Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On December 19 2012 00:15 micronesia wrote: What types of guns are likely to be banned? Any semi-automatic rifle? Just ones that look like the one used in the most recent mass shooting? Any rifle with a capacity >1?
If we are simply trying to ban assault weapons, should an M1 Garand, which is semi-automatic with an 8 bullet block (like a clip) be banned?
What's your opinion on this matter? Do you think there should be no restrictions at all on gun sales?
I think this would be an easy question if we didn't already have many millions of each type of gun floating around (some people don't see this as a big problem, but that's not what we are discussing at the moment).
I'm not sure what a good distinction is between the different types of guns, which is why I'm asking. Many rifles are semi-automatic and carry more than one bullet.
I definitely do believe gun sales should be tracked/restricted (the law/enforcement can use some work as it is), but I don't think a full gun ban is appropriate at this time.
I hate to be that guy, but I think this is where Canada has managed to create a very agreeable system. Hand guns are restricted, and require a special license that is obtained from a different course. If the individual passes the course, they are awarded their restricted-firearms license, thus allowed to own a handgun. Assault rifles are absolutely banned, and only used in the military. Other rifles -- whether they are bolt-action or semi-automatic -- require a non-restricted license. A magazine is only allowed to have 5 cartridges in it (correct me if I'm wrong, I took the course a couple summers ago), and you will be heavily penalized otherwise. But the real key is, once you have a completed the course, you apply for your license with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; you must provide references to people that know you, and they basically do a background check on you, for things such as mental illness etc. Someone who owns a gun, must have it securely locked at all times -- the ammunition must be securely separated from the weapon.
Listen, if a person is desperate enough, they'll do whatever it takes. But it's harder here to get harmful weapons, and oddly enough, these weapons are likely smuggled from the U.S or Mexico. You can't completely extinguish gun culture, especially since it's been a huge part of American/Canadian history. Read a Louis L'Amour book; the Wild West was a dangerous place and guns were tremendous part of it. While you could argue that society is more civil now, shootings like Connecticut, make think our society really isn't as civil as we'd like to think. What if someone in that school had a gun to defend those kids? I'm not sure what to feel about this.
In terms of protection, I don't see why guns are that great anyway, if anything, guns instigate violence rather than deters it. Killing in self defense is exactly that, killing. Think about a situation where no one has guns, if some dude pulled a knife on you and you disarmed them, are you likely going to stab them to death when they're down? No, because that is murder, not self defense. With guns, murdering the perpetrator IS self defense. That is the key difference. Just shooting them once isn't enough because they can still shoot back, that is why shooting for the kill is really the only effective self defense if both parties are armed.
Now that's fucking smart. Never thought of it that way before.
The most important factor when considering gun control is that it primarily offers the most extreme, singular form of self-defense, when the spectrum of danger and how we respond to it is actually quite broad. It's escalation-on-demand.
The notion that anyone 'needs' a gun and is therefore entitled to one is actually ridiculous, because it presumes that all threats are life-and-death-us-or-them situations.
I think that in Florida, the percentage of potential perpetrators that were armed with guns, that were killed (legally) by would-be victims was actually quite low. I should look it up.
But let's be real here if you break into someone's house are you entitled to your safety? Someone entering another persons home while they are home is incredibly dangerous and threatening without guns. I mean there is a massive difference between going into a home you know has no one in it vs. a house that definitely has people in it.
If you expect most homeowners to take a stab wound during a robbery is that fair to the home owner? What if that stab wound is the 1/10000 stab wound that nicks an artery and ends in a death. Should the home owner be at a realistic chance of his death to protect his family?
I don't expect the home owner to run out and just blow a shadowy figure away because that could be your child or much less likely it could be a plain old thief or even more massively unlikely the next BTK/Son of Sam. I think it is reasonable that the home owner should stay in his room and warn the intruder off and if the intruder continues up into the area with family members you should be able to shoot in self defence.
To ask a personal question, we both live in Canada so a robbery is a really small chance already but with a gun it is even less likely what would you do?
Uggggghhh ... I have to be honest with myself and mull it over. I'm married with no kids, so it's not much of an issue for me and my wife to escape if someone invaded my house (we have nice things, but they aren't nice enough to risk our lives for).
At the same time, I'm obligated to protect my wife, and if I had to would fight to the death so she could escape.
If I had a gun, I'd probably use it. But I would never actively seek a situation to protect myself with a gun or get in a shootout if I had other options -- simply because I'm a lousy, lousy shot. I've been to the firing range and I fucking suck at shooting a stationary target. Getting into a firefight would be like flipping a coin with my life. You might as well give me some fucking ninja stars.
I think someone posted earlier how someone asked their class if they thought, personally, they where responsible enough to own a gun, and every raised their hand. Meanwhile, I'm sure if you asked that class if they knew or could think of anyone their age that was not responsible enough to own a gun, their hands would still be in the air.
I don't have any delusions about my own capabilities with a gun, but I get the impression that a lot of people overestimate their own skill and decision making when empowered with any kind of deadly weapon.
Rather than Gun control why not try and control the quantity of ammunition? a gun without ammo becomes a very expensive club with an extremely limited range, why not make conventional ammunition illegal (to all but authorities) to own but let people have rubber ammunition which is non-lethal.
im not an expert but i assume rubber ammo will hurt/potentially disable a burglar which negates the whole "protect my family idea"
On December 18 2012 19:38 USvBleakill wrote: One thing i always find "funny" (i know its not but...): After every school shooting or something like that everyone talks about "gun control". But here is the funny part: As far as i know there was a "Bushmaster AR 15"(please correct me if i´m wrong) used in Connecticut. Thats not a gun. It´s a assault rifle designed from the beginning to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.
How can politicans, weapon lobbyists and random people even sleep at night saying things like "it´s for hunting or to protect my family". Hunting what? Dinosaur? and protect them from what? Zombie kim jong ill?
looks like even pro-gun senator are pushing to ban Assault rifles now. It's sad that it took so many deaths to reach what most ppl (outside of the us) consider common sense.
Probly won't help much however consider you can buy weapons online without any background checks.
False, don't make claims that are not true. You cannot get your gun online without a background check. It gets sent to an FFL licensed dealer who processes you before you are allowed to take possession of the firearm.
On December 18 2012 22:17 run.at.me wrote: I feel sorry for Americans thinking that is necessary to possess a gun to protect themselves.
I've never seen a gun outside the pockets of a cop, which is how I want it to be. While I understand the need to protect one-self and family, a gun shouldn't be necessary to do so. Maybe in extreme cases, but extreme cases do not warrant the relaxed gun laws IMO.
That being said, maybe you guys live in what I perceive to be 'extreme cases', which only prompts my sympathy for you. Frankly I don't care if you have guns or not, but some of the reasons people give in this thread are ridiculous.
Trying to compare a country with 22million people to America is insanely ignorant.
What is those same teachers you gun lovers want to carry guns for self defense are the ones who commit the massacre ? clearly the childrens have the right to carry guns for self defense too.
On December 19 2012 02:29 Awatsu wrote: What is those same teachers you gun lovers want to carry guns for self defense are the ones who commit the massacre ? clearly the childrens have the right to carry guns for self defense too.
That's a logical scenario. Because all the teachers in the school would rise against the kids...
On December 19 2012 02:29 Awatsu wrote: What is those same teachers you gun lovers want to carry guns for self defense are the ones who commit the massacre ? clearly the childrens have the right to carry guns for self defense too.
I don't think arming teachers is smart. Many of them are against guns as it is so you can't force those who think that to carry. It also is really viable to have them train regularly to be qualified to handle a gun, especially in a class full of students. The money it would take to train and increase the wages of these teachers to carry would be better spent paying police officers to handle the job in all schools just as they do in high schools across America.
Now if you're going to transfer your question to the police it probably won't happen. I sure haven't heard of a police officer shooting up a school and they have been armed in high schools daily for decades.
On December 18 2012 22:17 run.at.me wrote: I feel sorry for Americans thinking that is necessary to possess a gun to protect themselves.
I've never seen a gun outside the pockets of a cop, which is how I want it to be. While I understand the need to protect one-self and family, a gun shouldn't be necessary to do so. Maybe in extreme cases, but extreme cases do not warrant the relaxed gun laws IMO.
That being said, maybe you guys live in what I perceive to be 'extreme cases', which only prompts my sympathy for you. Frankly I don't care if you have guns or not, but some of the reasons people give in this thread are ridiculous.
Trying to compare a country with 22million people to America is insanely ignorant.
Repeating the same strawman over and over again is insanely ignorant. I could compare a donut to a cow if I wanted.
You fail to provide a reason why it should be inadequate to compare one first world country to another. And please don't bullshit us with "violent history". All Countries had their share in warfare etc. or with "more people" because then we could compare China only to India.
On December 18 2012 22:17 run.at.me wrote: I feel sorry for Americans thinking that is necessary to possess a gun to protect themselves.
I've never seen a gun outside the pockets of a cop, which is how I want it to be. While I understand the need to protect one-self and family, a gun shouldn't be necessary to do so. Maybe in extreme cases, but extreme cases do not warrant the relaxed gun laws IMO.
That being said, maybe you guys live in what I perceive to be 'extreme cases', which only prompts my sympathy for you. Frankly I don't care if you have guns or not, but some of the reasons people give in this thread are ridiculous.
Trying to compare a country with 22million people to America is insanely ignorant.
Repeating the same strawman over and over again is insanely ignorant. I could compare a donut to a cow if I wanted.
You fail to provide a reason why it should be inadequate to compare one first world country to another. And please don't bullshit us with "violent history". All Countries had their share in warfare etc. or with "more people" because then we could compare China only to India.
A straw man? Seriously? If you read this thread you would know I made plenty of posts dealing with this exact topic. Of course you didn't read them you only saw a post you disagreed with and in your haste to tell me I'm wrong and you're right you ignored literally every single post I've made except for this one.
On December 18 2012 22:17 run.at.me wrote: I feel sorry for Americans thinking that is necessary to possess a gun to protect themselves.
I've never seen a gun outside the pockets of a cop, which is how I want it to be. While I understand the need to protect one-self and family, a gun shouldn't be necessary to do so. Maybe in extreme cases, but extreme cases do not warrant the relaxed gun laws IMO.
That being said, maybe you guys live in what I perceive to be 'extreme cases', which only prompts my sympathy for you. Frankly I don't care if you have guns or not, but some of the reasons people give in this thread are ridiculous.
Trying to compare a country with 22million people to America is insanely ignorant.
Repeating the same strawman over and over again is insanely ignorant. I could compare a donut to a cow if I wanted.
You fail to provide a reason why it should be inadequate to compare one first world country to another. And please don't bullshit us with "violent history". All Countries had their share in warfare etc. or with "more people" because then we could compare China only to India.
Does your constitution include references to owning weapons? The cultural history of firearm ownership in the United States, for better or for worse (definitely worse, if you ask me), fundamentally informs our firearm ownership debate and does lend a great deal of credence to the idea that the US requires idiosyncratic attention.
On December 18 2012 19:38 USvBleakill wrote: One thing i always find "funny" (i know its not but...): After every school shooting or something like that everyone talks about "gun control". But here is the funny part: As far as i know there was a "Bushmaster AR 15"(please correct me if i´m wrong) used in Connecticut. Thats not a gun. It´s a assault rifle designed from the beginning to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.
How can politicans, weapon lobbyists and random people even sleep at night saying things like "it´s for hunting or to protect my family". Hunting what? Dinosaur? and protect them from what? Zombie kim jong ill?
Behold, the fearsome speed and power of this deadly killing machine. Truly no greater implement of mass murder has been devised by man.
On December 19 2012 01:35 SCkad wrote: Rather than Gun control why not try and control the quantity of ammunition? a gun without ammo becomes a very expensive club with an extremely limited range, why not make conventional ammunition illegal (to all but authorities) to own but let people have rubber ammunition which is non-lethal.
im not an expert but i assume rubber ammo will hurt/potentially disable a burglar which negates the whole "protect my family idea"
On December 19 2012 01:35 SCkad wrote: Rather than Gun control why not try and control the quantity of ammunition? a gun without ammo becomes a very expensive club with an extremely limited range, why not make conventional ammunition illegal (to all but authorities) to own but let people have rubber ammunition which is non-lethal.
im not an expert but i assume rubber ammo will hurt/potentially disable a burglar which negates the whole "protect my family idea"
So you have no problem making that leap from "hurt/potentially disable" all the way to "which negates the whole protect my family idea" ? It's ok that you feel a "potential" defense is enough to protect your family, but not mine. One of the problems with certain drugs is that they make even tasers completely ineffective, and you suggest that some rubber pellets will do better ? Naivete is not the answer.
On December 18 2012 22:17 run.at.me wrote: I feel sorry for Americans thinking that is necessary to possess a gun to protect themselves.
I've never seen a gun outside the pockets of a cop, which is how I want it to be. While I understand the need to protect one-self and family, a gun shouldn't be necessary to do so. Maybe in extreme cases, but extreme cases do not warrant the relaxed gun laws IMO.
That being said, maybe you guys live in what I perceive to be 'extreme cases', which only prompts my sympathy for you. Frankly I don't care if you have guns or not, but some of the reasons people give in this thread are ridiculous.
Trying to compare a country with 22million people to America is insanely ignorant.
Repeating the same strawman over and over again is insanely ignorant. I could compare a donut to a cow if I wanted.
You fail to provide a reason why it should be inadequate to compare one first world country to another. And please don't bullshit us with "violent history". All Countries had their share in warfare etc. or with "more people" because then we could compare China only to India.
Do you have millions of poor minorities that commit over half of all murders in your country?
On December 19 2012 01:35 SCkad wrote: Rather than Gun control why not try and control the quantity of ammunition? a gun without ammo becomes a very expensive club with an extremely limited range, why not make conventional ammunition illegal (to all but authorities) to own but let people have rubber ammunition which is non-lethal.
im not an expert but i assume rubber ammo will hurt/potentially disable a burglar which negates the whole "protect my family idea"
So you have no problem making that leap from "hurt/potentially disable" all the way to "which negates the whole protect my family idea" ? It's ok that you feel a "potential" defense is enough to protect your family, but not mine. One of the problems with certain drugs is that they make even tasers completely ineffective, and you suggest that some rubber pellets will do better ? Naivete is not the answer.
Recently watched a prison documentary on Netflix, an unruly guy on the yard was literally sitting by the backboard of a basketball hoop, making fun of the cops while they fed him CS gas, which is pepper spray on steroids, and dumped rubber bullets into him, because he was refusing to exit the yard.
It was completely ineffective. He eventually climbed down and walked out.
On December 18 2012 22:17 run.at.me wrote: I feel sorry for Americans thinking that is necessary to possess a gun to protect themselves.
I've never seen a gun outside the pockets of a cop, which is how I want it to be. While I understand the need to protect one-self and family, a gun shouldn't be necessary to do so. Maybe in extreme cases, but extreme cases do not warrant the relaxed gun laws IMO.
That being said, maybe you guys live in what I perceive to be 'extreme cases', which only prompts my sympathy for you. Frankly I don't care if you have guns or not, but some of the reasons people give in this thread are ridiculous.
Trying to compare a country with 22million people to America is insanely ignorant.
Repeating the same strawman over and over again is insanely ignorant. I could compare a donut to a cow if I wanted.
You fail to provide a reason why it should be inadequate to compare one first world country to another. And please don't bullshit us with "violent history". All Countries had their share in warfare etc. or with "more people" because then we could compare China only to India.
Do you have millions of poor minorities that commit over half of all murders in your country?
Pretty sure that poor people commit the largest percentage of murders in most countries... But hey, ITS ONLY THE MINORITY ONES THAT ARE BAD
On December 18 2012 22:17 run.at.me wrote: I feel sorry for Americans thinking that is necessary to possess a gun to protect themselves.
I've never seen a gun outside the pockets of a cop, which is how I want it to be. While I understand the need to protect one-self and family, a gun shouldn't be necessary to do so. Maybe in extreme cases, but extreme cases do not warrant the relaxed gun laws IMO.
That being said, maybe you guys live in what I perceive to be 'extreme cases', which only prompts my sympathy for you. Frankly I don't care if you have guns or not, but some of the reasons people give in this thread are ridiculous.
Trying to compare a country with 22million people to America is insanely ignorant.
Repeating the same strawman over and over again is insanely ignorant. I could compare a donut to a cow if I wanted.
You fail to provide a reason why it should be inadequate to compare one first world country to another. And please don't bullshit us with "violent history". All Countries had their share in warfare etc. or with "more people" because then we could compare China only to India.
Do you have millions of poor minorities that commit over half of all murders in your country?
Pretty sure that poor people commit the largest percentage of murders in most countries... But hey, ITS ONLY THE MINORITY ONES THAT ARE BAD
He totally made that exact point.... <sarcasm
What seemed to go way over your head is the fact that minorities make up a completely disproportionate part of the violent crimes. Not to say that means anything, you just seemed to completely miss the entire point of his post.
On December 19 2012 01:35 SCkad wrote: Rather than Gun control why not try and control the quantity of ammunition? a gun without ammo becomes a very expensive club with an extremely limited range, why not make conventional ammunition illegal (to all but authorities) to own but let people have rubber ammunition which is non-lethal.
im not an expert but i assume rubber ammo will hurt/potentially disable a burglar which negates the whole "protect my family idea"
So you have no problem making that leap from "hurt/potentially disable" all the way to "which negates the whole protect my family idea" ? It's ok that you feel a "potential" defense is enough to protect your family, but not mine. One of the problems with certain drugs is that they make even tasers completely ineffective, and you suggest that some rubber pellets will do better ? Naivete is not the answer.
Recently watched a prison documentary on Netflix, an unruly guy on the yard was literally sitting by the backboard of a basketball hoop, making fun of the cops while they fed him CS gas, which is pepper spray on steroids, and dumped rubber bullets into him, because he was refusing to exit the yard.
It was completely ineffective. He eventually climbed down and walked out.
I once saw a guy get shot three times and then he slit the shooter's throat with a knife. Guns are ineffective, you should defend your home with knives.
On December 18 2012 22:17 run.at.me wrote: I feel sorry for Americans thinking that is necessary to possess a gun to protect themselves.
I've never seen a gun outside the pockets of a cop, which is how I want it to be. While I understand the need to protect one-self and family, a gun shouldn't be necessary to do so. Maybe in extreme cases, but extreme cases do not warrant the relaxed gun laws IMO.
That being said, maybe you guys live in what I perceive to be 'extreme cases', which only prompts my sympathy for you. Frankly I don't care if you have guns or not, but some of the reasons people give in this thread are ridiculous.
Trying to compare a country with 22million people to America is insanely ignorant.
Repeating the same strawman over and over again is insanely ignorant. I could compare a donut to a cow if I wanted.
You fail to provide a reason why it should be inadequate to compare one first world country to another. And please don't bullshit us with "violent history". All Countries had their share in warfare etc. or with "more people" because then we could compare China only to India.
Do you have millions of poor minorities that commit over half of all murders in your country?
Pretty sure that poor people commit the largest percentage of murders in most countries... But hey, ITS ONLY THE MINORITY ONES THAT ARE BAD
That's not my point. He wanted to know why you can't compare America to small European countries and that's the reason I gave.
Also, off topic, your argument is flawed. There are more poor whites in America than every minority combined.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CFZiP.jpg)
