|
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 June 15 2016 14:22 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 12:31 Djzapz wrote:On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote:
this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them. Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head. No one really thinks of semi-automatic rifles with shouldered ammunition as adequate home defense or CCW, except the insane and the "from my cold dead hands" crowd of twisted people who are planning to wage war against an upcoming tyrannical US government. The only reasonably legitimate use for an AR15 is target shooting and competitive shooting like the 3-gun format, and I'd say that's thin as a justification for unregulated gun ownership. Some might argue that AR15's and other semi-automatic 223/5.56 firearms like the Ruger Mini-14 are perfectly good for hunting also and I agree, it's tacticool as fuck and that ought to impress my cousin/sister. She'll be like "dude you shoulder peeked that boar so hard" and I'll be tap on my military grade body armor in approval. Now if you're the frivolous kind who feels the need to hunt with a semi-auto rifle (may God spare their souls), I think it wouldn't be too much to ask to have more rigorous background checks, and some administrative fuckery to prevent the rapid proliferation of those weapons. Much of the argument is "muh freedom" because the AR15 and those kinds of weapons somehow symbolize freedom. I think that under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to regulate, even heavily regulate those types of weapons. And any criticism that'll be leveled at those kinds of regulations are the same. Q: My freedom!! A: Your freedom is preserved, fill out the paperwork and show that you're sane and you'll get your AR15. Only, it'll have to be locked so it doesn't get stolen easily and you'll have to abide by some strict rules. But you're still going to be able to do everything you did before. Q: The criminals will have access to weapons anyway because they're all over the place A: Widespread access to weapons is a problem. The solution is not to do nothing. By gradually reducing the access to firearms, it'll gradually get slightly harder for some criminals to get the most effective weapons. And anyway you have to assume that black market firearms will be hard to get your hands on, if not just straight up more expensive. Not everyone can just call up their black market guy and say I WANT TO BUY ILLEGAL GUNS NOW! Nah man. Not every unhinged person has connections with the nefarious dudes club. Q: It won't fix the whole problem A: No, it's not magic. Seatbelts didn't stop people from dying in car accidents. The laws against drinking or texting while driving didn't stop those things. Regulations on car safety for manufacturers didn't make the people in the habitacle invincible. All those things combined, over time, led to a dramatically lower death toll on our streets since a few decades ago. Regulation worked for cars. Regulations will work for guns. Might take decades to reap the bulk of the benefits, but there are benefits. And that's not to say there aren't short term benefits. Make semi-auto rifles require a bit more paperwork and stuff, and some would-be shooters will go with the simpler option of buying some piece of shit that's less effective. At the end of the day though, mental health issues and poverty/inequality are the real problem. You could have guns all over the place and in a relatively egalitarian society all you'd get is the crimes of passion you get in any society. Just thought I'd clear something up. The AR-15 is an excellent rifle for hunting smaller game such as smaller deer and most smaller wild hogs. This whole idea that 'semi-automatics' are too much for hunting are for people who have never shot a fucking gun at a wild animal in their life. The reason why most hunters carry a semi-automatic pistol if they are not utilizing a semi-automatic rifle is because a good hunter knows that a pissed off animal sometimes doesn't get put down by one or even two rounds, especially if it has anywhere from 300-400+ lbs on you.
It's not really a thing around here. Hunters in Canada don't carry a sidearm and the vast majority hunt varmints with with bolt action rifles and stuff like that, and I assure you we do our fair share of pest control around these parts. Drop the BS about "people who have never shot a fucking gun at a wild animal".
The AR-15 also due to its modular nature can be fitted for a wide variety of different calibers, scopes, grips, etc. without much expense outside of the parts themselves. This makes it a very popular weapon among smaller game hunters who don't have the luxury of affording multiple different caliber rifles and the upkeep that comes with them. It's actually the cheapest Rifle to upkeep and maintain while also being flexible due to the numerous amounts of parts that are available to it on the after market for it.
Cost effectiveness is an interesting topic. Cost is not the only factor. They could build cars that pollute more, without seatbelts, and they could save money by not having you to register anything at the DMV. It would be much cheaper, and people would fly through windshields so often we wouldn't be even surprised when two children collided in mid-air from two separate accidents. Regulate.
There are far more uses to the AR-15 then you think outside of sport shooting. It's the most effective method of wild hog/prairie dog control that we have at the moment. And before you say 'fucking prairie dogs?" let's just remember that prairie dogs were responsible for the plague outbreak that happened recently in the United States. Yeah. The fucking plague. I mean, you could potentially just blow the hell out of their nests and shit but that's actually pretty damaging to the environment.
Yeah they're impervious to other stuff.
I most certainly agree on the premise that it is FAR too easy to obtain a weapon like the AR-15 that is potentially extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. It should be far harder to obtain one, and there should be no reason for anyone to need a drum magazine. However, I just want to let people know that there are actual legitimate uses for the weapon ranging from security contractors, hunters, as well as self defense for those who live out on the country against smallish predators such as coyotes and bobcats (where it is absolutely necessary to have a semi-automatic weapon).
I'm not opposed to it being used for hunting, I was being facetious. But if as you say it's the best way to hunt prairie dogs and that is your purpose for it, then you should have to go through the annoying process of proving that you intend to hunt prairie dogs with it. If you have no provable legitimate justification for why you intend to own an AR15, you don't get one. Here, to get an AR15, I'll have to keep an active membership in a shooting range and go shoot there at least once a year. It's not much but at $300/membership it can turn out to be prohibitively expensive. Also I have to pass 3 different safety classes/tests. That's fine. I'm doing all that at the moment.
|
On June 15 2016 22:05 Kickboxer wrote:
The entire debate is a pointless circle-jerk. Both sides are already decided and merely spouting the same tired platitudes (memes) at each other over and over.
I think at the end of the day history will show the 2nd amendment to have been completely retarded (we really, absolutely, do not miss something like that in Europe and I can't recall the last time I saw a gun whether on a criminal or a civilian which makes me very happy. Yes we've had recent ISIS attacks but we don't have kindergarten, school, cinema or downtown shooters, not even armed gangbangers for the most part) and a major factor in the downfall of the US.
Wow, how nice it must be to not have Mexico and South/Central America at your borders. Must be nice to have a nearly 95% homogenous people which tends to reduce crime rates. You mean to tell me that Slovenia isn't America? What a shock. Thanks for enlightening us that we're actually different countries with different issues. Just one thing, you might want to read your first and second paragraphs and spot the duplicity. Maybe we should have some crips and bloods or MS13 emigrate to Slovenia to even things out a bit, eh?
|
On June 15 2016 22:05 farvacola wrote:
Guns are absolutely a part of the suicide problem; they provide individuals with a quick but oftentimes messy way to end their lives without as much chance of error as compared with other methods. Granted, there are folks who commit suicide in a "justified" manner, as in they are capable of deciding to end their lives without duress or other mental illness, but many, many suicides are incomplete attempts intended to be cries for help. Accordingly, pills, hangings, and other non-gun methods of suicide are actually beneficial in that their high rate of error allows the individual to get help afterwards and reconsider. With guns, the error rate is much lower and, consequently, dumbass teenagers or mentally ill folks with access to guns are far more likely to "accidentally" go through with a completed attempt.
This notion that suicide detracts from the pro-regulation stance is misguided.
I thought guns aren't sold to those mentally unstable and/or under-age. They'd have to borrow someone else's, that's the gun owner's responsibility issue.
|
On June 15 2016 22:05 farvacola wrote:
Guns are absolutely a part of the suicide problem; they provide individuals with a quick but oftentimes messy way to end their lives without as much chance of error as compared with other methods. Granted, there are folks who commit suicide in a "justified" manner, as in they are capable of deciding to end their lives without duress or other mental illness, but many, many suicides are incomplete attempts intended to be cries for help. Accordingly, pills, hangings, and other non-gun methods of suicide are actually beneficial in that their high rate of error allows the individual to get help afterwards and reconsider. With guns, the error rate is much lower and, consequently, dumbass teenagers or mentally ill folks with access to guns are far more likely to "accidentally" go through with a completed attempt.
This notion that suicide detracts from the pro-regulation stance is misguided.
South Korea and Japan have the highest suicide rates but extremely stringent laws when it comes to firearms.
Suicide is due to other problems, firearms are a means to suicide. I see what you're saying but to me the bigger problem is why people want to end their life in the first place..
Still, sure. I won't disagree with you, but I don't think that suicide adds too much weight to the pro-regulation stance. For sure it does, but it's not my primary concern.
|
On June 15 2016 22:20 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 22:05 Kickboxer wrote:
The entire debate is a pointless circle-jerk. Both sides are already decided and merely spouting the same tired platitudes (memes) at each other over and over.
I think at the end of the day history will show the 2nd amendment to have been completely retarded (we really, absolutely, do not miss something like that in Europe and I can't recall the last time I saw a gun whether on a criminal or a civilian which makes me very happy. Yes we've had recent ISIS attacks but we don't have kindergarten, school, cinema or downtown shooters, not even armed gangbangers for the most part) and a major factor in the downfall of the US. Wow, how nice it must be to not have Mexico and South/Central America at your borders. Must be nice to have a nearly 95% homogenous people which tends to reduce crime rates. You mean to tell me that Slovenia isn't America? What a shock. Thanks for enlightening us that we're actually different countries with different issues. Just one thing, you might want to read your first and second paragraphs and spot the duplicity. Maybe we should have some crips and bloods or MS13 emigrate to Slovenia to even things out a bit, eh?
the ignorance in this guy. you dont have a clue about anything hm
|
|
|
#12248
I quoted it earlier because it was the most ridiculous post I saw all day.
I didn't report it though, I suspect a dutchie did 
|
Lol imo it all boils down to how much "freedom" you are willing to give up for a safer society. It's a balance between harsh laws and "freedom".
All those citations of states/countries with draconian gun regulations but high gun crime rates? The penalties just weren't harsh enough.
|
On June 15 2016 22:39 Laurens wrote:#12248 I quoted it earlier because it was the most ridiculous post I saw all day. I didn't report it though, I suspect a dutchie did
Ah right.
|
Pest control is a pretty valid reason for owning firearms in the USA, believe it or not they're going to be military grade because there are wild animals out there which are a lot more resilient than humans.
That's incredibly absurd. I've said it and I'll say it again, Canadians kill wild animals, we kill plenty, and we do that with mostly consumer grade firearms. And mil grade doesn't kill more animals. The "resilience" of wild animals is irrelevant because consumer grade firearms send lead with the same force as mil grade firearms. You may have gotten away with saying you need the high rate of fire to kill multiple small critters as they're running away or something, but honestly lol... "animals are more resilient" is either poor wording or a ridiculous misunderstanding of what mil spec is.
The problem is that many Europeans think that you need to have a "necessary reason" in order to own a firearm. That's complete bollocks. You have literally hundreds of thousands of Europeans who die due to alcohol abuse every year: overdose, domestic abuse, alcohol induced violence, health issues, drunk driving, etc.
You want a necessary reason because it acts as a barrier to people who'd buy an AR15 on a whim and then resell it and whatever. Those people who buy a gun because it's cool even though they have no use for it help propagate AR15's. By putting sticks in their wheels, you dissuade people from buying AR15's (and similar guns) for no reason, and you leave people who really want them with means to get them anyway. Your alcohol analogy is interesting because it displays that. You have people with alcohol problems - you can disparage that by having tax on alcohol. You can disparage drunken driving by giving them tickets. The argument shouldn't be "people will drive drunk anyway so why even try to make rules". Make rules and disparage some.
For some reason if a woman is beaten to death by her alcohol and abusive husband, we're able to write it off as "well, he just abused alcohol, the rest of us people who drink are fine". If literally thousands of people die on the road due to drunk driving, we're OK with drinking anyway ("I don't drink and drive, so I'm fine!").
Why would you double down on that argument that falls flat anyway... Drinking is bad, you can't really regulate it, we're stuck with that problem too. If we had proper tools to reduce those deaths further, we would use them. As it is, most countries already have the regulations which reduce those issues. Yet you can't track beers in a way that you can track guns.
We're OK with all that! But GOD FORBID someone dies in a mass shooting. 200k+ alcohol related deaths in Europe is OK, but 10k firearm-related homicides in the USA is the end of the civilized world.
Your argument is literally "look over there". Different issues. Here we have problems with kids drowning in pools while their parents aren't watching, couple dozen deaths a year. Fuck em right, kids are starving in Africa. It's not the end of the world sure, but regulations to prevent a few deaths are also not the end of the world. Like with booze, prevent overly easy access to firearms. Build fences around the pool. Don't leave public pools unattended. All these little rules help in their way.
Moral of the story, you don't need a "reason" to own a firearm and use it. You need to go through some pretty intense mental gymnastics to get around to not being OK with firearms but also being OK with drugs, alcohol, tobacco and the plethora of other dangerous past times which people have.
You have to go through some even more intense mental gymnastics to equate those things. All things in moderation. Drugs are either illegal or restricted/regulated, alcohol can be regulated and it's visibly a huge problem anyway to which there is no solution (this doesn't mean it's OK), tobacco is MASSIVELY REGULATED. And you're saying firearms shouldn't be. "Firearms are dangerous like those other things but that one we don't mess with, it's fine". Either way I think you just need more barriers to entry. If not the need to justify why you want those guns, you should have to do other things, like buy a gun safe or make a secure locked room for your guns in your house. And you should have a background check, and there may be a waiting period, and you should have to pass safety classes, etc.
The sole reason why you should justify why you should be allowed to own some of these more dangerous firearms, in my opinion, is the same reason why they put taxes tobacco and alcohol, and they put a minimum age to buy those things, and they put ugly pictures on cigarette packs. It demonstrably lowers the sales. It's not a perfect solution, but nothing is, and nothing ever will be. Put a barrier to entry and some people who shouldn't have guns won't have them. It's simple. Make tobacco look pointless and expensive and some people will never pick up the habit. Lower the overall number of weapons being sold in the US and eventually that'll make a difference. And those who really want them, they'll be unaffected because they'll still be able to.
|
tobacco is MASSIVELY REGULATED. And you're saying firearms shouldn't be. Firearms are dangerous like those other things but that one we don't mess with, it's fine.
I'm not. Read my posts more carefully, my stance is that firearms in the United States are not regulated enough / effectively.
My stance is that I am against blanket bans and that "need" is not the correct reason to regulate firearms, the correct reason is that there is a risk associated with firearms which needs to be regulated.
Alcohol is completely without purpose, yet society is willing to accept the harm it afflicts upon us. Why? Because we're a free society. Alcohol is also regulated to an extent: you cannot drink and drive.
My main point is that "need" or "requirement" should not be a necessary requisite to having them. I should be able to obtain a gun because I want to. I should also prove that I am to be trusted with one and that is where (effective) background checks, criminal records, gun licences, etc. come into play.
If you aren't arguing for blanket bans then we mostly agree.
Edit: by the looks of your edit, it seems that we do mostly agree.
Either way I think you just need more barriers to entry. If not the need to justify why you want those guns, you should have to do other things, like buy a gun safe or make a secure locked room for your guns in your house. And you should have a background check, and there may be a waiting period, and you should have to pass safety classes, etc.
Yesh.
|
On June 15 2016 22:53 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +tobacco is MASSIVELY REGULATED. And you're saying firearms shouldn't be. Firearms are dangerous like those other things but that one we don't mess with, it's fine. I'm not. Read my posts more carefully, my stance is that firearms in the United States are not regulated enough / effectively. My stance is that I am against blanket bans and that "need" is not the correct reason to regulate firearms, the correct reason is that there is a risk associated with firearms which needs to be regulated. Alcohol is completely without purpose, yet society is willing to accept the harm it afflicts upon us. Why? Because we're a free society. Alcohol is also regulated to an extent: you cannot drink and drive. My main point is that "need" or "requirement" should not be a necessary requisite to having them. I should be able to obtain a gun because I want to. I should also prove that I am to be trusted with one and that is where (effective) background checks, criminal records, gun licences, etc. come into play. If you aren't arguing for blanket bans then we mostly agree. Edit: by the looks of your edit, it seems that we do agree.
Requirement is a simple enough thing to fulfill. I don't think the FBI should follow you around when you're going to hunt. I just think it should be one of the many steps in an administrative nightmare that'll prevent people from buying an AR15 like it's an Xbox. For my part I'll need a range membership and that "proves" that my AR15 has a "justification" and it's not just a dangerous object sitting unlocked and loaded in my closet waiting to be stolen or used in a spontaneous suicide, or causing an accident.
But yes it seems that we agree.
I believe all this would make me a Fudd in the eyes of many people I shoot with 
|
On June 15 2016 21:48 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 15 2016 21:21 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 21:17 Gorsameth wrote:I once again feel compelled to copy a statement once made in satire that has been proven painfully true. ‘No Way To Prevent This,’
Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens Painfully true? Sorry, but to me that is painfully FALSE. Just look at France, Belgium, Tunisia, etc. It's a very regular occurence. There are some valid arguments to be made but honestly posting that sort of thing is really just detracting to the discussion at hand. France and Belgium have gun suicides and homicides every day? (Honestly asking; I don't know.) Nah, not every day, but pretending that gun violence is a USA only thing is just stretching the truth, not something I like. We also have drug gangs who are shooting at each other, yes, even in our "civilized" Europe. They have no difficulty obtaining military-grade weapons to carry out their business. Not sure why suicide is a problem, if you're going to kill yourself then having a gun is nice, probably the cleanest way to leave, as far as I know. Suicide is suicide, not gun violence. Probably a little cynical on my part, but it matters because most deaths related to firearms, in the USA, are suicide.
The majority of suicides are via a gun, because it's simple and straightforward and immediate and almost always lethal. It's a very easy way to commit suicide, which makes it appealing for those who are on the fence (because they can just grab their gun and be done with everything in a matter of seconds). They aren't forced to reflect or feel a lengthy increase of pain to make them question their decision, and it's obviously not as easy to save the life as, for example, pumping someone's stomach after an overdose. Limiting access to guns doesn't guarantee that a person won't commit suicide, but it's a lot harder physically and psychologically to commit suicide through most other avenues. That's one of the reasons why I'm in favor of gun control and background checks (particularly psychological evaluations), although of course we need to take a serious look at depression and emotional health and everything that goes along with that too... which then ties in to how we mistreat certain groups of people, and then we have suicidal LGBT children and adults and everyone else  I find that mental health, our perception of mental health, suicidal tendencies, and access to guns are largely linked to each other.
|
On June 15 2016 22:14 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 14:22 superstartran wrote:On June 15 2016 12:31 Djzapz wrote:On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote:
this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them. Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head. No one really thinks of semi-automatic rifles with shouldered ammunition as adequate home defense or CCW, except the insane and the "from my cold dead hands" crowd of twisted people who are planning to wage war against an upcoming tyrannical US government. The only reasonably legitimate use for an AR15 is target shooting and competitive shooting like the 3-gun format, and I'd say that's thin as a justification for unregulated gun ownership. Some might argue that AR15's and other semi-automatic 223/5.56 firearms like the Ruger Mini-14 are perfectly good for hunting also and I agree, it's tacticool as fuck and that ought to impress my cousin/sister. She'll be like "dude you shoulder peeked that boar so hard" and I'll be tap on my military grade body armor in approval. Now if you're the frivolous kind who feels the need to hunt with a semi-auto rifle (may God spare their souls), I think it wouldn't be too much to ask to have more rigorous background checks, and some administrative fuckery to prevent the rapid proliferation of those weapons. Much of the argument is "muh freedom" because the AR15 and those kinds of weapons somehow symbolize freedom. I think that under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to regulate, even heavily regulate those types of weapons. And any criticism that'll be leveled at those kinds of regulations are the same. Q: My freedom!! A: Your freedom is preserved, fill out the paperwork and show that you're sane and you'll get your AR15. Only, it'll have to be locked so it doesn't get stolen easily and you'll have to abide by some strict rules. But you're still going to be able to do everything you did before. Q: The criminals will have access to weapons anyway because they're all over the place A: Widespread access to weapons is a problem. The solution is not to do nothing. By gradually reducing the access to firearms, it'll gradually get slightly harder for some criminals to get the most effective weapons. And anyway you have to assume that black market firearms will be hard to get your hands on, if not just straight up more expensive. Not everyone can just call up their black market guy and say I WANT TO BUY ILLEGAL GUNS NOW! Nah man. Not every unhinged person has connections with the nefarious dudes club. Q: It won't fix the whole problem A: No, it's not magic. Seatbelts didn't stop people from dying in car accidents. The laws against drinking or texting while driving didn't stop those things. Regulations on car safety for manufacturers didn't make the people in the habitacle invincible. All those things combined, over time, led to a dramatically lower death toll on our streets since a few decades ago. Regulation worked for cars. Regulations will work for guns. Might take decades to reap the bulk of the benefits, but there are benefits. And that's not to say there aren't short term benefits. Make semi-auto rifles require a bit more paperwork and stuff, and some would-be shooters will go with the simpler option of buying some piece of shit that's less effective. At the end of the day though, mental health issues and poverty/inequality are the real problem. You could have guns all over the place and in a relatively egalitarian society all you'd get is the crimes of passion you get in any society. Just thought I'd clear something up. The AR-15 is an excellent rifle for hunting smaller game such as smaller deer and most smaller wild hogs. This whole idea that 'semi-automatics' are too much for hunting are for people who have never shot a fucking gun at a wild animal in their life. The reason why most hunters carry a semi-automatic pistol if they are not utilizing a semi-automatic rifle is because a good hunter knows that a pissed off animal sometimes doesn't get put down by one or even two rounds, especially if it has anywhere from 300-400+ lbs on you. It's not really a thing around here. Hunters in Canada don't carry a sidearm and the vast majority hunt varmints with with bolt action rifles and stuff like that, and I assure you we do our fair share of pest control around these parts. Drop the BS about "people who have never shot a fucking gun at a wild animal". Show nested quote +The AR-15 also due to its modular nature can be fitted for a wide variety of different calibers, scopes, grips, etc. without much expense outside of the parts themselves. This makes it a very popular weapon among smaller game hunters who don't have the luxury of affording multiple different caliber rifles and the upkeep that comes with them. It's actually the cheapest Rifle to upkeep and maintain while also being flexible due to the numerous amounts of parts that are available to it on the after market for it. Cost effectiveness is an interesting topic. Cost is not the only factor. They could build cars that pollute more, without seatbelts, and they could save money by not having you to register anything at the DMV. It would be much cheaper, and people would fly through windshields so often we wouldn't be even surprised when two children collided in mid-air from two separate accidents. Regulate. Show nested quote +There are far more uses to the AR-15 then you think outside of sport shooting. It's the most effective method of wild hog/prairie dog control that we have at the moment. And before you say 'fucking prairie dogs?" let's just remember that prairie dogs were responsible for the plague outbreak that happened recently in the United States. Yeah. The fucking plague. I mean, you could potentially just blow the hell out of their nests and shit but that's actually pretty damaging to the environment. Yeah they're impervious to other stuff. Show nested quote +I most certainly agree on the premise that it is FAR too easy to obtain a weapon like the AR-15 that is potentially extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. It should be far harder to obtain one, and there should be no reason for anyone to need a drum magazine. However, I just want to let people know that there are actual legitimate uses for the weapon ranging from security contractors, hunters, as well as self defense for those who live out on the country against smallish predators such as coyotes and bobcats (where it is absolutely necessary to have a semi-automatic weapon). I'm not opposed to it being used for hunting, I was being facetious. But if as you say it's the best way to hunt prairie dogs and that is your purpose for it, then you should have to go through the annoying process of proving that you intend to hunt prairie dogs with it. If you have no provable legitimate justification for why you intend to own an AR15, you don't get one. Here, to get an AR15, I'll have to keep an active membership in a shooting range and go shoot there at least once a year. It's not much but at $300/membership it can turn out to be prohibitively expensive. Also I have to pass 3 different safety classes/tests. That's fine. I'm doing all that at the moment.
A good hunter that is tracking his kill never leaves without a semi automatic sidearm. Even the best hunters miss and sometimes can be caught in close range versus a predator. The difference between life and death at that point is you and your sidearm. Thus why the AR is so popular for hunting. It can be fitted for different purposes, is relatively light, cheap, and doesn't require you to carry a sidearm in case you fucked up. Most pure hunters still prefer the old school bolt action but there's nothing wrong with an AR with 223 when taking out smaller game.
|
I guess the question is what you are hunting for. Most people hunt for some variation of deer, which tend to run away when shot at, and not attack you. Especially in europe there barely are any large predators to hunt for, and those which exist are usually protected. I guess hunting a wild boar is pretty dangerous, but this is the first time i have ever heard of someone needing a semi-automatic sidearm to hunt.
|
On June 15 2016 20:54 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 20:12 Salazarz wrote:On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:
You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it. Nowhere did I say that I want to blanket ban alcohol. It's certainly not a bad idea to regulate it, though. Just like guns should be regulated, except guns are far more likely to be deadly and abused with a purpose so it makes sense for regulations to be tighter. Purpose has nothing to do with it, a death is a death. If my sister dies, I'm not going to feel any better if she were killed by a drunk driver than if she were killed by a gangster drive-by. Death is death. If you take out the "with a purpose" part of your sentence, suddenly alcohol is much, much more dangerous than firearms, simply because so many more people use it, thus so many more people can abuse it. It's more dangerous than firearms at that point, because it's so readily available to people, because it's so ingrained in our culture to drink, etc.. So making out firearms to be worse than alcohol is imo, too much of a stretch. It would be nice to regulate alcohol but that is a pretty impossible notion. Prohibition, look it up. I otherwise agree that regulations would need to be much tighter in the USA. As of right now it is realistically too easy for a firearm (doesn't need to be "military" in order to be lethal) to fall into the wrong hands. Freedom and regulation aren't exclusive.
Do you honestly believe there's no difference between your sister dying at the age of 60 instead of living until 75 because she had cirrhosis due to heavy drinking and your sister getting shot by a psycho at the age of 15 in her school? Because that's the difference between 'alcohol deaths' and 'gun violence' deaths. It's not as if young, healthy people die from alcohol abuse or drunk driving all the time (and by the way, in the US the number of people killed in gun-related incidents is now higher than all car-related deaths, including drunk driving).
The fact that more people use alcohol doesn't make it more dangerous than firearms; that kind of a claim makes no sense at all. It's like saying alcohol is more dangerous than cocaine cus you know, more people use it, so let's decriminalize cocaine since we don't criminalize alcohol either!
And what do you mean regulating alcohol is an impossible notion. Prohibition was a dumb idea, so what? It's already regulated, there are age restrictions, plenty of campaigning to show risks of alcohol abuse, spot checks on drivers who might be drunk, etc. It's not completely effective, but hilariously it is more than what's done to control potential firearm abuse.
|
On June 15 2016 23:58 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 22:14 Djzapz wrote:On June 15 2016 14:22 superstartran wrote:On June 15 2016 12:31 Djzapz wrote:On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote:
this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them. Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head. No one really thinks of semi-automatic rifles with shouldered ammunition as adequate home defense or CCW, except the insane and the "from my cold dead hands" crowd of twisted people who are planning to wage war against an upcoming tyrannical US government. The only reasonably legitimate use for an AR15 is target shooting and competitive shooting like the 3-gun format, and I'd say that's thin as a justification for unregulated gun ownership. Some might argue that AR15's and other semi-automatic 223/5.56 firearms like the Ruger Mini-14 are perfectly good for hunting also and I agree, it's tacticool as fuck and that ought to impress my cousin/sister. She'll be like "dude you shoulder peeked that boar so hard" and I'll be tap on my military grade body armor in approval. Now if you're the frivolous kind who feels the need to hunt with a semi-auto rifle (may God spare their souls), I think it wouldn't be too much to ask to have more rigorous background checks, and some administrative fuckery to prevent the rapid proliferation of those weapons. Much of the argument is "muh freedom" because the AR15 and those kinds of weapons somehow symbolize freedom. I think that under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to regulate, even heavily regulate those types of weapons. And any criticism that'll be leveled at those kinds of regulations are the same. Q: My freedom!! A: Your freedom is preserved, fill out the paperwork and show that you're sane and you'll get your AR15. Only, it'll have to be locked so it doesn't get stolen easily and you'll have to abide by some strict rules. But you're still going to be able to do everything you did before. Q: The criminals will have access to weapons anyway because they're all over the place A: Widespread access to weapons is a problem. The solution is not to do nothing. By gradually reducing the access to firearms, it'll gradually get slightly harder for some criminals to get the most effective weapons. And anyway you have to assume that black market firearms will be hard to get your hands on, if not just straight up more expensive. Not everyone can just call up their black market guy and say I WANT TO BUY ILLEGAL GUNS NOW! Nah man. Not every unhinged person has connections with the nefarious dudes club. Q: It won't fix the whole problem A: No, it's not magic. Seatbelts didn't stop people from dying in car accidents. The laws against drinking or texting while driving didn't stop those things. Regulations on car safety for manufacturers didn't make the people in the habitacle invincible. All those things combined, over time, led to a dramatically lower death toll on our streets since a few decades ago. Regulation worked for cars. Regulations will work for guns. Might take decades to reap the bulk of the benefits, but there are benefits. And that's not to say there aren't short term benefits. Make semi-auto rifles require a bit more paperwork and stuff, and some would-be shooters will go with the simpler option of buying some piece of shit that's less effective. At the end of the day though, mental health issues and poverty/inequality are the real problem. You could have guns all over the place and in a relatively egalitarian society all you'd get is the crimes of passion you get in any society. Just thought I'd clear something up. The AR-15 is an excellent rifle for hunting smaller game such as smaller deer and most smaller wild hogs. This whole idea that 'semi-automatics' are too much for hunting are for people who have never shot a fucking gun at a wild animal in their life. The reason why most hunters carry a semi-automatic pistol if they are not utilizing a semi-automatic rifle is because a good hunter knows that a pissed off animal sometimes doesn't get put down by one or even two rounds, especially if it has anywhere from 300-400+ lbs on you. It's not really a thing around here. Hunters in Canada don't carry a sidearm and the vast majority hunt varmints with with bolt action rifles and stuff like that, and I assure you we do our fair share of pest control around these parts. Drop the BS about "people who have never shot a fucking gun at a wild animal". The AR-15 also due to its modular nature can be fitted for a wide variety of different calibers, scopes, grips, etc. without much expense outside of the parts themselves. This makes it a very popular weapon among smaller game hunters who don't have the luxury of affording multiple different caliber rifles and the upkeep that comes with them. It's actually the cheapest Rifle to upkeep and maintain while also being flexible due to the numerous amounts of parts that are available to it on the after market for it. Cost effectiveness is an interesting topic. Cost is not the only factor. They could build cars that pollute more, without seatbelts, and they could save money by not having you to register anything at the DMV. It would be much cheaper, and people would fly through windshields so often we wouldn't be even surprised when two children collided in mid-air from two separate accidents. Regulate. There are far more uses to the AR-15 then you think outside of sport shooting. It's the most effective method of wild hog/prairie dog control that we have at the moment. And before you say 'fucking prairie dogs?" let's just remember that prairie dogs were responsible for the plague outbreak that happened recently in the United States. Yeah. The fucking plague. I mean, you could potentially just blow the hell out of their nests and shit but that's actually pretty damaging to the environment. Yeah they're impervious to other stuff. I most certainly agree on the premise that it is FAR too easy to obtain a weapon like the AR-15 that is potentially extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. It should be far harder to obtain one, and there should be no reason for anyone to need a drum magazine. However, I just want to let people know that there are actual legitimate uses for the weapon ranging from security contractors, hunters, as well as self defense for those who live out on the country against smallish predators such as coyotes and bobcats (where it is absolutely necessary to have a semi-automatic weapon). I'm not opposed to it being used for hunting, I was being facetious. But if as you say it's the best way to hunt prairie dogs and that is your purpose for it, then you should have to go through the annoying process of proving that you intend to hunt prairie dogs with it. If you have no provable legitimate justification for why you intend to own an AR15, you don't get one. Here, to get an AR15, I'll have to keep an active membership in a shooting range and go shoot there at least once a year. It's not much but at $300/membership it can turn out to be prohibitively expensive. Also I have to pass 3 different safety classes/tests. That's fine. I'm doing all that at the moment. A good hunter that is tracking his kill never leaves without a semi automatic sidearm. Even the best hunters miss and sometimes can be caught in close range versus a predator. The difference between life and death at that point is you and your sidearm. Thus why the AR is so popular for hunting. It can be fitted for different purposes, is relatively light, cheap, and doesn't require you to carry a sidearm in case you fucked up. Most pure hunters still prefer the old school bolt action but there's nothing wrong with an AR with 223 when taking out smaller game.
Well I agree with most of what you've said except the part where "a good hunter that is tracking his kill never leaves without a semi automatic sidearm". It's literally illegal in Canada and there's no outcry from the hunters, who frankly are fine with their bolt action rifles. The small game hunters that I know use bolt action rifles in 223, 22 wmr and 17 hmr and other such rounds and they're fine with that. If you need to track wounded game, take a follow up shot with the same bolt action rifle you used in the first place. No need to walk up to the wounded animal.
But sure the AR15 is a fine hunting weapon, it just doesn't seem necessary for me but I think it's fine if people want to do that, and if they want to they should have to jump through some hoops. Personally, if I cared for hunting varmints, I'd still bring my Remington 700 in 223 anyway. Better accuracy than a vast majority if not all AR15's, less chance I'll miss or wound the thing. It's heavier sure but that should be fine. Just my preference. And no one goes on a killing spree with a Rem700*.
*: I'm sure it happened but it's not great for that.
|
What I personally think should be implemented would be a "gun license", much like a drivers license, though more like a German drivers license than those in the states that are easier to get.
Basically, before you can buy a gun, you would have to put in 30-40 hours at a registered and licensed shooting range (practical training), maybe even a training course with those pop up things where some dark skinned, bearded guys pop up as innocent targets so racists or people that shoot without thinking might have more trouble getting through.
After that a multiple choice test (theoretical training) with 50+ questions about gun behavior, how to store guns and so on, difficult enough that you actually have to prepare for it. After that and of course a check of your criminal record you get your gun license and you can buy all the guns you want - always registered to your gun license. Private gun trading/gifting is only allowed with others that have a gun license and has to be registered with the police.
Make the initial license cost about as much as a drivers license and you have a system where people that really need - or think they need - a gun can get guns and learn how to properly store and handle them and people that want a gun today to kill people (or themselves) tomorrow get dissuaded by the time investment and the initial costs for the license. Those people probably also don't have the patience to train for a long multiple choice test and spend the time on the range.
That's pretty much what German law requires to drive a car (Disclaimer: I never bothered to get a drivers license myself) and guns are much more dangerous, so the barrier for entry should be much higher.
Optionally also add in a short but mandatory psychological evaluation from licensed psychologists or doctor.
What is speaking against such a solution? It doesn't prevent you from getting guns, the second amendment is still there since everyone can still get a gun if they put in the work, but it would make it much safer because people have to learn how to properly store and handle guns and people have to spend so much time that emotional situations are pretty much over when they are done, so the husband that caught his wife with another man has time to think about it before he can get the gun.
I don't see how anyone could argue against such a limitation, so, americans, convince me why that would be unacceptable.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On June 16 2016 00:29 Morfildur wrote:
That's pretty much what German law requires to drive a car (Disclaimer: I never bothered to get a drivers license myself) and guns are much more dangerous, so the barrier for entry should be much higher.
Optionally also add in a short but mandatory psychological evaluation from licensed psychologists or doctor.
FYI, this is pretty much exactly what German law requires to get a gun ownership license as well. Very much comparable to getting a driver's license in terms of effort and money required.
|
On June 16 2016 00:10 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 20:54 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 20:12 Salazarz wrote:On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:
You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it. Nowhere did I say that I want to blanket ban alcohol. It's certainly not a bad idea to regulate it, though. Just like guns should be regulated, except guns are far more likely to be deadly and abused with a purpose so it makes sense for regulations to be tighter. Purpose has nothing to do with it, a death is a death. If my sister dies, I'm not going to feel any better if she were killed by a drunk driver than if she were killed by a gangster drive-by. Death is death. If you take out the "with a purpose" part of your sentence, suddenly alcohol is much, much more dangerous than firearms, simply because so many more people use it, thus so many more people can abuse it. It's more dangerous than firearms at that point, because it's so readily available to people, because it's so ingrained in our culture to drink, etc.. So making out firearms to be worse than alcohol is imo, too much of a stretch. It would be nice to regulate alcohol but that is a pretty impossible notion. Prohibition, look it up. I otherwise agree that regulations would need to be much tighter in the USA. As of right now it is realistically too easy for a firearm (doesn't need to be "military" in order to be lethal) to fall into the wrong hands. Freedom and regulation aren't exclusive. Do you honestly believe there's no difference between your sister dying at the age of 60 instead of living until 75 because she had cirrhosis due to heavy drinking and your sister getting shot by a psycho at the age of 15 in her school? Because that's the difference between 'alcohol deaths' and 'gun violence' deaths. It's not as if young, healthy people die from alcohol abuse or drunk driving all the time (and by the way, in the US the number of people killed in gun-related incidents is now higher than all car-related deaths, including drunk driving). The fact that more people use alcohol doesn't make it more dangerous than firearms; that kind of a claim makes no sense at all. It's like saying alcohol is more dangerous than cocaine cus you know, more people use it, so let's decriminalize cocaine since we don't criminalize alcohol either! And what do you mean regulating alcohol is an impossible notion. Prohibition was a dumb idea, so what? It's already regulated, there are age restrictions, plenty of campaigning to show risks of alcohol abuse, spot checks on drivers who might be drunk, etc. It's not completely effective, but hilariously it is more than what's done to control potential firearm abuse.
You're misunderstanding me, I think.
I'm not against regulation of firearms, I've stated more than once in this thread that I am pro-regulation. Regulation in the USA is insufficient. I am against blanket bans, however.
I am pointing out that society is ready to accept the inherent risks associated with risky behavior. If you drink regularly, even little, then you yourself accept the risks which stem from drinking. There are many risky behaviors which have dire consequences (unless 200k deaths a year isn't what you could call a dire consequence), which people accept. The alternative being a hindrance to freedom.
Also: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/special-populations-co-occurring-disorders/underage-drinking
Death – 4,358 people under age 21 die each year from alcohol-related car crashes, homicides, suicides, alcohol poisoning, and other injuries such as falls, burns, and drowning.
That's only people who are 21 under and that's half the amount of gun homicides you get every year. Hardly something you can neglect.
There is little difference. Alcohol produces drunk driving, domestic abuse, etc. Don't downplay that, in Europe my sister is more likely to die in a drunk driving accident than she is getting gunned down. Either way, my point was that in both cases, my sister is dead.
Statisically there is no way to disprove that alcohol is less dangerous than firearms and that unfortunately applies to both Europe (regulation) and the USA (insufficient regulation).
Whether it's alcohol or firearms, people are able to carry out potentially risky activity (drinking or shooting) and in both cases, abuse costs lives (lives of people surrounding the abuser). That's reality.
Also, given that alcohol is used more easily and by a greater number of people, that also makes it more dangerous, since exposure to said danger is higher for the average person. It's not a complicated notion.
Allow me to repeat it anyway for good measure; this is argumentation against blanket bans, not regulation.
@Morfildur Looks OK to me.
Perhaps also some firearm registration. You register your weapon when you buy it, to your name. There are heavy penalties if you "lose" the weapon (aka sell it off on the black market). The firearm remains your property, but there is a tally on the location and owner of firearm which are released.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
