To Iwaku's Gun Owners...

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Roose Hurro, Jul 7, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The article stumbles right out the gate by assuming that everyone who has concerns about the violent impulses of others is projecting. This same person also stated just prior to this projection argument...

    "How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't."

    Well how do you know? Do you know his neighbours?

    A person can't make a sensible argument starting on the assumption that "everyone who believes in Y is X." That is silly. That is like saying that every Christian who believes in the Bible condones stoning adulterers to death, or that every feminist wants to put men in concentration camps and turn the oven up to "extra crsipy" just because some of them probably would. A person can belong to a group without sharing all the particular dominant beliefs or thought patterns of that group. That's why Christianity has schisms, that's why feminism has schisms. That's why if you ask ten different people the same series of ten different questions you will invariably get ten different sets of answers, even if some of them share similar belief structures. This is a little known concept called "individuality." Unless someone has taken a trip down extremism street, they're probably going to express it.

    That being said, I don't think firearms in general should be banned. The idea that getting rid of all the guns will magically solve the deep rooted issues which cause violence is silly. It's like putting on a bandaid to stop internal bleeding. There's other things (namely the drug war and ghetto culture) that cause the problem, guns are just the easy political catch-all target. Hell, the deadliest school-related mass murder in US history (that I am aware of) was done back in 1927 with impromptu explosives made largely with household ingredients--not with firearms. (It was the Bath School Disaster of 1927, for those wondering.)

    Still, basic common sense regulations (like criminal background checks) simply make sense, so, I do support gun control. Emphasis on the control, not the wide-scale banning. The objective of gun control legislation should be common sense things--like background checks--not to punish collectors because society at its core is fucking rotten. I mean, I know that this is purely a political pinata simply based on the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are committed with unregulated hand guns (which, by the way, largely come from drug lords, for the drug war--funny how that happens, huh)? Yet the #1 target for gun banning groups is... Assault rifles.

    Even the term "assault rifles" is highly misleading and doesn't really have a consistent definition. However, let's assume it's fully automatic capable mid to high calibre rifles, like the M16, or the AK47...

    ... The vast majority of which lay in the hands of collectors who never use them to harm another human being. The fatality rate with these types of firearms (domestically) compared to handguns is completely idiotic to compare. Especially when one considers that all the gun control in the world is not going to stop the massive amount of unregulated, unregistered illegal handguns from ending up in the hands of drug runners and gangs.

    That's my two cents on it anyway. If you kill the underlying cause, you'll end up with far less gun violence by extension. Commit to surgery to stop internal bleeding, don't tell the patient to wrap bandages over it. :ferret:

    EDIT

    Quick self correction, the Bath School Disaster was largely done with dynamite and pyrotol--not with household chemicals. (Albeit you can make a pipe bomb or molotov cocktail with household ingredients pretty easily if you know what you're doing... I'm prooobably on a few watch lists.)
     
    #2 Brovo, Jul 7, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
  2. I am anti-gun, but that is my own personal belief. I don't care if other people own guns, as long as they keep them away from me and my family. People saying that they need guns bothers me. Yes, there are cases where people defended themselves and their families against home invaders with a gun, and I do not dispute that. However, there are people who have defended themselves from the same thing without a gun. Having a gun isn't going to change the likelihood of someone breaking into your house, and depending on the people who break in, it's not going to really change your chances of survival.

    The whole hunting thing is just disgusting to me. I can understand people who utilize their kills, but just going out to kill an animal for no purpose at all than to kill? Those type of people make me sick. You do not need a gun for hunting either. People did it with rocks, bows and arrows, and spears back in the day.

    People do not need guns. They can survive perfectly fine without them. It's annoying that so many people get riled up because those of us who are against guns simply want to make sure that guns are in the hands of responsible people. There is nothing wrong with background checks and security checks to own a gun, yet the minute you mention it, people act like you're trying to rip their weapons right out of their hands. If you have to go every five years to renew your driver's license, why shouldn't you have to go every five years to renew your gun permit? I don't think that's irrational at all.

    Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with being anti-gun, but a few of the points in the article makes most people in that position sound like paranoid freaks. I don't see people who own guns are my potential murderer who's waiting for my back to be turned to put a bullet into it. Not everyone who is anti-gun is pissed off at gun owners. What we're pissed off about is that every opportunity to help put a stop to gun violence has been stomped on before it could even get rolling.
     
    • Love Love x 2
    • You Get a Cookie You Get a Cookie x 1
  3. I stopped reading after, "I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."

    That kind of sensationalist garbage has got to go if anyone wants to have an actual productive discussion on gun reforms. Unfortunately, the only people speaking up are either so pro-gun that they think any form of gun control is going to take away their right to bear arms and that the word "liberal" is akin to saying "Hi my name is Stalin", along with a million other jargonistic things such as "I need my guns in case the government turns tyrannical!" and "I need to carry around a rifle to protect my neighbourhood!". These are the kinds of people who leave loaded guns around the house for their toddlers to find to shoot themselves/ bring to school to shoot their friends/ in the back seat of the car to shoot you. The clown who wrote this article very likely falls in this camp.

    On the other side, you have people who have never seen a gun outside of on a police officer's hip and think that guns are inherently weapons that are waiting to go off and kill people and are evil inventions that should be outright banned. These are people who have complained, among other things, about "firing a gun gave me temporary PTSD!", "Only police should have guns!", and "We need to ban assault weapons!"

    Both sides are extremely annoying and are so out of touch with reality it would be hilarious, except for the fact that people fucking die because of poor decisions.

    The stupid thing about the "ban assault weapons" thing is that A) nobody can give you a clear definition of what an "assault weapon" is. Functionally, an AR-15 is identical to a hunting rifle with a detached magazine. The "assault weapon ban" targeted things like barrel shrouds (which simply cover the barrel so the shooter doesn't burn their hand), pistol grips (the angular grips that stick out from the receiver or stock so you can keep your hand vertical), and detachable magazines, which are self explanatory. Mostly, a lot of it is cosmetic and has no bearing on the function of the gun. Know what else has detachable magazines? A bolt action hunting rifle. Know what else has a barrel shroud? Literally anything that has material that covers the barrel on both top and bottom. Pistol grips are simply just another way to hold the gun and don't make a difference . Like, look at this:

    [​IMG]

    EDIT: Accidentally hit post when I was clicking off frame. Whoops.

    Now, one of these ARs is legal in New York; the other is illegal. Can you guess which one?

    [​IMG]

    That's the kind of crap people are going on about when they are talking about "assault weapons", while ignoring the functionality of a rifle. Simply having something that looks too militaristic is basically what they care about, and it's fucking stupid because functionally, a gun that looks like a military issue one can be exactly the same as something done up in a hunting style stock. The guns they want to ban aren't any more or less dangerous than any other (with the exception of handguns, which take the lion's share of crimes because they're easily concealable by, y'know, criminals), but they want to pat themselves on the back because they got rid of a big scary gun.

    This is EXACTLY like pitbull bans; pitbulls are banned because people think they're violent and aggressive dogs, and they are only that way if bad owners have them, and lo and behold, give the same owner a friggin' retriever and it'll turn out just as vicious. A lot of these mass shooter assholes are using aesthetically military style guns because they see the military use them, and they see them in movies and games. Nothing is stopping them from doing the same carnage with a hunting rifle. Hell, the guy who killed a soldier in Ottawa and stormed Parliament Hill was armed with a lever-action rifle. If he was indiscriminately targeting civilians, a lot more people would have died before he was stopped.

    Point is, it's not the gun's fault that there's shitty people who misuse them, and way too many who are pro-gun forget that they own a dangerous weapon that needs to be respected.

    But why is the US such a murder happy place compared to the rest of the world? Well, for starters, the whole 2nd amendment muddied the waters and made gun ownership a right, which is why there's a legal precedent against gun control. However, just because you CAN own a gun, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Why should being legally allowed to operate a car be more regulated than owning a firearm? Seems a little ass backwards, no?

    On top of that, gun control is done at a State level, so while some states actually have more strict gun laws than in Canada (by a considerable margin I might add), others have zero background checks or licensing. You cough up the money, you walk out of the store with a gun, no questions asked. This is the crux of the problem; someone gets turned down for buying a gun in one state because they fail a background check, they can drive two states over, buy themselves whatever the fuck they want, and come back with it. The law can't help you there if there's holes the size of Saturn's rings you can jump through.

    What needs to happen is the US government needs to have universal background checks and licensing that's uniform across the entire country and NOT target individual firearms. It's still a person's right to buy a gun, but like a lot of rights when you're a criminal, it gets limited if you have a record. The rest of the developed world doesn't have the same gun violence statistics as the the US, and that's because the US is the only one that doesn't have sensible gun laws.

    That said, it is worth pointing out that while mass shootings have gone up drastically in recent years, violent crime, including gun crime, is at something like a 20 year low in the US, even though gun ownership is increasing quite a bit. This is something the news doesn't really talk about because it makes the narrative too complicated from the black and white picture they like to portray.

    Anyways, tl;dr, I'm pro gun, but also am firmly in the camp that gun control is essential, and it doesn't mean banning individual firearms because that's fucking stupid... just like the pitbull ban.
     
    #4 Dervish, Jul 7, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
    • Like Like x 4
    • Love Love x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. "Any person who says they're afraid of being murdered is actually saying that they want to go out and murder other people."

    ...Yeahok.
     
  5. "People who claim to be pacifists or vegetarians are actually full of murderous feelings towards their fellow human beings."

    OwO Well this just gets better and better...

    Edit: Ok never mind, now this is just legitimately irritating to read. >_>
     
    #6 Kagayours, Jul 7, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
    • Love Love x 1
  6. I am from the most conservative state in the USA. For those of you who do not know, That is Oklahoma.

    Our governor is a fool. Our state House of Representatives and Senate is full of fools. Oklahoma has been ranked (How accurate the rankings are, I don't know) the worst economical and educational state in USA for a few years running. Our state budget has reached an all time low. To further cement how bad our governor is, she was actually thought to possibly be Trumps VP candidate. That should tell you everything right there.

    As for our state Congress, they are idiots. One of our senators wrote a letter on social media about how Muslims should not have their rights protected by the first amendment of the constitution. Yes, you read that right. A bill just got passed in the House of Representatives that removes all licensing, training and fees for carrying a firearm. Yes, you also read that right. If it passes the senate and gets signed by Gov. Fallin, people in Oklahoma will be able to carry a firearm as soon as they turn 21. They will not have to take a safety course. They will not have to have a supervised training session on a gun range where they fire a weapon. They will not have to carry a license, so they will not have to do any paperwork in the state. The only time a background check will be done, is when someone purchases a firearm. No background checks will be done on anyone who carries, because they will not have had to submit any paperwork to the state. Here is the kicker: The Orlando shooter would have been able to legally carry a firearm in our state with no questions asked. He did not have a record, but even if he did, he would not have to submit any paperwork so no one would know. Some states would not issue him a license due to him being investigated by the FBI. It would have appeared as a red flag. Not here. Now with the stupidity of my state on full display now, I'll respond to the actual topic.

    I have 3 firearms. I'll have 7 when my father passes away. I sometimes carry a Berreta 92FS. It stays in my car at all times, if it is not on me. The magazine is always loaded, but I keep it unchambered. For those that don't understand, for it to shoot, I would have to pull the slide all the way back and load a round into the chamber. I do this so their is no possible change of any accidental discharge from the weapon. In my apartment, before I moved back home, I kept a 12 gauge shotgun in my closet. It was always loaded, but not chambered.

    The reason being, I lived in an area that was not the best. There was a shooting less than half a mile from my apartment one afternoon. It was at 3 in the afternoon. Not even at night. That is how sketchy the surrounding area was. So I absolutely used it for protection. The other reason, was that I attended a small Christian university. We had 1 security guard on campus, and he wasn't even allowed to carry a weapon. So there was no one on campus to respond to an active shooter incident. This unnerved me. Even though it was legally in my vehicle, if something was to happen, it was closer than the nearest police officer. This was at the time that terrorist shooting, and even domestic terrorist school shootings were happening almost monthly. If someone was going to do that, a small school with no real security, Christian, and had been in the news for stupid homophobic beliefs would be a prime target for someone's rage. Once again, I felt I needed to protect myself.

    The idea of gun control, in the fairy tale world where it actually would be fully enforced to where NO ONE, good or bad, could get a firearm; where the government would never become tyrannical and oppress the population, would work and it would be alright. However, that is far from the world we live in. Gun control laws work in European countries like England and France, because they have been around for a long long time. It is extremely difficult to get a firearm in those countries. The amount of mass shootings is way lower than here in the United States. The reason that would not work here, is because tons of people already have firearms. The black market is alive and well. To many have weapons. There would need to be a mass policing, where Feds went door to door and confiscated firearms. If you think the death toll from shootings is bad now, just wait till this happens. The amount of police and citizens that will be killed will be astronomical. If the military did it, and I highly doubt they would, because most soldiers know and own firearms themselves, it would probably cause a civil war. As that would be grounds for governmental tyranny.

    Also, when has the U.S. Government EVER set out to eliminate something and actually done it. Never as far as I can remember. Illegal immigrants still enter our country is massive numbers. U.S. Fails at that. We made alcohol illegal, and that went so shitty, we made it legal again. Failed at that. The "war on drugs" has gone so poorly, that our prisons are overstocked with people on drug offenses that we spend a shot ton of money on. The "war on drugs" has gone so badly, that some drugs are beginning to become legal now. We failed at that. History shows is, that even if firearms are made illegal, there is no historical evidence to even suggest that the U.S. Government will be able to actually control guns.

    If by some miracle, they could, the amount of violent crime in probably the first year would shoot up as the criminals who do still have forearms would take full advantage. It would be awhile before we actually reached the level of public safety, in regards to firearms, that other countries who successfully employ gun control are at.

    I'm a pacifist. I don't like needless war and killing. I hope I genuinely never even have to draw my weapon on anyone. I do not want to hurt someone or end their life, but if I must to protect myself, loved ones, and property then I will.

    The idea of gun control is noble, but never conceivably attainable in a way that won't result in more bloodshed. At least in the U.S.

    In my opinion, we need to stop trying to take away the tools that are used, and focus on the people doing these awful things. We need to stop blaming the tools, religion, and political beliefs. Historically, we are making no difference. It is a problem to complex for the U.S. Government to solve. So instead of spending an ungodly amount of money that we absolutely don't even have, on gun control. We need to spend the ungodly amount of money that we don't even have, on finding the mental anomalies in these people and trying to correct it.

    If someone is trying to kill you, and you take away the gun from their hands, the will get a knife, rock, bat, even use their fists. It is more logical to try and stop them from killing you in the first place, than just continually taking away the tools they would use.

    I don't look down on people that are anti gun. Guns be frightening, scary, and cause fear. I understand that. But I do look at people who advocate to make firearms illegal in this country, and think to myself -In what fairytale world, do they actually think this would work? Do they really think that it would all just magically stop if someone signed a piece of paper saying owning a gun is illegal? -

    I don't really care if you quote this and try to grasp at straws and nit pick it apart. *cough* GWAZI *cough* I've said my opinion and probably won't respond to this thread anymore. Maybe not even click in again, unless I get a ton of rating notifications.

    EDIT: My autocorrect went crazy, and I'm to lazy to go correct it. I'll let y'all play the game of "what word is that supposed to be?"
     
    #7 Boba Fit, Jul 7, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love Love x 1
  7. I tried to read the entire article but gave up after one third of it. I know both pro gun and anti gun people, and none of them seem to fit into the molds that the article was trying to fit them in.

    Personally, I'm somewhat a pacifist from an anti-gun family, but I'm pro gun. I've been enough places to know that even if you don't use a weapon, having one close by can be enough to dissuade a person from hurting you. Aside from that, what's keeping someone from picking up a bladed weapon and stabbing someone? Kitchen knives, anyone? Heck, even a frying pan can be used by someone in a murderous rage. At one point in life even I'd sleep with a machete under my pillow. (That's something my anti-weapons mom is never gonna learn)

    Aside from the fact that owning a gun or even a blade doesn't automatically mean a person's going to be using them offensively against any living person. Demolition Ranch, anyone? The guy's a family man whose profession is saving animals.

    That's just stuff I feel that any sensible person, pro or anti, owner or non owner, should feel about guns. Guns don't magically shoot people/animals themselves, it's the people behind them. Generalizing is stupid and there's got to be moderation. Educate people and for goodness' sake, fix up the gun laws. It's beyond ridiculous how easy it is to buy a weapon in some states.

    Anyway, that's all from me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. As I was typing my reply, 11 Dallas police officers were shot by snipers at a Black Lives Matter event. This topic, and topic of Police is only going to get worse. Only going to get more heated, and only going to divide the country more.

    RIP

    All lives matter.
     
  9. That being said, I don't think firearms in general should be banned. The idea that getting rid of all the guns will magically solve the deep rooted issues which cause violence is silly. It's like putting on a bandaid to stop internal bleeding. There's other things (namely the drug war and ghetto culture) that cause the problem, guns are just the easy political catch-all target. Hell, the deadliest school-related mass murder in US history (that I am aware of) was done back in 1927 with impromptu explosives made largely with household ingredients--not with firearms. (It was the Bath School Disaster of 1927, for those wondering.)

    I also remember hearing about some incident in Britain dealing with a school killing where 20 were killed with a knife. Just like in Sandyhook.
     

    I am anti-gun, but that is my own personal belief. I don't care if other people own guns, as long as they keep them away from me and my family. People saying that they need guns bothers me. Yes, there are cases where people defended themselves and their families against home invaders with a gun, and I do not dispute that. However, there are people who have defended themselves from the same thing without a gun. Having a gun isn't going to change the likelihood of someone breaking into your house, and depending on the people who break in, it's not going to really change your chances of survival.

    The whole hunting thing is just disgusting to me. I can understand people who utilize their kills, but just going out to kill an animal for no purpose at all than to kill? Those type of people make me sick. You do not need a gun for hunting either. People did it with rocks, bows and arrows, and spears back in the day.

    People do not need guns. They can survive perfectly fine without them. It's annoying that so many people get riled up because those of us who are against guns simply want to make sure that guns are in the hands of responsible people. There is nothing wrong with background checks and security checks to own a gun, yet the minute you mention it, people act like you're trying to rip their weapons right out of their hands. If you have to go every five years to renew your driver's license, why shouldn't you have to go every five years to renew your gun permit? I don't think that's irrational at all.

    Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with being anti-gun, but a few of the points in the article makes most people in that position sound like paranoid freaks. I don't see people who own guns are my potential murderer who's waiting for my back to be turned to put a bullet into it. Not everyone who is anti-gun is pissed off at gun owners. What we're pissed off about is that every opportunity to help put a stop to gun violence has been stomped on before it could even get rolling.

    As to your first paragraph, I find the bolded part most interesting. Can you cite examples?

    As for your second paragraph, people did it with rocks, arrows and spears because they didn't have anything better. This would be like advocating a return to the horse-drawn buggy.

    As for your third paragraph, so many people get "riled up" because they are responsible people, and you have just called them irresponsible. I think someone else in this thread mentioned something about generalizations. And shouldn't "irresponsibe" people (AKA, criminals who use guns) be kept away from the public, so they can do no harm? Here in California, Proposition 47 passed because it was billed as a "Public Safety" law... turned out it just reclassified felons as non-felons, and allowed them to be released from prison. Of course, crime went up in my state, thanks to this new "law". People were not happy, and for good reason.

    Which brings me to your fourth paragraph. We have laws already on the books. They are either not enforced, or are changed, just like Prop 47 reclassified certain felonies as misdemeanors, leading to the release of felons who now were no longer classified as felons. And therefore couldn't be held. Biggest part of that new law that burned gun owners? It turned gun theft into a misdemeanor, if the gun was worth $950 or less. Which includes pretty much all handguns... even brand new. Remember, when it comes to politics, California is a die-hard Democrat state.
     

    I stopped reading after, "I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."

    You really should read the rest of the article. Even so, nice! Thanks for you contribution. I know this is a topic fraught with "danger", but every opinion is valuable. Teaches us things we should know.
     

    "People who claim to be pacifists or vegetarians are actually full of murderous feelings towards their fellow human beings."

    OwO Well this just gets better and better...

    Edit: Ok never mind, now this is just legitimately irritating to read. >_>
     
    Heh... some people would find "War and Peace" irritating to read.
     

    If someone is trying to kill you, and you take away the gun from their hands, the will get a knife, rock, bat, even use their fists. It is more logical to try and stop them from killing you in the first place, than just continually taking away the tools they would use.
     
    Boba Fit... sorry I can't address more of your most excellent post, but I thought the passage above brought up a good-to-remember concept. Politicians, people and the media keep referring to "gun violence" all the time. But it isn't the gun that's violent, it's the person. People. If they don't have guns, that doesn't end the violence.
     
     

    Aside from the fact that owning a gun or even a blade doesn't automatically mean a person's going to be using them offensively against any living person. Demolition Ranch, anyone? The guy's a family man whose profession is saving animals.

    That's just stuff I feel that any sensible person, pro or anti, owner or non owner, should feel about guns. Guns don't magically shoot people/animals themselves, it's the people behind them. Generalizing is stupid and there's got to be moderation. Educate people and for goodness' sake, fix up the gun laws. It's beyond ridiculous how easy it is to buy a weapon in some states.

    Anyway, that's all from me.
     
     
    Heh... Demolition Ranch. Last YouTube vid I watched, just before starting this post:



    Bolded part: Given what I've said about the lack of enforcement for existing laws, and given what I've brought up about Prop 47 in California, yes, indeed, our state of law is in serious need of repair.
     

    As I was typing my reply, 11 Dallas police officers were shot by snipers at a Black Lives Matter event. This topic, and topic of Police is only going to get worse. Only going to get more heated, and only going to divide the country more.

    RIP

    All lives matter.
     
     
    Indeed they do... and that's very bad news. *... a moment of silence ...*


    Edit: Sorry for the formatting... so much to respond to, so little time.

    -------
     
    #10 Roose Hurro, Jul 8, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2016
    • Bucket of Rainbows Bucket of Rainbows x 1
    • Go Home, You're Drunk Go Home, You're Drunk x 1
    • You Get a Cookie You Get a Cookie x 1
  10. I would like to add, that I am a part of the “gun violence” statistic. I dropped my loaded shotgun on my toe and cracked it, a few months back. Had to go to the doctor. So I am included in the statistics.

    :p
     
    • You Need a Hug You Need a Hug x 1

  11. Irony plays no favorites. Because I don't hear anyone using the term "frying-pan violence" when someone hits someone else over the head with one... or drops one of those heavy iron ones on their foot. Funny thing: When I was a kid, I was a victim of "broken glass violence". Required quite a few stitches, and I still have the scar. I also suffered "tennis-ball can violence". No stitches for that, but another nice scar to help me remember (tennis-ball cans are like soup cans... they have a sharp edge after you pop the top... at least the one that cut me did). :bsmile:
     
  12. That was Virginia Tech in 2007 :P Sorry Master Ferret!
     
  13. Who's gonna take that seriously when you can have the much more dangerous 'rolling pin' violence?
     
  14. 44 Deaths (45 if you include the one off school grounds): Bath School Disaster.
    33 Deaths (including the Perpetrator): Virginia Tech Mass Shooting.

    Facts don't agree with you. Sorry.
     
    • You Get a Cookie You Get a Cookie x 1
  15. Personally I think both sides of the gun control argument are stupid and there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to it. Just endless squabble and bullshit.

    [​IMG]

    A gun is merely an object. By itself, it cannot do anything. But when someone is holding it, its purpose is fulfilled. Some use it for good and some use it for bad just like everything in this world.

    I personally don't own any firearms although I may consider purchasing one in the future just for safety. There are times when hand to hand combat WILL NOT WORK. A gun can outdo a lifetime's training of martial arts in an instant. So yes guns are necessary for self-defense.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Well if we're including guns in the equation..........
     
  17. We're not. At least, not to the level of making the example gun-specific. The specific example parameters were...
    The example was used to point out that the most lethal mass-killing on school property did not involve guns, but instead involved explosives. Something which thousands of people have access to every day, and a few of which you can create with household ingredients. "Where there's a will, there's a way" applies.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  18. Gun control does not mean taking away your right to owning a gun.


    Gun control means preventing people who are felons, mentally handicapped or on some unknown FBI(etc) list by simply showing a U.S. issued I.D.

    Personally, I think they should make it way harder to get a gun with mental tests, fees and a wait period along with a crash course on how to safely use it, put it away and so on. That to me is a better way to control guns then simply showing your I.D.

    I also support the idea of banning assault rifles. Why? Assault rifles mean faster kills than a handgun. That is why they are deemed more deadly. The bullets come out faster, there are more bullets in a clip, it is a bigger gun.

    It's like all this seems pretty much like common sense to me. If people want to own a gun, I completely support that however not everyone should own a gun. That is a scary thought that just any person(sane or otherwise) can just walk into a gun store/show and make a purchase with no I.D. That's just crazy.

    Guns make people feel more in control/powerful. It can also make some behave wreckless and irresponsible.

    Just because YOU may handle a gun correctly does not mean the person next to you will treat it the same.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Automatic weapons are hugely regulated in the US, the very few people who possess them have special licenses and permits to do so, usually related to occupation. Considering that most automatic weapons are prohibitively expensive; an automatic AR-15 style rifle is somewhere the the neighbourhood of 15-20 thousand dollars, compared to the ability to buy a semi-automatic for less than 1000 dollars. From this website,

    • Machine guns are not illegal, but it is illegal to make and register new ones on a form 1 (as you would do for an SBR)
    • There is no way around the May 19th, 1986 date. if the machine gun in question was made after that date, you may not own it (unless you are a dealer)
    Also, there are three types of machine guns that determine the gun’s legal status:
    • Transferable: Guns registered prior to May 19th, 1986 that are able to be owned by everyone. There are only 182,619 transferable machine guns according to the ATF.
    • Pre-Samples: Machine guns imported after 1968 but before May 19th, 1986. The 1968 GCA established that machine guns with no sporting purposes could not be sold to civilians. Dealers can however buy them and keep them after they give up their licenses. As a general rule, pre-samples cost about half that of a transferable.
    • Post-Samples: Machine guns made after the May 19th, 1986 cutoff date. These are only for dealers, manufacturers, military, and police. A manufacturer who pays $500 a year is permitted by the federal government to manufacture these. A dealer (who is not a manufacturer) may acquire these if a police agency provides a “demo letter”. Unfortunately dealers must sell or destroy post samples when they give up their license.
    So this means that a very small amount of legal automatic weapons are present in the US, and are hugely collectors items that the vast majority of the population simply cannon afford, only dealers may only purchase firearms manufactured before May 19th, 1986, and anything manufactured after has to be specially requested by a police agency and the firearm must be destroyed after testing is complete.

    So, in short, anyone who owns an automatic weapon in the US very likely is not committing a crime with it unless they are criminals and bought them off the black market, in which case no amount of legislation will stop them from possessing those weapons.

    Looking at homicide statistics from The FBI's database, which was last updated in 2014 with new statistics,

    -8124 people were murdered by firearms that year out of 11,961 homicides,
    -5562 were committed with handguns
    -248 were committed with ANY kind of rifle
    -262 shotguns

    So, out of a country of 320 million people, only 248 were killed with any form of rifle, and I can almost guarantee a very small percentage of that was with an automatic weapon. So why should they be banned, exactly? Those semi-automatic rifles used in mass shootings are still a drop in the bucket of overall firearm homicide statistics, which have been steadily decreasing the past 20 years, Have decreased from 7 deaths per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.4 in 2014, and once again, handguns take the lion's share of fatalities because of the fact they are inexpensive, easy to conceal, and they are flooding the criminal markets. Even shotguns, usually limited to a 5-10 round feed tube and mostly pump action with some semi-automatic ones with similar capacities and slow reload times, killed more people than rifles did.

    Now, any murder by gun is an atrocity, but do NOT buy into the whole media hype which makes it sound like there's an epidemic of shootings across the US when in reality violent crime has hugely decreased and stabilized; the actions of a handful of deranged individuals is not representative of the vast majority of the population, and finding ways to close the loopholes for how they were able to legally purchase their weapons (and if it wasn't a semi-automatic military style rifle, I refuse to call them assault weapons because that is a clueless and frankly stupid term that evokes images of machine-guns when that is far from the truth, they would have used literally any other kind of firearm to equally devastating effect) should be a priority. Like I said many times, banning guns outright isn't the answer, because not only is that completely impractical, but it doesn't get to the heart of the problem.

    Anyways, a bit of research goes a long-ass way, especially when assault rifles are very, very seldom ever used in crimes, regardless of magazine capacity.
     
    • Useful Useful x 3
    • Like Like x 2
    • Love Love x 2
    • Thank Thank x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.