|
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 March 18 2013 02:11 Aukai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 18 2013 01:16 micronesia wrote:On March 18 2013 01:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:
all I know is I just bought a glock 9-mil subcompact and am getting a conceal carry permit ASAP. and all I have to do is go to the Sheriffs office and ask for one, and take 90 minute class or something stupid like that. no registering, no jumping through hoops bullcrap. no obvious infringements of my Second Amendment right.
and this is how it should be. Thank God for North Dakota and fuck California up it's massive golden butthole.
next buy is a pump-action shotty and a snub-nosed revolver and pity the fool that tries to fuck with me after that. I'm okay with ND's gun laws for the moment but I'm not sure if I'm okay with giving a concealed carry permit to someone who says "fuck California up it's massive golden butthole." You do realize how this post makes you look, however well-intentioned it may be, right? that was a bit of a troll on my part. I just went a bit over the top cause I'm excited. though I would definitely never act like that while applying for the permit. I'm not giving them any reason to reject me. edit: and I obviously was joking about the "pity the fool" part. I would only even think about drawing my gun in the most unbelievably necessary situation. 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the time I will just use my god-given gift of running very fast in any instances of trouble or aggression on the part of someone else. I actually plan on almost never taking my gun out of the house, unless its to go to a range. I just wanted to play to the stereotype a bit. I have a concealed carry permit, and unless you're planning to carry at leas 90% of the time you can (I don't carry at work) Then what was the point in getting one?
I spend most of my time at work, so I can't carry then, and where I live is pretty relaxed so I don't feel the need to always have it on me. but if I want it, I can carry it without any problems. the point isn't to use it all the time, it's just to use it when I want to use it.
|
On March 18 2013 02:07 spinesheath wrote:
Why are you excited about getting a weapon for self defense? I'd be pretty damn depressed having to get a weapon for self defense. And if it's not for self defense, then why would you ever need a concealed carry permit?
Eventually my day might be made. I best be carryin when it happens.
|
Concealed carry classes are anything but stupid. The programs are designed to teach the stupidest of tough guys the rules of handling situations so that they dont escalate. Avoid arguments, apolagize, run etc. Anyone acting macho is going to be told to get the fuck out of the class and not come back.
|
On March 18 2013 02:26 xactilian wrote:
The problem with this debate is that it appears that there are only two possible outcomes: no/very limited gun controls or very strict gun control/banning guns in the general public. I personally believe in a middle ground. Coming from Canada, which has a very high gun ownership rate, and very low gun violence rate, I see that the problem with gun violence in the USA is that people have access to weapons that have no other purpose than to kill a human being. Assault rifles, high-powered, armor-piercing sniper rifles, easily concealable submachine guns. If you want to hunt, get a hunting rifle, if you want to protect yourself get semi-automatic pistol or a revolver, or as Joe Biden said, get a shotgun. You don't need an assault rifle unless you actually plan on killing people.
One final thing, gun control is irrelevant to criminals and criminal groups, they get their guns illegally regardless; statistically, most gun deaths come from suicides, so I would support mandatory psychological evaluation prior to issue of a gun license, something which in all likelihood would have prevented many of the serious mass killings that have happened recently.
No one has assault rifles. Almost all rifles will pierce armor if it's just kevlar. Again, no one has easily concealable submachine guns.
Can you define a difference between a hunting rifle and sniper rifle?
![[image loading]](http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/67/fb2b1f485b06412eab70dcc184e55ce8/l.jpg)
Is this a sniper rifle or a hunting rifle?
![[image loading]](https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKhXHpMvcru5XtsKFiOSBnfG4vtGIaBkE4jLUVpprtK0qXUKDIfQ)
How about this? Sniper rifle or hunting rifle?
|
On March 18 2013 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2013 02:11 Aukai wrote:On March 18 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 18 2013 01:16 micronesia wrote:On March 18 2013 01:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:
all I know is I just bought a glock 9-mil subcompact and am getting a conceal carry permit ASAP. and all I have to do is go to the Sheriffs office and ask for one, and take 90 minute class or something stupid like that. no registering, no jumping through hoops bullcrap. no obvious infringements of my Second Amendment right.
and this is how it should be. Thank God for North Dakota and fuck California up it's massive golden butthole.
next buy is a pump-action shotty and a snub-nosed revolver and pity the fool that tries to fuck with me after that. I'm okay with ND's gun laws for the moment but I'm not sure if I'm okay with giving a concealed carry permit to someone who says "fuck California up it's massive golden butthole." You do realize how this post makes you look, however well-intentioned it may be, right? that was a bit of a troll on my part. I just went a bit over the top cause I'm excited. though I would definitely never act like that while applying for the permit. I'm not giving them any reason to reject me. edit: and I obviously was joking about the "pity the fool" part. I would only even think about drawing my gun in the most unbelievably necessary situation. 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the time I will just use my god-given gift of running very fast in any instances of trouble or aggression on the part of someone else. I actually plan on almost never taking my gun out of the house, unless its to go to a range. I just wanted to play to the stereotype a bit. I have a concealed carry permit, and unless you're planning to carry at leas 90% of the time you can (I don't carry at work) Then what was the point in getting one? I spend most of my time at work, so I can't carry then, and where I live is pretty relaxed so I don't feel the need to always have it on me. but if I want it, I can carry it without any problems. the point isn't to use it all the time, it's just to use it when I want to use it.
If you only carry when you think your going to use it, you won't be comfortable carrying all the time. Doesn't that seem dangerous to only carry when you think you're going to draw? Why not carry 100% of the time and avoid the dangerous settings when possible?
This is the kind of stuff they teach in you in the class. It's like a Parachute, If you don't have it when you need it it could be fatal. Don't assume just cause your neighborhood is relatively lax that you have the ability to pick and choose when to carry and when not to.
|
On March 12 2013 22:31 Heweree wrote:
"Tell some of the kids who have had to shot intruders in their houses that the gun they had didn't make them safer...
There's a video compilation of corner store/home owners defending themselves with firearms. All are very scary often it's an older person or younger kids. One that really sticks out is one of 2 girls who can't be older than 14 trying to hold a door shut while 2 huge dudes are trying to throw themselves against the door to bash it in. When they finally start getting the door open the one girl shoots one of the intruders and he drops dead and the other runs. I don't want to know what might have happened if they did get in and they little girls didn't have a gun but I'm glad there is one less scum bag out there. I'm trying to find the video now. "
This reasoning is so bad. Of course you will find stories where having guns saved lives. And they will be on the news. And this guy will tell his wife "see how great guns are, this emotional one-time story really shows the worthiness of guns in domestic protection". But how many gun domestic accidents? It's a number's game. I will look up for stats but I'm pretty sure it won't look good for you.
"Guns are the greatest equalizer. You can be 110 years old or 10 and you can still put a 300 pound meth head down if you absolutely have too. "
Yeah and you can be a skinny 20 year old and kill 20+ people. But good job on you to trust a 10yo when to properly use a firearm.
Anyway, I'm seriously waiting for one single valid argument for lax gun control policy.
Well...after reading *a lot* of stuff on Wikipedia, and reading the associated source material (here's one:Response to the National Academy of Sciences) I think the main problem is that there simply isn't enough data to support either side. Apparently there is very little federal funding granted for research into this area (in the USA), and quite a lot of obstructionism from the NRA and congress.
In other countries, there are studies that don't show any significant correlation between gun control and gun violence. For example, in Australia, Don Weatherburn, the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research states that
"the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence"
Also in comparison to New Zealand:
The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events
In Canada:
A landmark 2011 study by Dr. Caillin Langmann found no beneficial effect on Canada's homicide or spousal homicide rates as a result of any of Canada's major gun control legislation since 1974, including FAC and PAL licensing, storage laws, the characterization of many types of firearms as prohibited or restricted, magazine restrictions, etc., all of which were enacted in that time period.
I couldn't find any other studies that show a causal effect between gun control and gun violence. Maybe if guns were banned entirely...but I'm not even sure if that's possible to enforce legally, much less whether it would have any positive effects (as the counter intuitive results above show). I think this is why the debate has raged on for so long; no firm data and obstructionism in the US.
Wiki:
The question of whether gun control policies increase, decrease or have no effect on rates of gun violence turns out to be a difficult question. While a variety of disparate data sources on rates of firearm-related injuries and deaths, firearms markets, and the relationships between rates of gun ownership and violence exist, found that while some strong conclusions are warranted from current research, the state of our knowledge is generally poor.
-Source: Welford, C.F. (2004). Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
So the question is really, should we be supporting making something illegal, when we don't even know whether its a problem? A lot of people like being well-protected, I think until its conclusively demonstrated that the net effect is highly negative, they should be allowed to arm themselves (although apparently studies also show that having a gun makes you more likely to get killed; see: The link between gun possession and assault).
What we should be fighting for is more federal research into this area, and an end to NRA obstructionism. It really doesn't look good for your "side" when you prevent research into an area to determine the truth. It seems just like the tobacco industry...only it may be that they are acting out of fear, but actually have good grounds to stand on (they just don't want to find out what the truth is  ).
|
On March 18 2013 02:26 xactilian wrote:
The problem with this debate is that it appears that there are only two possible outcomes: no/very limited gun controls or very strict gun control/banning guns in the general public. I personally believe in a middle ground. Coming from Canada, which has a very high gun ownership rate, and very low gun violence rate, I see that the problem with gun violence in the USA is that people have access to weapons that have no other purpose than to kill a human being. Assault rifles, high-powered, armor-piercing sniper rifles, easily concealable submachine guns. If you want to hunt, get a hunting rifle, if you want to protect yourself get semi-automatic pistol or a revolver, or as Joe Biden said, get a shotgun. You don't need an assault rifle unless you actually plan on killing people.
One final thing, gun control is irrelevant to criminals and criminal groups, they get their guns illegally regardless; statistically, most gun deaths come from suicides, so I would support mandatory psychological evaluation prior to issue of a gun license, something which in all likelihood would have prevented many of the serious mass killings that have happened recently.
The "black" gun market is not exclusive from the legal market.
At all. In fact, they're very much connected to each other.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s35
This is what we're fighting for in terms of gun control in America. And this is what the NRA fights against. Background checks on private gun sales.
Someone can legally purchase a whole lot of weapons from a standard retailer, and then sell them privately, without that messy paperwork, and just like that, we've gone from legitimate gun sales to the murky, gray-area of second-hand sales.
All guns are manufactured legally. There are no illegal guns, until they just "happen" to find their way into undocumented criminal hands. We don't have more illegal guns in this country than other countries because we just love criminality. Rather, we have more illegal guns, because we have more guns.
Our no-limit distribution of guns, legally, creates the illegal market. They're not exclusive. If we put limitations on how many guns people can buy, and what kind, it might have an impact on manufacturing over the long-term -- but more importantly, it will certainly have an impact on distribution, even in the short-term. But this isn't an impact that people in the gun business want, despite their kind rhetoric.
Less illegal gun sales will happen as a result of less legal gun sales. That is an inconvenient truth that gun advocates need to eventually accept.
All applicable law enforcement agencies have said the same thing I'm saying, which is why they support bills like S35, which the wonderful weapon-manufacturers (and their lobbyists) fight against. The fact is, like any business, weapon manufacturers have no fiscal incentive to care about the hidden costs society pays on behalf of their products. Their bean-counters are perfectly happy to see criminals buy their products.
|
The main purpose of the 2nd ammendment was to protect yourself against a known enemy. If you think USA is powerful today, imagine that times 5. That's how powerful the British Empire was in relation to the rest of the world, not just in terms of army, but economically too. The founding fathers were terrified of the british, and they wanted to be prepared for a british invasion. Then there were the indians. Those two reasons were the only reasons why they made the 2nd ammendment, and today it's totally outdated. I don't understand why ppl still cling so hard to the 2nd ammendment. It must be a mix of propaganda from ppl who have monetary ties to the business, and an emotional attachment to guns.
Like I said, having access to guns is meant to protect you against a known danger. But how well they protect you against a unknown danger is questionable at best. Almost all interpersonal crimes, like assault, rape and murder happens between two parties that knows eachother, and have developed a basic level of trust. This is very basic criminology. You don't have your gun at the ready against ppl that you know, so it's absolutely useless as a protection against assault, rape and murder. A knife is much better in those situations, because it's much more discrete, so you can carry it on you at all times (just in case). If someone tries to break into your house, you might have time to go grab your gun, but if that happens, he's after your belongings, and it's extremely unlikely that he will try to hurt you, except if you threaten him. For this reason, when I read about ppl who shot home-intruders it makes me facepalm. How can anyone find that to be a justified action. Death penalty for breaking into someones house is a bit harsh imo, especially considering you convict the person in the moment and without a trial.
If a random person shoots at strangers, I can see the point of having guns to fire back, but the problem here is that it's not realistic to expect everybody to carry a gun at all times. If you want to protect the school children, you would have to arm several teachers per school, and this would imo be both dangerous and impractical, and do more harm then good. What happens if the teacher uses his weapon irresponsibly, or if someone steals it from him. In order for it to work, the teacher would have to carry it at all times, and that's quite a significant safety risk.
The best solution to the american shootings would probably be harsh restrictions like in Europe, in combination with a extended police or guard duty force. These policemen or guards would make spontaneous visits to the schools every now and then, to give a sense of safety and to discourage potential shooters, and these guards would be able to be on site in a matter of minutes in the case of a shooting. How well these patrolling guards would protect is just a question of resources.
The harsh restrictions would greatly limit the access to guns, which would greatly decrease the opportunities of gun violence. Just look at Sweden, where they use fake replica guns to rob banks. Gun restrictions works much better than most americans think. It's not impossible to find a gun here, but you pretty much need a criminal background and a lot of money to find one, two things that the typical school shooter doesn't have.
|
On March 18 2013 06:14 ninini wrote:
The main purpose of the 2nd ammendment was to protect yourself against a known enemy. If you think USA is powerful today, imagine that times 5. That's how powerful the British Empire was in relation to the rest of the world, not just in terms of army, but economically too. The founding fathers were terrified of the british, and they wanted to be prepared for a british invasion. Then there were the indians. Those two reasons were the only reasons why they made the 2nd ammendment, and today it's totally outdated. I don't understand why ppl still cling so hard to the 2nd ammendment. It must be a mix of propaganda from ppl who have monetary ties to the business, and an emotional attachment to guns.
there is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion and there is a multitude of evidence to counter it.
whether or not we care what the Founding Fathers thought about guns is one thing, but don't misrepresent their thinking.
|
On March 18 2013 03:46 Aukai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2013 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 18 2013 02:11 Aukai wrote:On March 18 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 18 2013 01:16 micronesia wrote:On March 18 2013 01:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:
all I know is I just bought a glock 9-mil subcompact and am getting a conceal carry permit ASAP. and all I have to do is go to the Sheriffs office and ask for one, and take 90 minute class or something stupid like that. no registering, no jumping through hoops bullcrap. no obvious infringements of my Second Amendment right.
and this is how it should be. Thank God for North Dakota and fuck California up it's massive golden butthole.
next buy is a pump-action shotty and a snub-nosed revolver and pity the fool that tries to fuck with me after that. I'm okay with ND's gun laws for the moment but I'm not sure if I'm okay with giving a concealed carry permit to someone who says "fuck California up it's massive golden butthole." You do realize how this post makes you look, however well-intentioned it may be, right? that was a bit of a troll on my part. I just went a bit over the top cause I'm excited. though I would definitely never act like that while applying for the permit. I'm not giving them any reason to reject me. edit: and I obviously was joking about the "pity the fool" part. I would only even think about drawing my gun in the most unbelievably necessary situation. 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the time I will just use my god-given gift of running very fast in any instances of trouble or aggression on the part of someone else. I actually plan on almost never taking my gun out of the house, unless its to go to a range. I just wanted to play to the stereotype a bit. I have a concealed carry permit, and unless you're planning to carry at leas 90% of the time you can (I don't carry at work) Then what was the point in getting one? I spend most of my time at work, so I can't carry then, and where I live is pretty relaxed so I don't feel the need to always have it on me. but if I want it, I can carry it without any problems. the point isn't to use it all the time, it's just to use it when I want to use it. If you only carry when you think your going to use it, you won't be comfortable carrying all the time. Doesn't that seem dangerous to only carry when you think you're going to draw? Why not carry 100% of the time and avoid the dangerous settings when possible? This is the kind of stuff they teach in you in the class. It's like a Parachute, If you don't have it when you need it it could be fatal. Don't assume just cause your neighborhood is relatively lax that you have the ability to pick and choose when to carry and when not to.
I haven't needed one for 22 years and most likely will never need it. most people never need one. I want it, and that's why I'll get it. not because I think I need it, cause the honest truth is that I almost certainly will not need it.
and I'll be fine carrying it when I want it. if comfort is an issue than I'll carry it more often to get used to it. 90% of the time, if I leave my house it's to go to work or to a bar with friends and neither of those times is it ok (or allowed) to be on me.
|
On March 18 2013 07:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2013 03:46 Aukai wrote:On March 18 2013 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 18 2013 02:11 Aukai wrote:On March 18 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 18 2013 01:16 micronesia wrote:On March 18 2013 01:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:
all I know is I just bought a glock 9-mil subcompact and am getting a conceal carry permit ASAP. and all I have to do is go to the Sheriffs office and ask for one, and take 90 minute class or something stupid like that. no registering, no jumping through hoops bullcrap. no obvious infringements of my Second Amendment right.
and this is how it should be. Thank God for North Dakota and fuck California up it's massive golden butthole.
next buy is a pump-action shotty and a snub-nosed revolver and pity the fool that tries to fuck with me after that. I'm okay with ND's gun laws for the moment but I'm not sure if I'm okay with giving a concealed carry permit to someone who says "fuck California up it's massive golden butthole." You do realize how this post makes you look, however well-intentioned it may be, right? that was a bit of a troll on my part. I just went a bit over the top cause I'm excited. though I would definitely never act like that while applying for the permit. I'm not giving them any reason to reject me. edit: and I obviously was joking about the "pity the fool" part. I would only even think about drawing my gun in the most unbelievably necessary situation. 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the time I will just use my god-given gift of running very fast in any instances of trouble or aggression on the part of someone else. I actually plan on almost never taking my gun out of the house, unless its to go to a range. I just wanted to play to the stereotype a bit. I have a concealed carry permit, and unless you're planning to carry at leas 90% of the time you can (I don't carry at work) Then what was the point in getting one? I spend most of my time at work, so I can't carry then, and where I live is pretty relaxed so I don't feel the need to always have it on me. but if I want it, I can carry it without any problems. the point isn't to use it all the time, it's just to use it when I want to use it. If you only carry when you think your going to use it, you won't be comfortable carrying all the time. Doesn't that seem dangerous to only carry when you think you're going to draw? Why not carry 100% of the time and avoid the dangerous settings when possible? This is the kind of stuff they teach in you in the class. It's like a Parachute, If you don't have it when you need it it could be fatal. Don't assume just cause your neighborhood is relatively lax that you have the ability to pick and choose when to carry and when not to. I haven't needed one for 22 years and most likely will never need it. most people never need one. I want it, and that's why I'll get it. not because I think I need it, cause the honest truth is that I almost certainly will not need it.
I hope for your sake that your right.
|
On March 18 2013 04:29 Leporello wrote:
All guns are manufactured legally.
Thats not true at all.
|
On March 18 2013 10:10 Lockitupv2 wrote:Thats not true at all.
Feel free to link me one article about someone in America being shot or assaulted by a gun that wasn't manufactured legally. I would earnestly like to know about it.
Tried finding one, instead found otherwise-legal weapon manufacturers selling weapons to the black market directly. Which is "nice". http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2010/02/22/20100222guns-gilbert.html
But if you know of a case of illegally manufactured weapons in America, I'd love to know about it. There are incidents of armor-piercing ammo being illegally sold from otherwise-legitimate manufacturers. There is a case I remember of a gun-store owner trying to fashion and sell fully automatic weapons, but I can't find the source on it. He was not successful.
Elsewhere in the world, where guns are less prevalent, criminals will of course try to make their own weapons, of all kinds. But they're far less effective than the real thing, obviously, and usually don't even work. Ammunition nowadays is pretty much a weapon in itself -- which is definitely worth noting. A buckshot shell and a stick can make a weapon, but it isn't anywhere near as effective as an actual shotgun.
But all that aside, there is simply no reason, in America, to makeshift a weapon when you can just buy one of the hundreds of millions we have circulating.
edit: Not to mention that snipping one small part of my post is actually just removing it from its context, and from my main point.
Again, the "black" gun market in America is completely dependent on the legal market of manufacturing and distributing guns, until they lose their paper trail. Could you argue otherwise?
We have gun violence in America everyday -- are any of these guns manufactured illegally? If not, who cares about illegal gun manufacturing? It's the legally manufactured ones that are killing us. It's like arguing about the health dangers of illegally manufactured cigarettes -- even if they do exist, they're irrelevant.
If further gun control leads to more illegal manufacturing of guns, that will actually be a much more simpler problem for our law enforcement to tackle, logistically, and the makeshift-guns themselves would be much less effective than the legally-owned and manufactured guns that citizens are allowed to have.
In that pesky realm we call reality, our law enforcement is dealing strictly with highly-effective and legally-manufactured guns that find their way into black markets. That is the actual problem our country faces. Worrying about illegal manufacturing of guns would be a luxury for us, at this point, because it would suggest that the gun market isn't over-saturated, which would be a positive change.
|
On March 18 2013 10:10 Lockitupv2 wrote:Thats not true at all.
The number of illegally-manufactured guns in America is so miniscule as to be irrelevant. Perhaps in 10 or 20 years that won't be the case, but for the last 100 or 200 years it has absolutely been the case.
|
On March 16 2013 10:26 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 22:31 Heweree wrote:
"Tell some of the kids who have had to shot intruders in their houses that the gun they had didn't make them safer...
There's a video compilation of corner store/home owners defending themselves with firearms. All are very scary often it's an older person or younger kids. One that really sticks out is one of 2 girls who can't be older than 14 trying to hold a door shut while 2 huge dudes are trying to throw themselves against the door to bash it in. When they finally start getting the door open the one girl shoots one of the intruders and he drops dead and the other runs. I don't want to know what might have happened if they did get in and they little girls didn't have a gun but I'm glad there is one less scum bag out there. I'm trying to find the video now. "
This reasoning is so bad. Of course you will find stories where having guns saved lives. And they will be on the news. And this guy will tell his wife "see how great guns are, this emotional one-time story really shows the worthiness of guns in domestic protection". But how many gun domestic accidents? It's a number's game. I will look up for stats but I'm pretty sure it won't look good for you.
"Guns are the greatest equalizer. You can be 110 years old or 10 and you can still put a 300 pound meth head down if you absolutely have too. "
Yeah and you can be a skinny 20 year old and kill 20+ people. But good job on you to trust a 10yo when to properly use a firearm.
Anyway, I'm seriously waiting for one single valid argument for lax gun control policy. If some one is willing to accept the higher risk of suicide for the benefit of being able to shoot recreationally like millions of Canadians and Americans why would you want take that away? If I'm more likely to kill myself I couldn't give less a of a fuck. I have some of my best memories with my dad, family and friends out in the bush shooting cans. Lots of children shoot targets/go hunting it's not difficult and it's safe if you teach them how to properly handle and use them. Most of the people I go hunting with learned how to shoot when they were around 10. Most people grew up around guns like their parents did before them. Just because you didn't know how to handle a firearm at 10 doesn't mean every one else is as ignorant as you.
Actually I knew how to handle a weapon at 10, I precisely said "when to properly use a firearm". A 10yo can handle a weapon, but is he mature enough to have a non-supervised access to it? I, personally, don't think so. I'm perfectly fine with recreational shooting and hunting, I hunted from a young age myself. But then again they were hunting rifles, stored outside the house and not meant to shoot people.
|
United States24723 Posts
NY State is giving up (for now) on the 7 round limit that was supposed to go into effect on April 15th. It probably has something to do with the fact that this would have made it illegal to sell most types of guns in the entire state permanently (until gun companies completely redesigned their guns with <7 round clips).
|
And they forgot to add in an exception for all the police in the state inadvertently making them all criminals to be arrested by other cops.
|
On March 18 2013 06:14 ninini wrote:
The main purpose of the 2nd ammendment was to protect yourself against a known enemy. If you think USA is powerful today, imagine that times 5. That's how powerful the British Empire was in relation to the rest of the world, not just in terms of army, but economically too. The founding fathers were terrified of the british, and they wanted to be prepared for a british invasion. Then there were the indianso. Those two reasons were the only reasons why they made the 2nd ammendment, and today it's totally outdated. I don't understand why ppl still cling so hard to the 2nd ammendment. It must be a mix of propaganda from ppl who have monetary ties t the business, and an emotional attachment to guns.
So they are terrified of the british and they made a government that wont become as tyrannical as the british. So they made a set of rules so the newly found government wont be like the red coats. So by that logic, the first and fourth amendment are outated too right? Because there's no imminent threat of the british empire to america and they should remove it for the security of the people because the government is so benevolent to protect its citizens right?
Also I don't know if this was posted yet so I'll just put this right here
ASSAULT "WEAPONS"
For the people who use the terms "hunting rifles" and "assault weapons"
|
United States24723 Posts
On March 26 2013 00:37 SheepleArePeopleToo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2013 06:14 ninini wrote:
The main purpose of the 2nd ammendment was to protect yourself against a known enemy. If you think USA is powerful today, imagine that times 5. That's how powerful the British Empire was in relation to the rest of the world, not just in terms of army, but economically too. The founding fathers were terrified of the british, and they wanted to be prepared for a british invasion. Then there were the indianso. Those two reasons were the only reasons why they made the 2nd ammendment, and today it's totally outdated. I don't understand why ppl still cling so hard to the 2nd ammendment. It must be a mix of propaganda from ppl who have monetary ties t the business, and an emotional attachment to guns.
So they are terrified of the british and they made a government that wont become as tyrannical as the british. So they made a set of rules so the newly found government wont be like the red coats. So by that logic, the first and fourth amendment are outated too right? Because there's no imminent threat of the british empire to america and they should remove it for the security of the people because the government is so benevolent to protect its citizens right? Also I don't know if this was posted yet so I'll just put this right here ASSAULT "WEAPONS"For the people who use the terms "hunting rifles" and "assault weapons"
Well the bottom gun in that picture has a pistol grip which increases potential lethality by approximately 2.3*10^(-4)%.
Also, the bottom gun is emotionally associated with mass shootings of innocent people so we should ban it. We should do it with other things too. For example, I associate ski masks with holdups so we should ban them on those grounds.
|
@OP, about weapons in general.
Weapon is just a tool. In my opinion, people fear impaired judgement by those who are not in law enforcement. Kids, mentally ill people, disturbance in mental state that causes you to go on a rampage, etc.
I think, people fear that their judgement might not be the right one and they'd use gun in situation where they shouldn't have or could have avoided death ( under influence of drugs, especially alcohol since it's widely available and its effects on people are different ).
Then again, remember that not only civilians can go "mental", there are a lot of cases where law enforcement officers go on a rampage of some sort.
I can't see a compromise solution. Not at this moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
