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.

 mattyrm wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So do the anti-gun folks think that there is any feasible way to remove every gun from circulation? Both legal and illegal?

The reason gun control laws work well in other countries is that they always had them. A small country always having tough gun laws is a little different than a giant country undoing hundred of years of "everybody gets a gun".

Oh yeah, I'm against civvies having guns, but I don't think there is any possible way to sort the issue out in the US now. Guns aren't like vegetables, they have a long shelf life!

You guys are fethed now. I think the best solution is everyone have one and be trained how to use it properly.. at least that stops people being really stupid, and alos makes the idiots think twice if they know loads of people are packing and they are trained properly in their use, but that's nowhere near as good as people hardly having any at all like in Europe.

Now you guys just have to make the best of a bad situation, because 300 years of toting guns has obviously made it utterly impossible to remove them.

For sure on that. It would be prohibition all over again if the government tried to reign in gun ownership.

 Amaya wrote:
How many shells in the shotguns are you talking about? Is there any deer left to eat?

In Ohio, you can't hunt deer with a rifle during the normal gun season unless it's a muzzle-loader, so most people who gun hunt use shotguns. The only other option is a handgun (5" minimum barrel, .357 and up), which isn't really that great. With a shotgun, your gun can't have more than three shells in it. If the magazine normally holds more than three, you have to have a plug in it that keeps you from loading more than three shells and the plug has to be one that you can only remove by disassembling the gun. You can carry more shells if you want, but only three can be in the gun. You also have to use slugs. So basically, we're talking three shots. It really shouldn't take more than one, but it's nice to have more than one in case you hit it with your first shot but it doesn't drop.

 Ahtman wrote:
Murder of any type is illegal. What an odd thing to say.

Not true. There are several ways for murder to be legal. Ever hear of justifiable homicide? Shooting and killing an intruder in your home is legal. Shooting and killing someone that is attempting to commit grave bodily harm to yourself or others is legal. So not all murder is illegal.

 Debbin wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Murder of any type is illegal. What an odd thing to say.

Not true. There are several ways for murder to be legal. Ever hear of justifiable homicide? Shooting and killing an intruder in your home is legal. Shooting and killing someone that is attempting to commit grave bodily harm to yourself or others is legal. So not all murder is illegal.

None of those things you mentioned are murder. They're all killing, but not murder. Justifiable homicide is not murder. Killing and murder are not always the same thing.

True, but they are added to list of gun related homicides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, I meant to say gun related deaths.

 Debbin wrote:
True, but they are added to list of gun related homicides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, I meant to say gun related deaths.

That has nothing to do with what you just said. You said there are several ways for murder to be legal, but murder is never legal. That's what I was saying.

 mattyrm wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So do the anti-gun folks think that there is any feasible way to remove every gun from circulation? Both legal and illegal?

The reason gun control laws work well in other countries is that they always had them. A small country always having tough gun laws is a little different than a giant country undoing hundred of years of "everybody gets a gun".

Oh yeah, I'm against civvies having guns, but I don't think there is any possible way to sort the issue out in the US now. Guns aren't like vegetables, they have a long shelf life!

You guys are fethed now. I think the best solution is everyone have one and be trained how to use it properly.. at least that stops people being really stupid, and alos makes the idiots think twice if they know loads of people are packing and they are trained properly in their use, but that's nowhere near as good as people hardly having any at all like in Europe.

Now you guys just have to make the best of a bad situation, because 300 years of toting guns has obviously made it utterly impossible to remove them.

Well yes it would be near impossible to round up all the guns in the US, Not that I would ever say we should. But part of some gun control laws could be the banning the sale of certain types of bullets. clips wear out and will need to be replaced from time to time, and the clip size could be reduced to 10 clips or less.

With people needing to reload more often it gives the others time to get to cover, or get their own guns out. And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter. The arizona shooter who shot the congresswoman was stopped when he had to reload.

Then if you're caught using a illegal gun or bullets, we can triple the time you have to serve.

If both sides could sit down and have a rational conversation on the issue, But to just ignore the whole issue is just inviting more and more mass shootings. And bigger profit for gun dealers.

Please consider what murder actually means. Murder is the act of taking someone's life with malice aforethought. If someone is not phased by witnessing or hearing about this evil act then there is something wrong with them in the morality department.

Some people minds are made up regardless.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So do the anti-gun folks think that there is any feasible way to remove every gun from circulation? Both legal and illegal?

The reason gun control laws work well in other countries is that they always had them. A small country always having tough gun laws is a little different than a giant country undoing hundred of years of "everybody gets a gun".

Oh yeah, I'm against civvies having guns, but I don't think there is any possible way to sort the issue out in the US now. Guns aren't like vegetables, they have a long shelf life!

You guys are fethed now. I think the best solution is everyone have one and be trained how to use it properly.. at least that stops people being really stupid, and alos makes the idiots think twice if they know loads of people are packing and they are trained properly in their use, but that's nowhere near as good as people hardly having any at all like in Europe.

Now you guys just have to make the best of a bad situation, because 300 years of toting guns has obviously made it utterly impossible to remove them.

Well yes it would be near impossible to round up all the guns in the US, Not that I would ever say we should. But part of some gun control laws could be the banning the sale of certain types of bullets. clips wear out and will need to be replaced from time to time, and the clip size could be reduced to 10 clips or less.

With people needing to reload more often it gives the others time to get to cover, or get their own guns out. And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter. The arizona shooter who shot the congresswoman was stopped when he had to reload.

Then if you're caught using a illegal gun or bullets, we can triple the time you have to serve.

If both sides could sit down and have a rational conversation on the issue, But to just ignore the whole issue is just inviting more and more mass shootings. And bigger profit for gun dealers.

I think the performance of the NYPD cops make it pretty clear that it is not as easy as "2 shots and bad guy is dead".

But there are lots of areas for improvement if both sides could talk rationally. With this being an election year there will not even be any attempt to talk about it until 2013 I would think.

Hordini wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
How many shells in the shotguns are you talking about? Is there any deer left to eat?

In Ohio, you can't hunt deer with a rifle during the normal gun season unless it's a muzzle-loader, so most people who gun hunt use shotguns. The only other option is a handgun (5" minimum barrel, .357 and up), which isn't really that great. With a shotgun, your gun can't have more than three shells in it. If the magazine normally holds more than three, you have to have a plug in it that keeps you from loading more than three shells and the plug has to be one that you can only remove by disassembling the gun. You can carry more shells if you want, but only three can be in the gun. You also have to use slugs. So basically, we're talking three shots. It really shouldn't take more than one, but it's nice to have more than one in case you hit it with your first shot but it doesn't drop.

But muzzleloaders are cool. Just hum the Last of the Mohicans theme to yourself, wear some 18th century settler garb, and go to town.

I imagine shooting the British whenever I hold one...

 mattyrm wrote:

I think the best solution is everyone have one and be trained how to use it properly.

We used to have a great deal more in place to do that. The Boy Scouts used to do a lot of shooting, high schools had rifle teams, not just JROTC programs, the DoD ran a marksmanship program under the Defence budget instead of letting the NRA do it.
We've moved away from such things, for a number of reasons. I think that most pro-gun people would agree whole hearted; and even the anti crowd has to admit its the right thing to do.

d-usa wrote:I imagine shooting the British whenever I hold one...

I reckon you'd fething need one against me, pal.

I see a paintball game brewing between UK and US. I play if Matty play

 Albatross wrote:

d-usa wrote:I imagine shooting the British whenever I hold one...

I reckon you'd fething need one against me, pal.

Just be polite enough to pause running at me while I reload after I miss with my first shot please.

 d-usa wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

d-usa wrote:I imagine shooting the British whenever I hold one...

I reckon you'd fething need one against me, pal.

Just be polite enough to pause running at me while I reload after I miss with my first shot please.

Pah! You tricked us with that last time! Well, not this time...

No pausing when in bayonet range.

Amaya wrote:
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?

In addition to that, it needs to be exceptionally more difficult to purchase firearms. I think having a government/military security clearance and/or having a clean record should be sufficient. Having a HS diploma should also be a requirement if it isn't already.

Why are you hung up on this hunting thing? Probably a decent share of gun owners have no intent to kill animals. I'm sure there's plenty of gun owners that also have no intention of protecting themselves with their firearms (myself included). You don't need a reason to own a firearm. The sheer fact that you want one is enough. It's your right.

Any law abiding citizen, regardless of education, social status, financial status or race, should be able to own a firearm, unless they've broken the law, therefore forfeiting their right. Should you need a background check to have freedom of religion and speech? Should you be investigated before you have the right to prevent unreasonable search and seizure?

Government/military clearance? Why the feth does that have anything to do with firearms. There are plenty of gakbags with Secret Clearances who know absolutely nothing about firearms besides what they learned in boot camp.

High School Diploma? Why, so we can feth them over more? Don't they have life hard enough as is, living as second class citizens?

Tomorow this is probaly going to go off the chain

 Jihadin wrote:
Tomorow this is probaly going to go off the chain

How many people die from chains each year? We need to find those statistics.

http://static.quickmeme.com/media/social/qm.gif

This is pretty much all I have to say on this at this point. It's a topic being argued by different people in different countries, when the same systems are not going to work for everyone.

 d-usa wrote:
So do the anti-gun folks think that there is any feasible way to remove every gun from circulation? Both legal and illegal?

The reason gun control laws work well in other countries is that they always had them. A small country always having tough gun laws is a little different than a giant country undoing hundred of years of "everybody gets a gun".

No, I don't. I also think that every gun in the country could become irradiated and turn to extremist Islam and half the country would still sleep with them under it's pillow. It's important to keep gun fanatics from voicing ludicrous or factually incorrect arguments without opposition, but I truly expect nothing of any anti gun efforts during my lifetime. This country isn't smart or moral enough to be able to handle something like that anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:

d-usa wrote:I imagine shooting the British whenever I hold one...

I reckon you'd fething need one against me, pal.

I'll fight you with my car.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So do the anti-gun folks think that there is any feasible way to remove every gun from circulation? Both legal and illegal?

The reason gun control laws work well in other countries is that they always had them. A small country always having tough gun laws is a little different than a giant country undoing hundred of years of "everybody gets a gun".

No, I don't. I also think that every gun in the country could become irradiated and turn to extremist Islam and half the country would still sleep with them under it's pillow. It's important to keep gun fanatics from voicing ludicrous or factually incorrect arguments without opposition, but I truly expect nothing of any anti gun efforts during my lifetime. This country isn't smart or moral enough to be able to handle something like that anymore.

Well, I just don't think that weapons in the hands of criminals are going to be easy to get rid off. Even if we take all the steps to strike the 2nd, it would just not be realistic to think we could get rid of them. That is the reason why I am pro-gun ownership.

But we just have two firmly entrenched sides: the pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby. What we need is to have is more of a sensible responsible-gun-ownership lobby. But the pro-gun crowd that yells that any form of gun legislation is equal to taking a dumb on the constitution ticks me off just as much as the "we need to ban every gun" crowd. There are people on both sides that are willing to compromise and promote responsible and safer gun ownership, but they get drowned out by the extremists.

I'll fight you with my car.

I've done that. Actually did it in a MATV. Drove right through the front door. My driver just grinned like a maniac when I told him to take out the front wall. Two captured insurgents.

Captain Fantastic wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?

In addition to that, it needs to be exceptionally more difficult to purchase firearms. I think having a government/military security clearance and/or having a clean record should be sufficient. Having a HS diploma should also be a requirement if it isn't already.

Why are you hung up on this hunting thing? Probably a decent share of gun owners have no intent to kill animals. I'm sure there's plenty of gun owners that also have no intention of protecting themselves with their firearms (myself included). You don't need a reason to own a firearm. The sheer fact that you want one is enough. It's your right.

But it's my RIGHT to have land mines buried in my garden! Who are you to take away my anti-tank missiles? I want a stash of mustard gas, but them evil dudes aren't letting me!

I think we ought to just admit we're more tolerant of gun violence than our European counterparts. We don't necessarily like it more, but we accept it more. We have the revolution and the O.K. Corral and the roaring '20s in our cultural DNA.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Captain Fantastic wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?

In addition to that, it needs to be exceptionally more difficult to purchase firearms. I think having a government/military security clearance and/or having a clean record should be sufficient. Having a HS diploma should also be a requirement if it isn't already.

Why are you hung up on this hunting thing? Probably a decent share of gun owners have no intent to kill animals. I'm sure there's plenty of gun owners that also have no intention of protecting themselves with their firearms (myself included). You don't need a reason to own a firearm. The sheer fact that you want one is enough. It's your right.

But it's my RIGHT to have land mines buried in my garden! Who are you to take away my anti-tank missiles? I want a stash of mustard gas, but them evil dudes aren't letting me!

Are you even covered by the US constitution, or is this just bure baseless hyperbole?

This thread reminds me of the epic work: Murder by Death.

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread reminds me of the epic work: Murder by Death.

It was a good sequel, but it didn't have the same deep character development that Death by Murder had. I think the author just got lazy...

Well, you could make drinking alcohol illegal, stopping drunk driving. America tried that once though and nobody liked that.