Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gun controlFollow

#202 Oct 28 2008 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
Quote:
No. We believe (as the founding fathers did), that if enough of the private citizens are armed, we wont ever have to...


Right, because a bunch of people with pistols and small caliber rifles is the only thing keeping a tyrannical government taking power.

I'm sorry, but information is the new weapon. No need to tote weapons for defense against the government anymore. Not saying anything about recreational hunting or even sport shooting, but the idea that you're going to over throw a government with your pea-shooters is stupid.
#203 Oct 28 2008 at 1:27 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
ITT: we discover that Gbaji thinks that a document written in the late 1700's to protect Americans from Tyranical leaders is somehow still relevant in the 21st centuary.

Goodbye credibility.
#204 Oct 28 2008 at 1:28 PM Rating: Decent
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
First, the war on Iraq had very little to do with 9/11. You and I and everyone else knows that. And generally speaking, educated Americans never really supported the war on Iraq. It was a stupid president with a one-tracked mind and his mindless colleagues who convinced a small minority of people that it was a just cause. You cannot pin that mistake on the general public and certainly not me, so it really bears little relevance to my stance on gun ownership.


That's not quite true. The propaganda worked amazing well. I remember polls in 2003 were saying that over 60% of Americans believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. It certainly wasn't a minority.

I do agree with your argument that making something illegal doesn't make it go away if there's enough demand for it regardless of legality. But it's also worth noting that by making firearms illegal, simply carrying a weapon becomes an imprisonable offence. Which means that anyone caught carrying a gun can go to jail. It makes life for criminals that little bit harder, and it makes life for the average citizen that little bit safer.

I don't think this debate is a question of education or intelligence, but of sensitivity. Some people can't see past the fact that most guns have only one purpose which is to kill other human beings, while others can't see past the fact that ultimately it all depends upon the individual to pull the trigger.

Having said all that, I still can't quite believe it's legal to take your 8 year old kid to gunshow in the US. Someone shows a nipple on primetime TV and half the country is in shock, but taking 8 year olds to see Uzis and Assault rifles is just fine. There are some things in the US I'll never understand, I think...



First, thank you for being reasonable. It's more than I'm getting from some others. As for the polls, well, I think they were exaggerated, but for the sake of argument, even if they weren't, I'm willing to concede that the majority of Americans are gullible at best. Of course, that was back in Bush's first term when everyone was still on the patriotism kick, so it was more a matter of Bush's government preying on the vulnerable minds of an uneducated public. Nobody had any real clue whether Iraq was involved or not, but they had shown aggression in the past, and it wasn't much of a stretch to believe what was being presented. I personally never took the bait, but I can't speak for the majority.

In regards to carrying a weapon, it's already illegal in most states, and the majority that allow it require a special permit granted by the government only after some pretty thorough background checks. The exceptions are at legally sanctioned gun clubs/ranges and on state approved hunting grounds or private property that lies outside the jurisdiction of municipal entities. So basically, banning guns outright would only serve to make recreational shooting and hunting illegal. The scenarios in which guns are often misused are already illegal - the law just doesn't stop a determined criminal, not now, or ever.

As for the 8 year old at a gun show - I believe the article stated that it was permissible in that state with parental approval and licensed supervision in the form of trained and authorized personnel, both of which were applicable to the scenario in the story. It was an unfortunate accident brought about by poor judgment, and not, IMO, an example of where the law failed to properly control gun use.
#205 Oct 28 2008 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Baron von tarv wrote:
ITT: we discover that Gbaji thinks that a document written in the late 1700's to protect Americans from Tyranical leaders is somehow still relevant in the 21st centuary.

Goodbye credibility.


Never a good comment to make Tarv. Never.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#206 Oct 28 2008 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Brownduck wrote:
Stuff
Quit with the jibber jabber and watch the link already.
#207 Oct 28 2008 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Baron von tarv wrote:
ITT: we discover that Gbaji thinks that a document written in the late 1700's to protect Americans from Tyranical leaders is somehow still relevant in the 21st centuary.


So the entire Constitution isn't relevant? Or do you care to narrow that down a bit?

Quote:
Goodbye credibility.


Wait. I lose credibility in a thread titled "gun control" because I quoted the 2nd amendment? Hmmmm...

Edited, Oct 28th 2008 2:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#208REDACTED, Posted: Oct 28 2008 at 1:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And Tarv still thinks banning guns is going to dramatically decrease violent crimes. /shocking
#209 Oct 28 2008 at 1:36 PM Rating: Decent
Baron von tarv wrote:
Brownduck wrote:
Stuff
Quit with the jibber jabber and watch the link already.


I did. The only clip I found amusing was where the guy kicked the ball out from in front of the other guy in what looked like a ceremony or a photograph taking place. Smiley: frown I had mute on, so maybe something was lost there.
#210 Oct 28 2008 at 1:38 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
I did. The only clip I found amusing was where the guy kicked the ball out from in front of the other guy in what looked like a ceremony or a photograph taking place. I had mute on, so maybe something was lost there.
watch ALL of it there's some funny stuff.
#211 Oct 28 2008 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
gbaji wrote:
Baron von tarv wrote:
ITT: we discover that Gbaji thinks that a document written in the late 1700's to protect Americans from Tyranical leaders is somehow still relevant in the 21st centuary.


So the entire Constitution isn't relevant? Or do you care to narrow that down a bit?

Quote:
Goodbye credibility.


Wait. I lose credibility in a thread titled "gun control" because I quoted the 2nd amendment? Hmmmm...

Edited, Oct 28th 2008 2:34pm by gbaji
tarv is being characteristically naive and simplistic, but the power of the Constitution is that the Citizens of the USA have amended it as circumstances change.

With gun crime at such insane levels, isn't another amendment (or secondary legislation) an option?

I don't think a total ban in USA makes sense, but a test of reasonable levels could mitigate the stupidity of what we're seeing.

I see no validity whatever in any citizen owning assault weapons, concealable handguns or automatics (unless involved in law enforcement).

I see no validity in Children having access to firearms (if the weapon is their parent's, call it criminal negligence).

Hunting is fine with a standard 12 or 20 gauge. The rest is frankly an endorsement of crass irresponsibility in the bastardised name of freedom.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#212 Oct 28 2008 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
Baron von tarv wrote:
Quote:
I did. The only clip I found amusing was where the guy kicked the ball out from in front of the other guy in what looked like a ceremony or a photograph taking place. I had mute on, so maybe something was lost there.
watch ALL of it there's some funny stuff.


Maybe when I get home. At any rate, I would slap you if my arms could reach for suggesting that somehow the document upon which our entire government is structured is somehow less relevant now that some time has passed. The supreme court would also beg to differ. Need I cite a recent case in which they upheld the relevance of the second amendment in response to an unconstitutional ban on handguns in D.C.?

We agree on many things, Tarv. I don't think this could ever be one of them. Smiley: glare
#213 Oct 28 2008 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
Quote:
Maybe when I get home. At any rate, I would slap you if my arms could reach for suggesting that somehow the document upon which our entire government is structured is somehow less relevant now that some time has passed. The supreme court would also beg to differ. Need I cite a recent case in which they upheld the relevance of the second amendment in response to an unconstitutional ban on handguns in D.C.?


So you think the Constitution should be immutable?
#214 Oct 28 2008 at 1:49 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
At any rate, I would slap you if my arms could reach for suggesting that somehow the document upon which our entire government is structured is somehow less relevant now that some time has passed.
I was saying the bit where you use it as a justification to arm yourself with lethal weapons so that "You can overthrow the government" isn't relevant douche Smiley: tongue not all of it.
#215REDACTED, Posted: Oct 28 2008 at 1:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That then only leaves Rifles and Shotguns, which, Sawed off Shotguns are concealable, and Rifles are as deadly or more deadly than assault weapons and automatic weapons. I don't get what your trying to say with the above, unless you want a total ban of all weapons.
#216 Oct 28 2008 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
And Tarv still thinks banning guns is going to dramatically decrease violent crimes. /shocking
Every piece of evidence points to it so yes i do believe that.

To clarify my stance.

1. Restrict all private ownership of firearms to people with a genuine reason for it: hunting for food, killing vermin (No not Cowboy's fans) bodyguards etc.

2. Allow gun clubs and hunting ranges in which people can use firearms in a supervised and safe environment where people can either hire or perhaps even store thier own guns should you wish to add that. these ranges should have access to any weaponry they want including military level stuff provided that they can ensure security.

3. Ban completly the retail sale of ammunition, this would quickly filter down to the street with Illegal weapons becoming quickly more difficult to arm. to purchase Ammunition you would have to be a licenced Club/range or gun licence owner and have to purchace it from a central retailer. (Protip: this is the important bit)

4. Force Brownduck to watch endless 3rd eye clips until he understands british humoUr!

Will it ever happen? no of course it won't mainly because too many Americans are attached to their ***** extensions and BD hasn't got a sence of humoUr Smiley: sly






#217 Oct 28 2008 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
AmorTonight wrote:
Also, I'm curious why someone from Britain (Correct me if I'm wrong Tarv) would give two rats asses about what we do over here on the other side of the pond that has no effect on them.
But it's OK for Canadians right? Because it creates an underground market to smuggle guns across the border. No, not into America, but into Canada because they're so f*cking abundant in the US.

Edited, Oct 28th 2008 7:03pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#218 Oct 28 2008 at 2:05 PM Rating: Decent
baelnic wrote:
Quote:
Maybe when I get home. At any rate, I would slap you if my arms could reach for suggesting that somehow the document upon which our entire government is structured is somehow less relevant now that some time has passed. The supreme court would also beg to differ. Need I cite a recent case in which they upheld the relevance of the second amendment in response to an unconstitutional ban on handguns in D.C.?


So you think the Constitution should be immutable?


Not at all. That's what amendments are for. Funny how those who would support the banning of privately owned guns have never managed to get such an amendment passed.

Edited, Oct 28th 2008 5:06pm by BrownDuck
#219 Oct 28 2008 at 2:05 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
AmorTonight wrote:

That then only leaves Rifles and Shotguns, which, Sawed off Shotguns are concealable, and Rifles are as deadly or more deadly than assault weapons and automatic weapons. I don't get what your trying to say with the above, unless you want a total ban of all weapons.

All handguns save for perhaps Desert Eagle and 357 Magnum are concealable.

Also, I'm curious why someone from Britain (Correct me if I'm wrong Tarv) would give two rats asses about what we do over here on the other side of the pond that has no effect on them.
Now my little bum-chum. . . I suggest making them illegal. I didn't suggest uninventing them.

I enjoy my firearms. Before the laws changed here I was allowed to own a handgun for sport, but not allowed to remove it from the licensed shooting range. The weapons I own have to be stored in a highly secure place.

I live in a country where it is legal to walk in the countryside with a hunting piece, providing I disable it (bolt out, breech open etc) when within 300yds of a road.

Anyone with a firearm in other circumstances is committing a crime.

That said, I would make it compulsory to shoot you in the face with a cartoon gun.

Happy now?

ETA

As a Brit, I'm not enclosed in my own tiny world and routinely visit USA for business and wimminz pleasure. I like to think you had some control over the fUcktards that think a gun is a handy alternative to an intellect.

Edited, Oct 28th 2008 6:08pm by Nobby
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#220 Oct 28 2008 at 2:06 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Also, I'm curious why someone from Britain (Correct me if I'm wrong Tarv) would give two rats asses about what we do over here on the other side of the pond that has no effect on them.
Because fUckwit someday i might happen to be in your country and I would rather not have my or my families head blown off because you fUckers can't grow up.

besides it's an internet forum, we argue because thats what internet forums are supposed to be about, I don't think Gbaji has lost any credibility and BD isn't going to rip my head off if we ever meet, we just say that because thats what we do here when we are on the opposite side of an arguement.

It's like me and spelling, I will spell things wrong, it's like a force of nature.
#221 Oct 28 2008 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Baron von tarv wrote:
It's like me and spelling, I will spell things wrong, it's like a force of nature.
That made me spit beer and want to ruffle your hair and ppinch your cheeks in an annoying uncle stylee Smiley: lol
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#222REDACTED, Posted: Oct 28 2008 at 2:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I never said you said uninventing them. Your reasoning on what to ban and what not to ban is crude to say the least. You fail to take account that Rifles are as deadly as Automatic Weapons. Your so fixated on the number of rounds a weapon can shoot and not on how accurate and deadly the actual weapon is. A well trained individual with nothing, but a rifle can easily take out 40+ people if he/she so chose to. I'm just not understanding your logic here unless you cannot distinguish why you want to ban one weapon or seclude its use and not another type unless you really don't know the extent of lethality of each weapon.
#223 Oct 28 2008 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I haven't said much about the legality of semiautomatic and automatic guns because, well, I'm (usually) too sane to get into this argument and too rational to win it.

Having said that, taking guns out of the equation would absolutely reduce violent crime. It's called a cooling-off period. It's much, much harder to psych yourself up to kill someone up close and personal than it is to shoot them from across the room. You people who are arguing otherwise are in the best position to know this, since much of military training is aimed (so to speak) at overcoming this very factor.

Having said all THAT, it's much too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Yes, automatic and semiautomatic guns should be closely controlled. And in fact there are laws on the books to do just that, in many areas. Probably most areas.

Enforce the laws, go after people who flagrantly violate them by dealing large quantities of long guns to irresponsible dealers, and we can go a long way toward making everyone safer and happier.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#224 Oct 28 2008 at 3:39 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
I just have to add some two cents here because o the irony that I just back from a gun range about an hour ago.

For the OP:
Indeed a moronic tragedy. The guy may as well have let the kid try to drive on the highway (no that's not supposed to be a car/gun legality comparison)

My stance is pretty hypocritical, I'll admit.. because I think that it's OK for ME to own guns but not many other people. I do trust myself with guns. Were I ever to misfire a weapon anywhere but a range I would sell them immediately and cease to trust myself with guns.
On the other hand I'm sure just about every yokel out there with a gun will say the same thing.
The difference there is that I know that I am intelligent.

I shall not attempt to fool myself or anyone else. I don't have these for home defense. They are toys to me. Terrible and dangerous toys.

I live in an area that have a fair amount of gun violence. I understand that people need to feel safe in their home. I understand that when you hear gunshots outside of your window that you are going to want to protect yourself..
But let's cut the crap.

-If I see a gun-fight taking place outside of my window I am not going to strap up and run outside and join in the foray.
-I do not expect anyone to invade my house. There is actually MORE of a chance of someone invading my house to get the guns!
-I do not expect to be besieged in my house by an angry mob or Big Brother.
-I do not have any real enemies or stalkers that I need to worry about protecting myself against.

So were I to say "home defense" it would be a lie. They are toys. I wouldn't even call it a hobby. I do not run home from work and take my guns apart and order new parts and special kits and make modification to them.

-I have them so I can hold them once in a while and smile(I guess because I'm a sick ****, who knew?)
-I have them so I can go and bust caps once in a while (beats playing pool IMO)
-I have them so I can show them off to people who would be interested in handing them. Yes I will let people handle them.. and that goes back to being intelligent. I have NEVER had a round chambered in any of these weapons any place but the range (except to empty a mag) and the one time that there may have been a REMOTE chance that I might needed to use it I kept a full mag loaded... I constantly checked to make sure that by some twist of the laws of physics that a round DID happen to get chambered. then again.. that's me and I trust myself.

AUTOMATIC weapons:
IIRC full-auto was pretty much invented for SUPPRESSIVE FIRE and NOT for exhibiting marksmanship skills. Therefore I do see NO logical reason that any citizens should have this... unless perhaps your neighborhood has a great number of armed criminal militias that like to invade homes in droves.

As far a carrying a gun on the street.
I'll admit that I would like to be able to do this..
THEN AGAIN if I play out a scenario in my head it usually doesn't end well as even if I had used my firearm on the street to successfully defend myself or another from an armed assailant I would still be arrested for having the thing on the street in the first place. After all; the Law isn't going to take my word for it that I am responsible enough to break the law in that way.

In this country (excepting Texas I think) it's pretty much impossible to get a carrying license unless you handle a lot of cash and have to travel with it often (from stores safe to bank) or if you work in security or own a business that has cash registers.
Were I to register for a carrying permit simply because I live in a bad neighborhood; that doesn't fly.
So no; America is not filled with a bunch of yahoos walking around strapped. That's just Texas. It's really really difficult to acquire a carrying permit.

As far as Class 3 weapons(Full-Auto)
It's not that difficult to get a license for one as long as you have a clean record...
The problem there is affording a gun that is more expensive than a car. There is some law that went into effect about a decade or 2 or 3 ago that caused this.. the price of Class 3 guns seems to have went up country-wide.. guns that were once $4000 became $14,000. It's like the same thing that has been done with the price of cigarettes.


and yes, I agree with Tarv that if someone did break into my house I'm certainly going for my smallest handgun before I go for the AK-47.


one more thing... all that stuff about mobs and home defense... I may not be feeling so smug about it after these elections...
I'm starting to expect societal chaos of exponential proportions.
I live in Maryland (hard core democratic state) and when I just told a crowd of people that I was voting for Obama I thought I was going to get lynched.
This election.... I will breathe a LOT better when it's done with.
I see riots happening no matter who wins.... but ESPECIALLY if Obama wins.
Rednecks scare me more than blacks.




Edited, Oct 28th 2008 7:43pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#225 Oct 28 2008 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
Dude, did you know that Baltimore has a higher rate of murder per person than Darfur?

I thought of you when I read this Smiley: smile

Editt: cos i'm a bit stoned, and it's time for bed



Edited, Oct 28th 2008 11:57pm by RedPhoenixxx
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#226 Oct 28 2008 at 4:02 PM Rating: Decent
I'm just gonna throw this out there for debate.

For someone who's experienced in handling guns, a shotgun can actually be a better choice for home-defense, if such use could ever be justified. The reasons?

1. Less fatal range than most rifles and a lot of pistols
2. Less accuracy required to appropriately defend one's self / home
3. Less contribution to the whole illegal conceal/carry of hand guns argument.

After all, the justification of the DC handgun ban was that handguns are too easily concealed and abused. The same cannot be said for most shotguns.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 213 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (213)