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
 

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

I think that episode showed really well one of the problems with the debate: the anti-gun lobby has little actual knowledge of firearms. Specifically look to the bit where they showed a clip of Senator Graham stating that it only takes him a few seconds to change a magazine (in reference to the proposed ban on high-capacity magazines) and Stewart mocks him for this, implying that no one else can change magazines that fast. The truth is that with 5 minutes of practice anyone can change a magazine in about 5 seconds. If the anti-gun group was more familiar with firearms they would know this and not tout the high-capacity magazine issue as such a cure-all, and allow us to dig deeper into the debate: should we limit the number of magazines a person can purchase? Is a 5 second pause in a shooting that significant? Should a mechanism be implemented to make magazine changes slow and annoying? How would this affect people using firearms for home defense?

On the other side of the debate, the NRA leadership and the spokespeople for the pro-gun faction are not as politically savvy as they would like people to think, and by being so intractable they are alienating a lot of potential support as well as painting themselves as people that cannot be reasoned with. If they were really smart, they would meet a lot of the proposed regulations halfway, if not more, but add a 5 or 10 year sunset clause into the legislation - the U.S. congress can't even pass a budget when the consequences of failing to do so are dire, do you think they'd be able to renew gun control legislation in 5 years?

thaluikhain:
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.

Assault rifles are assault rifles, civilian variants or not. My questions still remain completely unanswered.

thaluikhain:

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).

You're talking to an infantryman about an infantryman's job. Yes, you can use the M4 to keep someone's head down. The sustained rate of fire for the M4 carbine is 15 rounds a minute. One shot is fired every four seconds so that someone is firing once every second. You're talking cyclic which is only true on M4A1's. All other M4's are 3-round burst which caps their rate of fire at 90 rounds a minute. And, yes, the 240B has that much firepower.

I don't know why police choose to use them. I explained why the military uses them.

I think posting in an international forum with international guests frequenting it, your results are going to be skewed, especially because we're on the escapist this is a place that leans more to the left.

I am very liberal, and rarely agree with the conservative movement in this country (the whole meaning of conservative is to resist change, and change is where progress comes from), but in this regard I agree with conservatives. We have an ATF with no director, and no way to enforce laws we currently have. If start enforcing the laws we have, and allow the ATF to do it's job, then we will have a much safer country to live in.

I am in full support of psychological tests for certain class weapons, and even forced education for gun ownership, but outright banning a pistol because it holds 10 rounds is extreme and illogical.

Personally I think vast changes are in order, while in a perfect world I'd say lets go the way of the UK and Japan and ban them all, but there is a case to be made for self defense (personally I'm in favor of tazers and stun guns and martial arts to defend one's self but not everyone in the country is). However assault weapons? completely unneeded. a bullet's a bullet, a simple revolver could put down someone attacking your family, there's no need for Light Machine Guns or Assault Rifles.

Keoul:

TopazFusion:

Also, these gun threads are now even worse and more numerous than the drowning threads...

Gun threads and "Video games cause violence" threads are both now drowning in a lake, which do you save?
A.Gun Threads.
B.Video games cause violence threads.
C.Pull up a seat and watch them both drown.

Make your choice.

*smashes C so hard it breaks the button, then keeps mashing it*

The Laws we have are fine, then real issue is enforcing them properly, course >.> that applys to more then just fire arms

'Murrican.

I voted vast changes.

Honestly I don't feel that people need high-capacity fast-firing rifles, or assault weapons, or explosives, and we should ban that shit, because if you need an AK to hunt a freaking deer then you are not a very good hunter.

Bolt-action rifles, low capacity and weaker shotguns, and low-caliber and low capacity pistols. America has guns in it. America will continue to have guns in it, regardless of whether anti-gun laws pass, because of how prevalent they are, and all the people that would resist the legislation. I believe you should be able to have a weapon to defend yourself against all the people that are going to have illegal firearms, but don't need heavier weapons.

Also, we should start advertising non-lethal ways of defense as an alternative to a firearm. Stun guns can be just as effective as a gun without the whole "killing people" thing. Plus it'd be a lot easier for everybody in court.

Aside from some asinine "assault weapon" designations, I'm fine with the level of control we generally have.

What I want fixed is better enforcement, and better background check systems and criteria.

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?

The question is a bit of a non-starter. Very few people listen to or even understand the NRA/gun owners. We constantly hear from politicians, communities, lobbyists, media and the Internet; it's overwhelmingly from a gun control/anti-violence perspective. The NRA went to the Obama administration in talks that should have put everything on the table and it was nothing but anti-gun policy thrown in their faces.

This is an issue because the mainstream has made guns the issue.

This mass propaganda leads people to believe that only fringe groups, extremists (you call them "nuts") and violent people desire nothing more than to have powerful weapons and hurt people. There are millions of people out there who safely own and operate firearms and millions more that fundamentally support this right. However it's clear to me that nearly all people who speak out against gun rights are those that are not affected by such power grabs; they don't own or ever intend to own a firearm, so what do they care?

But watch the government go after something they or people they support make use of (privacy, property, the Internet, speech, justice) and suddenly they turn into Constitution-thumping patriots.

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

It's the pills, man! The suicide pills!

Ev'ry free man need to git 'emselves a shootin' iron so's they can protect themselves from the gorrament!

And I thought we had some stupid personalities over here, this guy seriously takes the cake.

thaluikhain:

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.

What if congress commits treason?

GunsmithKitten:
Aside from some asinine "assault weapon" designations, I'm fine with the level of control we generally have.

What I want fixed is better enforcement, and better background check systems and criteria.

I agree with Ms Kitten here. To those of you who want to ban all guns, that makes me laugh and I say "Over my dead body".

As an American I agree that certain changes have to be made. How ever outright banning assault weapons and extended ammo isn't really gonna be solving every gun violence problem. I personally think an extended background check is needed and more paperwork/registration required for purchase of assault weapons, etc. On a related note the political fodder children that Obama has used when trying to sign these laws into action is a new honest low, even for for him.

in a way, arent we all americans?

so vote! voting for everybody!

/flameshield activated!

Offtopic: Texas is now starting advertisements in New York trying to convince people to leave that sinking ship of a state.

It's strange because each state has their own laws. For instance, California decided that having a folding stock or pistol grip makes your weapon more deadly because that's how it works in the movies and video games or something. If you go to Nevada you can buy 100 round mags and such no problem. I personally think it's a little more restrictive than I'd like, considering the most legislation goes towards the weapons and weapon features the least used in crime. I think that suppressors should be less regulated, since their use in crime is so low it's not even reported by the FBI, and that banning high capacity magazines do nothing to stop mass killings, and some of the legislation like "no grenade launcher mounts" makes me think that some people are living in a cartoon world where bad guys all have AK-47s and RPGs.

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

There was in instance where WWII veterans successfully staged an uprising against local corruption of the government. It was in 1946 during a county's election. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29) It's not necessarily the federal government that's evil, this county has had a history of corruption between its government, law enforcement, and richer supporters, and repeated fraud of voting kept the officials in place and in power. Sadly, it did take force to correct. Both sides of the conflict were lucky to have no casualties, and many of the veterans used their military weapons, such as the M1 Garand.

I'm currently going through the police officer selection process in one of the most liberal cities in the US. I've never owned a gun, although I go to a shooting range twice a year to remember how to handle a weapon.

If the recent shootings by lunatics is a gun control issue, a full-on legal acquisition ban WILL stop them, although mentally disturbed people will find other outlets. Plenty of highway space to drive against traffic or they can run down pedestrians in the street.

Anyway, disturbed people tend to be extremely isolated and have very few friends. They simply won't have the social contacts to land an AK on the black market. Criminal elements WILL still have access, but those are generally used on other criminal elements, I don't remember a gang shootout in recent memory that was front page material.

I'm not voting in the poll. I have no issues with full gun control, but like I said, disturbed people will find a way to cause chaos regardless, so I can live with things as-is.

I'm Swedish and I voted specifically because you told me I shouldn't

barbzilla:
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.

I think it's disgusting how the mentally ill are being targeted as a means of deflecting the real problem here. I know a lot of people with diagnosed mental problems and none of them have firearms or the desire to use them. On the other hand I know people that have no mental illness that have had near fatal accidents due to their firearms being mishandled. In many ways it is the same kind of complacency that has a woman removing her eyes from the road long enough to check her makeup, or a young adult checking a text while driving; people are too comfortable with their "tools" and this can lead to disaster.

The mentally ill are not the problem, isolating them will not solve anything, and frankly this discussion, which I've seen mirrored on MSNBC, has me wondering how long it will be until people with mental illnesses are forced to wear a star on their sleeve or something approximate. They need more beds in more facilities to lock people up for having mental problems? It's disgraceful to point the finger at unarmed and largely vulnerable people, and as misguided as this reemerging talk about how video games cause these problems.

I seem to recall marines and former armed servicemen talking an awful lot more about civil war and "start killing people" than anyone else regarding this problem. James Yeager, Alex Jones, Wayne LaPierre, these are your voices, these are who's representing gun interests, and they all sound like lunatics.

Those thugs you're talking about, those gangsters that are more likely to commit these violent crimes, they aren't the ones against gun control, the mentally ill are not the ones against gun control. FYI, most people sitting on death row for murder, gun related or otherwise, are white men (according the the USDOJ Bureau of Criminal Statistics), in fact they out number all other races combined, so before we play a sideways race card and imply that urban minorities or the mentally ill are the problem, how about we look at recent violent attacks such as the school shooting in which first graders were riddled with bullets and count how many gangsters were present and opening fire on 6 year old kids?

I'm all for reasonable examination of the issue, but this will only happen when people give up the propaganda and the rhetoric and accept the facts as they are rather than as they fit to our own principles.

I am not american, so I didn't vote, but your missing the option, get rid of all guns, including law enforcement. Here in the UK the normal police don't possess firearms, only airport security/response teams have them. This is probably too much of a jump for america though..

EDIT: also I would be scared, living in america, I feel like shits going to hit the fan soon, and its going to make a bigger mess than people expect.

Aaron Sylvester:
Assault rifles are assault rifles, civilian variants or not. My questions still remain completely unanswered.

Part of the definition of "assault rifle" is that it has a selective fire capability, meaning it can be fired as a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon. A civilian semi-automatic weapon does not have that capability, and is therefore not an assault rifle.

Midnight Crossroads:
You're talking to an infantryman about an infantryman's job. Yes, you can use the M4 to keep someone's head down. The sustained rate of fire for the M4 carbine is 15 rounds a minute. One shot is fired every four seconds so that someone is firing once every second. You're talking cyclic which is only true on M4A1's. All other M4's are 3-round burst which caps their rate of fire at 90 rounds a minute. And, yes, the 240B has that much firepower.

My apologies, I had assumed you were talking about suppressing fire in the form of sustained fully automatic fire.

Xan Krieger:

thaluikhain:

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.

What if congress commits treason?

Realistically? Either they get away with it in an appalling lack of justice or the US is destroyed in an appalling civil war.

See, saying American only Poll is a surefire way to get people from everywhere to vote. I'm not from the US and I voted. Deal with it.

Regardless, I agree with everyone else who wants these threads gone for good.

Icehearted:
snip

Calm down there m8. I am not targeting anyone, I don't think the violently mentally ill need to be persecuted, I just don't think they need access to firearms. You are going so far down the slippery slope fallacy that I don't know how to react. You come off as very hostile and I don't understand why. I have been rather calm during this discussion, and I would like it to remain that way. Also I didn't bring race into anything, I never made it about race. I said certain groups of people are usually responsible for violent crime, at no point did I make any allegations as to the race of said groups. I was merely intending to indicate criminals in general. Please take a step back and calm down. I don't mind discussing my points, but I will not respond if you continue to be this aggressive.

Not sure how I got a double post, sorry. Anyhow I don't think that massive changes are needed just better control of the situation.

I'm all in favor of banning assault rifles, I don't see why any civilian needs an M4 Carbine to protect their home. That said, this latest bout of gun control fervor got started because of a massacre with legally purchased guns by someone who wouldn't have raised any red flags when she bought them. How do any of these proposed reforms stop the insane from going on a rampage exactly?

A point I'd like to make is that if it comes to tyranny and the US government actually tries to take away your guns and starts shooting people who resist then who is actually going to shoot the troops?

It wouldn't be a resistance, it'd be the 2nd civil war, and a government in command of the mass media (assuming this tyranny has any sense of logic) will automatically vilify anyone who kills a US soldier, I mean look at how they're hero-worshiped now then imagine how the regime would paint every soldier as a living god and killing would probably lead to several kittens being murdered or an angel losing its wings..

And also if the US does become a tyranny you pro-gunners don't have to fight alone, we British would be more than happy to bring our European buddies to help overthrow the tyranny and replace it with good old colonial rule, or we could let the Chinese liberate you... that could be fun

I'm just here to say that the argument about it being pointless because criminals can get it anyway is stupid. Do you think all those highschool shootings were done by guns off the black market? Its not all that often in comparison that the real criminals having guns are all that much of a problem to the public's safety.

barbzilla:

Icehearted:
snip

Calm down there m8. I am not targeting anyone, I don't think the violently mentally ill need to be persecuted, I just don't think they need access to firearms. You are going so far down the slippery slope fallacy that I don't know how to react. You come off as very hostile and I don't understand why, I have been rather calm during this discussion. Also I didn't bring race into anything, I never made it about race. I said certain groups of people are usually responsible for violent crime, at no point did I make any allegations as to the race of said groups. Please take a step back and calm down. I don't mind discussing my points, but I will not respond if you continue to be this aggressive.

Evasion is how people that don't have a valid point avoid revealing they don't have a valid point.

It's all good, and you are entitled to think whatever you wish, but I have stated facts, my judgement on this is crystal clear as I have no agenda either way, I simply see what is and speak honestly. The leap from gangster to minority is a short one, and that was a portion you brought into this discussion, I even if not deliberately, because let's not kid ourselves, when we think gangster we don't think "white kids". As a boy I grew up in LA County, I know most of the gangsters at that time were not white, as much as I know Columbine was not carried out by gangsters, neither was the theater massacre, the mall massacre, the aforementioned school massacre, etc.

Calling me "very hostile" and abstaining from rebuttal doesn't make what I have said any less true, hostile or not.

Icehearted:

barbzilla:

Icehearted:
snip

Calm down there m8. I am not targeting anyone, I don't think the violently mentally ill need to be persecuted, I just don't think they need access to firearms. You are going so far down the slippery slope fallacy that I don't know how to react. You come off as very hostile and I don't understand why, I have been rather calm during this discussion. Also I didn't bring race into anything, I never made it about race. I said certain groups of people are usually responsible for violent crime, at no point did I make any allegations as to the race of said groups. Please take a step back and calm down. I don't mind discussing my points, but I will not respond if you continue to be this aggressive.

Evasion is how people that don't have a valid point avoid revealing they don't have a valid point.

It's all good, and you are entitled to think whatever you wish, but I have stated facts, my judgement on this is crystal clear as I have no agenda either way, I simply see what is and speak honestly. The leap from gangster to minority is a short one, and that was a portion you brought into this discussion, I even if not deliberately, because let's not kid ourselves, when we think gangster we don't think "white kids". As a boy I grew up in LA County, I know most of the gangsters at that time were not white, as much as I know Columbine was not carried out by gangsters, neither was the theater massacre, the mall massacre, the aforementioned school massacre, etc.

Calling me "very hostile" and abstaining from rebuttal doesn't make what I have said any less true, hostile or not.

I'm sorry I can't continue this discussion. I did not imply any racial implications in my statement, you put your own filters on that and came up with the race card. If you notice I said "gangs, mobs, or repeat offenders" offenders. I didn't bring up an urban environment or anything of the sort, this is what you brought to the conversation. As for the school shootings, those are generally attributed to mental illness and bullying, not criminal activity I am well aware of this fact. So I am not sure what you are lashing out against, but I will not be responding unless you can manage to calm down.

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.

Mao? Which Mao? The one that killed 20 million of his own people in the "Great Leap Forward"? Or the one that forced people out of their homes to live in communes that were riddled with disease and policed by the military, with no civil or personal rights whatsoever? Oh they were the same one you were talking about? Go figure...

Nieroshai:

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

1. Who says ALL of them would obey said order?
2. While deserters may have kept their weapons while running, those who resign would not.
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.
5. If you really want me to, I can cite scenarios where a society has banned weapons and their government wasn't quite so gentlemanly about the trust that requires. I just won't unless you're willing to do more than pass me off as a gun nut even though you know nothing about me.

Don't forget, kinda hard to rule a nation if you killed everyone.

The only gun legislation I think is Constitutional is legislation that works against criminals and nobody else.

For example, making gun trafficking a felony, and universal background checks. These things keep guns outside of violent people's hands. Sure they can still buy them illegally, but that is something you just can't eradicate. And more importantly, these solutions don't work against normal people's right to own guns.

Most gun control legislation is just a shotgun (pun intended) attempt to wipe out a ton of guns from everyone, and hope that some bad guys get screwed in the crossfire, while people who intend to buy guns legally are the ones getting screwed. This is wrong, it is immoral to punish everyone for the sake of getting a few bad people. It's the same reason the Patriot Act is immoral. And NDAA. And pretty much all security legislation (or lack thereof) of the past decade.

Bhaalspawn:

image

Yes, because the military would willingly shoot the civilians they're fighting for...

Where's the "My Little Pony" option? :\

Gennadios:
...If the recent shootings by lunatics is a gun control issue, a full-on legal acquisition ban WILL stop them...

Not really - there are so many out there on the market (legitimate and underground) that even if you had an all-out ban today it would still be decades before most are taken out of circulation.

Chunga the Great:

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.

And the United States doesn't....Wake up and smell the coffee.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked