americans only: are you in favor of gun control
some changes need to be made
32% (171)
32% (171)
vast changes need to be made
26.2% (140)
26.2% (140)
remove all guns excluding law enforcement
15% (80)
15% (80)
it's fine as is
15.1% (81)
15.1% (81)
we should be allowed to have any gun we want
11.4% (61)
11.4% (61)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: american only gun poll

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Keoul:
I am not American but I voted anyway BECAUSE I CAN
image

Gun control seems fine in america, the crime hate has been going down for years. People only care because of small, short violent outbreaks of crime like the massacres.

This, because it still irks me that gringos use the word american to describe themselves.

I figure we get three main groups

1. People who look at the whole thing calmly and argue either way
2. People who hate anything associated with violence.
3. People who think the government is out to get them.

Nieroshai:

lechat:
so i was watching a jon stewart bit today and the audience seemed universally in acceptance of gun control. i understand jon stewart attracts a certain viewer base but it got me to thinking. do we only hear from "the gun nuts"? is the only reason this is an issue because gun advocates are more vocal?

please do not answer the poll if you are not american

As for large, vocal minorities, statistics show it's Jon Stewart's audience, not gun owners, that's in the minority. BTW he's a comedy show that just happens to feature current events. That doesn't make him credible as a news anchor. There is no impartiality there, and anyone he dislikes is a target of ridicule without fair representation. I watch his show for laughs, but I go elsewhere to get my news.

He wasn't arguing Jon's credibility.
I don't even understand what a "credible news anchor" is. Do we even have these anymore? Other than one PBS?

We have enough laws. How about instead they enforce the ones already in place? Oh wait...that would make sense. Scratch that then.

Bhaalspawn:
Lately the big reason I support gun control is simply because of the number of paranoid lunatics who think that the US Government is some kind of tyranny waiting to happen. I'm no fan of the US, but they're not evil. These lunatics have no ground to stand on. They aren't going to spark some revolution. And even if they did...

image

This is what I've been thinking. If the US government did indeed decide to stage a war against its own people for whatever reason, they have hundreds of thousands of soldiers equipped with the latest in weapons technology and armor, much of which will never be commercially available, not to mention devices like tanks, UAVs, satellites, missiles, etc., plus an incredibly capable information-gathering network at all levels. Not to mention the troops have undergone military training specifically intended to enable them to kill other human beings. In short, even if there had never been restrictions on gun ownership in the US, the public still would not stand much of a chance should the government decide to stage a war against them. With that in mind, we might as well restrict gun ownership. An outright ban on guns is impossible and unnecessary, but as Obama put it, exercising your Second Amendment rights does not justify permanently taking away someone else's ability to exercise their First Amendment rights, and with that in mind, gun laws at the moment are too loose.

Subscriptism:
Removing all guns is not the answer, it works if there aren't vast amounts of guns already around but the US has nearly one per citizen that's 300,000,000. The black and secondary markets are a lot worse in America due to the land neighbour Mexico(compared to Australia and the UK who have no land connections and the Aussie border is tighter than an ant's arsehole) as well so taking away all guns will only disarm the law abiding citizens and have little to no impact on the criminals. However making high-capacity clips and assault rifles illegal and making very strict back ground checks is definitely the way to go.
They really need to clamp down on the secondary market (that is people buying legally and reselling/giving without the background check).

The magazine capacity will do nothing. Here's why: it doesn't take that long to reload if you've had practice and aren't an idiot about taking cover and having a secondary weapon if someone decides to be heroic. Say I had the equipment to machine weapons. It's not so far-fetched, many mechanics have similar equipment and many civilians already smith guns. Or I could just have myself and several friends buy up legal guns. Now let's say I want to go on a rampage with a duffel full of derringers. Do you see where I'm going? Two shots each, single action weapons. But I can pop them off quickly, discard when empty, and draw another from the sack slung from my shoulder. I could do the same with revolvers, but they'd be vastly harder to make and more conspicuous to buy more than two. It's no automatic weapon, but then you can't have those in America without a special license granted from law enforcement. A class-3 I think? My point is, skill determines the usefulness of a weapon. The Tuscon shooter was no marksman, and fumbled to reload his mag. Imagine if he was a Marines vet with PTSD? He'd have done the same damage with a revolver, a speed loader, and a third of the bullets.

We keep losing track here of a big point. Almost every single one of these mass murderers was on medication for mental illness. As the rate of medication for mental illness has increased, the number of mass shootings has increased. Guns and mags are a red herring.

I feel that we have the right to protect ourselves. In this day and age, it'd be stupid not too. That being said, I have no qualms about re-working or strengthening some of the current regulations if it will lessen gun crime even slightly. So I voted for the first option.

PoolCleaningRobot:
We've already proven that its too damn easy for nut jobs to buy guns legally. I propose that its moderately easy to get a semi-automatic weapon like a 6 revolver that needs the bullets to be locked in a chamber by hand. When you think about it, if you need a gun for self defense from like a break in or something anything more is unnecessary and dangerous (firing a lot of shots in doors for example). Then save the assault rifles for the crazy southern bearded guys who have been firing guns since they were 5 years old.

And for the record, trying to disarm the entire country would be completely insane. Some people would rather go down in a hail of bullets before giving up their guns

You realize that a revolver isn't semi-automatic. Completely different concept.

OT: I think we need a few changes, stricter control and registration. As well as some form of mental health check, and mandatory gun safety courses. I do not think we need to ban any type of gun currently legal. There is very little difference between what they call assault weapons now and what they intend to impose with the exception of the number of bullets they control or what attachments they are allowed. If the ban goes through as intended a musket rifle from the 1850s would be illegal to own because you could add a bayonet to it and that is ridiculous.

How many americans went postal with a gun in the last decade... 3? ...4?

That's just a guess, but when the population is 311,591,917, it doesn't seem that big.

ChecksMagee:
Lol. 50 threads like this. Americans trying to figure out what the rest of the world did 20 years ago.. keep up kiddies

Ah yes. That right to dissent is so unnecessary, and never in history has a government tried to enforce compliance with violence.

Imagine if constant revolution and secession HADN'T cowed Britain into docility and fear of rebuke. Analyze how Britain used to be, read its history. Then tell me they're not trying their hardest to walk on eggshells about the whole "rights" thing. I won't cite Russia or Germany because you already know what I'd say. Imagine if Chinese weren't allowed to be armed, and they ever gathered to protest their government... or not, because it already happened. It was one of the most infamous massacres in history. Just because some governments are carebears and still have their anti-weapon laws, does not mean every country will follow suit or that every country currently so will never change leaders or policy.

I'm backing up my paranoia, all I hear in response is "you're insane and violent! You're the kind of nut we should lock up!" Analyze that quote. That attitude is exactly what everyone's afraid governments around the world are going to take to heart. That attitude is why the ability to defend oneself is needed.
But I suppose it takes growing up in a country where the government is held accountable by its citizens to feel that keeping them in line is necessary. It must feel so safe to be under complete government control and scrutiny.

cikame:
How many americans went postal with a gun in the last decade... 3? ...4?

That's just a guess, but when the population is 311,591,917, it doesn't seem that big.

You mean how many killed enough people to make national headlines and stay there?

That is not quite the same thing as how many pointlessly killed one or more other people.

Nieroshai:
The magazine capacity will do nothing. Here's why: it doesn't take that long to reload if you've had practice and aren't an idiot about taking cover and having a secondary weapon if someone decides to be heroic.

Why then do military weapons like the M16 use 30 round magazines? Especially as the originally issued magazine only held 20 rounds, someone decided to increase this to 30.

I agree that the skill of the shooter is important, but it's hardly the sole concern.

barbzilla:

PoolCleaningRobot:
We've already proven that its too damn easy for nut jobs to buy guns legally. I propose that its moderately easy to get a semi-automatic weapon like a 6 revolver that needs the bullets to be locked in a chamber by hand. When you think about it, if you need a gun for self defense from like a break in or something anything more is unnecessary and dangerous (firing a lot of shots in doors for example). Then save the assault rifles for the crazy southern bearded guys who have been firing guns since they were 5 years old.

And for the record, trying to disarm the entire country would be completely insane. Some people would rather go down in a hail of bullets before giving up their guns

You realize that a revolver isn't semi-automatic. Completely different concept.

OT: I think we need a few changes, stricter control and registration. As well as some form of mental health check, and mandatory gun safety courses. I do not think we need to ban any type of gun currently legal. There is very little difference between what they call assault weapons now and what they intend to impose with the exception of the number of bullets they control or what attachments they are allowed. If the ban goes through as intended a musket rifle from the 1850s would be illegal to own because you could add a bayonet to it and that is ridiculous.

I honestly thought we stopped using revolvers that needed cocking after the cow boy days ended. And I meant no to hand guns with 20 round clips that can be emptied in a minute. Fuck it. Lets just give everyone cowboy revolvers and see what happens

Chunga the Great:
Oh boy, here come the Europeans....

image

Nothing ever comes out of these gun control threads. If you want a rough idea of the Escapist's thought on the matter, visit one of the 10^64 threads we have on the subject.

lechat:

please do not answer the poll if you are not American

Like thats gonna stop people...

Anyways, as an American, I personally feel that there needs to be changes. I dont personally see a problem with guns like the AR-15 (though I dont see a reason for a 30 round magazine, and I sure as hell dont know what people would want a 50 or 100 round mags for), Im not against stricter gun control. I see having to jump through hoops for gun ownership as a good thing. I also see no problem with having to have a psych evaluation before being deemed allowed the rights of gun ownership (is that actually part of Obama's gun control? I actually havent read up on it, but I feel that it should be...)

So While I dont agree with a outright ban (simply from the stand point of I dont like wasting time and energy on useless endeavors... unless its videogames), making it harder is fine with me.

So has anyone come up with a justifiable answer as to why civilians should be able to own Assault Rifles? Just a genuine question here. So far all I've heard is "2nd amendment etc etc, we should be able to protect ourselves etc etc".

It still doesn't answer the question - why Assault Rifles with big magazines? Is it that hard to protect yourself with a pistol? Or shotgun? Or even an air rifle?

Is it that hard to pass a background check, are you so scared (or guilty) inside?

Nowhere in the new proposed gun laws am I seeing the words "ban all guns". I can't see it. I see a ban on Assault Rifles, big magazines and thorough background checks.

You can keep all your other weapons, isn't that enough protection? Buy 10 shotguns and 15 pistols, is that enough protection for you? The ONLY defense people have for owning Assault Rifles so far is "because freedom and stuff". Seriously?

thaluikhain:

cikame:
How many americans went postal with a gun in the last decade... 3? ...4?

That's just a guess, but when the population is 311,591,917, it doesn't seem that big.

You mean how many killed enough people to make national headlines and stay there?

That is not quite the same thing as how many pointlessly killed one or more other people.

Nieroshai:
The magazine capacity will do nothing. Here's why: it doesn't take that long to reload if you've had practice and aren't an idiot about taking cover and having a secondary weapon if someone decides to be heroic.

Why then do military weapons like the M16 use 30 round magazines? Especially as the originally issued magazine only held 20 rounds, someone decided to increase this to 30.

I agree that the skill of the shooter is important, but it's hardly the sole concern.

The magazine capacity is because the military uses volume of fire to gain fire superiority and to suppress the enemy. If a unit fails to do this as soon as possible, they risk being wiped out. For this reason, the military needs that extra capacity so they can open up hell on whatever fires on them.

M4's fire at around 15, 5.56mm rounds a minute. It takes a few seconds to reload. The 240B, which is the main killer, fires 100, 7.62mm rounds a minute. It's belt-fed. Statistics place the 240B at producing around 90% of a platoon's firepower.

A lower magazine capacity will make a gunman more likely to kill his target as he has to concentrate on aiming.

Bhaalspawn:
Lately the big reason I support gun control is simply because of the number of paranoid lunatics who think that the US Government is some kind of tyranny waiting to happen. I'm no fan of the US, but they're not evil. These lunatics have no ground to stand on. They aren't going to spark some revolution. And even if they did...

image

That's the one argument that just kills me; because a team of well supported and trained marines couldn't possibly stand a chance when faced with a pissed off redneck dug in for a fight, amirite? If anything seriously is to be taken from these people, aside from their strong and clearly stated desire for "necessary murder", it's this pro-cessation rhetoric they're falling back to.

I don't know why they all seem so keen on going out in a blaze against the US military, but I don't care who you are or what your experience is, good luck winning that fight.

I'm pro-not being murdered by someone having a bad day/just broke up/lost their mind. I'm sure armor piercing rounds and large magazine semi-autos are great for taking out that heavily armored wild game people enjoy hunting, it's just that there are too many assholes too eager to shoot others that seem to turn them on humans more than on wildlife. Hunting for sport is another thing I wonder about, since as I understand it hurting or killing animals for amusement is a trait serial killers exhibit. Then there's people like this:

I grew up in a violent area (LA County), guns were a real problem, and not just with gangsters. I remember a story on the news when I was a kid, the police would spend some time under overpasses on New Years Eve because people ere out shooting their guns in the air and the heavy concrete was their best protection from stray bullets. This is what "responsible gun ownership" looks like in America. If you have a weapon you will find an excuse to use it eventually, not because it's needed but because you have a gun. Refusing mathematical probabilities, hard evidence, and factual statistics doesn't make you any less likely as a gun owner to not be killed or to not lose a loved one by your own gun. A lot of people think about how it can't or likely won't happen to them until it does, and for some idiotic reason people think that more guns is safer, because in the heat of a gunfight we're all marksmen and we're all calm, and we know exactly who to shoot.

For my part I would think we're each more likely to need a fire extinguisher than a gun someday, but I doubt the fire extinguisher market has been soaring as much as firearm sales.

Nieroshai:
3. American government has long acknowledged that it governs with the consent and permission of the governed, not because they themselves have inherent authority. The reason guns are to protect from government is because it really is the biggest unwritten punishment for becoming a dictatorship: for your people to revolt and have no choice but either massacre them or surrender.
4. Piggybacking on point 3, of course civilians would lose in a straight up fight. That isn't the point. The point is the act of defiance and the refusal to be ruled as opposed to governed.

Indeed, because we hear all the time about what heroes Randy Weaver and his family were, or the Branch Davidians. Not to mention the frequency in which we have to stand up to our government with firearms compared to the frequency in gun related crime against unarmed civilians by armed civilians.

Aaron Sylvester:
So has anyone come up with a justifiable answer as to why civilians should be able to own Assault Rifles? Just a genuine question here. So far all I've heard is "2nd amendment etc etc, we should be able to protect ourselves etc etc".

It still doesn't answer the question - why Assault Rifles with big magazines? Is it that hard to protect yourself with a pistol? Or shotgun? Or even an air rifle?

Is it that hard to pass a background check, are you so scared (or guilty) inside?

Nowhere in the new proposed gun laws am I seeing the words "ban all guns". I can't see it. I see a ban on Assault Rifles, big magazines and thorough background checks.

You can keep all your other weapons, isn't that enough protection? Buy 10 shotguns and 15 pistols, is that enough protection for you?

No new assault rifles have been made available to the US public since 1986, and noen have been used in crime.

When the media says "Assault rifle" it almost always means "semi-automatic civilian variant of an assault rifle" and has got the terminology round.

Midnight Crossroads:
The magazine capacity is because the military uses volume of fire to gain fire superiority and to suppress the enemy. If a unit fails to do this as soon as possible, they risk being wiped out. For this reason, the military needs that extra capacity so they can open up hell on whatever fires on them.

M4's fire at around 15, 5.56mm rounds a minute. It takes a few seconds to reload. The 240B, which is the main killer, fires 100, 7.62mm rounds a minute. It's belt-fed. Statistics place the 240B at producing around 90% of a platoon's firepower.

A lower magazine capacity will make a gunman more likely to kill his target as he has to concentrate on aiming.

Firstly, the LMG is used for suppressing fire. Assault rifles, as a rule, are not. The m4 has a Rof of 700-900 odd a minute, not 15 (blazing away at full auto). That's the entire magazine gone in seconds, which isn't very useful.

Maybe you meant 15 rounds a second. Anyway, the 240B doesn't have that much greater rate of fire.

Secondly, if that was the case, why do police use 30 round clips? They are expressly not allowed to use suppressing fire (assuming their weapons even have automatic fire).

Nieroshai:

Subscriptism:
Removing all guns is not the answer, it works if there aren't vast amounts of guns already around but the US has nearly one per citizen that's 300,000,000. The black and secondary markets are a lot worse in America due to the land neighbour Mexico(compared to Australia and the UK who have no land connections and the Aussie border is tighter than an ant's arsehole) as well so taking away all guns will only disarm the law abiding citizens and have little to no impact on the criminals. However making high-capacity clips and assault rifles illegal and making very strict back ground checks is definitely the way to go.
They really need to clamp down on the secondary market (that is people buying legally and reselling/giving without the background check).

The magazine capacity will do nothing. Here's why: it doesn't take that long to reload if you've had practice and aren't an idiot about taking cover and having a secondary weapon if someone decides to be heroic. Say I had the equipment to machine weapons. It's not so far-fetched, many mechanics have similar equipment and many civilians already smith guns. Or I could just have myself and several friends buy up legal guns. Now let's say I want to go on a rampage with a duffel full of derringers. Do you see where I'm going? Two shots each, single action weapons. But I can pop them off quickly, discard when empty, and draw another from the sack slung from my shoulder. I could do the same with revolvers, but they'd be vastly harder to make and more conspicuous to buy more than two. It's no automatic weapon, but then you can't have those in America without a special license granted from law enforcement. A class-3 I think? My point is, skill determines the usefulness of a weapon. The Tuscon shooter was no marksman, and fumbled to reload his mag. Imagine if he was a Marines vet with PTSD? He'd have done the same damage with a revolver, a speed loader, and a third of the bullets.

We keep losing track here of a big point. Almost every single one of these mass murderers was on medication for mental illness. As the rate of medication for mental illness has increased, the number of mass shootings has increased. Guns and mags are a red herring.

I don't think guns are, the AR-15 for example has a muzzle velocity 3 times higher than your run of the mill glock 9mm. That gives it 9 times the energy, each shot of a rifle is significantly more dangerous than a 9mm, mags however without doubt will provide even a small benefit in mowing down groups of people and for that reason alone should be banned. After all if you can't kill a burglar with your standard 20-30 round magazine in a rifle or ~10 in a pistol you aren't fucking skilled enough to own a gun.
Besides that part of my point on background checks, you have to be really fucking careful giving guns to households where an occupant is on meds.
Besides having a better weapon can at least compensate slightly for lack of skill.

PoolCleaningRobot:

barbzilla:

PoolCleaningRobot:
We've already proven that its too damn easy for nut jobs to buy guns legally. I propose that its moderately easy to get a semi-automatic weapon like a 6 revolver that needs the bullets to be locked in a chamber by hand. When you think about it, if you need a gun for self defense from like a break in or something anything more is unnecessary and dangerous (firing a lot of shots in doors for example). Then save the assault rifles for the crazy southern bearded guys who have been firing guns since they were 5 years old.

And for the record, trying to disarm the entire country would be completely insane. Some people would rather go down in a hail of bullets before giving up their guns

You realize that a revolver isn't semi-automatic. Completely different concept.

OT: I think we need a few changes, stricter control and registration. As well as some form of mental health check, and mandatory gun safety courses. I do not think we need to ban any type of gun currently legal. There is very little difference between what they call assault weapons now and what they intend to impose with the exception of the number of bullets they control or what attachments they are allowed. If the ban goes through as intended a musket rifle from the 1850s would be illegal to own because you could add a bayonet to it and that is ridiculous.

I honestly thought we stopped using revolvers that needed cocking after the cow boy days ended. And I meant no to hand guns with 20 round clips that can be emptied in a minute. Fuck it. Lets just give everyone cowboy revolvers and see what happens

Most revolvers will cock as you pull the trigger, but it is still a two stage mechanism. Semi-automatics cock as they fire so the next shot will not need to be cocked. Now this may sound similar (and it is kinda close), but it requires a much longer trigger pull. With a semi-automatic you can get a hair trigger that only requires a half pound pull, so in essence you can fire almost as fast as a fully automatic weapon if you are good enough (though your aim is likely to be shit). As for the magazine size, I don't think it really matters. Anyone with any amount of skill can reload a magazine fed weapon in less than a second (if they don't mind dropping their previous magazine). Same thing with revolvers and speed loaders, though they take a professional around 1.5 seconds (so slight difference). What we really need to do is prevent mentally unstable people from buying or obtaining firearms. Meanwhile you have the fact that banning firearms will only slightly lower gun crimes in the first place.

Icehearted:

Bhaalspawn:
Lately the big reason I support gun control is simply because of the number of paranoid lunatics who think that the US Government is some kind of tyranny waiting to happen. I'm no fan of the US, but they're not evil. These lunatics have no ground to stand on. They aren't going to spark some revolution. And even if they did...

image

That's the one argument that just kills me; because a team of well supported and trained marines couldn't possibly stand a chance when faced with a pissed off redneck dug in for a fight, amirite? If anything seriously is to be taken from these people, aside from their strong and clearly stated desire for "necessary murder", it's this pro-cessation rhetoric they're falling back to.

I don't know why they all seem so keen on going out in a blaze against the US military, but I don't care who you are or what your experience is, good luck winning that fight.

I'm pro-not being murdered by someone having a bad day/just broke up/lost their mind. I'm sure armor piercing rounds and large magazine semi-autos are great for taking out that heavily armored wild game people enjoy hunting, it's just that there are too many assholes too eager to shoot others that seem to turn them on humans more than on wildlife. Hunting for sport is another thing I wonder about, since as I understand it hurting or killing animals for amusement is a trait serial killers exhibit. Then there's people like this:

I grew up in a violent area (LA County), guns were a real problem, and not just with gangsters. I remember a story on the news when I was a kid, the police would spend some time under overpasses on New Years Eve because people ere out shooting their guns in the air and the heavy concrete was their best protection from stray bullets. This is what "responsible gun ownership" looks like in America. If you have a weapon you will find an excuse to use it eventually, not because it's needed but because you have a gun. Refusing mathematical probabilities, hard evidence, and factual statistics doesn't make you any less likely as a gun owner to not be killed or to not lose a loved one by your own gun. A lot of people think about how it can't or likely won't happen to them until it does, and for some idiotic reason people think that more guns is safer, because in the heat of a gunfight we're all marksmen and we're all calm, and we know exactly who to shoot.

For my part I would think we're each more likely to need a fire extinguisher than a gun someday, but I doubt the fire extinguisher market has been soaring as much as firearm sales.

Nieroshai:
3. American government has long acknowledged that it governs with the consent and permission of the governed, not because they themselves have inherent authority. The reason guns are to protect from government is because it really is the biggest unwritten punishment for becoming a dictatorship: for your people to revolt and have no choice but either massacre them or surrender.
4. Piggybacking on point 3, of course civilians would lose in a straight up fight. That isn't the point. The point is the act of defiance and the refusal to be ruled as opposed to governed.

Indeed, because we hear all the time about what heroes Randy Weaver and his family were, or the Branch Davidians. Not to mention the frequency in which we have to stand up to our government with firearms compared to the frequency in gun related crime against unarmed civilians by armed civilians.

Forgoing the rest of your points, you realize that the US military are made up of US citizens, many of whom are the ones who are against gun bans in the first place. Most of my family are either military or law enforcement, and we support the right to own firearms. This isn't because we are afraid of this or that, it is because we are responsible firearm owners who enjoy having the added protection from other people, from the government, or for hunting. Owning a gun doesn't mean that the average american thinks he can hold out against a military force, just that in force and numbers we have some form of power. Take a look at all gun crimes committed and then tell me how many of them were not committed by criminal forces (see gangs, mobs, or repeat offenders) or the mentally ill. Perhaps we shouldn't treat the tool as the issue, but the root cause as the issue.

That being said, I do think we need some stricter gun ownership laws. I think anyone who owns a gun needs a license and needs to complete gun safety courses. There should also be some form of control as far as people with mental illnesses that are likely to become violent.

barbzilla:

PoolCleaningRobot:

barbzilla:

You realize that a revolver isn't semi-automatic. Completely different concept.

OT: I think we need a few changes, stricter control and registration. As well as some form of mental health check, and mandatory gun safety courses. I do not think we need to ban any type of gun currently legal. There is very little difference between what they call assault weapons now and what they intend to impose with the exception of the number of bullets they control or what attachments they are allowed. If the ban goes through as intended a musket rifle from the 1850s would be illegal to own because you could add a bayonet to it and that is ridiculous.

I honestly thought we stopped using revolvers that needed cocking after the cow boy days ended. And I meant no to hand guns with 20 round clips that can be emptied in a minute. Fuck it. Lets just give everyone cowboy revolvers and see what happens

Most revolvers will cock as you pull the trigger, but it is still a two stage mechanism. Semi-automatics cock as they fire so the next shot will not need to be cocked. Now this may sound similar (and it is kinda close), but it requires a much longer trigger pull. With a semi-automatic you can get a hair trigger that only requires a half pound pull, so in essence you can fire almost as fast as a fully automatic weapon if you are good enough (though your aim is likely to be shit). As for the magazine size, I don't think it really matters. Anyone with any amount of skill can reload a magazine fed weapon in less than a second (if they don't mind dropping their previous magazine). Same thing with revolvers and speed loaders, though they take a professional around 1.5 seconds (so slight difference). What we really need to do is prevent mentally unstable people from buying or obtaining firearms. Meanwhile you have the fact that banning firearms will only slightly lower gun crimes in the first place.

Thanks for clearing that revolver thing up for me. I knew they didn't need thumb cocking and the trigger locked the bullets in place but I didn't know that they still weren't considered semi automatic. I'm not really concerned about gun crimes like robberies (I doubt they would go down that much either) so much as people going postal. I just think semi automatic weapons make it a little too easy kill a lot of people. I'm also going with the assumption that a suicidal and mentally handicapped individual won't have a lot of skill with weapons

barbzilla:
Most revolvers will cock as you pull the trigger, but it is still a two stage mechanism. Semi-automatics cock as they fire so the next shot will not need to be cocked. Now this may sound similar (and it is kinda close), but it requires a much longer trigger pull. With a semi-automatic you can get a hair trigger that only requires a half pound pull, so in essence you can fire almost as fast as a fully automatic weapon if you are good enough (though your aim is likely to be shit). As for the magazine size, I don't think it really matters. Anyone with any amount of skill can reload a magazine fed weapon in less than a second (if they don't mind dropping their previous magazine). Same thing with revolvers and speed loaders, though they take a professional around 1.5 seconds (so slight difference).

You could get older style revolvers that have to be loaded one bullet at a time if you wanted to stop that, though.

barbzilla:
What we really need to do is prevent mentally unstable people from buying or obtaining firearms.

How are you tell to determine if someone is mentally ill? If they think they might be judged so, aren't they likely not to seek medical help for (rightful) fear of being stigmatised?

Also, the vast majority of violent crimes aren't committed by people who are mentally ill. Mentally ill people are more likely to be the victims, than the perpetrators of violence. People who are victims of violent crime often suffer from mental illness as a result, aren't the victims the sorts of people who should have guns for self defense?

Demonising the mental ill some more is not a solution.

thaluikhain:

barbzilla:
Most revolvers will cock as you pull the trigger, but it is still a two stage mechanism. Semi-automatics cock as they fire so the next shot will not need to be cocked. Now this may sound similar (and it is kinda close), but it requires a much longer trigger pull. With a semi-automatic you can get a hair trigger that only requires a half pound pull, so in essence you can fire almost as fast as a fully automatic weapon if you are good enough (though your aim is likely to be shit). As for the magazine size, I don't think it really matters. Anyone with any amount of skill can reload a magazine fed weapon in less than a second (if they don't mind dropping their previous magazine). Same thing with revolvers and speed loaders, though they take a professional around 1.5 seconds (so slight difference).

You could get older style revolvers that have to be loaded one bullet at a time if you wanted to stop that, though.

barbzilla:
What we really need to do is prevent mentally unstable people from buying or obtaining firearms.

How are you tell to determine if someone is mentally ill? If they think they might be judged so, aren't they likely not to seek medical help for (rightful) fear of being stigmatised?

Also, the vast majority of violent crimes aren't committed by people who are mentally ill. Mentally ill people are more likely to be the victims, than the perpetrators of violence. People who are victims of violent crime often suffer from mental illness as a result, aren't the victims the sorts of people who should have guns for self defense?

Demonising the mental ill some more is not a solution.

I don't intend to demonize the mentally ill. What I mean are people who are previously diagnosed with violent tendencies. These people often do not seek help already, but are diagnosed because of friends or family members having them committed. I am talking about people with severe demtia or severe schizophrenia not someone with ADHD or Mild Depression. Most violent gun crimes are committed by career criminals. The type of people who are going to own guns despite of bans or restrictions, so what do these laws have to do with them at all?

CaptainMarvelous:
More dirty foreign voting :D mwahahahahahah

You dirty foreigners taking all our good 'Mericun votes! D:

OT: I mean, well reasonably, given a perfect world, I'd just get rid of them all. Cos, I can! :D

Though, I think America's problems stretch a-lot further than just our different levels of gun legislation. Issues with America's somewhat obsession with the gun and the power it provides. Not all Americans, just in general; it was the tool we used to gain 'freedom', so we idolise it and it's power. /pseudo-intellectual

And other issues which I do not know enough to even make a pseudo intellectual comment about

Vardermir:

Zhukov:
I used to for gun control, but then this wonderful gentleman from the NRA showed me how wrong I was:
[snip]

As an American, I also voted to leave gun laws the way they are. I feel there are too many guns in circulation (something like 270 million) to make a real difference now. If you want a gun in this country, you will be able to get one.

Even though Mr. Jones comes off as a total nut in the video, he does bring up some good points. Although its only 35 gun crimes in comparison to the 11,000 in the US, the UK also about 20% the population of the US. Is that enough to make up the difference? No, but it most certainly affects it. As to the rest of the FBI statistics that Mr. Jones kept espousing, here's another video that is a bit more level headed about analyzing them.

[snip]

If you don't feel like watching the video, the big revelation basically is if you look at crime rates in large cities, where most crime occurs, the levels are around the same in both the UK and the US. The biggest difference between the two countries being the UK really only has London, whereas the US has multiple cities with populations way over 1 million. additionally, for the violent crime rates in large cities to be around the same, that must mean although guns are banned, criminals have innovated and managed to find other weapons. Like knives, crowbars, their fists, etc. etc. Between these two comparisons, I feel the idea of bandying out the 35 gun murders statistic to be perfectly well accounted for.

Uh huh.

Funny thing. Turns out it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife, crowbar or your knuckles than with a gun. It's psychologically harder, in that many people who could bring themselves to shoot a person simply don't have the stomach to stick a knife into someone. Also physically harder in that if you want to stab someone you have to expose yourself to greater risk than if you can blow them away from across the room. I dare say it's also harder to murder your way through an entire school or crowded movie theatre with just ye olde fisticuffs.

Anyway, let's look at comparative murder rates shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

So... UK has a rate of 1.2. That's 1.2 murders per 100,000 people, so yes, it's taking into account the difference in population and it's not confined to just guns. Total murder count of 722. Nasty.

The US has a murder rate of... oh. 4.8. Oh dear. Now I've never been any great shakes at math so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that comes to four times as much. Total murders of 14,748. Oh dearie me.

Yeah, if I was in the market for a homeland I think I'd prefer the horrible UK redcoat police stake with their knives and crowbars and fists.

Bhaalspawn:
Lately the big reason I support gun control is simply because of the number of paranoid lunatics who think that the US Government is some kind of tyranny waiting to happen. I'm no fan of the US, but they're not evil. These lunatics have no ground to stand on. They aren't going to spark some revolution. And even if they did...

image

I don't think you understand how revolutions work. The U.S military is comprised of real people, not robots. If there was a popular revolution then you can bet the military would be the first structure to fragment.

I'm gonna throw this out there: It's called China. China once had a population that owned as many guns as the USA does. Then Mao (look him up if you don't know who I'm talking about) and the government banned them, and physically removed them from everybody that owned them. Today, even the sound of a homicide in China is so extremely rare its almost unbelievable. And oh, China has by far the highest population of any country in the entire world. IT's not video games. Get a clue America.

Fuzzed:
I'm gonna throw this out there: It's called China. China once had a population that owned as many guns as the USA does. Then Mao (look him up if you don't know who I'm talking about) and the government banned them, and physically removed them from everybody that owned them. Today, even the sound of a homicide in China is so extremely rare its almost unbelievable. And oh, China has by far the highest population of any country in the entire world. IT's not video games. Get a clue America.

It has no homicide and has the highest population of any country in the world....and is also governed by a totalitarian regime that imprisons thousands of people for speaking out against the government and actively censors information coming into and going out of the country.

I'll take my chances, thanks.

People who make repeat threads should not be allowed to have guns, or the internet.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.146207-Poll-Fun-control#3329136

Bhaalspawn:
Lately the big reason I support gun control is simply because of the number of paranoid lunatics who think that the US Government is some kind of tyranny waiting to happen. I'm no fan of the US, but they're not evil. These lunatics have no ground to stand on. They aren't going to spark some revolution. And even if they did...

image

You do realize that about 80% of America's solders and law enforcement are pro gun, so they would probably team up with the gun lovers.

We all need slow firing low caliber revolvers with three bullets. Nothing more powerful should be had.

I wonder how many of the violent crimes in the UK are actually drunken fights? We british/scottish/welsh/irish like our drink...we like it a lot.

Not trying to say that's the reason our crime is so high but i suspect it has a somewhat hefty percentage of those violent crimes. As for the US i would say ban citizens from having guns but that will never work because they let it get this far out of hand, the best they can do is try to control new guns better i guess.

you know what i love about the "when push comes to shove the military will not directly fight the population since the military is made up of real people"-argument? IF there is a significant interest in your nation to use the military against the population somebody on the military side of things thought about how to make it happen without everyone deserting.

oh and i really like all them gun threads, less people talking about rape.

kgpspyguy:
You do realize that about 80% of America's solders and law enforcement are pro gun, so they would probably team up with the gun lovers.

Little difference between "pro-gun" and "pro-treason", though.

I feel this entire issue is divided into two subissues. The two subissues being:

1) Can we take guns away?
2) Should we take guns away?

In terms of the latter, I don't see why people should be walking around with firearms. I don't think they are doing much of anything productive, and never once have I personally ran into someone who has actually used one for "self defense".

Now Can we take guns away? This question gets far more murky. When you force gun owners to hand over their weapons, you are essentially circumventing two different amendments in the Bill of Rights:

Ammendment 2: Right to bear arms
Ammendment 4: Right for the people to be secure from unlawful search and seizure

Do I think we should circumvent the Bill of Rights? No, and I wouldn't like such a precedent to be set. Do I think that people should walk around with firearms? No, I don't think it is a good idea, even though it has never affected me.

So honestly, I don't know what the answer is.

For the poll, I guess I'll vote for changes to be made, but these changes won't be easy to implement. Stronger background checks are always a good idea though.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked