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

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 17 NEXT
 

MarioTheMacedonian:
You have somewhat of a point. Ok farmers need higher calibar weapones , but why would someone living in a densly populated region(like a city) need a high calibar weapon?

For sport shooting, hunting (I live in a city because I am going to college but I still hunt on my family's land), self protection, and collecting.

And you take jamaica for example? Rly?

You say, implement a gun ban and everything is better. Jamaica proves that gun bans by themselves are irrelevant.

why dont take the UK for example?

OK fine. The UK has one of the lowest gun ownership rates in Western Europe and also one of the highest murder rates in Western Europe.

How many more children have to die before americans realise that high cal weapones in civilian hands is dangerous??

And how many more children have to die before you antis realize that guns are used to save people?

A friend of mine was nearly killed by a wild pig but his father drew his revolver and killed it. I have been nearly killed by pigs and snakes several times but every time I have killed it before it killed me. A friend of mine was in a car wreck and after the wreck (cause by the other guy) the other guy tried to smash my friend's window with a crowbar but my friend managed to draw and prevent the guy from attacking him. Another friend of mine lives on the Arizona/Mexico border and drug runners go through his property on a regular basis. His house has been shot at several times. If you want more-

http://monachuslex.com/?p=1678
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/18860494/2012/06/22/14-year-old-shoots-injures-home-intruder
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_cbb8d741-70ed-549f-9c47-4c206b338928.html

MarioTheMacedonian:
[snip]

You have to understand that some posters like to bend the truth to suit their opinion.

For example 'bear attacks are sort of common' actually means 2 bear related injuries on average per year (62 killed in US since 1900). This includes people who climbed into bear cages at zoos.

There is actually a greater chance of killed by lightning, dogs or bees than being injured by a bear.

You are 60,000 times more likely to be murdered than killed by a bear.

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

http://www.bear.org/website/bear-pages/black-bear/bears-a-humans/119-how-dangerous-are-black-bears.html

TechNoFear:

MarioTheMacedonian:
[snip]

You have to understand that some posters like to bend the truth to suit their opinion.

For example 'bear attacks are sort of common' actually means 2 bear related injuries on average per year (62 killed in US since 1900). This includes people who climbed into bear cages at zoos.

There is actually a greater chance of killed by lightning, dogs or bees than being injured by a bear.

You are 60,000 times more likely to be murdered than killed by a bear.

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

http://www.bear.org/website/bear-pages/black-bear/bears-a-humans/119-how-dangerous-are-black-bears.html

There were three bear attacks in Arizona in just one month this year- http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/arizona-bear-attacks-up-to-three-in-a-month/

BTW the number of killed you quoted is just from black bears. Talk about bending the truth.

Edit: In 2011 two people were killed by bears in Yellowstone Park alone- http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/06/19/grizzly-attacks-yellowstone

I said sort of common and I meant it. Of course you will not respond to this. Actually admitting your mistakes is beneath you.

For sport shooting, hunting (I live in a city because I am going to college but I still hunt on my family's land), self protection, and collecting.

How about keeping your remington(i presume you have one,cause thats what i would use for hunting) on your family's farm?
Self protection,a walther 22 is a good self defence weapon even though its a small cal it still packs quite a punch , enough to disable/kill the person atacking you.
Collection:Colect medievil armor or somehting.

You say, implement a gun ban and everything is better. Jamaica proves that gun bans by themselves are irrelevant.

not a gun ban , a gun regulation. And if something didnt work in jamaica doesnt mean it wont work in a civilised country like the US.(i hope you are civilised atleast thats what you say)

OK fine. The UK has one of the lowest gun ownership rates in Western Europe and also one of the highest murder rates in Western Europe.

They might have one of the highest murder rates in Western Europe, but even if they have the highest its nothing compared to the US

And how many more children have to die before you
antis realize that guns are used to save people?

Antis? Where i come from we discuss like gentelmen, but i see that is beyond your abilities.
Guns save lives WHEN IN PROPER HANDS(army, police) not in the hands of lunatics and criminals.

A friend of mine was nearly killed by a wild pig but his father drew his revolver and killed it. I have been nearly killed by pigs and snakes several times but every time I have killed it before it killed me.

A friend of mine was killed by getting shot with a Zastava-m60 in the head while waiting for the bus, and before you say maybe your friend should have had a gun himself , i say sir the drunk basterd that shot him never should have had a 7.62 calibar full auto machine gun.
When you see your friend with a 10cm hole in the back of his head, then tell me everyone should have guns.
When you see his sisters weeping over his coffen and his mother beeing held by people in order not to fainth , then tell me everyone should have such devastating firepower.

A friend of mine was in a car wreck and after the wreck (cause by the other guy) the other guy tried to smash my friend's window with a crowbar but my friend managed to draw and prevent the guy from attacking him.

That is just 1 instance of idiotism, in my country for example in the event of a car wreck in 99% of the cases both drivers would exit their cars but first checking if any companions in the car have been injured , and then checking the person or people in the other car,then they would call the police to write a report, and call for a what we call spyders(which are large trucks with cranes) to clear the site if the cars are not in drivable condition. They would just exchange ensurance data and be on their marry way.

Another friend of mine lives on the Arizona/Mexico border and drug runners go through his property on a regular basis. His house has been shot at several times.

Now this is really easy.Instead of sending your sons and daughters to wage a war on the other side of the globe why dont you get congresiional suport and place around 20000 personal to guard your border.

MarioTheMacedonian:

The only legal weapon a civilian should be allowed to own in my opinion is a 22calibar weapon nothing else.

That's fine.

The weapon of assassins, and actually, one of the more lethal rounds if you understand bodily trauma and how bullets kill.

Pretty much sums it up

oh and here is what Feinsteins law really does..

Studies show that firearm type or posession do not determine if a person is hurt during a bear attack. Other factors are much more important.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.342/abstract

@farson

You keep failing at reading comprehension, and as per usualy you fail to provide any data to refute the number, just insults.

You appear to be confusing the 61 number in the black bear link with my 62 number.

Black bears have killed 61 people across North America since 1900

Last time I checked not all of North America was the US.

That link is also slightly out of date, try this one.

http://www.bearsmart.com/docs/black-bear-fatal-attacks-JWM%202011-Herrero-et-al.pdf

Black bears have killed 63 people in North America between 1900 and 2009 (this includes 4 deaths from zoo bears).

Many of these attacks were in Canada (44) and only 19 in the US (inc Alaska).

Add in the US Grizzly and Polar Bears fatalities from this list and what number do you get?

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

GunsmithKitten:

MarioTheMacedonian:

The only legal weapon a civilian should be allowed to own in my opinion is a 22calibar weapon nothing else.

That's fine.

The weapon of assassins, and actually, one of the more lethal rounds if you understand bodily trauma and how bullets kill.

Thats just stupid. You want the gun of assassins?

MarioTheMacedonian:

For sport shooting, hunting (I live in a city because I am going to college but I still hunt on my family's land), self protection, and collecting.

A friend of mine was killed by getting shot with a Zastava-m60 in the head while waiting for the bus, and before you say maybe your friend should have had a gun himself , i say sir the drunk basterd that shot him never should have had a 7.62 calibar full auto machine gun.

Going to get nick-picky here.

7.62 caliber
Does not exist...

Or do you mean 7.62mm? Big Difference.

Oh and Assault Rifles are not machine guns, they are assault rifles. A machine gun would be something like a Browning M1919A1 or a 240Bravo. Assault rifles fire an intermediate round(5.56x45mm), whereas a machine gun fires a rifle cartridge(7.62x51mm).

And Machine Gun implies that the weapon is fully automatic.

It seems a lot of anti-gun people don't know too much about the firearms they are trying to ban..

MarioTheMacedonian:
How about keeping your remington(i presume you have one,cause thats what i would use for hunting) on your family's farm?

Why? I am the only one that uses it. What good would it do there? Plus, I do not just hunt on my family's land (just most of the time). Plus, my deer hunting rifle doubles as my competition rifle.

Self protection,a walther 22 is a good self defence weapon even though its a small cal it still packs quite a punch , enough to disable/kill the person atacking you.

If your shot placement it near perfect. Otherwise you are screwed.

Collection:Colect medievil armor or somehting.

First of all, I already collect armor.

Second of all, some random piece of armor does not have the same value as the m1 Garand my Grandfather carried during Korea.

And if something didnt work in jamaica doesnt mean it wont work in a civilised country like the US.(i hope you are civilised atleast thats what you say)

So because it did not work it Jamaica it does not mean it will not work in the US BUT the fact that it "worked" in the UK means that it will work in the US. Is that what you are saying?

They might have one of the highest murder rates in Western Europe, but even if they have the highest its nothing compared to the US

Way to dodge the point.

Antis? Where i come from we discuss like gentelmen, but i see that is beyond your abilities.

Antis, short for anti-gunners, short hand for people who are against the general ownership of firearms by civilians. Is that not an accurate description of your view?

Guns save lives WHEN IN PROPER HANDS(army, police) not in the hands of lunatics and criminals.

Here are a few of your wonderful police officers at work-

When you see your friend with a 10cm hole in the back of his head, then tell me everyone should have guns.

You say you want to discuss things like gentlemen, then you immediately bring out a strawman argument.

Also, after you see one of your best friends raped and beaten to within an inch of her life, talk to me about not allowing gun ownership.

That is just 1 instance of idiotism, in my country for example in the event of a car wreck in 99% of the cases both drivers would exit their cars but first checking if any companions in the car have been injured , and then checking the person or people in the other car,then they would call the police to write a report, and call for a what we call spyders(which are large trucks with cranes) to clear the site if the cars are not in drivable condition. They would just exchange ensurance data and be on their marry way.

And that one example, probably would have taken his life. He is handicapped and cannot fight back effectively.

Now this is really easy.Instead of sending your sons and daughters to wage a war on the other side of the globe why dont you get congresiional suport and place around 20000 personal to guard your border.

So your solution to drug runners is to put more people on the border. Brilliant, except for one little thing-

image

Our border is about 2,000 miles long. That would be 10 people for every mile of ground. Try again.

TechNoFear:
Snip

BTW I did notice the fact that you are only talking about deaths and not attacks like what I wrote in my original post. Fail.

Studies show that firearm type or posession do not determine if a person is hurt during a bear attack. Other factors are much more important.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.342/abstract

If you are going to attack my reading comprehension you should at least try to be right when you provide studies- "Although firearms have failed to protect some users, they are the only deterrent that can lethally stop an aggressive bear. Where firearms have failed to protect people, we identified contributing causes. Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in bear country."

Fail.

You keep failing at reading comprehension

Coming from you that statement is meaningless.

and as per usualy you fail to provide any data to refute the number, just insults.

Any data? You said two per year. I showed three in one state in one month (and I can show a shit ton more than that, just look up, bear attacks 2012 US). I also showed that you were just talking about black bears and not brown or any other bear in the US.

Last time I checked not all of North America was the US.

I never said it was. And you accuse me of poor reading comprehension.

Black bears have killed 63 people in North America between 1900 and 2009 (this includes 4 deaths from zoo bears).

Still only black bears. Do you plan on apologizing for your earlier attack? Of course not, mistakes are for lesser beings than you.

Add in the US Grizzly and Polar Bears fatalities from this list and what number do you get?

128 deaths from 1900-2009. Still does not include all attacks.

@farson135

Look mate im trying to show you a simple point.
You say civies need guns to protect them selfs from criminals because criminals have guns, what im trying to say is DO NOT allow these criminals to have guns, punishment for seling any banned weapon under law 25 years in prison, send 50 of them in prison and then tell me if someone else tries to sell guns.
The gun problem in the US is diffrent from anywhere else in the world because americans are absolutely blinded.You adore the status Quo, you dont ever aspire to real change, and i dunno maybe you need guns, maybe you need to carry an ak47, because you have crime you have so much crime because you tolerate it.
You stand idle in the growing face of evil , because you are easyly manipulated.I feel sorry for the many hard working americans who suffer poverty just so some deuche can have more money than he can spend in 6000 lifetimes ,and make no mistake ,poverty makes criminals , and because of the utterly flawed destribution of wealth in the US you have so damn many.
Just tell me one thing how come when your goverment bailed out the hooligans of wallstreet with the money of the people did you stand so utterly idle?

p.s. if 20000 cant protect your border, call of your soldiers from Iraq and Afganistan and put them on the damn border.

TechNoFear:
When the post apocalypse arrives in the 'free' US, your firearms not make you safe or powerful, because EVERYBODY has a firearm. You will have no advantage.

That's what the body armor is for. AR500 w/ steel plates. Defeats 5.56 and 7.62. Wasn't born yesterday. ; )

Karma168:

Kopikatsu:

If the gun control crowd wanted to put forth legislation that would actually make a difference, they're welcome to it. But attacking guns that are very rarely used in crimes, such as longguns, then yeah, they're making it seem like they just want to take everything away.

At the moment they're an easy target as people who are apathetic to guns are now asking "why DO we have those?" and it works as a starting ground. People are right in saying that a total gun ban wouldn't work, you can't ban all guns overnight but you can ban them piecemeal. You can't ban handguns outright because they are the most common, if someone goes to buy their first gun do they buy a little handgun or an AR-15? So you don't go for the big fish right away, you take out the little one at the edges; people who are pro-gun to a small degree (i.e. they like having a pistol for the house but nothing more) aren't going to like you taking their gun but they won't care so much about assault weapons that they might not be as keen on and can be easily persuaded are unnecessary.

So that's what gun control has to be, a long game of picking off things bit by bit until only the essentials are left. For example in Britain it took about 100 years to go from lots of guns to near zero, rifles were banned (iirc) at the turn of the 20th century, shotguns in the 70's[1] and handguns only got banned 15-16 years ago.

American gun control could be similar; Today no assault weapons, next year increased background checks for rifles, 5 years same for all guns, 15 years rifles/shotguns require hunting/agriculture/sport licence, 25 years all guns require a reason, 40 years self defence no longer a valid reason, 50 years alter the definition of 'militia' to restrict who is applicable, 70 years pistols heavily restricted, 100 years pistols banned.

Change the time period around however you like, just did it to end in 100 years.

And the thing is nobody[2] would complain when pistols are banned because after a century of a fading gun culture nobody would care. That's what happened in Britain, your 2nd amendment is based off British law of the time but today if they asked if we wanted guns back I doubt even 25% would say yes, I can think of only one British guy that has publicly advocated bringing guns back and he's a nobody here.

Thank you, it's what I been saying. Their is no such thing as gun control debate. You're either pro-gun or gun ban, there is nothing in between. NRA and other gun lobbyist where for gun control up till these fucking gun ban groups came by and said that they were for gun control also, and flipping for gun bans, by going after the guns rarely used by your standard gun owner. They got called out on their bullshit and thus the current position. Gun control debate is their for where the post is at for either group.

[1] you can still get both of these guns, it's just much harder to than before
[2] any decent sized group

MarioTheMacedonian:

You say civies need guns to protect them selfs from criminals because criminals have guns

No. I don't care what weapons the criminals are packing in that equation. I have a handgun and shotgun for protection from criminals, PERIOD.

This isn't a sport where I'm supposed to match an assailant weapon for weapon.

what im trying to say is DO NOT allow these criminals to have guns

News flash; there are multiple criminal convictions in one's background that completely forbid ownership of a firearm. That's what the goddamned NICS system I use everyday is for.

and i dunno maybe you need guns, maybe you need to carry an ak47

Ineffecient self defense weapon. For personal proteciton, my Bursa is just fine. For home defense, a shotgun is better than an AK anyday.

I feel sorry for the many hard working americans who suffer poverty just so some deuche can have more money than he can spend in 6000 lifetimes ,and make no mistake ,poverty makes criminals , and because of the utterly flawed destribution of wealth in the US you have so damn many.

Wow, did this train just jump the subject track or did it just jump the subject track.

Just tell me one thing how come when your goverment bailed out the hooligans of wallstreet with the money of the people did you stand so utterly idle?

Some of us tried, but true to form, they get labeled godless socialists/communists and get shut down in the public forum. We're a bought and sold corporate interest nation.

p.s. if 20000 cant protect your border, call of your soldiers from Iraq and Afganistan and put them on the damn border.

I've been calling for that for years.

xDarc:

Society as we know it will collapse long before then. I think maybe I will post a scary graph thread to show you why there is not a bright happy future in store for the world.

Oh puh-lease. End of the world? Really? You mean like how civilisation ended after:

Freeing the Roman slaves
Accepting Christianity in Rome
The reformation
The enlightenment
Abolition of Slavery
Universal Suffrage
Civil rights

History is full of people saying "THIS will destroy civilisation" and what happened? Nothing.

Things will get worse before they get better but to actually think it will get bad enough in the 1st world that you need to be strapped like a character from Doom is just ridiculous. People complain that they are broke but we are a looooooooooooong way off ever being bad enough that people actually start a revolution.

Karma168:

xDarc:

Society as we know it will collapse long before then. I think maybe I will post a scary graph thread to show you why there is not a bright happy future in store for the world.

Oh puh-lease. End of the world? Really? You mean like how civilisation ended after:

Freeing the Roman slaves
Accepting Christianity in Rome
The reformation
The enlightenment
Abolition of Slavery
Universal Suffrage
Civil rights

History is full of people saying "THIS will destroy civilisation" and what happened? Nothing.

Things will get worse before they get better but to actually think it will get bad enough in the 1st world that you need to be strapped like a character from Doom is just ridiculous. People complain that they are broke but we are a looooooooooooong way off ever being bad enough that people actually start a revolution.

The difference between the things listed and now is that we actually do have weapons that can end the world if used (im?)properly. As in, there could legitimately be an event that causes the end of civilization, 'cause Apocalypse and all that. (I'm not saying that nukes would have started going off once women gained the right to vote, just that such an event is actually possible now when it wasn't then)

senordesol:
Sorry. I'd assumed weapon use in wartime had little relevance to what neccesities civilians had to own them (as is the purpose of this thread). Maybe I should have been clearer: the legitimate CIVILIAN purposes of firearms are: hunting, sport, and defense. If we want to talk about whether and why the military needs guns -- that's a whole other discussion.

Now I don't know what that crack about the NRA at the end was about. Do you really think if you asked an NRA member if slaughtering an entire school's worth of children is a legitimate use of a firearm they would answer 'yes'?

Well, we're going with purposes, now, so I don't think a firearm's purpose really changes if it exchanges hands from a civilian to a soldier or times change from peace to war. The NRA crack was actual advise. My point was that they get paid to defend guns and I haven't yet heard from the NRA that the weapons used in the recent massacres were used wrong. It's always that there weren't other guns around to shoot the guy with the gun, which is still a bad argument because there shouldn't be any guns in the first place.

Shock and Awe:
I actually agree with you on one thing; most guns are created for the purpose of taking human life. I can take my own collection for example. I have five firearms and three of them were created to kill people. Two are Eastern bloc surplus and one is a semiautomatic pistol. The other two were created for sport; one for hunting and the other for plinking and varmints. However these too could easily be used to take the life of another person. That all being said none(in my possession, can't speak for the surplus rifles) have ever taken a human life. This is because I have not sought out others to harm and none have attempted to harm me in such a manner; therefore they remain to be used on paper and the odd cement block.

Just because something was meant to kill does not mean it must. In the vast majority of cases they never will. Most firearms are used much as mine are. A person keeps one or maybe two loaded within their home, somewhere easily reached buy typically concealed; in case they are needed. Once in awhile they will be used on paper and other inanimate objects or maybe taken to kill animals. This continues for years and almost none will ever be used to fulfill their "purpose". Why? Because the owner of a firearm gives them their purpose. Syria's military can easily attest to that as their arms have been turned on them en mass.

H'okay, we're almost there, we've established that they're created to take life, fantastic. I will happily agree that whose life they take depends on who's holding them. Now we just gotta get to, "let's restrict the bejesus out of them because nasty men will use them for evil far more than good men will use them for good and that the only reason people want to keep them is because they think that they'll be THAT guy who was threatened by a guy with a gun and didn't have one himself"!

Would you fellows ban swords, by the way?

Karma168:

xDarc:

Society as we know it will collapse long before then. I think maybe I will post a scary graph thread to show you why there is not a bright happy future in store for the world.

Oh puh-lease. End of the world? Really? You mean like how civilisation ended after:

Freeing the Roman slaves
Accepting Christianity in Rome
The reformation
The enlightenment
Abolition of Slavery
Universal Suffrage
Civil rights

History is full of people saying "THIS will destroy civilisation" and what happened? Nothing.

You're pointing at social issues and comparing it to a situation where there won't be enough food or energy. It is dramatically different. All it takes is a lack of food, water, and energy, add wide spread poverty, and pretty soon any place will begin to look like Somalia.

MarioTheMacedonian:
You say civies need guns to protect them selfs from criminals because criminals have guns, what im trying to say is DO NOT allow these criminals to have guns, punishment for seling any banned weapon under law 25 years in prison, send 50 of them in prison and then tell me if someone else tries to sell guns.

First of all, did I say that?

Second of all, criminals can get guns easily. We have a 2,000 mile land border with a highly destabilized country plus a massive sea border. In addition to that we already have around 300 million guns in civilian hands right now. Plus, industrialized nations like the US are finding it easier and easier for civilians to produce their own firearms. A friend of mine actually is building an all plastic gun that can be made off of any old 3D printer-http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/weaponeers/

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

You cannot just undo that.

The gun problem in the US is diffrent from anywhere else in the world because americans are absolutely blinded.You adore the status Quo, you dont ever aspire to real change

Right, because we do not want to be exactly like you we do not aspire to real change.

you have so much crime because you tolerate it.

Notice something, gun ownership rates are highest in rural areas (my own home town has a 100% gun ownership rate). Where are the highest crime rates? Cities. In fact that is uniform throughout most of human civilization. Have you ever considered that maybe you city people are the problem?

You stand idle in the growing face of evil , because you are easyly manipulated.

And everything is just so easy for you.

I feel sorry for the many hard working americans who suffer poverty just so some deuche can have more money than he can spend in 6000 lifetimes ,and make no mistake ,poverty makes criminals , and because of the utterly flawed destribution of wealth in the US you have so damn many.

Wow, we go from guns to Wall Street. Apparently you are already done.

Just tell me one thing how come when your goverment bailed out the hooligans of wallstreet with the money of the people did you stand so utterly idle?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Boy you have no idea what you are talking about. You Brits were perfectly fine with the bailouts. I read coverage from the BBC and you guys supported it. I on the other hand never supported it. In fact I was very happy when my House member refused to vote for any of that.

Let me give you a bit of advice since you are a new poster, drop your holier than thou attitude because that shit does not fly. Also, learn to spell.

if 20000 cant protect your border, call of your soldiers from Iraq and Afganistan and put them on the damn border.

OK, if you put the entire US military (including pilots, cooks, and naval men) on just the Mexican border that is about 750 people per mile. Cut that into thirds so that you can have 8-hour shifts, cut out support personnel (depending on the branch you have about 1/3 of personnel in a support role), and ignore leaves of absence and injuries. What do you have, about 80 people for 1 mile of territory. Even if we just lined those people up across the border that only covers the border itself and provides no depth whatsoever. The cartels have already started digging tunnels. And we still have a sea border.

Odgical:

Shock and Awe:
I actually agree with you on one thing; most guns are created for the purpose of taking human life. I can take my own collection for example. I have five firearms and three of them were created to kill people. Two are Eastern bloc surplus and one is a semiautomatic pistol. The other two were created for sport; one for hunting and the other for plinking and varmints. However these too could easily be used to take the life of another person. That all being said none(in my possession, can't speak for the surplus rifles) have ever taken a human life. This is because I have not sought out others to harm and none have attempted to harm me in such a manner; therefore they remain to be used on paper and the odd cement block.

Just because something was meant to kill does not mean it must. In the vast majority of cases they never will. Most firearms are used much as mine are. A person keeps one or maybe two loaded within their home, somewhere easily reached buy typically concealed; in case they are needed. Once in awhile they will be used on paper and other inanimate objects or maybe taken to kill animals. This continues for years and almost none will ever be used to fulfill their "purpose". Why? Because the owner of a firearm gives them their purpose. Syria's military can easily attest to that as their arms have been turned on them en mass.

H'okay, we're almost there, we've established that they're created to take life, fantastic. I will happily agree that whose life they take depends on who's holding them. Now we just gotta get to, "let's restrict the bejesus out of them because nasty men will use them for evil far more than good men will use them for good and that the only reason people want to keep them is because they think that they'll be THAT guy who was threatened by a guy with a gun and didn't have one himself"!

Would you fellows ban swords, by the way?

Can't agree to that. The United States will never(at least in the foreseeable future) get any real benefits out of heavily restricting firearms due to the existing large amount of firearms and the previously existing criminal organizations that specialize in smuggling illegal items.

I also like my swords so also no.

xDarc:

You're pointing at social issues and comparing it to a situation where there won't be enough food or energy. It is dramatically different. All it takes is a lack of food, water, and energy, add wide spread poverty, and pretty soon any place will begin to look like Somalia.

Neither of those things are going to tear down first world civilisation. America can never become Somalia, it's just not possible. The homeless in America make more every day than the average Somalian.

Global food shortages will not harm us, for the simple reason that our ability to produce has not been harmed. Right now we buy foodstuffs from Asia, Africa and S. America because it's much cheaper to do so, not because it's the only place that it can be grown. If those sources disappear we just make do without more exotic foodstuffs and go back to home grown produce. The first world (especially Europe) has so much viable crop space if we actually used it we could probably feed the entire world.

For example; I live 70 miles away from my parents, when I went home for Christmas I drove past ~60 miles of grass. Not just rolling hills of untouched nature but well defined fields that are left because the farmer cant afford to work them or it's a green zone between houses and the motorway. There is only a global food problem because of areas where there is already no food, the first world doesn't have that problem.

Power is only a problem because we are reluctant to build nuclear. There is enough nuclear fuel on Earth that we can probably cover power needs for the next century, long after fossil fuels are gone. I'm not talking next-gen plants but the ones that are already here now.

Same goes for water, the technology and initiatives to solve those problems are already here, all that needs to happen is governments need to pull their fingers out their arse and do what needs to be done.

None of these problems are world ending, if these issues were going to have destroyed American society it would have collapsed completely during the 30's. As it was people had a hard time but society just kept going, the same is going to happen here - and it won't even be as bad.

Karma168:
-snip-

What xDarc seems referring to, is basically a modern interpretation of a Malthusian catastrophe. While I agree it might be impossible to refute that concept on all levels, since the world's resources are clearly not infinite, then again, neither are we - and a gun isn't going to save anyone when Sun decides to leave the main sequence.

Back to Thomas Malthus, though, one could argue that Ebenezer Scrooge was hardcore Malthusian.

PS: Make no mistake, I am in disagreement with xDarc myself, but I considered it fair to shed some light from other sources on what he seems to be saying, so his points are a bit more clear.

To answer the question posed in the title: eight pages of this suggests not...

farson135:
Second of all, criminals can get guns easily. We have a 2,000 mile land border with a highly destabilized country plus a massive sea border.

Which country would that be then? Not Mexico, because the only reason that place has problems is because drug cartels get money from the US, to buy guns exported by the US. It's purely an American problem.

Also, there's other countries with gun bans and similar stretches of borders, and they show that a gun ban does indeed lower violence levels and disarms criminals. Also, gun bans elsewhere have shown that people will disarm if guns are banned. There is no reason to suspect anything different would happen if the US moves to ban gun violence.

Don't keep repeating unfounded claims. For instance I busted your Pakistani bullshit myth once before in the past as well. Heck, I had those things fired at me by fellow proud gun owners of yours in the form of Taliban fighters, and I'm still here.

Shock and Awe:
Can't agree to that. The United States will never(at least in the foreseeable future) get any real benefits out of heavily restricting firearms due to the existing large amount of firearms and the previously existing criminal organizations that specialize in smuggling illegal items.

That's just a claim made by the gun lobby that can't be proven. Gun bans in other countries, such as Australia, have shown that this is not true. People will disarm, weapons will disappear off the streets, and benefits are immediate.

Aside from that, a small delay before the measures reach full effect is not an argument to continue to do nothing and let the problems continue.

Yes I think that we can agree that assault rifles are not need for civilians to have. Granted there should be a way for special cases to be made for people who live in environments where their lives are at risk because of large animals that live in the area. Think Svalbard.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
Can't agree to that. The United States will never(at least in the foreseeable future) get any real benefits out of heavily restricting firearms due to the existing large amount of firearms and the previously existing criminal organizations that specialize in smuggling illegal items.

That's just a claim made by the gun lobby that can't be proven. Gun bans in other countries, such as Australia, have shown that this is not true. People will disarm, weapons will disappear off the streets, and benefits are immediate.

Aside from that, a small delay before the measures reach full effect is not an argument to continue to do nothing and let the problems continue.

The United States is not Australia. The United States is not the United Kingdom. What works in these places do not necessarily work in the United States and what works in the United States does not necessarily work in other places. You have not addressed the main problems that are involved in a gun ban like the ones in the UK and Australia. First off you must look at the smuggling problem. We share a 2000 mile border with a country that is unstable and hosts countless criminal organizations that have become quite adept at smuggling items and people across our border. It would only be a business opportunity for them if heavy restrictions were introduced as it would just create illicit demand for firearms. That means a lot of money for whoever can get them.

Another issue is the American people. A large segment of the population does not want gun legislation and if something along the lines of the UK's policies were introduced there is a very real possibility of civil unrest due to many believe that this is a massive affront to their liberties and only serves to increase the power of the government over the people at the people's expense. These sort of people make up a good chunk of the military and police which would be quite a recipe for disaster.

There is also the plain fact that those who commit the crimes will not turn in their weapons. Why? Because being the only ones around with guns would make their job so much easier.

The United States does have issues. Only a fool would deny that. However the root cause of crime is not firearms. It is poverty. It is the drug trade. It is culture. Its a lot of things. These problems are a lot harder and a lot more complicated then "Its the guns fault". Thats a simplistic way of looking at things and helps no one.

Shock and Awe:

The United States is not Australia. The United States is not the United Kingdom.

The United States is not Iraq or Afghanistan yet you saw fit to "export democracy".

My point? People, forget what about NRA and the Congress and the Constitution say. Think with your own heads..

What do you think, on your own?

Vegosiux:

Shock and Awe:

The United States is not Australia. The United States is not the United Kingdom.

The United States is not Iraq or Afghanistan yet you saw fit to "export democracy".

My point? People, forget what about NRA and the Congress and the Constitution say. Think with your own heads..

What do you think, on your own?

So instead of addressing the point you try and shift the debate to wars and claims that have little to do with the discussion at hand. As an answer to your (rhetorical?) question; I have said what I think. Nothing more nothing less.

Blablahb:
Which country would that be then? Not Mexico, because the only reason that place has problems is because drug cartels get money from the US, to buy guns exported by the US. It's purely an American problem.

So you are going to ignore that fact that the cartels are using firearms that are also used by the Mexican military (who uses US made firearms) and there have been 250,000 desertions from the Mexican military in the past decade.

Also, there's other countries with gun bans and similar stretches of borders, and they show that a gun ban does indeed lower violence levels and disarms criminals.

Like who? Russia? China?

For instance I busted your Pakistani bullshit myth once before in the past as well.

Myth? What myth? Guns are made in Pakistan in a cottage industry.

Heck, I had those things fired at me by fellow proud gun owners of yours in the form of Taliban fighters, and I'm still here.

Reported.

That's just a claim made by the gun lobby that can't be proven. Gun bans in other countries, such as Australia, have shown that this is not true. People will disarm, weapons will disappear off the streets, and benefits are immediate.

What about other countries like Jamaica? What about in the great country of Russia, Chechnya, etc.

As for immediate benefits what benefits are there in Lithuania, Haiti, and all of the other extremely low gun ownership countries like Sierra Leone, North Korea, Rwanda, etc (the last three of those are tied for the 164th lowest gun ownership rate on earth).

Vegosiux:

Shock and Awe:

The United States is not Australia. The United States is not the United Kingdom.

The United States is not Iraq or Afghanistan yet you saw fit to "export democracy".

My point? People, forget what about NRA and the Congress and the Constitution say. Think with your own heads..

What do you think, on your own?

So you want us to ignore the rule of law out of convenience? I am really tired of this argument. Y'all want to shove government down my throat and tell me that things are so much better than they would be under a strong armed dictator. Yet when push comes to shove you guys act no differently than any dictator. You will ignore the rule of law when it is convenient and only complain when the corruption affects you. And people wonder why I am so disgusted with government.

I can think on my own, but the rule of law is the rule of law. If you expect me to follow your bullshit rules then you sure as hell better stop trying to ignore laws.

Vegosiux:

What do you think, on your own?

Alright.

I think private gun ownership is a good thing.

The lives saved and crimes in their use in self defense, plus the economic size of the firearm industry outweighs the cost of lives lost to legally owned ones, and medical costs healing the wounds.

Military style rifles, people who hold conceal carry licenses, and even fully automatic weapons are so rarely use/are convicted of crimes that they are statistically improbable.

From my own viewing of the evidence, my own opinions, MY OWN THOUGHTS, I think civilians should be allowed to own firearms with as few restrictions as possible.

Man people are really ignorant, and I mean that in its pure definition of being uneducated.

Let me address some really bad comments on this page alone.

MarioTheMacedonian:

Self protection,a walther 22 is a good self defence weapon even though its a small cal it still packs quite a punch , enough to disable/kill the person atacking you.

No, not it isn't. A .22 cal is not a very good self defense weapon. Further more, the Walter P22 is an awful weapon in the .22 cal line. This weapon is widely known to not only be extremely particular on its feeding of specific ammunition (ie the most expensive .22 cal on the market is what Walther actually will tell you to use hence defeating the point to most owners of having a .22) but .22cal in a semi-auto is a horrible idea for self defense always. If this requires explaining, you are not educated on the Physics and Mechanics behind semi-auto.

GunsmithKitten:

Ineffecient self defense weapon. For personal proteciton, my Bursa is just fine. For home defense, a shotgun is better than an AK anyday.

The 7.62mm might not be "great" for a general purpose home defense, but the .223rem is actually better than a shotgun for a lot more situations. According to "most" (I say because I've yet to actually see anything else but support for) a rifle as in an AR platform is the best home defense weapon. The length of reasons are out there, studied, and explained by far more experienced people than me. To say otherwise is to disagree with people who are simply "experts" and nothing more than expression of personal opinion.

Helmholtz Watson:
Yes I think that we can agree that assault rifles are not need for civilians to have. Granted there should be a way for special cases to be made for people who live in environments where their lives are at risk because of large animals that live in the area. Think Svalbard.

Can you factually support this? As stated above, every expert in the field of self defense and weapon education disagrees with you. Real life extenuating circumstances also would like to disagree with you. Military tactics would like to disagree with you. Beyond "opinion" and "feelings" against, there has been zero factual data to support that there isn't a "need" beyond one person "feeling" that someone else shouldn't have access to these weapons. The people who "support" these ideas have nothing but "feelings" and uneducated opinions and offer nothing but fantasy land responses to the matter.

In the end, the facts are out there for those who are ACTUALLY wanting to know them. The United States has undergone a 50% reduction in violent crime in the last 20 years along with a 50% reduction in murders. We have less violent crime per-capita than the UK and our murders are centralized in high population areas... the same as everywhere else.

Those are facts.

David VanDusen:
The 7.62mm might not be "great" for a general purpose home defense, but the .223rem is actually better than a shotgun for a lot more situations.

I don't hunt, so that's the situations I'm limiting it to.

A 7.62 is not exactly a great concealed carry, and in a close quarters home defense situation, my 12g is going to serve me far better than a 7.62.

The length of reasons are out there, studied, and explained by far more experienced people than me. To say otherwise is to disagree with people who are simply "experts" and nothing more than expression of personal opinion.

Such as what? You going to inform me as to how an AR series rifle is going to be easier to hit with in a close quarters situation than a shotgun? \

GunsmithKitten:

David VanDusen:
The 7.62mm might not be "great" for a general purpose home defense, but the .223rem is actually better than a shotgun for a lot more situations.

I don't hunt, so that's the situations I'm limiting it to.

A 7.62 is not exactly a great concealed carry, and in a close quarters home defense situation, my 12g is going to serve me far better than a 7.62.

The length of reasons are out there, studied, and explained by far more experienced people than me. To say otherwise is to disagree with people who are simply "experts" and nothing more than expression of personal opinion.

Such as what? You going to inform me as to how an AR series rifle is going to be easier to hit with in a close quarters situation than a shotgun? \

I never said anything about concealing something using the 7.62mm. Even a Draco is a little too conspicuous.

People have a huge misconception about how most shotguns work. It's hard to find a good collection of data, but average expansion for shot can easily be 10 feet. At lot of people think that they can blow a giant circular hole in something with a shotgun at very close ranges, which is possible if we are talking about entry and exit wounds. However what they have in mind is huge spread areas of damage (a similar line to spray and prey) which just doesn't happen in close quarter situations. Further more, not everyone lives in a house and or doesn't worry about over penetration (a big issue with buckshot or slugs as well as pistol rounds.) As it has been discussed for probably 60 plus years now, people miss when shooting. The idea of an AR style weapon in a home defense answers several common problem elements, good stopping power without over perpetration, easy manipulation both mechanically and in small spaces, light weight, and rapid fire rates needed to stop an aggressor.

What I'm saying both here and before is that by the numbers an AR is better as a home defense weapon across the board. It isn't that either a pistol nor shotgun are bad, an AR is just simply better over all. What your comfortable with doesn't make that particular weapon style the best, just best for you.

GunsmithKitten:

David VanDusen:
The 7.62mm might not be "great" for a general purpose home defense, but the .223rem is actually better than a shotgun for a lot more situations.

I don't hunt, so that's the situations I'm limiting it to.

A 7.62 is not exactly a great concealed carry, and in a close quarters home defense situation, my 12g is going to serve me far better than a 7.62.

The length of reasons are out there, studied, and explained by far more experienced people than me. To say otherwise is to disagree with people who are simply "experts" and nothing more than expression of personal opinion.

Such as what? You going to inform me as to how an AR series rifle is going to be easier to hit with in a close quarters situation than a shotgun? \

In addition you have the psychological factor of a pump shotgun being racked, and penetration when it comes to walls as some of us live in apartments and don't want to kill our neighbors if push comes to shove.

GunsmithKitten:

David VanDusen:
The 7.62mm might not be "great" for a general purpose home defense, but the .223rem is actually better than a shotgun for a lot more situations.

I don't hunt, so that's the situations I'm limiting it to.

A 7.62 is not exactly a great concealed carry, and in a close quarters home defense situation, my 12g is going to serve me far better than a 7.62.

The length of reasons are out there, studied, and explained by far more experienced people than me. To say otherwise is to disagree with people who are simply "experts" and nothing more than expression of personal opinion.

Such as what? You going to inform me as to how an AR series rifle is going to be easier to hit with in a close quarters situation than a shotgun? \

We're going to take this from "gun control" to "what gun is best for self defense"? Sounds good.

I'd say for home defense it really just comes down to personal preference and skill. I'd rather use my AK or Glock then a shotgun because I am far more comfortable with them and I like being able to bring quick followup shots if necessary. Also what do you mean 7.62 isn't good for concealed carry? I don't think anything we've said anything about is good for concealed ANYTHING. Unless we're talking about Tokarevs....

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked