Printable View
True. But this is a special case where someone's hobby carries the potential for murder and mayhem all out of proportion to most hobbies.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
It would be hard to deny it is, at some level, a public health and safety issue.
Irrelevent. If it was only a hobby, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
It is easier to enforce a ban on weapons on an isolated country with uniform gun laws (UK, Australia and NZ).
Even with yearly amnesties it takes time to soak up all the outlawed weapons.
However no matter how big your gun is, it doesn't matter if the bad guy already has his pea shooter that may blow up in his hand to your head.
If you really want to decrease crime on a social level (we are discussing las) then seriously look at the root causes of it.
At an individual level be prepared to defend yourself with or without a gun, because at the end of the day people do kill guns just increase your reach.
I have been mugged twice in my life, both times the guys had no weapons. The first time it was myself against 3 but they where all in my field of vision so no problem walked away with 2 stitches to myself and broke the ribs of the first assailant. The second time it was one on one, or that is what I thought until a second person jumped me from behind. Not much of a chance after that but I did manage to stop any major injuries apart from chipped teeth (not much change given the amount of a rugby injuries and bicycle chipping already in place).
Both times the muggers had the initiative. Both times if they had weapons they were at close enough range they could have caused serious injury to myself or themselves. Both times I would have had zero chance if they and I had guns as they mugged me and would have had the weapons drawn. The second time if anything I would have been shot in the back.
A population armed to the teeth means it never has to become necessary. Simply trusting your leaders to be nice guys is one to go. Didn't work too well for the Weimer Republic of Germany but it's one way to go. The Freikorps had weapons and the various militia's as well but the citizenry was largely unarmed. So it was the militia that ended up as top dog that decided Germanies future. One wonders if Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) would ever have occurred if the Jews had been heavily armed?
If they were and knew guerilla war i dont think the whole hollocaust would have happened the nazis knew this and disarmed them.(read my quotes on the first page)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Well Im not familiar with gun laws for all US states but there is a big difference in murder rates and Louisiana has the highest so thats must mean they have the most strict laws?
CBR
Compare the number of people killed while using a car and those killed by using a gun.Quote:
True. But this is a special case where someone's hobby carries the potential for murder and mayhem all out of proportion to most hobbies.
It would be hard to deny it is, at some level, a public health and safety issue.
I know you are or were a gun owner so maybe you have heard of the system used in Richmond VA, where crimes that involved guns had enormous sentences. It works. Gun crime is down tons if im not mistaken.
We have viable alternatives other than forcing law abiding citizens to give up their guns, when naturally criminals wouldnt anyway.
Don't forget the good old muskets and arquebuses. ~:) :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Its irrelevant to you because you dont enjoy it. How would you like it if someone wanted to ban whatever you like to do?Quote:
Irrelevent. If it was only a hobby, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.
[Edited to remove personal attack; Ser Clegane]
I agree PJ that guns should be licensed and the penalities for using them in crime should be heavily enforced.
Guns that have an alternative use to self defence such as hunting rifles should be easier to get then assault rifles or concealed handguns.
The license for a weapon should be stricter then a car. Learners permit, probabtion permit, full license.
I'd like to approach this on several levels
First, the social/philosophical. I'd rather live in a society where individuals were expected to be responsible enough to own firearms and use them responsibly, than one where the expectation is that people cannot be expected to be prudent and responsible, and hence, need to be protected.
Each day in the US there are people who live up to both expectations.
Second, the reality. There are so many guns, and their ownership is such a deeply rooted aspect of American life that it will be many years before we will be ready for teh ban. Due to the very high numbers and the ability to produce more, it is unlikely that a ban would have any effect other than diarming the responsible folks, leaving criminals with the guns.
Third, my reasons for owning guns. I've said before that I own guns to protect my home and family, since I live in a semi-rural area where the sheriff is probably 10-20 minutes away, at best. I also enjoy target practice, it is something that my friends and I get together and do for fun. I also collect guns as an investment, and view some of the nicer ones almost as works of art.
Being armed gives me the feeling that God must have when he's holding a gun (J/K, one of my fav Simpson's quotes).
Yes, gun violence can be a real problem, places like the mean streets of LA there are lots of shootings. There are already many many laws against this behavior, and IMHO restricting gun ownership further won't help that problem, which is essentially drug money/turf/racial/poverty in origin.
While it is unlikely that an armed populace could resist a determined world power equipped with today's technology, it is also apparent that most oppressed peoples first lost the ability to resist.
We've been around and around on this subject, probably just as polarized as we were. One thing that I've learned from these discussions is that those who are for restricting firearm ownership are usually concerned about gun violence and are trying to make the world a better place. Most gun-owning Americans are not nuts, just convinced that they are capable of being responsible for their own safety.
The real question for Americans is not whether we should ban guns or assualt weapons, but what is the best way allow responsible gun ownership with reasonable constraints to protect society.
ichi :bow:
You're preaching to the choir. I agree with almost all of what you say. I've owned dozens of guns, from assault weapons to single shot .22s. I'm more than well aquainted all most facets of the issue. I even wrote a newspaper article once comparing the M-16 to the Lee-Enfield SMLE in terms of a public safety issue. My conclusion was that both were equally dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Yet I also have a deep feeling, a mistrust if you will, about high tech weapons in the hands of Joe Average. I know it's an emotional response to a technical issue involving mechanical objects, which is as stupid as the day is long, but at what point do you disregard a gut feeling? Especially one involving the safety of those around you.
I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying the other side can raise very valid points.
(How come [edited as the relevant statement has been removed; Ser Clegane])
For that we have the homeguard (61000 men and women who have their weapon at home) plus various depots for an eventual mobilisation. There should be enough weapons for a small civil war but I guess one can always have more.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
We actually did have a near fascist period in the late 1890's and lots of rifle clubs were created back then IIRC.
AFAIK the Swiss allows people to have their assault rifles at home but they are still part of the militia that are to be mobilised in case of war. So there is still some control of who actually have the weapons and therefore not everyone can have one. I dont know about their handgun laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
CBR
Didn't you also have a Fascist period from 1940 until 1945? The reasons for having an armed citizenry is well illustrated by your nations history, IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
The homeguard doesn't seem to have done much to prevent these incidents.
Personally I am an advocate of gun restriction.I can stretch to allowing them for hobbies, as long as they are under extremely secure protection at all times.
Intuitively guns just lead to a MAD scenario. I have a gun, so the criminal gets the bigger gun, so I get a bigger gun, so the criminal gets a bigger gun, so I get a tactical nuclear weapon and there goes my suburb. If guns become common for citizens, then everyone has to get one as they can't risk a criminal coming into their house with a gun and them not having one.
I think if there is a problem with crime, then that is a societal problem, and simply arming everyone to the teeth is not a satisfactory outcome. Was the cold war satisfactory? I would say no, and the non cold war aftermath is far better.
You can do that with out a gun. Would Probably be more simple too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The occupation yes. The homeguard was not created until after the war in the spirit of the resistance movement.
1885 to 1894 was a political/constitutional struggle. The government used provisional laws and did indeed strengthen the police and restricted freedom of press and weapon laws. Many of these laws came into being after an assassination attempt on the PM. But in the end it was solved peacefully. Any armed struggle by the peasants and workers could have turned it something really bad IMO
What to say about the German occupation? Nothing would have stopped the Germans from invading and it took nearly 3 years before the popular opinion had changed enough to force the government to give up. I don't know what lots of weapons would have done to make it different.
CBR
Fair enough - i know its ridiculous to let non-military personnel have many weapons.Quote:
I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying the other side can raise very valid points.
Declaring the interests of responsible gun owners irrelevant is pretty arrogant.Quote:
(How come [edited as the relevant statement has been removed; Ser Clegane])
Kind of a silly argument don't ya think? A criminal could have a cannon and still 1 well placed .22 shot will stop him cold- no tac nukes needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by dgb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Ok, I went into a bit of hyperbole there ~;). And by bigger I didn't mean in sheer size, it was a general "effectiveness" measure of a gun. I think we have had this discussion before between us though haven't we ~:).
Some things would have stopped the Germans from invading.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
What nation in europe had a well armed citizenry? Switzerland.
What tiny, neutral, nation was not invaded by the Germans? Switzerland.
If Denmark had in fact, a similar system to the Swiss, I doubt the Germans would have bothered, as it would not have been worth the effort required.
TBH I really doubt it has anything to do with that. Hitler had a clear purpose for most of his invasions.
Taking Denmark was important as he needed an airport to support the invasion of Norway. Norway because of the iron import that UK was about to shut down.
Benelux because of the invasion of France. Yugoslavia because of a sudden pro UK coup that could threaten the flank just when he was about to invade Russia. Greece...blame the Italians on that. etc
No offense to the Swiss but they had absolutely nothing that Hitler needed.
CBR
So the right to bear arms as long as you belong to an organised militia...Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
What do people think about non-lethal guns?
A bit like a phaser on Star Trek when it is set to stun.
Nice, the gun argument again.
I think comparing guns with the use of cars is inappropriate as the use of both is completely different.Quote:
Compare the number of people killed while using a car and those killed by using a gun.
Guns are a hobby and a means to protect yourself from muggers or your own government, but we also have arguments that the government wouldn't be able to send the troops in because they would be, in reality, your brothers and sisters. The thing that's confusing me is that it seems to be the same people making these points depending on how the argument is going.Quote:
Guns are a very fun hobby. You shouldnt go around banning people's hobbies just because you are insecure.
If guns are a hobby do you really need assault rifles? I would say no, assault rifles are designed for the military for use in war situations, you don't need automatic firing or weapons designed to be used in confined spaces or night firing capabilities to go target shooting.
So what about protection, I'll ignore from the government because to me it just doesn't hold water. I take it most of the population lives in urban areas, for this case do you really want someone with a weapon that can fire their whole mag of 30+ rounds in well under a minute, again I would say no. So we don't want people carrying assault rifles in the street so what about protecting your home. If someone breaks into your home you don't need a weapon that is designed to penetrate body armour at 600m+ when the attacker is likely to be within, what, 10m? In rural areas you might have an argument if you were in a dangerous country where gangs attack isolated homes, but AFAIK this doesn't happen in the US.
So that leaves us with, it's your constitutional right to bear arms. I would argue whether this is even still valid, I can see the point in a fledgling country that is coming to grips with establishing government and trying to win a place in the world, but nowadays? I'm not buying it. There's also the fact that this is the same country that monitors which books you buy, I would say that this is a bigger violation of your rights than banning guns.
Of course, I don't live in the US, so I don't really care and it's none of my business
When you think about it, the only reason for an assault weapon (other than fun, which they certainly are) is to miss a lot and be able to keep shooting. Fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
The question then arises - will Joe Average be in a situation where he will require a heavy volume of fire? Will he be firing, repeatedly, at multiple moving targets? Will he be engaging in firefights where hundreds of rounds are flying through the air? If Mr. Average has a basic assault weapon - thirty round mags and the ability to shoot them off quickly - what situation is it, other than freedom of possesion in itself, that justifies that possesion?
My Galil held twenty-five rounds of .308. I had four magazines, not excessive at all by gun owner standards. I could rapid fire those 100 rounds in a minute or two easily, with a loose degree of accuracy. In other words, I would miss a lot if the target was man sized at a hundred yards. Then again, a standard hunting rifle will pop that man sized target five times in a minute at a 100 yards no problem at all.
What situation is it that Joe Average will find himself in where he requires a heavy volume of sustained fire? (Hell, what situation would require Joe Average to shoot five men in a minute with a hunting rifle?) Won't a lesser volume of accurate fire be more than enough? If this is true, then wouldn't Joe Average be better suited to more conventional arms? Ones that do not so easily permit (or that are actually designed for) a spray and pray slaughter at the local shopping mall? Can he not feel well armed and well protected with "lesser" weapons that perhaps do not carry the inherent threat to the public as the assault weapons?
As a long time gun owner, I find this one of the toughest questions to answer.
There is a ban on guns in the Caymans for a very specific reason. The Reason being that during the 60s Many Guns went into Cuba via Central American Countries and Venezuela, their biggest ammo dump was right here in good ol' Cayman, right under the British Authorities Noses. I am not anti-gun by any measure, it just proves that if a group is actively seeking out weapons of such deadly caliber it is very easy to attain them without anyone ever knowing. I think a regulation should be put on the type of weapons a person should be able to possess, for dense Urban Areas (or entire states for that matter) only mid Caliber Hand Guns should be allowed, for less dense states higher Caliber weapons, such as Hunting Rifles should be allowed. And people from another state that has a ban on High Caliber Guns should not be able to cross over state lines and purchase a gun in different state unless they are permanent residents for a certain amount of years. Also the purchase of guns should be regulated, so if you live in a state that is more lax on Gun Laws and move to a state that is more strict on gun laws, authorities should have the right to strip you of any illegal arms and reimburse you for the price that it was sold to you or trade you for one that is legal within the state. If you have been proven to have purchased a gun in the past and then move to a state where it is illegal to possess such a fire-arm and you cannot produce it, then there should be a maximum fine of $1500 or you aren't allowed to purchase a gun within the state until you hand over your illegal weapon. Weapons such as heirlooms can be kept in a safe box.
If by Chance the US or any other country is facing possible invasion (which in todays day and age would be extremely unlikely) then the local military and Police Forces would have large enough weapons caches to adequatly supply the population with Assault Rifles and such. In the Case of an attempted overthrow of Government, I have no doubt that the men of our armed forces would turn on them in proper. Most American soldiers Fight for our Freedom, not for America.
"I am so against legal firearms.
I really cannot see why people want to own guns."
I would be scared if I knew all my neighbours had guns. Why are the legal in the first place? The president thought there were too many inhabitants? So he allowed guns in the U.S.? It has costed many lives so far ...
I'll really never understand this, and I'm afraid I'll never convince the conservative pro-gun americans, so I won't discuss this topic further.
:dizzy2:
Anyone, not including law enforcement or armed forced, with an assult weapon in a modern society is most probably a freak. Sooner or later the person in question will use the assult weapon in a crime. Therefore there should be no assult weapons allowed.
Those are useless if some one is worth pointing a gun at they are worth killing. you are not suposed to draw unless you are in a life or death sitiuation..... not just because the 5 year old down the road called you stupidQuote:
Originally Posted by Martinus
~:eek:
Ja'chyra : that is fair enough but the issue with the U.S. assault weapons ban is that it basically banned anything that looks scary or anything that has attachments to it (that could make it looks scarier). It also limits magazine size (which means very little in practical terms as you just carry more smaller clips with you).
There are already controls on fully automatic weapons. The assault weapons ban went after semi-automatics for the most part.
Bmolsson: people I live with own, amongst many other guns, an AK 47 and an M1 Garand, they have never, and really are never likely to go nuts and start shooting people. They just like shooting targets/pests. For home defense they have 1911s with hollow tip bullets. Nobody I know with an "assault weapon" has shown any indications of being a freak or a violent nutter with criminal intentions