[QUOTE=aydin690;38869628]I don't think you'll ever get rid of 2nd amendment, i know that. You guys love your guns way too much. I was just saying people who use the 2nd amendment as an argument to stockpile shit load of guns because 'it's their right' need to realize that when it was written america was still a frontier nation and that piece of legislation was never meant to be in effect as long as it has been without any modifications or restrictions.[/QUOTE]
Again that's complete speculation, it's always back to "what the founding fathers intended". You realize this is the same type of talking points extreme conservatives use to argue against Jus Soli right?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38869538]The burden of proof is on you to provide statistics that support your scenario, not me.[/QUOTE]
I know the burden of proof is on me. But that's why I speculated, rather than stated any actual values. There are no statistics for this kind of thing, but when a entire forum dedicated to concealed carry for defensive reasons are telling you "give the fuck up", I think that's a good sign that educated owners know not to attempt such shit [url=http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/148573-concealed-carry-during-robbery-gunpoint.html][1][/url]. And considering that the majority of armed robberies in the States are committed using firearms [url=http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/robbery-table-3][2][/url], using firearms to combat firearms is looking pretty fucking useless in the case of robberies.
Ultimately I feel the only legitimate counter-argument to gun ownership is the topic of domestic violence, however one can make the argument people will always find a way to kill each other if the underlying motive remains there.
I think "true" household defense/hunting firearms such as pump action shotguns, bolt actions rifles, lever action rifles or single action revolvers should remain largely unregulated. Because simply put, killing somebody with one is impractical at best and they don't make up a very significant portion of gun-related crime. Children have difficulty arming and operating weapons like that so the chances of accidental domestic violence occurring are fairly nil.
Semi automatic pistols/double action revolvers, semi auto firearms, and fully automatic firearms should probably have tight registration quotas as simply put you don't need 600 rpm and 15-30 round box mags to "defend your home." nobody is going to fucking attack your house with a mounted MG, buddy.
Double action .22 revolvers or semi auto .22 and 9mm, as well as some of the high capacity carbines or semi auto assault rifles tend to make up the majority of gun related crime because they are easy to acquire, easy to handle, easily concealed and the ammunition is easy to acquire illegally (or hell, even legally for illegal purposes) so it stands to reason that such weapons should require higher level licenses so that only proven, responsible gun owners could get ahold of them. Such people are likely to store them in a gun safe (to reduce the chances of theft) and are more likely to not just leave weapons lying around the house for some domestic dispute to escalate.
I don't buy the argument that restricting gun laws won't do anything.
Ban Autos/Semi-Autos and require a lengthy registration process to buy a gun. Here in Canada, Autos/Semi-Autos are just plain illegal. To buy a gun, it requires a lengthy registration process which I'm pretty sure checks mental health background, etc.
You almost never hear of these mass shootings in Canada because you can't mow down an entire room with a pistol or two. Our largest massacre was 15 people.
The argument against this is that there are too many guns in circulation.
As long as purchasing ammo requires registration, people will eventually run out of ammo, so no matter what guns they have, they can't commit massacres with no ammo. Start making these laws now, it may take years for the ammunition in circulation to run out, but eventually people will need registration to purchase ammo.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;38869604]Because he couldn't have done the same damage against defenseless children and staff with just the handguns?[/QUOTE]
This guy put multiple bullets into each person. If he did not have an auto/semi-auto it would have taken him longer to mow down the room. It would have given people a chance to run or hide.
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869040]I just can't understand Americans' fetish with guns. To me (and pretty sure to people living in other countries that aren't shitholes)[/QUOTE]
I don't appreciate you saying America is a shit hole. It appears you don't live in America, so how can you call it shit? I wouldn't call your country a shit hole, simply because I've never been there and it would be ignorant for me to do so.
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869040]I just do not see why a private citizen would need a gun. As far as reasoning, 2nd amendment, hobby, collecting, target practice, self defense, they all sound bullshit to me.[/QUOTE]
I respect your opinion, but the 2nd amendment, hobbies, collecting, and self defense aren't bullshit. Why is self defense bullshit? Defending yourself from harm should be a right of everyone, no matter what country you live in.
Citizens need firearms like they need large homes, decently paying jobs, flat screen tvs, and large SUVs. If we were only given what we [I]need[/I], we would live in North Korea or Soviet Russia. The Bill of Rights is just that. A bill of rights. It isn't a bill of [I]needs[/I].
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869040]The second amendment was written over two centuries ago by people who had only seen shitty guns.[/QUOTE]
When it was written, muskets and blunderbusses were the only firearms available (for the most part). The second ammendment to the Constitution was written so that if the federal government were to go rouge, the citizens would have a way to overthrow it. The right to bear arms means the citizens have the right to bear weapons, the same weapons that can be used against them.
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869040]Also, Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years.[/QUOTE]
I would like to see how you can prove that.
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869040]Back then, american was still the 'new world' and it made sense to let people carry arms. But in this day and age? No, people living in the cities can live without them.[/QUOTE]
People in cities can also live without cars, electricity, alcohol, 3 meals a day, clothing, cell phones, ect. ect. One of the points of living in a free country is the ability to possess things you [I]want [/I]without "big brother" stepping in and saying, "You don't need that."
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38869619]Federal AWB type pieces of legislation have been shown in the past to have basically no effect at all.[/QUOTE]
Because they are poorly-designed laws that ban certain weapons on cosmetic features and grandfather existing weapons. I don't think it's fair to compare AWB legislation to actual restriction akin to Canada/Australia/Israel/etc...
I hate to make this argument, but I think by an large americans are just more violent per capita than Canadians (crime statistics can easily back me up on this), I'm not sure why that is, perhaps it's merely that people are products of their environment. Combined with the fact that they yes; they already do have a massive glut of illegal and legal firearms in circulation. However there's far more beatings/stabbings per capita in the united states also, it's not just gun violence.
"There's less gun violence in Canada, ergo gun control works" is a specious argument at best. We live in different countries, we have different political views, we have different standards of living, we have different cultures. To put it bluntly you're comparing apples and oranges. Just because gun control works in Canada, doesn't mean it'd work in the US.
[QUOTE=Electroholic;38870309]
This guy put multiple bullets into each person. If he did not have an auto/semi-auto it would have taken him longer to mow down the room. It would have given people a chance to run or hide.[/QUOTE]
It says something needs to be done about semi-automatic rifles, but the pistol were semi-auto as well. I mean I'm not a gun expert so I don't know every gun model ever but I can't think of any handguns being sold that can't discharge multiple bullets without reloading.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38870477]I don't appreciate you saying America is a shit hole. It appears you don't live in America, so how can you call it shit? I wouldn't call your country a shit hole, simply because I've never been there and it would be ignorant for me to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe because these shootings and massacre's seem to be a weekly occurrence? Not to mention all of the media coverage about how corrupt your government is.
I personally would call it a "shit hole", but I would never want to live there. I mean its a good country, a lot of good people and beautiful cities, but I just wouldn't feel safe there in the least bit.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;38870617]It says something needs to be done about semi-automatic rifles, but the pistol were semi-auto as well. I mean I'm not a gun expert so I don't know every gun model ever but I can't think of any handguns being sold that can't discharge multiple bullets without reloading.[/QUOTE]
It appears your not aware of what a semi-auto or an auto is. It doesn't matter what kind of gun you have, you'll need to reload at some point obviously.
In a single action pistol, you have to cock the gun between shots which takes time, not like an auto where you hold the trigger and mow down an entire room.
[QUOTE=Electroholic;38870649]Maybe because these shootings and massacre's seem to be a weekly occurrence? Not to mention all of the media coverage about how corrupt your government is.
I personally would call it a "shit hole", but I would never want to live there. I mean its a good country, a lot of good people and beautiful cities, but I just wouldn't feel safe there in the least bit.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, your only exposure to the US is through the media, which is by and large pretty sensationalist.
Its not like Im concerned about getting waxed by someone with an AK-47 on my way to the grocery store.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38870688]To be fair, your only exposure to the US is through the media, which is by and large pretty sensationalist.
Its not like Im concerned about getting waxed by someone with an AK-47 on my way to the grocery store.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't necessarily be either. I was more talking about just how corrupt the government is, lack of healthcare, injustice, etc. However, fear of me or family/friends being murdered would still be greater than where I currently live.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;38870617]It says something needs to be done about semi-automatic rifles, but the pistol were semi-auto as well. I mean I'm not a gun expert so I don't know every gun model ever but I can't think of any handguns being sold that can't discharge multiple bullets without reloading.[/QUOTE]
It appears your not aware of what a semi-auto or an auto is. It doesn't matter what kind of gun you have, you'll need to reload at some point obviously.
In a single action pistol, you have to cock the gun between shots which takes time, not like an auto where you hold the trigger and mow down an entire room.
No
it says:
"Even if a total ban isn't feasible, something needs to be done about semi-automatic rifles."
he also had a glock and sig sauer yes? Those are semi-auto handguns. I know Ruger makes like one single action pistol, but it seems that the vast majority of handguns produced are semi-auto.
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869546]Also, I'd like to add, this whole school shooting thing took 3 mins. Only 3 mins to kill 28 people. He wouldn't have been able to cause this much damage if he didn't have access to automatic/semi-automatic guns. Even if a total ban isn't feasible, something needs to be done about semi-automatic rifles.[/QUOTE]
you can do it almost as fast with a lever/pump/bolt actions. Restricting guns based on their features isn't the solution, restricting guns overall is
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEyIacHZii4[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ignlbn1-wg0[/media]
none of these people are competitive shooters
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;38869563]Unless the public elects a Congress that can gather enough votes to amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment, guns will never be restricted in this country, ever. You can speculate all you want about what should or shouldn't be but that doesn't change the fact that the 2nd amendment does exist, and is and will be enforced as much as any other amendment.[/QUOTE]
Congress can't change the Constitution. You need 2/3rds of the US states to agree to it.
"Two-thirds of both houses of Congress could propose an Amendment, which can become valid "for all intents and purposes" as the Constitution, when three-fourths of the states approve."
A Congress that can gather enough votes [I]from state legislatures[/I]
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869040]
Also, Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years.[/QUOTE]
Completely false, you are misconstruing this from Jefferson's observations of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's [I]Of The Social Contract[/I]. Rousseau wrote that the general will can err if the people are misinformed. Jefferson is theorizing that since the people can never be well informed, than there will be rebellions to remove those in power in order to correct the errors of the general will.
In fact the quote that you may have drew this from actually alludes to the fact that Jefferson supported the 2nd Amendment.
[QUOTE] God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? [B]Let them take arms.[/B] The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.[/QUOTE]
Jefferson believed in the private ownership of guns
[QUOTE=Thomas Jefferson]No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38870477]I don't appreciate you saying America is a shit hole. It appears you don't live in America, so how can you call it shit? I wouldn't call your country a shit hole, simply because I've never been there and it would be ignorant for me to do so.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking from experience, i've been fortunate enough to have a wealthy family so i travel a lot. I've been to so many places in the US and let me tell you once you get out of big cities on the East/West coast and move inland into the more rural communities or cities in the 'bible belt', it quite literally turns into a shit-hole. Have you ever been to South Georgia? How about rural Mississippi, Kentucky and Arkansas? I've seen more misery and poverty in those places than in South American and South East Asian villages.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38870477]I respect your opinion, but the 2nd amendment, hobbies, collecting, and self defense aren't bullshit. Why is self defense bullshit? Defending yourself from harm should be a right of everyone, no matter what country you live in.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you have the right to defend yourself. But i've been in a lot of sketchy shit in a lot of rough parts of the world and not once i thought a weapon would have helped the situation.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38870477]When it was written, muskets and blunderbusses were the only firearms available (for the most part). The second ammendment to the Constitution was written so that if the federal government were to go rouge, the citizens would have a way to overthrow it. The right to bear arms means the citizens have the right to bear weapons, the same weapons that can be used against them.[/QUOTE]
And now people can riot against the US military and overthrow the government?
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38870477]I would like to see how you can prove that.[/QUOTE]
Prove a known fact? Jefferson thought the dead should not rule the living, thus constitutions should expire frequently.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38870477]Citizens need firearms like they need large homes, decently paying jobs, flat screen tvs, and large SUVs. If we were only given what we [I]need[/I], we would live in North Korea or Soviet Russia. The Bill of Rights is just that. A bill of rights. It isn't a bill of [I]needs[/I].[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38870477]People in cities can also live without cars, electricity, alcohol, 3 meals a day, clothing, cell phones, ect. ect. One of the points of living in a free country is the ability to possess things you [I]want [/I]without "big brother" stepping in and saying, "You don't need that."[/QUOTE]
The fact that you equate having 3 meals a day, clothing, and electricity to owning a gun is kind of worrying. Also, the only reason you need a car in the US is because, public transportation is lacking or non-existent in most parts of the US. In most of the developed countries, people living in the cities don't really need cars.
Demand registry of each and every gun regardless of type. The days of gung-ho toting around unregistered firearms should have been long gone by now, just look at all the trouble it's caused. Not knowing who and where guns are/are with is the first way to start a gun-safety issue, and guess what's happening
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;38871733]Completely false, you are misconstruing this from Jefferson's observations of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's [I]Of The Social Contract[/I]. Rousseau wrote that the general will can err if the people are misinformed. Jefferson is theorizing that since the people can never be well informed, than there will be rebellions to remove those in power in order to correct the errors of the general will.
In fact the quote that you may have drew this from actually alludes to the fact that Jefferson supported the 2nd Amendment.
Jefferson believed in the private ownership of guns[/QUOTE]
No, im referring to this but nice try:
[QUOTE][B]Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.[/B] It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=aydin690;38871941]No, im referring to this but nice try:[/QUOTE]
Except the Constitution now is different from the Constitution first written.
There have been a lot of amendments that congress has added, and changes in interpretations by the Supreme court.
Just because the Constitution hasn't been completely rewritten doesn't mean it hasn't changed, and just because Jefferson said the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years doesn't mean he is right.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38871913]Demand registry of each and every gun regardless of type. The days of gung-ho toting around unregistered firearms should have been long gone by now, just look at all the trouble it's caused. Not knowing who and where guns are/are with is the first way to start a gun-safety issue, and guess what's happening[/QUOTE]
There is already form 4473 which is a federal form that is required to be filled out when purchasing a firearm from a dealer. That form covers the personal information, photo ID, background check, make/model/serial number of the gun for the purchaser.
[QUOTE]I'm talking from experience, i've been fortunate enough to have a wealthy family so i travel a lot. I've been to so many places in the US and let me tell you once you get out of big cities on the East/West coast and move inland into the more rural communities or cities in the 'bible belt', it quite literally turns into a shit-hole. Have you ever been to South Georgia? How about rural Mississippi, Kentucky and Arkansas? I've seen more misery and poverty in those places than in South American and South East Asian villages.[/QUOTE]
That's because we also have wealthy areas down here. Not all the countries are 100% shit holes. And Mr, overall, US is more developed than any 3rd world country (No debate here).
[QUOTE]Yeah, you have the right to defend yourself. But i've been in a lot of sketchy shit in a lot of rough parts of the world and not once i thought a weapon would have helped the situation.[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah? well, it did help this guy:
[url]http://www.lavoz.com.ar/noticias/sucesos/baby-etchecopar-se-tiroteo-con-delincuentes-muerto[/url]
And many others. Just because you haven't found the situation in which a gun would help you it doesn't mean others won't.
Regarding the ban on guns, the line should be drawn on a psychological report over time. People who haven't had problems with alcohol, behave properly, they should be allowed to have a gun or a couple. On the other hand, those who seem to be unstable/have antecedents shouldn't be allowed to have a gun or a couple.
Funding is the problem you say? Then divert some of those billions the Federal Government wastes on military budget into a RENAR-alike program (Registro Nacional de Armas- Argentina).
[QUOTE=Valnar;38872235]
There is already form 4473 which is a federal form that is required to be filled out when purchasing a firearm from a dealer. That form covers the personal information, photo ID, background check, make/model/serial number of the gun for the purchaser.[/QUOTE]
In some of the states like Texas and Arizona you can go to gun shows and buy guns without any paperwork or background checks.
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
It's called a 'private gun sale'.
[QUOTE=aydin690;38872444]In some of the states like Texas and Arizona you can go to gun shows and buy guns without any paperwork or background checks.
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
It's called a 'private gun sale'.[/QUOTE]
Yeah true that there is change to be made in the private gun sale, but the person I was quoting seemed to have the idea that there wasn't any form of registration or tracking of firearms in the U.S.
[QUOTE=Electroholic;38870309]I don't buy the argument that restricting gun laws won't do anything.
Ban Autos/Semi-Autos and require a lengthy registration process to buy a gun. Here in Canada, Autos/Semi-Autos are just plain illegal. To buy a gun, it requires a lengthy registration process which I'm pretty sure checks mental health background, etc.
You almost never hear of these mass shootings in Canada because you can't mow down an entire room with a pistol or two. Our largest massacre was 15 people.
The argument against this is that there are too many guns in circulation.
As long as purchasing ammo requires registration, people will eventually run out of ammo, so no matter what guns they have, they can't commit massacres with no ammo. Start making these laws now, it may take years for the ammunition in circulation to run out, but eventually people will need registration to purchase ammo.
[/quote]
Time to tell you you're wrong
Automatics are illegal Canada, you got that bit right. Semi-autos are perfectly legal if they're not on the banned list, basically the randomly seem to ban some semi-autos over others for reasons that bewilder Canadian gun owners. Semi-auto handguns are available to some shooters, I think they have to be part of a club, but that's it to get a handgun.
And there is no longer any registration for long arms in Canada, they got rid of it.
Your registering ammo argument doesn't work. People will either steal ammo, make it themselves, or buy it off "registered" people
[quote]
This guy put multiple bullets into each person. If he did not have an auto/semi-auto it would have taken him longer to mow down the room. It would have given people a chance to run or hide.[/QUOTE]
So how do you suggest removing the 200 million guns already in circulation, after you've banned them?
[QUOTE=download;38872871]Time to tell you you're wrong
Automatics are illegal Canada, you got that bit right. Semi-autos are perfectly legal if they're not on the banned list, basically the randomly seem to ban some semi-autos over others for reasons that bewilder Canadian gun owners. Semi-auto handguns are available to some shooters, I think they have to be part of a club, but that's it to get a handgun.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, so some Semi-autos are allowed, but the maximum legal magazine size for a semi auto is 5 rounds. Have fun trying to massacre a room of 30 people with 5 bullets.
[QUOTE=download;38872871]
And there is no longer any registration for long arms in Canada, they got rid of it.
[/QUOTE]
Your wrong. The government tried to pass a Bill that would get rid of the requirement to register guns, but it didn't pass.
[QUOTE]Your registering ammo argument doesn't work. People will either steal ammo, make it themselves, or buy it off "registered" people
[/QUOTE]
I have no idea how it works in the US, but up here all ammo is locked behind a cabinet. Have fun trying to steal that. But yes, people will get their hands on ammo somehow, but adding another barrier to prevent them from getting lots of ammo easily will help.
[QUOTE]So how do you suggest removing the 200 million guns already in circulation, after you've banned them?
[/QUOTE]
I didn't suggest removing any guns. I suggested limiting the ability to get ammo easily for those guns.
Electroholic, one of the easiest ways they could restrict ammo is to put an exorbitant tax on it. It's already running a buck a round for some calibers, more expensive for others, so they don't even really need to do a whole lot. Now, the legitimate purchasers get shafted, but I am 100% convinced that's gonna happen no matter what.
[QUOTE=Electroholic;38873181]Ok, so some Semi-autos are allowed, but the maximum legal magazine size for a semi auto is 5 rounds. Have fun trying to massacre a room of 30 people with 5 bullets.
[/QUOTE]
You know you can carry multiple magazines right?
Reloading is not exactly a lengthy process if you know what you're doing.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0uLbvHunLc[/media]
[QUOTE=Electroholic;38873181]
Your wrong. The government tried to pass a Bill that would get rid of the requirement to register guns, but it didn't pass.
[/QUOTE]
He's talking about the registry for long arms in Canada, which in fact, did pass. You must be confusing that for something else.
[QUOTE=Electroholic;38873181]Ok, so some Semi-autos are allowed, but the maximum legal magazine size for a semi auto is 5 rounds. Have fun trying to massacre a room of 30 people with 5 bullets.
Your wrong. The government tried to pass a Bill that would get rid of the requirement to register guns, but it didn't pass.
I have no idea how it works in the US, but up here all ammo is locked behind a cabinet. Have fun trying to steal that. But yes, people will get their hands on ammo somehow, but adding another barrier to prevent them from getting lots of ammo easily will help.[/QUOTE]
High capacity magazines are pretty easy to get, even if they are banned as no country requires registration for them. As someone said, pretty easy to change mags anyway.
It did pass, there is no registration for long arms in Canada now
Oh no, so difficult to break into a cabinet, those things are impenetrable!
[QUOTE=download;38873576]High capacity magazines are pretty easy to get, even if they are banned as no country requires registration for them. As someone said, pretty easy to change mags anyway.
[/QUOTE]
I imagine the aftermath of Aurora would have been much different if the shooter wasn't using a 100-round drum on his AR-15. It is absolutely absurd that they are legal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
