[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46385904]When an American says he has a right to own a firearm, he doesn't he has a Natural Right to own a firearm, he mans he has a [b]Legal Right[/b] to do so. It's stated in our constitution that we have the Legal Right to own a firearm.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I know, but in a country with low-to-no gun crime, would you support legalizing firearms. I don't think supporting something because it's the law or innately because it's in the constitution is the most moral choice in politics. The constitution shouldn't be the basis for our political thought, it should be its expression. The constitution was made to be changed. I don't know if it should in regards to guns, but is the entire reason you support the right to bear arms just because the constitution says so?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46385751]I have a question for pro-gun people. If you lived in a country which banned guns and had a low gun crime rate, would you be for the legalization of firearms even then?[/QUOTE]
I personally do not believe that gun control increases nor decreases crime rates, so I would have to say yes. Besides, just because gun crime rate is down doesn't necessarily mean overall crime is down as well. If the overall crime rate is down, I would point out it likely has more to do with better education and welfare systems that give people incentive to stay away from crime, not a highly-restricted gun control system that doesn't add nor detract from the sources of crime themselves.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46385930]Yeah I know, but in a country with low-to-no gun crime, would you support legalizing firearms. I don't think supporting something because it's the law or innately because it's in the constitution is the most moral choice in politics. The constitution shouldn't be the basis for our political thought, it should be its expression. The constitution was made to be changed. I don't know if it should in regards to guns, but is the entire reason you support the right to bear arms just because the constitution says so?[/QUOTE]
Firearms aren't meant to be singularly used to overthrow a government or for self defense. They can be used for sport, hobbies, hunting, or for just fun at the range. They also are immensely valuable and make for great investments. A lot of people that own fully-automatic firearms don't own them for a paranoid reason or in case China invades, but because they have an insane value that only increases every day.
I'm the same way. I have a heavily historical firearms collection that only garners more value every year. I shoot them, and use them for self defense, but, with the exception of a few of them, the main reason I own them is to sell them in case I fall on hard times, or to fund another project.
[QUOTE=Fhenexx;46385948]I personally do not believe that gun control increases nor decreases crime rates, so I would have to say yes. Besides, just because gun crime rate is down doesn't necessarily mean overall crime is down as well. If the overall crime rate is down, I would point out it likely has more to do with better education and welfare systems that give people incentive to stay away from crime, not a highly-restricted gun control system that doesn't add nor detract from the sources of crime themselves.[/QUOTE]
On what basis would you introduce guns into another country with low gun crime
[editline]1st November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46385968]Firearms aren't meant to be singularly used to overthrow a government or for self defense. They can be used for sport, hobbies, hunting, or for just fun at the range. They also are immensely valuable and make for great investments. A lot of people that own fully-automatic firearms don't own them for a paranoid reason or in case China invades, but because they have an insane value that only increases every day.
I'm the same way. I have a heavily historical firearms collection that only garners more value every year. I shoot them, and use them for self defense, but, with the exception of a few of them, the main reason I own them is to sell them in case I fall on hard times, or to fund another project.[/QUOTE]
Look, I don't know what the political solution to gun control is, because as I said that's for an economist to decide, but I think that "fun" isn't a good reason for guns to be around. Safety and overall wellbeing for people should be the #1 priority.
Either way (that's just my opinion), only one person has answered the question:
[b]would you want to legalize guns in countries with low gun crime rates and no legal guns[/b]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46385972]
[b]would you want to legalize guns in countries with low gun crime rates and no legal guns[/b][/QUOTE]
Sure why the fuck not. No idea why you're even asking such an irrelevant question in this thread.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46385972]On what basis would you introduce guns into another country with low gun crime[/QUOTE]
Mostly personal freedom. There are completely legal ways to use guns, and most would say that gun control is a legal device to inhibit crime, so if it does not inhibit crime the system would not work (or it is flawed, but let's say for the sake of argument it is not). Of course, this is also once again running on my assumption and personal belief that strict gun control neither increases nor decreases crime rates.
That said, if it turned out it didn't work and crime [I]did[/I] go up as a result of it, people would take notice and the issue would likely hit the ballot again where it would be once again restricted because there is not a significant gun culture in that country presumably. It would at least serve as a precedent for whether or not heavily restricted gun controls works.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46385751]I have a question for pro-gun people. If you lived in a country which banned guns and had a low gun crime rate, would you be for the legalization of firearms even then?[/QUOTE]
As long as proper measures are taken to control them, sure. Why not?
The biggest problem I find is that gun control legislation generally completely schizophrenic. There's absolutely zero logic involved in most of it. If you had sane legislation, what would the harm be?
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46386009]Sure why the fuck not. No idea why you're even asking such an irrelevant question in this thread.[/QUOTE]
Because it comments on where you stem your argument from, which is important in politics. I personally think that arguments about guns should stem from public safety. I don't give a shit about anybody's hobbies or interests, because those are probably the least important thing in a gun debate.
If you would introduce guns into an otherwise safe, gunless country, it means that your priorities are not inline with public interest, but another ideology which does not accept compromise on gun regulation. I think that this is destructive.
Democrats run on a platform that they don't like people with guns, Republicans run on a platform of "guns are an unalienable right". I think that we need to stop focusing so much on the absolutes of what we think of as rights, and focus on what's in the public's best interest.
cool, i want an automatic rifle because they're cool
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46386028]Because it comments on where you stem your argument from, which is important in politics. I personally think that arguments about guns should stem from public safety. I don't give a shit about anybody's hobbies or interests, because those are probably the least important thing in a gun debate.
If you would introduce guns into an otherwise safe, gunless country, it means that your priorities are not inline with public interest, but another ideology which does not accept compromise on gun regulation. I think that this is destructive.
Democrats run on a platform that they don't like people with guns, Republicans run on a platform of "guns are an unalienable right". I think that we need to stop focusing so much on the absolutes of what we think of as rights, and focus on what's in the public's best interest.[/QUOTE]
And we wouldn't know how this fictional country you're talking about would have its public safety affected by gun legalization until it happens. We know that in the US stricter gun laws like carry and "assault weapon" bans have only resulted in higher crime rates in the states that lack them.
It's a bit of an overdone saying, but it applies here: "guns don't kill people, people kill people", you can't definitively say that firearm legalization would be for or against public interest without proof that it would in/decrease crime and polls showing which stance the citizenry supports.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46386028]
If you would introduce guns into an otherwise safe, gunless country, it means that your priorities are not inline with public interest, [/QUOTE]
what if firearms are in the public interest of the general populace of this made up country, for whatever reason the public wants to use them for (so long as its in a safe and discreet manner), but the government refuses to allow gun ownership for no apparent reason?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46385751]I have a question for pro-gun people. If you lived in a country which banned guns and had a low gun crime rate, would you be for the legalization of firearms even then?[/QUOTE]
Yes. I actually have a lot of guns which are neither for self defense or hunting, I use them purely for recreational purposes, a few have sentimental value and others are collectors items. Most of these are locked in a large safe, the only ones I don't keep locked up is the revolver I keep for self defense and the two muskets which are too long to fit in there or take up too much space.
These include muzzleloading long guns and pistols, black powder revolvers, several WWII rifles and pistols and a few sporting shotguns.
Some of the muzzleloading long guns I have can be used for hunting, but the ones in question are Matchlock muskets, one of which is actually illegal to hunt with due to it's size, and a Flintlock pistol, all three of which I built myself as a hobby, taking that away would leave a VERY sore spot for me as I put a great deal of care and effort into making them, eventually I plan on making breechloaders as well.
The WWII guns I mentioned are mainly bolt action rifles, with the exception of an M1 Garand and an M1 Carbine, the pistols include a 1911 which was carried by my grandfather (Who also brought back a Japanese rifle taken from Iwo Jima) and has immense sentimental value as a result, a Frommer Stop pistol and a Luger. I also have a Webley Greene revolver (Same exact gun Indiana Jones uses in the movies).
In a society with a low crime rate I would personally opt for keeping a sword or a knife in place of a gun for self defense, unless the crimes that are committed primarily involve guns that is.
It's a personal philosophy similar to the use of a Kirpan in Sikhism (Though I would not tolerate permanently fixing a blade into it's scabbard as they occasionally do as that defeats the purpose) and I'll avoid places that don't permit me to carry a knife at the very least. I carry a fixed blade knife I designed and forged myself with me every day, even at home, though I mainly use it to open packages, prepare meals and as a dinner knife.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46386028]
Democrats run on a platform that they don't like people with guns, Republicans run on a platform of "guns are an unalienable right". [B]I think that we need to stop focusing so much on the absolutes of what we think of as rights, and focus on what's in the public's best interest.[/b][/QUOTE]
This is the real ideological divide here, imo. What's the proper role of government? Is it the government's job to protect society from itself? That's why gun control debates always boil down to "guns are dangerous and no-one should have them" vs "freedom is more important than safety"; guns are just one part of a much bigger debate
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46383974]I dont think letting people run around with automatics is a good idea, that could make school-shootings even bloodier. we could go from 10 victims to 50 easily.[/QUOTE]
I wish people like you would stop riding on the backs of dead children. People will kill regardless of what people ban.
All automatic firearms are registered and you got to get a very in depth background check. All this suit is about the manufacturering of firearms and allowing people to register.
[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;46386196]This is the real ideological divide here, imo. What's the proper role of government? Is it the government's job to protect society from itself? That's why gun control debates always boil down to "guns are dangerous and no-one should have them" vs "freedom is more important than safety"; guns are just one part of a much bigger debate[/QUOTE]
You're right about where the gun debate is coming from: it's an authoritarian vs. libertarian kind of thing, though it is hilariously ironic because republicans want you to own guns but don't want you to marry another guy. Honestly both American parties are authoritarian, just with different priorities.
If either side were not talking from an emotional position but a factual one, they would see guns are not the problem nor are they the solution. America's crime problem is and always has been the spawn of poor education and poverty. Proof? Canada's rate of gun ownership is a little lower, but our education and economic inequality scores are much better. As you can imagine, our crime rate is significantly lower. Does Canada have more gun control? Yes, but the vast majority of gun crime in Canada is done the same way it is in the USA: with illegally acquired handguns.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46385763]Because a disgruntled kid is gonna cough up $10,000+ and go through months of paperwork, background checks and waiting to hurt someone.[/QUOTE]
You can get illegal automatics for much cheaper than that. No background check required!
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46386028]Because it comments on where you stem your argument from, which is important in politics. I personally think that arguments about guns should stem from public safety. I don't give a shit about anybody's hobbies or interests, because those are probably the least important thing in a gun debate.
If you would introduce guns into an otherwise safe, gunless country, it means that your priorities are not inline with public interest, but another ideology which does not accept compromise on gun regulation. I think that this is destructive.
Democrats run on a platform that they don't like people with guns, Republicans run on a platform of "guns are an unalienable right". I think that we need to stop focusing so much on the absolutes of what we think of as rights, and focus on what's in the public's best interest.[/QUOTE]
I don't see violence in society as a symptom of having access to weapons, I see it as a symptom of poverty and/or illness. I am a peaceful person and I will not be held responsible for the actions of violent individuals, individual responsibility is very important to me.
I have never once threatened someone with a weapon who wasn't already threatening violence on me or someone else, nor do I desire to get into a fight and I have and will always do everything I can to avoid that end, so far I have been successful every time.
The first time involved a pair of fellows who decided for whatever reason to start throwing punches and kicks at me while I was walking down a street, I warned them off with a [Url=http://i.imgur.com/3wTnMZz.jpg]large knife[/Url] I was carrying and they stopped, I did not even have to fully unsheathe the knife.
The second time a friend of mine who had an abusive husband showed up at my house with her kids and the husband followed her, he took the car keys from her and became combative, I stepped in and told him to stop, he started to yell and move toward me, I put my hand on my knife (A smaller one than the one above, I don't have that one anymore), told him to leave and he did, the police picked him up a short time later and the car keys were returned, again I didn't even have to unsheathe the knife. Mind you he was a big guy and there's no way I would have been able to overpower him unarmed. I do carry a gun as well, but not all the time and I haven't had to use it.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46385858]so would you? I'm not pro or anti gun control because I think it's an issue for an economist, but I don't believe ownership of guns to be a basic human right, so in a country like Japan with low gun crime and no legal ownership of guns, I would be against introducing them into that country. I'm just trying to categorize if people are anti-gun control because they don't think it would be effective in removing guns, or if they honestly believe guns are a human right[/QUOTE]
I live in Stockton, CA.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton,_California[/url]
I enjoy being able to access my firearm in case of a break in. I understand and agree with your points. I didn't feel it necessary to own a firearm until I moved here.
If I'm able to get my hands on an M249, I'm set. I love shooting those things when I get the chance, I'd love to be able to shoot them on my free time. At least I'd be able to improve my god awful aim so I'm not worthless if I ever get into an actual firefight.
I always thought the ban on registries post-1986 was really arbitrary. I'd support removing that limit specifically.
Crime caused by automatics is a negligible issue because neither a criminal nor a mass shooter is going to go through extensive background checks and mountains of paperwork so they can buy a slightly more effective assault rifle over something they can buy at a corner or in Wal-Mart.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46385751]I have a question for pro-gun people. If you lived in a country which banned guns and had a low gun crime rate, would you be for the legalization of firearms even then?[/QUOTE]
Murder aside, which is still at an entirely reasonable rate, our violent crime rate is extremely low for our level of poverty.
Gun crime is an irrelevant statistic.
Basically despite a ridiculous percentage of Americans living at or below the poverty line in a culturally heterogeneous country with a justice system that focuses almost exclusively on the worst kind of justice, retributive, we are still doing better in a huge number of violent crime types than nations with strict restrictions.
Meanwhile, internally, we've seen strong correlations between increased gun ownership and reductions in crime. This is why gun control has been decreasing in the US for decades. 25 years ago concealed carry permits were allowed in very few states. Now almost every state is legally obligated to issue one to any candidate who is not legally prohibited from obtaining one and chooses to apply.
We reserve the right to own firearms because government is a necessary evil. We have no faith in the system and recognize that power corrupts, so we retain the right to own the materials to fix it when it does become too corrupt to function.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;46386289]You're right about where the gun debate is coming from: it's an authoritarian vs. libertarian kind of thing, though it is hilariously ironic because republicans want you to own guns but don't want you to marry another guy. Honestly both American parties are authoritarian, just with different priorities.
If either side were not talking from an emotional position but a factual one, they would see guns are not the problem nor are they the solution. America's crime problem is and always has been the spawn of poor education and poverty. Proof? Canada's rate of gun ownership is a little lower, but our education and economic inequality scores are much better. As you can imagine, our crime rate is significantly lower. Does Canada have more gun control? Yes, but the vast majority of gun crime in Canada is done the same way it is in the USA: with illegally acquired handguns.
You can get illegal automatics for much cheaper than that. No background check required![/QUOTE]
I'd say hardly anyone knows illegal weapons dealers though, the people that do are either family, friends with them, or has friends that know said dealers. No one can just up and go find a dealer and buy a machine gun for a couple hundred bucks.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;46386855]I'd say hardly anyone knows illegal weapons dealers though, the people that do are either family, friends with them, or has friends that know said dealers. No one can just up and go find a dealer and buy a machine gun for a couple hundred bucks.[/QUOTE]
It is easier than you think. I know someone in the military that was describing how easy it was in Louisiana to get RPKs for 200 bucks, and all you had to do was know the right people. These people were not hard to find, and you could go through the local drug dealers to get to them. Dead easy.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;46386939]It is easier than you think. I know someone in the military that was describing how easy it was in Louisiana to get RPKs for 200 bucks, and all you had to do was know the right people. These people were not hard to find, and you could go through the local drug dealers to get to them. Dead easy.[/QUOTE]
"I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a drug dealer who can get you a Russian light machine gun for $200" isn't sufficient evidence to prove the existence of an underground gun market.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46386558]I always thought the ban on registries post-1986 was really arbitrary. I'd support removing that limit specifically.
Crime caused by automatics is a negligible issue because neither a criminal nor a mass shooter is going to go through extensive background checks and mountains of paperwork so they can buy a slightly more effective assault rifle over something they can buy at a corner or in Wal-Mart.[/QUOTE]
Ever considered that the ban on automatics is actually keeping the automatics out of the hands of criminals and there is therefore crime by automatics is negligible.
Lets keep it that way.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46387375]Ever considered that the ban on automatics is actually keeping the automatics out of the hands of criminals and there is therefore crime by automatics is negligible.
Lets keep it that way.[/QUOTE]
There isn't a ban on automatics.
[editline]1st November 2014[/editline]
Did you even read my post.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;46386939]It is easier than you think. I know someone in the military that was describing how easy it was in Louisiana to get RPKs for 200 bucks, and all you had to do was know the right people. These people were not hard to find, and you could go through the local drug dealers to get to them. Dead easy.[/QUOTE]
It's still a very small percentage of people actually buying illegal machine guns though, not many people want to run the risk of getting caught and fucked over for illegally owning it, even if they just target shoot with them.
Have any school shootings actually used automatics? The gun pro radicals on this forum seem to know every detail of every shooting.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46387375]Ever considered that the ban on automatics is actually keeping the automatics out of the hands of criminals and there is therefore crime by automatics is negligible.
Lets keep it that way.[/QUOTE]
Wait.
Wait.
You're saying the criminals are following the law? How naive are you?
[QUOTE=GunFox;46386655]
We reserve the right to own firearms because government is a necessary evil. We have no faith in the system and recognize that power corrupts, so we retain the right to own the materials to fix it when it does become too corrupt to function.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if Anti-federalists during the 1770's supported arming citizens, but they were against the government having a standing army. The second amendment would obviously have been influenced.
[QUOTE=KillerLUA;46387544]Have any school shootings actually used automatics? The gun pro radicals on this forum seem to know every detail of every shooting.[/QUOte] As far as my knowledge goes, only two murders have ever been committed with automatic firearms, one by a police informant, the other by police. This is all Post-NFA 34 though. Murders with automatic firearms did occur before 1934, and probably afterwards, but by the time NFA 1934 was fully implemented, most automatic firearms were ditched by criminal organizations in favor of things like revolvers which are much, much nicer in terms of knocking the shit out of people and possibly being able to get the hell out of dodge.
Automatic firearms overall are pretty goddamn useless in direct combat, and stuff like burst fire and semi-auto is more controlled and preferable. Most of your gun buddies on Facepunch would go about designing and testing firearms that are used in the blackmarket such as the Luty, Santa Muerte, Blimp, Holmes, Borz, and several others from around the world.
If this thing goes through, you can expect to see people like RR_Raptor having new creationism corner threads about building the image in my post, as well as a couple of other designs that he has talked about building with the rest of us in our thread/steam chat.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.