︻╦╤─ Gun Control ─╤╦︻

Ghukek · Jan 17th 2013, 4:52pm

imchamp wrote:

Criminals don't follow gun laws???
What makes you think that criminals would defend a counrtry from invasion???
your logic is flawed!

Criminals are law breakers, what makes you think they wouldn't find some way around gun restriction laws?

I never said that criminals would defend a country from invasion. My premise was not that we should have high gun control so that only criminals would have guns. I was saying that we should instead have low gun control so that law abiding citizens would have guns. In return, that would be a deterrent for petty crime (criminals would be more nervous to break into a random home if they think the homeowner might have a firearm). I was also saying that a high amount of gun owning citizens has historically been a deterrent for foreign invasion, both in America and in other countries such as Switzerland.

imchamp · Jan 17th 2013, 6:28pm

Ghukek wrote:

= (criminals would be more nervous to break into a random home if they think the homeowner might have a firearm).QUOTE]
and yet even though American homeowners own firearms they are still being robbed and killed in their house.

A criminal isn't nervous or afraid of someone having a gun, like what do you think. Criminals don't give a shit about the cops so why should they for some untrained citizens with guns.

Also as we all know, the person in the school shooting didn't have any criminal record. He was a regular citizen. He took the guns he found in his home, killed his mom, drove to the school and killed little kids before killing himself with that gun.

your logic is shit! what your saying is that we can get rid of gun violence or defend ourselves from criminals by getting more guns....what nonsense!

Europe doesn't allow citizens to get guns so criminals don't get them in their hands and their crime rate is way lower.

The way your saying it is that citizens aren't able to kill someone else but that's not true.

Ghukek · Jan 17th 2013, 7:00pm

Marijuana is illegal, and yet plenty of people have access to it. There's this thing called the black market, and it's easy to access if you know how.

America is a free country and the Second Amendment guarantees the citizens right to bear arms. As gun control increases, fewer law abiding citizens have guns. This leaves two kinds of people owning firearms. Criminals and the government, and honestly, I don't trust either of them.

Europe is not gun free. Switzerland has some of the most nonrestrictive gun laws in the world. The whole society is gun friendly. Their crime rate is very low.

The solution to violence is not keeping guns away from citizens, but rather to ensure the proper training of citizens for how to store, carry, and use their weapons. Just last week I attended a basic firearms training course. The course taught how to properly handle and store a weapon. I've also taken a course that reviewed when to shoot and when not to.

imchamp · Jan 17th 2013, 7:11pm

Ghukek wrote:

Marijuana is illegal, and yet plenty of people have access to it. There's this thing called the black market, and it's easy to access if you know how.

America is a free country and the Second Amendment guarantees the citizens right to bear arms. As gun control increases, fewer law abiding citizens have guns. This leaves two kinds of people owning firearms. Criminals and the government, and honestly, I don't trust either of them.

Europe is not gun free. Switzerland has some of the most nonrestrictive gun laws in the world. The whole society is gun friendly. Their crime rate is very low.

The solution to violence is not keeping guns away from citizens, but rather to ensure the proper training of citizens for how to store, carry, and use their weapons. Just last week I attended a basic firearms training course. The course taught how to properly handle and store a weapon. I've also taken a course that reviewed when to shoot and when not to.

well guess what if you get caught with marijuana then your going to jail but if someone kills someone maybe just because this person was mistakenly trespassing the cops won't do shit. Anyone can just lie and say "officer he was attacking me and i had to defend myself"

It still doesn't rectify why America has the highest crim rate.
ohh and have you ever been to Switzerland, well I have and you know what you are not allowed to settle there unless you have at least 1 million franks on your bank account.

like what do you expect of course they have low crime rates only rich and sane people are allowed in.

Ghukek · Jan 17th 2013, 7:43pm

LuklaAdvocate · Jan 17th 2013, 9:05pm

Ghukek wrote:

I was also saying that a high amount of gun owning citizens has historically been a deterrent for foreign invasion, both in America and in other countries such as Switzerland.

No it hasn't. You're merely repeating NRA propaganda which has been discredited by experts numerous times.

Ghukek wrote:

Just last week I attended a basic firearms training course. The course taught how to properly handle and store a weapon. I've also taken a course that reviewed when to shoot and when not to.

And if somebody started shooting at you with an AR-15, or worse, the last thing you'd be thinking about is basic firearm training.

Ghukek wrote:

Automobiles are a necessity. Drunk driving is already illegal, so that doesn't help your case at all. And as your cartoon so eloquently illustrates, you stand a better chance of surviving a knife or "blunt object" assault than being shot.

Tex · Jan 19th 2013, 8:18am

I think it's always a good thing to tighten security. However this problem relates to drug smuggling, You wont be able to stop every gun from being sold illegaly.

Muffinhead123 · Jan 20th 2013, 12:29am

I think addressing and treating people with these mental illnesses in the first place would help the problem, as the majority of these school shootings at least usually involve a mentally unstable person who needs medical attention. Of course, school shootings account for a small portion of gun related deaths in the US. Restricting guns may help, but may also just produce a black market for guns, possibly causing even more crime. In the end, I really can't foresee the consequences of these countermeasures against gun violence.

Marc_Antony · Jan 20th 2013, 1:42am

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

Assault weapons (all of them) should be made illegal, high capacity and extended clips should be illegal, and no automatic or semi-automatic weapons, period.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supreme court states that
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Basically, you CAN'T restrict access to whatever the military uses.

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

The second amendment, for numerous decades, was interpreted by SCOTUS to refer to state militias only, meaning individual citizens had no right to bear arms. It wasn't until judicial activist judges like Scalia and Alito were selected that the meaning changed to include an "individual right."

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

SCOTUS has never once suggested that only militias can have guns, just that you can't ban guns a militia would reasonably use. And, as that quote from US v. Miller shows, the militia is ALL MALES. Even if it was limited to just the militia, the militia is EVERY SINGLE MALE CITIZEN OF THE US.

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

the poverty rate within [Switzerland] is extremely low, a large contributing factor to the low crime rate.[/QUOTE]

Fucking exactly. The way to reduce ANY crime is to better education and decrease poverty. Why don't we focus on that, instead of fucking with law abiding citizens because, well, fuck them they don't think like me so they must be crazy?

With the VP admitting that they don't enforce the laws on the books already, what makes you think this will help?

When at least three of the major mass killings in the US have been committed with Assault Weapons Ban compliant weapons, what makes you think this will help?

What gives you the right to dictate what I can or cannot have in my house? What gives you the right to decide how I can live my own life? What gives you the right to deny me something because it's an "Assault Weapon?"

Ghukek · Jan 20th 2013, 1:45am

Thank you! I was starting to feel that I was all alone in a mass of gun control advocates. (Two of my four managers own and/or regularly use guns... I'm not sure about the other two.)

imchamp · Jan 21st 2013, 1:12pm

Ghukek wrote:

Thank you! I was starting to feel that I was all alone in a mass of gun control advocates. (Two of my four managers own and/or regularly use guns... I'm not sure about the other two.)

He was speaking of the military using guns.
I don't care what guns military use. I'm definitly not gonna get shot by them.

ohh and for your stupidity how would you feel if you would get shot?

and that shit picture didn't prove anything.
The reason why you are alone is because you don't make sense.

---------- Post added at 06:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

Marc_Antony wrote:

Marc_Antony wrote:

What gives you the right to dictate what I can or cannot have in my house? What gives you the right to decide how I can live my own life? What gives you the right to deny me something because it's an "Assault Weapon?

Marc_Antony wrote:

That's how the world works!
your endangering other people with it and in fact why the fuck would you need an assault rifle?? a handgun can kill with one or two shots and if your being attacked by a criminal then you won't even have the chance to take the assault rifle or even the handgun.
Guns are allowed to citizens for protection only and not for keeping them because of fun!

Ghukek · Jan 21st 2013, 4:16pm

imchamp wrote:

He was speaking of the military using guns.
I don't care what guns military use.

No, he was saying that if the military uses it, then the government can't restrict citizens from using it.

I'm definitly not gonna get shot by them.

I'm glad you have that much faith in the integrity of our government and it's military. Power corrupts. History has shown that as the amount of gun owning citizens in a country goes down, the likelihood of a government takeover increases. I hope you're ready for a dictatorship.

your endangering other people with it and in fact why the fuck would you need an assault rifle?? a handgun can kill with one or two shots and if your being attacked by a criminal then you won't even have the chance to take the assault rifle or even the handgun.
Guns are allowed to citizens for protection only and not for keeping them because of fun!

If somebody is a gun collector and he likes guns, there is no reason to prevent him from buying an "assault weapon" for his collection. As long as he stores it safely according to law, he's endangering nobody. If he wants to take it to the range, that's his business. The government has no right to take that right from him.

And in a home invasion, you could easily get a handgun out of a fingerprint lock safe in time to protect yourself. It's not that hard. Dog starts barking, you wake up, stick your fingers in the slots, safe pops open and BAM, you're ready for business.

imchamp · Jan 21st 2013, 4:33pm

Ghukek wrote:

No, he was saying that if the military uses it, then the government can't restrict citizens from using it.

I'm glad you have that much faith in the integrity of our government and it's military. Power corrupts. History has shown that as the amount of gun owning citizens in a country goes down, the likelihood of a government takeover increases. I hope you're ready for a dictatorship.

If somebody is a gun collector and he likes guns, there is no reason to prevent him from buying an "assault weapon" for his collection. As long as he stores it safely according to law, he's endangering nobody. If he wants to take it to the range, that's his business. The government has no right to take that right from him.

And in a home invasion, you could easily get a handgun out of a fingerprint lock safe in time to protect yourself. It's not that hard. Dog starts barking, you wake up, stick your fingers in the slots, safe pops open and BAM, you're ready for business.

I'm not saying handguns shouldn't be used for protection, all I'm saying is that an assault rifle is unnecesary.

If I were to start a drug collection of all kinds of drugs: meth, coke and so on it would still be illegal.

what assures you that he's never gonna kill somebody innocent with the assault rifle. Just saying I only collect isn't convincing. Just because he says it doesn't mean it's true. This is why so many people die over there.

If the police catches me with drugs in my pocket yet I havn't taken any of them I would still get arrested for that.

As if the government doesn't already take control of everything.

Ari Gold · Jan 21st 2013, 5:07pm

ITT: Gun nuts who continue to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.

Marc_Antony · Jan 21st 2013, 5:53pm

Ari Gold wrote:

ITT: Gun nuts who continue to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.

ITT: Ignore actual Supreme Court decisions on the 2nd Ammendment

People regularly get shot by handguns multiple times and survive. A famous Marine Colonel turned handgun defense instructor, Jeff Cooper, once said that a handgun is only meant to give you enough time to get a rifle. Simply put, handguns do not reliably stop or kill a human being.

The AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle, which is no dofferent from just about any other rifle a civillian owns. A WASR, by far the most common AK-style rifle in the US, is a semiatomatic rifle, no different from just about any other other rifle in the US. Both are commonly used for home defense and hunting. They're useful when there's more than one thing to be shot at. For hunting wolves or coyotes, ARs are supposed to the absolutely best weapon to use. Seeing as pistols can not reliably stop a human being, they're far more useful than a handgun in a home defense scenario, whether it be one person or 20 who attack you.

Tell me, why should those be banned over any other? People say they fire faster, but there are many people who can fire a bolt action just as fast as a semiautomatic.

People say that I'm untrained, so only the military should have them, but most people fire approx 100 rounds in basic training, and 2/3 of everyone in the military never use a gun again in their time in the military. I shoot far more than that a year, but I can't be trusted with a gun. Most police aren't required to do any regular practice with a gun after their police academy, or if they do, it's only 100 to 200 rounds a year. Again, I practice far more than that, but I'm not trustworthy with a gun.

People say mag capacity makes a gun more dangerous, but three of the worst massacres in US history have been committed using weapons that had Assault Weapon Ban compliant guns, including mag cap. Of the two most recent that didn't, Aurora and the Gabby Giffords shooting, both times the gun jammed, and potentially prevented even more deaths.

One of the provisions of the old Clinton Era AWB banned guns from hiding a flash hider, a fairly common accessory at the time. You do need something on the end of the gun, so people started buying either one of two things. One, a muzzle brake, which reduces a recoil and actually makes a gun more effective, unlike a flash hider. Two, a target crown, which makes a gun mroe accurate, and therefore more effective than one with a flash hider.

Simply put, the Assault Weapons Ban only bans weapons that the average person thinks are scary, when in actuality the "Assault Weapons" are no more dangerous than any other gun.

EDIT: Just as a side note, an assault rifle is a select fire rifle (meaning one that fires semi automatic and burst/full auto) that fires an intermediate cartridge (meaning one between a pistol round and a full size rifle round like .30-06, not a "high power" round). Those have been banned since the they were first created, because of the NFA, which was enacted in 1939, before any assault rifles had been invented. If you're going to argue for gun control, please, argue against something that isn't already near impossible to get.

Ghukek · Jan 21st 2013, 6:05pm

Thank you Marc, that was quite well written.

Muffinhead123 · Jan 21st 2013, 6:37pm

Marc_Antony wrote:

ITT: Ignore actual Supreme Court decisions on the 2nd Ammendment

People regularly get shot by handguns multiple times and survive. A famous Marine Colonel turned handgun defense instructor, Jeff Cooper, once said that a handgun is only meant to give you enough time to get a rifle. Simply put, handguns do not reliably stop or kill a human being.

The AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle, which is no dofferent from just about any other rifle a civillian owns. A WASR, by far the most common AK-style rifle in the US, is a semiatomatic rifle, no different from just about any other other rifle in the US. Both are commonly used for home defense and hunting. They're useful when there's more than one thing to be shot at. For hunting wolves or coyotes, ARs are supposed to the absolutely best weapon to use. Seeing as pistols can not reliably stop a human being, they're far more useful than a handgun in a home defense scenario, whether it be one person or 20 who attack you.

Tell me, why should those be banned over any other? People say they fire faster, but there are many people who can fire a bolt action just as fast as a semiautomatic.

People say that I'm untrained, so only the military should have them, but most people fire approx 100 rounds in basic training, and 2/3 of everyone in the military never use a gun again in their time in the military. I shoot far more than that a year, but I can't be trusted with a gun. Most police aren't required to do any regular practice with a gun after their police academy, or if they do, it's only 100 to 200 rounds a year. Again, I practice far more than that, but I'm not trustworthy with a gun.

People say mag capacity makes a gun more dangerous, but three of the worst massacres in US history have been committed using weapons that had Assault Weapon Ban compliant guns, including mag cap. Of the two most recent that didn't, Aurora and the Gabby Giffords shooting, both times the gun jammed, and potentially prevented even more deaths.

One of the provisions of the old Clinton Era AWB banned guns from hiding a flash hider, a fairly common accessory at the time. You do need something on the end of the gun, so people started buying either one of two things. One, a muzzle brake, which reduces a recoil and actually makes a gun more effective, unlike a flash hider. Two, a target crown, which makes a gun mroe accurate, and therefore more effective than one with a flash hider.

Simply put, the Assault Weapons Ban only bans weapons that the average person thinks are scary, when in actuality the "Assault Weapons" are no more dangerous than any other gun.

EDIT: Just as a side note, an assault rifle is a select fire rifle (meaning one that fires semi automatic and burst/full auto) that fires an intermediate cartridge (meaning one between a pistol round and a full size rifle round like .30-06, not a "high power" round). Those have been banned since the they were first created, because of the NFA, which was enacted in 1939, before any assault rifles had been invented. If you're going to argue for gun control, please, argue against something that isn't already near impossible to get.

I'm gonna have to agree with you on this one, as any determined person can make a regular LEGAL firearm just as dangerous as a high powered one. And it is possible to modify guns to make them fully automatic or higher capacity if one is persistent enough. Even without modifying guns, someone could just carry a bunch of loaded guns into a school and kill just as many people as having a high powered rifle.
So that's my 2 cents

Ghukek · Jan 21st 2013, 6:52pm

In MA, there's a restriction on handguns. Magazines are restricted to ten rounds or less. The problem with this is that there is almost no difference between one 20 round magazine and two ten round magazine... it doesn't take long to reload.

Marc_Antony · Jan 21st 2013, 11:02pm

Muffinhead123 wrote:

I'm gonna have to agree with you on this one, as any determined person can make a regular LEGAL firearm just as dangerous as a high powered one. And it is possible to modify guns to make them fully automatic or higher capacity if one is persistent enough. Even without modifying guns, someone could just carry a bunch of loaded guns into a school and kill just as many people as having a high powered rifle.
So that's my 2 cents

Actually, it's fairly difficult to convert most semi autos to full auto, and if you fail, you're likely to ruin the gun completely. Along with that, the tools required and the parts required are generally expensive. It'd cost you at least $3k right now for an AR(Talk of an Assault Weapon Ban has driven the price up) plus just as much again for tools and parts to convert it.

And please, don't call assault weapons high powered. They fire an intermediate cartridge, meaning intermediate between a pistol and a full size rifle round. They're actually just about the lowest power rifles one can buy.

pyrosonicpony · Jan 22nd 2013, 5:01am

things im for
-stricter regulations on who can get them (closer look as psyche and records)
-max calibre restriction (basically no .50 rifle rounds since those blast through walls)
-banning certain types of rounds (FMJs in particular)

things i'm against
-banning semi-automatics
-banning anything over 10 round mag (basically allowing high-calibre pistols but not low calibre, i.e. 1911 .45: 7 round mag, berreta 9mm: 20(or so) round mag)
-banning assault weapons (basically these are guns that look to much like military weapons, so AR-15, semi-automatic AKs, stuff like that...it's stupid)

Share