Gun Control

[Slasher]

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

What about this?
Seems pretty damn easy to me lol

Anyways, informative video. A complete definition change of "assault weapon" should probably happen...

 

[Darth Budd]

What about this?
Seems pretty damn easy to me lol

cheap modifications like that are like firemen pumping gasoline onto fires, it's more likely to kill them than to actually help achieve their goal

 

[soha]

What about this?
Seems pretty damn easy to me lol

....That wont work.... T_T

its just another bad idea like the four winds shotgun
ever heard of someone making the four winds shotgun?
no?
thats because they blow off their fingers firing it and can't type anymore.

 

[Bossmanuk]

Living in the UK I see no need for personal firearms. If i want safety I'll get a home security alarm and employ someone to monitor it, and if i have enough money I'll employ security. I see no need in personal firearms as the likelihood of somebody breaking into my home with a firearms is so slim why would i need it? I am fine without a firearm and therefore see no need to own one.

All the comparison of guns to cars, jewelery, electronics etc are stupid. They are completely different things. A new gold plated iphone does not have "killing someone", friend or foe, as a #1 feature.

BTW, that youtube video posted explains the differences between semi auto and automatic weapons very clearly, but isn't anything i couldn't have looked up (if i didn't know the difference) on google in 10 seconds instead of 10 mins.

Saying that, I am not against americans owning a pistol because i know that if i were american i would probably own one due to the culture, and also the scare tactics of the american media. Then again if I didn't watch Fox News I might be better informed...

 

[TacticalPenguin]

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?

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

Your two examples are both things that cannot be possessed in such ways without illegal intent. If you have CP, it means you've looked at it (unless you randomly like to right-click save link as). If you have enough drugs for it to be considered trafficking, it's because you ARE. All drugs are for is to use, and using certain drugs is illegal, therefore why should it be legal to have them? However, weapons have many uses which are perfectly legal, and thus there is no reason to make them illegal.

And do you really believe in the police having more power than anybody else? Last I checked they are public servants, not controllers. Why should the police and military, under the government's control, have more capability to fight than a civilian? Last I checked the original purpose of the second amendment was for civilians to form a militia. Militias are essentially civilian militaries, so shouldn't they have the same capabilities as a government-subsidized and controlled military?

edit:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

Shouldn't we be more worried about handguns and knives than we are about assault rifles?

 

[Slasher]

And do you really believe in the police having more power than anybody else? Last I checked they are public servants, not controllers. Why should the police and military, under the government's control, have more capability to fight than a civilian? Last I checked the original purpose of the second amendment was for civilians to form a militia. Militias are essentially civilian militaries, so shouldn't they have the same capabilities as a government-subsidized and controlled military?

edit:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

Shouldn't we be more worried about handguns and knives than we are about assault rifles?

Well yes - I do believe that the police should have more power as to ensure their authority. Without authority, then whose to stop crime? Do you honestly believe civilians can solve crime themselves? Crime, being a loss of social temperance, would thrive without some sort of authority (police) to stop it. The police maintain order, prevent crime, and enforce the law of the land, so why the hell shouldn't they have more "power"?

The last time you checked your second amendment, clearly you didn't fully understand it.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service.

A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment.

Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or under the command of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned," rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments.

Need I say more?

 

[Terra]

Once again, as a guest opinion, can I ask, do you find that the constitution, with all it's foresight, can be at odds with change?

A point in question is that if an intruder came onto someones property & refused to leave but intimidated the owner to the point that he shot the intruder, where it was once accepted as "In defense of person & property" it has now became a very convoluted legal battle to keep the owner out of jail.

Comments?

 

[soha]

A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment.[/I]

Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or under the command of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned," rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments.

Need I say more?

I'm to lazy to type an actual reply... need sleep....
but just watch this....

[YT]MfObDFVnfp0[/YT]
[YT]lnAEvqI6V9E[/YT]
[YT]xS0hKNuS8zU[/YT]

 

[TacticalPenguin]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Because of the sentence structure, this alone is its own rule - the second amendment states that the purpose of bearing arms is for a militia, but still states that the right to KEEP them - thus before, during, and after any military service, shall not be infringed. It also does not specifically state that a militia is defined as being controlled and run by the government. From your own link:
"The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service."
So, doesn't this mean any citizen eligible for military service should be allowed to keep arms? And why shouldn't those arms be the same arms as the citizen would use during military service? It only makes sense that you use the same thing all the time instead of switching back and forth, you become more proficient with it.

As for police;
When someone breaks into your home, how long does it take the police to get there? Three minutes at best - you can be dead with the majority of your blood on the floor in a fraction of that time. Your most valuable belongings can be stolen and gone forever. Why shouldn't you be able to defend your life and what you have earned in your life on your own? So why shouldn't you be able to do so with the same things that the public protectors three minutes away use?

"Do you honestly believe civilians can solve crime themselves?"
They can and do. Any civilian with the motivation to do so can become better trained in using firearms than the majority of police officers. If a criminal knows or suspects a person has a firearm, they are much less likely do anything to or near them. Crime runs rampant because criminals don't expect to get shot, they expect to have their way because they have (illegal) guns.

Gun control in this sense is only keeping guns away from law-abiding citizens with no intent other than sporting and protection. Gun control should not be gun control, it should be idiot and criminal control.

 

[Slasher]

I like this quote in the second video - "If we were to suppress criminal activities, I would much rather the criminal be armed with brick bats[?] rather than with bullets and bayonet"

This is pretty much what I've been saying... Now take that quote and replace it with "pistol" and "assault rifle". If the criminal were less armed (not having an assault rifle, but say a pistol instead), then naturally the police would be put at an advantage which I believe they deserve to have.

~

You say "And why shouldn't those arms be the same arms as the citizen would use during military service?"
Should citizens be allowed to carry missile launchers, fully automatic weapons, and grenades to be readily available? A distinct line needs to be drawn. Like pistols only.

"When someone breaks into your home, how long does it take the police to get there? Three minutes at best - you can be dead with the majority of your blood on the floor in a fraction of that time."
The odds of this actually happening vs. the odds that a family member or child finds the gun and an "accident" occurs are unparallel. Quoted in that video it's something like 47 times more likely that a family member would be shot if a gun is present in the house. Why should an assault rifle over a pistol be a necessity in this type of situation anyways? Just to make things clear - I am not for absolute gun control in the United States.

 

[soha]

I like this quote in the second video - "If we were to suppress criminal activities, I would much rather the criminal be armed with brick bats[?] rather than with bullets and bayonet"

This is pretty much what I've been saying... Now take that quote and replace it with "pistol" and "assault rifle". If the criminal were less armed (not having an assault rifle, but say a pistol instead), then naturally the police would be put at an advantage which I believe they deserve to have.

good job on missing the point of the vid
iirc only 2 percent of crimes committed using guns involved the criminal having an assault weapon. so that means that 98 percent of the time the police would have an advantage.

 

[Slasher]

good job on missing the point of the vid
iirc only 2 percent of crimes committed using guns involved the criminal having an assault weapon. so that means that 98 percent of the time the police would have an advantage.

That really wasn't the point of the video, but oh well. My main concern is the ability to have a fully-automatic weapon, which I originally thought was deemed as an "assault weapon", but I guess even semi-automatic rifles fall under that term as well. And if it is in fact even remotely possible to convert a semi-automatic weapon into a fully-automatic weapon, then that's really my only gripe about it.

 

[Darth Budd]

I like this quote in the second video - "If we were to suppress criminal activities, I would much rather the criminal be armed with brick bats[?] rather than with bullets and bayonet"

This is pretty much what I've been saying... Now take that quote and replace it with "pistol" and "assault rifle". If the criminal were less armed (not having an assault rifle, but say a pistol instead), then naturally the police would be put at an advantage which I believe they deserve to have.

those criminals you describe were the patriots in the american revolution that proved that britain was not invincible and let to the eventual dissolution of the british empire, which established such countries as Israel (Canada), Australia (Canada), New Zealand (Canada), oh and Canada.

your welcome.

 

[Slasher]

those criminals you describe were the patriots in the american revolution that proved that britain was not invincible and let to the eventual dissolution of the british empire, which established such countries as Israel (Canada), Australia (Canada), New Zealand (Canada), oh and Canada.

your welcome.

I guess I took that quote out of context, my bad. Still, as it stands now in a modern intellectual and rational society I genuinely believe that the police should have a natural advantage over criminals, no? The citizens aren't going to rebel as things are now, times have changed - going off of what Terra said

 

[Darth Budd]

I guess I took that quote out of context, my bad. Still, as it stands now in a modern intellectual society I genuinely believe that the police should have a natural advantage over criminals, no? The citizens aren't going to rebel as things are now, times have changed - going off of what Terra said

They should yes, but the problem here (california) is that there are so many laws restricting what the police can't do and that protect the criminal's "rights" that the only way to protect ones self at times is to be armed, but there are also so many laws regarding firearms that the criminals basically have free run of the place. My father has been in the Highway patrol for nearly 30 years now, and has to file almost six pages of paperwork, then have a hearing before a committee if he even draws his gun while on duty. The officers are no longer allowed to shoot back in certain situations. It is about time for a statewide revolution, the gangs literally control certain areas.

 

[TacticalPenguin]

My use of the word "arms" was a shortening of "small arms"

"In the US military, small arms refers to hand guns or firearms less than 20 mm in caliber"

As to the main point - whether something has a possible use that isn't illegal - grenades and rocket launchers certainly fall under that category. assault rifles do not.

if the police can and should have an advantage over criminals, why can't common civilians?

you're forgetting that any form of gun control is not going to do anything to what criminals have and use.

as for your 47 times statistic, that's completely taken out of context. googling returns statistics between 800 and 1500 accidental deaths per year. googling also says there are about half a million crimes committed by a criminal with a gun, about 10,000 of which resulted in murder with a firearm. if idiots would stop being idiots and 1. learn 2. teach others in the house about guns, the 800-1500 would virtually disappear. Why not teach the uneducated women children and other adults who end up shooting themselves about guns? Oh, that would just make too much fucking sense.

again, I am 100% anti-gun-control, but I am all for idiot control. idiots with guns is one thing, guns themselves are not a problem.

Oh, and in such a situation as I previously described, AS YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING YOURSELF, an assault rifle over a pistol would give you an advantage over the criminal.

 

[Slasher]

Look what I said here. I've been talking about assault rifles all along.

My main concern is the ability to have a fully-automatic weapon, which I originally thought was deemed as an "assault weapon", but I guess even semi-automatic rifles fall under that term as well. And if it is in fact even remotely possible to convert a semi-automatic weapon into a fully-automatic weapon, then that's really my only gripe about it.

Here's what I think: If "assault weapons" weren't allowed from the get-go and weren't distributed so easily and in such quantities, then there would be very few of them available, right? Taking this into consideration, then it would likely be very rare for criminals to even obtain these assault weapons and hence be at virtually an equal level with any citizen. This situation would be completely ideal and make gun control and pistols-only a completely attainable option.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Assault weapons have been mass produced in staggering quantities and they are readily available no problem as it is now. Hence making it difficult to regulate them and make gun control effective. How can they overcome this obstacle? I don't know.

 

[Darth Budd]

[YT]G6BpI3xD6h0[/YT]

there is a big difference between assault rifles as well

 

[NeilR]

you're forgetting that any form of gun control is not going to do anything to what criminals have and use.

You should read up on the Canadian system; then you'd realize that there are forms of gun control that do work.

 

[Slasher]

You should read up on the Canadian system; then you'd realize that there are forms of gun control that do work.

I think the problem is though, as I previously stated, that there are already so many different types of guns and in vast quantities in circulation since the country originally formed, that even taking proven effective gun control policies into consideration would probably do very little. Also, judging by the fact that the second amendment pretty much guarantees every citizen the right to own a gun no matter what puts gun control at a huge loss.

Americans are much like Canadians in that we share a very similar cultural background and share many of the same values. In this case though, the want/need to own a gun is just one of those values that greatly differ. Most Canadians probably wouldn't care less if an all out ban on guns were to occur, whereas Americans would do a back flip. This probably created (and even somewhat strengthens) the stereotype that Americans are aggressive assholes whereas Canadians are typically seen as friendly and care-free individuals. I don't think adopting Canadian gun control laws would do much help in a society already so deep in this gun ownership hole.