well they've already passed it in australia... so I would do nothing.

But... if I was an american and if I did own a gun I would give it up

Korolev:
If I were a gun owner, I would give them up when told to, and then do what I could to convince others to vote for pro-gun politicians to repeal the laws. America is a democracy. You might laugh at that claim, but it is, and the people ultimately decide the laws. If enough Americans care about gun-rights, then eventually you'll elect politicians who will allow Americans to have guns. If enough Americans, however, don't care about gun rights and want gun control, then you'll just have to deal with that and accept that you and your opinions are in the minority.

Resorting to violence, when you have democratic means to voice your opinion, is the act of a barbarian. You have a vote - use it instead of a gun. And if you and your group have fewer votes than your citizens, then try to change their minds through debate. And if you can't do that, well, accept your fate.

This makes a lot of sense. I'm not an American, but regardless if a law was passed in a democratic society I would still abide by it, whether I agree with it or not. For example I hate the really high taxes here in the UK but I would never resist paying them as I understand the reason why those laws are in place, and if most people agree they should be there then I would accept it.

Reading through this thread it genuinely scares me how hostile some peoples feelings are that this change in law may come to pass. The only way I can empathise is to imagine if in the UK a law was passed that made guns legal, and encouraged people to buy them. I would be scared for my safety. Especially given the area I live in in London already has a high crime rate.

I originally believed safety concerns to be the only reason why people would want to keep their guns; sadly this doesn't seem to be the case.

Strazdas:

i saw a report on an incident yesterday where the military was doing some sort of containment and two cars full of men armed with their "hunting guns" decided to breact it and started shooting at the military. the reaction was "are they fucking seriuos? they think they can do anything like that?" and the folks were gunned down with ease with no military deaths. military can take the civilians 1:100 and those 10.000 people will be reduced to 0 very fast. Then again your whole premise is based on a fact that america would revolt by everyone grabing a gun and going to shoot "teh evul government" when that would NEVER happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

You were saying?

Anyway, suicide fighters do not equal american citizens, much less US home bases do not equal combat bases and FOBs in the field. But while we're talking about hunting rifles, many that a US Citizen can legal purchase can defeat any known body armor. (Remington 700 being one) You know who make the best shots in the US Military? Farm and Hunting boys from rural america. You know who has the most weapons per household in the US? Rural America.

TornadoADV:

Anyway, suicide fighters do not equal american citizens, much less US home bases do not equal combat bases and FOBs in the field. But while we're talking about hunting rifles, many that a US Citizen can legal purchase can defeat any known body armor. (Remington 700 being one) You know who make the best shots in the US Military? Farm and Hunting boys from rural america. You know who has the most weapons per household in the US? Rural America.

This again sounds like...

"What do we want!? A rebellion! When do we want it!? THE FUCK IF I KNOW!

Yes, I get it, you people don't want to give your government a chance to go dictatorship on you, because you're a country with a democratic tradition. I will not argue against that, I wouldn't want my government to go dictatorship on me.

But our government, that fucked things up and the main party thereof is trying to cling to power harder than a drunk man clings to a fence, going as far as to officially label people protesting against it as "zombies employed by the communist boogeymen" (not in those exact words, of course, but "zombies" was in their official response), is scheduled to fall within the month (I hope, most coalition partners have abandoned ship), and nobody had to shoot up the place to get this far.

There are many checkpoints on the way of a democratic government becoming a dictatorship. If you ignore and walk past all those checkpoints, then, as a peaople, you do not deserve democracy. I'm sorry if that sounds crass, but that's the way I see things.

A democratic nation has so many failsafes to keep a government accountable for their action, elections only being one of such mechanisms, that if you actually do sit comfortably in your armchair and have no idea how your government suddenly turned tyrannical, you are at fault for that, as a people.

TornadoADV:
Because Peaceful Protest is SO effective at fighting government oppression

Yeah, it is. Armed insurrections lead to armed responses, which leads to a lot of people dying and nothing of value being achieved.

Remember the Soviet Union? It dissolved because of the will of the people and peaceful unions within the citizenry, not armed rebellion. For all the attempts the Soviets made to make the Berlin Wall impassable, it ultimately failed, and not because someone attacked the guards - but because the guards were part of the people who didn't want to keep the conflict going.

As a general rule, peacefully imposed government changes are more effective by far than any kind of armed insurrection, violent coup or civil war.

GunsmithKitten:
1: The police can legally sit by and watch you die while they sip coffee

That's why I need an equalizer, sunshine.

Then change that. You live in a democracy - you can meet with government reps and present petitions that the people can vote for, and bring about genuine and meaningful change.

According to you, your safety depends entirely on a murder weapon, not the laws of civilization, the love of your fellow people or the grace of god - that's a very, very bad thing. But you're the only one to blame for making that your only recourse when there's better alternatives out there.

Maybe you're not delusional. Maybe there are "predators" who want to come in the night and rape-murder you. Why don't you help prevent these people from hurting anyone, rather than hope you'll have the prescence of mind to get a gun and defend yourself if they bust in your window?

Make the difference - firearms aren't a solution, just a symptom of the problem.

Fuzzed:

TornadoADV:

You don't understand how to fight an asymmetrical war, that's your own fault. Why don't you bother reading up on such things? Being a USAF veteran, I can tell you that AFBs are some of the most easily breached bases in the world. A civil war in the US would see the majority of military bases overun by armed civilians considering almost all of them are near or surrounded by cities of at least 10,000 people. The only safe place the US Military could operate from would be MEUs and CSGs, everything else would be crawling with rather upset american citizens.

Oh my God....How have I slipped through life till this point without learning how to fight an asymmetrical war properly? I need to hit the books! Forget about what Pynchon and Faulkner were talking about, give me Asymmetrical War for Dummies now!

Urban Combat

Here you go.

HellbirdIV:

Yeah, it is. Armed insurrections lead to armed responses, which leads to a lot of people dying and nothing of value being achieved.

Remember the Soviet Union? It dissolved because of the will of the people and peaceful unions within the citizenry, not armed rebellion. For all the attempts the Soviets made to make the Berlin Wall impassable, it ultimately failed, and not because someone attacked the guards - but because the guards were part of the people who didn't want to keep the conflict going.

As a general rule, peacefully imposed government changes are more effective by far than any kind of armed insurrection, violent coup or civil war.

Yeah, let's completely forget who was putting the pressure on the USSR to become unstable...oh, a little country named the United States of America. Which forced the USSR into an arms race it simply could not afford anymore to the point of utter collapse. Things don't happen in a vacuum.

HellbirdIV:

Then change that. You live in a democracy - you can meet with government reps and present petitions that the people can vote for, and bring about genuine and meaningful change.

But...but...but waving a gun around is so easy while political campaigning in the name of a change for the better actually takes effort!

According to you, your safety depends entirely on a murder weapon, not the laws of civilization, the love of your fellow people or the grace of god - that's a very, very bad thing. But you're the only one to blame for making that your only recourse when there's better alternatives out there.

Oh come on. Did you not know that the government consists not of officials elected of the people, by the people and for the people, but rather of soul-drinkers from the 6th dimension? The government is an entity from out of this world that the people have no hopes of changing and must therefore go all Bruce-Willis-Die-Hard on it.

Maybe you're not delusional. Maybe there are "predators" who want to come in the night and rape-murder you. Why don't you help prevent these people from hurting anyone, rather than hope you'll have the prescence of mind to get a gun and defend yourself if they bust in your window?

But criminals don't respect laws!

Make the difference - firearms aren't a solution, just a symptom of the problem.

But that takes effort!

Vegosiux:

HellbirdIV:

Then change that. You live in a democracy - you can meet with government reps and present petitions that the people can vote for, and bring about genuine and meaningful change.

But...but...but waving a gun around is so easy while political campaigning in the name of a change for the better actually takes effort!

Can you remember a time before attack ads 24/7? Because I sure as hell can't!

As for the rest of your post, let's be grown up about this, eh?

HellbirdIV:

According to you, your safety depends entirely on a murder weapon, not the laws of civilization, the love of your fellow people or the grace of god - that's a very, very bad thing. But you're the only one to blame for making that your only recourse when there's better alternatives out there.

That's why all crime stopped as soon as the Code of Hammurabi was introduced in Babylon, right?

TornadoADV:

That's why all crime stopped as soon as the Code of Hammurabi was introduced in Babylon, right?

Well, okay, let's abolish the criminal law altogether then. I mean, criminals don't care about it, so why do we bother? It's such a waste.

See, I tried to be "grown-up" about this, but...when people come out with such arguments, I simply can't stay that way.

In other words, the nirvana fallacy. Arguing against a solution that's imperfect. That's a wrong assumption that thigns are binary, that you either solve the problem entirely or that you don't solve it at all, and that any solution that doesn't solve problem entirely is inadequate.

I say, any solution that solves more than nothing is better than a solution that solves exactly nothing; even if it does not solve everything. And every solution that solves more than the current solution is better than the current solution, too.

Vegosiux:

TornadoADV:

That's why all crime stopped as soon as the Code of Hammurabi was introduced in Babylon, right?

Well, okay, let's abolish the criminal law altogether then. I mean, criminals don't care about it, so why do we bother? It's such a waste.

See, I tried to be "grown-up" about this, but...when people come out with such arguments, I simply can't stay that way.

In other words, the nirvana fallacy. Arguing against a solution that's imperfect. That's a wrong assumption that thigns are binary, that you either solve the problem entirely or that you don't solve it at all, and that any solution that doesn't solve problem entirely is inadequate.

I say, any solution that solves more than nothing is better than a solution that solves exactly nothing; even if it does not solve everything. And every solution that solves more than the current solution is better than the current solution, too.

Nations, Peoples, Cultures are notoriously resistant to "one-size-fits-all" fixes. You need a proper cultural lens to even get to square one of the discussion, for if you lack that, just quit, just quit and go home. My point was that different people need different fixes and that assuming because one solution works for one group, means it works for everyone is a fool's gambit.

I don't mind required training and registration of weapons. What I DO mind is any effort to restrict the arms that I can legally purchase. If my weapon is used in a crime and I was complicent in some manner? I go to jail, as I should, but if I go to jail or have my weapon taken from me simply because I have it, that is what I AM NOT fine with.

TornadoADV:
Yeah, let's completely forget who was putting the pressure on the USSR to become unstable...oh, a little country named the United States of America.

The arms race actually contributed to Soviet stability. The fear of America - who threatened to enslave and murder them all in the name of capitalism - helped keep the oppressed population docile and obedient to the Party. Remember the fear of a Soviet World War III against the West, the whole reason why Mutually Assured Destruction had to exist?

Yeah, the Russians felt the exact same way about you, because as far as they understood Western capitalism, it meant that the Soviet Proletariat would be enslaved and abused by the Western Bourgeoisie, living in squalor and doing all of the work like a new great feudal world.

It was only through the glasnost reforms of Gorbachev that the Soviet peoples were finally able to see that, like themselves, the West consisted of perfectly ordinary people who didn't want a world war to enslave all the Workers. And from there, the Soviet Union began to dissolve.

Are you going to tell me that America "Won World War II" next? Because it seems you have a rather skewed worldview.

Korolev:
If I were a gun owner, I would give them up when told to, and then do what I could to convince others to vote for pro-gun politicians to repeal the laws.

...

If enough Americans care about gun-rights, then eventually you'll elect politicians who will allow Americans to have guns. If enough Americans, however, don't care about gun rights and want gun control, then you'll just have to deal with that and accept that you and your opinions are in the minority.

You! Stop that. This is the Internet. You are not allowed to be a balanced and sane individual and be pro-guns.

Go beat up an ethnic guy while wearing a baseball cap and a white sleeveless shirt, then come back here and spout some racist slurs like a proper 'Murrican patriot!

TornadoADV:

Nations, Peoples, Cultures are notoriously resistant to "one-size-fits-all" fixes. You need a proper cultural lens to even get to square one of the discussion, for if you lack that, just quit, just quit and go home. My point was that different people need different fixes and that assuming because one solution works for one group, means it works for everyone is a fool's gambit.

So, I suppose your comment about Hammurabi and his code is null and void since, as a modern day American, you likely don't have the proper lens to look at Babylon of 2 millennia BC?

I don't mind required training and registration of weapons. What I DO mind is any effort to restrict the arms that I can legally purchase.

Restrict =/= ban. Training and registration, that's a restriction. It says "No, unless..." as opposed to "Yes, unless..."

If my weapon is used in a crime and I was complicent in some manner? I go to jail, as I should, but if I go to jail or have my weapon taken from me simply because I have it, that is what I AM NOT fine with.

I'll repeat here, I am not in favor of a blanket ban. Just more rigorous scrutiny, which would likely result in some people being ineligible to own firearms. It's the same with cars. You know, the chaos on the streets is always the fault of "those idiots out there", I mean, I'm a good, responsible driver, and I'll never be willing to question that. Even when I break traffic laws, no, it's just those other drivers who mess up things.

HellbirdIV:

TornadoADV:
Yeah, let's completely forget who was putting the pressure on the USSR to become unstable...oh, a little country named the United States of America.

The arms race actually contributed to Soviet stability. The fear of America - who threatened to enslave and murder them all in the name of capitalism - helped keep the oppressed population docile and obedient to the Party. Remember the fear of a Soviet World War III against the West, the whole reason why Mutually Assured Destruction had to exist?

Yeah, the Russians felt the exact same way about you, because as far as they understood Western capitalism, it meant that the Soviet Proletariat would be enslaved and abused by the Western Bourgeoisie, living in squalor and doing all of the work like a new great feudal world.

It was only through the glasnost reforms of Gorbachev that the Soviet peoples were finally able to see that, like themselves, the West consisted of perfectly ordinary people who didn't want a world war to enslave all the Workers. And from there, the Soviet Union began to dissolve.

Are you going to tell me that America "Won World War II" next? Because it seems you have a rather skewed worldview.

That's why people did everything possible to escape into the West during the Cold War, because they believed the Soviet Propaganda...right? Why people risked life, limb and family to get across some line on a map? The US Arms Race was a long game, it was not meant to shatter the USSR in a stroke, the USSR simply ran out of money in the endgame to keep up with the US (retaining parity with the US is kinda vital to convincing propaganda that the USSR was able to defend itself against the big bad US) while still being able to take care of it's people.

SimpleThunda':
I'll make fun with other things.... Like Molotov's Cocktails. Let's see 'em ban petrol. Now that would be a sight.

I think they are doing that by rising petrol prices, quite expensive to go on a rampage using that, barely fuel my car as it is.

Vegosiux:

TornadoADV:

Nations, Peoples, Cultures are notoriously resistant to "one-size-fits-all" fixes. You need a proper cultural lens to even get to square one of the discussion, for if you lack that, just quit, just quit and go home. My point was that different people need different fixes and that assuming because one solution works for one group, means it works for everyone is a fool's gambit.

So, I suppose your comment about Hammurabi and his code is null and void since, as a modern day American, you likely don't have the proper lens to look at Babylon of 2 millennia BC?

I don't mind required training and registration of weapons. What I DO mind is any effort to restrict the arms that I can legally purchase.

Restrict =/= ban. Training and registration, that's a restriction. It says "No, unless..." as opposed to "Yes, unless..."

If my weapon is used in a crime and I was complicent in some manner? I go to jail, as I should, but if I go to jail or have my weapon taken from me simply because I have it, that is what I AM NOT fine with.

I'll repeat here, I am not in favor of a blanket ban. Just more rigorous scrutiny, which would likely result in some people being ineligible to own firearms. It's the same with cars. You know, the chaos on the streets is always the fault of "those idiots out there", I mean, I'm a good, responsible driver, and I'll never be willing to question that. Even when I break traffic laws, no, it's just those other drivers who mess up things.

My quote about Hammurabi was about the concept of Law, not the specific application of it. I make no claim of it's performance in Babylon.

For Restrict =/= Ban, yes, it actually means Restrict = Ban. Take a look at the most recent laws passed in New York, or the laws on the books for Chicago and Washington DC. Saying I can't have a Magazine of a capacity highter then 7 when my rifle cannot properly function with a Magazine smaller then 10 (because the catch won't engage) is just the same as saying I can't have the rifle at all.

As for the rest, I take responsibility for my actions, even if I don't get called on the carpet for it.

Well I'd imagine the law would actual prohibit the sale, or supply, of guns, and ownership of any guns bought illegally, so as to not retroactively apply the law to guns already owned. If the government tried to seize peoples property without recompense, I'm sure people on both sides (for and against this new hypothetical law) would be, rightfully, angry and resilient.

Concerning potential new gun law in the US, banning assault weapons, I expect it not to retroactively apply, due to logistical, legal and ethical quandaries posed by taking civilians property without reasonable cause. Rather, I believe the new law will regulate what is defined by legal ownership of these weapons by civilians, limiting what can be done with them, how they are allowed to me moved and kept, and make more concerted efforts to tracking these weapons (which is sort of done now).

If the government attempt to steal from me, I would resist their efforts. The kind of outrage this would elicit means I wouldn't be alone, and keeping me in prison for long would, I hope, prove untenable; with the numbers of new prisoners it would create. Any country that did it would swiftly redefine prison state (I'd hope; if most people rolled over and let it happen, I'd be very disappointed).

I wouldn't hurt anyone in the effort to protect my property however. I'd protect guns the same way I'd protect my books. If I wouldn't use the books as weapons, I wouldn't use the guns; the difference is semantic. I'd not let the government officials in, and refuse to allow them access to my belongings. If they broke in, I'd call the police. I'd not immediately tell them where the property is they want to seize, but if they started tearing the house apart, and I wasn't getting much help from the police officers, should they come, I'd probably cave. No point in having everything damaged.

I live in the UK and don't own any guns however. I have lots of books though.

TornadoADV:

As for the rest, I take responsibility for my actions, even if I don't get called on the carpet for it.

Ah, but there's the catch. Not saying this about you personally, but is it generally "even if I don't" or is it "until I do"?

All in all, taking responsibility for your actions is something I respect. What galls me are the people who want their rights (in this case, AMENDMENT II, FUCK YEA!) without any responsibility that comes with it (in this case, keeping guns out of reach of people who are not fit to use them, and not using guns destructively). Every right should carry a responsibility, and often people forget about that.

Need a gun because your land is infested by vermin? Go ahead. For hunting? Sure. Target shooting? Sure, just keep it locked up at the range if that's the only thing you need it for. To look badass and gangsta? Fuck no, I'm, not letting you have a gun just for that.

Just some responsibility, that's what "my" kind of "pro-control" people want.

"As soon as your prove YOU can keep them safer than I can. No, seriously. These guns have been in my house almost constantly, save for when we go hunting. You couldn't even keep track of weapons that you specifically put out there to track. Also, the people wanting to ban guns hire armed security. So you can go fuck yourselves."

And if they handcuffed me for that, I would proceed to make fun of them all the way to the precinct.

"Look, I'm into that stuff, but I'm afraid i'm not so much into threesomes."
"Did anyone ever tell you that you look like a- hey look! There's cocaine back here! ... Wait, nevermind. Just sugar in a bag."
"Can we hurry this up? The narrator in my head is being an asshole."

The argument that banning guns would not stop people from going on killing sprees is flawed. When was the last time someone killed over twenty people with a knife? Sooner or later, all these idiots crying 'Oppression' and blubbing about their Second Amendment crap are going to have to accept that, without guns being so openly available, these massacres would not have happened.

Wow. I had no idea that so many gamers, specifically the ones who have time to post thousands of times in a single year, are so tough. I wonder if it's the internet that makes them so tough. Yeah! Down with the establishment!

You fucking bullshitters.

Anyway, regarding the issue of the minority rising up, I think the minority (gun owners) don't realize that they are one. I've always lived in cities. I walk by more people in a week than the entire population of some counties. I don't think that the rebellion, especially at the behest of these internet tough guys, would cause a problem. I also think that, if you were to decide this issue by popular vote, it would be strongly one-sided against guns.

HalfTangible:
"As soon as your prove YOU can keep them safer than I can."

Who do you mean by "YOU"? Do you mean the government? What do you think they'd do with confiscated weapons? Just throw them in a dump somewhere?

PeterMerkin69:
Americans are too soft to go to war over a hobby, which is really all gun culture really amounts to these days. There'd be a handful of extremist holdouts in the deep south and maybe Michigan who'd take a few pot shots at the police, and maybe even successfully kill a two or three of them, but tough talk of rebellion would be quashed and within a few days life would return to normal.

Personally, I'd wait for the Supreme Court to overturn whatever decision allowed this to happen and reclaim my weapons or use the compensatory check to replenish my arsenal. Failing that, it's not like they're tracked accurately enough that I couldn't just hide one until the heat was off.

Thats where you are wrong. And judging by the way you reference it, you arent an American. No, we would not take it lightly if our constitution was usurped. And no, I wouldnt give up any of the firearms I own. Its not a HOBBY. Its a right, and we DO take it very seriously.

Riff Moonraker:
Thats where you are wrong. And judging by the way you reference it, you arent an American. No, we would not take it lightly if our constitution was usurped. And no, I wouldnt give up any of the firearms I own. Its not a HOBBY. Its a right, and we DO take it very seriously.

Your constitution or just Amendment II? Does something being a "right" absolve you of all the responsibility? See, if Amendment II got repealed that would legally mean guns are no longer a right...

GunsmithKitten:

Meet Mary Bell.

This lovable rugrat, at the age of 11, was a killer with multiple victims.

All she needed; scissors and rocks.

Interesting. I mean, that kind of goes against claiming that a frail woman can't possibly be anything other than a victim...

GunsmithKitten:

mrscott137:

I honestly don't see why any civilian would need a gun

1: The police can legally sit by and watch you die while they sip coffee
2: Even if the police did care, out where I live, it takes them nearly an hour at the best of times to respond to an emergency call (which by the way, they don't have to respond to).

That's why I need an equalizer, sunshine.

But the police sort of... don't? I don't know what things are like in America, but I know a few policemen, they're very good friends of mine, and they work themselves to death to make sure some bastard doesn't go killing people, and making sure they go to prison.
I don't know what to say to your police forces taking an hour to reach you, do you live somewhere rural or some such? And I'd have to refer back to point one about them responding, they do- I put a bit of trust in the police to do their job like anyone else would. (Also, I think guns aren't 'Equalizers' in your atypical situation unless you carry a pistol on your person at all times, you and 99.99% of the people i'm ever likely to talk to will be fine and responsible gun owners, but it only takes the 0.01% to pick up a rifle and shoot some poor sod who's only crime was being in the wrong place and time).

GunsmithKitten:

Her killings weren't done in self defense, however. She sought out her victims to kill them.

Oh, I realize that. What I mean is simply that you likely can't trust anyone, and if they're armed, you can trust them even less, no matter what they say about themselves.