So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 17 NEXT
 

Magenera:

Helmholtz Watson:

AgedGrunt:

There is no proof; hunting is an arbitrary exception in indiscriminate gun control arguments. The criteria for firearm ownership should not include purpose of use and is as much your business as your neighbor's medical history.

Intent should most definitely be criteria for having a gun when it comes to weapons like assault rifles. The people that live around you should have a right to know why a pistol/shotgun/ect. is not enough and why you feel the need to posses a assault rifle.

Not really. If I want an assault rifle that is enough for me in America. I don't get why people can't see the 2nd amendment which grants that right. So if I get an assault rifle which by the way are ban anyway, unless you get a grandfathered version, it is not anyone business to the reason why I got the damn thing anyway.

Seeing as to why this thread was probably started, I'd say it is other peoples business as to why you feel the need to own such a weapon. Mind you, I'm not referring to some antique weapon that doesn't function properly.

Helmholtz Watson:

Magenera:

Helmholtz Watson:
Intent should most definitely be criteria for having a gun when it comes to weapons like assault rifles. The people that live around you should have a right to know why a pistol/shotgun/ect. is not enough and why you feel the need to posses a assault rifle.

Not really. If I want an assault rifle that is enough for me in America. I don't get why people can't see the 2nd amendment which grants that right. So if I get an assault rifle which by the way are ban anyway, unless you get a grandfathered version, it is not anyone business to the reason why I got the damn thing anyway.

Seeing as to why this thread was probably started, I'd say it is other peoples business as to why you feel the need to own such a weapon. Mind you, I'm not referring to some antique weapon that doesn't function properly.

In the US you are more likely to be beat to death with a bat then killed by a AR-15. Should we investigate if everyone buying a bat is really a baseball player? No, because thats pretty stupid seeing as the vast majority of people with baseball bats don't plan on using them to harm anyone without reason. The same is true for people who own WASRs and ARs, and everything else that fits the vague term of "Assault Weapon".

Shock and Awe:

Helmholtz Watson:

Magenera:

Not really. If I want an assault rifle that is enough for me in America. I don't get why people can't see the 2nd amendment which grants that right. So if I get an assault rifle which by the way are ban anyway, unless you get a grandfathered version, it is not anyone business to the reason why I got the damn thing anyway.

Seeing as to why this thread was probably started, I'd say it is other peoples business as to why you feel the need to own such a weapon. Mind you, I'm not referring to some antique weapon that doesn't function properly.

In the US you are more likely to be beat to death with a bat then killed by a AR-15. Should we investigate if everyone buying a bat is really a baseball player? No, because thats pretty stupid seeing as the vast majority of people with baseball bats don't plan on using them to harm anyone without reason. The same is true for people who own WASRs and ARs, and everything else that fits the vague term of "Assault Weapon".

There would be a pretty big problem if you were just as likely to be killed by an AR than by a baseball bat, wouldn't there?

While I have to admit to a certain ignorance to the types of firearms, I think there's a slight difference between a baseball bat and an assault rifle. I wish there would stop being these comparisons between guns and cars/chairs/baseball bats/knives. It's a pretty stupid comparison. and I don't think even I need to clarify that's there's a distinction.

I would be more swayed by an actual reason ie. self defense and hunting then "bees kill more people, should be ban bees?!"

Frission:
There would be a pretty big problem if you were just as likely to be killed by an AR than by a baseball bat, wouldn't there?

While I have to admit to a certain ignorance to the types of firearms, I think there's a slight difference between a baseball bat and an assault rifle. I wish there would stop being these comparisons between guns and cars/chairs/baseball bats/knives. It's a pretty stupid comparison. and I don't think even I need to clarify that's there's a distinction.

I would be more swayed by an actual reason ie. self defense and hunting then "bees kill more people, should be ban bees?!"

OK enough. There is a difference between an assault rifle and an AR-15. There has never been a murder committed with a legally obtained assault rifle in the US by a civilian. So the comparison between them and bats is perfectly valid. Civilian legally obtained assault rifles are never used to murder anyone in the US and yet bats are. Why do you want to ban one for the sake of safety but not the one that is actually used to kill people?

As for ARs, more people are murdered by blunt instruments or knives than by ALL rifles in the US- http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/how-people-are-murdered-in-united-states.html

You want actual reason? Here you go, ARs are some of the most modular firearms in existence. That means that one person can do just about anything with just one firearm. You want to hunt, push two pins and replace your upper with a 6.8 and attach a scope. You want to do some long range competitive shooting, push two pins attack an upper that shoots 300 blackout, attach a scope, and replace the butt stock. You want a shotgun for home protection, push two pins and stick your .410 upper on and you are ready to go. In other words, an AR is the poor man's version of an entire gun safe worth of firearms.

image

farson135:

Frission:
There would be a pretty big problem if you were just as likely to be killed by an AR than by a baseball bat, wouldn't there?

While I have to admit to a certain ignorance to the types of firearms, I think there's a slight difference between a baseball bat and an assault rifle. I wish there would stop being these comparisons between guns and cars/chairs/baseball bats/knives. It's a pretty stupid comparison. and I don't think even I need to clarify that's there's a distinction.

I would be more swayed by an actual reason ie. self defense and hunting then "bees kill more people, should be ban bees?!"

OK enough. There is a difference between an assault rifle and an AR-15. There has never been a murder committed with a legally obtained assault rifle in the US by a civilian. So the comparison between them and bats is perfectly valid. Civilian legally obtained assault rifles are never used to murder anyone in the US and yet bats are. Why do you want to ban one for the sake of safety but not the one that is actually used to kill people?

As for ARs, more people are murdered by blunt instruments or knives than by ALL rifles in the US- http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/how-people-are-murdered-in-united-states.html

You want actual reason? Here you go, ARs are some of the most modular firearms in existence. That means that one person can do just about anything with just one firearm. You want to hunt, push two pins and replace your upper with a 6.8 and attach a scope. You want to do some long range competitive shooting, push two pins attack an upper that shoots 300 blackout, attach a scope, and replace the butt stock. You want a shotgun for home protection, push two pins and stick your .410 upper on and you are ready to go. In other words, an AR is the poor man's version of an entire gun safe worth of firearms.

image

If we're going in the realm of comparisons, then no US citizen was killed by an H-Bomb. Does that mean we shouldn't control it? You're right that bats kills more people. Although, it's maybe it's because they're more widely available. I'm sure there would be a jump in death by assault rifles if there were less restrictions.

I don't think anyone ever said that guns kill the most people. It's the difference in numbers of applications or the potential risks. Or how "good" they are at killing people. They are something that can be controlled to a certain extent with the least amount of fallout. Imagine trying to ban clubs, something that can be whittled from a regular old tree. Before someone quotes me on criminals making guns in sheds, I would like to say it's probably not as simple and that even if alot of drugs can be made in a shed, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be illegal.

Now the last bit is a pretty good reason and nothing to roll your eyes over. It's pretty informative actually. That and I laughed at "it's barbie for men".

Frission:

Shock and Awe:

Helmholtz Watson:
Seeing as to why this thread was probably started, I'd say it is other peoples business as to why you feel the need to own such a weapon. Mind you, I'm not referring to some antique weapon that doesn't function properly.

In the US you are more likely to be beat to death with a bat then killed by a AR-15. Should we investigate if everyone buying a bat is really a baseball player? No, because thats pretty stupid seeing as the vast majority of people with baseball bats don't plan on using them to harm anyone without reason. The same is true for people who own WASRs and ARs, and everything else that fits the vague term of "Assault Weapon".

There would be a pretty big problem if you were just as likely to be killed by an AR than by a baseball bat, wouldn't there?

While I have to admit to a certain ignorance to the types of firearms, I think there's a slight difference between a baseball bat and an assault rifle. I wish there would stop being these comparisons between guns and cars/chairs/baseball bats/knives. It's a pretty stupid comparison. and I don't think even I need to clarify that's there's a distinction.

I would be more swayed by an actual reason ie. self defense and hunting then "bees kill more people, should be ban bees?!"

Yeah such a slight difference, people are killed more by knives and bats than rifles, in fact hands and feet have killed twice as many people as rifles. Seeing how they kill more people I say we ban them too, and put in place some saftey fluffy gloves and shoes to make the boo-boos less painful that way we solve the next big murder after the assault weapons. Because seeing how they kill more than them they must be banned. Here's the truth, most gun's homicide are committed by handguns, if your focusing on that, then your a useless cunt, who's more interested in a fucking symbol than anything else.

Handguns are concealable, and most people get those than anything else. If you were to limit it only a tenth of what it takes to get a semi-automatic rifle you would actually see a drop in handgun crime. Gun grabbers can't even solve problem and wants to infringe on our rights, because the gun looks scary. That's why I never took any of you gun grabbers groups serisouly and I'm fucking liberal, truly that annoys me to no end.

Frission:

Now the last bit is a pretty good reason and nothing to roll your eyes over. It's pretty informative actually. That and I laughed at "it's barbie for men".

It's sadly looked over by the anti-gun movement because it's too complicated for them to form a complaint against.

This returns to something I've tried addressing for months now. The AR15 is the culmination of technology and development in small arms. It is the most versatile and that sadly makes it the best option for a lot of things, including defense. So what needs to be addressed is why the best tool for defense should be so demonized because of a few isolated events which, while tragic, are so out weighed by fact that so many of them are owned legally and never used for crime.

It's tiresome seeing extremes taken in order to combat this question. Wanna know why an RPG should be regulated? Because it isn't capable of self defense. The same reason applies to a minigun.

What myself, and many others in the support of these weapons try to express, is that in a life or death situation, I should be able to grab a weapon (preferably the best one) and take action. What we don't want to do is to try to stop, assess what we might need, grab a magazine or 5 and then react.

Some one recently linked a news report where a gun shop owner had his stored broken into via a truck plowed through the front of the store. He opened fire with an AR15, had to retreat to reload, and opened fire again. Turns out only 1 of the three men died from injuries.

It's not ideal, but it does go to show that in a dangerous scenario 10 rounds won't just magically get the job done. Hell, look at the many police shooting videos on Youtube which often start at less than 6 feet of distance between the officer and suspect. Many of them erupt into gunfire in which NO ONE is hit on either side.

This decision that X rounds is all that is needed is imagined because you never know what is needed because it implies that there is a defined universal and that's illogical.

Frission:

farson135:

Frission:
There would be a pretty big problem if you were just as likely to be killed by an AR than by a baseball bat, wouldn't there?

While I have to admit to a certain ignorance to the types of firearms, I think there's a slight difference between a baseball bat and an assault rifle. I wish there would stop being these comparisons between guns and cars/chairs/baseball bats/knives. It's a pretty stupid comparison. and I don't think even I need to clarify that's there's a distinction.

I would be more swayed by an actual reason ie. self defense and hunting then "bees kill more people, should be ban bees?!"

OK enough. There is a difference between an assault rifle and an AR-15. There has never been a murder committed with a legally obtained assault rifle in the US by a civilian. So the comparison between them and bats is perfectly valid. Civilian legally obtained assault rifles are never used to murder anyone in the US and yet bats are. Why do you want to ban one for the sake of safety but not the one that is actually used to kill people?

As for ARs, more people are murdered by blunt instruments or knives than by ALL rifles in the US- http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/how-people-are-murdered-in-united-states.html

You want actual reason? Here you go, ARs are some of the most modular firearms in existence. That means that one person can do just about anything with just one firearm. You want to hunt, push two pins and replace your upper with a 6.8 and attach a scope. You want to do some long range competitive shooting, push two pins attack an upper that shoots 300 blackout, attach a scope, and replace the butt stock. You want a shotgun for home protection, push two pins and stick your .410 upper on and you are ready to go. In other words, an AR is the poor man's version of an entire gun safe worth of firearms.

image

If we're going in the realm of comparisons, then no US citizen was killed by an H-Bomb. Does that mean we shouldn't control it? You're right that bats kills more people. Although, it's maybe it's because they're more widely available. I'm sure there would be a jump in death by assault rifles if there were less restrictions.

I don't think anyone ever said that guns kill the most people. It's the difference in numbers of applications or the potential risks. Or how "good" they are at killing people. They are something that can be controlled to a certain extent with the least amount of fallout. Imagine trying to ban clubs, something that can be whittled from a regular old tree. Before someone quotes me on criminals making guns in sheds, I would like to say it's probably not as simple and that even if alot of drugs can be made in a shed, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be illegal.

Now the last bit is a pretty good reason and nothing to roll your eyes over. It's pretty informative actually. That and I laughed at "it's barbie for men".

Alright, how about a cost/benefit analysis of confiscation of legally owned machine gun? (I am defining legally owned machine guns as firearms meeting the criteria of the National Firearms Act, requiring $200 tax stamp for ownership. Illegally obtained firearms, illegally modified firearms, such as fire rate modifications, police issued weapons, or those owned by FFL licensed gun companies do not count).

Current benefits of legally owned FFL weapons: Bullets bought for recreational use move money through the economy that could of been saved and remained unused by the wealthy owners of the weapons. The sales of the weapons move a fairly large amount of money, do to their rarity and high costs.

Current costs of legally owned FFL weapons: No murders have been committed with legally registered FFL weapons since the Great Depression. While use for murder or other violent crime is possible, it is statistically unlikely.

Potential costs of confiscation of legally owned FFL weapons: US government is required to compensate taking of any property barring that taken after a trial and prosecution. Legally transferable, fully automatic M16s will cost around $15000, while the higher end machine guns, including the 8 privately owned miniguns, can easily cost well above $30,000. Buy back costs could run in millions. Further costs on government would be generated on appeals of the confiscation, plus possibility of repeal of the entire National Firearms Act.

Potential benefits of confiscation of legally owned FFL weapons: Removal of extremely tiny statistical chance that they will be used in crimes.

I apologize for lack of detail. I could not find the current costs of all legally transferable machine guns, or FFL weapons in general.

AgedGrunt:

There's all sorts of dangerous wildlife in populated areas, and some have guns. People need to be allowed to own and carry to take down other humans if they are threatened. Just like animals have the tools to survive, so do we. Only difference is people go around thinking they can declaw everyone else, it's just as inhumane as ripping them out of animals.

A human does not need the same level of power to kill so there is no need for a overkill weapon.

I remember a piece about Victorian big game hunters in Africa. There was a sort of hunters guide that talked about all the animals you could go shoot, in the mountain gorilla section there was a warning that basically said if the male is enraged and charging you don't bother to shoot it; you could shoot it in the head and it'll still pummel you to death before it realises it should be dead. That's the kind of animal that needs a rapid fire, large capacity rifle.

A human dies from an air rifle pellet. Nowhere near the same league.

USA's military is almost as big as their ego.
There's no need for civilians to have guns, and entertainment is a bad excuse when you can buy air rifles, paintball guns, and shooting video games.

Concealed carry is also awful as hell, because there's absolutely 0 reason to conceal your gun other than to hide the fact that you can kill people with a few flicks of the wrist.

It's especially awful because holding a gun gives you a sense of power that you don't want to have when you're pushed over the line with anger over some peacefully negotiable matters- everyone gets there at some point in their lives. Just because somebody killed people doesn't mean they're insane from birth. A majority of the time, it's the environment they're brought up in or dealing with at the moment.

On another note, if guns were illegal, there are some things to note about people who murder:
*Illegal arms dealers won't be selling guns cheap. Their price will probably be significantly higher and the reliability of the weapon significantly lower.
*Not having a deadly weapon on hand will most likely do one of two things:
-*Slow the killer down enough to make them reconsider their actions
-*Slow the killer enough that they will use a far less lethal weapon, in which case a gun for self-defence is simply not needed.

Even if guns should be legal (I think to an extent they should be,) people should not be able to just go to a local gun store and buy a shipment of Uzi's. A majority of gangs from neighbouring countries buy guns from middleman citizens who buy from US stores, so we are to an extent supporting crimes committed in Mexico and other countries.

Shock and Awe:
Just as a curiosity can you show me a link to something showing that the US and UK have different classifications for violent crime? Because if you look at the numbers as presented by the UK Home office and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation they seem to categorize the crimes the same.

It's about the crime survey and the government statistics that that's based on, not on home office and FBI numbers.

Shock and Awe:
In the US you are more likely to be beat to death with a bat then killed by a AR-15. Should we investigate if everyone buying a bat is really a baseball player?

Let's argue that one the other way around to reflect the gun lobby:

If a group of five known gang members is standing waiting outside the house of someone who's known to be on a death list, carrying baseball bats, should police ignore the situation completely because that's their second amendment right?

The gun lobby thinks so.

Frission:
If we're going in the realm of comparisons, then no US citizen was killed by an H-Bomb. Does that mean we shouldn't control it?

We actually don't. It is not illegal for a civilian to own a nuclear weapon in the US. What we control is the nuclear material to make the bomb. Not a good comparison.

You're right that bats kills more people. Although, it's maybe it's because they're more widely available. I'm sure there would be a jump in death by assault rifles if there were less restrictions.

Why would there be? Look people, just because you allow people to buy it does not mean a lot of people will. After you see the cost of a range trip 99% of the population will say thanks but no thanks. Only extremely rich people can afford to even shot one of those things on a regular basis. And even if they did, there is no reason why they would use that firearm over any other. Machine guns are not particularly effective anyway.

I don't think anyone ever said that guns kill the most people. It's the difference in numbers of applications or the potential risks. Or how "good" they are at killing people.

That is irrelevant. The ability of the tool is determined by the ability of its master (or lack thereof).

They are something that can be controlled to a certain extent with the least amount of fallout. Imagine trying to ban clubs, something that can be whittled from a regular old tree. Before someone quotes me on criminals making guns in sheds, I would like to say it's probably not as simple

Actually it is and it is becoming simpler by the day. http://www.dailytech.com/3D+Printed+Gun+Fails+after+Six+Shots/article29339.htm

Darra Adam Khel- Town in Pakistan that contains a cottage industry of firearm manufacture.
Bougainville Revolutionary Army- After their island was blockaded by a combined Australian/New Guinea force they began producing their own firearms and ammunition.
The Philippians- http://www.dismalworld.com/black-economy/faithful_replicas_of_guns_and_rifles_produced.php
Britain- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10297231
http://ashington.journallive.co.uk/2010/06/police-recover-weapons-from-as.html
Chechnya- http://englishrussia.com/2007/06/04/chechen-self-made-weapons/
China- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394012224530655.html
I can get more if you like. The point is that if people want guns they can get them and the laws governing the possession of guns are irrelevant. Look, you may not realize this but as someone who has worked with tools and firearms all his life it is not that difficult to build a firearm. If I wanted to at this moment I have all the tools necessary to build a fully functional AK47. Hell I could actually make an improved version since Russian arms designers seem to be too stubborn to bring their firearms into the 21st century.

even if alot of drugs can be made in a shed, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be illegal.

Actually it should. Laws that are unenforceable should not be created.

Tyelcapilu:
There's no need for civilians to have guns

Farmer's son here. We need guns to kill pests.

Concealed carry is also awful as hell, because there's absolutely 0 reason to conceal your gun other than to hide the fact that you can kill people with a few flicks of the wrist.

If you are flicking your wrist while drawing then you need to practice more. We conceal our firearms because jackasses feel the need to call the cops on us when we do it. We would rather not deal with the hassle. Plus open carry is illegal for pistols in Texas.

It's especially awful because holding a gun gives you a sense of power that you don't want to have when you're pushed over the line with anger over some peacefully negotiable matters- everyone gets there at some point in their lives.

So you are arguing a modified version of the, murders in parking lots argument. Problem, that doesn't actually happen often enough to even be significant.

*Illegal arms dealers won't be selling guns cheap. Their price will probably be significantly higher and the reliability of the weapon significantly lower.

Price, not necessarily. With the way tech is advancing it is becoming easier and easier to produce firearms from home (look at what I said to the guy above).

Reliability, why?

Slow the killer down enough to make them reconsider their actions

Slow them down? They have to go and get the gun to begin with. There are more than enough potential weapons in a home that that will not slow them down.

Slow the killer enough that they will use a far less lethal weapon, in which case a gun for self-defence is simply not needed.

Far less lethal? A questionable assumption at best.

As for not needing concealed carry, we do not carry just to protect ourselves against guns- http://monachuslex.com/?p=1678

A majority of gangs from neighbouring countries buy guns from middleman citizens who buy from US stores, so we are to an extent supporting crimes committed in Mexico and other countries.

No they do not. Tell me, do you think it is a coincidence that the cartels preferred firearms from the US are also firearms used by the Mexican military? Their primary pistols, one of their primary assault rifles, one of their primary sniper rifles, and their primary anti-materiel rifle are all made in the USA. The Mexican military has universal conscription and they pay their soldiers very badly. There have been 250,000 desertions from the Mexican military in the past decade.

The US sells firearms to the Mexican government but the Mexican government cannot keep its soldiers from deserting. Mexico is supplying US made firearms to the cartels. But even with that, the number of US guns in the hands of the cartels is estimated at around 10%.

farson135:
Farmer's son here. We need guns to kill pests.

So you'll have no problem with a total gun ban, and after that applying for a permit for a non-automated hunting rifle, and no problem with facing severe punishment if that weapon were ever used to attack humans, for whatever deluded reason is given.

All legitimate use for firearms can be covered under such a system, so the only ones who disagree are by definition people who want firearms with the explicit intent of committing murder in the future.

Blablahb:
So you'll have no problem with a total gun ban, and after that applying for a permit for a non-automated hunting rifle

First of all, a total gun ban that is not a gun ban?

Second of all, non-automated rifle? What the fuck are you talking about?

Third, you want me to apply for a permit for something that is wholly necessary not only for my family's survival but yours as well? What if I tell you to go fuck yourself and you can starve. If you want to tell me how to farm then you can do it yourself. Good luck. (Taking my goddamn resources when you need my services, what fucking bullshit.)

no problem with facing severe punishment if that weapon were ever used to attack humans, for whatever deluded reason is given.

Good thing then that I would only use my firearm defensively against humans.

All legitimate use for firearms can be covered under such a system

No it cannot.

so the only ones who disagree are by definition people who want firearms with the explicit intent of committing murder in the future.

Right, you make an unenforceable and completely moronic law and if I do not agree with it then I support murder. Great argument. (/sarcasm)

farson135:
Second of all, non-automated rifle? What the fuck are you talking about?

You have non-automated weapons on one side, and semi- and fully automated weapons on the other.

farson135:
Good thing then that I would only use my firearm defensively against humans.

It's this belief that murder can be justified which is the cause of a lot of gun violence.

So was the "I'm on a farm" just a smokescreen, and do you want firearms to be able to commit murder with them?

farson135:
Third, you want me to apply for a permit for something that is wholly necessary not only for my family's survival but yours as well?

You have pest animals on your farm that will in 100% of all cases murder your entire family, then cross an ocean and also kill mine, unless you're allowed to have unlimited firearms? What do you breed on your farm? Reapers? So I doubt it...

You've not made it clear why you would be in any sort of trouble under a total gun ban like me and others have been putting forward for several topics now. It doesn't appear you have any legitimate need for firearms so far.

Knight Templar:

Gergar12:
People have killed dozens using less than 10 rounds.

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

12 is a dozen, not "dozens".

And from that article "The police estimate that over 60 shots were fired by the perpetrator during the shooting.". Perhaps you meant to say that the two pistols used didn't have more than 10 each, and to that I would ask, so?

My point people can reload. A manic using a ar-15 with 10 round clips vs 30 rounds will just have to take a 2-3 seconds more to reload.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o&list=HL1357322112

Gergar12:
My point people can reload. A manic using a ar-15 with 10 round clips vs 30 rounds will just have to take a 2-3 seconds more to reload

Do you know how many people can pass through a door to safety in three seconds?

If it saves even a single life it's worth it.

Blablahb:

Gergar12:
My point people can reload. A manic using a ar-15 with 10 round clips vs 30 rounds will just have to take a 2-3 seconds more to reload

Do you know how many people can pass through a door to safety in three seconds?

If it saves even a single life it's worth it.

Do you know that manics can run after them, and each reload with take .5-1 second. If you practice enough it would be less. The police would still be mintudes away. Runing out the door will not safe you, and what about people who are under desks? If it saves a single life. what does that mean. How do you know if that single life would not have been saved. Where is the proof. Are you just guessing?

Are we talking about Assault Rifles specifically or "assault weapons" which is a intentionally vague term meant to confuse and trick the public? Hell no to "assault weapons", as for assault rifles they are very rarely used in crimes. Also when the federal assault rifle ban was in place, there was no positive (or negative) effect on crime, so there appears to be zero point in banning it.

As for banning guns, it is illogical and impractical to ban them.

A. the police can not (nor are they required to) protect you in case of an emergency, this is especially true out in the rural areas where the police are 10+ minutes away. And no, dont say increase police protection because the cost of doing so (to an adequate degree) is astronomical. Not to mention that law enforcement is experiencing budget CUTS in order to decrease our spending.

B. there will be riots in the streets causing thousands of lives lost (and that is low balling it) and billions in damages if you try to take guns away from everyone. They will rightly see it as the government becoming a police state and their civic duty to resist it.

C. In the states with the harshest gun control laws, crime is worst there than in loose gun control law states. Let us not forget that Chicago (which BANS handguns) has 3x more gun homicides than Dallas.

D. Illegal goods are extremely easy to get into this country. Despite our "war on drugs" which has lasted decades, drugs are so easy to find that I can walk down the street and get some....well at least I could if it wasnt winter time. Nature is a better deterent against the drug trade than our government is. Barring the East and West coast, you have the Canadian border which is unpopulated, with rugged terrain, and has virtually no defense. You can march entire armies across it and no one will be the wiser. Then you have the Gulf Coast, riddled with nearby island nations within close distance who would be more than happy to help facilitate such transactions if it meant lining their pockets. Not to mention that a good portion of the Gulf Coast is swamps and marshlands, areas that people avoid and easy to avoid detection. Last but not least, the Mexican border.

E. (tying in with D) banning guns will be the greatest thing to happen to criminals, because now every law abiding citizen is completely defenseless and at the mercy of criminals whereas any criminal who wants a gun can still easily get one.

F. Pest control/hunting/livelyhood. Do you know how many lives will be lost if guns were banned JUST from dangerous animals? Deer alone kill 150 people per year and cause billions of dollars of damage a year, mostly in the North. This is due to the North having strict gun control laws and as such there are barely any hunters, causing the deer population to become rampant and a danger to every driver on the road.

G. every piece of evidence in the US (specifically) shows that increase gun control either leads to more crime or does nothing at all. Im sure that banning guns is a practical solution in some countries and im glad it works there. Serious face here. But their situation is expotentially easier than ours.

H. Gangs typically dont possess legal firearms as it is. Gang violence is a major component in homicide/crime in general in most cities. However, we cant do anything really to stop gangs permanently because our government will be accused of racism if they tried. Law enforcement does not have a good reputation with certain communities. To be fair, there is a legit reason why both sides act that way. Just like we cant tighten the Mexican border because the government will be accused of racism.

I. Cartels, enough said.

J. Guns are often family heirlooms. Granted we are talking about WW2 and before era guns for the most part. My cousin inherited the first rifle my grandfather recieved when he (grandfather) was a teenager. People are going to be pissed if you take family heirlooms. Granted this is not a big problem compared to the others listed.

So banning guns is clearly the illogical and impractical choice. Now if most or all of those reasons that ive listed were alleviated or eliminated, THEN I would at least consider banning guns as a possible option.

Gergar12:
Do you know that manics can run after them, and each reload with take .5-1 second. If you practice enough it would be less. The police would still be mintudes away. Runing out the door will not safe you, and what about people who are under desks? If it saves a single life. what does that mean. How do you know if that single life would not have been saved. Where is the proof. Are you just guessing?

Didn't I already say that if it saves even one life it's already worth it? Especially since the gun lobby mafia is stopping any really effective measures from being taken.

The less firepower, the fewer people lose their lives and get severely injured. How that less firepower is achieve isn't relevant. Obviously a gun ban is way more effective than weapon limitations, but that doesn't make weapon limitations like magazine size a bad thing.

Blablahb:
Didn't I already say that if it saves even one life it's already worth it? Especially since the gun lobby mafia is stopping any really effective measures from being taken.

by that logic you would have to outlaw near anything though.

cars, electricity for private households, fireworks, legos, cotton balls..

hey, if outlawing it saves even one life..

Blablahb:

farson135:
Second of all, non-automated rifle? What the fuck are you talking about?

You have non-automated weapons on one side, and semi- and fully automated weapons on the other.

farson135:
Good thing then that I would only use my firearm defensively against humans.

It's this belief that murder can be justified which is the cause of a lot of gun violence.

So was the "I'm on a farm" just a smokescreen, and do you want firearms to be able to commit murder with them?

farson135:
Third, you want me to apply for a permit for something that is wholly necessary not only for my family's survival but yours as well?

You have pest animals on your farm that will in 100% of all cases murder your entire family, then cross an ocean and also kill mine, unless you're allowed to have unlimited firearms? What do you breed on your farm? Reapers? So I doubt it...

You've not made it clear why you would be in any sort of trouble under a total gun ban like me and others have been putting forward for several topics now. It doesn't appear you have any legitimate need for firearms so far.

I think what Blahb is talking about with the automation is the difference between a bolt-action rifle like a mauser K98 (my personal favorite) and a semi-auto one (like the G43).
Also Blahb he doesn't want guns to murder people, he just wants them to defend his farm from predators. Even in my town we have the occasional coyote, I can't imagine what it's like on a farm where there are worse predators and you have more land and animals to protect.

Also
"It's this belief that murder can be justified which is the cause of a lot of gun violence."
If someone breaks into your house and you kill them that's not murder, murder is illegal. I'm pretty sure everyone here is against murder.

Frission:

Shock and Awe:

In the US you are more likely to be beat to death with a bat then killed by a AR-15. Should we investigate if everyone buying a bat is really a baseball player? No, because thats pretty stupid seeing as the vast majority of people with baseball bats don't plan on using them to harm anyone without reason. The same is true for people who own WASRs and ARs, and everything else that fits the vague term of "Assault Weapon".

There would be a pretty big problem if you were just as likely to be killed by an AR than by a baseball bat, wouldn't there?

While I have to admit to a certain ignorance to the types of firearms, I think there's a slight difference between a baseball bat and an assault rifle. I wish there would stop being these comparisons between guns and cars/chairs/baseball bats/knives. It's a pretty stupid comparison. and I don't think even I need to clarify that's there's a distinction.

I would be more swayed by an actual reason ie. self defense and hunting then "bees kill more people, should be ban bees?!"

There was a study back in the 90s saying about 2.5 million examples of guns being used in self defense happen every year. This however was criticized for being an over estimation by including examples of unlawful uses or simple escalation. However I'd say ever if 1 out of 100 of the cases were legitimate that'd still be twice the murder rate that we currently have.

As for reasons for owning semi-auto magazine fed rifles(they aren't assault rifles) specifically its simply because they are more effective for hunting and self defense then other weapons typically are as you could probably imagine. When I ever go after hogs I bring my AK because they tend to be in groups and hogs are nasty bastards and I don't want to rely on a bolt action rifle and a pistol if more then one decide to charge me. While in some areas hogs and coyotes may not be much of an issue, in the places they are it is simply safer to have semiautomatic rifles.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
Just as a curiosity can you show me a link to something showing that the US and UK have different classifications for violent crime? Because if you look at the numbers as presented by the UK Home office and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation they seem to categorize the crimes the same.

It's about the crime survey and the government statistics that that's based on, not on home office and FBI numbers.

Shock and Awe:
In the US you are more likely to be beat to death with a bat then killed by a AR-15. Should we investigate if everyone buying a bat is really a baseball player?

Let's argue that one the other way around to reflect the gun lobby:

If a group of five known gang members is standing waiting outside the house of someone who's known to be on a death list, carrying baseball bats, should police ignore the situation completely because that's their second amendment right?

The gun lobby thinks so.

I couldn't even start to care what the gun lobby's opinion on things is seeing as I am not a member of the NRA or the GOA. I speak for what I think, I don't plan on defending what others think. However I think a group of people standing outside anyone's house menacingly with any kind of weapon are committing a crime.

As for what you are claiming to be the source of statistics as the government and crime stats wouldn't this fall under the FBI and Home Office? These are the government agencies that compile the crime stats for the two countries.

To reiterate: The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges (that would be gun grabbers). Superficial needs assessments and statistics do not hold up, either.

Blablahb:
If it saves even a single life it's worth it.

Yes and everyone is extremely grateful for what they go through at airports now, because saving lives.

Karma168:
A human does not need the same level of power to kill so there is no need for a overkill weapon.

I remember a piece about Victorian big game hunters in Africa. There was a sort of hunters guide that talked about all the animals you could go shoot, in the mountain gorilla section there was a warning that basically said if the male is enraged and charging you don't bother to shoot it; you could shoot it in the head and it'll still pummel you to death before it realises it should be dead. That's the kind of animal that needs a rapid fire, large capacity rifle.

A human dies from an air rifle pellet. Nowhere near the same league.

If you honestly believe an air rifle pellet is lethal force, let alone a replacement for a proper firearm to defend against another human, there is the greater discussion surrounding mental healthcare and you should join it. That is not an insult, I genuinely believe there is something wrong with a person's brain to suggest A) that it is not right to be at the same power level as an attacker and B) that an air rifle can protect against large, numerous and/or armed attackers.

Go tell a 56 year old woman who goes jogging to sling an air rifle instead of a Walther. That will really stop a 100kg man intent on doing anything he wants to her. It will really complement her mace, whistle and panic bracelet that rings emergency services. This is sickening to deny her or anyone else a proper equalizer against threats.

AgedGrunt:

If you honestly believe an air rifle pellet is lethal force, let alone a replacement for a proper firearm to defend against another human, there is the greater discussion surrounding mental healthcare and you should join it. That is not an insult, I genuinely believe there is something wrong with a person's brain to suggest A) that it is not right to be at the same power level as an attacker and B) that an air rifle can protect against large, numerous and/or armed attackers.

Go tell a 56 year old woman who goes jogging to sling an air rifle instead of a Walther. That will really stop a 100kg man intent on doing anything he wants to her. It will really complement her mace, whistle and panic bracelet that rings emergency services. This is sickening to deny her or anyone else a proper equalizer against threats.

Remember, I'm not talking about taking away all guns, just those that have excessive force. I'm talking about Helmholtz's point of if there is no need for a weapon, because others already fill the role without being excessive, then why should you have it?

My point about air rifles is not that it should replace guns but that it's enough to kill a human, you don't need massive firepower to do it. If you live in Alaska with lots of large wild animals then it makes sense to have excessive force as anything smaller wouldn't take them down. If the most dangerous animal you'll meet is a human (which as I've said requires nowhere near as much force to kill) then do you really need something as powerful?

This is the point both Helmholtz and I are making, in some places you need this kind of weapon in others you don't, that's where the ban should come down. Remember in Norway, a country that is the NRA's worst nightmare, if you go to Svalbard you don't just get the option of carrying an big game rifle you have to carry one.

Tyelcapilu:
USA's military is almost as big as their ego.
There's no need for civilians to have guns

Only if we can all afford bodyguard services. And we can't.

Concealed carry is also awful as hell, because there's absolutely 0 reason to conceal your gun other than to hide the fact that you can kill people with a few flicks of the wrist.

Few flicks of the wrist. Shows what you know about combat marksmanship.

-*Slow the killer down enough to make them reconsider their actions

The closest I came to death was from someone with a stabbing weapon. Even giving him the money out of my cash register didn't deter him, he wanted blood. The only thing that got him to reconsider his actions was the sudden chance that he himself might die.

people should not be able to just go to a local gun store and buy a shipment of Uzi's.

Legally, you can't anyway.

A majority of gangs from neighbouring countries buy guns from middleman citizens who buy from US stores, so we are to an extent supporting crimes committed in Mexico and other countries.

Considering that the Mexican authorities have confiscated weapons like 40mm HEAT, RPG's, grenade launchers, and .50 machine guns, that's a tough case to make. Last time I checked ,Soviet military surplus wasn't exactly a common thing in American middle class households...

Karma168:

My point about air rifles is not that it should replace guns but that it's enough to kill a human, you don't need massive firepower to do it..

I didn't realize that a .308 round counted as "massive firepower".....

Ryotknife:

A. the police can not (nor are they required to) protect you in case of an emergency, this is especially true out in the rural areas where the police are 10+ minutes away. And no, dont say increase police protection because the cost of doing so (to an adequate degree) is astronomical. Not to mention that law enforcement is experiencing budget CUTS in order to decrease our spending.

Well that's something that needs serious overhauling. Improving the police should be a priority, gun ban or not.

C. In the states with the harshest gun control laws, crime is worst there than in loose gun control law states. Let us not forget that Chicago (which BANS handguns) has 3x more gun homicides than Dallas.

E. (tying in with D) banning guns will be the greatest thing to happen to criminals, because now every law abiding citizen is completely defenseless and at the mercy of criminals whereas any criminal who wants a gun can still easily get one.

H. Gangs typically dont possess legal firearms as it is. Gang violence is a major component in homicide/crime in general in most cities. However, we cant do anything really to stop gangs permanently because our government will be accused of racism if they tried. Law enforcement does not have a good reputation with certain communities. To be fair, there is a legit reason why both sides act that way. Just like we cant tighten the Mexican border because the government will be accused of racism.

I'll do these ones together as they're kind of similar.

These states have high crime and tight control for the exact same reason; they are densely packed urban areas with high gang activity. Looser gun laws would only make things worse as criminals can get their hands on cheap guns easily.

And that's the important bit - easily. The further you have to go for a gun and the higher the risk of smuggling, the higher the price is. Criminals get cheap illegal guns from people stealing them from local people/stores, if you make them have to cross state lines the cost goes up from people bringing them in. If you have zero guns then they have to bring them in from abroad, meaning there is now a much higher risk of apprehension and the price will skyrocket as smugglers want a decent return for their risk.

Anything that gets smuggled in on the black market has a massive mark-up attached. This will stop all but the most well off criminals being able to afford a gun.

And there is a way to stop gangs permanently, give kids a better alternative. If they see a future for themselves if they stay in school and can get a decent job then what appeal does joining a gang have? You get to live in a shitty apartment in a shitty neighbourhood and every time you go outside you could get shot for wearing the wrong colours, if you can give kids hope of a better life then they wont feel they have no future and join a gang because there's nothing else.

F. Pest control/hunting/livelyhood. Do you know how many lives will be lost if guns were banned JUST from dangerous animals? Deer alone kill 150 people per year and cause billions of dollars of damage a year, mostly in the North. This is due to the North having strict gun control laws and as such there are barely any hunters, causing the deer population to become rampant and a danger to every driver on the road.

Pointless argument, nobody is suggesting we take guns away from farmers and hunters.

I. Cartels, enough said.

Not really, Cartels have enough guns, money and bodies that if they want you dead (though why that would be I dunno) then you're screwed, gun or no gun.

Unless you mean smuggling in which case see above. They aren't going to smuggle in guns if nobody can buy them and I doubt cartels run a layaway business model.

J. Guns are often family heirlooms. Granted we are talking about WW2 and before era guns for the most part. My cousin inherited the first rifle my grandfather recieved when he (grandfather) was a teenager. People are going to be pissed if you take family heirlooms. Granted this is not a big problem compared to the others listed.

Disable them, problem solved.

Blablahb:

Gergar12:
Do you know that manics can run after them, and each reload with take .5-1 second. If you practice enough it would be less. The police would still be mintudes away. Runing out the door will not safe you, and what about people who are under desks? If it saves a single life. what does that mean. How do you know if that single life would not have been saved. Where is the proof. Are you just guessing?

Didn't I already say that if it saves even one life it's already worth it? Especially since the gun lobby mafia is stopping any really effective measures from being taken.

The less firepower, the fewer people lose their lives and get severely injured. How that less firepower is achieve isn't relevant. Obviously a gun ban is way more effective than weapon limitations, but that doesn't make weapon limitations like magazine size a bad thing.

Do you have any proof. Maybe some serial killers says darn I can't belive I had 20 less bullets per clip that I was too lazy to to run after, and gun down eople who an after I reloaded for half a second would be good enough proof. Hey while we are at it let ban ropes since that would mean less sucides, and while we are at it lets ban high buildings for you guess it sucides. Then maybe people who sucide using high buildings will say darn I guess I will have to live my life now, and not try to kill myself.

Blablahb:
You have non-automated weapons on one side, and semi- and fully automated weapons on the other.

The word you are looking for is automatic. Automated implies that the firearms function on their own or lac significant human influence.

It's this belief that murder can be justified which is the cause of a lot of gun violence.

It is not murder, it is self defense.

So was the "I'm on a farm" just a smokescreen, and do you want firearms to be able to commit murder with them?

Nope, I want firearms for self defense, for hunting/pest control, for sporting, and collecting.

You have pest animals on your farm that will in 100% of all cases murder your entire family, then cross an ocean and also kill mine, unless you're allowed to have unlimited firearms? What do you breed on your farm?

So are you one of those people who does not eat? You must survive by photosynthesis. You destroy our ability to kill pests, then we cannot make food, then you cannot eat. Get the picture?

You've not made it clear why you would be in any sort of trouble under a total gun ban like me and others have been putting forward for several topics now.

I have done so several dozen times now. Wild pigs, raccoons, squirrels, wolves, coyotes, deer, prairie dogs, etc all eat and/or destroy property here in Texas. There are even more animals if you leave Texas. We don't kill them then you do not eat.

Karma168:
These states have high crime and tight control for the exact same reason; they are densely packed urban areas with high gang activity. Looser gun laws would only make things worse as criminals can get their hands on cheap guns easily.

Right, the guns are the problem. Why is that? Those areas do not have very many guns so shouldn't their absence be doing something that can actually be measured?

If you have zero guns then they have to bring them in from abroad, meaning there is now a much higher risk of apprehension and the price will skyrocket as smugglers want a decent return for their risk.

Or make them.

And there is a way to stop gangs permanently, give kids a better alternative. If they see a future for themselves if they stay in school and can get a decent job then what appeal does joining a gang have? You get to live in a shitty apartment in a shitty neighbourhood and every time you go outside you could get shot for wearing the wrong colours, if you can give kids hope of a better life then they wont feel they have no future and join a gang because there's nothing else.

So your primary solution to gangs has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with changing socio-economic cultural factors. Interesting.

Pointless argument, nobody is suggesting we take guns away from farmers and hunters.

Really? Have you talked to Blablahb? Also, my primary hunting rifle is an AR-10. Would you care to tell me that no one wants to take that away?

Not really, Cartels have enough guns, money and bodies that if they want you dead (though why that would be I dunno) then you're screwed, gun or no gun.

A friend of mine lives on the Arizona/Mexico border. Drug smugglers cross through his property on a regular basis. If he does not have a gun who is going to protect him? The police that are 30 minutes away? Also, the cartels do not send that many people across the border at once. One guy with a gun can protect himself.

Disable them, problem solved.

You want me to deface my family heirlooms? Why?

farson135:
It is not murder, it is self defense.

That's just your dogmatic idea, and not fact. If you take the life of someone who is not a mortal threat to you (no, nicking your telly won't kill you) is murder, plain and simple.

So you show how you're an excellent argument of why guns need to be banned: You pretend you need it for the farm, but in the meantime you're planning to kill whomever you don't like. People like you are the ones who cause a lot of gun violence. Not just the purposely planned murders that you claim are 'self-defense', but what if you're ever in an emotionally distressing situation while sitting on that big arsenal?

Statistics tell us what will happen: Your wife ends up shot dead, or your kids, or both, or that neighbour who kept looking at you funny, or all the kids at the local highschool. That's what gun ownership enables.

So stop gun ownership, stop those crimes, and everybody is a lot safer.

Gergar12:
Do you have any proof. Maybe some serial killers says darn I can't belive I had 20 less bullets per clip that I was too lazy to to run after, and gun down eople who an after I reloaded for half a second would be good enough proof.

This has been mentioned at least five times in various firearms related topics recently, so there's no way you missed all of that. But I'll repeat it anyway. Two examples of instance are Rudolf Käsebier and Kim de Gelder. Both were completely deranged spree wannabe-killers.

Rudolf K. went on a crazy stabbing spree in a town centre. Stabbing spree, because the Netherlands has a firearms ban. Three people were lightly injured, one of whom only sustained minor cuts to his hands because he happened to wear a leather jacket.

Kim de Gelder is a vengeance-on-society killer who trained for months for his killing spree, practising knife techniques. Again, knives, because Belgium has strict gun laws. He targeted a kindergarten, but had to forego his original target because there were three men chatting outside it, and three men would easily overpower a spree killer with a knife. At his secondary target he attacked babies and small children as well as staff. Despite his training, the death toll remained at three and twelve injuries.

If either of the two had had firearms, it would've been a massacre of unheard of proportions.

Gergar12:
Hey while we are at it let ban ropes since that would mean less sucides

Actually I slapped you around the head earlier with Belgian statistics which proved that a ban gun leads to much fewer suicides. The Belgian rate was cut in half in just 6 years.

Even if you're being purposely obtuse, we just keep running into good arguments for a gun ban...

Blablahb:
That's just your dogmatic idea, and not fact.

My dogmatic idea? Try the idea of every country and the vast majority of the people on the planet.

If you take the life of someone who is not a mortal threat to you (no, nicking your telly won't kill you) is murder, plain and simple.

So you acknowledge that you can take the life of someone who is a mortal threat to you and it is not murder. Progress.

So you show how you're an excellent argument of why guns need to be banned: You pretend you need it for the farm, but in the meantime you're planning to kill whomever you don't like.

Am I planning that? Or are you just making more shit up? I will go with the latter.

People like you are the ones who cause a lot of gun violence.

People like me? People like me are the people you most want to own firearms. We are the ones who know what we are doing.

Not just the purposely planned murders that you claim are 'self-defense'

So you are saying that this is a purposely planned murder- http://monachuslex.com/?p=1678

but what if you're ever in an emotionally distressing situation while sitting on that big arsenal?

I am well into my 20s. I have suffered many an emotionally distressing situation. I have been around guns all of my life. No murders.

Statistics tell us what will happen

Prove it.

Your wife ends up shot dead, or your kids, or both, or that neighbour who kept looking at you funny, or all the kids at the local highschool. That's what gun ownership enables.

Right, firearms are the thing that allow it- http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/man-murders-family-kills-himself

farson135:
My dogmatic idea? Try the idea of every country and the vast majority of the people on the planet.

The majority of people on the planet believe that it's okay to murder people for treading on your lawn, opening your front door, trying to steal something, or asking you for money?

I doubt it.

Feel free to prove it to me though. Poll a few people. Give them a pencil, then grab it from them, and ask if they think that in that situation, they're entitled to murdering you on the spot. If you can show that people indeed believe murder is a good thing, I'll of course change my point of view.

Untill you do I'm right though.

farson135:
So you acknowledge that you can take the life of someone who is a mortal threat to you and it is not murder. Progress.

I've never claimed anything different.

A situation which doesn't help the gun lobby one tiny little bit, because a situation where someone is a mortal threat to you, and you see it coming from far away enough to grab a gun, will never happen, and certainly never happen enough to justify killing thousands of people every year by allowing gun possession.

farson135:
Am I planning that? Or are you just making more shit up? I will go with the latter.

You said yourself you wanted to commit murder upon burglars. Don't go flipflopping by denying that now.

farson135:
People like me? People like me are the people you most want to own firearms. We are the ones who know what we are doing.

....and the ones who perpetrate 100% of all firearms crime.

All firearms crime is perpetrated by gun owners, people who have guns. It's statistical law that it does, no matter what you happen to think of that situation. Of course, if that makes you uncomfortable (which I can understand, I wouldn't want to be part of a group asociated with highly elevated rates of violent crime) you can remove yourself from that group at any time of your choosing by disarming. It would be a good thing if you did. A moral thing.

farson135:
I am well into my 20s. I have suffered many an emotionally distressing situation. I have been around guns all of my life. No murders.

Lucky for you, yes, nobody's been killed yet. The statistics speak for themselves though:

Emotional situation + guns = murder in some cases.
Emotional situation + gun ban = a black eye or a few bruises in the worst of cases.

Reason enough to save those lives by instituting a gun ban.

Blablahb:

Emotional situation + gun ban = a black eye or a few bruises in the worst of cases.

.

Where do you get this strange notion that people are never beaten, stabbed, or strangled to death anymore?

Let's once again rip this apart bit by bit.
"That's just your dogmatic idea, and not fact. If you take the life of someone who is not a mortal threat to you (no, nicking your telly won't kill you) is murder, plain and simple.

So you show how you're an excellent argument of why guns need to be banned: You pretend you need it for the farm, but in the meantime you're planning to kill whomever you don't like. People like you are the ones who cause a lot of gun violence. Not just the purposely planned murders that you claim are 'self-defense', but what if you're ever in an emotionally distressing situation while sitting on that big arsenal?

Statistics tell us what will happen: Your wife ends up shot dead, or your kids, or both, or that neighbour who kept looking at you funny, or all the kids at the local highschool. That's what gun ownership enables."

First, it is Blahb's dogmatic idea and not fact that defending your property is somehow murder. Also saying that someone plans to kill people just because that person owns a gun, reall? Also people who will never use a gun to commit a crime cause a lot of gun violence, how? Then using statistics to tell someone their future.

"This has been mentioned at least five times in various firearms related topics recently, so there's no way you missed all of that. But I'll repeat it anyway. Two examples of instance are Rudolf Käsebier and Kim de Gelder. Both were completely deranged spree wannabe-killers.

Rudolf K. went on a crazy stabbing spree in a town centre. Stabbing spree, because the Netherlands has a firearms ban. Three people were lightly injured, one of whom only sustained minor cuts to his hands because he happened to wear a leather jacket.

Kim de Gelder is a vengeance-on-society killer who trained for months for his killing spree, practising knife techniques. Again, knives, because Belgium has strict gun laws. He targeted a kindergarten, but had to forego his original target because there were three men chatting outside it, and three men would easily overpower a spree killer with a knife. At his secondary target he attacked babies and small children as well as staff. Despite his training, the death toll remained at three and twelve injuries.

If either of the two had had firearms, it would've been a massacre of unheard of proportions."

Here in America we lost over 2,000 of our own innocent people to planes crashing into things like the World Trade Center. Point of this being if someone wants to kill a ton of others they will find a way to do it. See also Oklahoma City. You can ban guns but if someone wants a lot of people there's options. You know what? Those options were banned, hijacking planes was illegal but criminals don't follow laws.

As for the last bit, Japan has a tiny number of guns but a whole forest dedicated to suicide. Again people will find a way to do what they want.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked