[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;38898912]-snip-
Lol turns out that's not a true quote. You can rate my post dumb now :P[/QUOTE]
You're in mass debate, you can't rate anything here
I don't think it's ever going to end, honestly.
No matter what we do, crazies are going to find a way to kill people. I mean the worst school-killing in US history was done with explosives, and just recently a guy in China wounded 20+ children with nothing but a knife.
No matter what happens, the mentally weak are going to kill innocent people. Somehow. And we're going to try to find a way to limit their options.
Not like it matters anymore, anyway. Guns are so prevalent in the US that if they want one, they're eventually going to find one. Outright banning them would be nigh-impossible.
I'm not sure how I feel about gun control in a general, worldly sense.
However, I firmly believe you can't ban guns in the US specifically no matter which side of that you're on.
It's so engraved in the culture that if it was attempted, you would just have another drug war, prohibition type situation.
You can't honestly expect it to work out like it does in countries where everyone and their families have grown up having nothing to do with guns. Two completely different situations.
So I understand people on here from other countries saying the US should just "ban guns", but it's not even remotely realistic.
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;38902787]
No matter what happens, the mentally weak are going to kill innocent people. Somehow. And we're going to try to find a way to limit their options.[/QUOTE]
Not mentally weak, mentally unstable or insane.
Guns are scary as hell. It should be law that guns be locked up if children are unsupervised near them.
[QUOTE=Errorproxy;38904453]Not mentally weak, mentally unstable or insane.
Guns are scary as hell. It should be law that guns be locked up if children are unsupervised near them.[/QUOTE]
Guns should be secured anyway. They are not small investments. If you bought a $1,000 AR-15, wouldn't you want it to be secure so nothing could happen to it out of your own will?
What are the laws on how guns are stored? I bet it varies from state to state, like everything else.
Does anybody agree that it should be illegal to keep them where they could be stolen?
If somebody breaks into your house and steals your TV, it sucks to be you.
If somebody breaks into your house and steals your gun collection, it sucks to be you and whoever the criminals use them against.
Who cares if it's virtually unenforceable, it's criminally negligent IMO.
I only just realised that mass debate removed the rating system, smart.
In my opinion guns need to be controlled in a proper manner which I believe are already being done so by legally limited magazine sizes, etc. Regardless if guns are removed from society people are still going to find ways to kill eachother, honorable mention goes to that one dude in china that shanked a bunch of kiddies in a high school.
I also believe that concealed carrying of weapons should be permitted due to the sheer volume of volatile situations defused simply with the intimidation of a firearm and without shots fired. Sure you could argue that they're not needed by saying that situations wouldn't warrant the pointing of point n shooties but if firearms are prohibited to the majority of the population there is still a small amount of the population that would have access to firearms (Soldiers, people buying from the black market, etc) and that could lead to very, very shitty scenarios.
Just stating my opinion, I'm not here to argue or change it.
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;38907010]What are the laws on how guns are stored? I bet it varies from state to state, like everything else.
Does anybody agree that it should be illegal to keep them where they could be stolen?
If somebody breaks into your house and steals your TV, it sucks to be you.
If somebody breaks into your house and steals your gun collection, it sucks to be you and whoever the criminals use them against.
Who cares if it's virtually unenforceable, it's criminally negligent IMO.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. If you own the gun, only you should have access to its place of storage. This way, people like Lanza can't take them and go do what he did.
[QUOTE=Cooty;38850000]If someone's holding a knife you can grab a chair and bang them on the head with it. The same is not true for a gun.[/QUOTE]
Might be super late but if someone's holding a gun and you're right up next to them you can try to charge them or slap the arm that they're holding it in so that their aim goes off for a moment.
if not, you can just AMBUSH them with a chair.
"but wait BFG that's dangerous and risky"
well going for a chair in a knife attack is pretty risky too. Your hands temporarily leave their posts defending you while you reach for the chair, and since the person is in close quarters s/he can stab you while you're at it and inflict a fatal wound.
I believe the real problem is the people. America just has more violent inhabitants and anything not aimed at fixing that specifically is an excuse to ignore the problem.
There are places with more guns that are less violent and places with less guns that are more violent. A nation is defined by its people, the people are not defined by the nation.
Any country with a very heterogeneous society has higher violence rates.
[QUOTE=Audio-Surfer;38918274]I believe the real problem is the people. America just has more violent inhabitants and anything not aimed at fixing that specifically is an excuse to ignore the problem.
There are places with more guns that are less violent and places with less guns that are more violent. A nation is defined by its people, the people are not defined by the nation.[/QUOTE]
Just because we aren't making it our #1 priority isn't giving us an excuse to ignore the problem. You also need to understand the ignorance and arrogance in our country in it's entirety anyways. I don't need to remind you of all the people that are just psychopaths with no remorse for human life, and no regard for authority. How in the hell do you go about changing ALL these people that can be described on paper in a single bill or legislative recommendation? I mean really.
Your statement of more guns less violence kindof goes both ways. Because considering that you know everybody HAS a gun, your less likely to harm or rob them considering they can well...kill you. Where as if there are little guns in existence, who's to stop the handful of gun owners from trying to take over a nation?
So, I've been wanting mostly to stay out of the whole debate. A lot of people have made points I would have made anyways. Although I would like to reiterate a few and place my own opinion.
I work in an occupation where I could be shot for doing that job. That is an everyday danger of it. For someone who works in that field many would assume I would like to see guns off the face of the Earth. In reality, I would. But we do not live on such a world and our society as a whole will never come close to it.
I would rather see good intentioned individuals owning firearms than the bad guys. The fact is criminals break the law. This is common sense. Nothing, as said multiple times, will stop someone from committing terrible acts. Remember. It's been against the law to murder someone far before any firearms laws have come into play.
Law abiding citizens for the majority are responsible, safe, and good intentioned individuals. If they want to own an "assault rifle" as the media defines incorrectly a semi-automatic firearm, then it is not only their right but also their choice. We could ask why people need such firearms, but I could ask you why you NEED a computer, iPod, iPad, etc. The need for these firearms for self defense is relevant. Because it is possible that the bad guys could have them. You want matching firepower or you want a step above. Self defense is an ugly world and any edge is preferred. If I was responding to an incident where I know a gun is in play, do you really think all I would carry there is a handgun? Nope. You better bet I am grabbing the shotgun or the patrol rifle. This is your life you are fighting for. (Or your family's.)
Many individuals who have committed these crimes, including the recent incident in CT, found another way to obtain firearms. The CT shooter failed to obtain a firearm legally so he sought other routes. Firearms can be stolen or found in other manners. However, I will agree that sometimes those who would previously have been considered "law abiding" have snapped and used their legally obtained firearms to commit a serious crime. However, people change. People have breaking points. They may show absolutely no sign of any ill intentions until they feel they have been pushed into a corner and to the point of no return - and will do a terrible act that normally they would not have. This is where mental health really comes into play. Some monsters can not be helped - but with a good and serious mental health program we can identify or at least attempt to identify a potential problem and find ways to resolve it to the best of our ability. But I am drifting into another topic here.
These "assault weapons" bans do little to actually curb potential problems. 1994 was the first ban, and 1999 was Columbine. "Assault weapons" used in crimes are actually a very small statistic. I have yet personally seen one in my job that has been used as a weapon or for any actual malicious intentions... and our area has many of these weapons in homes of people. A majority of criminal weapons are cheap pistols and revolvers...many of which at some point down the road were stolen and sold to them on the street. Or...stolen by the criminal holding the weapon.
Another point I would like to make out is before the NFA, a person could walk into their local Sears and purchase a Thompson or Browning Automatic Rifle, yet these tragedies were still even at that point - extremely rare events.
Many individuals have also stated that the founding fathers could not have foreseen these style of firearms. Yet, in their time, the firearms allowed were the issue firearms of the current military. They did not think to ban these firearms and force individuals to go back to older technology. Remember, despite the muskets of that area being what we call primitive now...they were the top of their game then and many firearms before them were cumbersome, unreliable, and had many faults to them. I honestly think they would think no different this day in age.
One thing I would like to see in improvement is firearm safety requirements. I would also, although highly controversial, would like to see improvements done on gun shows. Although this is very tricky to work out with private sales. But I am sure a good compromise could be worked out.
The thing is we really need to avoid "knee jerk reactions" and look through emotions and look straight into facts. It is a very rough thing to see incidents like this. I may not understand how it feels to lose a direct family member to gun violence, but I do know how it feels to lose someone I have known to gun violence. I also know the feeling of fear of the potential to being a victim of gun violence. However it does not at all change my opinion that gun control, at the level the government wishes to push with this "assault weapons" ban, will not work and is only detrimental to law abiding citizens.
On the topic of statistics we have to be very careful on how we view them. Remember, we have a serious gang violence problem in this country which contributes to a lot in comparison to other nations.
That's my simple two cents in the matter, I'm not really looking for an argument. But I am hoping my experience and viewpoints perhaps adds some insight.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;38931551]So, I've been wanting mostly to stay out of the whole debate. A lot of people have made points I would have made anyways. Although I would like to reiterate a few and place my own opinion.
I work in an occupation where I could be shot for doing that job. That is an everyday danger of it. For someone who works in that field many would assume I would like to see guns off the face of the Earth. In reality, I would. But we do not live on such a world and our society as a whole will never come close to it.
I would rather see good intentioned individuals owning firearms than the bad guys. The fact is criminals break the law. This is common sense. Nothing, as said multiple times, will stop someone from committing terrible acts. Remember. It's been against the law to murder someone far before any firearms laws have come into play.
Law abiding citizens for the majority are responsible, safe, and good intentioned individuals. If they want to own an "assault rifle" as the media defines incorrectly a semi-automatic firearm, then it is not only their right but also their choice. We could ask why people need such firearms, but I could ask you why you NEED a computer, iPod, iPad, etc. The need for these firearms for self defense is relevant. Because it is possible that the bad guys could have them. You want matching firepower or you want a step above. Self defense is an ugly world and any edge is preferred. If I was responding to an incident where I know a gun is in play, do you really think all I would carry there is a handgun? Nope. You better bet I am grabbing the shotgun or the patrol rifle. This is your life you are fighting for. (Or your family's.)
Many individuals who have committed these crimes, including the recent incident in CT, found another way to obtain firearms. The CT shooter failed to obtain a firearm legally so he sought other routes. Firearms can be stolen or found in other manners. However, I will agree that sometimes those who would previously have been considered "law abiding" have snapped and used their legally obtained firearms to commit a serious crime. However, people change. People have breaking points. They may show absolutely no sign of any ill intentions until they feel they have been pushed into a corner and to the point of no return - and will do a terrible act that normally they would not have. This is where mental health really comes into play. Some monsters can not be helped - but with a good and serious mental health program we can identify or at least attempt to identify a potential problem and find ways to resolve it to the best of our ability. But I am drifting into another topic here.
These "assault weapons" bans do little to actually curb potential problems. 1994 was the first ban, and 1999 was Columbine. "Assault weapons" used in crimes are actually a very small statistic. I have yet personally seen one in my job that has been used as a weapon or for any actual malicious intentions... and our area has many of these weapons in homes of people. A majority of criminal weapons are cheap pistols and revolvers...many of which at some point down the road were stolen and sold to them on the street. Or...stolen by the criminal holding the weapon.
Another point I would like to make out is before the NFA, a person could walk into their local Sears and purchase a Thompson or Browning Automatic Rifle, yet these tragedies were still even at that point - extremely rare events.
Many individuals have also stated that the founding fathers could not have foreseen these style of firearms. Yet, in their time, the firearms allowed were the issue firearms of the current military. They did not think to ban these firearms and force individuals to go back to older technology. Remember, despite the muskets of that area being what we call primitive now...they were the top of their game then and many firearms before them were cumbersome, unreliable, and had many faults to them. I honestly think they would think no different this day in age.
One thing I would like to see in improvement is firearm safety requirements. I would also, although highly controversial, would like to see improvements done on gun shows. Although this is very tricky to work out with private sales. But I am sure a good compromise could be worked out.
The thing is we really need to avoid "knee jerk reactions" and look through emotions and look straight into facts. It is a very rough thing to see incidents like this. I may not understand how it feels to lose a direct family member to gun violence, but I do know how it feels to lose someone I have known to gun violence. I also know the feeling of fear of the potential to being a victim of gun violence. However it does not at all change my opinion that gun control, at the level the government wishes to push with this "assault weapons" ban, will not work and is only detrimental to law abiding citizens.
On the topic of statistics we have to be very careful on how we view them. Remember, we have a serious gang violence problem in this country which contributes to a lot in comparison to other nations.
That's my simple two cents in the matter, I'm not really looking for an argument. But I am hoping my experience and viewpoints perhaps adds some insight.[/QUOTE]
In what way is banning assault weapons detrimental to anyone? Do you need to be able to plug something with 30 bullets instead of 2? If as you say no criminals use them, then why are they needed at all? If you're desperate to fight criminals, do it with a handgun like anyone else would. Assault weapons are for soldiers, not for citizens to arm themselves and pretend they know what they're doing.
[QUOTE=Cooty;38932073]In what way is banning assault weapons detrimental to anyone? Do you need to be able to plug something with 30 bullets instead of 2? If as you say no criminals use them, then why are they needed at all? If you're desperate to fight criminals, do it with a handgun like anyone else would. Assault weapons are for soldiers, not for citizens to arm themselves and pretend they know what they're doing.[/QUOTE]
Because when you're going up against a criminal you want a lot more fire-power than them. You also seem to be implying most people won't know how to use them correctly, I can tell you now that rifles and shotguns are much easier to use effectively than a handgun, and with minimal training.
There are also quite a few uses for them, practical (IPSC and such; google it) shooting matches for one
[QUOTE=Cooty;38932073]In what way is banning assault weapons detrimental to anyone? Do you need to be able to plug something with 30 bullets instead of 2? If as you say no criminals use them, then why are they needed at all? If you're desperate to fight criminals, do it with a handgun like anyone else would. Assault weapons are for soldiers, not for citizens to arm themselves and pretend they know what they're doing.[/QUOTE]
What is, sports shooting or hunting?
[QUOTE=Cooty;38932073]In what way is banning assault weapons detrimental to anyone? Do you need to be able to plug something with 30 bullets instead of 2? If as you say no criminals use them, then why are they needed at all? If you're desperate to fight criminals, do it with a handgun like anyone else would. Assault weapons are for soldiers, not for citizens to arm themselves and pretend they know what they're doing.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.3gunnation.com/sport_of_three_gun[/url]
If every citizen started using guns, wouldn't all criminals be forced to start using guns too?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38934707]If every citizen started using guns, wouldn't all criminals be forced to start using guns too?[/QUOTE]
Really? -_-
Not EVERY citizen is going to start using guns; only the ones that choose to. This is why policemen have buy-back programs at local stations. And many criminals already have guns but not every criminal is going to CHOOSE to have a gun (it creates a paper trail)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38934707]If every citizen started using guns, wouldn't all criminals be forced to start using guns too?[/QUOTE]
If every citizen stopped using guns, wouldn't all criminals be forced to stop using guns too?
ᴹᵒˢᵗ ᶫᶦᵏᵉᶫʸ ᶰᵒᵗ⋅
[QUOTE=DuCT;38936826]If every citizen stopped using guns, wouldn't all criminals stop using guns too?
ᴹᵒˢᵗ ᶫᶦᵏᵉᶫʸ ᶰᵒᵗ⋅[/QUOTE]
couldn't have said it better myself.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38936495]Really? -_-
Not EVERY citizen is going to start using guns; only the ones that choose to. This is why policemen have buy-back programs at local stations. And many criminals already have guns but not every criminal is going to CHOOSE to have a gun (it creates a paper trail)[/QUOTE]
No I'm saying that if people had guns, it would only make the criminals prepare themselves for gunfights.
You can't stop a criminal from getting what they want.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38937313]
You can't stop a criminal from getting what they want.[/QUOTE]
You just blew up your own argument there
if we ban guns, by your logic, since we can't stop a criminal from getting what they want (which is totally true, as a matter of fact), then the criminals will find blackmarket guns to use. Simple as that; they already have blackmarket guns in Britishland don't they? I believe blackmarket guns in the UK were brought up in the Sensational Headlines thread on this subject.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38938630]You just blew up your own argument there
if we ban guns, by your logic, since we can't stop a criminal from getting what they want (which is totally true, as a matter of fact), then the criminals will find blackmarket guns to use. Simple as that; they already have blackmarket guns in Britishland don't they? I believe blackmarket guns in the UK were brought up in the Sensational Headlines thread on this subject.[/QUOTE]
Let me use an example to illustrate my point.
A person possesses a gun for protection. Criminals would avoid this person in favour of unarmed people.
We established that possession of a gun = large advantage, for criminals will be less likely to target you.
However, other people would take advantage by acquiring guns for protection too, to gain that advantage. As more people acquire guns, the advantage decreases.
Eventually you are left at a stage where the relative advantage has ended, everybody has a gun, and they aren't any safer. We are back at stage one.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38938753]Let me use an example to illustrate my point.
A person possesses a gun for protection. Criminals would avoid this person in favour of unarmed people.
We established that possession of a gun = large advantage, for criminals will be less likely to target you.
However, other people would take advantage by acquiring guns for protection too, to gain that advantage. As more people acquire guns, the advantage decreases.
Eventually you are left at a stage where the relative advantage has ended, everybody has a gun, and they aren't any safer. We are back at stage one.[/QUOTE]
This isnt like the criminal arms race in the 20s though where gangsters were able to get better guns the the police
The average criminal cant really afford to kit himself out like a citizen can. Thats why cheap saturday night special handguns with the serial number filed off are the most popular firearms to use in crimes. Someone isnt going to go out and buy an AR-15 to use in a mugging or a home invasion when a pistol is literally a fraction of the cost and not too much less effective.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38938815]This isnt like the criminal arms race in the 20s though where gangsters were able to get better guns the the police
The average criminal cant really afford to kit himself out like a citizen can. Thats why cheap saturday night special handguns with the serial number filed off are the most popular firearms to use in crimes. Someone isnt going to go out and buy an AR-15 to use in a mugging or a home invasion when a pistol is literally a fraction of the cost and not too much less effective.[/QUOTE]
If everybody was armed, then guns would be easier to get (due to greater prevalence).
Plus they would [b]know[/b] everybody was armed, and act accordingly.
Nothings going to stop the criminal from getting what they want.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38938753]Let me use an example to illustrate my point.
A person possesses a gun for protection. Criminals would avoid this person in favour of unarmed people.
We established that possession of a gun = large advantage, for criminals will be less likely to target you.
However, other people would take advantage by acquiring guns for protection too, to gain that advantage. As more people acquire guns, the advantage decreases.
Eventually you are left at a stage where the relative advantage has ended, everybody has a gun, and they aren't any safer. We are back at stage one.[/QUOTE]
I guess relating two cultures entirely unrelated in background, geography, and demographic would be a mediocre example but I believe in Norway, everyone there packs a rifle, yet their crime rate is relatively low. So clearly your scenario is not the case in Norway.
Also, even if your scenario were the case (and its not) you have to consider a few factors.
-Cost
As the arms race progresses, the guns get more expensive. Lets say both the citizen and the criminal have .22s. They start upgrading to .380 handguns, then 9mm, .40 S&W, .45, hell, .50 AE.
Then they move into revolvers, shotguns, rifles, bigger shotguns and rifles, and even bigger rifles. Eventually, as we move up the ladder, the average price for each more effective firearm goes up. And now we're talking thousands of dollars, especially if we get into pre-1986 automatics.
-Effectiveness
Really, do you NEED a longbarrel AK 47 to mug somebody? Let me tell you something: a handgun is MUCH easier to operate than aforementioned rifle, and in close quarters, which is where most of these encounters will take place, a rifle would be ineffective compared to a handgun.
In the case of more open encounters like the Aurora shooting, this might present some risk but given how much you emphasize that more and more people will have guns, can you really take down a bunch of people running at you, armed and dangerous?
-The existing Ban Threshold
At a certain point, federal law prohibits the arms race to advance any further without some major loop-holing. You can't get yourself a rocket launcher, or a hand cannon. So pretty much when and if we reach this point, everyone will only be able to have guns at a certain level. And at this level, which we will never reach, the military would probably have to get involved seeing that if criminals really wanted to they could get their higher-grade weapons from the black market.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38938990]I guess relating two cultures entirely unrelated in background, geography, and demographic would be a mediocre example but I believe in Norway, everyone there packs a rifle, yet their crime rate is relatively low. So clearly your scenario is not the case in Norway.[/QUOTE]
The crime rate is unrelated.
If you armed everybody, criminals would still exist, and the advantage gained from possessing a gun for protection would vanish since everybody would have one.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38939013]The crime rate is unrelated.
If you armed everybody, criminals would still exist, and the advantage gained from possessing a gun for protection would vanish since everybody would have one.[/QUOTE]
Wow! It's like he didn't even read my post!
:O
[editline]22nd December 2012[/editline]
And the crime rate IS related. What's the point of having a gun as a criminal if you won't use it?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38939054]Wow! It's like he didn't even read my post!
:O
[editline]22nd December 2012[/editline]
And the crime rate IS related. What's the point of having a gun as a criminal if you won't use it?[/QUOTE]
The arms race continues to a point where it cannot progress any further.
Are people safer? No. Crime rates are still the same.
Are things worse? Yes. You have to carry around a weapon constantly now, and invest into expensive weaponry to maintain your personal safety.
If you limited guns for both criminals and civilians, the same crime rates would exist, but people wouldn't be spending vast amounts of money and time on firearms.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
