Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?