Gun Control

[Joey]

Please, explain a legitimate reason to have 2 dogs, 5 cars, a giant mansion, a hdtv, a gaemen rig, internet faster than 1mb, 2 psp's, and so on. Luckily I live in a country where I don't have to justify to the government why I need more than one gun. There are so many other things that cause unnecessary harm in our lives that if the government did make us explain why we need more than one gun, whats to stop them from making us explain having things like pointy knives, or baseball bats.

You can own more than one gun because you could, and owning more than one doesn't make you more likely to go on a shooting spree or some other "evil" act like you think.


Not all guns are the same you know. Gun 18 could be a Glock 22, gun 19 is a Mossberg 500 while gun 20 could be a M1 Garand.

I don't remember anybody ever killing somebody with an HDTV.

Once again, there are only 2 legitimate reasons to own guns. Self Defense, and hunting, and honestly, you probably don't even need to own a gun to hunt. They should probably make you have to rent that shit.

Anyway, if you have one gun, you're good. If somebody breaks into your house, having 20 guns in stead of one isn't going to change shit. What kind of gung you have doesn't matter either, unless somebody breaks in and you say "hmmmm... I'm looking for a challenge, I think I'll go with "gun A" over "gun B" tonight".

The fact that guns are more lethal than anything else you mentioned, plus the fact that they have no other use than killing shit, means we need to regulate them. I wouldn't even be against regulating certain types knives now that you mention it. Unless you live in the fucking congo, you don't need a machette.

If there's a legitimate use for something, then it's worth the risk. A meat clever can be used for making food. A gun, is used to put a molten hot peice of metal in something body... How is there not a difference?

 

[Terra]

Not being an American, I'm not passing judgment on opinions for or against the gun issue, nor do I know anything about the statistics of the danger of their presence.
Having said that, we have a pretty tight rein on them in Oz.
My siblings have a small property in the wine belt & their major predators are Foxes (That hunt the chooks) & Snakes. The King Browns being the worst. Them bastards chase & attack.
Between my Son-in-law & his young bloke (18), they have about 5-6 guns.

Just to show how spooky they are down here, my daughter was working around the barn & she almost stepped on a big Brown. She yelled to the young bloke "Snake" he emerged with a short barrel shotgun & consigned the snake to bootless hill (As you might say), Well, the woman across the road (About 300 yards away mind) had a massive dummy spit. Hollering her head off about the noise. Young Nick said to her "Will you come & shoo the snake away next time. It was only a King Brown!!"
She pissed off inside very smartly.

Funny as it may seem & all, here in suburbia, I'm bloody glad my neighbours are not armed.

 

[Slasher]

I personally don't agree with the ability to carry guns, although with the United States in particular - it would be chaos if a nationwide gun ban were to occur. The fundamental foundations of American life were built around guns, so just taking that away would be silly at this stage in time. There's so many guns in circulation already, that everybody from grandma, to sally the waitress, to bozo the clown, to joe the robber, all have guns already. One of the sole reasons for owning a gun is for self defense, so if everybody already has a gun, then taking them away would put others at a disadvantage. If things were to of changed from the very beginning, then guns wouldn't be needed and less crime would likely be a result.

Where I'm from at least, guns really aren't needed and it's very rare that you'll meet somebody who has one. The only reason to own a gun here is if you hunt. There is very little violent crimes.

In a perfect world I guess, guns would not be needed.

 

[Darth Budd]

I don't remember anybody ever killing somebody with an HDTV.

Once again, there are only 2 legitimate reasons to own guns. Self Defense, and hunting, and honestly, you probably don't even need to own a gun to hunt. They should probably make you have to rent that shit.

Anyway, if you have one gun, you're good. If somebody breaks into your house, having 20 guns in stead of one isn't going to change shit. What kind of gung you have doesn't matter either, unless somebody breaks in and you say "hmmmm... I'm looking for a challenge, I think I'll go with "gun A" over "gun B" tonight".

The fact that guns are more lethal than anything else you mentioned, plus the fact that they have no other use than killing shit, means we need to regulate them. I wouldn't even be against regulating certain types knives now that you mention it. Unless you live in the fucking congo, you don't need a machette.

If there's a legitimate use for something, then it's worth the risk. A meat clever can be used for making food. A gun, is used to put a molten hot peice of metal in something body... How is there not a difference?

That's like saying that you bought one cd and since every rock band sounds the same you don't need another one. or that there is no difference between a honda civic and a bugatti veyron, they're both cars right? there are huge differences between guns. a 9mm can take as many as five well placed shots to take someone down, a .45 needs only one. if someone is trying to kill your family do you want to have to run around, or take him out? a .22 caliber rifle is a great target shooting rifle as it has a very small bullet that is inexpensive in large quantities and is only lethal if you hit someone in the right spot, as opposed to a car that is lethal at all kinds of speeds

16,692 people were murdered in 2005 (that includeds gun and non-gun related deaths)
42,64 were killed in car accidents in 2006.
lets ban cars. after all cars aren't a necessity, humanity got along just fine without them, but some people depend on hunting for things, like, i dunno, food, which believe it or not is important. I know you said use a meat cleaver, but humans aren't very fast runners and the food can easily get away.

 

[Slasher]

That's like saying that you bought one cd and since every rock band sounds the same you don't need another one. or that there is no difference between a honda civic and a bugatti veyron, they're both cars right? there are huge differences between guns. a 9mm can take as many as five well placed shots to take someone down, a .45 needs only one. if someone is trying to kill your family do you want to have to run around, or take him out? a .22 caliber rifle is a great target shooting rifle as it has a very small bullet that is inexpensive in large quantities and is only lethal if you hit someone in the right spot, as opposed to a car that is lethal at all kinds of speeds

16,692 people were murdered in 2005 (that includeds gun and non-gun related deaths)
42,64 were killed in car accidents in 2006.
lets ban cars. after all cars aren't a necessity, humanity got along just fine without them, but some people depend on hunting for things, like, i dunno, food, which believe it or not is important. I know you said use a meat cleaver, but humans aren't very fast runners and the food can easily get away.

What you mentioned is really incomparable to guns. Like Joey said earlier, "A gun, is used to put a molten hot peice of metal in somethings body". If that's the best you can come up with, then why doesn't everybody just have a .45? If guns are used to kill, whether Humans or Animals, then why have a gun required to be shot 5 times? In the case of target practise, than sure, agreeing with what Joey said earlier, requiring you to rent whatever you wish would probably be a step in the right direction.

A car and a gun are once again, incomparable. Car accidents are just that - accidents. Murders with guns are the intent killing of an opposing individual. Car's are essential in modern day life, giving us the ability to go to locations (jobs, family, anywhere), transport goods, etc, etc, etc, so the proposal of wanting to take them away is ridiculous. Not only would the economy collapse, towns and cities would be absolutely devastated. Roads would be useless, everything would go to shit. Guns on the other hand are not essential. The sole purpose of a gun is to critically injure or kill somebody, which is quite a distinct difference from a car. I don't understand how you can possibly relate the two.

Twisting what Joey said about a meat clever is ridiculous. He never even suggested using a meat clever as a weapon, so I'm not sure how you came up with that.

 

[soha]

What you mentioned is really incomparable to guns. Like Joey said earlier, "A gun, is used to put a molten hot peice of metal in somethings body". If that's the best you can come up with, then why doesn't everybody just have a .45?

A bbgun is capable of killing small birds and rats, but not able to take down deer or a bear.
Different guns have different purposes.

If guns are used to kill, whether Humans or Animals, then why have a gun required to be shot 5 times?

If you shoot someone with a .45 like 3 or 4 times in the leg he may survive the gun shots. If you shoot someone in the head with a .22lr he will most likely die. No gun needs to be shot 5 times to take some one down. All it takes is a well placed shot.

In the case of target practise, than sure, agreeing with what Joey said earlier, requiring you to rent whatever you wish would probably be a step in the right direction.

Why can't a law abiding citizen own a gun?

Twisting what Joey said about a meat clever is ridiculous. He never even suggested using a meat clever as a weapon, so I'm not sure how you came up with that.

A meat clever can also be used to kill some one while a gun can be used to hunt for food.

 

[Darth Budd]

The sole purpose of a gun is to critically injure or kill somebody,

Twisting what Joey said about a meat clever is ridiculous. He never even suggested using a meat clever as a weapon, so I'm not sure how you came up with that.

no, guns were invented as a way to hunt for food.

joey said you could use a meat cleaver to make food, but you have to get the animal first, and since you can't use a meat cleaver for that you need a gun.

 

[TacticalPenguin]

Somebody explain to me why I shouldn't be allowed to own an "assault weapon"

Does owning something automatically convey intent to use it in an illegal way? No? Then why can't I own it?

Is there a limit on internet speed or hard drive size to prevent piracy? Is there a limit on how fast cars can go so you can't outrun the cops? Is there a limit on civilian encryption programs so that the NSA can still crack their schemes? I realize these all relate to things that don't have a lethal primary purpose, but its still a comparison.

Now how about the idea "If the cops can have it, why can't we?"

Who are the cops supposed to protect us from? Criminals? So why can't we just use the same tools that they use to do the job ourselves without waiting 5 minutes?

 

[Slasher]

Does owning something automatically convey intent to use it in an illegal way? No? Then why can't I own it?

Yes actually, it sometimes does.

Does possession of child pornography mean you're going to look at it and use it? Both the legal system and I would come to the conclusion that yes, you are in fact using it, which is why it's illegal to even have in possession. Why else would you own it?

Or what about if you have over a certain limit of drugs in your possession, and you get caught? If you're over that limit, then you would be considered to be trafficking. It doesn't necessarily mean you are in fact trafficking, it's just safe to assume that with that amount you are trafficking and you'll be charged for that.

Judging by your logic I guess everybody should be allowed to have drugs, after all it doesn't mean they'd be using them, right?

Who are the cops supposed to protect us from? Criminals? So why can't we just use the same tools that they use to do the job ourselves without waiting 5 minutes?

Why should the police be at an equal level with everyone else? If things escalate out of control, then why should the police be at a disadvantage if everyone apparently should be able to own an assault rifle? People would fight the police back if they are being approached. Is that fair? I think the police should be allowed to maintain their authority and integrity, afterall they are the police.

If you honestly believe that people should be able to own assault rifles, then your logic is above anything I could ever even want to understand. What comes to mind is what exactly does an assault rifle do for you above a pistol? Does it make your imagination-penis larger? Does it make you feel more important and above everybody else? Assault rifles are absolutely unnecessary

 

[soha]

Yes actually, it sometimes does.
Why should the police be at an equal level with everyone else? If things escalate out of control, why should the police be at a disadvantage if everyone apparently should own an assault rifle?

You know not all cops are killed with assault weapons. IIRC only a very small number are. If a guy wants to kill a cop he'd kill with or without an assault weapon, all he has to do is aim for the head. I also don't have any problems with cops carrying around assault weapons, I believe that they should be able too. Of course not everyone thinks they should Of course not everyone thinks they should because the seem to believe that the bullets will enter your house hunt down your kids and shoot them in the head.

 

[Slasher]

You know not all cops are killed with assault weapons. IIRC only a very small number are. If a guy wants to kill a cop he'd kill with or without an assault weapon, all he has to do is aim for the head. I also don't have any problems with cops carrying around assault weapons, I believe that they should be able too. Of course not everyone thinks they should Of course not everyone thinks they should because the seem to believe that the bullets will enter your house hunt down your kids and shoot them in the head.

I'm not trying to argue that cops are always killed with assault rifles. It's just that if somebody does actually have an assault rifle, than that puts the police at quite an obvious disadvantage and the said person would be able to deal a lot more damage with an assault rifle opposed to just a pistol. Take the North Hollywood Shootout as an example. A person with an assault rifle vs a person with a pistol is an entirely different and more deadlier situation - that much is indisputable. Assault rifles were made to deal more damage, hence the reason the military is equipped with them.

I just seriously can't understand why anybody would want to have an assault rifle? What's the point? Other than either a) making him/herself feel more powerful or important; or b) Planning to do something illegal in nature. A pistol should be more than sufficient for "self defense" purposes.

And if you really want to use an assault rifle for "target practice", then they should be regulated and be made available for rent at the target range.

 

[Darth Budd]

Yes actually, it sometimes does.

Does possession of child pornography mean you're going to look at it and use it? Both the legal system and I would come to the conclusion that yes, you are in fact using it, which is why it's illegal to even have in possession. Why else would you own it

something illegal can only be used illegally. something legal can be used legally. I've been shooting since i was 6. out of the hundreds of thousands, possibly a million rounds that i have shot do you want to know how many have hit someone? 0. do you know how many times I've pointed a gun at someone 0. do you know how many times I've taken a gun somewhere illegally? 0. I have used assault rifles too, and done nothing illegal with them. if i were however to glance at child porn, or even have it sealed in an envelope on my person, then that would be illegal. your comparison makes no sense.

What comes to mind is what exactly does an assault rifle do for you above a pistol? Does it make your imagination-penis larger? Does it make you feel more important and above everybody else? Assault rifles are absolutely unnecessary

rifles are more accurate than pistols, allowing for better target shooting. and before you say that assault rifles fire faster, most are semi-auto, which means that if you pull the rigger once, it fires once, then stops, just like a handgun. I'd say handguns are more dangerous, as you can conceal them easily. ever see someone walking around with an m-16 in their waistband? didn't think so, it'd be a terrible idea.

 

[Darth Budd]

I'm not trying to argue that cops are always killed with assault rifles. It's just that if somebody does actually have an assault rifle, than that puts the police at quite an obvious disadvantage and the said person would be able to deal a lot more damage with an assault rifle opposed to just a pistol. Take the North Hollywood Shootout as an example. A person with an assault rifle vs a person with a pistol is an entirely different and more deadlier situation - that much is indisputable. Assault rifles were made to deal more damage, hence the reason the military is equipped with them.

I just seriously can't understand why anybody would want to have an assault rifle? What's the point? Other than either a) making him/herself feel more powerful or important; or b) Planning to do something illegal in nature. A pistol should be more than sufficient for "self defense" purposes.

And if you really want to use an assault rifle for "target practice", then they should be regulated and be made available for rent at the target range.

the guns in the north hollywood shootout were acquired illegally. if the police had ar-15's (like they do now) it would have been over with quickly.

and guns have break in's. renting one would be like renting shoes. you'd either get some smelly, uncomfortable smelly piece of shit or you get the uncomfortable shiny plastic ones that give you blisters.

 

[soha]

I'm not trying to argue that cops are always killed with assault rifles. It's just that if somebody does actually have an assault rifle, than that puts the police at quite an obvious disadvantage and the said person would be able to deal a lot more damage with an assault rifle opposed to just a pistol.

Now before we get anymore into this, I'm talking about assault weapons like an ar-15, you know a semi auto, one pull of the trigger = one shot, and not a fully automatic weapon like those rambo wielded in his movies. Even I can't see a legit use for a fully auto weapon (except for an insurrection) but I do see one for semi autos.

I just seriously can't understand why anybody would want to have an assault rifle? What's the point? Other than either a) making him/herself feel more powerful or important; or b) Planning to wipe out a large amount of people with little effort. A pistol should be more than sufficient for "self defense" purposes.

Why do people need 22 inch rims, gold plated iphones, luxury cars that cost more than 100 grand, or any of those things? To make them selves feel more powerful and Important?

And if you really want to use an assault rifle for "target practice", then they should be regulated and be made available for rent at the target range.

But why can't we own assault weapons?

A person with an assault rifle vs a person with a pistol is an entirely different and more deadlier situation - that much is indisputable. Assault rifles were made to deal more damage, hence the reason the military is equipped with them.

Not really. Give a maniac a Five-seveN equipped with ss190 rounds and with a 20 round magazine he is just as (or ever more) dangerous as a guy with an assault weapon. And your right, the military is equipped with assault rifles, civilians are not, they equip them selves with assault weapons. There is a difference between the two.

Assault weapon refers to semi-automatic firearms (that is, firearms that, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again) that were developed from earlier fully-automatic weapons.

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

 

[Slasher]

something illegal can only be used illegally. something legal can be used legally. I've been shooting since i was 6. out of the hundreds of thousands, possibly a million rounds that i have shot do you want to know how many have hit someone? 0. do you know how many times I've pointed a gun at someone 0. do you know how many times I've taken a gun somewhere illegally? 0. I have used assault rifles too, and done nothing illegal with them. if i were however to glance at child porn, or even have it sealed in an envelope on my person, then that would be illegal. your comparison makes no sense.

The point is that these guns should become illegal, hence placing them in that realm of thinking.
And that's great to know that you use guns responsibly... that's pretty much irrelevant to what we're talking about right now.

rifles are more accurate than pistols, allowing for better target shooting. and before you say that assault rifles fire faster, most are semi-auto, which means that if you pull the rigger once, it fires once, then stops, just like a handgun. I'd say handguns are more dangerous, as you can conceal them easily. ever see someone walking around with an m-16 in their waistband? didn't think so, it'd be a terrible idea.

Most? What about the other ones then?
Assault rifles > pistols, there's not much more to it

the guns in the north hollywood shootout were acquired illegally. if the police had ar-15's (like they do now) it would have been over with quickly.

They were bought legally and then illegally sold to the two guys. In addition to this, the guys modded them as well.. but whose to say nobody else could just as easily modify assault rifles?

Now before we get anymore into this, I'm talking about assault weapons like an ar-15, you know a semi auto, one pull of the trigger = one shot, and not a fully automatic weapon like those rambo wielded in his movies. Even I can't see a legit use for a fully auto weapon (except for an insurrection) but I do see one for semi autos.

That's mainly what I'm getting at (Fully automatic weapons). As far as I know, it's pretty easy to make some modifications to a semi-auto rifle and turn it into an all out fully automatic rifle.

Why do people need 22 inch rims, gold plated iphones, luxury cars that cost more than 100 grand, or any of those things? To make them selves feel more powerful and Important?

Once again, a pistol should be more than sufficient enough for self-defense purposes. We're talking about deadly weapons, not dazzling commodities

Not really. Give a maniac a Five-seveN equipped with ss190 rounds and with a 20 round magazine he is just as (or ever more) dangerous as a guy with an assault weapon.

It's not a matter of psychopath greg w/pistol vs. average joe w/assault rifle.
If we're going to make comparisons, than it should be equal, no?
It should be: psychopath greg w/pistol vs. psychopath joe w/assault rifle. I would imagine joe would pump 5 bullets effortlessly into greg before he could even get a shot off. It's just a more deadlier weapon capable of much more damage.


I really believe that at the most if somebody wishes to have a weapon for self defense, than a pistol should be more than enough to be able to protect himself & his family. If somebody wishes to have a hunting rifle for hunting purposes, than fine to that as well. I just don't really agree that somebody should need an all out assault rifle for whatever reason. Thank god I don't need a weapon for fear of my life in Canada...

 

[NeilR]

no, guns were invented as a way to hunt for food.

Sorry but that's incorrect. The first guns were invented give or take 900 years ago for the purpose of warfare as a means of gaining the advantage just like most technological advances. If this thread was about spears then you'd be in the right direction.

As a side note I've always wondered to myself how it is the Canadian view on this subject is so very different than the U.S.A. It's just one of those inexplicable conundrums.

 

[soha]

That's mainly what I'm getting at (Fully automatic weapons). As far as I know, it's pretty easy to make some modifications to a semi-auto rifle and turn it into an all out fully automatic rifle.

Every time I hear that I dig my nails into my palm and bang my head against the keyboard. No really, I do that.

Once again, a pistol should be more than sufficient enough for self-defense purposes. We're talking about deadly weapons, not dazzling commodities

For most people like me they are a commodity. It may be hard for most people to understand but they don't have too.

It's not a matter of psychopath greg w/pistol vs. average joe w/assault rifle.
If we're going to make comparisons, than it should be equal, no?
It should be: psychopath greg w/pistol vs. psychopath joe w/assault rifle. I would imagine joe would pump 5 bullets effortlessly into greg before he could even get a shot off. It's just a more deadlier weapon capable of much more damage.

Truth. Now if psychopath joe had an assault weapon (not an assault rifle), psychopath greg and joe would for the most part be evenly matched.

I really believe that at the most if somebody wishes to have a weapon for self defense, than a pistol should be more than enough to be able to protect himself & his family. If somebody wishes to have a hunting rifle for hunting purposes, than fine to that. I just don't really agree that somebody should need an all out assault rifle for whatever reason. Thank god I don't need a weapon for fear of my life in Canada...

assault weapon = most hunting rifles
but remember
assault weapon != assault rifle

Also, watch this
[YT]YjM9fcEzSJ0[/YT]

 

[Slasher]

For your youtube video just put, "YjM9fcEzSJ0" for it to work. You don't need the whole link

 

[soha]

For your youtube video just put, "YjM9fcEzSJ0" for it to work. You don't need the whole link

hmm, well the more you know...

 

[Darth Budd]

Most? What about the other ones then?
Assault rifles > pistols, there's not much more to it

full auto guns are illegal, so if a rifle is full auto it is illegally modified, same with pistols, putting them in the illegal category.