First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Firearm Legislation in the United States
20712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/5/13
Well, guns are a tool used to kill more efficiently. That was their design, their soul purpose. It's not like you use a gun to cut bread.
17298 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / California
Online
Posted 4/5/13
They should make guns similar to the ones in Psycho-Pass.
Canute 
30266 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/5/13
Ah, I've been reading articles in the gun ownership debate for a long time. So many things have been proposed as means to stop gun violence, and outright banning of guns has been attempted in certain countries, notably Australia and Great Britain. The main problem with gun regulation is that one can only go so far into another human being's psyche. I mean, we prohibit felons and the mentally ill (at least, those whom we know are mentally ill) from owning weapons; but if people have no history of criminal activity or mental insanity, there's no reason to prevent them from obtaining firearms.

Then, when strict registration schemes have been tried or guns banned outright, victimization rates have gone higher. Just look at the stats from Great Britain and Australia. Also, limiting semi-automatic rifles in arbitrary ways--like the 10 ct. cartridge limit--has never proved to be effective in limiting crime. Actually, the best thing for limiting crime is by increasing the amount of citizens with guns. For example, the Swiss have very low crime rates and you see things like this (a picture is worth a thousand words):





31119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Midwest
Offline
Posted 4/8/13
It isn't arbitrary. The shooter in Tuscon was stopped while reloading an extended magazine for a pistol. There are no legitimate uses for a 30 round clip or a 100 round drum barrel.
Canute 
30266 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/8/13

marmondesu wrote:

It isn't arbitrary. The shooter in Tuscon was stopped while reloading an extended magazine for a pistol. There are no legitimate uses for a 30 round clip or a 100 round drum barrel.


Yes, there is. If a widespread riot like what happened in Los Angeles occurred--where there is a complete loss of public order, such weapons would be much preferred to regular hand guns for self-defense. Also, should a tyranny or dictator ever rear its head in the United States, I would like U.S. citizens to be able to fight back with such weapons. Of course, I don't see such a thing like that happening in the near future, but you never know what may happen 100 years from now. I'd rather that they have a chance of fighting back than become slaves of an oppressive government without a fighting chance.

And you can't say that efforts of the citizenry would be futile against a modern army because the Vietnam War proves that a tenacious armed people can successfully resist even the US army.

But, I want to point out again that the Swiss seem to have fewer gun-related problems than we do, even though their citizens walk down the street with real assault rifles (rifles capable of firing semi-automatically or fully automatically at the flip of a switch). Here we are worried that semi-automatic rifles have 30 round clips. Perhaps, the problem is not that people can own such weapons, but that good people with guns are barred from carrying in the places bad people pick to have shooting sprees.
10114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 4/8/13

creepysalad

I could just as easily kill someone else with a knife, or a multitude of other things.


So very very wrong. You cant really stab someone while standing 200 yards away from them. You could be on top of a tower and shoot people on the ground. Let's see you get on top of that same tower and stab people on the ground with a knife.

Also a knife is a close combat weapon. There is alot more defense against someone carrying a knife standing right in front of you then a guy standing down the block popping off rounds at you.

So NO you can not kill someone "just as easily" with a knife as you can a firearm. Want more proof? I have 5 scars on my body from a multiple stabbing. And I am still here alive and well. Had the guy used a firearm..... Well you wouldnt be reading this because I would be dead!




creepysalad
Plus, if a criminal robs a store, he'll have a gun either way. If law abiding citizens have guns as well, they could easily prevent the robbery.


Again wrong. The psychology of killing someone is no easy thing to overcome. Neither is firing a weapon while under heavy stress... Like a robbery. So lets say your working at a convenience store. Several customers are carrying firearms. Someone comes into the store to rob and possibly kill you... There is no guarantee the customers will pull on the thief. And there is also no guarantee the customer or customers that do pull will be able to fire under stress.... So you could quite possibly be killed the same yahoos trying to save your life. And yes it has happened before. That is why we have a term called "friendly fire". If trained military can accidently do it... What chance do you think you have when a bunch of weekend warriors slap leather to drop a guy trying to rob you?

And if that customer with the firearm is just going to pull his pistol to try to "scare" the guy... Well you definately do NOT want that guy helping you. One rule of firearms is "Do not pull it unless your going to use it!"




63151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bonne Lake, WA
Offline
Posted 4/9/13



If you read everything in the spoiler, it'll help explain this next part,


So, let me pose this question: What makes you so special that the government would want to go through the effort to take away your guns? what are you doing that would put you on this special list of people to dump upon because they are bored?

Your statistical evidence, well, I can't say it's full of holes, because that would imply that there are parts that work. You can't compare the Swiss, a country of 8 million who conscripts their males at 18 and females voluntarily, and by law gives every citizen a designated weapon AND training, to the US. You also can't compare other weapons like knives to a gun. Just today there was a guy that went through school with an exacto knife and slashed at a dozen or so people. No fatalities last I heard. If he had a gun, it would have been far different. It's like saying that a gun is the same thing as a predator drone. The scale and lethality and the level of intent required are all completely different.

55199 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 4/10/13 , edited 4/10/13
I can see many people do not know world history well enough to have a understanding of the second amendment. But if it has not happened in your life time then it never happened RIGHT? More children die of suffocation from blanket then die each year from guns.
Canute 
30266 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/10/13

metalsmith wrote:




If you read everything in the spoiler, it'll help explain this next part,


So, let me pose this question: What makes you so special that the government would want to go through the effort to take away your guns? what are you doing that would put you on this special list of people to dump upon because they are bored?

Your statistical evidence, well, I can't say it's full of holes, because that would imply that there are parts that work. You can't compare the Swiss, a country of 8 million who conscripts their males at 18 and females voluntarily, and by law gives every citizen a designated weapon AND training, to the US. You also can't compare other weapons like knives to a gun. Just today there was a guy that went through school with an exacto knife and slashed at a dozen or so people. No fatalities last I heard. If he had a gun, it would have been far different. It's like saying that a gun is the same thing as a predator drone. The scale and lethality and the level of intent required are all completely different.



Tell me where registration has ever been used to curb crimes. You're too worried about people without criminal records, people who pass the National Instant Check System, becoming criminals. Some of the more recent examples of how gun registration has been used are how it enabled Great Britain to confiscate its citizens' firearms, the Turks disarming the Armenians before committing genocide against them, and the Nazis disarming the Jews before doing the same. Why should the government have so much knowledge over what law-abiding citizens have guns? You must know that the states which have the most gun laws have the most crime, while those with the fewest such laws have the least. So, why should I believe that gun registration would have another purpose besides facilitating confiscation of firearms?

And while I love our Constitution and its system of checks and balances, the Constitution is often ignored. For example, now that Obamacare has been ruled to be a tax rather than a fine, people intend to sue on the grounds that the law came about illegally, because all tax laws must originate in the legislature. Obamacare originated in the Senate. While these people believe they have a good case, the Supreme Court has ruled seven times prior to this that such taxes be given a pass even though they did not follow Constitutional procedure. Basically, a large group of people see the Constitution as an obstruction to their vision of America and have judges willing to allow them to flout the checks and balances found in the Constitution. If we already have this degree of disregard for the law, isn't it conceivable that this disregard for the rules laid down by the Constitution could worsen to the point of a dictator taking power in the future? Thankfully, such a state of affairs is not conceivable at present.

Concerning riots, I'm not suggesting that people go out of their way to kill rioters, which would be criminal. They would not be defending themselves, but taking the offense. My hope was that if a crowd of people decided to ransack a house, the homeowner would have enough firepower to fend them off. And if you look at my example, the LA riots, gun owners did not go after the rioters but stood atop their homes and business with their firearms in order to deter the rioters from doing just that. Often, the mere presence of a firearm in lawful hands can deter violence.

And, if I am paranoid about the government becoming tyrannical, I'm happy to say that I'm no more paranoid than the Founding Fathers, who placed the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution for that very reason. Their experience with the British most clearly demonstrated that a government could use force either to enslave or diminish the rights of its citizenry. Only an armed populace has the ability to preserve its rights.
63151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bonne Lake, WA
Offline
Posted 4/10/13

tarakelly wrote:

I can see many people do not know world history well enough to have a understanding of the second amendment. But if it has not happened in your life time then it never happened RIGHT? More children die of suffocation from blanket then die each year from guns.


I can see many people who do now appreciate world history enough to have an understanding that the world today is not the world from the 1800s. But if it has happened in your life time, then it must have happened back then, RIGHT? More people die from a gunshot wound than a knife wound.

Electricity, Automobiles, Aircraft, Spacecraft. All of this happened in the last 100 years. If you can't appreciate how radically this changed the world, then I don't know what to say. Warfare has always been a slowly evolving thing, but communication has evolved so rapidly it's hard to imagine.

Also, during the LA riots, those people standing on top of roofs holding guns, did they all have automatic weapons? Does a rioter really stop and think 'Hrm, that man has an AR-15 with 150 round drum, better not eff with him, however, the guy across the street has a single shot 30.06, he can't stop more than one person before we over run him!" ?

A gun is a gun. People don't stop to think how many bullets it holds an intense situation. This goes for the gun holder and the person assaulting them. The gun holder will just pull the trigger until the gun stops firing.

The founding fathers were not paranoid, they actually had the issues of being arrested and charged without cause. Brittish officials could do as they pleased suddenly, and they did. Complaints to the brittish government fell on deaf ears. The king even decided that they would levee a tax on american goods to pay for wars fought on american soil. I just find it silly that you can compare your current situation to their situation back then.

Also, that last paragraph does not address why you are paranoid. You simply state that you are just as paranoid as the founding fathers. You have not shown a sound comprehension for the harships that they faced. It's like telling me you understand what it was like to be an african american from alabama during the 1920's. If you truly had respect for the true hardships in the world, you would not liken them to your current living conditions in the united states. It's just not fair, and it does not compare.

Lastly, I would like you to address the issue of diversity in the United States, and how it would affect the possibility of a tyrannical government. I've already addressed that most tyrannies are one racial or ideological group repressing or slaughtering the other. The aryans, the Turks, etc. They all have something in common. They all see themselves as a single race, creed, etc and better than everyone else. They believed that their group was superior and that all others were inferior, that all others should server them. What groups in the US were like that? The Ku Klux Klan is a great example. It was the closest thing the US ever got to falling to tyranny. And it was shot down, destroyed, and labeled a hate group. They were disgraced out of the public. That is the power of diversity, and why the US will not fall prey the same way as the germans or the turks.



I talk a lot, but really, if you would please address this last issue of diversity before telling me how we could end up the next nazi germany, that would be appreciated.
31119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Midwest
Offline
Posted 4/10/13 , edited 4/10/13
I have to go back to first principles here. My rights to free expression and to freely assemble as well as my right to petition my government for a redress of grievances are all infringed by radicalists who cherish the right to own a gun more than the lives of twenty schoolchildren and the rights of people who live in cities to have the freedom from fear. A far more rational fear than massive riots. A fear of being shot to death walking to school or work because you happen to live in our nation's inner cities. The increasing prevalence of gun violence has so encroached upon the public good and upon public spaces that it is no longer a preserving force for those rights. When pressed in congressional hearings this year to recount a single instance of an assault weapon being used successfully for home defense none were found. Meanwhile there are twenty six funderals in newtown and another thirty funerals for gun violence in general every day. Not hypothetical funerals. Not worst case scenarios not black helicopter or tinfoil hat funerals real life funerals. Real pain inflicted upon real American families with real rights that deserve just as much as any other Americans to be respected.Right now I can not petition the government to redress the greivance if my family is murdered using a gun. I can't sue the manufacturer of either the bullet or the gun and if I protest against such laws I am likely to be met with counterprotests with arms bared in public as an act of intimidation against me. As actually happened in my home town this year. A group of moms gathered at our statehouse and men with bushmasters showed up to intimidate them. Its disgusting.

I do know history. I do know that when the 2nd amendment was written and enacted and immediately thereafter there were limitations on what weapons a citizen could bare and bare in public. "It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted." Thats from the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court. http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729 And what he is saying is a matter of historical fact.

55199 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 4/10/13
Well the saddest thing you ban guns. the nut cases will find bigger an better ways to kill others. they will make car bombs or other thing so if you want to be a victim have at it. By the way I had to us the M16 in the army it was more to wound then kill by taking 3 people off the battle field. The AR 15 is the same rifle with out full auto firing. The 150 round drum is prone to jamming it a novelty item for no nothing gun buyers. I am glad that kid did not have the knowledge of firearms, an picked one of the worst combination to go on a mass shooting. His rifle jammed up using the drum then he quit. I was not impressed by the M16 it good for combat at range it not a very good weapon for close quarters an urban fighting. the round to light an to fast. Maybe you can tell me what weapons an knowledge you have on the practical, side of using fire arms.
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 4/10/13

metalsmith wrote:

There are no threads that adequately cover this subject, and I would like to attempt to gather some opinions and moderate some dialogue. A similar thread was posted, but last time it saw any attention was around 2 years ago, and the climate in the US is a tad different.

To start, a little about myself and where I'm coming from:

I am a gun owner. I love target shooting. I've been hunting, and have taken a couple of white tail deer, field dressed them, skinned them, and harvested the meat from them myself. I have been shooting guns for 20 years, ever since I was 4 and my dad thought it'd be funny to see his mussel loader knock me on my rear. I own a hand gun, I've never fired it. It is unloaded in a gun cabinet in my home, with a gun lock on the trigger so that it cannot so much as be touched without the key, which I keep secure in a different location. I also keep the clip and ammunition in a separate location, also under lock and key.

I own an sks, forget the model exactly, but it has a 10 round clip. I have the ability to modify the clip to fit a 30 round banana clip which I also own, but have not done so.



An SKS Rifle is perfectly legal to own and will remain completely legal to own as long as you don't modify it with an unnecessary militerized feature like a flash suppressor. It's a stupid caveat but they are hardly taking your guns away...

I'm a gun owner myself but I don't define my freedom by how many and what type of guns I can own.
63151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bonne Lake, WA
Offline
Posted 4/10/13

spacebat wrote:


metalsmith wrote:

There are no threads that adequately cover this subject, and I would like to attempt to gather some opinions and moderate some dialogue. A similar thread was posted, but last time it saw any attention was around 2 years ago, and the climate in the US is a tad different.

To start, a little about myself and where I'm coming from:

I am a gun owner. I love target shooting. I've been hunting, and have taken a couple of white tail deer, field dressed them, skinned them, and harvested the meat from them myself. I have been shooting guns for 20 years, ever since I was 4 and my dad thought it'd be funny to see his mussel loader knock me on my rear. I own a hand gun, I've never fired it. It is unloaded in a gun cabinet in my home, with a gun lock on the trigger so that it cannot so much as be touched without the key, which I keep secure in a different location. I also keep the clip and ammunition in a separate location, also under lock and key.

I own an sks, forget the model exactly, but it has a 10 round clip. I have the ability to modify the clip to fit a 30 round banana clip which I also own, but have not done so.



An SKS Rifle is perfectly legal to own and will remain completely legal to own as long as you don't modify it with an unnecessary militerized feature like a flash suppressor. It's a stupid caveat but they are hardly taking your guns away...

I'm a gun owner myself but I don't define my freedom by how many and what type of guns I can own.


Read the whole thing :P. I'm just using the fact that I do own such weapons as a point that, while I think there should be a great deal more to gun control, I do, myself, own guns. I'm not against people owning guns, but the fact that it's easier to track down who posted on 4chan is a huge issue for me.

At any rate, that one section you responded to was just to give the background from which I was writing the rest of my opinion :P.
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 4/11/13

metalsmith wrote:


spacebat wrote:


metalsmith wrote:

There are no threads that adequately cover this subject, and I would like to attempt to gather some opinions and moderate some dialogue. A similar thread was posted, but last time it saw any attention was around 2 years ago, and the climate in the US is a tad different.

To start, a little about myself and where I'm coming from:

I am a gun owner. I love target shooting. I've been hunting, and have taken a couple of white tail deer, field dressed them, skinned them, and harvested the meat from them myself. I have been shooting guns for 20 years, ever since I was 4 and my dad thought it'd be funny to see his mussel loader knock me on my rear. I own a hand gun, I've never fired it. It is unloaded in a gun cabinet in my home, with a gun lock on the trigger so that it cannot so much as be touched without the key, which I keep secure in a different location. I also keep the clip and ammunition in a separate location, also under lock and key.

I own an sks, forget the model exactly, but it has a 10 round clip. I have the ability to modify the clip to fit a 30 round banana clip which I also own, but have not done so


An SKS Rifle is perfectly legal to own and will remain completely legal to own as long as you don't modify it with an unnecessary militerized feature like a flash suppressor. It's a stupid caveat but they are hardly taking your guns awaIty...

I'm a gun owner myself but I don't define my freedom by how many and what type of guns I can own.


Read the whole thing :P. I'm just using the fact that I do own such weapons as a point that, while I think there should be a great deal more to gun control, I do, myself, own guns. I'm not against people owning guns, but the fact that it's easier to track down who posted on 4chan is a huge issue for me.

At any rate, that one section you responded to was just to give the background from which I was writing the rest of my opinion :P.


I do apologies if I misinterpreted your stance as I too am an advocate of "rational" gun laws. However, beginning your argument using the example of a rifle that is perfectly legal to own isn't the best way to begin any debate against over-reaching gun reform laws.

Your story reminded me of the recent story the NRA had used as an appeal to emotion. The story was one where a robber broke into the home of a mother of two in Loganville Georgia. The mother was smart enough to hide her children in a crawl space. The woman deciding not to be victim grabbed her pistol .38 revolver and fired 5 shots into the man and then called 911 after he fled.

The problem with using this harrowing story AGAINST the gun reform laws is that a .38 revolver is perfectly legal!

So, here is my stance on what gun legislation should consider and what should be done as gun reform does need to occur:

1) It should be illegal for private sellers to sell their guns to someone at a gun convention that does not have a license. If they do sell to someone who is not licensed if that individual uses the firearm to commit a crime they are accessory to that crime.

2) stricter license requirements need to be imposed.

3) limit clip.

The fact of the matter is that there are more fatalities due to pistols than assault weapons each year, this needs to be acknowledged and addressed. However, I don't see the point of civilians owning military arms. I come from a military family.

I own 2 shotguns. A Mossberg 500 and a Remington 870. I guarantee you they are enough for home defense.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.