New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[Greenday]

Do you seriously think anyone in this thread is going to change their mind on anything? Nope! So ya, rooster tits. ( I need a rooster tit emoticon ).

Fratching has changed my opinions on gun control.

[Rapscallion]

You have my interest. In what way?

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

You have my interest. In what way?

Rapscallion

Well, I used to basically think people don't even have a reason for needing guns. Now I know how insanely dumb that sounds.

[Andara Bledin]

Well, I used to basically think people don't even have a reason for needing guns. Now I know how insanely dumb that sounds.

My boyfriend used to be anti-gun as well.

But after reading through and taking part in a number of gun debates on another forum and doing research himself in order to be informed while participating in gun debates, he now talks about learning how to handle a gun and getting one of his own.

^-.-^

[Mikkel]

My boyfriend used to be anti-gun as well.

I'll admit that I understand the mentality of the "gunslingers" a bit better after what you wrote here. No wonder you don't feel safe without being armed.
Have you ever been in Canada or Europe? Did you feel endangered because people there went around unarmed?

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not actually armed. And I don't feel particularly unsafe.

However, I want the option to be able to even the playing field should that situation change.

I've actually been to Canada twice, the Vancouver area both times. Were I ever to leave the US (unlikely), I can see myself settling into southern British Columbia quite comfortably.

Also, another part of the gun debate that gets forgotten in regards to the Constitution is that part of the reason they wanted the people to be able to arm themselves was also to protect themselves from the government. And this is one of the many reasons governments like to keep their people unarmed; it's a form of oppression. It's really no burden when everything is going peachy, but if the government decides to overstep it's bounds, it can make all the difference in the world.

Anyone who cares to can find a plethora of quotes from a variety of well-regarded individuals that amount to just that. This quote from Jefferson is pretty plain and strait-forward:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Along with your quote, can't forget when the Russians or North Koreans take over.

[Mikkel]

Along with your quote, can't forget when the Russians or North Koreans take over.

The Russians are capitalist now, their Mafia may try but not by invasion. I doubt that the North Koreans have resources to attack that far away.

[Gravekeeper]

And this is one of the many reasons governments like to keep their people unarmed; it's a form of oppression. It's really no burden when everything is going peachy, but if the government decides to overstep it's bounds, it can make all the difference in the world.

This is another argument that honestly makes me shake my head. If it really came down to it, what do you think you're going to do against the government with small arms? Especially the US government? ( holy carp on that one with the gear they have ). Best you could hope for is an insurgency. Do you have any states with vast areas of uninhabited hills full of caves? >.>

Its completely implausible both for it to happen in the US and to be able to confront the military's hardware with anything save guerilla tactics. Which are effective, but more of an annoyance than any sort of step to realistically taking down the government. Its more likely you'd devolve into civil war than have any sort of Us vs Them between the government and the people. But even civil war is rather improbable.

It's just not a realistic scenario. And when it comes to world politics, arming civilians to destabilize Unapproved(tm) governments ( which was popular in the Middle East and Africa during the Cold War ) has had horrific results. Where do you think most of the groups causing trouble got the guns they're using on us to begin with?

You can't not draw parrallels between gun availability/gun culture and gun related violence. If the tool is availlable, it will be used and misused. More so if its culturally acceptable. That much is undeniable and even a brief glance at the many statistics and surveys done will tell you that much. Which is where the crux of the issue between both sides of the debate starts ( before evolving into a completely unsexy cat fight ).

I mean technically speaking, Vancouver has the highest rate of firearm related violent crime in all of Canada. That's it, we're the top. It doesn't get any "worse" than this. That said, Canada still has a firearm homicide rate 6 times that of England. 6 times! So think of how supposedly bad it is in Canada, and realise that's 6 x England. Which, for the record, you can't own shit in England for a firearm. Canada still lets you own rifles and shotguns. ( because BEARS ).

If you're wondering where the US sits, it's about 6 times that of Canada. >.>

It's really hard to get shot here.

[BlaqueKatt]

This is another argument that honestly makes me shake my head. If it really came down to it, what do you think you're going to do against the government with small arms? Especially the US government? ( holy carp on that one with the gear they have ).

Armed populace of the US=160 million
US military forces=2 million
They're outnumbered about 80-1, I guess it is hopeless /sarcasm

Best you could hope for is an insurgency. Do you have any states with vast areas of uninhabited hills full of caves?

Missouri

[crashhelmet]

I am pro-gun control, but not anti-gun. I guess you could call me "Anti-Specific Gun."

I believe that people should have the right to own a firearm for self defense or even sporting reasons, like hunting. However, there should be limits to those weapons. There's no reason a civilian needs to have military grade or fully-automatic weapons. There is no reason a civilian needs to have high capacity magazines or even certain types of ammunition.

Add in further restrictions of being convicted of any type of violent crime or found to have psychological disorders voids you of that right.

Add in required classes and certifications on an annual basis to ensure that the owner is still capable of owning the weapon.

[the_std]

Armed populace of the US=160 million
US military forces=2 million
They're outnumbered about 80-1, I guess it is hopeless /sarcasm

This assumes a few things. That all 160 million armed Americans would rise up against the government (HIGHLY unlikely unless The Government was walking around shooting people point blank for no reason). It also assumes that all 160 million have enough training to actively resist your gigantic army. It also assumes that 160 million rifles, handguns and shotguns would be effective against the staggering array of death equipment your military can get its hands on. Which it simply wouldn't be.

An armed populace is just not an effective threat against a massive infrastructure and military mindset, like the one that the US harbors.

[Gravekeeper]

An armed populace is just not an effective threat against a massive infrastructure and military mindset, like the one that the US harbors.

This ^

Numbers don't matter when you're working with modern military weapons. They flick a switch miles away and you die. I don't even mean just bombing you either. Smart weapons are a bitch. You owning an AK-47 isn't going to do you much good when a gunship flies a guided missile through a window into your house. Or a warship off shore levels your house, and just your house, from so far aware its not even a dot on the horizon. And this is only if they feel like following the Geneva Conventions mind you.

Best get to Missouri and pray. -.-

[BlaqueKatt]

It also assumes that all 160 million have enough training to actively resist your gigantic army.

quite a few like myself are former military.

An armed populace is just not an effective threat against a massive infrastructure and military mindset, like the one that the US harbors.

ya know I seem to remember a few groups that thought that:
first that comes to mind is England during the revolutionary war-odds there were only 3(untrained civilians) to 1 british troop
Second is the US in a nice little skirmish that we lost in a tiny country called Vietnam.
third was the Russians that had their asses handed to them in Afghanistan.

Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to go very far from home, and were thus generally unavailable for extended operations. Militia lacked the training and discipline of soldiers with more experience, but were more numerous and could overwhelm regular troops, as at the battles of Concord, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Come to think of it, outside support weapons, the Millitary doesn't have any need for fully automatic weapons either.

People go on and on about how devastating automatic fire is when really, outside a very small number of circumstances, it's just wasteful. It is far more efficient and just as deadly to pick your shots which is why the grand majority of the US Millitary's small arms go through entire tours without ever coming off of safe/semi.

IMO, when you get into the arena of "This gun makes sense but not that one, so go ahead and ban it." it's not only splitting hairs it's also missing the point. There are thousands of registered fully automatic firearms in the ownership of US civilians, which includes registered Drop-In Auto Sears (DIAS) compatible with -some- AR and AK etc. pattern weapons. Interestingly enough, none of them have been used in any violent crimes.

All of the automatic weapons in the hands of criminals are illegally modified from semi-auto derivatives. The process of which despite popular ignorance actually takes a substantial amount of knowledge and effort to perform in most cases. Honestly I don't know why they bother as not only does it incur cost (as the person performing this service sure as hell isn't going to do it for free) and provide dubious advantage, but the increase in fire rate of an automatic weapon over a quick trigger finger doesn't really amount to all that much.

The problem with restricting 'high-capacity' magazines is similar. Criminals that are found with them are basically always doing so not out of any preference so much as happenstance, and even so 95%-99% of firefights don't even come close to using the standard capacity. I'd be amenable to regulation on high-capacity magazines similar to the title2 regulations on transferring automatic weapons, SBSs, SBRs, and DDs, thing being that the people proposing the bans can't seem to make up their minds. One minute it's anything over 30, then it's anything over 10, then it's anything over 5 or detachable... it just never ends. A regulation that might make sense is a new provision of title 2, IE if you have a title 2 license you can pay the usual tax stamp and are held to the same requirements for a given number of magazines. Perhaps go by total collective rounds held, or a set number or whatever as long as it's based off of a model-dependent standard, like, whatever the factory-issued magazine holds for that model.

That would be reasonable, but I've yet to hear anything other than 'OMG!!! HIGH-CAPACITY CLIPS*!!!1!!!one!1! BAN THEM NOOOOOOW!' and 'YOU don't NEED them!'

Bullshit, I don't have to prove that I need them, you need to prove that their availability presents a significant threat to the public at large proportional to the proposed regulation. They're more dangerous for sure, but the available data indicates that any additional threat following from that is minimal. Probably because the vast majority of criminals don't select their weapons so much as grab anything that's available.

Also, an idea many people don't seem to come up with is this: what makes you think that, in the event that the government oversteps it's bounds and begins oppressing the population that every single soldier and police officer would be on the government's side?

*: They're magazines dammit! Magazines, say it with me!