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

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 17 NEXT
 

I think what a lot of europeans dont get is that a gun can be a symbol of "well im gonna live my life the way I damn well think I should and if you disagree here is a gun to back up my point", which i think may have been the founding fathers intentions more than a militia to overthrow the government but im not an expert, not even an american

Not G. Ivingname:

Never heard of that town in Colorado, can you find a source backing that up?

Unless he knows of a town I don't, he prolly means Kennesaw, Georgia. It is a town of about 50,000 (afew hundred smaller than my town) that in 1982 passed a city ordinances saying every resident must have some form of a gun (riifle, shotgun, pistol. It doesn't matter)..........thier crime rate is half the national average and they haven't had a murder since the ordinance was passed. No small feat for a town that size.

the clockmaker:

Oh yes, I remember instructing some kid on work experience and he tried to tell me that I was holding my weapon wrong based on his extensive experience in video games, so I see where you are coming from.

The question though is less about the specific use of firearms but about their effect on the world around them. Someone does not need to know, for example, the difference between an optic sight and a scope, the difference between trace and AP (which is harder to spell than it looks) to know that you look through one and the other comes out the buisness end. YOu don't need to know the difference between a flash suppressor and sound suppressor to make a judgment on overall gun ownership.

Also, if I remember my escapist who's who Blah was in the dutch army (though I may be remembering another dutch fella) so he is not really some random 15 year old

Another collary, using this same logic, can we get civilians to stop trying to give their two cents on how the war on terror is conducted.

Final collary, that thing about the SEAL is hypothetical right?

Well some issues are more technical than others. Anyone is entitled to an opinion on anything, but sometimes something technical comes along, (or otherwise detail-oriented, such as the finer points of gun control laws, or tax laws and/or financial industry regulations) someone will know more or have experienced more than someone else. A lot of these gun discussions are indeed focusing on some finer points that someone who has never held a gun, or lived in a dangerous place, will have to rely on google or media rather than real world experience.

Your example of "giving two cents on the war on terror" isn't technical and it's everyone's concern.

SEAL thing was hypothetical, yes. :) I have never even been in a physical fight.

adamsaccount:
I think what a lot of europeans dont get is that a gun can be a symbol of "well im gonna live my life the way I damn well think I should and if you disagree here is a gun to back up my point", which i think may have been the founding fathers intentions more than a militia to overthrow the government but im not an expert, not even an american

Well that is a sort of crude way of putting it, but the basic message is sort of right. The Second Amendment was included as a sort of insurance measure to discourage a tyrannical government. There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers supported an empowered people, and part of this includes the people's right to be armed and even rebel (and there are many quotes which support this). It is part of the checks and balances organization of our government. While the three branches are suppose to keep each other in line, the people are meant to have the ability to challenge the government if they feel they have been wronged as a whole.

I don't believe any rational gun owner believes that armed civilians alone can overcome the United States military, but that is not the point of armed citizens. It was (and still is by many of us) believed that an armed citizen is an independent one, while an unarmed citizen can easily be kept in line. An armed public will not flat out stop a malicious government, but it is sure as hell a big obstacle.

Of course I am no expert either, this is all just what I interpret as a citizen under these laws.

harmonic:

the clockmaker:

Oh yes, I remember instructing some kid on work experience and he tried to tell me that I was holding my weapon wrong based on his extensive experience in video games, so I see where you are coming from.

The question though is less about the specific use of firearms but about their effect on the world around them. Someone does not need to know, for example, the difference between an optic sight and a scope, the difference between trace and AP (which is harder to spell than it looks) to know that you look through one and the other comes out the buisness end. YOu don't need to know the difference between a flash suppressor and sound suppressor to make a judgment on overall gun ownership.

Also, if I remember my escapist who's who Blah was in the dutch army (though I may be remembering another dutch fella) so he is not really some random 15 year old

Another collary, using this same logic, can we get civilians to stop trying to give their two cents on how the war on terror is conducted.

Final collary, that thing about the SEAL is hypothetical right?

Well some issues are more technical than others. Anyone is entitled to an opinion on anything, but sometimes something technical comes along, (or otherwise detail-oriented, such as the finer points of gun control laws, or tax laws and/or financial industry regulations) someone will know more or have experienced more than someone else. A lot of these gun discussions are indeed focusing on some finer points that someone who has never held a gun, or lived in a dangerous place, will have to rely on google or media rather than real world experience.

Your example of "giving two cents on the war on terror" isn't technical and it's everyone's concern.

SEAL thing was hypothetical, yes. :) I have never even been in a physical fight.

But that is exactly my point, people are trying to come in with 'you don't need a weapon that can put a 30 round mag down range in 30 seconds' and anti-gun control people are trying to drag them into a quagmire of details because their opponent used the wrong term or they think that knowing the difference between, say an assault rifle and a battle rifle is the key moral point. People are quibbling over the difference between automatic and automated against someone whose first language isn't even English.

The war on terror is an insanely complex and technical endevour conducted by people who train for years to understand just their own part of it. Now people should of course have their own say in should we be fighting it but would be wiser to leave the conduct of it (Investigation of misconduct notwithstanding) to the professionals. Otherwise a lot of these war on terror discussions are instead focusing on the finer points that someone who has never worn a uniform or followed an order, will have to rely on google or media rather than real world experience. Just because gun control is a pet topic of yours does not make it non-technical (wow that is an awkward turn of phrase, lots of negatives there)

This is why it is the duty of the people to decide when we go to war, but not how, the extent, but not the detail of firearm laws and the broad strokes of our international relations, but not the specific deals.

All of these things are technical, and they are all everybody's concern.

the clockmaker:

harmonic:
-snip-

But that is exactly my point, people are trying to come in with 'you don't need a weapon that can put a 30 round mag down range in 30 seconds' and anti-gun control people are trying to drag them into a quagmire of details because their opponent used the wrong term or they think that knowing the difference between, say an assault rifle and a battle rifle is the key moral point. People are quibbling over the difference between automatic and automated against someone whose first language isn't even English.

The war on terror is an insanely complex and technical endevour conducted by people who train for years to understand just their own part of it. Now people should of course have their own say in should we be fighting it but would be wiser to leave the conduct of it (Investigation of misconduct notwithstanding) to the professionals. Otherwise a lot of these war on terror discussions are instead focusing on the finer points that someone who has never worn a uniform or followed an order, will have to rely on google or media rather than real world experience. Just because gun control is a pet topic of yours does not make it non-technical (wow that is an awkward turn of phrase, lots of negatives there)

This is why it is the duty of the people to decide when we go to war, but not how, the extent, but not the detail of firearm laws and the broad strokes of our international relations, but not the specific deals.

All of these things are technical, and they are all everybody's concern.

That is a valid point to an extent, but there is a basic level of knowledge that should be known because some of it DOES matter in these discussions. I agree with you that calling a magazine a "clip" does matter whatsoever in a debate such as this. It is annoying, but trivial in the end.

However, people who own firearms most likely know about the laws concerning ownership and use in their area of residence as well as the process of purchasing them. This is where I see a lot of misconceptions. I see a lot of pro-gun control people making arguments which somewhere involve a criminal "walking into a store and buying X amount of (insert popular bad guy weapon here)." Those of us who have bought a firearm know that it is a required on a federal level to have the customer go through a thorough background check by the FBI before the transaction can take place. In many states there is also a waiting period before you can actually take home your purchase. On a related note, these processes are what prevented the Sandy Hook shooter from obtaining guns from a store, thus driving him to steal them.

The process to obtain a carry permit are even more in depth, so the thought that a criminal would ever obtain one (or even want to for that matter) is somewhat absurd. My state happens to be the most lenient when it comes to issuing them, and I still had to have a background check, full physical description on file, fingerprints on file, and get my request cleared through the local head of police. Of course I still see people saying otherwise, which is when I wish people would know a little bit more before posting.

Nikolaz72:
Some things can be debated with minimal knowledge

Perhaps, but firearms are not one of those things. You would not believe the number of people who think you can make a fully functional machine gun out of a semi-automatic firearm with just a paperclip or a rubber band. And they used that incorrect notion to assert that all semi-auto firearms should be banned.

Guns and gun-control can be debated with the most miniscule of knowledge

No it really can't.

it doesnt even take an ape to know that with the ammount of countries working without guns obviously the US could aswell. And every other country in Europe combined, despite having 200.000.000 more people has one thousand times less homocide via guns.

Apparently it takes more than what you know to realize that of the top 20 nations with the highest gun ownership rate 12-13 of them are in either Europe or North America (the one questionable nation is Cyprus). The bottom 20, on the other hand, includes mostly country from Africa or Southeast Asia.

The top 20 include- Serbia, Switzerland, Cyprus, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, Austria, Germany, Iceland, and Macedonia, Canada, the US, Iraq, Oman, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, and Kuwait.

The bottom 20- Lithuania, Malawi, Niger, Romania, Haiti, Japan, North Korea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bangladesh, Eritrea, Fiji, Indonesia, Singapore, Ethiopia, Ghana, Timor-Leste, Tunisia

The only nations on the bottom list I would consider going to would be Japan (again), maybe Romania, and Singapore.

Of the two extremes the high gun ownership nations definitely win.

And then it Isn't hard to take the next step to notice that far less people die in knife-massacres than to gun massacres

And to someone who actually looks at these incidents you find that the worst mass murders in human history (performed by small groups and individuals) have not included guns but instead used planes, bombs, and fire.

Then theres the fact that many experts on the subject are biased. I'd say mostly the ones paid to argue for a certain point, the ones paid are usually the ones supporting the side earning massive profits on something that is on the line. (Hint: Its 'not' the experts advocating somethings removal. I really doubt those guys are funded by a cutlery-factory)

Let us think about this, you are insinuating that the NRA is principally funded by the gun lobby. This is another example why people who do not know what they are talking about should not have such a definite opinion. The NRA brings in about $160 million per year. $120 million of which comes from membership dues. The other $40 million includes private donations from companies like MidwayUSA and CDNN which sponsor a program called the round-up program where you round up your bill to the next $1, $5, or $10. Then you also have the various auctions the NRA does and the NRA store. In other words, the vast majority of the NRAs funding comes from its members. The firearms industry does not have its own lobbying group. They let the NRA handle it.

the clockmaker:
But that is exactly my point, people are trying to come in with 'you don't need a weapon that can put a 30 round mag down range in 30 seconds' and anti-gun control people are trying to drag them into a quagmire of details because their opponent used the wrong term or they think that knowing the difference between, say an assault rifle and a battle rifle is the key moral point.

No it has to do with the language problem. You say assault rifle and I think an m4 Carbine. If you keep saying assault rifle when you mean assault weapon then how are we supposed to communicate?

People are quibbling over the difference between automatic and automated against someone whose first language isn't even English.

I would not have cared if it wasn't for the fact that I told him he was using the wrong word. He has used the right word for years, I do not know why he is fucking around now.

someperson1423:

That is a valid point to an extent, but there is a basic level of knowledge that should be known because some of it DOES matter in these discussions. I agree with you that calling a magazine a "clip" does matter whatsoever in a debate such as this. It is annoying, but trivial in the end.

However, people who own firearms most likely know about the laws concerning ownership and use in their area of residence as well as the process of purchasing them. This is where I see a lot of misconceptions. I see a lot of pro-gun control people making arguments which somewhere involve a criminal "walking into a store and buying X amount of (insert popular bad guy weapon here)." Those of us who have bought a firearm know that it is a required on a federal level to have the customer go through a thorough background check by the FBI before the transaction can take place. In many states there is also a waiting period before you can actually take home your purchase. On a related note, these processes are what prevented the Sandy Hook shooter from obtaining guns from a store, thus driving him to steal them.

The process to obtain a carry permit are even more in depth, so the thought that a criminal would ever obtain one (or even want to for that matter) is somewhat absurd. My state happens to be the most lenient when it comes to issuing them, and I still had to have a background check, full physical description on file, fingerprints on file, and get my request cleared through the local head of police. Of course I still see people saying otherwise, which is when I wish people would know a little bit more before posting.

And that is an entirely reasonable position and one that I can support, my issue is that people are using it to exclude people from the discussion altogether instead of attempting to use their knowledge to justify their position. For example

"Under current regulations, that does not count as an assault rifle, I think the term you are looking for is sporting rifle" as opposed to
"You don't know the difference between the two therefore you should not discuss gun control" (although I prefer firearm legislation and find the fact that many of the people claiming to understand weapons describe their rifles as guns hilarious.)

I am not entirely sure that even banning weapons is the answer. I like weapons, I spend a lot of my time around them and dicking around with them in a professional context is some of the most fun I have ever had at work, my concerns are solely with the conduct of those entrusted with them. obviously things like a boltack 22 are not the threat (and I am seriously tired of people who do only range shoots thinking that their mad leet skilz at cycling their weapons will automatically extend to stress situations. Try doing the same thing with people screaming in pain next to you, after sprinting for a period of time, in the midst of what is, by definition a serious mental episode and with the knowledge that you will most likely not live out the day) and so what types of weapons are regulated has to be the serious question.

My main ideas for firearms legislation, some may be in effect in the US already.
1-Mandatory safes for weapons, same rule that we have in AUS and prevents your kid taking out your weapon to play with it and blowing his own head off or stealing it to commit an atrocity.

2-Mandatory training and licensing for the possession of a firearm. Once a year or every two years (details are for people who get paid for this sort of thing) show up to the local cop shop and show that you are familiar with safety regs, proper storage, etiquette and things like that to ensure that not only are you safe with your weapon, you will not allow your weapon to come into the hands of someone who will not be safe with it.

3-Graduated levels of screening with linked additional requirements, for example, if you want a 22 boltack for target shooting, clean crim and psych bill will get you through but if you want a military patterned weapon (I say patterned because if the US had never adopted the M-16, we all know that weapons in the 'armalite' configuration would be nowhere near as popular as they are) the people living in your house and under your care should also be looked at, to prevent a disturbed youth living in the same house as a weapon ergonomically suited to a mass shooting.

4-A requirement for a reason to own your weapon and a corresponding responsibility for that, you do not, for example need a hunting rifle in Manhattan, but if you have a cottage miles out in the scrub and live in NYC then you have a valid reason. If you need a rifle for target shooting, you need to be in a target shooting club. If you need a Vickers K, Bren, Owen gun, SLR, SMLE, Wombat gun etc for historical purposes, you should be registered as a museum or belong to a historical society. (also, if someone has all of those I am obliged to marry them)

5-A brief in person psych assessment as part of the registration process.

6-Annual functionality checks to ensure that people aren't rocking about with weapons on which, for example the integrity of the barrel has been compromised through wear or damage.

7-Responsibility for weapons under a persons care, in that they are required to keep the weapon or register the sale of same. If they lose it they are required to report it, if it is rendered inoperable by damage or wear, they are to report it. If a weapon is used in a crime and the owner did not report that it was missing, they are subject to prosecution for at least negligence. The annual functionality check is a good time to ensure that everyone knows where their weapons are.

8-It will be a criminal offense to operate a weapon under the influence of alcohol or drugs, except where there is a reasonable belief that failure to use that weapon would result in death or permanent harm to the user.

I'm sure that there are others, but that's what I have on the top of my head.
Also there needs to be increased police engagement in the community and a concentrated joint initiative to decrease crime by other means as well as firearm legislation.

I think that the above is reasonable and does not ban a single weapon.

farson135:

the clockmaker:
But that is exactly my point, people are trying to come in with 'you don't need a weapon that can put a 30 round mag down range in 30 seconds' and anti-gun control people are trying to drag them into a quagmire of details because their opponent used the wrong term or they think that knowing the difference between, say an assault rifle and a battle rifle is the key moral point.

No it has to do with the language problem. You say assault rifle and I think an m4 Carbine. If you keep saying assault rifle when you mean assault weapon then how are we supposed to communicate?

People are quibbling over the difference between automatic and automated against someone whose first language isn't even English.

I would not have cared if it wasn't for the fact that I told him he was using the wrong word. He has used the right word for years, I do not know why he is fucking around now.

I have used the right terminology my entire life, so I sincerely hope that you are using the abstract 'you' in that post.
In addition, the primary definitions that have been used up until now in this discussion for assault weapon and assault rifle are based on the US legislative ones, correct? because if that is the case it is important to remember that US legislative definition can differ to that of other nations and it may be necessary to meet people halfway on that issue. As a comparison, indigenous means different things in AUS and the US and so it is necessary to meet people half way on it.

And even if they are using the wrong terminology, do what I do when talking to civilians, when they say 'gun' I think of an LSW, not a rifle but I know the gaps that they have in their knowledge and take what they meant as opposed to the strictest definition of the words they say, this being the traditional method of linguistic compromise that most people use in conversation.

On top of that, when Blah said automated, I knew what he meant, you knew what he meant. We all knew what he mean, he messed up between to similar words outside of his native language, it happens.

Finally, your list of 20 save v unsafe nations includes roughly the same amount of dangerous nations above and below the line, claims to have solid data on the DPRK (which is never a good thing to claim/ the nation is estimated to be the most militarised on earth and so most of them have access to a firearm in their daily lives) and most importantly, why would you not want to visit timor leste, it deserves better tourist rates.

the clockmaker:
I have used the right terminology my entire life, so I sincerely hope that you are using the abstract 'you' in that post.

I was.

In addition, the primary definitions that have been used up until now in this discussion for assault weapon and assault rifle are based on the US legislative ones, correct? because if that is the case it is important to remember that US legislative definition can differ to that of other nations and it may be necessary to meet people halfway on that issue. As a comparison, indigenous means different things in AUS and the US and so it is necessary to meet people half way on it.

Can you find me a legislative definition that labels an AR-15 as an assault rifle? I talked to an Aussie before and he claimed such a definition existed but he could not show it to me.

And even if they are using the wrong terminology, do what I do when talking to civilians, when they say 'gun' I think of an LSW, not a rifle but I know the gaps that they have in their knowledge and take what they meant as opposed to the strictest definition of the words they say, this being the traditional method of linguistic compromise that most people use in conversation.

That is different. Assault rifle has a specific definition that some people use correctly and some people do not on this forum. I can never know whether they are using it correctly or not so I always assume that they are.

BTW-when people say gun to me I think they mean artillery.

On top of that, when Blah said automated, I knew what he meant, you knew what he meant. We all knew what he mean, he messed up between to similar words outside of his native language, it happens.

Once again, I would not care if he corrected himself. He kept doing it.

Finally, your list of 20 save v unsafe nations includes roughly the same amount of dangerous nations above and below the line

What? The only really unsafe nations above the line are Iraq, Macedonia (sort of), Yemen, Uruguay, and Saudi Arabia (for some people). Other than that the nations tend to be relatively safe.

For the bottom 20- Lithuania, Malawi, Niger, Haiti, North Korea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bangladesh, Eritrea, Fiji, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Ghana, and Timor-Leste are all rather dangerous (extremely dangerous for some of those nations).

claims to have solid data on the DPRK (which is never a good thing to claim/ the nation is estimated to be the most militarised on earth and so most of them have access to a firearm in their daily lives)

The source is gun ownership by civilians and not the military. North Korea has very strict civilian gun laws.

most importantly, why would you not want to visit timor leste, it deserves better tourist rates.

Because it is dangerous and it is too far outside of my specialty to risk it. I will go to Russia, I will go to Bosnia, but I will not go to dangerous places outside of my specialty.

the clockmaker:

someperson1423:

-snip-

And that is an entirely reasonable position and one that I can support, my issue is that people are using it to exclude people from the discussion altogether instead of attempting to use their knowledge to justify their position. For example

"Under current regulations, that does not count as an assault rifle, I think the term you are looking for is sporting rifle" as opposed to
"You don't know the difference between the two therefore you should not discuss gun control" (although I prefer firearm legislation and find the fact that many of the people claiming to understand weapons describe their rifles as guns hilarious.)

-snip-

My main ideas for firearms legislation, some may be in effect in the US already.
1-Mandatory safes for weapons, same rule that we have in AUS and prevents your kid taking out your weapon to play with it and blowing his own head off or stealing it to commit an atrocity.

2-Mandatory training and licensing for the possession of a firearm. Once a year or every two years (details are for people who get paid for this sort of thing) show up to the local cop shop and show that you are familiar with safety regs, proper storage, etiquette and things like that to ensure that not only are you safe with your weapon, you will not allow your weapon to come into the hands of someone who will not be safe with it.

3-Graduated levels of screening with linked additional requirements, for example, if you want a 22 boltack for target shooting, clean crim and psych bill will get you through but if you want a military patterned weapon (I say patterned because if the US had never adopted the M-16, we all know that weapons in the 'armalite' configuration would be nowhere near as popular as they are) the people living in your house and under your care should also be looked at, to prevent a disturbed youth living in the same house as a weapon ergonomically suited to a mass shooting.

4-A requirement for a reason to own your weapon and a corresponding responsibility for that, you do not, for example need a hunting rifle in Manhattan, but if you have a cottage miles out in the scrub and live in NYC then you have a valid reason. If you need a rifle for target shooting, you need to be in a target shooting club. If you need a Vickers K, Bren, Owen gun, SLR, SMLE, Wombat gun etc for historical purposes, you should be registered as a museum or belong to a historical society. (also, if someone has all of those I am obliged to marry them)

5-A brief in person psych assessment as part of the registration process.

6-Annual functionality checks to ensure that people aren't rocking about with weapons on which, for example the integrity of the barrel has been compromised through wear or damage.

7-Responsibility for weapons under a persons care, in that they are required to keep the weapon or register the sale of same. If they lose it they are required to report it, if it is rendered inoperable by damage or wear, they are to report it. If a weapon is used in a crime and the owner did not report that it was missing, they are subject to prosecution for at least negligence. The annual functionality check is a good time to ensure that everyone knows where their weapons are.

8-It will be a criminal offense to operate a weapon under the influence of alcohol or drugs, except where there is a reasonable belief that failure to use that weapon would result in death or permanent harm to the user.

I try to avoid the term "assault weapon" just because it is a media buzzword used purely to make rifles sound menacing. The term also blurs the line between semi-automatic assault weapons and automatic rifles used by the military to those who are less versed on the subject. I do not call my AR-15 a "sporting rifle" either though. Just a rifle or carbine.

I cannot say I wholeheartedly agree with all of your points, however I am not directly opposed to any of them.

1 - Completely agree. I would like to think we live in a world in which this would not be necessary, but I am not so naive. This, unfortunately, complicates getting to a firearm in an emergency situation, but I am sure there are many ways to secure firearms without hindering availability, so still no quarrel from me.

2 - Partially agree. I concur that training should be an integral part of owning a firearm, but would prefer not to have to prove competence every year. Every two would be bearable, but I would prefer something like every 4 years, similar to a driver's license. Perhaps it would be different depending on the weapon. For example if someone bought a shotgun which they plan on keeping around for solely home defense then they would not have to show competence as often as say an every day concealed pistol carrier. Anyway, again pretty much completely agree here.

3 - I partially agree here. This doesn't sit quite right with me, but I cannot put my finger on why. Maybe it is just me being frivolous. If I figure out an actual reason I will get back to you.

4 - This is probably the only one I am most opposed to. This kind of control seems to restrictive for me. I firmly believe our Second Amendment was included for the purpose of allowing the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. I am not saying we now or ever will need to do this, but requiring a reason for owning a weapon would be moot, as it is in our constitution that weapons can be owned by citizens for this purpose. I am sure it works well for other countries, but I do not think it would in the United States.

5 - Not opposed. My only concern is practicality (money, logistics, manpower, etc.) Of course this would probably be rolled in as part of 1), so yeah it would probably work fine.

6 - I am also opposed to this one. If an owner wishes to neglect their firearm then that is their business. I understand these restrictions to prevent individuals from harming others, but neglect does not really harm anyone but the shooter. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see people injured, but I think the less government interference the better. Maybe that is just the American in me talking, but what can I say.

7 - This is also acceptable. If I had more faith in people I would say this is unnecessary, but unfortunately I think it may be very for the better.

8 - Agreed.

the clockmaker:

Also there needs to be increased police engagement in the community and a concentrated joint initiative to decrease crime by other means as well as firearm legislation.

I think that the above is reasonable and does not ban a single weapon.

Spot on my friend. People need to realize crimes are a social problem. Firearms are the means to an end for criminals, not the source of the problem.

The last line is also great and share your sentiments here. If someone really wants a specific rifle and are proven responsible enough to own it, it should be possible.

the clockmaker:
I am not entirely sure that even banning weapons is the answer. I like weapons, I spend a lot of my time around them and dicking around with them in a professional context is some of the most fun I have ever had at work, my concerns are solely with the conduct of those entrusted with them. obviously things like a boltack 22 are not the threat (and I am seriously tired of people who do only range shoots thinking that their mad leet skilz at cycling their weapons will automatically extend to stress situations. Try doing the same thing with people screaming in pain next to you, after sprinting for a period of time, in the midst of what is, by definition a serious mental episode and with the knowledge that you will most likely not live out the day) and so what types of weapons are regulated has to be the serious question.

This always makes me laugh as well. I love testing how fast I can reload, and trying to get my groups tight, etc., but I never even pretend to think I would be a decent soldier in any way.

farson135:

I was.

cool cool, I can talk to you without either of us going for insults then.

Can you find me a legislative definition that labels an AR-15 as an assault rifle? I talked to an Aussie before and he claimed such a definition existed but he could not show it to me.

Legislative, no, Australian legislation went after 'self loading firearms' 'military designed firearms' and things that have the appearance of same. Remember though, you have dictionary definition, legislative definition and common definition, so in words where there are ambiguity, it is always best to check what they mean rather than assuming and acting on your definition.

That is different. Assault rifle has a specific definition that some people use correctly and some people do not on this forum. I can never know whether they are using it correctly or not so I always assume that they are.

BTW-when people say gun to me I think they mean artillery.

See above. and the day that my mind goes to artillery is the day I start drinking lead paint and killing my higher brain functions.

Once again, I would not care if he corrected himself. He kept doing it.

Sorry mate, I only see one instance of him saying it in this thread, genuine question, where does he keep saying it.

What? The only really unsafe nations above the line are Iraq, Macedonia (sort of), Yemen, Uruguay, and Saudi Arabia (for some people). Other than that the nations tend to be relatively safe.

For the bottom 20- Lithuania, Malawi, Niger, Haiti, North Korea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bangladesh, Eritrea, Fiji, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Ghana, and Timor-Leste are all rather dangerous (extremely dangerous for some of those nations).

According to Smart traveler (the AUS govt register of where is and is not safe)
the following nations that you call dangerous are indeed safe Lithuania, Malawi and Fiji (which is a very popular tourist hot spot) with Timor requesting that you take elevated amounts of care but still safe.
In Africa I think the crushing poverty and threat of border conflict is more what makes these places dangerous than firearm legislation.
Indonesia has long running problems with (armed) terrorist groups but is still considered mostly safe if you exercise caution.
Bangladesh is experiencing political unrest.
North Korea an orwellian nightmare and if you want to play the 'if they had guns it wouldn't be' card remember that they are conditioned from birth to like it that way.

On top of that, I have several more doubts about the veracity of your study, can I know how they determined ownership, what was safe, etc etc, because at the moment, you have shown me that first world wealthy nations are safer than third world ones. Well done there, but considering the number of long running insurgencies in Indonesia for example, I doubt that they have one of the lowest firearm possession rates in the world.

So what you have put forward is unconvincing and if you could put forward the study you used I'm sure there is more wrong with it.

The source is gun ownership by civilians and not the military. North Korea has very strict civilian gun laws.

But how do you have access to the rates of civilian gun ownership? We know so little about what goes on there, the regulations that they live by. So far I found that their constitution states that all citizens are to be armed.

Everything I have found says that they can only have their weapons for official purposes, but with a reserve force of 8,200,000 that could mean that they keep the weapons on them. We don't know, every source that I have seen states that there are no figures for firearms possession in North korea so I again question the veracity of your study.

most importantly, why would you not want to visit timor leste, it deserves better tourist rates.

Because it is dangerous and it is too far outside of my specialty to risk it. I will go to Russia, I will go to Bosnia, but I will not go to dangerous places outside of my specialty.[/quote]
Okay, maybe I should focus on increasing AUS tourism before I try and drag yanks to Timor.

someperson1423:

I try to avoid the term "assault weapon" just because it is a media buzzword used purely to make rifles sound menacing. The term also blurs the line between semi-automatic assault weapons and automatic rifles used by the military to those who are less versed on the subject. I do not call my AR-15 a "sporting rifle" either though. Just a rifle or carbine.

I cannot say I wholeheartedly agree with all of your points, however I am not directly opposed to any of them.

1 - Completely agree. I would like to think we live in a world in which this would not be necessary, but I am not so naive. This, unfortunately, complicates getting to a firearm in an emergency situation, but I am sure there are many ways to secure firearms without hindering availability, so still no quarrel from me.

2 - Partially agree. I concur that training should be an integral part of owning a firearm, but would prefer not to have to prove competence every year. Every two would be bearable, but I would prefer something like every 4 years, similar to a driver's license. Perhaps it would be different depending on the weapon. For example if someone bought a shotgun which they plan on keeping around for solely home defense then they would not have to show competence as often as say an every day concealed pistol carrier. Anyway, again pretty much completely agree here.

3 - I partially agree here. This doesn't sit quite right with me, but I cannot put my finger on why. Maybe it is just me being frivolous. If I figure out an actual reason I will get back to you.

4 - This is probably the only one I am most opposed to. This kind of control seems to restrictive for me. I firmly believe our Second Amendment was included for the purpose of allowing the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. I am not saying we now or ever will need to do this, but requiring a reason for owning a weapon would be moot, as it is in our constitution that weapons can be owned by citizens for this purpose. I am sure it works well for other countries, but I do not think it would in the United States.

5 - Not opposed. My only concern is practicality (money, logistics, manpower, etc.) Of course this would probably be rolled in as part of 1), so yeah it would probably work fine.

6 - I am also opposed to this one. If an owner wishes to neglect their firearm then that is their business. I understand these restrictions to prevent individuals from harming others, but neglect does not really harm anyone but the shooter. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see people injured, but I think the less government interference the better. Maybe that is just the American in me talking, but what can I say.

7 - This is also acceptable. If I had more faith in people I would say this is unnecessary, but unfortunately I think it may be very for the better.

8 - Agreed.

spot on my friend. People need to realize crimes are a social problem. Firearms are the means to an end for criminals, not the source of the problem.

The last line is also great and share your sentiments here. If someone really wants a specific rifle and are proven responsible enough to own it, it should be possible.

1-done
2-done, Graduated levels are a good idea for this one, perhaps dependent on both type of weapon and usage. If, for example you run a war memorial with active weapons that live behind glass cabinets, then you do not require training and assesment so frequently as someone who shoots for a living. 4 years would be a good baseline though.
3-Okay,get back to me.
4-I must admit that one area that I cannot claim knowledge is internal US culture, I have lived there, I have mates there, but I have always been an Aussie. So I do recognise that while your constitution means as much to me as South Korea's, it is an important facet of your nation and you guys want to preserve that. Perhaps it could be less 'if you don't have a reason then you can't have it' but 'your reason for owning it dictates your requirements' as you stated with 2 regarding home protection v carrying on person.
5-done
6-Fair enough, I will concede that one, its just a pet hate as a professional, your gat, then your kit, then you, you know. Perhaps proper maintenance training could be rolled into section 2 as alternative.
7-Done, with the caveat that after the removal of section 6 the weapons could be checked during section 2 training.
8- Done

You know what that is, that is more progress than the US government in the past decade. Pro weapon firearm legislation HOORAY!

ANd yes, the US does not have a gun problem so much as a crime problem, a weapon is a tool and it is not ours to remove that tool but more to ensure that those who wish to use it wrong cannot. Firearm legislation cannot be conducted in a vacuum.

Blablahb:
Not true. Self-defense with guns is a myth,

There have been plenty of incidents of people using guns for self defense that have been documented by the news and law enforcement. To say it's a myth is like saying that nobody has even been run over by a car.

Blablahb:

As for more guns being a solution, isn't that demonstrably false? There's this sort of shooting just about weekly in the US, despite there being more guns than citizens. If self-defense with guns was more than bullshit, there wouldn't be any shootings by now.

However, there are not just shootings, they're frequent and deadly. Proof that self-defense with guns is a myth.

Except in all the high profile shootings none of the victims actually had guns they could've used for self defence.

farson135:

Nikolaz72:
Some things can be debated with minimal knowledge

Perhaps, but firearms are not one of those things. You would not believe the number of people who think you can make a fully functional machine gun out of a semi-automatic firearm with just a paperclip or a rubber band. And they used that incorrect notion to assert that all semi-auto firearms should be banned.

To be fair you CAN convert the assault rifle the Aussies had in Vietnam (the name escapes me atm)into full auto with a match stick, though you have to have the elective burst/single shot version and not the civilian semi-auto

farson135:

Once again, I would not care if he corrected himself. He kept doing it.

So he's only allowed to make a mistake once? If I was talking on a Dutch forum and posting at the rate Blahb is nobody would have a clue what I'm saying as I'd constantly make mistakes. I'm amazed he hasn't started using Dutch words because he's going so fast.

So yeah, I don't care about the specifics of the debate you two are having but if you know what word he means let that one fly. It's like pulling someone up if they say teh instead of the - utterly pointless.

Lunar Shadow:

farson135:

Nikolaz72:
Some things can be debated with minimal knowledge

Perhaps, but firearms are not one of those things. You would not believe the number of people who think you can make a fully functional machine gun out of a semi-automatic firearm with just a paperclip or a rubber band. And they used that incorrect notion to assert that all semi-auto firearms should be banned.

To be fair you CAN convert the assault rifle the Aussies had in Vietnam (the name escapes me atm)into full auto with a match stick, though you have to have the elective burst/single shot version and not the civilian semi-auto

It was the SLR, more commonly known as 'the bitch'

Father Time:
There have been plenty of incidents of people using guns for self defense that have been documented by the news and law enforcement. To say it's a myth is like saying that nobody has even been run over by a car.

So far we've seen only one. Most cases by far were murders perpetrated on people who weren't a mortal danger.

Not enough by far to outweigh the 34 people who lose their lives daily due to firearms possession. You can't just sacrifice thousands of lives on the odd chance that maybe, at some point in your life, you could be that one guy in the decade that is in mortal danger and manages to prevent it with firearms violence.

Therefore self-defense with guns is a myth.

Father Time:
Except in all the high profile shootings none of the victims actually had guns they could've used for self defence.

Exactly, and doesn't that prove that self-defense is a myth? Each of any shooting's victims could've had an arsenal on them that makes the Taliban jealous, but spree shootings still happen frequently and claim many many lives because the perpetrators have acces to firearms.

By contrast: Spree killers in countries with a strict gun ban are few and far between, and generally claim far fewer victims. Earlier on I made the comparison with Dutch psychopath Rudolf Käsebier, who only managed to lightly injure 3 people, and Belgian narcicist Kim de Gelder, who trained for a massacre for months, planned it carefully, but managed to kill three people and injure 12, while he was up against babies and toddlers.

If even toddlers vs a trained psychopathic killer ends up with a fraction of the deaths caused by the average second amendment solution, who can possibly defend gun ownership? It's clear that gun possesion does nothing except increase the amount of violence.

Lunar Shadow:
To be fair you CAN convert the assault rifle the Aussies had in Vietnam (the name escapes me atm)

The would be the L1A1 SLR battle rifle, semi-auto licenced copy of the FN FAL.

The problem with using the matchstick trick is that it quickly fucks up the barrel with heat deformation unless you swap it out for the heavy barrel from the L2A1 AR (automatic rifle version of the FN FAL... and no, I'm not confusing assault rifle with automatic rifle).

the clockmaker:
Remember though, you have dictionary definition, legislative definition and common definition, so in words where there are ambiguity, it is always best to check what they mean rather than assuming and acting on your definition.

Without each and every post going on forever that is the best way to go. The guys who know the terms understand what I mean and I can quietly correct the people who do not know the correct terms.

and the day that my mind goes to artillery is the day I start drinking lead paint and killing my higher brain functions.

Why? I mean I realize you probably do not have much contact with US military soldiers but that is how they are trained to think about that. Guns are artillery and the big guns on battleships.

Sorry mate, I only see one instance of him saying it in this thread, genuine question, where does he keep saying it.

Post #328, 330, & 368

According to Smart traveler (the AUS govt register of where is and is not safe) the following nations that you call dangerous are indeed safe Lithuania, Malawi and Fiji (which is a very popular tourist hot spot) with Timor requesting that you take elevated amounts of care but still safe.

I have been to Lithuania and it has most of the same problems as Russia. I would not go within a thousand miles of Malawi. They have one of the highest murder rates on earth, they are low on the human development scale, and crime is rampant. And the politics in Fiji are in flux and I do not want to be caught in the middle.

In Africa I think the crushing poverty and threat of border conflict is more what makes these places dangerous than firearm legislation.

That is true. However, the absence of guns does not equal safety just as the presence of guns does not equal the absence of safety. That was my point. Overall, guns are irrelevant to the safety of a country. The presence of lots of guns can be a sign of an advanced, wealthy economy where people can afford lots of guns. So the presence of guns can mean certain things but the presence of murder and crime is not necessarily one of those things.

Indonesia has long running problems with (armed) terrorist groups but is still considered mostly safe if you exercise caution.

Not just that, Indonesia has major crime problems. Everybody talks about Somalia's pirates but few talk about Indonesia's pirates.

Bangladesh is experiencing political unrest.

Which is why I do not what to go there.

North Korea an orwellian nightmare and if you want to play the 'if they had guns it wouldn't be' card remember that they are conditioned from birth to like it that way.

I had no intention of playing that angle.

but considering the number of long running insurgencies in Indonesia for example, I doubt that they have one of the lowest firearm possession rates in the world.

The insurgents are a minority. Indonesia is just too powerless to stop them.

But how do you have access to the rates of civilian gun ownership? We know so little about what goes on there, the regulations that they live by. So far I found that their constitution states that all citizens are to be armed.

Everything I have found says that they can only have their weapons for official purposes, but with a reserve force of 8,200,000 that could mean that they keep the weapons on them. We don't know, every source that I have seen states that there are no figures for firearms possession in North korea so I again question the veracity of your study.

Here are all of the references- http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/north-korea

Lunar Shadow:
To be fair you CAN convert the assault rifle the Aussies had in Vietnam (the name escapes me atm)into full auto with a match stick, though you have to have the elective burst/single shot version and not the civilian semi-auto

Let me rephrase, you cannot convert a semi-auto only firearm into a full-auto firearm easily however, if the firearm was made to shoot in full-auto and then constrained to semi-auto or three shot burst then you can easily convert it back.

Sorry, I did not know about the Aussie firearm but I did know about the m14. Many m14s were converted to semi-auto from full-auto and those firearms can be easily converted back to full auto.

Karma168:
So he's only allowed to make a mistake once?

Actually he used the word three different times after I told him it was incorrect. If I tried that crap with my teachers they would not be happy. Once is alright, twice is only acceptable with long periods in between, three times and we start assigning extra language practice.

farson135:
Here are all of the references- http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/north-korea

If you look up the source they quote, you end up with this page's second chapter which doesn't even mention North Korea at all.

Your gun policy website appears to be full of shit.

Blablahb:
So far we've seen only one. Most cases by far were murders perpetrated on people who weren't a mortal danger.

Not enough by far to outweigh the 34 people who lose their lives daily due to firearms possession. You can't just sacrifice thousands of lives on the odd chance that maybe, at some point in your life, you could be that one guy in the decade that is in mortal danger and manages to prevent it with firearms violence.

Therefore self-defense with guns is a myth.

No, -you- have seen only one case of a firearm used as self-defense, perhaps. But selective reasoning aside, the only myth being perpetrated is that a gun cannot be used for self-defense. They exist all over, seen or unseen, used to deter or fired perhaps without injury at all. Once again you are placing the burden of proof on others to validate the self-defense argument; it's there, but clearly someone's mind is already made up.

Blablahb:

Father Time:
Except in all the high profile shootings none of the victims actually had guns they could've used for self defence.

Exactly, and doesn't that prove that self-defense is a myth? Each of any shooting's victims could've had an arsenal on them that makes the Taliban jealous, but spree shootings still happen frequently and claim many many lives because the perpetrators have acces to firearms.

By contrast: Spree killers in countries with a strict gun ban are few and far between, and generally claim far fewer victims. Earlier on I made the comparison with Dutch psychopath Rudolf Käsebier, who only managed to lightly injure 3 people, and Belgian narcicist Kim de Gelder, who trained for a massacre for months, planned it carefully, but managed to kill three people and injure 12, while he was up against babies and toddlers.

If even toddlers vs a trained psychopathic killer ends up with a fraction of the deaths caused by the average second amendment solution, who can possibly defend gun ownership? It's clear that gun possesion does nothing except increase the amount of violence.

Recap on the Sandy Hook gunman:
-Family friends have stated he was medicated (no investigation into this)
-He was denied purchase of a firearm (i.e. banned)
-He stole the guns
-After murdering his own mother, he decided to go to the school (and had to break into it)

By the way, shooters even as recent as the Aurora, Colorado massacre were also on drugs. No indictment of Big Pharma jacking up the population on pills? (shocking)

If you honestly believe that guns make people do things like this, you are delusional and in total denial []

[] Assignment: Ask one of the multi-million number of safe, responsible, legal gun owners that do not moonlight as mass murderers how they resist such temptations whispered into their ears by the devil's instruments

AgedGrunt:
If you honestly believe that guns make people do things like this, you are delusional and in total denial

Maybe you should read my posts on the subject before responding? I explained neatly how guns are the cause of spree killings.

Nutcase = happy slapping, random stabbing with one or two deaths at worst
Nutecase + firearms = spree shooting with many dead

Thus, removing guns fixes the problem. As an additional bonus, it's impossible to 'remove nutcase', because you can't monitor every citizen's mental health 24 hours a day.

I do living history with a few guys that do World War 1 and 2 reenacting. They use the same weapons that their grandfathers carried. They are all law abiding and everyone is registered, but the new legislation would make their inherited weapons illegal to be grandfathered to their children,and subject to confiscation (or at least i'm under that presumption). Even weapons like the M1 Garand has a 8-round built in clip, making it illegal under the new legislation, so should private museum/collectors be forced to give up their pieces of heritage or their collections to the authorities to be destroyed?

EDIT: I found this just a second ago, its very relevant:

Edible Avatar:
I do living history with a few guys that do World War 1 and 2 reenacting. They use the same weapons that their grandfathers carried. They are all law abiding and everyone is registered, but the new legislation would make their inherited weapons illegal to be grandfathered to their children,and subject to confiscation (or at least i'm under that presumption). Even weapons like the M1 Garand has a 8-round built in clip, making it illegal under the new legislation, so should private museum/collectors be forced to give up their pieces of heritage or their collections to the authorities to be destroyed?

EDIT: I found this just a second ago, its very relevant:

No where in the law does it say weapons can't be grandfathered to kids you just have to change the definition of kid to someone who can get an appropriate license for the firearm, over 18. So they can't physically own it until their 18 they can however use it just like you can let your friend borrow a weapon however I'm pretty sure you need to be with someone under 18 while they are using the weapon.

Individual states do have different law regarding minors and weapons though, however that's completely separate from the national legislation.

Blablahb:

farson135:
Here are all of the references- http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/north-korea

If you look up the source they quote, you end up with this page's second chapter which doesn't even mention North Korea at all.

Your gun policy website appears to be full of shit.

Did you try looking under "Korea, North"? Of course not. You also will not find "South Korea" you will only find "Korea, South".

Blablahb:

Father Time:
There have been plenty of incidents of people using guns for self defense that have been documented by the news and law enforcement. To say it's a myth is like saying that nobody has even been run over by a car.

So far we've seen only one. Most cases by far were murders perpetrated on people who weren't a mortal danger.

Not enough by far to outweigh the 34 people who lose their lives daily due to firearms possession. You can't just sacrifice thousands of lives on the odd chance that maybe, at some point in your life, you could be that one guy in the decade that is in mortal danger and manages to prevent it with firearms violence.

Therefore self-defense with guns is a myth.

YOU'VE seen one. I've seen more than that. Oh and a myth is something that doesn't happen at all, not something that rarely happens. So saying it's a myth is BS.

Blablahb:

Father Time:
Except in all the high profile shootings none of the victims actually had guns they could've used for self defence.

Exactly, and doesn't that prove that self-defense is a myth?

Uh no. In order to use guns for self defense you have to actually have the guns. Schools don't allow people to have guns on them, but the shooters ignore that rule.

Blablahb:

Each of any shooting's victims could've had an arsenal on them that makes the Taliban jealous, but spree shootings still happen frequently and claim many many lives because the perpetrators have acces to firearms.

They do not happen frequently they are very rare. More kids drown than get killed in school shootings.

Blablahb:

By contrast: Spree killers in countries with a strict gun ban are few and far between, and generally claim far fewer victims. Earlier on I made the comparison with Dutch psychopath Rudolf Käsebier, who only managed to lightly injure 3 people, and Belgian narcicist Kim de Gelder, who trained for a massacre for months, planned it carefully, but managed to kill three people and injure 12, while he was up against babies and toddlers.

Oh goody cherry picked examples. Let me counter with my own.

I pick Timothy McVeigh who killed 168 and injured over 600 and I pick the Bath school massacre which had 38 dead, and over 50 injured.
Both used explosives and not guns.

farson135:

Why? I mean I realize you probably do not have much contact with US military soldiers but that is how they are trained to think about that. Guns are artillery and the big guns on battleships.

And I realise that you may not have that much contact with Australian soldiers (assuming things in a condescending tone of text is fun isn't it) but over here, artillery is traditionally the 'dumb' corps and as such is subject to 'gentle ribbing' and I would like to ask where you have come from that you speak with such authority on the thoughts of US soldiers (note, for someone who is such a stickler for terminology, 'military soldiers' is redundant and makes it sound like you don't really know what you are talking about).

That is true. However, the absence of guns does not equal safety just as the presence of guns does not equal the absence of safety. That was my point. Overall, guns are irrelevant to the safety of a country. The presence of lots of guns can be a sign of an advanced, wealthy economy where people can afford lots of guns. So the presence of guns can mean certain things but the presence of murder and crime is not necessarily one of those things.

No, the presence of weapons does not equal safety or danger, it contributes though, and as such in considering the safety of a nation it is important to consider the firearm ownership. Now I personally am not arguing for the removal of weapons, I am arguing for the control of them. The US has a crime problem more than a firearm problem and the firearms are being used as an effect of that crime. As part of a larger scale of crime legislation, there needs to be improved control of who can use a firearm and how.

And your point, besides being irrelevant is insane as you are comparing the crime rates of first and third world nations in a discussion about firearm legislation. Might as well compare the crime rates in country clubs versus prisons, I mean sure, there are more crimes in prisons and more guns in country clubs, but you are really missing the key issues.

Not just that, Indonesia has major crime problems. Everybody talks about Somalia's pirates but few talk about Indonesia's pirates.

They are mostly outside of the regions that intelligent people travel to. Unless going out in the middle of butfuck nowhere or the straits of Malacca appeals to you

Which is why I do not what go to (Bangladesh) .

Then why in the name of fuck would you bring it up in a firearm legislation discussion. There are no guns on mars, and that certainly isn't safe.

I had no intention of playing that (DPRK) angle.

Cool, you understand why I had to say that though, correct? There are people on this forum who would.

The insurgents are a minority. Indonesia is just too powerless to stop them.

That is how insurgencies work yes, but being in a minority does not, by necessity make them few.

Here are all of the references- http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/north-korea

Yep, a lot of estimated, reported etc. There is no hard data when it comes to the DPRK, hell, even the murder rate is taken from one estimate 4 years ago and your source takes it all at face value, which devalues your source.

Father Time:

Blablahb:
Not true. Self-defense with guns is a myth,

There have been plenty of incidents of people using guns for self defense that have been documented by the news and law enforcement. To say it's a myth is like saying that nobody has even been run over by a car.

Blablahb:

As for more guns being a solution, isn't that demonstrably false? There's this sort of shooting just about weekly in the US, despite there being more guns than citizens. If self-defense with guns was more than bullshit, there wouldn't be any shootings by now.

However, there are not just shootings, they're frequent and deadly. Proof that self-defense with guns is a myth.

Except in all the high profile shootings none of the victims actually had guns they could've used for self defence.

I saw gabbie giffords, the democrat who got shot in the head say that there was a man with a gun present at her shooting and he nearly killed the man who took the shooter down by accident. Truth of it is that law enforcement is better left to trained professionals

On the point about over medication, I think this is partly true, but on the other hand im on mood stabilisers and it does really help me so gotta go with first hand over what ive heard. Also most killers are probably sick enough to benefit from it. I dont like how quickly anti depressants are prescribed though. We dont know the effects of a lot of these drugs in the long term

adamsaccount:

Father Time:

Blablahb:
Not true. Self-defense with guns is a myth,

There have been plenty of incidents of people using guns for self defense that have been documented by the news and law enforcement. To say it's a myth is like saying that nobody has even been run over by a car.

Blablahb:

As for more guns being a solution, isn't that demonstrably false? There's this sort of shooting just about weekly in the US, despite there being more guns than citizens. If self-defense with guns was more than bullshit, there wouldn't be any shootings by now.

However, there are not just shootings, they're frequent and deadly. Proof that self-defense with guns is a myth.

Except in all the high profile shootings none of the victims actually had guns they could've used for self defence.

I saw gabbie giffords, the democrat who got shot in the head say that there was a man with a gun present at her shooting and he nearly killed the man who took the shooter down by accident. Truth of it is that law enforcement is better left to trained professionals

On the point about over medication, I think this is partly true, but on the other hand im on mood stabilisers and it does really help me so gotta go with first hand over what ive heard. Also most killers are probably sick enough to benefit from it. I dont like how quickly anti depressants are prescribed though. We dont know the effects of a lot of these drugs in the long term

1 incident is not a trend. Like I said there are plenty of documented incidents of people using their guns for self defense. Trying to argue that it doesn't happen is just ignoring the facts.

Father Time:

adamsaccount:

Father Time:

There have been plenty of incidents of people using guns for self defense that have been documented by the news and law enforcement. To say it's a myth is like saying that nobody has even been run over by a car.

Except in all the high profile shootings none of the victims actually had guns they could've used for self defence.

I saw gabbie giffords, the democrat who got shot in the head say that there was a man with a gun present at her shooting and he nearly killed the man who took the shooter down by accident. Truth of it is that law enforcement is better left to trained professionals

On the point about over medication, I think this is partly true, but on the other hand im on mood stabilisers and it does really help me so gotta go with first hand over what ive heard. Also most killers are probably sick enough to benefit from it. I dont like how quickly anti depressants are prescribed though. We dont know the effects of a lot of these drugs in the long term

1 incident is not a trend. Like I said there are plenty of documented incidents of people using their guns for self defense. Trying to argue that it doesn't happen is just ignoring the facts.

Fair enough, but if I were an american I would rather stake my safety on having guns better controlled and kept from anyone who shouldnt have one rather than having to rely on a passer by to take out the shooter

the clockmaker:
And I realise that you may not have that much contact with Australian soldiers (assuming things in a condescending tone of text is fun isn't it)

How in the blue fuck was my statement condescending? I told you that I understood that you do not know what soldiers in the US military call guns because you have not been around those soldiers.

You said, "and the day that my mind goes to artillery is the day I start drinking lead paint and killing my higher brain functions". I thought that was wrong and I informed you of it.

but over here, artillery is traditionally the 'dumb' corps and as such is subject to 'gentle ribbing'

Which is why I identified it as US military. You view it differently than we do and I acknowledged that.

I would like to ask where you have come from that you speak with such authority on the thoughts of US soldiers

Thoughts? It is their terminology. Several of my friends are former and current soldiers.

note, for someone who is such a stickler for terminology, 'military soldiers' is redundant and makes it sound like you don't really know what you are talking about

Is it? So what would you say? Soldier? The immediate question is what soldier. I had to identify it with the US and not a soldier from the UK or Germany. US military? That identifies the organization and not the soldiers. US military person? Ok but it sounds stupid. US military soldier identifies the people I am speaking about as soldiers in the US military. Soldiers in the US military is better, and you could also use American soldiers, but my statement is not even redundant, it is just strangely ordered. Redundancy in this context requires that you can delete one word or phrase and still impart the same information. The three words you were referring to cannot be deleted without changing the meaning. They can be replaced or rearranged to make the phrase sound better but that is about it.

So if you want to play this game with me, you just used the word redundant incorrectly. Now can we end this?

And your point, besides being irrelevant is insane as you are comparing the crime rates of first and third world nations in a discussion about firearm legislation.

Question, why in the blue fuck are you attacking me for using an argument against a completely different point than the one you brought up? My argument was never meant for you or your argument. It was meant for someone else that their argument.

Let us look at the timeline for this. I posted to Nikolaz and you. I told Nikolaz (not you) about the top and bottom 20 gun control nations. I did that in response to his statement- "it doesnt even take an ape to know that with the ammount of countries working without guns obviously the US could aswell. And every other country in Europe combined, despite having 200.000.000 more people has one thousand times less homocide via guns." MY point to him was that many of the countries "working" without guns suck. And in fact European countries tend to be the best armed countries on earth.

Two posts later you started talking to me about that argument and did not bring up any argument that would have forced me to modify the argument.

Now we have come to this latest post where you are bringing up a completely different argument and trying to mesh it with my argument. What's more, you are attacking me because they do not fit. Does that sound fair?

Yep, a lot of estimated, reported etc. There is no hard data when it comes to the DPRK, hell, even the murder rate is taken from one estimate 4 years ago and your source takes it all at face value, which devalues your source.

Do you have something better? No? Then this source is as close as we have. And you have presented no particular reason for the source to be wrong.

farson135:

How in the blue fuck was my statement condescending? I told you that I understood that you do not know what soldiers in the US military call guns because you have not been around those soldiers.

You said, "and the day that my mind goes to artillery is the day I start drinking lead paint and killing my higher brain functions". I thought that was wrong and I informed you of it.

The tone of it was clearly condescending and you are aware of that just as much as I. Note that my initial post was also referring to my reaction to the term gun, so if you think that is wrong, rather than say, different, than

Which is why I identified it as US military. You view it differently than we do and I acknowledged that.

Most of the yank soldiers that I work with (because I have worked with a fair number of them in a professional context over the years) were along the same lines as me. Scratch that actually, they all were, right down to picking on the artillery for being 'dumb'. That is not to say that artillery pieces are not referred to as guns, solely that your average soldier has more contact with light and medium machine guns than artillery and so when artillery is my first thought I'm going to start drinking lead paint.

Thoughts? It is their terminology. Several of my friends are former and current soldiers.

And my mates are doctors, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start 'correcting' people on medical terms. Honestly, when are people going to get over the idea that having a few bears with someone makes you informed in that person's field by osmosis.

Is it? So what would you say? Soldier? The immediate question is what soldier. I had to identify it with the US and not a soldier from the UK or Germany. US military? That identifies the organization and not the soldiers. US military person? Ok but it sounds stupid. US military soldier identifies the people I am speaking about as soldiers in the US military. Soldiers in the US military is better, and you could also use American soldiers, but my statement is not even redundant, it is just strangely ordered. Redundancy in this context requires that you can delete one word or phrase and still impart the same information. The three words you were referring to cannot be deleted without changing the meaning. They can be replaced or rearranged to make the phrase sound better but that is about it.

So if you want to play this game with me, you just used the word redundant incorrectly. Now can we end this?

US soldiers, being the most common, US military pers being another. Military soldiers is not used by, well anyone because it is clumsy and adds nothing to the description. It is like calling a soldier an army man.

re·dun·dant
/riˈdəndənt/
Adjective

No longer needed or useful; superfluous.
(of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.

The word military could have been deleted in that context without any loss of meaning, at all. therefore it was redundant. Besides, my point was not so much that you used a clumsy and ill-used turn of phrase, but rather that you were so insistent that somebody else doing so invalidated their participation in this discussion.

Question, why in the blue fuck are you attacking me for using an argument against a completely different point than the one you brought up? My argument was never meant for you or your argument. It was meant for someone else that their argument.

Let us look at the timeline for this. I posted to Nikolaz and you. I told Nikolaz (not you) about the top and bottom 20 gun control nations. I did that in response to his statement- "it doesnt even take an ape to know that with the ammount of countries working without guns obviously the US could aswell. And every other country in Europe combined, despite having 200.000.000 more people has one thousand times less homocide via guns." MY point to him was that many of the countries "working" without guns suck. And in fact European countries tend to be the best armed countries on earth.

Two posts later you started talking to me about that argument and did not bring up any argument that would have forced me to modify the argument.

Now we have come to this latest post where you are bringing up a completely different argument and trying to mesh it with my argument. What's more, you are attacking me because they do not fit. Does that sound fair?

You were still making comparisons between things that should not have been compared, in a context where had the comparison been successful it would have greatly benefited your argument. However, it is important to remember that European firearm ownership tends to be better regulated, if not more restricted.

Although reading over it, other than your badly done comparison between first and third world nations, you seem to be trying to say that while guns to have an effect on the community, it is not always one of violence and can contribute both negatively and positively. If this is the case, we seem to be shouting the same thing angrily at each other, which is kind of funny.

Do you have something better? No? Then this source is as close as we have. And you have presented no particular reason for the source to be wrong.

I would rather neither of us use the DPRK due to the fact that, and this is about as common knowledge as the colour of the sky, we do not know what the fuck is going on inside their borders. Your source was based on another source which was based on statements issued by the DPRK, which, by the way claims that it invented the hamburger and that the US surrendered to it and pays tribute. I mean when a nation that cannot feed itself is trying to tell you that it is the
image
maybe we cannot use them as a reliable source for statistics on what is happening in there. Also, when the CIA world Factbook does not have hard numbers and is relying on estimates, perhaps it should not be used as a comapritive example for one side or the other.

the clockmaker:
The tone of it was clearly condescending and you are aware of that just as much as I.

Was it and am I? No to both.

Note that my initial post was also referring to my reaction to the term gun, so if you think that is wrong, rather than say, different, than

Which is why I identified it as US military. You view it differently than we do and I acknowledged that.

Most of the yank soldiers that I work with (because I have worked with a fair number of them in a professional context over the years) were along the same lines as me. Scratch that actually, they all were, right down to picking on the artillery for being 'dumb'. That is not to say that artillery pieces are not referred to as guns, solely that your average soldier has more contact with light and medium machine guns than artillery and so when artillery is my first thought I'm going to start drinking lead paint.

I have never met a single soldier who has said that, aside from reports after friendly fire incidents (mostly from WW1 and WW2). Everybody I know says that the artillery units are too constrained and the commanders need to trust them more. Or they said that the units need better equipment, etc.

US soldiers, being the most common, US military pers being another. Military soldiers is not used by, well anyone because it is clumsy and adds nothing to the description. It is like calling a soldier an army man.

I never said military soldiers. I said US military soldiers. US Military being a descriptor of the soldier. The soldier in the military of the United States.

US military person sound weird. American soldier works (as I said) but it requires a change in the word choice.

The word military could have been deleted in that context without any loss of meaning, at all.

United States soldier. A soldier of the United States. That is a weird turn of phrase. A soldier in the US military is better. United States military soldier is also an odd turn of phrase but it denotes the idea that that person is a soldier in the US military. And the fact that (s)he is a soldier and not a seaman or airman. So not redundant, just an odd word order.

Besides, my point was not so much that you used a clumsy and ill-used turn of phrase, but rather that you were so insistent that somebody else doing so invalidated their participation in this discussion.

Did I say that? Do you know what does invalidate a person's participation in a discussion? The use of strawman arguments and quote mining that cuts out necessary elements from the quote. Crimes that you have committed on this very post.

You were still making comparisons between things that should not have been compared

In your opinion. I would agree IF the person who I quoted had not made an argument that was easily defeating using the argument. If your argument is defeated by that kind of argument then you have to reassess.

in a context where had the comparison been successful it would have greatly benefited your argument.

The comparison was successful. He said that countries with a few number of guns work fine and Europe proves it. What part of my post did not disprove that?

However, it is important to remember that European firearm ownership tends to be better regulated, if not more restricted.

Now you are changing the argument. Sorry, that does not work. If guns are the issue then more guns should lead to more problems.

you seem to be trying to say that while guns to have an effect on the community, it is not always one of violence and can contribute both negatively and positively.

Actually I am saying the opposite. Guns are irrelevant. If you measure all of the socio-economic cultural elements that lead up to crime, the presence or absence of guns turns out to irrelevant to the vast majority of areas. Now, if you take an area like my hometown which has a 100% gun ownership rate and guns are a massive part of the culture, and then they become relevant. However, the vast majority of locations are not like that. Guns are in the hands of a handful of people and the culture does not revolve around them. The areas with the highest murder and crime rates (urban areas) have the lowest gun ownership rates. Now gun ownership rates can be used to analyze other trends (an increase in gun ownership in most urban areas is due to the perception of danger) however the guns themselves don't change anything.

dmase:

Edible Avatar:
I do living history with a few guys that do World War 1 and 2 reenacting. They use the same weapons that their grandfathers carried. They are all law abiding and everyone is registered, but the new legislation would make their inherited weapons illegal to be grandfathered to their children,and subject to confiscation (or at least i'm under that presumption). Even weapons like the M1 Garand has a 8-round built in clip, making it illegal under the new legislation, so should private museum/collectors be forced to give up their pieces of heritage or their collections to the authorities to be destroyed?

EDIT: I found this just a second ago, its very relevant:

No where in the law does it say weapons can't be grandfathered to kids you just have to change the definition of kid to someone who can get an appropriate license for the firearm, over 18. So they can't physically own it until their 18 they can however use it just like you can let your friend borrow a weapon however I'm pretty sure you need to be with someone under 18 while they are using the weapon.

Individual states do have different law regarding minors and weapons though, however that's completely separate from the national legislation.

By definition of the law currently in the works: "Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds." So M1 carbines (15 or 30 rounds) and Browning Automatic Rifles (converted to semi-auto for purposes of reenacting) (20 rounds) would now be illegal to fire or operate in a reenactment, as there were never any magazines manufactured to accept less than the illegal amount described :(

source: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked