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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT
 

TheKasp:

Blablahb:
If someone breaks into your house, they're not a serious, let alone a mortal threat to you.

In previous discussions I already provided sources that showed how wrong you are in this assumption. Again: in 26% of the cases when a resident is at home during a burglary it ends with an attack of the resident. This equals a threat and I won't put my money on the chance that the injuries I get through that might not have consequences in some way.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

Now provide your sources where burglars are just nice people who would never harm a fly.

The other %74 of the cases end with no attacks on residents. To assume that's just because of guns is a bit of a stretch.

TheKasp:
In previous discussions I already provided sources that showed how wrong you are in this assumption. Again: in 26% of the cases when a resident is at home during a burglary it ends with an attack of the resident.

Why bring up such completely irrelevant things? I spoke of mortal danger, and you bring up numbers that get registered if you and the guy who's looking for spare change engage in a slapping match?

Why don't you look up how many people without firearms are killed in home invasions, and then offset that against the yearly number of firearms deaths, and add to that the number of burglars murdered.

I'm thinking you'd find the risk of mortal danger from a burglary is completely fictional, akin to getting struck by lightning, while gun possession kills thousands every year.

Blablahb:
I'm thinking you'd find the risk of mortal danger from a burglary is completely fictional, akin to getting struck by lightning, while gun possession kills thousands every year.

Again, tell it to Kimberly and Jaimie Cates. I'm sure that home invader just accidentally butchered them.

It's not a matter of how big the risk it is, it's a matter of reducing what risk is there. Even if the chances are like getting struck by lighting, that doesn't mean it's a great idea to ignore the risk or fail to prepare for the risk. Frankly, any percentage chance that a home invader is going to cause physical harm to myself or my family is too high.

And you seem to make the assumption that all home invaders are going to invariably end up shot and dead. AGAIN, twice I've defended myself and my property with firearms. One of them was a home burglary. NO ONE GOT HURT.

And I'm not kidding, I'm going to keep bringing it up until you address it, 'cause your MO so far seems to be to completely ignore everything you can't explain away with assumption.

Tuesday Night Fever:

Blablahb:
I'm thinking you'd find the risk of mortal danger from a burglary is completely fictional, akin to getting struck by lightning, while gun possession kills thousands every year.

Again, tell it to Kimberly and Jaimie Cates. I'm sure that home invader just accidentally butchered them.

It's not a matter of how big the risk it is, it's a matter of reducing what risk is there. Even if the chances are like getting struck by lighting, that doesn't mean it's a great idea to ignore the risk or fail to prepare for the risk. Frankly, any percentage chance that a home invader is going to cause physical harm to myself or my family is too high.

And you seem to make the assumption that all home invaders are going to invariably end up shot and dead. AGAIN, twice I've defended myself and my property with firearms. One of them was a home burglary. NO ONE GOT HURT.

And I'm not kidding, I'm going to keep bringing it up until you address it, 'cause your MO so far seems to be to completely ignore everything you can't explain away with assumption.

According to FBI Crime Statistics, since 2004, 78% of all home invaders are not armed at all, and a firearm other than a pistol is used less than 1% of the time. But if you think you need a .223 assault rifle with extended magazines for a less than one percent chance, and not a revolver or a hunting rifle then I'm pretty sure we're done here.

Reginald:

The other %74 of the cases end with no attacks on residents. To assume that's just because of guns is a bit of a stretch.

I did not assume anything. The statement Blahbla likes to work with is that burglars are no danger to residents and all the cases where something happened it was in big bad 'murrica. In his world burglars are just nice people who come over for a cup of sugar and won't do you any harm ever. Though he did not state it this way here yet he did say exactly that in other threads of similiar content.

In the cases of burglaries there are several things to think of: Most 'professional' burglars don't try to break in when someone is at home. In the cases when they do you won't realise it because you'll be asleep - you don't confront him. Those are for the best part the other 74%: Nothing happened was due to the fact that they either realised someone is at home and backed off or you were asleep. Germany is a great case where nearly all burglaries are planed to an extent where a breakin while you are at home can be one of two cases: A major fuckup or a junkie.

No, I don't want to assume guns have anything to do with it. I don't want to assume that every burglar is a bloodthristy maniac. I talked about 26% of the cases when a resident is at home - that scenario happens in 28% of all burglaries according to that source - 7% of totals. But a 93% chance that nothing will happen to me in such a scenario is nothing I ever want to risk.

DJjaffacake:

Yeah, I get that, and I do actually agree that guns will remain necessary for defence in the US until the proliferation of guns can be dealt with. My issue is with the often used logic that Xan has aptly demonstrated, which contradicts itself by saying that guns are necessary to protect against an oppressive government, and then that the military will not assist the government in such a situation, rendering the privately owned guns unnecessary for that purpose.

Bolded part: Isn't that a bit of a catch-22? I'm assuming you mean we can't crack down on legal guns until we deal with illegal guns, but aren't legal guns a source of illegal guns? I'm not in favor of an outright gun ban either, but it seems we'd wait for eternity with that plan.

Or did I miss something? >.>

TheKasp:

In previous discussions I already provided sources that showed how wrong you are in this assumption.

You'll repeat this cycle over and over again until you throw your hands up in exasperation and walk away. He'll count it as a win. IMO, save yourself and walk away now.

Tuesday Night Fever:
Again, tell it to Kimberly and Jaimie Cates. I'm sure that home invader just accidentally butchered them.

Oh jolly, an anecdote to obscure the fact that a gun ban would save thousands of lives every year. I'm sure everybody who reads it is too stupid to see what you did there, and how you ignore all rational concerns, all statistics, and just play on the emotion.

Tuesday Night Fever:
AGAIN, twice I've defended myself and my property with firearms. One of them was a home burglary. NO ONE GOT HURT.

It's a little worrying you actually believe you are at risk, and look upon situations with deadly violence or the risk of that as being something good.

But it's at least good to hear nobody has died yet because of your feelings of insecurity. Just today someone else who defended himself and his property murdered two firemen, and tried to murder two others.

And remember that crazy vigilante, the murderer Zimmerman? Saw a black kid in his neighbourhood, felt threatened, so he grabbed his gun, chased him through the neighbourhood and murdered him. That could be you in his place a few years if you don't work on the rationality of your perception of risk and threats, or your children in Trayvon Martin's place.


A gun ban would prevent that from ever happening. It would save thousands of lives every year.

Can you agree with me that saving lives is a good reason? Because if we can agree on that, the whole discussion is a moot point.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

According to FBI Crime Statistics, since 2004, 78% of all home invaders are not armed at all, and a firearm other than a pistol is used less than 1% of the time. But if you think you need a .223 assault rifle with extended magazines for a less than one percent chance, and not a revolver or a hunting rifle then I'm pretty sure we're done here.

I don't consider either a handgun or a .223 semi-automatic rifle very good picks for home defense. Shotguns work best. Now, with that said, if I'm going to spend my political capital to regulate either one(which I would), it's going to be the one that has the highest probability of being used in crimes or killing another person. That would far and away be the handgun, not the .223 semi-automatic rifle or similar weapons. The latter is much further down the priority list.

Edit: I guess my point was that semi-automatic rifles not really being needed for home defense is academic.

Blablahb:

And remember that crazy vigilante, the murderer Zimmerman? Saw a black kid in his neighbourhood, felt threatened, so he grabbed his gun, chased him through the neighbourhood and murdered him. That could be you in his place a few years if you don't work on the rationality of your perception of risk and threats, or your children in Trayvon Martin's place.

You can't make that claim, because the case is still ongoing. Also, according to Zimmerman, he was acting in self-defense. There is evidence to support that claim (For a variety of reasons, but mainly because Treyvon was a known criminal, his family trademarked his name the day of his death, and Zimmerman has no prior violent convictions), but most of the evidence against Zimmerman (Such as the 911 call) was faked and suits have been filed against the media for deliberately putting out false information.

Let me just run off a few things off the top of my head.

1. Blahb, you said killing someone who breaks into your home is murder. Alright I'll give you that, it's a legal murder that is good and should never be prosecuted. Just because it's a murder doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

2. By banning guns you would be punishing all the innocent people like me who want them. You would be punishing the majority for the actions of a minority.

3. If someone breaks into your house how do you defend your things? Guns work, even if you don't shoot the person you can at least intimidate them into leaving.

4. What if you're not dealing with a person? What if a coyote is trying to eat your small dog?

5. If guns cause violence why are there no shootings at NRA conventions? If everyone is armed then the risk of a shooting is greatly reduced. Notice how criminals vastly prefer attacking unarmed people.

LetalisK:

DJjaffacake:

Yeah, I get that, and I do actually agree that guns will remain necessary for defence in the US until the proliferation of guns can be dealt with. My issue is with the often used logic that Xan has aptly demonstrated, which contradicts itself by saying that guns are necessary to protect against an oppressive government, and then that the military will not assist the government in such a situation, rendering the privately owned guns unnecessary for that purpose.

Bolded part: Isn't that a bit of a catch-22? I'm assuming you mean we can't crack down on legal guns until we deal with illegal guns, but aren't legal guns a source of illegal guns? I'm not in favor of an outright gun ban either, but it seems we'd wait for eternity with that plan.

Or did I miss something? >.>

I could probably have phrased that better. What I meant was that the gun culture and the ease of smuggling weapons into the country, which between them cause the proliferation of guns, have to be dealt with before it will be reasonable to say that you don't need a gun for defence.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
But if you think you need a .223 assault rifle with extended magazines for a less than one percent chance, and not a revolver or a hunting rifle then I'm pretty sure we're done here.

The issue with regard to home invasions in this topic never specified that sort of rifle. It was with regard to firearms in general. I have a pump-action shotgun for home defense. Frankly, I don't care how low the percentage is. It's still possible. It's like having flood insurance. The chances of losing everything to a flood here are low, but I'd still rather have the insurance and be able to rest easy than end up within that 1%.

Once again, I don't want to discharge a firearm at anyone. The point is that it's there if for whatever extremely remote reason I have to.

Blablahb:
Oh jolly, an anecdote to obscure the fact that a gun ban would save thousands of lives every year. I'm sure everybody who reads it is too stupid to see what you did there, and how you ignore all rational concerns, all statistics, and just play on the emotion.

An anecdote that proves all of your nonsense about it being a "myth" is bull. It DOES happen. Rarely? Sure. But it does. You repeatedly stating that it doesn't is incredibly offensive to those who have been a victim to it. I choose to limit my chances of being a victim to it, as do many others. To call out my stance as being based on emotion is hypocritical to the extreme given your posts in this topic, like accusing all firearm owners as child killers. Hyperbolic bullshit.

It's a little worrying you actually believe you are at risk, and look upon situations with deadly violence or the risk of that as being something good.

But it's at least good to hear nobody has died yet because of your feelings of insecurity. Just today someone else who defended himself and his property murdered two firemen, and tried to murder two others.

And remember that crazy vigilante, the murderer Zimmerman? Saw a black kid in his neighbourhood, felt threatened, so he grabbed his gun, chased him through the neighbourhood and murdered him. That could be you in his place a few years if you don't work on the rationality of your perception of risk and threats, or your children in Trayvon Martin's place.


A gun ban would prevent that from ever happening. It would save thousands of lives every year.

Can you agree with me that saving lives is a good reason? Because if we can agree on that, the whole discussion is a moot point.

I'd like to refer to Kopikatsu's post above with regard to Treyvon Martin. I'm not going to deny that the kid was killed, because he was. But that's still under investigation, since there's evidence that he did attack Zimmerman. On the possibility that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense though, I'm not going to deny what happened, but I will be realistic and say that he doesn't represent all firearm owners. The news media might like to make it seem that way, but as stated pages ago, reporting on the many responsible owners who never hurt anyone is boring and doesn't get ratings.

Once again, for the billionth time, I acknowledge the risk as being incredibly low. The point is being prepared in case it does happen. You're putting words in my mouth as to whether or not I see situations with potential violence as good. Hell no I don't. If I could live in a world without weapons, a world where everyone lived in peace, you can be damn sure I would. But I don't live in that world. None of us do. I don't arm myself looking for a fight. I arm myself in case a fight comes looking for me, and I pray it doesn't. But that's not something I have any control over.

Yes. Saving lives is a good thing. But when someone confronts me looking to take mine, I'm going to defend mine. I'll restate it since you never seem to get it, I'm not looking to kill anyone. I'm not looking for a fight. But sometimes, trouble seeks people out. Every day there are many people who are robbed, beaten, raped, and murdered in this country who were completely innocent and not looking for trouble. They were unable to defend themselves, so they became victims. I'm doing what I can, with what's available to me, to not be a victim. To prevent those I love from being victims.

You can make the assumption that not all criminals are looking to kill their victims. I'd agree with you on that. But that doesn't change the fact that some are out to kill. In those, admittedly rare, instances - someone is going to be murdered. I'd rather it be the person who sought to do evil to others instead of the person who was just trying to live their life in peace.

Tuesday Night Fever:

An anecdote that proves all of your nonsense about it being a "myth" is bull. It DOES happen. Rarely? Sure. But it does. You repeatedly stating that it doesn't is incredibly offensive to those who have been a victim to it. I choose to limit my chances of being a victim to it, as do many others. To call out my stance as being based on emotion is hypocritical to the extreme given your posts in this topic, like accusing all firearm owners as child killers. Hyperbolic bullshit.

BLahb will not acknowledge something exists until it meets some massive statistical bar that he himself sets. Don't even bother. I could slap the police report of my own incident right here and now and he would still say it never happened and is a myth.

GunsmithKitten:
BLahb will not acknowledge something exists until it meets some massive statistical bar that he himself sets. Don't even bother. I could slap the police report of my own incident right here and now and he would still say it never happened and is a myth.

Judging by his posts in this topic, especially that one earlier claiming that "two decent punches" is all it would take to fend off any attacker... I wouldn't be surprised if he's never had to defend himself in a life-or-death situation. If he did, there's no way he could be this naive and idealistic about it. As much as I'd like for him to actually understand, I sincerely hope he never has to. I hope he remains in the majority of people that won't have their lives, or the lives of loved ones, threatened. Because if he ever does end up in that situation, and his "two decent punches" fail him... I don't wish the outcome of that on anyone.

Tuesday Night Fever:

GunsmithKitten:
BLahb will not acknowledge something exists until it meets some massive statistical bar that he himself sets. Don't even bother. I could slap the police report of my own incident right here and now and he would still say it never happened and is a myth.

Judging by his posts in this topic, especially that one earlier claiming that "two decent punches" is all it would take to fend off any attacker... I wouldn't be surprised if he's never had to defend himself in a life-or-death situation. If he did, there's no way he could be this naive and idealistic about it. As much as I'd like for him to actually understand, I sincerely hope he never has to. I hope he remains in the majority of people that won't have their lives, or the lives of loved ones, threatened. Because if he ever does end up in that situation, and his "two decent punches" fail him... I don't wish the outcome of that on anyone.

He has never been in a violent confrontation and doens't know fact 1 about it. "All you have to do is aim." I swear, I said that to my GF, who's been involved in martial arts since she was 8, and her response was. 'Please tell me they were kidding...'.

GunsmithKitten:
BLahb will not acknowledge something exists until it meets some massive statistical bar that he himself sets. Don't even bother. I could slap the police report of my own incident right here and now and he would still say it never happened and is a myth.

No, I'd tell you that even if what you believe about it is right, it doesn't outweigh 30.000 lives each year.

And you'd realise that I was right in saying that, and guns need to be banned, unless you believed a false sense of security for oneself, is more important than thousands of lives.

Is it?

Tuesday Night Fever:
Judging by his posts in this topic, especially that one earlier claiming that "two decent punches" is all it would take to fend off any attacker... I wouldn't be surprised if he's never had to defend himself in a life-or-death situation.

Ask your mother to punch you in the crotch twice with all she has, then come say that again. :-)

Tuesday Night Fever:
An anecdote that proves all of your nonsense about it being a "myth" is bull. It DOES happen.

Good for you. Now you only have about 30.549 cases more to find in a single year, before you can claim that a gun ban would be bad thing.

Untill then however, gun bans save countless lives.

Tuesday Night Fever:
Rarely? Sure. But it does. You repeatedly stating that it doesn't is incredibly offensive to those who have been a victim to it.

It's not my problem that they can't face facts. Chances are I've been in more dangerous situations than all those gun owners combined, but do you see me claiming I need to have a right to shoot up the local secondary school?

You know what's actually offensive? Claiming that thousands of people must die because 'I need guns' and then inserting some rubbish reason. That's basically saying an emotion in oneself is more important than the lives of other people.

Tuesday Night Fever:
I choose to limit my chances of being a victim to it, as do many others. To call out my stance as being based on emotion is hypocritical to the extreme given your posts in this topic, like accusing all firearm owners as child killers. Hyperbolic bullshit.

Like I said: 100% of all gun crime is perpetrated by gun owners, so... what exactly is hyperbolic about it?

Remove guns, no more gun crime, simple. Other countries' experiences and statistics suggest the violence and murders in the US could easily be cut in half in six years, and probably be reduced by three or four times within a decade.

Tuesday Night Fever:
Once again, for the billionth time, I acknowledge the risk as being incredibly low. The point is being prepared in case it does happen. You're putting words in my mouth as to whether or not I see situations with potential violence as good. Hell no I don't.

Then why insist you need guns while you just admitted you don't need them? For certain such a tiny risk outweighs the countless deaths each year because of gun ownership?

Tuesday Night Fever:
If I could live in a world without weapons, a world where everyone lived in peace, you can be damn sure I would.

You can. Just need to pass some tight weapons laws. Even if you work in a violent environment then, you'd find that trouble rarely occurs more than yearly. And ussually the "People hit eachother, they stop when you tell them to" kind of trouble, and not the "Half the company's workers dead in a client's second amendment solution" kind of trouble.

Tuesday Night Fever:
But I don't live in that world. None of us do. I don't arm myself looking for a fight. I arm myself in case a fight comes looking for me, and I pray it doesn't. But that's not something I have any control over.

I'm pretty sure that's about what Zimmerman said when he applied for his concealed carry permit... Or insert any other murderer's name. All guns can be used for murder, that's what even the gun lobby advertises. That's why you need to ban guns, and not try to distinguish motivations for having guns. Nobody every applied for a weapons permit stating something like "I'm losing it, and I need this weapon to kill a few dozen kids at school".

Tuesday Night Fever:
Yes. Saving lives is a good thing. But when someone confronts me looking to take mine, I'm going to defend mine.

Well then it's your lucky day: That will never ever happen in your life. Statistical law right there.

So you don't need guns, and can safely ban them to save thousands of lives each year.

Xan Krieger:

1. Blahb, you said killing someone who breaks into your home is murder. Alright I'll give you that, it's a legal murder that is good and should never be prosecuted. Just because it's a murder doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Someone dying is always a bad thing. Sometimes one bad thing is necessary to prevent a worse thing. A culture that glorifies just murder is bordering on sociopathic.

2. By banning guns you would be punishing all the innocent people like me who want them. You would be punishing the majority for the actions of a minority.

3. If someone breaks into your house how do you defend your things? Guns work, even if you don't shoot the person you can at least intimidate them into leaving.

4. What if you're not dealing with a person? What if a coyote is trying to eat your small dog?

5. If guns cause violence why are there no shootings at NRA conventions? If everyone is armed then the risk of a shooting is greatly reduced. Notice how criminals vastly prefer attacking unarmed people.

FYI i think in the US guns should stay legal but in the UK they should stay illegal.

1. Its not "Good" murder. Its necessary murder. Seriously saying "That was a good murder!" is a creepy as shit thing. I agree it shouldnt be punished but that come off SUPER creepy.

2. I shoot down at my local range and dont own a gun at home... im not punished by my system.

3. With knives, swords or a bow? Or one of a hundred golf clubs?

4. Cant really argue with that. In my country we dont have a single vicious animal though so the point is kinda moot for myself.

5. Cmon thats just an obvious fallacy. Why are their no robberies at a big crowded convention, with MANY armed people, in the day, where EVERYONE can see you? Erm. Its not because the guns are there thats for sure. Its because even if NO one were armed itd be fucking stupid. Crimes occur where people think no one will even see them.

Im FINE with people saying America having guns is a good thing. Because honestly trying to change it now would probably fuck stuff up more than it fixed anything. But when people attack a "Gun free society" like mine ill defend it because i LIKE the way it is here now. Ill admit our case is fairly unique and cant apply to the US but to say a no guns society is inherently a negative thing is absurd and ill argue against that.

Blablahb:
Ask your mother to punch you in the crotch twice with all she has, then come say that again. :-)

Ah, mother jokes. Boy, aren't we mature.

Good luck getting in those punches against someone with a knife or a bat. Maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe you won't. For your sake, I hope you would get lucky - but I wouldn't count on it.

Good for you. Now you only have about 30.549 cases more to find in a single year, before you can claim that a gun ban would be bad thing.

Untill then however, gun bans save countless lives.

And once again the point continues to woosh gloriously over your head. It's like you only read half of what people say then assume the rest.

It's not my problem that they can't face facts. Chances are I've been in more dangerous situations than all those gun owners combined, but do you see me claiming I need to have a right to shoot up the local secondary school?

I would say the chances of that are slim to nil.

And no one's fighting for the right to shoot up a secondary school. Pure absurdity, and yet more hyperbolic bullshit. You're getting to be predictable.

You know what's actually offensive? Claiming that thousands of people must die because 'I need guns' and then inserting some rubbish reason. That's basically saying an emotion in oneself is more important than the lives of other people.

Y'know what's actually offensive? Claiming that innocent people must die because they were unable to defend themselves against stronger/better armed attackers. Claiming that their lives are somehow worth less. People are going to die, regardless of whether or not guns get banned. The difference is that with them around, those not fortunate enough to be born as hand-to-hand masters such as yourself will be able to defend themselves. If guns are banned, we're still going to see firearm deaths because they've already become common in this country. At this point, banning them would do nothing but give those who acquired theirs illegally carte blanche to do whatever they want because the average person won't be able to defend themselves, and it takes the police time to respond.

Like I said: 100% of all gun crime is perpetrated by gun owners, so... what exactly is hyperbolic about it?

Adam Lanza wasn't a firearm owner, he stole his guns. Just one example, but it proves that 100% is hyperbolic. You speak in absolutes constantly when absolutes don't exist.

Remove guns, no more gun crime, simple. Other countries' experiences and statistics suggest the violence and murders in the US could easily be cut in half in six years, and probably be reduced by three or four times within a decade.

Except for gun crime caused by guns that aren't legally acquired. Are they the minority of the many firearms in this country? Sure. But you're going to make them that much more deadly by removing the average person's ability to counter them.

You keep wanting to make this a black and white issue. It's not. As I stated a dozen times early on in this topic, right now, a ban wouldn't work. You can't just start from a ban. You need to begin at making them harder to get, and eventually work your way toward that. Gradual change. A sudden, immediate change is going to cause a lot of harm.

Then why insist you need guns while you just admitted you don't need them? For certain such a tiny risk outweighs the countless deaths each year because of gun ownership?

Because risk is still there. As I've already said, like, a bunch of times. Those deaths aren't because of gun ownership - they're because of gun misuse. They're because of people who are sick in the head. You never answered me earlier when I asked you who you'd blame if I hit you over the head with a hammer - me, or the hammer. Right now, you're blaming the hammer.

You can. Just need to pass some tight weapons laws. Even if you work in a violent environment then, you'd find that trouble rarely occurs more than yearly. And ussually the "People hit eachother, they stop when you tell them to" kind of trouble, and not the "Half the company's workers dead in a client's second amendment solution" kind of trouble.

No, I can't. Because people will still be out to harm each other, because it's human nature. Murder isn't a new thing. Murder didn't start because of firearms, and it won't stop if they disappear. Nor will all of the illegally acquired firearms cease to exist. Like I said above, a sudden ban, a sudden shock to the system, isn't the way to do things.

And yet again painting all firearm owners as an absolute negative way. Because apparently firearm owners are completely incapable of sorting out disputes at work peacefully, despite it happening all the time. Just because you hear about some nut on the news doesn't mean that everyone's a nut. Jeez.

I'm pretty sure that's about what Zimmerman said when he applied for his concealed carry permit... Or insert any other murderer's name. All guns can be used for murder, that's what even the gun lobby advertises. That's why you need to ban guns, and not try to distinguish motivations for having guns. Nobody every applied for a weapons permit stating something like "I'm losing it, and I need this weapon to kill a few dozen kids at school".

All guns can be used to murder, but not all guns do. You continue your use of false absolutes.

As stated way-early in this thread, I'd be totally cool with firearms having stricter regulations and making them far harder to acquire in order to cut down on the number of troubled people getting their hands on them. That's not endorsement of a ban.

Well then it's your lucky day: That will never ever happen in your life. Statistical law right there.

So you don't need guns, and can safely ban them to save thousands of lives each year.

It's already happened. As stated, previously - though it's established you only read what you want to read, and completely distort everything else. I had a knife in my face from a man, clearly unstable, looking for money. He threatened the coworkers I was with, and he threatened to kill me when I asked him to calm down. I drew my sidearm, and I diffused the situation without bloodshed. So much for that world of absolutes you seem to love.

Blablahb:
Like I said: 100% of all gun crime is perpetrated by gun owners, so... what exactly is hyperbolic about it?

The fact that it's incorrect.

Let me put it this way: Crimes committed with stolen guns are NOT committed by gun owners.

If I steal a car, I'm not that car's owner. If I steal a TV, I'm not the owner of that TV. And if I steal a gun, I'm not the owner of it. Are you following me on that? Need I give more examples?

If I shoot someone with a stolen gun, that's the fault of someone who's not the owner of said firearm. Unless you're now going to backtrack and blame someone for being the victim of theft.

In short, what you're saying is factually incorrect.

Blahb even if your ban does pass it won't be retroactive so you'd still have millions of guns out there and you'd still have a demand for said guns. An illegal market would pop-up and then only criminals would have guns and the rest of us would be defenseless because we wouldn't be able to buy guns. That's a nightmare.

Here is a quote from an amazing blog post.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

We need to ban automatic weapons.
Okay. Done. In fact, we pretty much did that in 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it so that you had to pay a $200 tax on a machinegun and register it with the government. In 1986 that registry was closed and there have been no new legal machineguns for civilians to own since then.
Automatic means that when you hold down the trigger the gun keeps on shooting until you let go or run out of ammo. Actual automatic weapons cost a lot of money. The cheapest one you can get right now is around $5,000 as they are all collector's items and you need to jump through a lot of legal hoops to get one. To the best of my knowledge, there has only ever been one crime committed with an NFA weapon in my lifetime, and in that case the perp was a cop.
Now are machineguns still used in crimes? Why, yes they are. For every legally registered one, there are conservatively dozens of illegal ones in the hands of criminals. They either make their own (which is not hard to do) or they are smuggled in (usually by the same people that are able to smuggle in thousands of tons of drugs). Because really serious criminals simply don't care, they are able to get ahold of military weapons, and they use them simply because criminals, by definition, don't obey the law. So even an item which has been basically banned since my grandparents were kids, and which there has been no new ones allowed manufactured since I was in elementary school, still ends up in the hands of criminals who really want one. This will go to show how effective government bans are.

We should ban Assault Rifles!
Define "assault rifle"...
Uh...
Yeah. That's the problem. The term assault rifle gets bandied around a lot. Politically, the term is a loaded nonsense one that was created back during the Clinton years. It was one of those tricks where you name legislation something catchy, like PATRIOT Act. (another law rammed through while emotions were high and nobody was thinking, go figure).
To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated (for the most part) in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge (as in, actually not that powerful, but I'll come back to that later) infantry weapon.
The thing is, real assault rifles in the US have been heavily regulated since before they were invented. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary.
I had somebody get all mad at me for pointing this out, because they said that the term had entered common usage. Okay... If you're going to legislate it, DEFINE IT.
And then comes up that pesky problem. The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. (except tick a bunch of Americans off, and as a result we bought a TON more guns) And the reason was that since assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon.
Problem was, none of these features actually made the gun functionally any different or somehow more lethal or better from any other run of the mill firearm. Most of the criteria were so silly that they became a huge joke to gun owners, except of course, for that part where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal.

GunsmithKitten:

Tuesday Night Fever:

GunsmithKitten:
BLahb will not acknowledge something exists until it meets some massive statistical bar that he himself sets. Don't even bother. I could slap the police report of my own incident right here and now and he would still say it never happened and is a myth.

Judging by his posts in this topic, especially that one earlier claiming that "two decent punches" is all it would take to fend off any attacker... I wouldn't be surprised if he's never had to defend himself in a life-or-death situation. If he did, there's no way he could be this naive and idealistic about it. As much as I'd like for him to actually understand, I sincerely hope he never has to. I hope he remains in the majority of people that won't have their lives, or the lives of loved ones, threatened. Because if he ever does end up in that situation, and his "two decent punches" fail him... I don't wish the outcome of that on anyone.

He has never been in a violent confrontation and doens't know fact 1 about it. "All you have to do is aim." I swear, I said that to my GF, who's been involved in martial arts since she was 8, and her response was. 'Please tell me they were kidding...'.

I actually want to hear about some of these dangerous situations hes been rambling about at one point or another. If anything it should at least be entertaining to read.

snip

Going to hold off on this particular subject.

It's worth pointing out the term "assault rifle" is inherently meaningless. It was adopted by the Germans at end of WW2 for propaganda purposes (supposedly dreamed up by the short man himself). Even the archetypical "assault rifle", the AR-15, was initially designed with the civilian market in mind.

Personally speaking, I agree with the laws on firearms in the UK. Anyone can apply for a shotgun licence (which covers smoothbore firearms of a certain length, not necessarily just shotguns), and it's the duty of the police to object to someone receiving such a licence (ie "you can't have a gun because you're mentally ill"). With sufficient need (ie, "I need to defend my livestock against predators"), anyone can apply for a full firearms licence, and only certain persons (mainly specialist police and military personnel) can own automatic or easily concealable (ie, pistols) firearms.

People have said that a ban on assault weapons will be pointless as everyone will just buy thousands the day before the ban and keep selling them as they're 'pre-ban weapons'. Yes, they're right, it's a completely pointless rule if you can just buy an old one. It'd be like banning petrol/diesel cars except for those produced before January 2013 (so, all of them)

So guess what? If your going to ban them, make possession a fucking crime. I doubt when prohibition kicked in you were allowed to say "Well I bought this warehouse full of whisky before the ban so I can sell it no problem", no the police would be in breaking barrels and pouring it down the drain.

Now before someone comes in with the 5th amendment there's a loophole. The 5th amendment has a clause that says if the government seizes something they have to pay you it's market value in compensation. Obviously very expensive and impractical. However that doesn't stop the government fining you until you just say fuck it and give up of your own accord. It's basically like raising gas prices until people cant afford to drive expensive gas-guzzlers anymore.

If you own an 'assault rifle' then you can either:

a) surrender it to the police
b) face a fine (lets say your share of the US national debt) that can be taken from your pay packet before you get it (like child support money is after a court finds you guilty of not paying). Oh and it's yearly, until you obey the law.

Karma168:

a) surrender it to the police
b) face a fine (lets say your share of the US national debt) that can be taken from your pay packet before you get it (like child support money is after a court finds you guilty of not paying). Oh and it's yearly, until you obey the law.

You mean that's what you can LEGALLY do.

You can also:
c) Claim you destroyed it (but keep it)
d) Sell it (to whomever's buying, of course)
e) Buy/Have one off the books

...which, incidentally, were the same problems alcohol prohibition had (and why it was ultimately a huge failure)

Karma168:
People have said that a ban on assault weapons will be pointless as everyone will just buy thousands the day before the ban and keep selling them as they're 'pre-ban weapons'. Yes, they're right, it's a completely pointless rule if you can just buy an old one. It'd be like banning petrol/diesel cars except for those produced before January 2013 (so, all of them)

So guess what? If your going to ban them, make possession a fucking crime. I doubt when prohibition kicked in you were allowed to say "Well I bought this warehouse full of whisky before the ban so I can sell it no problem", no the police would be in breaking barrels and pouring it down the drain.

Now before someone comes in with the 5th amendment there's a loophole. The 5th amendment has a clause that says if the government seizes something they have to pay you it's market value in compensation. Obviously very expensive and impractical. However that doesn't stop the government fining you until you just say fuck it and give up of your own accord. It's basically like raising gas prices until people cant afford to drive expensive gas-guzzlers anymore.

If you own an 'assault rifle' then you can either:

a) surrender it to the police
b) face a fine (lets say your share of the US national debt) that can be taken from your pay packet before you get it (like child support money is after a court finds you guilty of not paying). Oh and it's yearly, until you obey the law.

It's actually unconstitutional to impose a retroactive law. Also, drinking alcohol wasn't against the law during Prohibition; it dealt primarily with manufacture and sale. So yes, if you had a warehouse full of Whiskey before Prohibition went into effect, you would be entirely within your rights to keep and consume it. You just couldn't sell any.

I mean, we have numerous laws in place to prevent exactly what you're suggesting.

Well, it's easy enough to say but there aren't as many civilians in the US as you might think. Legally, me and every other male age 18-45 are considered militia (See Militia Act of 1903). So is it cool for me to have suppressive firepower?

Well, what can I say. My feelings on this have moved from exasperation to pity.

I mean, when people live in constant fear that there's a boogeyman waiting around the next corner, I can't do anything but pity them. Over here, the large majority of crimes, violent crimes especially, are perpetrated by family members, acquaintances. Not by bloodthirsty perfect strangers with blood-dripping canines that are waiting around the corner.

You're a lot more likely to be murdered by your spouse or kids than you are by a random stranger out there.

Vegosiux:
Well, what can I say. My feelings on this have moved from exasperation to pity.

I mean, when people live in constant fear that there's a boogeyman waiting around the next corner, I can't do anything but pity them. Over here, the large majority of crimes, violent crimes especially, are perpetrated by family members, acquaintances. Not by bloodthirsty perfect strangers with blood-dripping canines that are waiting around the corner.

You're a lot more likely to be murdered by your spouse or kids than you are by a random stranger out there.

Glad you feel that safe. I don't.

And I say as I always do; if you think those boogeymen don't exist, go have a chat with Sharon Tate.

GunsmithKitten:

And I say as I always do; if you think those boogeymen don't exist, go have a chat with Sharon Tate.

Yes, I have a rather strong opinion about Charles Manson and his cronies, and I'd be too heavily censored to say it out loud here. But that's a separate issue, since we could go bad and forth an nauseam with you saying how she could have lived if she had a gun, and me saying that, attacked by an organized band like the Manson "family", she'd have been just as likely to have the gun taken from her and then be shot with it.

Oh, and even in our short history as a nation, we had two serial killers at least, both of which murdered several women. They didn't pick their victims randomly in the night, oh no. They worked slowly, created a relationship with their victims, made their victims trust them before taking their lives.

Yes, people who will jump you in the middle of the night and kill you for the three bucks in your wallet, they do exist and I do not deny that. It just seems a bit much to me that the response to that is "Everyone and their dog should have a gun or two."

I have no problems with responsible people owning firearms for whatever legitimate reason they might have, but I would rather keep them out of the hands of

1) Those who think it's cool to shoot up stuff for laughs
2) Those who can't ensure they won't come into possession of someone who shouldn't be using them
3) Those who are liable to use them aggressively

As long as those people can't get their hands on guns, I have no problems with them.

Vegosiux:

I have no problems with responsible people owning firearms for whatever legitimate reason they might have, but I would rather keep them out of the hands of

1) Those who think it's cool to shoot up stuff for laughs
2) Those who can't ensure they won't come into possession of someone who shouldn't be using them
3) Those who are liable to use them aggressively

As long as those people can't get their hands on guns, I have no problems with them.

And you know what? I agree with all of those points. I groan at some of the customers I've seen come through my shop.

Just thought I'd share a picture of my new gun. I ordered it the day after the shooting when all the gun control headlines started eating up the google news aggregator. The next morning they were sold out.

xDarc:
Just thought I'd share a picture of my new gun. I ordered it the day after the shooting when all the gun control headlines started eating up the google news aggregator. The next morning they were sold out.

That happens every time the subject of gun control gets brought up at the national level, and it's exactly the reason why any further legislation relating to gun control will fail before it's even brought before the House.

Nice rifle by the way.

xDarc:
Just thought I'd share a picture of my new gun. I ordered it the day after the shooting when all the gun control headlines started eating up the google news aggregator. The next morning they were sold out.

THAT THING IS SO BEAUTIFUL.

And I envy you for it. I had $1200 lined up ready to buy one, I woke up the morning of the Sandy Hook shooting and thought I could still snag one before all the panic buyers got them. But alas, I was too late.

Damn panic buyers, can't live with them, and you can't live without them.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here