Ban on semi auto rifles and clips with more than ten rounds in them.
Change I can believe in.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

Still not taking your guns away, just making rapid firing massacres less likely.

I'd be all for this if I lived in the States. But I don't. So, yeah. Genuinely feel free to ignore my mewlings on this one.

I doubt it will make it through. If it does, it's probably better than some of the stuff the Bush Administration got up to.

None of these would impact "rapid firing massacres" in the US.

Its a fundamental right. Its like saying you have freedom of speech except on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

The argument this helps Mexico is a travesty
1. Since when have our fundamental rights been taken down for another nation?
2. The Mexcian gangs are using FULLY automatic weaponry, grenades etc. This stuff is not coming from the US-we don't have that. Lets get real the gangs are using paid Mexican army troops often.

When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!

They need to stop restricting types of weapons and start restricting who they let own weapons. Some people shouldn't be trusted with a nailgun.

Agreed on that.

Yeah, I also agree on that. Overall bans seem like a bad way to do it.

Isn't there already a ban on handgun magazines holding more than 10 rounds?

Hey the criminals like this ban therefore it must be bad for us normal taxpaying, working and voting American citizens.

Kilkrazy wrote:Isn't there already a ban on handgun magazines holding more than 10 rounds?

No. There was for a period of time but that expired. Now Obama wants to re-instate it..."to help the Mexicans."

It's a big cultural debate though. Seeing as guns have always been banned here, owning firearms seems positively abhorrent.

Sayings like "it's a fundemental right" and "only outlaws will have guns" sound really peculiar to me.
BTW, I'm trying very hard to be non-offensive; if I do somehow offend anyone, I'm sorry, that's not my intention.

To me, fundemental rights are things like shelter, food and water. Certainly not a tool for murder.
Gun control issues aside, guns were designed to kill. That's a fact.

But, as both myself and my brother agree, taking guns out of the American culture will likely do more damage than keeping them in.

The first amendment that people bring up whenever guns are mentioned. IMO the first amendment had definate gravity in frontier days, where the right to bear an arm for protection was a neccesity.

In honesty though, how many of you people have been robbed at gunpoint for your gold ore? Or had someone rob your stagecoach on the way to the depository?

IMO the laws are outdated and too many people cling to them.

Guns are outlawed here, and I like it that way. Sure, only criminals have guns; and thats why the police shoot them.

Surely banning mental forms of firearms like (semi)automatic rifles can only be a good thing?

The situations aren't really comparable though Tek: The guns are out there, banning them is not going to get them back. It really will just disarm honest people while leaving a lot of others armed illegally. Criminalising the population is never a good idea. I think controls on who gets guns are a much better idea for a country like america.
And I'm delighted to live in a country without a gun problem by the way, but America is a whole other kettle of fish.

You also have open borders here, with Mexican organized crime violence now spilling across into Texas.

Also, keep in mind that while the numbers have diminished, game hunting and target shooting are still wildly popular activities, which requires the population to have the ability to own firearms.

I have not been robbed, but my Uncle in the Chicago area has had several attempted (and when not there, successful) robberies of his house.

The problem isn't with the types of weapons that are legal, the problem is with who owns them.

I know that there a lot of people in the US who have the misguided 'if I have a gun, no one will rob me, because the gun scares them off' mentality. That doesn't work. Having a gun only entices the other guy to shoot you first.

More people are shot with their own weapon, or shot a family member, than shoot an intruder.

Tek wrote:It's a big cultural debate though. Seeing as guns have always been banned here, owning firearms seems positively abhorrent.

Since when were guns always banned? Both my grandfather and my uncle own (or owned, in my grandfather's case) firearms, that they use for hunting. (And, yes, while I'm in the US, I'm an expat. My uncle lives in Kent (Westerham), my grandfather lived in Norfolk (Kings Lynn).

Guns were fairly easy to get in the UK until the Hungerford Massacre of 1986. It was even legal to own an AK47. You just needed a licence.

Actually I heard that the AG is only going to ban guns that are AP1 or AP2.

And after Hungerford in 86, Dunblane in 1996 led to the handgun ban that means that our Olympic team isn't even allowed to practice in the country (another ex-pat here)

In Ireland you can get shotguns and rifles for hunting fairly easily.
And the paramilitaries had a lot of automatic and other sorts of weapons, which have made their way into the hands of gangs now. But our gun problem is still pretty small. Smaller than the UK for example. We don't need routinely armed police, for an example.

olympia wrote:Actually I heard that the AG is only going to ban guns that are AP1 or AP2.

You can take my plasma gun when you pry from my crisped dead hands!

I said for example way too many times in that post. I blame my cold.
I'm actually a bit suprised to see this coming from the Obama administration, to my mind there are bigger issues to get in a fight over.

I'm not. They put that on their campaign site the week after the election.

Really?
I don't check these things. I should go have a look.
Cheers Frazzled.

I wouldn't be shocked if it was a strategic decision to distract attention for less contenious but more important decisions.

When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns (also the police). This makes sense to me, since non hunting weapons are really only there to kill people. Which is illegal.

Its a fundamental right.

It's a nebulous and undefined right, which by the exact letter of the constitution would grant us all bear arms. I don't want to have to carry around a bears arms. The founding fathers didn't envisage every citizen owning a gatling gun, and a modern assault rifle is a hell of a lot better then one of those things. Where do arms end? Is owning a tank bearing arms? Can I have a turret on my lawn? Do I get to have a 50 caliber on the back of my sedan? Does rupert murdoch get to fly around in an apache?

Hunting weapons and pistols will never be illegal. You're FAMAS isn't protecting your family, it's just something for your kids to kill themselves with. Weapons of war should not be accessible to people that aren't going to war. If people can own machine guns why not make pipe bombs legal? They perform the same task. An explosive can be a form of armament.

When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns (also the police). This makes sense to me, since non hunting weapons are really only there to kill people. Which is illegal.

It makes sense that only criminals will have firearms? On what planet in the Milky Way Galaxy is that a good thing?


No its not nebulous

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Let everybody have Military grade weapons. Military grade assault arms are fun to shoot, and why carry a pistol to defend yourself when you can yank out an Uzi. Cances are a robber will have a small side arm or a single barrel shot gun. a double barrel or mangnum, will split him in half easy. An over ten clip in a simi is getting close to Military assault range weapons. All you have to do is look at Iraq a year and a half ago to see what a people can do to each other when arms go completely unchecked.

On the Obama issue gun control was a big issue in inner cities. Also a US president will constantly be puching doesens of things at once.

Now I belive in gun control, some don't. We can debate and reach some kind of agreement and not break down into a partisan flame war.

No its not nebulous

The hell its not. It hinges on the definition of arms, which is a multifaceted word.

arm2   [ahrm] Show IPA
–noun
1. Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.
2. arms, Heraldry. the escutcheon, with its divisions, charges, and tinctures, and the other components forming an achievement that symbolizes and is reserved for a person, family, or corporate body; armorial bearings; coat of arms.
–verb (used without object)
3. to enter into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.
–verb (used with object)
4. to equip with weapons: to arm the troops.
5. to activate (a fuze) so that it will explode the charge at the time desired.
6. to cover protectively.
7. to provide with whatever will add strength, force, or security; support; fortify: He was armed with statistics and facts.
8. to equip or prepare for any specific purpose or effective use: to arm a security system; to arm oneself with persuasive arguments.
9. to prepare for action; make fit; ready.
—Idioms
10. bear arms,
a. to carry weapons.
b. to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces: His religious convictions kept him from bearing arms, but he served as an ambulance driver with the Red Cross.
11. take up arms, to prepare for war; go to war: to take up arms against the enemy.
12. under arms, ready for battle; trained and equipped: The number of men under arms is no longer the decisive factor in warfare.
13. up in arms, ready to take action; indignant; outraged: There is no need to get up in arms over such a trifle.

Yeah, thats really cut and dry frazzled. Good call.

It makes sense that only criminals will have firearms? On what planet in the Milky Way Galaxy is that a good thing?

Earth actually, I don't want to live in the old west. As fun as sky high murder rates are I don't really think they are appropriate any more. You are not your brothers keeper, your AK does not reduce crime rates. No corollary study has ever linked a prevalence of guns to a reduction in crime rate or gun deaths. In fact most incidences of gun death and injury skyrocket with common access to weapons. I WONDER WHY. The right to bear arms was a safety to ensure the legality of state militias in an era where a strong national military was practically non existent, and was far from capable of defending the nation quickly or effectively on its own. You're not in a militia. We have the most powerful military on the earth.

Apparently population density, access to weapons and access to alchohol are three of the biggest factors.

sexiest_hero wrote:Let everybody have Military grade weapons. Military grade assault arms are fun to shoot, and why carry a pistol to defend yourself when you can yank out an Uzi. Cances are a robber will have a small side arm or a single barrel shot gun. a double barrel or mangnum, will split him in half easy. An over ten clip in a simi is getting close to Military assault range weapons. All you have to do is look at Iraq a year and a half ago to see what a people can do to each other when arms go completely unchecked.

The bad guys had automatic weapons. It goes to Dietrich's point. Restrict who can own firearms not the type.

On the Obama issue gun control was a big issue in inner cities. Also a US president will constantly be puching doesens of things at once.

And how many were using $1,000 semi auto AR 15 s again? How about put them in jail? They are already committing illegal activity.

Now I belive in gun control, some don't. We can debate and reach some kind of agreement and not break down into a partisan flame war.

1. I actually have more of an issue with the weapon restriction vs. the clip restriction. Semi auto rifles are just that-semi auto rifles. Its the clips that make them uber.
2. Having said that. No. To many there is no agreement. This is a fundamental right on the same order as the remaining nine amendments of the Bill of Rights.
Me myself? I would be ok with a limitation on clips to ten rounds.

Frazzled wrote:

No its not nebulous

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It's pretty nebulous there, Frazzled. Does this mean that we all have the right to bear arms, or do we have the right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a well regulated militia(a position now occupied by the National Guard)? Looking at the entire Amendment, it seems that the whole point is for a civilian militia, not everyone and their brother to go around carrying an Uzi or similar.

That said, I'm pro-gun and do actually believe in the right for people to own weapons, it's just that the Amendment as written is ambiguous wording.

Your argument is irrelevant Shuma. Its an absolute right.

Platuan at the time of the amendment all free men were considered part of the militia.

Okay, seriously, that "right to bear arms but like the animal lol!" joke is NOT FUNNY ANYMORE.

STOP IT.

(And now back to your regularly scheduled thread...)

Frazzled wrote:Platuan at the time of the amendment all free men were considered part of the militia.

Right, but times change. What applied 200+ years ago is not the same now.

All I'm saying is that the wording can be taken either way, despite that I in fact believe in your side of the issue.

Frazzled wrote:Your argument is irrelevant Shuma. Its an absolute right.

Platuan at the time of the amendment all free men were considered part of the militia.

It's not an "absolute right" until we figure out what it means fraz. Its not irrelevant. I believe that militias should have access, even though I don't think they are needed any more. The implication is the guarantee to form militias, not every man is in a militia now. This is not the revolution. Time are different, and the intention of the wording is important to consider. It doesn't just become the right of every man to own weapons capable of killing every other man at once just for the sake of it being fun just because you don't feel like joining the new england state guard.

Okay, seriously, that "right to bear arms but like the animal lol!" joke is NOT FUNNY ANYMORE.

Its not meant to be funny. Thats what the "right to bear arms" means grammatically. Its why you can't take that saying as the entirety of the right. BECAUSE THERES ANOTHER SENTENCE.

my Point is If one grade of a gun is the legal limit then the next grade will be argued for. Only a few criminals can get thier hand on the more expensive guns out there. more often than not it's death by cheap hand gun over something completely not worth it. Now we all know Spending enough money as is will net you more fire power then a thug looking to score a quick wallet or plasma tv will be carrying. Statistics show that the average person will miss more than not at 20 feet or more, so with a good aim you will have a robber out ranged and under powered, at that point a crook is more likly to flee than have an old west shoot out. I think arms and military grade weapons.

I'd be ok with a 10 round clip, I'd rather it be 6 but it's better than nothing.

Platuan4th wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Platuan at the time of the amendment all free men were considered part of the militia.

Right, but times change. What applied 200+ years ago is not the same now.

All I'm saying is that the wording can be taken either way, despite that I in fact believe in your side of the issue.

Respectfully, SCOTUS has already ruled on that, and found that it can't be taken either way, but as an individual right.

ShumaGorath wrote:Its not meant to be funny. Thats what the "right to bear arms" means grammatically. Its why you can't take that saying as the entirety of the right. BECAUSE THERES ANOTHER SENTENCE.

Oh, sorry then.

I thought you talking about the second amendment making you carry bear arms around was a joke, when it was meant to be a serious, and not at all stupid, comment.

EDIT: (All right, I may be overreacting a little, but it's seriously an annoyingly old joke. You can't even get into the smallest conversation about gun control without "arms from bears!" popping up everywhere.)

Frazzled wrote:Your argument is irrelevant Shuma. Its an absolute right.

Perhaps you'd be better maybe even keeping things like this for adults ? Authorities said the youth model 20-gauge shotgun was thought to have been found in the boy's bedroom. It is designed for children and such weapons do not have to be registered.

..errmmm.... whose idea was that then ? You're arming children now ? SRSLY ?

Wouldn't want to be a teacher in America.

Minors cannot generally purchase firearms in the first place.

Again you're equating a bad situation (crazy nutjob little kid) with bad law. How about instead of making it illegal for everyone else, prosecute the father for letting the kid have the gun in his room. If the nutjob kid ran her over with a car would it be prudent to ban cars?

I think guns for kids is a bad idea though- surely 16, or even 18, is a better age to allow a child to own a deadly weapon?

Oh don't get me wrong, I just think its amazing that anyone would even consider it to be a good idea to let a child keep an actual working gun in their room or where he could get at it without supervision. Sure you'll never be 100% able to guarantee that a determined child won't get their grubby mitts on it-- kids are like that.

It was more an argument in favour of restricting who can/should be able to get a gun. I've stated my opinion that it should be licensed and tested ala driving-- something else you don't let 11 year olds do-- every time "we" have this discussion.

That said I can't see anyway to, realistically ,make that change happen, not least as the issue seems- like much in American politics-- so divisive and entrenched.

...but.... you've got to admit it seems flying rodent gak crazy to allow children to own guns and-- from what the article said-- not require them to be registered ? I'm assuming (hoping ?) that's just a loophole.

And at ....what ? $300 ish a pop I'd be horrified if kids could afford one anyway !

Da Boss wrote:I think guns for kids is a bad idea though- surely 16, or even 18, is a better age to allow a child to own a deadly weapon?

I'll restate. It is already illegal to own a firearm if you are under 18 (at least in Texas, Louisiana is a foreign country )

Dad (hereafter referred to as that idiot who should no longer be allowed to breed) allowed him to have the shotgun in his room, evidently with shells. Thats prima facae crimes of a whole lot of things.

We're mixing youth shotgun with access. A youth shotgun is a lighter gun designed for youths (early teens) and women. Its designed to be used under adult supervision. Clearly instead of an adult we had at beast, a slow*

I'm not defending said slow. My children do not have access to firearms. slow + young serial killer is bad mojo.

*slow is not meant to impugn mentally handicapped, but a duh duh duh moron of the type that tries out for the Darwin Awards.

It was more an argument in favour of restricting who can/should be able to get a gun. I've stated my opinion that it should be licensed and tested ala driving-- something else you don't let 11 year olds do-- every time "we" have this discussion.

And as long as that test is not punitive I'm actually in strong agreement.

I should not I'm ok with reasonable restrictions, but most of those entail what are mostly currently in place.
*No automatics (machine guns)
*No Zip guns
*Reasonable limits on clip sizes
*Thorough background checks-no kids, nutjobs, criminals, or politicians (but I repeat myself). Check at the national level.
*Waiting period of one week
*Mandatory safety class/training.
*No sawed off weaponry

Okay, thanks for that Frazzled. Are there laws about gunsafes and stuff?

Do you think they'd be able to change that law in Lousiana then ?


... Or would loads of gun owners post angry threads about OMYGAWDGUNKONTROLLL 1111 on, for example, wargaming forums ?

in case.

Frazzled wrote:Minors cannot generally purchase firearms in the first place.

Again you're equating a bad situation (crazy nutjob little kid) with bad law. How about instead of making it illegal for everyone else, prosecute the father for letting the kid have the gun in his room. If the nutjob kid ran her over with a car would it be prudent to ban cars?

If cars were designed with the singular purpose of killing people (an illegal act) then yes! Welcome to logical thinking.

And as long as that test is not punitive I'm actually in strong agreement.

I should not I'm ok with reasonable restrictions, but most of those entail what are mostly currently in place.
*No automatics (machine guns)
*No Zip guns
*Reasonable limits on clip sizes
*Thorough background checks-no kids, nutjobs, criminals, or politicians (but I repeat myself). Check at the national level.
*Waiting period of one week
*Mandatory safety class/training.
*No sawed off weaponry

Dumb non gun owner questions first :

What is the big deal about sawn off weapons anyway ? Oh... "zip" gun ?

Mandatory training/classes is the one I still find astonishing you don't have, especially given the somewhat litigious nature of your society.

The clip size/automatics ... well, I couldn't really say, but I'm sure there's room for maneuver there-- maybe "advanced" licenses or something with better training/background checks.

And with the criminal thing, I'd say you'd even have a good argument to limiting the types of offences : *sweeping and poorly researched legal statement approaching* ban murderers or robbers fine, but 3 strike jay walkers or .... drunk and annoying in public maybe not.

Politicians should have to wear bulls eyes-- cut down on the likelihood of any misses

I'd say I'd be happy if it were illegal to own firearms here.

People keep saying if you do that only criminals will have guns. That's true, until they are all dead. If guns are illegal, then that person will be arrested and a majority of criminals already have rap sheets as long as my arm. Then they'll be arrested and their firearms confiscated. Then they can melt the guns down. Build jungle gyms or something. If only you could erase all the fear present in people, then we might not need so many guns.

It'd be a good way to stimulate the economy, melting weapons down.

Edit: How many times have we gone through the motions of this debate guys?

The second amendment was written for three reasons:
1) All free men were part of the milita, which served as national defense, law enforcement, etc. Even at their heights, most militias were less regulated than your average Boy Scout troop.
2) Arms were essential to personal survival, for both hunting and defense, especially in the frontier.
3) Keep arms in the hands of the people was seen as a way to protect against tyranny. It sounds a little silly at first, but even if defeated in open combat, the US would be almost impossible to peaceably govern and hold with all our weapons.

I'm a believer in legal consistency. The first Amendment has been expanded, arguably far beyond it's original intention, and also beyond it's literal wording, in the interest of keeping the meaning of the prohibition and to ensure that no protected speech could be trampled. To turn around and nitpick the second amendment for being ambiguous or nebulous might be somewhat true, but not nearly enough to ignore what the text says.

Can guns be regulated? Of course, so can speech. The militia clause seems to imply that there can be perhaps stricter regulation on arms than on speech. Restricting who can own a gun (based on who can be in the milita, perhaps) would probably be acceptable, and banning certain highly dangerous arms (machine guns, mortars, etc.) seems well within range. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, even high capacity weapons, are arms with legitimate uses and purposes.

I'm also not impressed with the idea that banning weapons will save lives or reduce crime. I call shenanigans on that. It's like saying banning porno will cut down on sexual crimes. Sure, there might be a small benefit, but that's not the real reason. The real reason is to simply hassle gun owners, and I'm not a fan of that.

Let's also keep in mind politcal reality: banning things that a lot of American's like has never, ever worked out to solve a social ill. Prohibitiion, the war on drugs, child pornography, even cuban cigars are all examples of bans that were placed on items in US history. Have any of them worked out well?

The main point about reducing the number of weapons in society would be that accidents would be reduced.

Arguably, the same results could be got by requiring people who want a gun to pass a licensing exam and keep the gun unloaded at home.

Polonius wrote:
I'm also not impressed with the idea that banning weapons will save lives or reduce crime. I call shenanigans on that. It's like saying banning porno will cut down on sexual crimes. Sure, there might be a small benefit, but that's not the real reason. The real reason is to simply hassle gun owners, and I'm not a fan of that.

Then why does the U.S. have the highest, by far, rate of gun related deaths?

We are seriously dieing in droves due to our own, anybody gets one, policy.

Canada is the same way though, and they don't have nearly as many gun related deaths per year. Wonder what we're doing wrong? Serious question too, why is it so different in America?

You know, I was thinking they should make drugs illegal too.

Then all the drug dealers would be arrested, and we wouldn't have to worry about people selling and using drugs anymore.

Orkeosaurus wrote:You know, I was thinking they should make drugs illegal too.

Then all the drug dealers would be arrested, and we wouldn't have to worry about people selling and using drugs anymore.

You can't point a vial of crack at someone and have them instantly die. You could get them instantly high maybe...

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Minors cannot generally purchase firearms in the first place.

Again you're equating a bad situation (crazy nutjob little kid) with bad law. How about instead of making it illegal for everyone else, prosecute the father for letting the kid have the gun in his room. If the nutjob kid ran her over with a car would it be prudent to ban cars?

If cars were designed with the singular purpose of killing people (an illegal act) then yes! Welcome to logical thinking.

As soon as you have some Mr. right to bear arms (gee does that mean we can arm bears?) please tell me.

Frazzled wrote:

I should not I'm ok with reasonable restrictions, but most of those entail what are mostly currently in place.
*No automatics (machine guns)
*No Zip guns
*Reasonable limits on clip sizes
*Thorough background checks-no kids, nutjobs, criminals, or politicians (but I repeat myself). Check at the national level.
*Waiting period of one week
*Mandatory safety class/training.
*No sawed off weaponry

I agree with all of the above. How do you feel about limiting the number of guns which can be purchased a month to discourage straw purchases?

now that's something I hadn't thought of, but it's sensible.

Frazzled wrote:(gee does that mean we can arm bears?)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO BEAR PUNS!!!

Typeline wrote:
Then why does the U.S. have the highest, by far, rate of gun related deaths?

Brazil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
We're pretty high on the list though.

Typeline wrote:

Polonius wrote:
I'm also not impressed with the idea that banning weapons will save lives or reduce crime. I call shenanigans on that. It's like saying banning porno will cut down on sexual crimes. Sure, there might be a small benefit, but that's not the real reason. The real reason is to simply hassle gun owners, and I'm not a fan of that.

Then why does the U.S. have the highest, by far, rate of gun related deaths?

We are seriously dieing in droves due to our own, anybody gets one, policy.

Canada is the same way though, and they don't have nearly as many gun related deaths per year. Wonder what we're doing wrong? Serious question too, why is it so different in America?

Because we have the most guns. I'm sure there will be a dip, but as everybody points out, criminals will keep getting guns, so maybe knife violence creeps up. There will always be allowances for hunting, so there simply will be some firearms in circulation. I just don't see how any given restriction really slows it down. I"m all in favor of increases licensing and training and waiting periods and permits and whatnot.

We also don't have the highest rate of gun deaths, just the highest rate in the Industrialized world.

reds8n wrote:

Dumb non gun owner questions first :

What is the big deal about sawn off weapons anyway ? Oh... "zip" gun ?

Mandatory training/classes is the one I still find astonishing you don't have, especially given the somewhat litigious nature of your society.

The clip size/automatics ... well, I couldn't really say, but I'm sure there's room for maneuver there-- maybe "advanced" licenses or something with better training/background checks.

And with the criminal thing, I'd say you'd even have a good argument to limiting the types of offences : *sweeping and poorly researched legal statement approaching* ban murderers or robbers fine, but 3 strike jay walkers or .... drunk and annoying in public maybe not.

Politicians should have to wear bulls eyes-- cut down on the likelihood of any misses

First, no you can't predict Louisiana in, well anything...

To The point on gunsafes. It depends on thse state. Some states require child locks or other protective devices, some don't.

To the above.
*zip gun-home made gun-great for sneaky stuff. Dad showed me how to make one once...go Dad...
*sawed-usually in context of shotguns, but rifles as well. Again, its the idea of being sneaky/criminal
*well some things related to guns require a license, some don't. But I'm down with mandatory safety and basic firearms training.
*clips. again "assault rifles" are really anything except bolt action rifles at this point. The clips wuld be considered the danger.
*agreed on the criminal.

BloodofOrks wrote:

I agree with all of the above. How do you feel about limiting the number of guns which can be purchased a month to discourage straw purchases?

I am down with that. She Who Must Be Obeyed has already asserted said law in the Frazzled Household. But baby come on Richard just got TWO rifles, I need that 20 gauge-after all its for you...

Typeline wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:You know, I was thinking they should make drugs illegal too.

Then all the drug dealers would be arrested, and we wouldn't have to worry about people selling and using drugs anymore.

You can't point a vial of crack at someone and have them instantly die. You could get them instantly high maybe...

It's not about how dangerous the thing is, it's about the concept of something disappearing just because it's been made illegal.

It's also worth pointing out that the vast majority of gun homicides are committed with handguns, and not rifles or shotguns.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html

Attacking rifles isn't the most product use of the government's time.

America already has so many guns in it's system I doubt legislation would really change much.
I DO NOT claim to be an expert in this field but I am glad in the UK we restrict guns so much. I am glad we have no death penalty I just don't think the right to kill should rest with citizens. (including juries)
just remember the USA has the highest incarceration rate of any industrialised country at 1%.
GUNS DON'T LOWER CRIME

Is it supposed to?

Why else let people keep them at home?

What needs done is -gasp- enforce the laws on the books.

The difference is that you don't get on the 6:00 news for announcing that you're going to start enforcing the laws on the books (which is what everyone expects is happening), but you do if you make a big announcement about new gun control regs.

Septic wrote:Why else let people keep them at home?

The government does not "let" us. It is our absolute right to free speech, assembly, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, right to bear arms. The government does not "let" us do anything.

I can see there's no shaking you, it's your country I just wouldn't like it myself...

BloodofOrks wrote:

Typeline wrote:
Then why does the U.S. have the highest, by far, rate of gun related deaths?

Brazil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
We're pretty high on the list though.

Those rates are from the early 90s for the developing countries. America still has the most gun violence related deaths in the developed world. But the early 90's wasn't really a good time for anyone considering gun violence.

Septic wrote:I can see there's no shaking you, it's your country I just wouldn't like it myself...

It's not really an issue of "shaking" but of understanding that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant anyone anything, they are inherent rights. What it does is tell the government what it can't do, which is revoke the right to free speech, press, unreasonable search and seizure, ect. We don't have the right to bear arms because the government grants us permission to own.

As for not liking them part of freedom is choice and you can choose not to own any. I don't own a single firearm.

What annoys me the most is the increased intrusiveness of our states' and country's governments on all levels. And it is on all levels..
We have laws in place that make it illegal for students to drop out.. If you want to spend your lives flipping burgers for a living go ahead. Don't spend your time being forced into schools where you'll only distract those trying to obtain a worthwhile education, just quit. But we can't.. because the US government thinks that the only way for us to be smarter is for us to have to put up with all the jackasses in our class that once they graduate with their 1.2 GPAs are going to do nothing but go right back to sitting around at their government paid housing unit with their food stamps while we do the responsible thing and try to get jobs and/or go to college. Also, do you think there would be near as much school violence if the kids that got wound sooo tight they burst into a killing frenzy could have just quit?
We have laws in place that make prostitution illegal in the vast majority of states. Why? Because it spreads disease, it takes advantage of the hookers and it's a haven for crime. It spreads disease because the girls can't risk going to the doctor for frequent STD checks because it would draw legal attention. It takes advantage of the girls because what are the girls going to do when a pimp exploits them? Tell the cop "my pimp is being mean to me?" And it's a haven for crime because you made it illegal, you dolt! If some socially awkward dude can't find a willing receptacle for his man-gravy without paying, then let him pay for crying out loud. And if some banging 23 yr old woman wants to make some extra money to get through college, let her put on her feth-me pumps and sit on the street corner. They both know the risks of sex with strangers, he has a demand, she has a good or service. Look at how prostitution is handled in Nevada, these women have better benefits at their bordellos than I have with my union job!
We have laws in place that make it illegal to use or possess certain drugs. Now tell me, with the public school system's drug awareness programs is there REALLY that many people in America who don't realize the risks involved with different drugs? If you want to ruin your life, go ahead. If the government was really struggling sooo hard to keep afloat, it would regulate 3/4 of the illegal drugs out there and tax the everloving gak out of them. Marijuana has similar operating costs to produce as tobacco, but a pack of 20 cigarettes costs around abouts $4 and a joint costs around about $6-8. Where did that mark up come from? The illegal side of things. Companies could make a pack of marijuana cigs with an operating cost of I don't know.. $2 per pack, tack on $1 for profit and let Uncle Sam tack on $7 in taxes, you now can buy a 20 pack of joints for $10, less than you would have paid for 2 joints on the street AND you don't have to worry about being arrested, having to worry about it being laced with anything or just being robbed by the drug dealer. Do you have any idea how destabilized organized crime would become if the greatest criminals in the world (read US government) took over their operation? That would solve a great many problems, although, I won't argue that it won't cause a new set.
Now Obama is talking about putting legislation in place that will make it illegal to have a 10+ round magazine. I'm sorry, I'm not going to believe for a minute that ANY criminal is going to tuck away their 120 round drum mags just because they're worried Uncle Sam will take them away. They're more worried about rival gang members trying to take them out, strung out crackheads trying to kill them to take their money and drugs and other realities they must face because of their choices. Personally, I've always adopted the belief that the second amendment was there for many reasons: A) to allow us to hunt B) to allow us personal protection and most importantly C) to rebel if the government starts screwing the pooch. As it is, they already are and why people haven't started trying to call them on it I have not a clue. A large portion of the reasoning behind there being a second amendment is to keep the government from acting like they are right now. Home of the free my ass..

Hear is a good question...

If I own 30 rounds mags for my wasr-10, and I owned them before the ban. Would they still be legal? At first thought, I would say yes as they were pre ban, but then again how would I prove that they were pre ban?

I know we are supposed to be "Innocent until proven guilty" but seeing how pro constitutional rights this administration is.... I think it would be up to me to prove I had them before the ban.

Supposedly Obama's policy for gun control is that there will be no weapons or magazines that will "grandfather in". Meaning, that yes, your 30 round mags will be illegal..

Envy89 wrote:Hear is a good question...

If I own 30 rounds mags for my wasr-10, and I owned them before the ban. Would they still be legal? At first thought, I would say yes as they were pre ban, but then again how would I prove that they were pre ban?

I know we are supposed to be "Innocent until proven guilty" but seeing how pro constitutional rights this administration is.... I think it would be up to me to prove I had them before the ban.

If its like the old ban you keep the legacy clips. It would be illegal to sell new clips. Might be illegal to sell new clips but I don't think that would be the case.

themandudeperson wrote:Supposedly Obama's policy for gun control is that there will be no weapons or magazines that will "grandfather in". Meaning, that yes, your 30 round mags will be illegal..

Gotta love it.

If this happens that 3/4 of my current firearm collection will be illegal.
Whats sad, is that the Obama administration is trying to fry gun control rights.... what the hell. Shouldnt they have bigger things to worry about other then guns and ammo? Like oh I dont know, the damn economy (Local/national/international), the housing market, international relations ect ect ect.

Stop trying to make up new bans and start enforceing the ones already in place.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Typeline wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:You know, I was thinking they should make drugs illegal too.

Then all the drug dealers would be arrested, and we wouldn't have to worry about people selling and using drugs anymore.

You can't point a vial of crack at someone and have them instantly die. You could get them instantly high maybe...

It's not about how dangerous the thing is, it's about the concept of something disappearing just because it's been made illegal.

It was legal once, how about you go and do some research about cocaine use back then. Historical "medicines" were often modern narcotics misapplied. As recent as the 1900s a lot of modern narcotics were legal, and despite a lack of case records the issues they caused were quite widespread and well documented. Things are made illegal for a reason, banning killing doesn't eliminate murder, but you better be damn sure that its illegality reduces its occurence. The same holds true for virtually all things made illegal. It is the purpose of a codified system of laws

I'm also not impressed with the idea that banning weapons will save lives or reduce crime. I call shenanigans on that. It's like saying banning porno will cut down on sexual crimes. Sure, there might be a small benefit, but that's not the real reason. The real reason is to simply hassle gun owners, and I'm not a fan of that.

Wide access to porn dramatically lessons sex crime rates.

Pornography in Japan: Rates of pornography use in Japan have climbed in the 20th century. A negative correlation has been found between pornography use, rape and other sex crimes. From 1972 when pornography changed from totally prohibited to freely available with no age restrictions there has been a significant drop in sex crime and particularly in the number of victims aged under 13. Japan has the lowest levels of reported rape and the highest levels of arrests and convictions in any developed nation in the world

Killing already illegal.

No one is going to violate the laws against murder, but not the laws against gun possession. That would be silly.

Yes there will be less guns around if they are made illegal; no there will not be less guns in the hands of criminals. Not significantly less anyways; not enough of a difference to counter the fact that guns will be better tools to commit crimes with if no one else is armed.

Oh yeah. Bold letters are great!

also, if I make my mind up to kill someone and I can't find a gun I'll use a butcher knife. Then if butcher knives were illegal and I couldn't use them then I'd use a rock.. Go ahead, make rocks illegal. People with their mind made up to do evil WILL DO EVIL.

Yes there will be less guns around if they are made illegal; no there will not be less guns in the hands of criminals. Not significantly less anyways; not enough of a difference to counter the fact that guns will be better tools to commit crimes with if no one else is armed.

Except it makes the weaponry easier to track and control. It also significantly reduces the incidence of gun deaths by accident and crimes of passion. Assault weapons are tools to kill multiple people quickly. They have no utilitarian function. What is the argument exactly for nor banning them? The right to mounted bear arms is about the only logical counter argument. Gun control and banning works. It is not a silver bullet for lowering crime but it makes the polices job considerably easier. It makes paperwork/warrants take less time to secure, and it significantly reduces the time of background checks when identifying suspects and evidence weapons (in addition to greatly reducing what I already mentioned). Also in general its much harder to traffic in illegal items. The supply side is greatly lessoned when the items can not be legitimately shipped for illegitimate purposes. Supply and demand, the supply goes down so the price rises to match demand. All of a sudden it becomes a lot less cost effective to kill someone with a mac-10. The argument that gun laws don't lesson the number of guns in criminals hands is just stupid, it doesn't even make sense.

also, if I make my mind up to kill someone and I can't find a gun I'll use a butcher knife.

But you would be statistically less likely to try. And considerably less likely to succeed. You can't remove killing from society, what you can do is control the methods by which killings are easily accomplished. Its a hell of a lot harder to hold up a store with a knife.

People will do evil, the point is lessoning their impact on society, and general capability. How hard is that to understand.

ShumaGorath wrote:Except it makes the weaponry easier to track and control.

In what way is it easier to track weapons that have never been registered?

It also significantly reduces the incidence of gun deaths by accident and crimes of passion.

Crimes of passion aren't particularly common, and rarely require the use of a firearm to commit.

Accidents are usually a result poor training and thoughtlessness, and they aren't crime at any rate. I don't really care about them.

Assault weapons are tools to kill multiple people quickly. They have no utilitarian function. What is the argument exactly for nor banning them?

Not really arguing for assault weapons, just against the banning of handguns/rifles/etc.

Gun control and banning works.

Not really. Banning doesn't, at any rate, and I don't have a problem with most of the laws already on the books. Some amount of restriction is good; past that point it doesn't make much of a difference.

It is not a silver bullet for lowering crime but it makes the polices job considerably easier. It makes paperwork/warrants take less time to secure, and it significantly reduces the time of background checks when identifying suspects and evidence weapons (in addition to greatly reducing what I already mentioned).

Once again, bueracracy is an issue of the laws already in place being enforced poorly. Fixing them is better than making new ones and trying to enforce those better.

Also in general its much harder to traffic in illegal items. The supply side is greatly lessoned when the items can not be legitimately shipped for illegitimate purposes. Supply and demand, the supply goes down so the price rises to match demand.

Harder? Yes. Much harder? No. The amount of money we've already spent making drugs illegal is staggering, and I could go buy a bag weed tomorrow if I want. Plus, criminals already deal in so many illegal weapons and drugs they wouldn't even need any new channels. Everything's already in place. That's only dealing with guns that aren't already in the country. Drugs are consumed, they either need to be brought in or manufactured here. You can hold onto a gun for a lot longer.

All of a sudden it becomes a lot less cost effective to kill someone with a mac-10. The argument that gun laws don't lesson the number of guns in criminals hands is just stupid, it doesn't even make sense.

Once again, not really getting into the assault weapons thing, but is it better for a murderer to use a knife? Or a cut down rifle?

BloodofOrks wrote:

Typeline wrote:
Then why does the U.S. have the highest, by far, rate of gun related deaths?

Brazil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
We're pretty high on the list though.

Interesting. Look at the 'Total firearm-related death rate' figure for countries where a firearms ban is inplace. Something about it works.

Oh great. Another one of these threads. Well, I'm tired of defending my position on it. What choice do I have....I mean, basically I'm in the position of having to choose between politicians who will be advocates for my firearm rights, or politicians who support policies that allow me to be able to afford healthcare and have some sort of government services.

I think it gets down to what Larry Niven, and probably lots of other people have said before, is that freedom is indirectly proportional to security...if you want to own weapons, you accept that some dumbass every so often is going to shoot an innocent person.

I have no control over it either way, so I'm tired of caring.

whatwhat wrote:Interesting. Look at the 'Total firearm-related death rate' figure for countries where a firearms ban is inplace. Something about it works.

Look at total homicides though.

The U.S. has a lot more non-firearm homicides as well. It's not surprising that they would have the most fire-arm related ones too. It's the country, not the gun laws.

Grignard wrote:Oh great. Another one of these threads. Well, I'm tired of defending my position on it. What choice do I have....I mean, basically I'm in the position of having to choose between politicians who will be advocates for my firearm rights, or politicians who support policies that allow me to be able to afford healthcare and have some sort of government services.

I think it gets down to what Larry Niven, and probably lots of other people have said before, is that freedom is indirectly proportional to security...if you want to own weapons, you accept that some dumbass every so often is going to shoot an innocent person.

I have no control over it either way, so I'm tired of caring.

Well the particular issue at hand is a ban on high capacity mags and semi auto weapons.

Also why are there far more republican viewpoints on this site than otherwise? I'm starting to think it's the wrong part of the word 'wargames' which our American gamer friends find appealing.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Interesting. Look at the 'Total firearm-related death rate' figure for countries where a firearms ban is inplace. Something about it works.

Look at total homicides though.

The U.S. has a lot more non-firearm homicides as well. It's not surprising that they would have the most fire-arm related ones too. It's the country, not the gun laws.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf <-- a report which notes a correlation between gun crimes and gun possession and also determines that there isn't as much of a corelation between gun possession and suicides/homicides.

"The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the results of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Strong correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide, but that the overall rate of suicide using firearms is low, and homicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available,"

Let's get back to the Swiss for a moment. Doesn't every adult male have an assault rifle under his bed as part of being a permanent reservist? And yet there is virtually no gun violence in Switzerland. So it's the degenerate culture of the U.S. not the presence of guns that causes violence.

olympia wrote:Let's get back to the Swiss for a moment. Doesn't every adult male have an assault rifle under his bed as part of being a permanent reservist? And yet there is virtually no gun violence in Switzerland. So it's the degenerate culture of the U.S. not the presence of guns that causes violence.

Wow.....I'm not sure if I'm going to agree with you here or argue with you about "degenerate culture".

olympia wrote:Let's get back to the Swiss for a moment. Doesn't every adult male have an assault rifle under his bed as part of being a permanent reservist? And yet there is virtually no gun violence in Switzerland. So it's the degenerate culture of the U.S. not the presence of guns that causes violence.

Well yes, obviously it is. My point was gun legislation can work as is proved by a large amount evidence for a correlation between gun possession and gun crime.

Guns are a prominent part of culture in the US. Whereas swtzerland is historically a peacefull nation and has a population of a large US city.

Grignard wrote:Wow.....I'm not sure if I'm going to agree with you here or argue with you about "degenerate culture".

Yeh I think degenerate is the wrong choice of word.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's a nebulous and undefined right, which by the exact letter of the constitution would grant us all bear arms. I don't want to have to carry around a bears arms. The founding fathers didn't envisage every citizen owning a gatling gun, and a modern assault rifle is a hell of a lot better then one of those things. Where do arms end? Is owning a tank bearing arms? Can I have a turret on my lawn? Do I get to have a 50 caliber on the back of my sedan? Does rupert murdoch get to fly around in an apache?

Actually, all that sounds pretty awesome. I want that world.


In other news, no, any and all guns are not a fundamental right. I wish people would stop saying that because it's silly. Once you recognise that a private citizen doesn't have the right to own a heavy machine gun, then it's a case of finding exactly what the point is where a citizen's private right to gun ownership is superceded by the public good.

In other, other news, does anyone honestly think that capping ammo clips at ten rounds is going to achieve anything, in the US or in Mexico? The idea that gun availability significantly alters murder rates is crazy. If you want to stop the violence in both countries then you look at gang violence and market driving gang violence... drugs. Everything else is window dressing.

sebster wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It's a nebulous and undefined right, which by the exact letter of the constitution would grant us all bear arms. I don't want to have to carry around a bears arms. The founding fathers didn't envisage every citizen owning a gatling gun, and a modern assault rifle is a hell of a lot better then one of those things. Where do arms end? Is owning a tank bearing arms? Can I have a turret on my lawn? Do I get to have a 50 caliber on the back of my sedan? Does rupert murdoch get to fly around in an apache?

Actually, all that sounds pretty awesome. I want that world.


In other news, no, any and all guns are not a fundamental right. I wish people would stop saying that because it's silly. Once you recognise that a private citizen doesn't have the right to own a heavy machine gun, then it's a case of finding exactly what the point is where a citizen's private right to gun ownership is superceded by the public good.

In other, other news, does anyone honestly think that capping ammo clips at ten rounds is going to achieve anything, in the US or in Mexico? The idea that gun availability significantly alters murder rates is crazy. If you want to stop the violence in both countries then you look at gang violence and market driving gang violence... drugs. Everything else is window dressing.

But you don't need laws limiting the access to highly destructive weapons, say, nuclear warheads, just as an example. That is beyond the ability for a private citizen to acquire, so what is the point of a law limiting it's possession?

Meanwhile, I'm once again staggered at the number of rightwingers that are suddenly so concerned with the sanctity of the constitution. Were all you holiday for the last eight years or something?

Grignard wrote:But you don't need laws limiting the access to highly destructive weapons, say, nuclear warheads, just as an example. That is beyond the ability for a private citizen to acquire, so what is the point of a law limiting it's possession?

Well that's a bit ignorant. Do you seriously think your country has no laws prohibiting that kind of weaponry, not to mention the amount of treaties your country has signed prohibiting certain weapons.

Grignard wrote:But you don't need laws limiting the access to highly destructive weapons, say, nuclear warheads, just as an example. That is beyond the ability for a private citizen to acquire, so what is the point of a law limiting it's possession?

Yeah, you've raised the issue about nuclear weapons being inaccessible to civilians in a previous thread. I pointed out then that there are lots of deadly weapons that are accessible to civilians, such as commercial explosives. Funnily enough you didn't reply.

Do you think commerical explosives should be available to all?

sebster wrote:

Grignard wrote:But you don't need laws limiting the access to highly destructive weapons, say, nuclear warheads, just as an example. That is beyond the ability for a private citizen to acquire, so what is the point of a law limiting it's possession?

Yeah, you've raised the issue about nuclear weapons being inaccessible to civilians in a previous thread. I pointed out then that there are lots of deadly weapons that are accessible to civilians, such as commercial explosives. Funnily enough you didn't reply.

Do you think commerical explosives should be available to all?

I did respond to that. I mentioned that I'm trained as a chemist. The state had no problem giving me that education. I could create black powder and pretty much have it be untraceable, or high explosives though I imagine that someone could track where the ingredients were going, if they had occasion to. So no, whats the point of legislating that?

And don't assume I'm a "right winger" whatever that means. I frankly had some problems with quite a few policies of the last administration.

So no, whats the point of legislating that?

Are you asking why explosives should be legislated because you can make them? All weapons are produced in the civilian business markets. Non governmental capability of manufacture has nothing to do with whether or not it should be illegal. The laws are meant to reduce the incidence of said explosives falling into the hands of those that would use them for ill. Its meant as a barrier of widespread usage. Laws aren't designed to make things impossible, they are there to discourage and make difficult.


I think thats the big crux here. People think that making something illegal makes it impossible or even difficult to access/use. Thats not the point of making actions and nouns illegal to perform and possess. Its about inhibiting the ability to use and perform such things and its about creating a legal recourse to punish their use.

In what way is it easier to track weapons that have never been registered?

Well you have to do that anyway. It just makes it so that you dont have to wade through millions of registered ones as well. A process that is far from instant.

Crimes of passion aren't particularly common, and rarely require the use of a firearm to commit.

Where do you get that they aren't common? Depending on definition they are one of the most common forms of "intended" homicide that occurs.

Accidents are usually a result poor training and thoughtlessness, and they aren't crime at any rate. I don't really care about them.

So I take it you're against seatbelts too?

Not really. Banning doesn't, at any rate, and I don't have a problem with most of the laws already on the books.

And why doesn't it work. You have yet to explain why. You have yet to site a situation where it hasn't worked. You have yet to do anything but make illogical social arguments.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So no, whats the point of legislating that?

Are you asking why explosives should be legislated because you can make them? All weapons are produced in the civilian business markets. Non governmental capability of manufacture has nothing to do with whether or not it should be illegal. The laws are meant to reduce the incidence of said explosives falling into the hands of those that would use them for ill. Its meant as a barrier of widespread usage. Laws aren't designed to make things impossible, they are there to discourage and make difficult.


I think thats the big crux here. People think that making something illegal makes it impossible or even difficult to access/use. Thats not the point of making actions and nouns illegal to perform and possess. Its about inhibiting the ability to use and perform such things and its about creating a legal recourse to punish their use.

Well, I was trying to think of something worthwhile to say, but what is the point of arguing with you Shuma. I don't particularly think you're even worth wasting keystrokes on. Sebster is really who I was talking to.

whatwhat wrote:http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf <-- a report which notes a correlation between gun crimes and gun possession and also determines that there isn't as much of a corelation between gun possession and suicides/homicides.

Nice find.

sebster wrote:If you want to stop the violence in both countries then you look at gang violence and the market driving gang violence... drugs. Everything else is window dressing.

This.

Why is it that everyone wants to punish the law abiding citizens who happen to like to squeeze a few rounds off at a piece of at a piece of paper???

I was talking about a trip to the range I had with a friend of mine from work. Someone overheard that I brought along my Wasr-10 (ak-47) and went all apesh on me.


I own guns, I have not killed or shot at anyone, I have never threatened anyone with them, I have never robed anyone.... so why dose everyone think I’m a crazy wack job that’s out to kill people??? Is it because I like to shot at pop cans?

Oooooo I know, I must be a wacko because I like to shoot at little circles on paper.

Envy89 wrote:Why is it that everyone wants to punish the law abiding citizens who happen to like to squeeze a few rounds off at a piece of at a piece of paper???

I was talking about a trip to the range I had with a friend of mine from work. Someone overheard that I brought along my Wasr-10 (ak-47) and went all apesh on me.


I own guns, I have not killed or shot at anyone, I have never threatened anyone with them, I have never robed anyone.... so why dose everyone think I’m a crazy wack job that’s out to kill people??? Is it because I like to shot at pop cans?

Oooooo I know, I must be a wacko because I like to shoot at little circles on paper.

I'm not sure anyone is accusing you of being a wack job. Unfortunately there are people out there who are. I'm not disagreeing with you, but you being a nut job or not is not what is being argued

Grignard wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

So no, whats the point of legislating that?

Are you asking why explosives should be legislated because you can make them? All weapons are produced in the civilian business markets. Non governmental capability of manufacture has nothing to do with whether or not it should be illegal. The laws are meant to reduce the incidence of said explosives falling into the hands of those that would use them for ill. Its meant as a barrier of widespread usage. Laws aren't designed to make things impossible, they are there to discourage and make difficult.


I think thats the big crux here. People think that making something illegal makes it impossible or even difficult to access/use. Thats not the point of making actions and nouns illegal to perform and possess. Its about inhibiting the ability to use and perform such things and its about creating a legal recourse to punish their use.

Well, I was trying to think of something worthwhile to say, but what is the point of arguing with you Shuma. I don't particularly think you're even worth wasting keystrokes on. Sebster is really who I was talking to.

Oooooo I know, I must be a wacko because I like to shoot at little circles on paper.

We don't have mandatory and regular psych evaluations as a requirement for weapon ownership. Its legislation that punishes everyone for the actions of the few. Like most safety and anti crime legislation of the kind.

I prefer the term freedom weapons over assault weapons.

ShumaGorath wrote:Where do you get that they aren't common? Depending on definition they are one of the most common forms of "intended" homicide that occurs.

Well, I suppose it does depend on the definition. I'm more referring to blind rage from someone who wouldn't normally have a disposition towards extreme violence.

So I take it you're against seatbelts too?

I don't see it as the government's place to force people to wear them.

And why doesn't it work. You have yet to explain why.

Because their are already too many guns in the country, there are already too many channels the guns can be brought in through, there are already too many ways someone can be killed without the use of firearms, there's already too much of a cultural disposition in America towards violence, there's already too much motive for murder thanks to drugs and gangs, etc, etc. What do you think this entire thread has been about?

You have yet to site a situation where it hasn't worked.

First off, it's the duty of the lawmaker who is restricting the citizens of their country - especially in the case of altering/invalidating part of the constitution - to prove that their law will be successful, and successful to such a degree that passing the law was justified.

Second, D.C.

GMMStudios wrote:I prefer the term freedom weapons over assault weapons.

LAWLING! EVERYWHERE!

Srsly though I totally cracked at this after pouring through this super serious sauce debate.

Freedom fries are the best food ever. All the other fries are with the terrorists.

I was serious

Well, I suppose it does depend on the definition. I'm more referring to blind rage from someone who wouldn't normally have a disposition towards extreme violence.

I generally use it as a term for crimes influenced by extremes of emotion. Its much easier to make a snap decision to kill with a gun then with other forms of weaponry, even when performing crimes like robbery. It really takes a different sort of mental state to stab someone to death, it's not just push button, its much more personal.

I don't see it as the government's place to force people to wear them.

I can respect that.

Because their are already too many guns in the country, there are already too many channels the guns can be brought in through, there are already too many ways someone can be killed without the use of firearms, there's already too much of a cultural disposition in America towards violence, there's already too much motive for murder thanks to drugs and gangs, etc, etc. What do you think this entire thread has been about?

Well its been about the debate over legislation to ban types of firearms. All of those things are true, but time is linear and fluid and none of those are insurmountable social problems. The first step to dramatically reducing the number of firearms in the country is to do so in the easiest fashion, that being removing the general sale of them. After that you can narrow down channels of illegal entry and cut them off too. You can't defeat the gun, but it's about the fight and not the victory. Its about an acceptable level of possession, which is above none at all. As for other ways people can be killed, I hardly see how that enters the discussion. People can be killed with waffles, and you can build houses out of guns, everything is possible.

The cultural disposition however is a big issue. Gun laws like these take a lot of time to really begin to work. You need to change the cultural landscape and you need to spend the money and take the time to reduce demand and cut off the channels of entry for firearms. Neither of which are likely to be allowed to happen given the see saw political landscape of this country. As for the drug and gang problems, I think considerable headway can be made in those cattegories. Just look at the gang wars in the last few decades, effort and legislation has reduced the gang drug trade (lucrative drug trades being one of the biggest factors to gun violence in gangs) considerably in many areas.

First off, it's the duty of the lawmaker who is restricting the citizens of their country - especially in the case of altering/invalidating part of the constitution - to prove that their law will be successful, and successful to such a degree that passing the law was justified.

I think they do that. Often. I'm not one of them though.

Grignard wrote:I did respond to that.

Did you? I must have missed the response or forgotten it. My apologies.

I mentioned that I'm trained as a chemist. The state had no problem giving me that education. I could create black powder and pretty much have it be untraceable, or high explosives though I imagine that someone could track where the ingredients were going, if they had occasion to. So no, whats the point of legislating that?

But not everyone has your level of expertise? And even if they went out and got it, they still wouldn't be able to access heavy machine guns and grenades. Following your argument, anything and everything would be available, with the only cheque being the pocketbook of the individual.

RPGs aren't just within the reach of the average nutter, they're downright cheap. Are you really saying you believe that grenades, RPGs, heavy machine guns and commercial grade explosives should be freely available.

And don't assume I'm a "right winger" whatever that means. I frankly had some problems with quite a few policies of the last administration.

My post about the right wing overlooking the civil rights abuses of the Bush administration wasn't directed at anything you said. I typed that as it popped into my head as I read through the thread, and I wasn't even aware you'd commented on a post of mine.

sebster wrote:Meanwhile, I'm once again staggered at the number of rightwingers that are suddenly so concerned with the sanctity of the constitution. Were all you holiday for the last eight years or something?

And Sebster wins the "somebody had to say it" award!

As this is turning into yet another discussion about gun control, I'm probably not going to stay out. I just don't care very much about the issue either way. I do know a few things though:
1) Guns will never be fully banned. That wacky constitution is pretty clear that if nothing else, guns will be in the hands of citizens in some way.
2) When something is legal for some purposes but illegal for others, demand creates a supply and the guns will leave legal hands and enter illegal ones.
3) Absent a full gun ban (which can't happen) there will always be guns in circulation.
4) There are already a metric poop-load of guns in the United states, and they're not going to dry up over night.
5) Gun control is an issue that re-elects or defeats congressmen
6) The NRA and the Firearms industry know how to get money and make it available to the right politicians.
7) Banning things has never worked in the US before.

Because of all these things, I think that the best solution is to attack the problem where you can: waiting periods, registration of hand guns, etc. All banning weapons does is hassle gun owners.

Polonius wrote:Because of all these things, I think that the best solution is to attack the problem where you can: waiting periods, registration of hand guns, etc. All banning weapons does is hassle gun owners.

I think it's even less related to guns than that. I don't think waiting periods, registration of hand guns and the rest will even make that much of a difference in homicide and gun homicide figures. Those are related pretty directly to criminal activity and wealth inequality. Want to stop the violence, give people worthwhile lives within society.

So I think in terms of gun control, both sides are without merit, because yet another law on guns won't do anything, but nor will yet another law on guns mean a thing to your freedoms. As long as each continues fighting tooth and nail over the utterly trivial (like magazine size), there will be no progress made in solving the real problems.

Fair enough. I'm libertarian enough to say that when a law won't do what it says, and it's going to inconvenience people, the immortal rule of "Don't be a Dick" comes into play.

In general i'm not against arms control because I understand that in our form of Democracy there will always be limits on our freedoms. We aren't living in a utopian, perfect (anarchist) society.

That said, I am opposed to the reinstatement of the Semi-austomatic Assault Weapons ban (SA-AWB). It was ineffective during the time it existed and the options removed from weapons that were considered as Semiautomatic-Assault Weapons (SA-AWs) to make them a non SA-AW weapon were purely cosmetic. I can't seem to recall the last time i heard of a flash suppressor or bayonet lug being a pivotal aspect of any crime. One could make an argument that removing pistol grips on rifles which were SA-AWs could have potentially made them less deadly. But when a citizen couldn't legally get an AR-15 but yet could still get an M-14 I start to get a little confused. You still have an awful lot of "stopping power" witch such a weapon, and at the end of the day there are dozens of semi-automatic rifles that didn't constitute as SA-AWs that were just as deadly. Can't get an AK-47? Then just pick up an SKS without a bayonet.

I understand the reasoning behind trying to ban SA-AW weapons such as the TEC-9, and other weapons in it's vein (what I call machine pistols) as they have no inherent value in target shooting and hunting, in addition to potentially being a bit excessive for self defense. Not that I necessarily agree with a ban on such weapons, but again in the interest of compromise I wouldn't protest the outlawing of such weapons.

Did you guys by chance read the majority opinion in the Supreme Court Case Heller vs District of Columbia? Thats some good stuff there regardless of which side you are on in the debate. The dissenting opinion is worth a read as well.

PS: A clip and a magazine are not the same thing.

PPS: If you're American and have an interest in Firearms legislation, pelase go here: http://www.atf.gov/dcof/index.htm

From there you can pick up a copy of the latest edition of Federal Firearms Law and the collected book of State Firearm Laws.

In the right frame click on "publications" and order:

ATF P 5300.4 - Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide
ATF P 5300.5 (CD-Rom) - State Laws and Published Ordinances-Firearms

There are a few other things of interest as well.

THESE ARE FREE INCLUDING SHIPPING.

So that means if you own a firearm or have any sort of views with respect to arms control then pick these up and get educated. There are far too many people on both sides of the arms issue who are highly uneducated. For example, if you don't know what the legal definition of a Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon is then I suggest picking this up. You can't argue about it if you don't know what it is? (but then again...SA-AW might be removed from these books, still you can find the revelent info on the previous ban online.

Education is the most important part of owning a firearm, and well just about everything else too.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

whatwhat wrote:http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf <-- a report which notes a correlation between gun crimes and gun possession and also determines that there isn't as much of a corelation between gun possession and suicides/homicides.

Nice find.

sebster wrote:If you want to stop the violence in both countries then you look at gang violence and the market driving gang violence... drugs. Everything else is window dressing.

This.

Erm, my point was an answer to you dismissing my earlier point by asking me to look at the homicide figures. What has sebsters point got to do with it?

That said, I am opposed to the reinstatement of the Semi-austomatic Assault Weapons ban (SA-AWB). It was ineffective during the time it existed and the options removed from weapons that were considered as Semiautomatic-Assault Weapons (SA-AWs) to make them a non SA-AW weapon were purely cosmetic. I can't seem to recall the last time i heard of a flash suppressor or bayonet lug being a pivotal aspect of any crime. One could make an argument that removing pistol grips on rifles which were SA-AWs could have potentially made them less deadly. But when a citizen couldn't legally get an AR-15 but yet could still get an M-14 I start to get a little confused. You still have an awful lot of "stopping power" witch such a weapon, and at the end of the day there are dozens of semi-automatic rifles that didn't constitute as SA-AWs that were just as deadly. Can't get an AK-47? Then just pick up an SKS without a bayonet.

I understand the reasoning behind trying to ban SA-AW weapons such as the TEC-9, and other weapons in it's vein (what I call machine pistols) as they have no inherent value in target shooting and hunting, in addition to potentially being a bit excessive for self defense. Not that I necessarily agree with a ban on such weapons, but again in the interest of compromise I wouldn't protest the outlawing of such weapons.

Exactly. Man I totally forgot about Tec-9s etc. Yea I'd be ok wacking those.

But assault rifles are just rifles that some congresswoman saw too many movies of.

whatwhat wrote:Erm, my point was an answer to you dismissing my earlier point by asking me to look at the homicide figures. What has sebsters point got to do with it?

Oh, sorry, I was just agreeing with sebster. Didn't mean for that to relate to your article.

Also, what page is "The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the results of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Strong correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide, but that the overall rate of suicide using firearms is low, and homicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available," On?

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Your argument is irrelevant Shuma. Its an absolute right.

Perhaps you'd be better maybe even keeping things like this for adults ? Authorities said the youth model 20-gauge shotgun was thought to have been found in the boy's bedroom. It is designed for children and such weapons do not have to be registered.

..errmmm.... whose idea was that then ? You're arming children now ? SRSLY ?

Wouldn't want to be a teacher in America.

Well educated, and disciplined youths lead to well educated and disciplined adults. I owned a few firearms when I was a child. I was taught how to use them, and what the consequences were. Granted I wasn't allowed to keep them in my room, but I knew where the key was to the gun safe at all times, and when *I* wanted to take my guns out shooting *I* could, as long as I was being responsible in the rest of my life (Grades, chores, etc.). The truth is, as a country the U.S. has always had a well armed populace until the 1900's. A firearm is a tool, just like your paintbrush. How and what you use it on is YOUR decision. Ban bad decision making, not tools. I know this isn't going to work 100%, but disarming the people who make wise and ethical choices only makes it easier for others to inflict the results of bad choices upon them.

The whole 'guns are only made to kill' argument aside, We as US citizens are GUARANTEED the right to defend ourselves, not just from our 'neighbors', but from our leadership as well. When we first became a country not only were militias commonplace, they were a mandatory duty for many townsfolk both here AND in England. The police force WAS the populace and vice versa. The Founding Fathers obviously saw that sooner or later the people ALWAYS rise up against their government, by themselves or when incited by other sources. They also saw this as a healthy progression from an oppressive government to a more liberal one. THIS is why the Second Ammendment was added. As United States citizens when we don't like something we have the power to tell our government 'Stop.'. IF they refuse, then as an armed populace we can then MAKE them stop. As an unarmed populace we can just cry in the corner and go back to our sitcoms.

Polonius wrote:Fair enough. I'm libertarian enough to say that when a law won't do what it says, and it's going to inconvenience people, the immortal rule of "Don't be a Dick" comes into play.

YAY! Another Libertarian!
That's the main thing that chaps my hide from a political stand point is you will always have this constant trade of between responsibility and freedom vs. irresponsibility and suppression. You can't gain additional freedom without accepting additional responsibility and you can't reduce your responsibilities without losing your freedoms. When I came of age, I knew that unless I wanted to stay with my parents until I was 45 and spend the entire time living by their rules that I would have to find a place of my own. So, I moved out and stayed up as late as I wanted and made as much noise as I wanted and came and went whenever I wanted. But with all that freedom came a power bill, a phone bill, rent, water bill, etc. etc. that I became responsible for. If I want the right to freely own a firearm, it's my responsibility as a gun owner to A) ensure it's not used in slowed ways that result in the death and/or injury of innocents and B) it's not easily accessible to criminals who might steal it. That's the problem with America nowadays, no one wants the responsibility and the risk that comes from being free. They want to be forced into feeding lines so they can suck on Uncle Sam's teets and go home and watch American Idol while being Americans Idle...

Oh, I'm not really a libertarian politically. I'm an ACLU, civil rights are great type, but I extend those rights to things some liberals don't, guns most notably. I'm also an economic moderate who thinks that high taxes aren't the worst thing ever, and the growing complexity of modern society makes an expansion of the role of government not entirely avoidable.