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.

The whole "guns don't kill people" argument is always the single dumbest argument that pro-gun people come up with when they pretend that guns don't make it extremely easy to kill people.

Stop making fools of ourselves! Of course guns kill people, that is what they are made for. To kill people! That's why pro-gun folks want guns, so that they can kill people that try to harm or kill us.

Don't even try to come back with the "if somebody wants to kill someone they will just use another tool like a hammer" bs. If hammers would make it just as easy to kill people as a gun then we would be applying for concealed hammer permits as well as concealed gun permits.

Guns make it incredibly easy for a single person to kill a large number of people in a very short amount of time. That is what they were invented for.

I am pro-gun, I shoot and I carry. And I will continue to call anybody an idiot that tries to pretend that guns are not for killing. Because I know the reason I own my guns is to stop whoever is trying to hurt my family.

 d-usa wrote:
The whole "guns don't kill people" argument is always the single dumbest argument that pro-gun people come up with when they pretend that guns don't make it extremely easy to kill people.

Make it easy to kill yes, but it is still the person wielding it that determines its purpose. A gun is a tool. No more, no less.

Nobody claims guns arn't for killing, but it is true that without the person pulling the trigger a gun is just a hunk of metal.

It requires the human element to become a deadly weapon, banning the tool only make killers look for another tool.


So it is true that Guns don't kill people, guns are used by people to kill people.

"Did you kill that man?"

"No officer, the gun did. I was just holding it."


See how silly that is?

And pretending that banning guns would not have an impact is just as silly.

Especially the whole "people would still kill each other, they would just use different things" argument. If these different things would be as effective in killing people then they should be just as effective to defend yourself with.

All banning guns will do is prevent law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals won't give 2 feths, they'll be glad. Now their targets will be unarmed.

And one of the reasons criminals will be armed so well is the NRA and the numerous laws they have sponsored.

With sensible laws you can actually disarm criminals over time and greatly reduce the flow of new weapons into the hands of criminals.

 Grey Templar wrote:
All banning guns will do is prevent law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals won't give 2 feths, they'll be glad. Now their targets will be unarmed.

I came from a country were firearms were for the most part illegal. It didn't stop terrorists getting crates of Ak-47s from Libya.

 d-usa wrote:
With sensible laws you can actually disarm criminals over time and greatly reduce the flow of new weapons into the hands of criminals.

Chicago has some of the most stringent laws concerning firearms in the United States, yet it has one of the highest murder rates from illegally held weapons.

1) Chicago is not a country so trying to hold up a city as an example of how national laws would not work is stupid.

2) Chicago is a prime example of how NRA sponsored laws screwed law abiding citizens by making it easier for criminals to get weapons.

How did the NRA's legislation screw Chicago citizens?

 d-usa wrote:
1) Chicago is not a country so trying to hold up a city as an example of how national laws would not work is stupid.

Irrelevant, your position was that "With sensible laws you can actually disarm criminals over time". You didn't say whether these were national (Federal) or local (State) laws until I pointed out an inconvenient fact to counter your claim.

 d-usa wrote:
2) Chicago is a prime example of how NRA sponsored laws screwed law abiding citizens by making it easier for criminals to get weapons.

How so?

 Grey Templar wrote:
How did the NRA's legislation screw Chicago citizens?

Biggest ones would be the laws that make it illegal for the ATF to keep track of who sold guns. Keep in mind that most illegal guns are purchased by straw-men from very few stores and then transported along state lines for criminal activities. The guns used for criminal activities in Chicago are not purchased there. Imagine being able to punch in the serial numbers of all the serial numbers of all the guns used in crimes in Chicago, and then finding out that the vast majority of them come from the same dealers across the USA and then shutting down the dealers that make money selling to the straw-men. But the NRA sponsored the bills making sure that nobody is able to track serial numbers in a database.

Just one if the areas where new laws would help cut down on the resupply of weapons for criminals. And an area where the NRA made it easier for criminals to get weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
1) Chicago is not a country so trying to hold up a city as an example of how national laws would not work is stupid.

Irrelevant, your position was that "With sensible laws you can actually disarm criminals over time". You didn't say whether these were national (Federal) or local (State) laws until I pointed out an inconvenient fact to counter your claim.

 d-usa wrote:
2) Chicago is a prime example of how NRA sponsored laws screwed law abiding citizens by making it easier for criminals to get weapons.

How so?

1) considering that we are posting in a thread about national laws I figured that you could focus on discussion about national laws. Sorry for thinking that you would be on the same page there.

2) see above

Except that assumes the store knows its selling to a straw-man and is actually responsible for what happens to guns it sells.

Tracking who owns an object is a serious privacy issue.

If I own a gun, I don't want the government to know I have it. If they do end up trying to take guns away from people I don't want them to know I have it. Its my right to be armed and I want the government in the dark as to if I am exercising that right.

Strawmen are just one method of getting guns. If they can't buy from stores anymore they'll find another way. Its not going to reduce their access to guns, only slightly limit it.

 d-usa wrote:

Biggest ones would be the laws that make it illegal for the ATF to keep track of who sold guns. Keep in mind that most illegal guns are purchased by straw-men from very few stores and then transported along state lines for criminal activities. The guns used for criminal activities in Chicago are not purchased there. Imagine being able to punch in the serial numbers of all the serial numbers of all the guns used in crimes in Chicago, and then finding out that the vast majority of them come from the same dealers across the USA and then shutting down the dealers that make money selling to the straw-men. But the NRA sponsored the bills making sure that nobody is able to track serial numbers in a database.

Just one if the areas where new laws would help cut down on the resupply of weapons for criminals. And an area where the NRA made it easier for criminals to get weapons.

And this is law? Not just a proposal? I thought that ran counter to Form 4473 (not trolling, genuinely curious)

 d-usa wrote:
1) considering that we are posting in a thread about national laws I figured that you could focus on discussion about national laws. Sorry for thinking that you would be on the same page there.

And considering that Chicago disproves your theory it is relevant to the discussion that more stringent laws will impact law abiding citizens more than criminals.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except that assumes the store knows its selling to a straw-man and is actually responsible for what happens to guns it sells.

Tracking who owns an object is a serious privacy issue.

If I own a gun, I don't want the government to know I have it. If they do end up trying to take guns away from people I don't want them to know I have it. Its my right to be armed and I want the government in the dark as to if I am exercising that right.

Strawmen are just one method of getting guns. If they can't buy from stores anymore they'll find another way. Its not going to reduce their access to guns, only slightly limit it.

And having a list of "these guns were sold by store x" is very different than havig a list if "person x owns these guns".
Illegally purchased guns are a big source of weapons, and getting rid of these old laws will help together with better background checks. Reducing guns with laws that have zero impact on lawful citizens owning guns seems sensible, unless you already have your mind made up that no laws would ever help anything.

Ok, I could see that. Maybe I just misunderstood your explaination.

Having a store report the serial numbers of all the guns it moves(but not who it sold them to) would be fine IMO.

Of course that still won't do much, it will just make the buyers rotate between different stores accross a wider area.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Biggest ones would be the laws that make it illegal for the ATF to keep track of who sold guns. Keep in mind that most illegal guns are purchased by straw-men from very few stores and then transported along state lines for criminal activities. The guns used for criminal activities in Chicago are not purchased there. Imagine being able to punch in the serial numbers of all the serial numbers of all the guns used in crimes in Chicago, and then finding out that the vast majority of them come from the same dealers across the USA and then shutting down the dealers that make money selling to the straw-men. But the NRA sponsored the bills making sure that nobody is able to track serial numbers in a database.

Just one if the areas where new laws would help cut down on the resupply of weapons for criminals. And an area where the NRA made it easier for criminals to get weapons.

And this is law? Not just a proposal? I thought that ran counter to Form 4473 (not trolling, genuinely curious)

It's actually old law. And ATF is not allowed to keep records on any 4473s. After they are confirmed they are destroyed AFAIK.

 d-usa wrote:
1) considering that we are posting in a thread about national laws I figured that you could focus on discussion about national laws. Sorry for thinking that you would be on the same page there.

And considering that Chicago disproves your theory it is relevant to the discussion that more stringent laws will impact law abiding citizens more than criminals.

It doesn't disprove my theory at all, because what does or doesn't work in a city has zero impact on what might work on a national level. Because a city is something very different than a country.

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Which is the process you're currently opposing here in the United States

Am I? Your going to have to explain that one. Afterall I didn't make a single remark about your legislative process.

By wanting to ban semiautomatics, which are pretty much everything besides pump shotguns and bolt action rifles, you just did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The whole "guns don't kill people" argument is always the single dumbest argument that pro-gun people come up with when they pretend that guns don't make it extremely easy to kill people.

Stop making fools of ourselves! Of course guns kill people, that is what they are made for. To kill people! That's why pro-gun folks want guns, so that they can kill people that try to harm or kill us.

Don't even try to come back with the "if somebody wants to kill someone they will just use another tool like a hammer" bs. If hammers would make it just as easy to kill people as a gun then we would be applying for concealed hammer permits as well as concealed gun permits.

Guns make it incredibly easy for a single person to kill a large number of people in a very short amount of time. That is what they were invented for.

I am pro-gun, I shoot and I carry. And I will continue to call anybody an idiot that tries to pretend that guns are not for killing. Because I know the reason I own my guns is to stop whoever is trying to hurt my family.

Easy my ass. I burn 1,000 rounds a month to do that.
Besides you are conveniently forgettign women and old people. My wife would prefer to not get into MMA action to protect herself thank you very much*

*God help the person that tries that. She'd eat their face....

 d-usa wrote:
It doesn't disprove my theory at all, because what does or doesn't work in a city has zero impact on what might work on a national level. Because a city is something very different than a country.

How so? Both are self governing entities that collect taxes, provide services etc. Its just a matter of scale. Or does the behaviour of criminals change radically?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It doesn't disprove my theory at all, because what does or doesn't work in a city has zero impact on what might work on a national level. Because a city is something very different than a country.

How so? Both are self governing entities that collect taxes, provide services etc. Its just a matter of scale. Or does the behaviour of criminals change radically?

I find it a lot easier to exit and enter the jurisdiction of Chicago than that of the United States. One had a lot less checkpoints to see what I have in my trunk as an example.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It doesn't disprove my theory at all, because what does or doesn't work in a city has zero impact on what might work on a national level. Because a city is something very different than a country.

How so? Both are self governing entities that collect taxes, provide services etc. Its just a matter of scale. Or does the behaviour of criminals change radically?

I find it a lot easier to exit and enter the jurisdiction of Chicago than that of the United States. One had a lot less checkpoints to see what I have in my trunk as an example.

You mean all those damn things taking my money weren't checkpoints?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Which is the process you're currently opposing here in the United States

Am I? Your going to have to explain that one. Afterall I didn't make a single remark about your legislative process.

By wanting to ban semiautomatics, which are pretty much everything besides pump shotguns and bolt action rifles, you just did.

You also need to keep in mind many people have no idea what semi automatic and fully automatic even mean, and what the huge difference between those two terms is.

For the people who think I said the exact same thing twice, imagine if I said I have a car that has a manual shifter vs a car that has an automatic shifter. Saying I have a "Fully semi automatic" firearm is like saying I have a "fully manual automatic transmission".

Semi autos fire once everytime you pull the trigger. Many firearms in the US are semi auto, and there is little in the way of restrictions on them. Many of the "assault" weapons targeted by this bill before it was shot down were semi auto.

Full auto is where you hold down the trigger and the weapon continues to fire until you release the trigger or it runs out of ammunition. Fully automatic weapons are considered Class III weapons are already HEAVILY regulated.

Here''s a helpful vid that describes the difference. As a free bonus, it also shows how scary black rifles aren't very different from hunting rifles, and why banning rifles because of black paint and scary folding stocks is seen as "stupid" as well.

 R3con wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It doesn't disprove my theory at all, because what does or doesn't work in a city has zero impact on what might work on a national level. Because a city is something very different than a country.

How so? Both are self governing entities that collect taxes, provide services etc. Its just a matter of scale. Or does the behaviour of criminals change radically?

I find it a lot easier to exit and enter the jurisdiction of Chicago than that of the United States. One had a lot less checkpoints to see what I have in my trunk as an example.

You mean all those damn things taking my money weren't checkpoints?

Check points don't have tassels on their boobs, although if you give them enough money they will check your "point".

 d-usa wrote:
Check points don't have tassels on their boobs...

I need to find me some check points then, cause tassels make me sad in my pants.

 d-usa wrote:
I find it a lot easier to exit and enter the jurisdiction of Chicago than that of the United States. One had a lot less checkpoints to see what I have in my trunk as an example.

The Coyotes smuggling people through the Mexican border may disagree


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Nice vid

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

I will also offer up this. If you ever find yourself in Kentucky, I will gladly take you to a local range, on me, and show you why we love our guns. Ammo, rifles, pistols, I'll provide everything. To be honest, there's probably no way you can understand our side of the argument otherwise.

I wasn't talking about this specific ban, as I have already said, nor was I trying to undermine US democracy by making a forum post. Just imagine if forums did have that much power, imagine a world ruled by 4chan.
The only reason I posted in this carbon copy of a thousand other threads is that I saw an erroneous post which I then pointed out and which various people then misinterpreted.

I grew up around firearms, my dad taught me to shoot when I was in primary school and I went stalking with him for years before that. I have owned my own in the past (2 hunting rifles and 2 shotguns) and as I am in the military I have recieved a lot of firearms training and I come into weekly contact with military issue small arms. They are a tool, nothing more. The problem is that they are an incredibly dangerous tool both to the users and to the general public, especially when the users are not trained or properly vetted. They have also developed a really unhealthy mystique which I find dangerous and worrisome (such crazy talk as using civilain firearms as a deterrent against a country that spends 40% of the global defence budget is utterly deluded).

I dont advocate a blanket ban on firearms as they do have legitimate uses but I do favour heavy regulation and the banning of all semi automatic weapons (including handguns) from privtae ownership unless they are secured in registered armouries and used in registered ranges, in other words the UK system. I am fully aware that this will never happen in the US but then US citizens will simply have to live with the consequnces in the name of an antiquated 'right' which has lost all meaning in the modern world.

So you do in fact favor a blanket ban on firearms. The UK only permits fowling pieces.

You're a subject, not a citizen.

 Frazzled wrote:
The UK only permits fowling pieces.
You're a subject, not a citizen.

Incorrect on the first point and the second point is a complete irrelevence in this day and age.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The UK only permits fowling pieces.
You're a subject, not a citizen.

Incorrect on the first point and the second point is a complete irrelevence in this day and age.

1. Mmm, you can have twin barrel shotguns. What else pray tell?
2. The fact you think that is irrelevant is why you don't understand Brit.

 Frazzled wrote:

1. Mmm, you can have twin barrel shotguns. What else pray tell?
2. The fact you think that is irrelevant is why you don't understand Brit.

1. A shotgun is described as a smooth-bore gun (not being an air-weapon) which has a barrel not less than 24 inches with a bore diameter not exceeding 2 inches. A firearm usually describes a cartridge-loading, rifled-barrel longarm (rifle) with a barrel not shorter than 300mm. Overall length of the firearm must not be less than 600mm unless it is a muzzle loader. Firearms include: muzzle-loading rifles or pistols; shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than three; airguns with power ratings exceeding 12 ft/lbs for rifles and 6ft/lbs for pistols; and historic pistols kept at home as part of a collection or kept at a designated historic site and used for non-competitive target practice.
http://www.gundealer.net/rules.htm

2. ?

 Palindrome wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

1. Mmm, you can have twin barrel shotguns. What else pray tell?
2. The fact you think that is irrelevant is why you don't understand Brit.

1. A shotgun is described as a smooth-bore gun (not being an air-weapon) which has a barrel not less than 24 inches with a bore diameter not exceeding 2 inches. A firearm usually describes a cartridge-loading, rifled-barrel longarm (rifle) with a barrel not shorter than 300mm. Overall length of the firearm must not be less than 600mm unless it is a muzzle loader. Firearms include: muzzle-loading rifles or pistols; shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than three; airguns with power ratings exceeding 12 ft/lbs for rifles and 6ft/lbs for pistols; and historic pistols kept at home as part of a collection or kept at a designated historic site and used for non-competitive target practice.
http://www.gundealer.net/rules.htm

2. ?

1. So, I was right. You're only permitted fowling shotguns, and "historic" pistols whatever the hell that is. Webleys? We don't even count muzzle loaders as guns here (seriously).

2. There is a major difference between being a citizen and being a subject. My ancestors killed your ancestors over that difference, and it is a substantial portion of our culture. DOn't feel bad, we killed each other too, and at a much higher rate. Fortunately the guys in blue won.