Gun Control

Which is why very few people want to ban guns.

Most gun control advocates just want tighter controls on guns so that it's more difficult to obtain them, but believe legitimate means can be taken if you genuinely need one.
You may believe that and you may even be right in this very moment, but overall and in the long run, that turns out to be a lie.

What happens are gradual restrictions slowly choking gun owners. The evolution is quite simple, and has been the same across the vast majority of european countries:
You first have rather permissive gun laws in place. My country for instance allowed legal carry of handguns on your person with extremely little restriction up to the second world war. They were mostly used against wild dogs, not other people.
But then we started tightening those gun laws by making various arguments like "suppressors are only used by poachers and assassins". OK, so we ban those.
Since "our society has fairly little violence, concealed carry of guns is almost never legitimately needed". OK, so we restrict concealed carry to judges, politicians and the absurdly rich.
"Outdoor gun ranges are a fucking nuisance. They're so loud and it's only a tiny minority of people that actually do sportshooting." Surely, that has to be resolved (it's a shame there's not a thing that could suppress this noise, right?). OK, so let's tighten environmental rules on outdoor gun ranges.

And what do you end with? You end up with a population that only knows guns from what they see in Hollywood movies and on the news. And these gullible and uninterested people are then led on by politicians that want to score easy wins. This leads to awesome knee jerk reactions like this example:
FN Herstal releases the FN P90. It is a personal defense weapon meant for vehicle crews that don't need or want full sized rifles. To pass NATO PDW qualification it has to (among other things) penetrate 20 layers of kevlar and a titanium plate at 200 meters. FN-H publishes a press release for this.
What does the press write? "FN-H has released a new super handheld weapon which is capable of piercing 20 bulletproof vests". Everyone reading that shits bricks. Politicians go into full retard mode and pass a law to ban the new 5.7x28 cartridge by name. Now, they can say that they have protected the civilians and the cops from this EVIL COP KILLER BULLET.
Except of course, that over two thirds of my legally owned firearms are WAY MORE POWERFUL than the fucking 5.7x28. There is literally no reason to ban this cartridge. It's not in any way more dangerous than what was already on the market. It was just a different load out. A simple AR15 is significantly more powerful.

Anyhow, what I'm trying to say is that the incremental bans almost never appear to be significant. Often they even make sense. Personally, if I were american, I wouldn't give a rats ass about someone trying to ban bumpfire/slidefire stocks. They are retarded toys that merely exist due to the wording used in american gun laws. They have no real legitimate purpose. But at the same time, it's one more step towards an extinguishing of the liberties of the american people.
It is EXTREMELY rare to see those rights being given back after they have once been taken, so it really should not be any surprise that people fight it tooth & nail. It is extremely naive to think that politicians and the antigun lobby will simply stop at "reasonable gun control". They will continue until no gun is left.
 
Yeah, thx god for that. Could you imagine stuff like Las Veags or Texas Church massacre in Germany? No thx.

Maybe I don't have the 'freedom' of owning a gun just for fun. But the other side is that there are a hell of a lot less weapons in circulation, which means you're not likely to run into a hobo with a shot-gun or mal-cop ninja trying to save the day dirty harry style. And considering the fact that I am working at a school where they sell drugs (13 year olds imagine that ...) and my work involves working with a lot of troubled teenagers, I am very thankfull of the low number of guns.

It's also interesting to look at who's fighting tooth & nail, since as far as I know the majority of americans actually are for tighter restrictions. Some polls say up to 70%. Do we really want lunatics and fetishists dictating legislation here? I mean even you agree that bump stocks should be banned. For gods sake, they can not even agree on that though ... Bump stocks today! All my weapons tomorrow!
 
Yeah, thx god for that. Could you imagine stuff like Las Veags or Texas Church massacre in Germany? No thx.

Maybe I don't have the 'freedom' of owning a gun just for fun. But the other side is that there are a hell of a lot less weapons in circulation, which means you're not likely to run into a hobo with a shot-gun or mal-cop ninja trying to save the day dirty harry style. And considering the fact that I am working at a school where they sell drugs (13 year olds imagine that ...) and my work involves working with a lot of troubled teenagers, I am very thankfull of the low number of guns.

It's also interesting to look at who's fighting tooth & nail, since as far as I know the majority of americans actually are for tighter restrictions. Some polls say up to 70%. Do we really want lunatics and fetishists dictating legislation here? I mean even you agree that bump stocks should be banned. For gods sake, they can not even agree on that though ... Bump stocks today! All my weapons tomorrow!

Crni although most Americans are for tighter restrictions, they are also for the 2nd amendment. Its a fine line they want and like I said earlier its all in the wording of the laws, the bump-stock law was very broadly worded and with something like that it could be used to ban more then bump-stocks. I think it was worded with no modifications to be able to increase the rate of fire. Seems fine to the uneducated as it would cover bump-stocks, but what about reducing the trigger pull? This would be a modification that could increase the rate of fire but not simulate full-auto fire. Ours in Canada states that no modification of the firearm that would cause more than one bullet to be fired per trigger pull. Yeah it eliminate binary trigger systems as they fire on pull and release, but we can still modify the trigger for smoother and easier action.
 
Maybe I don't have the 'freedom' of owning a gun just for fun. But the other side is that there are a hell of a lot less weapons in circulation, which means you're not likely to run into a hobo with a shot-gun or mal-cop ninja trying to save the day dirty harry style.
You'll find that "malcop ninja's" accidentally hurting people in self-defense is actually extremely rare.

And considering the fact that I am working at a school where they sell drugs (13 year olds imagine that ...) and my work involves working with a lot of troubled teenagers, I am very thankfull of the low number of guns.
You seem to be quite oblivious of how the crumbling of the soviet union and the balkan wars have literally flooded the central european states with assault rifles and handguns. For someone with nefarious intent, it's really not hard to get a gun.

It's also interesting to look at who's fighting tooth & nail, since as far as I know the majority of americans actually are for tighter restrictions. Some polls say up to 70%.
The same polls that said that there was no chance of Brexit or no chance that Hillary could lose, right?
Be careful, mainstream media is far from being a credible impartial source...

Do we really want lunatics and fetishists dictating legislation here?
Why do you even post in this thread if you believe we are lunatics and fetishists?

I mean even you agree that bump stocks should be banned. For gods sake, they can not even agree on that though ... Bump stocks today! All my weapons tomorrow!
For rather obvious reasons...
 
Why do you even post in this thread if you believe we are lunatics and fetishists?
I see you as a fetishist not as a lunatic though.

You seem to be quite oblivious of how the crumbling of the soviet union and the balkan wars have literally flooded the central european states with assault rifles and handguns. For someone with nefarious intent, it's really not hard to get a gun.
Proof?

Germany is I think relatively free from assault rifles.

For rather obvious reasons...

Proof? You're under the impression that ALL guns will be removed, which is as far as I know not the case with stricter gun laws, which while making it more difficult, doesn't remove the option to get weapons entirely. Again, Germany has rather strict laws, and it's not impossible to get them.

Yes, stricter gun laws will mean that some people will loose their weapons, if you had very few laws before. Just as how an alcoholic who's driving while drunk will loose his driving licence if you make a new law that prophibits driving while drunk.

That's what I would expect to happen, otherwise stricter gun regulations make no sense if everyone can get them easily.
 
Yes, it is possible to obtain assault rifles in Germany, too. Not legally, of course, but it's possible. Those intending to go on a killing spree or preparing to overthrow the government or whatever are not really all that smart, though, so it doesn't happen all that much.
So the strict gun laws do kinda work. I guess the last big killing spree we had in Munich last year could have been much worse if the guy had more than just a pistol. The guy did go the obvious way and bought the gun on the Darknet, and it was a re-armed theater gun from Slovakia, so SuAside is entirely right that this is where illegal guns come from.
 
Which isn't what I doubt, I just doubt that the black market is flodded with assault rifles, he makes it sound like all you had to do was going to the next candy store and aks for an Soviet made AK47. While I am sure that you CAN get those, it definetly doesn't come cheap, yes both the Soviets and the Balkan Wars had a huge pille of weapons left, but most of those, I assume (citation needed!) probably ended up in some other conflict, rather then being sold on some black market, waiting for some crazy idiot on a mission of totall destruction.
 
The shooter was dishonorable discharged from the military, and if I am not mistaken (maybe an American can correct if wrong) that carries the same weight as a federal crime and he should have been prevented from owning firearms.
Well it prevents him from legally owning firearms....in theory.
 
Last edited:
Not my politicians as I am not American, I have stated this to you before. Also the NRA is not a corporation but a civilian advocacy group and is a normal part of a democracy, and is there to make sure legal law abiding gun owners do not get trampled on by an over bearing or un-informed government. And I am sure there are similar groups in Europe.

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-gun-lobby-mobilizing-against-new-firearms-guns-weapons-rules/

Your from Finland right? Seems like they have a high gun-ownership and is very similar to my Country of Canada for gun control. It also appears that you have had a few mass-shootings as well, both with .22 rim fire handguns. It looks like your country did not ban handguns afterwards and it looks like I could own an AR-15 there as it would be under the classification of Self-Loading single shot rifle I would just need a 16" barrel. No magazine limits, suppressors are allowed and un-regulated, and no firearms accessories are banned. Hmmm seems like I may even be able to own a bump-stock there.

We had two big shootings and the process to get a gun was made much more difficult after those. After 2008 no shootings as big so it seems to have worked.
 
Well it prevents him from legally owning firearms....in theory.

In theory communism works. Sorry shameless Simpsons plug there

We had two big shootings and the process to get a gun was made much more difficult after those. After 2008 no shootings as big so it seems to have worked.

Causation does not equal correlation. Why did those shootings happen in the first place? Where other factors beyond gun control implemented? If so, may they have had a bigger effect then gun control? These are the question legal gun owners ask, not well they did more gun control so it must work, I am not saying it didn't but to imply that something worked there would work somewhere else just the same. Also you (referring to the royal you as Finn's) did not out right ban said .22 rimfire handguns (I mean its a .22 I can fully understand why) but what was brought in and compare that to how it would have stopped something in the first place.

I have brought up in this thread how no amount of reasonable gun control could really have stopped Mr. Las Vegas shooter, as he passed the required screens that most country's use, criminal record checks, family checks, mental health checks. Mr. Texas shooting scum bag did not pass them and still did a mass shooting. You cannot stop everything bad from happening. Even in countries with high gun ownership, countries that allow carrying of firearms, this stuff does not happen to this amount. Something is different with the US besides just saying its because of the guns.
 
Last edited:
Well it prevents him from legally owning firearms....in theory.
Australia implemented strict gun laws too. Shootings decreased.

Once again causation does not equal correlation. Having a sample size of 1 mass shooting makes it impossible to say it works. Why did not having that in place for however many years before mean it was not working when there was no mass shootings?
 
Ah, I see, so everything positive can be attributed to guns since it is such a great equalizer right? But a policiy that might have decreased gun shootings doesn't matter due to "small sample" size. I don't think it works that way by the way, since we're talking about large incidents here and pretty high numbers. Just because there are still mass shootings even in Germany, doesn't mean more strict gun restrictions doesn't prevent some of them. Otherwise you could also get rid of laws against murder, since yeah ... they still happen, don't they? That's a faulty logic.

I mean it is kinda simple though, what ever if you see owning guns as right or not, but the lower the number of weapons are, the smaller is the number of homicides involving guns. That's kinda simple logic really. I never made the claim, that stricter gun laws would prevent ALL crime or mass shootings.

Also, almost all western democracies with rather strict gun laws have much less crimes involving guns compared to the US. Now I am NOT(!) saying that this is only due to strict gun laws, but saying it has zero effect would be absolutely false.
 
Ah, I see, so everything positive can be attributed to guns since it is such a great equalizer right? But a policiy that might have decreased gun shootings doesn't matter due to "small sample" size. I don't think it works that way by the way, since we're talking about large incidents here and pretty high numbers. Just because there are still mass shootings even in Germany, doesn't mean more strict gun restrictions doesn't prevent some of them. Otherwise you could also get rid of laws against murder, since yeah ... they still happen, don't they? That's a faulty logic.

I mean it is kinda simple though, what ever if you see owning guns as right or not, but the lower the number of weapons are, the smaller is the number of homicides involving guns. That's kinda simple logic really. I never made the claim, that stricter gun laws would prevent ALL crime or mass shootings.

Also, almost all western democracies with rather strict gun laws have much less crimes involving guns compared to the US. Now I am NOT(!) saying that this is only due to strict gun laws, but saying it has zero effect would be absolutely false.

I have not said that gun control has no effect. I am just saying it is only 1 factor and may not be the biggest factor. Most of the western democracies tend to have more social support themn the US has, could this not be an underlying factor? They standard of happiness is generally higher too. The cultures are different the demographics are different. Alot of pointimg has been done that guun control is what is different when there are many more vast differences between germans, australians, british, finnish, and americans. Nobody brings up that the czech republic does not have the amount of mass shootings and in the end has somewhat similar gun laws to the states. Canada has stricter gun laws then the states and yet mass shootings happen.

To attribute that gun control is the main factor that effects these is a false premise. Its a topic that has far more underlying issues as to why this happens in the US.
 
Why do you even post in this thread if you believe we are lunatics and fetishists?

Oh I don't know, maybe he feels bad about the tens of thousands of victims of gun violence in US every year and would like to bring that number down?

Something is different with the US besides just saying its because of the guns.

You mean something 'magical' is different with the US and thus the same rules that apply in Europe can't apply there?
 
Last edited:
And I appreciate it.

By calling people names? If only every time I called somebody a stupid cunt a small African child would get a free happy meal.

What? Yea you're big on ad hominem's, I've noticed. How very lofty and grand of you to defend the gun deaths in US with insults.
 
What? Yea you're big on ad hominem's I've noticed.
Que? I haven't insulted anybody, I let them do it to themselves.
How very lofty and grand of you to defend the gun deaths in US with insults.
I take it you are reading TheGM from dimension 632 posts; He's always been a bit of a rascal. while here on Earth 7, I just pointed out how silly the idea of lowering the bodycount with the use of insults, in a benign and playful manner.
 
Once again causation does not equal correlation. Having a sample size of 1 mass shooting makes it impossible to say it works. Why did not having that in place for however many years before mean it was not working when there was no mass shootings?
It's wasn't only one though.
In the 18 years before Port Arthur, Australia witnessed 13 mass shootings, defined as shootings in which five or more people were killed. In the 21 years since, there have been none.
13 mass shootings in 18 years before that mass shooting that made the government change it's gun laws.
 
It's wasn't only one though.

13 mass shootings in 18 years before that mass shooting that made the government change it's gun laws.
In the 18 years before Port Arthur, Australia witnessed 13 mass shootings, defined as shootings in which five or more people were killed. In the 21 years since, there have been none.[/quote
Quick google search just proved that to be incorrect. Might not have had any as high port arthur but the still have had them.
 
Back
Top