# How controlled do you think guns should be?



## Ardielley (Aug 4, 2013)

ADDpink said:


> To drop the fact our opinions are like black and white (when it concerns this subject) for a second, I wonder the following:
> 
> What more comes to mind than just guns when thinking of protecting yourself?


If one person comes storming into another person's home and is armed, I can't think of too many other ways where the other person can defend themselves if they don't also have a gun (assuming they even get the chance to defend themselves). A knife? You'd have to get into close range for that to work, and by that time, you'd be dead. An alarm system? Sure, people would come, but it'd be too late by then. If you can think of some other practical, effective methods to defend yourself against an intruder, then this discussion might be able to go somewhere.


----------



## AdroElectro (Oct 28, 2014)

BIGJake111 said:


> Guns already are legal. Therefore they cannot become illegal.
> 
> There are too many out there it's impossible for the gov to take all and that would include the seizure of personal property and I would never vote in a gov that supports the seizure of personal property.
> 
> ...


Did you even read my second link? You're making an incredibly fallacious argument. "Don't ban guns because criminals will still own them anyway. " Yes, by their very definition criminals will break the law. But they are the very reason those laws have to exist. Should we not ban rape because rapists are going to rape
anyway? Should we not ban robbery because thieves are going to steal anyway?


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

AdroElectro said:


> Did you even read my second link? You're making an incredibly fallacious argument. "Don't ban guns because criminals will still own them anyway. " Yes, by their very definition criminals will break the law. But they are the very reason those laws have to exist. Should we not ban rape because rapists are going to rape
> anyway? Should we not ban robbery because thieves are going to steal anyway?


You can't ban guns because it disinfrancises those who are not criminals whilst of course criminals still exist.

It's like banning sex to stop rape. Rapist will still rape and everyone else can't have sex.


----------



## Despotic Nepotist (Mar 1, 2014)

Minimal gun control. I can definitely see the argument for background checks, although generally gun control has very little to do with the effect on crime. Take for instance, Australia, whose gun buyback of 1996 is often cited as grounds for the effectiveness of gun control due to a decrease in homicide rates. 









IMHO, socioeconomic factors have more to do with crime rates than gun control. 

I must confess a general skepticism towards gun control, as its entire history has been riddled with the control of weapons as a means of disenfranchisement. In 1868, for instance, the gun laws enacted in Alabama specifically had the effect of disenfranchising its black citizens, leaving them to the mercy of the KKK. 



> Laws regulating handgun possession and use have helped keep people from fighting against their social and political oppressors. Bans on sales of cheap handguns, so called Saturday night specials were instituted historically to keep weapons out of the hands of peaceable poor people, who often were not able to afford more expensive guns and rifles. This at one time left southern black people at the mercy of the KKK, and workers of all colors no defense against the thugs hired by business owners during strikes and industrial actions.


Chris Carrara. “An Anarchist Case Against Gun Control.” January 1st, 2005. http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-cararra-an-anarchist-caseagainst-gun-control


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

BIGJake111 said:


> You can't ban guns because it disinfrancises those who are not criminals whilst of course criminals still exist.
> 
> It's like banning sex to stop rape. Rapist will still rape and everyone else can't have sex.


So murder should be legal since murderers will just keep on murdering regardless? /s


----------



## Ardielley (Aug 4, 2013)

ArmchairCommie said:


> So murder should be legal since murderers will just keep on murdering regardless? /s


False analogy that doesn't have anything to do with the one @BIGJake111 proposed. Nobody said anything about legalizing murder. The real point is more along the lines of this: murderers will continue to murder regardless of whether or not the possession of guns is against the law, so law-abiding citizens shouldn't be punished just to punish these murderers (who couldn't care less about the law, otherwise they wouldn't be murdering people). 

Wow, that was a mouthful. xD


----------



## leictreon (Jan 4, 2016)

I'd say not ban them but make it pretty hard to get them so you can't be completely defenseless but it isn't easy for the everyday psycho to get them either.


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

Ardielley said:


> False analogy that doesn't have anything to do with the one @BIGJake111 proposed. Nobody said anything about legalizing murder. The real point is more along the lines of this: murderers will continue to murder regardless of whether or not the possession of guns is against the law, so law-abiding citizens shouldn't be punished just to punish these murderers (who couldn't care less about the law, otherwise they wouldn't be murdering people).
> 
> Wow, that was a mouthful. xD


But at the same time what is the legitimate use of having a gun which can fire 30+ rounds without reloading? Unless you have terrible aim the only reason for weapons with such high magazines is to kill large numbers of people so the only people who would want them are mass shooters.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

ADDpink said:


> The fact you can have a gun yourself, means every single person around you can too, and that in every room people can drop their gun which is up for grabs for anyone.
> 
> i've read articles like a young kid shooting his own mother because her gun was in the backseat of her car or something. And go so on. Never I've read such thing about my country where we aren't allowed to have guns.
> 
> How much of a protection is that?


That is because the state run media would never allow that in a country where you cannot own guns...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

ArmchairCommie said:


> But at the same time what is the legitimate use of having a gun which can fire 30+ rounds without reloading? Unless you have terrible aim the only reason for weapons with such high magazines is to kill large numbers of people so the only people who would want them are mass shooters.


Actually poorly trained individuals like cops hit the intended target with 30% of shots fired. And that is just against one target. When engaging 2 targets it drops to 11%. 3 targets 2% 4 targets...... .15% hit probability. This not even for sure fatalities, as cops comparatively rarely kill people in a shootouts which is pretty fucked up when you realize most shootouts occur at less than 20 feet.(5 metres).

Now say we drop the capacity to 10 rounds considering those numbers. The chance of surviving plummets when you have only 10 rounds and 2 perps then literally flatlines with a third perp bearing in mind that the perps are not very proficient with the weapons.

If the perps are proficient than one perp is sufficient to eliminate the cop.

In America the cops the perps and the normal gun owners all are near the same proficiency wise. 

There are very few proficient shooters on any side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## camous (Jul 12, 2015)

People should be more educated on not using a gun to solve all their issues... banning is nice but you would just create more issue on the black market and such if people aren't educated to solve their issue otherwise.


----------



## Turquoise Rain (Feb 15, 2016)

The first thing people should understand is that* having a gun brings more risk than protection, unless you are experienced in using it* (which is not the case for most of the population). Otherwise, it's pretty easy for an skilled agressor to take it away from the owner and cause even more harm, especially if there is more than one agressor _(one member here made an animation in which this scenario happens, and they were two people against one assaulter)_. 

The second thing is that* when you have a gun pointed to your head, having one with you won't make a huge of a difference* since any movement you make will cause the agressor to freak out and possibly end up shooting you (especially when he knows you may have a gun since it's allowed by law). 

Also,* guns aren't a defensive instrument*, they are offensive, in other words, they are meant to attack. In most of the situations when the agressor is unarmed, he doesn't intend to kill anyone. When someone attempts to rob you and succeeds, you go to the police station and denounce them. If you kill them, you are giving a death sentence for the crime of extortion. And when he is armed, well, you can only get away if there are many people to gather his attention (like in mass shootings); if you are the only target, it will be really hard to make any use of your gun. 

Carrying a gun gives an illusion of protection, but it barely provides any.

Here in Brazil (and it's not even a developed country like the european), mass shootings are _very rare_. We struggle to combat drug traffic but people that aren't somehow involved with it are rarely shot like in the US. The violence here isn't in a low level, but most of it are traffic and thieveries that _don't end up in murder_. 

As for USA, a developed country, they should be ashamed of the number of people being shot everyday and should realize that this is _not normal_.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

ArmchairCommie said:


> But at the same time what is the legitimate use of having a gun which can fire 30+ rounds without reloading? Unless you have terrible aim the only reason for weapons with such high magazines is to kill large numbers of people so the only people who would want them are mass shooters.


Shootin commies. 

(Not a joke actually this is the only reason I would own a gun, I'm rather pacifist and don't believe in owning a handgun or taking weapons with me off of my property. However i think I should have the right to an arsenal and would Much more consider owning an assault weapon over a handgun because I can actually defend my estate with that in the case anyone came to redistribute it.)


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

ArmchairCommie said:


> So murder should be legal since murderers will just keep on murdering regardless? /s


Sorry for two separate quotes, but the point is murder and rape should be illegal, sadly both will always happen. 

It would be dumb to ban sex expecting that to stop rape from happening and that's the same case with guns.


----------



## leictreon (Jan 4, 2016)

Turquoise Rain said:


> Here in Brazil (and it's not even a developed country like the european), mass shootings are _very rare_. We struggle to combat drug traffic but people that aren't somehow involved with it are rarely shot like in the US. The violence here isn't in a low level, but most of it are traffic and thieveries that _don't end up in murder_.


I guess it depends... I've read that Brazil is the country with the most violent cities in the world and that Fortaleza is one of the most dangerous cities... but then again, Brazil is a large country and I think the southern parts are a little better. But yeah, no mass shootings... still a lot of people die.

Here in Venezuela we have gun control too. We're the most violent country in the world -not counting war torn countries-. You will get murdered over a phone, or even worse, over not having _anything valuable_. It's ridiculous. But I think the causes are way beyond gun control (and removing the gun control wouldn't really help anyways). But back to my point, I don't think Brazil would be a good example to follow. Venezuela isn't either. We don't have mass shootings but still, 50 people dead is the average death toll of a weekend in Caracas.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

High-capacity magazines are the most important problem to me. If a bad guy is shooting you, then you having 20 bullets in a magazine instead of 5 or 10 is not actually going to change anything for you.


----------



## Turquoise Rain (Feb 15, 2016)

leictreon said:


> I guess it depends... I've read that Brazil is the country with the most violent cities in the world and that Fortaleza is one of the most dangerous cities... but then again, Brazil is a large country and I think the southern parts are a little better. But yeah, no mass shootings... still a lot of people die.
> 
> Here in Venezuela we have gun control too. We're the most violent country in the world -not counting war torn countries-. You will get murdered over a phone, or even worse, over not having _anything valuable_. It's ridiculous. But I think the causes are way beyond gun control (and removing the gun control wouldn't really help anyways). But back to my point, I don't think Brazil would be a good example to follow. Venezuela isn't either. We don't have mass shootings but still, 50 people dead is the average death toll of a weekend in Caracas.


I never said Brazil is an example to be followed, I said the situation here on this matter is _bad_ but in the US (a developed country), it's _worse_. 

I know Fortaleza and it is indeed a violent city, but most of that violence doesn't involve solely murder (like passional crimes, mass shooting etc). It revolves around traffic and robbery (murders sometimes happen when the victim of robbery reacts, causing the assaulter to freak out and kill them -_which happens much more when the victim can be armed_-)

It's not rare to be stopped by someone that acquired a gun illegally and be forced to give away your belongings, but it's not usual to end up _*dead*_. 

My father works for the federal police and even when he is carrying a gun, he doesn't react when being robbed, because it's not the best way to handle these situations. My point was that having a gun is almost _useless_ for self defense. My father is well trained and not even he thinks of it as the primary option. 

Most of the violence of my country is due to problems that US barely has (really high impunity and low surveillance for example), though people are still shot everyday there, which is at a minimum _embarrassing_. And I'm not even comparing to Europe.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Simpson17866 said:


> High-capacity magazines are the most important problem to me. If a bad guy is shooting you, then you having 20 bullets in a magazine instead of 5 or 10 is not actually going to change anything for you.


Where did you read that nonsense??? If that bullshit were true then the military would not have invented a belt fed machine gun. The French military once shared those beliefs until vietnam!

And yes the same concept applies to the civie world!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Carpentet810 said:


> Where did you read that nonsense??? If that bullshit were true then the military would not have invented a belt fed machine gun. The French military once shared those beliefs until vietnam!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 You do realize that gun control discussions are not intended to be applied to the military, right?


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Simpson17866 said:


> You do realize that gun control discussions are not intended to be applied to the military, right?


Shootout is a shootout. Less bullets less chance at survival, more bullets more chance. Its basic math. 

Its why ALL multi-shot weapons were created.

If you need 30 gallons of petrol to make trip and instead you are given 5-10 because that is "enough" can you still make the trip??

Simple math.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## leictreon (Jan 4, 2016)

Turquoise Rain said:


> I never said Brazil is an example to be followed, I said the situation here on this matter is _bad_ but in the US (a developed country), it's _worse_.
> 
> I know Fortaleza and it is indeed a violent city, but most of that violence doesn't involve solely murder (like passional crimes, mass shooting etc). It revolves around traffic and robbery (murders sometimes happen when the victim of robbery reacts, causing the assaulter to freak out and kill them -_which happens much more when the victim can be armed_-)
> 
> ...


True too... USA is way too violent compared to other developed countries, to the point that I'd rather not consider it a developed country, at least not socially.


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

BIGJake111 said:


> Shootin commies.
> 
> (Not a joke actually this is the only reason I would own a gun, I'm rather pacifist and don't believe in owning a handgun or taking weapons with me off of my property. However i think I should have the right to an arsenal and would Much more consider owning an assault weapon over a handgun because I can actually defend my estate with that in the case anyone came to redistribute it.)


Well in that case you might as well stash some nuclear missile silos in your backyard to serve as a nuclear deterrent against those evil North Koreans. /s But seriously if you are that scared about a governmental collapse then I can understand putting your guns in some underground bunker somewhere but in daily use you should not be carrying a machine gun around in your pickup truck to work, it's way too much of a safety hazard.



Carpentet810 said:


> Shootout is a shootout. Less bullets less chance at survival, more bullets more chance. Its basic math.
> 
> Its why ALL multi-shot weapons were created.
> 
> ...


But if you use more bullets than the chance for bystanders to be shot and killed increases. The reason that the rules of engagement exist, armies are not supposed to use their LMGs and RPGs on civilian populations as that is a war crime. Similarly civilians should not be carrying around weapons that are designed to fire 30+ rounds in quick succession, how is that justified? The point of having a gun for self-protection is not to kill dozens of people at once, it is to protect yourself from a few attackers at most. When would you need all those bullets to defend yourself from just one person?


----------



## Turquoise Rain (Feb 15, 2016)

Carpentet810 said:


> Shootout is a shootout. Less bullets less chance at survival, more bullets more chance. Its basic math.
> 
> Its why ALL multi-shot weapons were created.
> 
> ...


Hypothetical situation here: 

You are walking down the streets and someone approaches you pointing a gun to your head and telling you to put your arms up so he can take your belongings from you. Your chances of survival are higher if you:

a) Have a high-capacity magazine gun.
b) Have a generic pistol. 
c) Have no guns.
d) It doesn't matter because you should keep cool and do as he says so you won't get shot, despite being robbed.

You talk as if everyday life was WWI. This ^ is everyday life.


----------



## isamanthax (Mar 22, 2016)

Guns aren't necessarily the problem, it's when the wrong people get a hold of them too easily.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

10 bullets, 20 bullets. Handgun, machine gun. No matter what you choose, defenseless civilians aren't going to stand a chance.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

ArmchairCommie said:


> Well in that case you might as well stash some nuclear missile silos in your backyard to serve as a nuclear deterrent against those evil North Koreans. /s But seriously if you are that scared about a governmental collapse then I can understand putting your guns in some underground bunker somewhere but in daily use you should not be carrying a machine gun around in your pickup truck to work, it's way too much of a safety hazard.


I've yet to decide if I'll ever purchase a weapon. If I do i doubt it would leave my home other then maybe to a range for practice if I don't do that at home as well. No need for missiles or anything crazy civilians just deserve the ability to form a well made militia if we ever need to factory reset American democracy back to the days of the founders. 

If the gov used hand guns so would I, if the gov wasn't aloud guns I don't think either should I. But the civilian should always be able to match the govs power and be able to throughly revolt Incase of tyranny.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Turquoise Rain said:


> Hypothetical situation here:
> 
> You are walking down the streets and someone approaches you pointing a gun to your head and telling you to put your arms up so he can take your belongings from you. Your chances of survival are higher if you:
> 
> ...


a. Fn fal sbr
b. Glock 40 or steyr l9a1
c. Perp robs you again the next week because you are weak, providing he doesn't shoot you to avoid leaving witnesses.
d. He shoots my punk ass for being a poser and wasting his time.

Gonna pick a vowel, let me buy an A. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Turquoise Rain (Feb 15, 2016)

Carpentet810 said:


> a. Fn fal sbr
> b. Glock 40 or steyr l9a1
> c. Perp robs you again the next week because you are weak, providing he doesn't shoot you to avoid leaving witnesses.
> d. He shoots my punk ass for being a poser and wasting his time.
> ...


You move your hands down to grab it and _boom_ get shot.

Game over, you're dead.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Turquoise Rain said:


> You move your hands down to grab it and _boom_ get shot.
> 
> Game over, you're dead.


Except there is only a 30% chance of me being dead unless the weapon is pressed to the skull. And that is only if the perp practices as much as the police do.

You sure don't know a lot about this sort of thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

ArmchairCommie said:


> Well in that case you might as well stash some nuclear missile silos in your backyard to serve as a nuclear deterrent against those evil North Koreans. /s But seriously if you are that scared about a governmental collapse then I can understand putting your guns in some underground bunker somewhere but in daily use you should not be carrying a machine gun around in your pickup truck to work, it's way too much of a safety hazard.
> 
> 
> 
> But if you use more bullets than the chance for bystanders to be shot and killed increases. The reason that the rules of engagement exist, armies are not supposed to use their LMGs and RPGs on civilian populations as that is a war crime. Similarly civilians should not be carrying around weapons that are designed to fire 30+ rounds in quick succession, how is that justified? The point of having a gun for self-protection is not to kill dozens of people at once, it is to protect yourself from a few attackers at most. When would you need all those bullets to defend yourself from just one person?


Well that happens to the police pretty normally yet they rarely kill bystanders. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Turquoise Rain (Feb 15, 2016)

Carpentet810 said:


> Except there is only a 30% chance of me being dead unless the weapon is pressed to the skull. And that is only if the perp practices as much as the police do.
> 
> You sure don't know a lot about this sort of thing.


It depends on exactly where the round hits, the caliber, mass and velocity of the bullet, we haven't discussed it because you were just now approached and you don't _know_ any of those things. 

Thus, you _can't really tell_ the chances of survival for this situation, and now that you're dead because you chose to react, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Turquoise Rain said:


> It depends on exactly where the round hits, the caliber, mass and velocity of the bullet and whether or not its a glancing blow, we haven't discussed it because you were just now approached and you don't *know* any of those things.
> 
> Thus, you _can't really tell_ the chances of survival for this situation, and now that you're dead because you chose to react, it doesn't really matter.


So in other words i am completely correct that there is a less than 30% chance of a fatal hit and you try to mealy mouth it away with bullshit about calibers. Considering 30% represents ALL calibres and makes. 
ALL OF THEM!!!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> Well that happens to the police pretty normally yet they rarely kill bystanders.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well there are still plenty of instances in which the police accidentally shot civilians, really the police are technically civilians themselves so they should not be militarized with high-magazine weapons either.



BIGJake111 said:


> I've yet to decide if I'll ever purchase a weapon. If I do i doubt it would leave my home other then maybe to a range for practice if I don't do that at home as well. No need for missiles or anything crazy civilians just deserve the ability to form a well made militia if we ever need to factory reset American democracy back to the days of the founders.
> 
> If the gov used hand guns so would I, if the gov wasn't aloud guns I don't think either should I. But the civilian should always be able to match the govs power and be able to throughly revolt Incase of tyranny.


Okay, yeah if you do decide to buy a gun just to keep at home then that makes a lot more sense. At the same time however I don't think that it is really possible for individual civilians to be able to match the power of the federal government, since you obviously can't build missile silos in your backyard. Really if you are that concerned about the government possibly turning to tyranny then you should join your state's military reserves as I think they are a good way to gain some training without being put into combat. 

To be honest everyone single state in the country should make it so that they have their own militia, which functions as a reserve force with some federal oversight, but if things take a turn for the worst then those reserves would be called into action so as to protect the individual state. I think that would be the best compromise for those who are paranoid about the federal government since having every state with their own functional army force would allow for a success rebellion against Washington D.C. to occur if the situation becomes dire.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

ArmchairCommie said:


> Well there are still plenty of instances in which the police accidentally shot civilians, really the police are technically civilians themselves so they should not be militarized with high-magazine weapons either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are plenty indeed but compared to overall shots fired by cops it is very low. 

Personally i would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Turquoise Rain (Feb 15, 2016)

Carpentet810 said:


> So in other words i am completely correct that there is a less than 30% chance of a fatal hit and you try to mealy mouth it away with bullshit about calibers. Considering 30% represents ALL calibres and makes.
> ALL OF THEM!!!


I want your source, because I remember learning that short range shots on the heart or head have less than 9% chance of survival. 

After your source, I can accept your argument that the odds are of 30% and still it would be possible for you to be dead after it, compared to giving away some money/electronics and go home. Without mentioning the possibility of not getting any help and bleeding to death. 

I'm still having a hard time believing that you _really_ think reacting in that situation would be a better option and that would be your attitude in real life.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Turquoise Rain said:


> I want your source, because I remember learning that short range shots on the heart or head have less than 9% chance of survival.
> 
> After your source, I can accept your argument that the odds are of 30% and still it would be possible for you to be dead after it, compared to giving away some money/electronics and go home. Without mentioning the possibility of not getting any help and bleeding to death.
> 
> I still have a hard time believing that you *really *think reacting in that situation would be a better option and that would be your attitude in real life.


Policeone.com


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Vast Silence said:


> Guns are things people enjoy having. You are taking their freedom out of a selfish and misdirected fear *toward an object that can do no harm*.


----------



## Turquoise Rain (Feb 15, 2016)

Carpentet810 said:


> Policeone.com
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


AANS - Gunshot Wound Head Trauma

*•	Gunshot wound head trauma is fatal about 90 percent of the time, with many victims dying before arriving at the hospital.*

Argument invalid. And even if it was valid you'd have made the wrong choice (if your purpose was staying alive).


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

... point is, do we want the government to have a monopoly on defence? I live in Canada where guns are hard to come by, where most of my friends and peers are anti-gun, and it's never been an issue I've given much thought. After the Orlando shooting, and the shootings in Paris and in Belgium, I'm starting to see the advantage of having an armed citizenry. I have no interest in owning guns, personally, but I trust my neighbours more than I trust my government. 

The point is CITIZENRY. One has to be a citizen of the country and have the correct training before purchasing a firearm. I think HOW guns are sold is more important than which types of guns are sold. Granted, there are criteria that would disqualify someone from owning a gun but it's not my role here to write legislature.

... truth be told that much of the shootings, everything back from Columbine to Orlando was a question of negligence. In the most recent Orlando shooting too many people were afraid to be called racist and Islamophobe. My research into the case tells me the shooter's family is involved with militant Islam. He also worked for a security company where he was reported for harassment and suspicious behaviour. The superiors cared more for race relations than they did for confronting a real situation. The same can be said about the store clerk who reported suspicious behaviour when he came looking for body armour.

Should we not drop the out-group preference for non western minorities and start investigating claims as we should, or start investigating the values taught in mosque instead? Why are we talking gun control when the real problem is western self-censhorship, cultural/moral relativism and turning a blind eye to an legitimate complaint? If the politicians, business and the police are scared of being branded and defeated with a single word, I would prefer actual citizens being armed. 

... also with Columbine, if I recall correctly, I think the boys did announce the shooting and had a long history of anti-social behaviour. Maybe if we didn't interfere with people doing their jobs and go on a media lynching, people might be willing to take initiative before anything happens. Sticking your neck out is already risky business, but crazy and socially suicidal when you have a politically oriented lynch mob with cameras.

I don't know what the guns laws in Canada are but I'm willing to entertain the American perspective. I don't feel the need or the desire to own one, but ...


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

Turquoise Rain said:


> I never said Brazil is an example to be followed, I said the situation here on this matter is _bad_ but in the US (a developed country), it's _worse_.


Brazil has 24.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 people per year. The US has 3.9 intentional homicides per 100,000 people per year. Brazil has more than 6x the number of intentional homicides as the US. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate 

The situation in Brazil is way worse than it is in the US.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

ArmchairCommie said:


> I'm just asking why you would need a weapon with such a large magazine, considering how if you are an accurate marksman it shouldn't take more than 5 or 6 rounds to defend yourself. Okay, when I google searched "AR-15 magazine" the first result was a 30 round magazine so I thought that was the standard size. If there are variants of the AR-15 with only 10 rounds then they should be perfectly legal, I just don't like high magazines as it is absurd to think that you'll need 30 rounds for just "hunting." And obviously the AR-15 is nowhere near as deadly as say an M-16, AK-47, or UMP 45 especially since those guns are all fully automatic weapons. So if a gun doesn't have an absurd number of rounds in the magazine then it's fine by me.


Yah hear that criminals??? It should only take 5-6 shots to stop you so all you have to do is wait until they fire all their ammo then you can rape, rob, and murder them!

You don't know much about shootings do you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

WamphyriThrall said:


> You act like it happens anywhere near the extent as in the US. Even taking populations into account, it's pretty absurd. China, India, and Russia also have large populations, but nowhere near the amount of Sandy Hook style shootings.


You already used it as an example of not happening at all! 

Rather rough on the ole credibility!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Carpentet810 said:


> You already used it as an example of not happening at all!
> 
> Rather rough on the ole credibility!
> 
> ...


So because it still happens, we should just discard all common sense and pass out guns like candy (we have enough to arm every citizen of Indonesia, and still have leftovers)? Talk about making a bad problem worse...


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

WamphyriThrall said:


> So because it still happens, we should just discard all common sense and pass out guns like candy (we have enough to arm every citizen of Indonesia, and still have leftovers)? Talk about making a bad problem worse...


You mean like common sense where you treat every nation differently, because they are different and that applying a cookie cutter approach is never used in anything but trying and failing to control guns??? 

That kind of common sense???

Cookie cutter politics never works!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Carpentet810 said:


> You mean like common sense where you treat every nation differently, because they are different and that applying a cookie cutter approach is never used in anything but trying and failing to control guns???
> 
> That kind of common sense???
> 
> ...


I've yet to hear a better solution from you. Like most conservatards, all you do is attack attack attack and shoot ideas down.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

WamphyriThrall said:


> I've yet to hear a better solution from you. Like most conservatards, all you do is attack attack attack and shoot ideas down.


Already going ad hominem...surprise said no one ever.

The flaw in your plans is that you assume everything can be "fixed".

I don't view it as something that can be fixed any more than human nature can be fixed. Hence why i don't make ridiculous speculations about the unfixable, because unfixable does not mean broken, it means not optimal for some parties. Hence you have a bigger problem with things, more so than the actual size of said problem, i do not, and can accept things for what they are. Its called pragmatism!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Carpentet810 said:


> Already going ad hominem...surprise said no one ever.
> 
> The flaw in your plans is that you assume everything can be "fixed".
> 
> ...


Ah, so we just shrug our shoulders while thousands die of gun violence each year. Why? Because "Muh second amendment!" and "The government is eeevil!" 

Other countries put their foot down after Columbine style shootings, but such measures would no doubt cause another civil war here.

We're already at the lowest of the low. How can it not be fixed, improved?


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Ah, so we just shrug our shoulders while thousands die of gun violence each year. Why? Because "Muh second amendment!" and "The government is eeevil!"
> 
> Other countries put their foot down after Columbine style shootings, but such measures would no doubt cause another civil war here.
> 
> We're already at the lowest of the low. How can it not be fixed, improved?


How many people are you comfortable killing to prevent 30,000 deaths a year. 

The reason i see no feasible outcome is because of the numbers required to solve the problem. 

America was founded by those who killed others and took their land. To think a nation as a whole is far removed from that is woefully dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Carpentet810 said:


> How many people are you comfortable killing to prevent 30,000 deaths a year.
> 
> The reason i see no feasible outcome is because of the numbers required to solve the problem.
> 
> ...


So were other European colonies, and even countries like Russia. They don't all have this sick obsession with guns and rebellion. 

I also like how you toss around 30,000 like it's nothing.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

ArmchairCommie said:


> I'm just asking why you would need a weapon with such a large magazine, considering how if you are an accurate marksman it shouldn't take more than 5 or 6 rounds to defend yourself. Okay, when I google searched "AR-15 magazine" the first result was a 30 round magazine so I thought that was the standard size. If there are variants of the AR-15 with only 10 rounds then they should be perfectly legal, I just don't like high magazines as it is absurd to think that you'll need 30 rounds for just "hunting." And obviously the AR-15 is nowhere near as deadly as say an M-16, AK-47, or UMP 45 especially since those guns are all fully automatic weapons. So if a gun doesn't have an absurd number of rounds in the magazine then it's fine by me.


The FBI states that 80% of all rounds fired by trained law enforcement will miss their target in a high stress situation such as an attack. So let us assume that you are being attacked and, are an equal to a law enforcement officer in the marksmanship category. If you are carrying say a colt 1911 in .45ACP with an 8 round magazine, that means you will connect with only one round at best before the gun is a paper wait. Seeing as it will take between 2-4 rounds of .45ACP to incapacitate a 250 lbs man when hitting anything but the brain stem (always aim for center mass), 8 rounds is woefully insufficient. Now say you are using a Glock 19 which is police standard issue in 9mm. to achieve the same result, between 3-6 rounds are needed to incapacitate the target, so you need to carry between 15-20 rounds for the job. Note that this is to neutralize one target, what if there are more? as for my PMR-30 with its 30+1 capacity, it uses a .22 magnum cartridge. While good against small animals, it is among the smallest pistol calibers and may take as many as 8 rounds to neutralize a large human target. So I wish I could tell you an exact magic number of how many bullets are needed, I simply can't make that kind of prediction. Also note that limiting Magazine size is completely pointless, As I could just carry more mags. A mag swap only takes about 1/2 as second for a trained shooter.


----------



## Sava Saevus (Feb 14, 2015)

WamphyriThrall said:


> So were other European colonies, and even countries like Russia. They don't all have this sick obsession with guns and rebellion.
> 
> I also like how you toss around 30,000 like it's nothing.


You know what they say about one man's death vs a million...


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

JayDubs said:


> There are a few big issues with this.
> 
> 1. That term is just something people say as a stand in for things they personally think are good policy. In the past, it's been used to define nonsensical gun control policy. So I will never support someone in favor of "common sense" gun control. But I might support something specific, that makes sense to me.
> 
> ...


Well obviously everyone has a difference sense of common sense, but for me common sense gun control is too ban all magazines which can hold 30+ rounds as having that many bullets in one magazine doesn't make much sense unless you plan of attack is simply to fire wildly in the direction of the criminal. And in a situation where there are going to be multiple civilians all over the place you don't want to kill innocent people in the crossfire, you want to have accurate shots.

I will admit that most politicians who want gun control know nothing about guns and in a perfect world I personally would not allow any guns at all for civilian and police use. But given the situation in modern day gun-crazed America, the only nation in the world which has more guns than people, in order to save lives incremental reforms must be enacted so that people can learn that they don't need to have SIG Sauer MCX rifle with 30 round magazines for "safety." Obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism is the major problem with political groups such as the Tea Party movement given that compromise on national issues is necessary in the American political system.



ShatteredHeart said:


> The FBI states that 80% of all rounds fired by trained law enforcement will miss their target in a high stress situation such as an attack. So let us assume that you are being attacked and, are an equal to a law enforcement officer in the marksmanship category. If you are carrying say a colt 1911 in .45ACP with an 8 round magazine, that means you will connect with only one round at best before the gun is a paper wait. Seeing as it will take between 2-4 rounds of .45ACP to incapacitate a 250 lbs man when hitting anything but the brain stem (always aim for center mass), 8 rounds is woefully insufficient. Now say you are using a Glock 19 which is police standard issue in 9mm. to achieve the same result, between 3-6 rounds are needed to incapacitate the target, so you need to carry between 15-20 rounds for the job. Note that this is to neutralize one target, what if there are more? as for my PMR-30 with its 30+1 capacity, it uses a .22 magnum cartridge. While good against small animals, it is among the smallest pistol calibers and may take as many as 8 rounds to neutralize a large human target. So I wish I could tell you an exact magic number of how many bullets are needed, I simply can't make that kind of prediction. Also note that limiting Magazine size is completely pointless, As I could just carry more mags. A mag swap only takes about 1/2 as second for a trained shooter.


The thing that you left out the context for that 80% miss rate, the fact that police here in America have been increasingly militarized. The police in this country do not receive proper training sometimes and in order to deal with these inadequacies people seem to believe that the solution is simply to give them deadlier guns. Here in the US an average of 1,100 people are killed due to actions of the police and 85% of those deaths involve people shot in a firefight. Maybe you are okay with 935 Americans by shot to death by law enforcement every year, but I think that still an unacceptable death count. The job of the police is not to kill criminals, it is to arrest them, give them a fair trial, and then they can be executed if the jury finds them guilty. Police should never shoot to kill, as then they become nothing more than a paramilitary force. Another (Much Higher) Count Of Homicides By Police | FiveThirtyEight

Concerning the video it was actually very informative, so thanks for showing it to me. The only critique I would make of it is that in a real life situation the shooter would likely not have a table conveniently placed right in front of them, so I suspect that reload times would be higher than shown in the video. The idea of a "New York reload" however is something that didn't come across my mind, I'll admit, so you do have a point that if the shooter has multiple pistols it could still equal the same thing as just having a larger magazine. However what I still fail to see is that if having a smaller magazine is supposed to make no difference than why would someone want a larger one to defend themselves? Clearly it must have some advantage is killing capabilities or else everyone would just have multiple 10 round magazines on their person instead of two 15 round magazines.


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

ArmchairCommie said:


> Well obviously everyone has a difference sense of common sense, but for me common sense gun control is too ban all magazines which can hold 30+ rounds as having that many bullets in one magazine doesn't make much sense unless you plan of attack is simply to fire wildly in the direction of the criminal. And in a situation where there are going to be multiple civilians all over the place you don't want to kill innocent people in the crossfire, you want to have accurate shots.
> 
> I will admit that most politicians who want gun control know nothing about guns and in a perfect world I personally would not allow any guns at all for civilian and police use. But given the situation in modern day gun-crazed America, the only nation in the world which has more guns than people, in order to save lives incremental reforms must be enacted so that people can learn that they don't need to have SIG Sauer MCX rifle with 30 round magazines for "safety." Obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism is the major problem with political groups such as the Tea Party movement given that compromise on national issues is necessary in the American political system.


That's exactly my point. 

1. We tried an assault weapons ban. And it didn't do much except frustrate lawful gun owners. So what you see as common sense, I see as being an unreasonable and unnecessary limitation on gun ownership. 

2. You admit that your end goal is a total ban on guns for both civilian and police, you just don't see it as a feasible goal _now_. While I view gun ownership as a _fundamental individual right_, on par with freedom of speech or the right to vote. Why should I compromise with you? There's no third option we're going to both be happy with (remember, gun rights proponents already tried compromise). I'm much better off committing to total political opposition, rather than giving you an inch of ground at a time until you take the whole mile.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

ArmchairCommie said:


> Well obviously everyone has a difference sense of common sense, but for me common sense gun control is too ban all magazines which can hold 30+ rounds as having that many bullets in one magazine doesn't make much sense unless you plan of attack is simply to fire wildly in the direction of the criminal. And in a situation where there are going to be multiple civilians all over the place you don't want to kill innocent people in the crossfire, you want to have accurate shots.
> 
> I will admit that most politicians who want gun control know nothing about guns and in a perfect world I personally would not allow any guns at all for civilian and police use. But given the situation in modern day gun-crazed America, the only nation in the world which has more guns than people, in order to save lives incremental reforms must be enacted so that people can learn that they don't need to have SIG Sauer MCX rifle with 30 round magazines for "safety." Obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism is the major problem with political groups such as the Tea Party movement given that compromise on national issues is necessary in the American political system.
> 
> ...


as for reloading not of a table, here is a reload from pocket speed






So you are moving the goal post to justify your stance. I would suggest since you want all firearms banned you should move to the UK. They have taken such steps, and the result is simply more knife attacks, Now the left is trying to ban knives. Violent people will always find a way.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...and-and-wales-up-for-first-time-in-four-years

and before you jump on the "well at least is not as bad as mass shootings" BS

Knives Killed Five Times As Many People As Rifles Last Year

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29 at China train station - CNN.com

As for your 935 Americans shot by police, Criminals don't always cooperate when they are being arrested. Should the cops just give them a pass and say " It's okay bud, we'll try again later." How about these active shooters, should the cops not try to stop them from taking innocent lives?


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

JayDubs said:


> That's exactly my point.
> 
> 1. We tried an assault weapons ban. And it didn't do much except frustrate lawful gun owners. So what you see as common sense, I see as being an unreasonable and unnecessary limitation on gun ownership.
> 
> 2. You admit that your end goal is a total ban on guns for both civilian and police, you just don't see it as a feasible goal _now_. While I view gun ownership as a _fundamental individual right_, on par with freedom of speech or the right to vote. Why should I compromise with you? There's no third option we're going to both be happy with (remember, gun rights proponents already tried compromise). I'm much better off committing to total political opposition, rather than giving you an inch of ground at a time until you take the whole mile.


Obviously we must be living in totally different worlds on this issue, but that's okay because you can't expect everyone to have the exact same opinion as you do. Just because you can't see eye to eye with someone does not mean you stubbornly refuse all attempts at compromise, all you do is find some middle ground you can agree on and work out a solution from there. I don't get way some people seem to be completely and utterly unable to compromise, since compromise is the foundation of the American democracy. 

Also the only reason the assault weapons ban failed is due to the "grandfather clause" which allowed old assault weapons to still be legal. If the ban was in effect for a longer period of time then the number of assault weapons would have withered away and crime would have decreased.
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?



ShatteredHeart said:


> as for reloading not of a table, here is a reload from pocket speed
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I have to say that I'm impressed at that guys' reloading time, though I doubt more than 0.1% of the population could ever reload a gun that fast. And you still have to admit that there is no point in having a large magazine, since changing magazines is just as fast.

The fact that the article shows that knife crime is still lower in England and Wales than its peak six years ago shows that crime in general is on a downward trend and that spike in crime is merely a fluke. Also according to the UN in 2013 the US had a much higher homicide than that of the UK, so to say that more guns make people safer is ridiculous when the statistics so otherwise.
https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf
https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/maps/Map_1.1.pdf

It is undeniable that knives can also be used to kill people but the widespread availability of guns only makes murder easier, after all in Germany a man trying to take people hostage was easily shot dead due to the fact that he couldn't get a real gun. If that man had been in America he could have easily gotten a real gun and shot up multiple people. Officials: German hostage taker had no real firearms | News | DW.COM | 24.06.2016

Obviously in some situations the police do unfortunately have to shoot to kill, but really that's mainly only due to the fact that America has so many guns in the first place. If we didn't have so many of them, then criminals won't have to arm themselves with powerful guns in the first place, and less people would die both innocent and guilty. Plus let us also not forget that the police in this country have been so militarized that they kill dozens of unarmed civilians every year, 90 last year alone. Police fatally shoot nearly 1,000 people in 2016 | The Washington Post


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

The problem with compromise, is that you have already stated that your goal is a complete ban, so compromise is just a stepping stone to another compromise until you reach your goal. If we both agree that the time to reload a gun is negligible, than what is the point for your restriction? It does no good. It's like saying you can always get more gas, so cars are only allowed one gallon of gas because reasons. 

How about the fist amendment, freedom of speech? Words words can be offensive, thus you are only allowed five word sentences. you can say as many sentences as you want, but they are limited to just five words each. pretty arbritrary and pointless isn't it.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Carpentet810 said:


> Probably because cars kill more people than guns yearly, theres that!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Right, so the 6000+ gun related deaths per year in the USA,.. that's just fine then. No need to do something about that.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

BIGJake111 said:


> I never said anything about training. Idc as long as the public is allowed guns on their private property and can not be disenfranchised of this without due process. I think you're arguing with someone else about training lol.


Lol, could be, but doesn't matter.

The thing is that owning/using something on your own property, does not free you from responsibility. Also, bullets don't stop at the limits of your property.

This is all about regulation, not about a yes or no to the right to own guns.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

You aren't american, you opinion is invalid.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

Peter said:


> Lol, could be, but doesn't matter.
> 
> The thing is that owning/using something on your own property, does not free you from responsibility. Also, bullets don't stop at the limits of your property.
> 
> This is all about regulation, not about a yes or no to the right to own guns.


If someone is a dumb ass and kills someone they can be tried for manslaughter if it was by accident and homicide if it wasn't and we can call it a day. 

I believe we have the right to own guns regardless of regulation and that regulation and etc is all dumb politics anyways for instance like half of he democrats who sat in a few days ago over guns happened to be licensed gun owners lol. 

We have a constitution that leaves consequences for harming other people therefore allowing guns isn't allowing people to harm others. There are punishments in place. That's all the regulation there needs to be.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

BIGJake111 said:


> If someone is a dumb ass and kills someone they can be tried for manslaughter if it was by accident and homicide if it wasn't and we can call it a day.
> 
> I believe we have the right to own guns regardless of regulation and that regulation and etc is all dumb politics anyways for instance like half of he democrats who sat in a few days ago over guns happened to be licensed gun owners lol.
> 
> We have a constitution that leaves consequences for harming other people therefore allowing guns isn't allowing people to harm others. There are punishments in place. That's all the regulation there needs to be.


Luckily there is more regulation than that already in most states.

You believe that people will behave just because the rules say they should. That's naive. And it doesn't make sense because I'm sure you also believe that driver's licences are a good thing. Or that setting a speed limit reduces the number of accidents.

By your logic, a person can own as many guns as he likes, from small hand guns to assault riffles to machine guns.

Why do gun lovers always make regulation look like it's goal is to remove guns from the people?

Punishment isn't enough to prevent unnecessary accidents. The whole thing with accidents is that people don't do it on purpose. Punishment doesn't keep people from having accidents. It may keep people from intentionally killing other people.

I really don't understand people like you. It happens so often that a little kid kills one of his siblings because he got his hands on a loaded gun. People like you say it's the fault of the parent and they should be punished for allowing a situation that caused a kid to play with a loaded gun..... And you´re totally right.

I guess we should put all driving regulations away as well. If someone makes a stupid mistake, we just punish them for it.... Done.

That will reduce the number of traffic accident, won't it?


----------



## Rascal01 (May 22, 2016)

When government has a foreign policy goal that cannot be attained by diplomacy they issue arms to it's population and order them to war. With time and technology the arms become more efficient. The death toll in the 20th century was multi-millions. I was issued multiple weapons, trained, sent abroad, and expected to use them efficiently. The expectation was to wage war through attrition of hostile forces who were in disagreement with my governments goals and objectives. The opposing team had similar intents but different goals and objectives. I was not a dupe nor in disagreement, nor do I feel badly that I was a willing participant. I did what I felt was right. I know firsthand that governments are not against gun violence, as long as that violence attains identified national or multi-national goals.

Later I worked enforcing laws and related matters, both in the US and abroad. Again I was issued highly efficient weapons, trained, and expected to use them when necessary. Laws are established by the people through the offices of government, in the best interest of the people. I did my job without regret and enjoy a level of personal satisfaction at having served my country.

Now those days are done and my obligations concluded. I own and carry a firearm because, as a senior citizen, I do not intend to become the victim of violent crime or an act of terrorism. There is a simple reality that concerns me. People can be barbaric and brutal. Unarmed, the law of the jungle prevails. The fittest, biggest brute wins by force and does as he pleases. An armed person can avoid becoming a victim of the same violence that appeared in the Stone Age or the Garden of Eden. Those of you who are not the biggest, strongest, most aggressive alpha male in your area might consider that. Because if you are not, you are one more potential victim of personal crime.

I do understand there is an outcry to stop gun related violence. As options to accomplish this are considered let us be cautious and prudent. Banning firearms ownership could potentially spawn its own epidemic of violence and death as the elderly, the infirm, the fragile, women and others have their defensive ability and equality taken from their grasp. Nothing I am aware of is so effective in self defense as a firearm. If something better existed, it would have been issued to me to assist in attaining the goals of government.

If government willingly fields firearms equipped armys to meet their ends, which will likely cause the deaths of multitudes in the ranks of opposing forces, and finds this morally acceptable, how can domestic murders be considered so aggregous? Yes, there is an answer to that question. But I doubt that the answer is based in the immorality of death by gunfire. There may be a political agenda involved in this pre-election period and we should be careful in finding a just solution to the perceived problem of firearms ownership.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

Peter said:


> Luckily there is more regulation than that already in most states.
> 
> You believe that people will behave just because the rules say they should. That's naive. And it doesn't make sense because I'm sure you also believe that driver's licences are a good thing. Or that setting a speed limit reduces the number of accidents.
> 
> ...


I don't think they'll behave. I think that we can lock them up if they don't.

I think speed limits are god awful and create dangerous situations frequently, not saying that gun regulations are the same and make things less safe. But they don't make things more safe. At least in a cost benefit it doesn't out weigh people's rights. 

Its not the governments job to keep kids from killing others it's up to parents to teach what a saftey is and to keep their guns locked up. The parent shouldn't be punished though.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

BIGJake111 said:


> I don't think they'll behave. I think that we can lock them up if they don't.
> 
> I think speed limits are god awful and create dangerous situations frequently, not saying that gun regulations are the same and make things less safe. But they don't make things more safe. At least in a cost benefit it doesn't out weigh people's rights.
> 
> Its not the governments job to keep kids from killing others it's up to parents to teach what a saftey is and to keep their guns locked up. The parent shouldn't be punished though.


I guess you don't have kids :smile:

So tell me, in this perfect world of yours. Imagine you have a kid, 5 years old. He plays at friends house and his friend gets a loaded gun and kills your kid...... and the parents don't get punished..... you'd be fine with that?

Don't say that you would be. I would be like this: If these parents don't get punished because there is no laws that say this is a punishable situation,.. then I will have to punish these parents. In fact, in your perfect world, I would have the right to punish these parents.

You must love anarchy.


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)




----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

vast silence said:


> ban government. Why are we even entertaining this notion of banning things?
> Banning guns is like banning books and banning music and banning art.
> 
> Guns are things people enjoy having. You are taking their freedom out of a selfish and misdirected fear toward an object that can do no harm.
> ...


love it!!!


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)




----------



## SharksFan99 (Oct 8, 2015)

Ban all guns.

I understand that it is in the constitution, but why do Americans believe that it is necessary to always have a gun with them? All of these massacre's could have been avoided if action had of been taken. Yes, I am aware of how strong the gun lobby is over there, but you have no one else to blame but yourselves. Actions speak louder than words, but unfortunately, no action has been taken to control the gun use in the US. Coming from someone who lives in a country where guns are banned, I would feel unsafe if I lived in the US.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

NewMember99 said:


> Ban all guns.
> 
> I understand that it is in the constitution, but why do Americans believe that it is necessary to always have a gun with them? All of these massacre's could have been avoided if action had of been taken. Yes, I am aware of how strong the gun lobby is over there, but you have no one else to blame but yourselves. Actions speak louder than words, but unfortunately, no action has been taken to control the gun use in the US. Coming from someone who lives in a country where guns are banned, I would feel unsafe if I lived in the US.


I figure we feel that way because we had to kill a lot of foreigners who did not like us having guns to attain those rights and our independence.
Theres that.

You might have a point if you lived on a country as violent as the US and fixed things by banning guns. 

Hence why arguments about how well it works in other countries is an apples to dildos comparison.

When australia banned guns they had 103 homicides the same year the us had 10,000 homicides. 

Now aussieland has 31 homicides a year and the us has 8000.

In aussieland 600,000 weapons were confiscated.

In the usa there is at least 310,000,000 weapons.

There are 23,000,000 people in aussiland,there are 340,000,000 in the usa.

Seeing the flaws in comparing the usa with a much smaller country yet???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SharksFan99 (Oct 8, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> I figure we feel that way because we had to kill a lot of foreigners who did not like us having guns to attain those rights and our independence.
> Theres that.
> 
> You might have a point if you lived on a country as violent as the US and fixed things by banning guns.
> ...


No excuse. I'm not suggesting that population doesn't influence the way gun control is handled, but I still believe the US is not doing enough to prevent gun fatalities and the usage of these weapons. I honestly don't understand how you, or anyone, can be supportive of guns, to be honest. Guns kill thousands of people in the US every year, but it doesn't seem to matter. I understand that not everyone in the US is supportive of guns, but the vast majority are and I believe it is unacceptable. Other countries around the world (yes, including Australia) think it's an absolute joke that the US, a highly developed country and a major power in the world, has such a positive attitude towards guns and weapons. Guns cause problems, not solve problems.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

NewMember99 said:


> Ban all guns.
> 
> I understand that it is in the constitution, but why do Americans believe that it is necessary to always have a gun with them? All of these massacre's could have been avoided if action had of been taken. Yes, I am aware of how strong the gun lobby is over there, but you have no one else to blame but yourselves. Actions speak louder than words, but unfortunately, no action has been taken to control the gun use in the US. Coming from someone who lives in a country where guns are banned, I would feel unsafe if I lived in the US.


How'd that work out for France? Oh yeah 130 dead 368 injured. great plan


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

NewMember99 said:


> No excuse. I'm not suggesting that population doesn't influence the way gun control is handled, but I still believe the US is not doing enough to prevent gun fatalities and the usage of these weapons. I honestly don't understand how you, or anyone, can be supportive of guns, to be honest. Guns kill thousands of people in the US every year, but it doesn't seem to matter. I understand that not everyone in the US is supportive of guns, but the vast majority are and I believe it is unacceptable. Other countries around the world (yes, including Australia) think it's an absolute joke that the US, a highly developed country and a major power in the world, has such a positive attitude towards guns and weapons. Guns cause problems, not solve problems.


guns don't kill anyone, people kill people. there is no outcry when it is knive, baseball bats or automobiles. each one more than 5 times more likely to be used in a homicide.


----------



## SharksFan99 (Oct 8, 2015)

ShatteredHeart said:


> guns don't kill anyone, people kill people. there is no outcry when it is knive, baseball bats or automobiles. each one more than 5 times more likely to be used in a homicide.


That's because knives, baseballs bats and automobiles have proper usages. Let me explain to you: baseball bats are used for playing baseball, automobiles are used to drive from one place to another and knives are used for cooking. What are guns used for? Nothing practical. They are only used to injure or kill people, and you think that is acceptable? You (and other gun advocates) need to get out of the "cowboy" mentality; you are not living in the Western 19th Century anymore. Guns are not necessary and they should be banned from the general public. Why do you think it's ok for a lunatic to have access to a gun and start shooting at anyone at anytime? Why do you think it is ok for people to lose their lives because of guns? If guns were banned from the general public in the US, thousands of people would still be alive right now.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

A gun is no less a tool than any other object. I use mine primarily to stop possums and coyotes from killing my chickens and cats. objects are not evil. people are evil. Did the evil prick at the boston marathon need a gun? no he used a pressure cooker to kill 3 and injure 264 more.

and you didn't acknowledge France hmm I wonder why?


----------



## Ausserirdische (May 2, 2015)

Ban automatic weapons from civilians and have a mental and criminal background check. No one needs an assault rifle to defend themselves from robbers. The only reason for a civilian to buy one without the intention of killing innocent people as far as I know is collecting, but I guess a replica could (mostly) do the job.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

Facts Are Facts!
There are approximately 312 Million people in the United States…
There are 357 Million Firearms (Guns) in the United States on average…
There are roughly 32,000 deaths related to firearms per year in the United States compared to Cigarette smoking which is estimated to cause more than 480,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)!
Of the gun deaths:
60% are suicides. That’s 19,200
3% are accidental. That’s 960
4% are justified. That’s 1.280
33% are homicides. That’s 10,560
80% of those homicides are gang related. That’s 8,448
Nearly five (5) times as many murders are committed with knives than so-called “assault rifles,” according to the FBI.
Recent crime statistics released by the agency reveal that out of 11,961 murders performed within the U.S. in 2014, 660 were committed unarmed, 1,567 were committed with knives and only 248 murders were known to have been committed using rifles of any type, including single-shot long arms and “assault rifles” routinely demonized by gun control groups.
Granted, the FBI did list 2,052 murders under “unknown firearm type,” but given the percentages of the known firearm categories, it is unlikely that more than four percent of the “unknown firearms” were in fact rifles, and less than that were semi-automatics. In other words, despite the calls to ban “military-style assault rifles” by anti-gun groups, conservatively less – and likely much less – than 4% of murders were committed using AR-15s, AK-47s and other semi-automatic long arms.
That leaves 1,712 in a nation of 312 Million or 0.010256410256% of a chance of death by a firearm!
If you avoid or don’t hang out with gang members, not planning suicide or committing a crime with a gun, then your chances are 0.0008564%
To give you some perspective, you have a better chance of getting eaten by a shark in the desert. 
The odds of getting attacked and killed by a shark are 1 in 3,748,067. In a lifetime, you are more likely to die from fireworks (1 in 340,733), lightning (1 in 79,746), drowning (1 in 1,134), a car accident (1 in 84), stroke (1 in 24), or heart disease (1 in 5).
While all deaths are tragic, some of which are simply meaningless, this doesn’t attempt to diminish how much a loss from any death is. This is to educate non-gun owners that our nation has millions of responsible, trained and educated firearms owners, that safely and with great care own and shoot their guns, without incident or mishaps.
Reference information from the CDC, FBI.


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

NewMember99 said:


> No excuse. I'm not suggesting that population doesn't influence the way gun control is handled, but I still believe the US is not doing enough to prevent gun fatalities and the usage of these weapons. I honestly don't understand how you, or anyone, can be supportive of guns, to be honest. Guns kill thousands of people in the US every year, but it doesn't seem to matter. I understand that not everyone in the US is supportive of guns, but the vast majority are and I believe it is unacceptable. Other countries around the world (yes, including Australia) think it's an absolute joke that the US, a highly developed country and a major power in the world, has such a positive attitude towards guns and weapons. Guns cause problems, not solve problems.


Ignorance causes problems but, yet here you are. Other countries around the world huh? Look up Switzerland.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Major Tom said:


> Ban automatic weapons from civilians and have a mental and criminal background check. No one needs an assault rifle to defend themselves from robbers. The only reason for a civilian to buy one without the intention of killing innocent people as far as I know is collecting, but I guess a replica could (mostly) do the job.


Actually we have the NFA laws for full autos. There have been around 4 crimes committed since 1934 one of which was committed by a cop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

NewMember99 said:


> That's because knives, baseballs bats and automobiles have proper usages. Let me explain to you: baseball bats are used for playing baseball, automobiles are used to drive from one place to another and knives are used for cooking. What are guns used for? Nothing practical. They are only used to injure or kill people, and you think that is acceptable? You (and other gun advocates) need to get out of the "cowboy" mentality; you are not living in the Western 19th Century anymore. Guns are not necessary and they should be banned from the general public. Why do you think it's ok for a lunatic to have access to a gun and start shooting at anyone at anytime? Why do you think it is ok for people to lose their lives because of guns? If guns were banned from the general public in the US, thousands of people would still be alive right now.


Cowboy mentality is something created by hollywood. Using a fictional attribute to justify a viewpoint is unwise.

If it wasn't for cars thousands of people would be alive in the usa, if it weren't for cigarettes thousands of people would be alive in the usa, if it weren't for macdonalds thousands of people would be alive in the usa...seeing a pattern yet???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

NewMember99 said:


> No excuse. I'm not suggesting that population doesn't influence the way gun control is handled, but I still believe the US is not doing enough to prevent gun fatalities and the usage of these weapons. I honestly don't understand how you, or anyone, can be supportive of guns, to be honest. Guns kill thousands of people in the US every year, but it doesn't seem to matter. I understand that not everyone in the US is supportive of guns, but the vast majority are and I believe it is unacceptable. Other countries around the world (yes, including Australia) think it's an absolute joke that the US, a highly developed country and a major power in the world, has such a positive attitude towards guns and weapons. Guns cause problems, not solve problems.


Well perhaps that is why we killed so many of your ilk, so that we would be strong enough to tell the people in other countries who think we are a joke to Eat, Shit and Die.

Its like being the boss at work, the peons have to dress and act a certain way else the boss will crush them. The boss on the other hand dresses and acts however the hell he wants. 

Sure people make fun of his taste in clothes behind his back, but come to him hat in hand when they want a pay raise.

Its good to be king and the haters gonna hate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> Well perhaps that is why we killed so many of your ilk, so that we would be strong enough to tell the people in other countries who think we are a joke to Eat, Shit and Die.
> 
> Its like being the boss at work, the peons have to dress and act a certain way else the boss will crush them. The boss on the other hand dresses and acts however the hell he wants.
> 
> ...


He has never heard of smoke and mirrors. The joke on the USA has nothing to do with guns. I second eat, shit and die lol

I guess his hobbies are being a judgemental ***....Just because others abuse things, means everyone should have their rights taken away or enjoyment of it taken away? @NewMember99 What do you enjoy doing? I am sure I can find a multitude of reasons you should not be allowed to do it because, in one way, shape, form or fashion---It could cause a problem, not solve any.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

ENIGMA15 said:


> He has never heard of smoke and mirrors. The joke on the USA has nothing to do with guns. I second eat, shit and die lol
> 
> I guess his hobbies are being a judgemental ***....Just because others abuse things, means everyone should have their rights taken away or enjoyment of it taken away? @NewMember99 What do you enjoy doing? I am sure I can find a multitude of reasons you should not be allowed to do it because, in one way, shape, form or fashion---It could cause a problem, not solve any.


I figure he is like most europeans. They cannot envision anyone deserving to do something they would not or are afraid to do. A little cowardice goes a long way.

What happened to the balls out europeans of old? Simple they immigrated to America and left the weak behind!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

I think the gun control crowd has ran out of cliches and misinformation to spread in this thread. The day is won my friends. time to celebrate the pew pew life :wink:


----------



## SharksFan99 (Oct 8, 2015)

ENIGMA15 said:


> He has never heard of smoke and mirrors. The joke on the USA has nothing to do with guns. I second eat, shit and die lol
> 
> I guess his hobbies are being a judgemental ***....Just because others abuse things, means everyone should have their rights taken away or enjoyment of it taken away?


I should be able to express my own opinion, without being called a "judgement ***". Congratulations, I have just reported your post.

Show a bit of respect, and that goes for the other users as well.


----------



## SharksFan99 (Oct 8, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> Well perhaps that is why we killed so many of your ilk, so that we would be strong enough to tell the people in other countries who think we are a joke to Eat, Shit and Die.


How can you joke about your country killing people? That is absolutely deplorable and vile.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

NewMember99 said:


> I should be able to express my own opinion, without being called a "judgement ***". Congratulations, I have just reported your post.
> 
> Show a bit of respect, and that goes for the other users as well.


Lol sounds like you are proving his point!!! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SharksFan99 (Oct 8, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> Lol sounds like you are proving his point!!!


Whatever. I honestly don't care about you or your opinion, to be honest. Just a typical keyboard warrior.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

NewMember99 said:


> How can you joke about your country killing people? That is absolutely deplorable and vile.


Except your position is one of bias already. You don't actually care about how many people get killed because you advocate "fixing" things which would lead to even more people getting killed. Taking away constitutional rights to make the rest of the world feel better will only lead to bloodshed!!! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SharksFan99 (Oct 8, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> Except your position is one of bias already. You don't actually care about how many people get killed because you advocate "fixing" things which would lead to even more people getting killed. Taking away constitutional rights to make the rest of the world feel better will only lead to bloodshed!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm not going to express my point of view any further, because the two of you are ignorant enough not to respect it or even provide constructive criticism on it. Both of you have been reported, as the two of you are just trying to make me retaliate. This has gotten out of hand.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

NewMember99 said:


> Whatever. I honestly don't care about you or your opinion, to be honest. Just a typical keyboard warrior.


Lol not used to having someone point out your blatant hypocrisy i see.

Think about this...calling me a keyboard warrior is being Judgmental just like the other dude said....IRONY!

Every time you post you prove him right!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## birdsintrees (Aug 20, 2012)

*Hi all, this is a thread warning. Please debate respectfully and without resorting to personal attacks. Keep those forum rules in mind and make sure to keep the debate on topic. *


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> Lol sounds like you are proving his point!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


*grins* I am a 100% female. He is not worth getting banned. Just ignore him. I am going to make my screen all pretty and block him : ) Problem solved.


----------



## SharksFan99 (Oct 8, 2015)

ENIGMA15 said:


> *grins* I am a 100% female. He is not worth getting banned. Just ignore him. I am going to make my screen all pretty and block him : ) Problem solved.


How am I in the wrong? You and the other user were personally attacking me(consider yourself lucky that you weren't banned from P&C for calling me a ***). You are making it a bigger deal than what it is. I am not carrying on about it. Grow up.


----------



## birdsintrees (Aug 20, 2012)

*And a general reminder that a thread warning means Move Along or Move On. 

Disregarding that warning can lead to further action. Thank you.*


----------



## Zeta Neprok (Jul 27, 2010)

I don't think that working class people should ever give up their arms to the state because it would only weaken their revolutionary potential.


----------



## LeafStew (Oct 17, 2009)

TheSonderer said:


> I don't think that working class people should ever give up their arms to the state because it would only weaken their revolutionary potential.


 As time goes by the military capacity of government will greatly surpass the capacity of any citizen. With robots and future technology. Resisting against your government IMO will become more and more difficult whether you have a gun or not.


----------



## Zeta Neprok (Jul 27, 2010)

LeafStew said:


> As time goes by the military capacity of government will greatly surpass the capacity of any citizen. With robots and future technology. Resisting against your government IMO will become more and more difficult whether you have a gun or not.


You're right that the working class is already very disempowered and held back by state violence, but I don't see how that justifies weakening their position even further.


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

*Pertaining to the United States, which is really only what I can speak on behalf of, *

It is a very complex use. Someone in Connecticut who has lost their children to Sandy Hook probably would want guns banned, and someone in Florida who immigrated from Cuba will want their guns because Castro took their guns and then their property so they wouldn't be able to protect it; despite personal belief, one can understand both sides. 

The United States is extremely diverse in this sense, where it goes beyond North and South or East Coast vs West Coast, it goes into states differing politically and culturally, then districts and towns the same. 

Sure, you can go about checking for mental disorders before purchasing a gun, but consider this: a father doesn't have a mental disorder and keeps a hand-gun in the house for protection, maybe even keeps it in a locked drawer with a key in his desk. His son however has depression and watches where his father puts the key, takes the gun and shoots himself and or the school up for bullying let's say. 

Sure, you can go about checking for FBI watch list, but it's almost a joke at this point with people saying they're going to end up on it just for voting for a certain party or looking up a search on google for college research - what have you.

How about militias? What are we going to do about those? Do they have the right to have assault weaponry or bigger mags?

How about the age at which children are allowed at shooting ranges?

What about gun shows or online where ANYONE can purchase a gun?

It's a very complex issue and can't be solved with a protection vs mass shootings debate; especially because we have an amendment involved (and then there's the whole political process involved in bills and such)


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

Finny said:


> What about gun shows or online where ANYONE can purchase a gun?


These both still require a federal background check and the firearm must be shipped to a dealer with a federal firearms license for online purchases before being transferred to you in person. so not anyone can buy a gun in these ways. I tried buying my first handgun at a gun show, and after waiting 2 hours for my background check (note you can not leave the sellers line of sight at any time or forfeit your purchase) before I gave up and decided to purchase on line and have it shipped to a local dealer where I could do the background check at my convenience. In reality, buying a gun is a pain in the ass regardless what cnn and Obama tell you.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Finny said:


> *Pertaining to the United States, which is really only what I can speak on behalf of, *
> 
> It is a very complex use. Someone in Connecticut who has lost their children to Sandy Hook probably would want guns banned, and someone in Florida who immigrated from Cuba will want their guns because Castro took their guns and then their property so they wouldn't be able to protect it; despite personal belief, one can understand both sides.
> 
> ...


If you want to make it simple just change things to where anytime a person wants to exercise their civil rights they have to get a background check....equal protection under the law!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

