keep the legislation off the table is like fighting a boxing match with one hand tied behind the back.
Click to expand...
No. Absolutely not. You want to fight gun crime and mass shootings. That's fine, I do too. Go after the actual causes of these things. Mental health, education, assisting poor communities. Blanketing legislation that restricts the rights of everyone is like cutting an arm off because you have a few warts on it. Address the actual problem.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Depends on the constitution, I am not arguing that you don't have a point, I too believe that the measures we take should always be in relation to the case we're talking about. But if I take Germany as example, there is nothing in our constitution that says that weapons have to be a right - and I would argue, they are perceived by the public in Germany more as a privilige anyway. No clue how it is with the rest of Europe, but I am not aware that there would be many constitutions that explicitly mention that weapons can't be banned.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between saying something is a right and defending subgroups from being unduly targetted. That's what the Council of State / Conseil d'Etat tends to protect in most European countries. Even if something isn't a right, you still have to argue why you're taking away something.
That said, that doesn't prevent you from banning anything if you're careful with your given reason for doing so.

Crni Vuk said:
And one of the weapons I would love to own would be a G3 or Fn Fal, but I understand that owning fully automatic rifles is simply not possible in Germany, and that for very good reasons in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Newsflash friend: Those weapons are legal in semi automatic version in Germany. Obviously, you need a permit, but they're not banned.
They are banned from use for hunting though, I believe.
 
Operation Wignut said:
And yet the last 8 years a Democrat has been President. It's not any worse between both parties, it's just the same. If you mean you want the legislative, judicial and executive branches to be run by one party, then all I can say is that's too dangerous to consider in a republic democracy of this caliber.

No. Absolutely not. You want to fight gun crime and mass shootings. That's fine, I do too. Go after the actual causes of these things. Mental health, education, assisting poor communities. Blanketing legislation that restricts the rights of everyone is like cutting an arm off because you have a few warts on it. Address the actual problem.
Click to expand...

You saying both GOP and Democrats equally present and veto laws that would put more money into poor areas, public health care, etc.? How about some proof of that.

If GOP would stop killing public health care bills then maybe something could be done. And NRA would stop successfully opposing things like researching gun violence in USA. Etc.

Seems to me that poverty, mental health, education, assisting poor communities are more ways for you talk abou the price of cheese. Obfuscation, the last refuge of gun nuts.

How about finally talking a little about what this thread is about, gun control.
 
Edit: In the heat of the moment, I posted something rash and stupid. Inoffensive, but nonetheless rash and stupid. I will not be partaking in this discussion for a time. Ignore this post in the context of debate.
 
Last edited:
SuAside said:
There's a difference between saying something is a right and defending subgroups from being unduly targetted. That's what the Council of State / Conseil d'Etat tends to protect in most European countries. Even if something isn't a right, you still have to argue why you're taking away something.
That said, that doesn't prevent you from banning anything if you're careful with your given reason for doing so.
Click to expand...
The thing is, that as far as I know, in Germany bearing weapons isn't a right, but a privilege. I am not saying this has to be the mindset that should be adopted everywhere, but I personaly like this mindset a lot as far as Germany goes.


SuAside said:
Newsflash friend: Those weapons are legal in semi automatic version in Germany. Obviously, you need a permit, but they're not banned.
They are banned from use for hunting though, I believe.
Click to expand...
Semiautomatic is for pussies, I would want them to be full auto :P.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Semiautomatic is for pussies, I would want them to be full auto :P.
Click to expand...
Well, for an untrained shooter like yourself with a full auto G3 or FAL, that's first shot on target, second overhead, third anti-aircraft artillery. *brrrrrrrrrt*
 
SuAside said:
Well, for an untrained shooter like yourself with a full auto G3 or FAL, that's first shot on target, second overhead, third anti-aircraft artillery. *brrrrrrrrrt*
Click to expand...

Nah, Crni Vuk would be all steady hand and ish, shooting up Bethesda's CPU room. One hand - wielding an M-60.



Actually that's me when I put ketchup on my french fries. What can I say, I like ketchup. Gets me some strange looks at the restarant.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top