Gun sales jump following election

[Ender]

This issue is the single biggest load of bullshit in American politics. Every gun owner I know in real life, without exception, is a petulant boy-man who needs the security a firearm gives him to bolster his self-confidence. As it is, I'd just as soon the Democratic Party gave the whiners what they want and maybe attract a bit more of the libertarian vote than it already does. But the idea that gun owners would vote against their economic interests just for the primal rush of firing an M16 or whatever is fucking insane.

Do you intend to apply logic and reasoning at all, or just cut off on a tear like a small child?

[Coyote]

What about simulators that armies used? In my military cadet days, we trained using a gun simulator first. Why can't you use that if it is available?

Because it's not the same. I don't want to rent time on a simulator at a place across town.

There are many enjoyments in life that we cannot have, and since it is only something that is used for leisure, why is it so hard to give up one luxury item? If you don't have a chance to test your skills accurate enough, then just live with it.

Why? I'm not hurting anybody.

And if I remember, even firearms do not fire the same way as well. Every weapon has a different feel when you are shooting it. At the very least, Airsoft allows you to have the enjoyment of shooting something with minimum risk.

And you can become very, very good at shooting Airsoft guns. I specialize in a handful of real weapons. Now, I can enjoy myself, it's my money to waste if I see fit, and I'm not hurting anyone-- and bonus, I can protect myself if necessary.

If I got the chance, I would rather support the US government taxing guns like crazy, until it becomes a luxury private item, costing millions to buy a single handgun, and thousands of dollars to buy a single bullet.

Ahh, so the lives of rich people are worth protecting, but the poor scum can be burned up and it won't matter. I see-- elitism.

Please, if my discussion style is not like this, would anyone even like to listen to me or hear me out if I oppose your ideas? If you feel better, or less angry, you will be more open to accepting my views. Angry person are irrational people, most of the time anyway.

I'm not angry. I think your reasoning is flawed and naive, but not anger-inspiring.

I never used "what other people do" as a justification for my ownership. I did point out that many people own guns (which is true) and they aren't causing crimes (also true) so I still don't see your justification for the restrictions you'd put on me, and others like me, because of what someone else did.

Sure, what about the fact those guns give people an easier avenue to kill and injure a person? Due to the fact that society as a whole is irresponsible unless you smack down several hard and strict laws, you have to give up certain rights thanks to society being imperfect.

I'm not killing anybody. I never have, nor has anyone I know that owns a gun as a civilian. By your logic, any time a rape is committed, all males should be locked up, or fitted with special steel underwear that allows them just enough access to pee but not enough to actually get aroused and possibly rape someone. After all, someone in society did it once before, and so you must give up a few things because society is imperfect.

Look at SD.net for example; the only reason why the board culture is free of conservatism here is due to the heavy enforcement, rules and regulation imposed on this board. You either make the law solid, or you let the law be extremely flexible. We can never tell if a person is responsible or not, until a crime or murder has been committed. And because it is much easier to commit a murder or injuring with a person with a gun compared to other things, you have to take away guns from the public.

The law is solid. You murder someone, you go to jail, possibly even face the death penalty. We actually consider the murder, not the means the murder was committed, to be the primary problem. It doesn't matter if you kill or injure someone with a baseball bat, a car, a bomb, by setting them on fire... or a gun.

Actually, a gun on a plane is a bad idea, since the damage of firing a weapon in a plane can be problematic, and in the close quarters the chances of hitting an innocent passenger is too high. I'd prefer crews be armed with non-lethal alternatives. An innocent victim will wake up from a taser, for example, but that's just my thoughts on it.

Wait, are you saying someone should be allowed to fire a gun on the plane in the first place? Bear in mind I am not talking about crews, but normal passengers being allowed to carry arms onto the plane.

Did you read what I wrote? I said a gun on a plane is a bad idea due to the close-quarters of the people involved. The risk of injury to other sis too high.

Sorry, but the burden of proof is not on me to justify having a gun; the burden of proof, according to US law anyway, is on you to come up with a reason why I should not. The actions of another person are not grounds for you restricting my rights.

Well, I'll do my best to change that mindset, even if it is hard.

The only way to ensure a law is followed is to make the law strict and all encompassing. To restrict irresponsible people in society from using the guns and cause harm, you right have to be taken away as well, or else, the law will have loopholes, such as (how the hell do you define a person being responsible in the first place? His history? So that means people who murder a person is a responsible person until he killed someone? ) defining a responsible person.

In order to prevent loopholes, your right have to be taken away thanks to some irresponsible people in society. Life sucks right?

Even if I support a outright ban, I know that is it impossible in the USA. So, we are left with the option of taxing and raising the price of a gun and bullets to ridiculous price, until the ultra-rich, people who has an asset of over ten million dollars and higher can afford a SINGLE handgun.

To afford a much better gun, your asset needs to be on the level of Warren Buffett to afford a multi-million dollar gun.

So far all you've said is that anyone who might be capable of ever causing a crime must be pre-emptively punished and restricted, which would mean pretty much everyone; and that only Warren Buffet's life is worth protecting. Again, burden of proof is on you.

[SirNitram]

Colour me unsurprised by the OP and some of the trite, entirely predictable things spat out in this debate. But I'm not surprised. Despite the NRA deflating worse than a large balloon with a leak, to the point it has less citizens in it's membership than MoveOn.Org, the same propaganda from them still leaks out.

And you know, I fully believe the gun sales upticked. Enough people flat out lied that Obama would take guns. Enough people flat out lied and proclaimed the soviet socialist republica of America is coming. And of course, let's not forget the massive upswing in militias under Clinton.

[Ekiqa]

Actually, they'd flood up through Central American and Mexico, and be made in underground operations. You think organized crime won't step in to fill the vacuum? You're naive.

Besides, you still haven't addressed the fact that you're using someone else's behavior to rationalize restricting people who've done nothing wrong. Wasn't that PATRIOT Act type shenanigans?

I don't think that the majority of armed criminals now would be able to afford guns if they were limited to those made by the mob, or imported by the mob.

My opinion is that I don't think people should have access to weapons with no other purpose designed for but to kill.

If you're really that scared about home protection, but steel shutters on your windows and build a wall around your house. It'll protect you much better.

Or if you really want a gun, have them kept at the range. It's illegal to discharge one within city and town limits anyways.

[Count Chocula]

Nitram, time will tell. Firearms laws got much more onerous under Clinton, then eased with Bush and the Republicans.

Democrats since 1968 have been notoriously, and provably, against private firearms ownership in the US. With an Illinois Democrat elected to the White House, and a Democrat controlled Congress, further actions against so-called "gun rights" are virtually guaranteed.

[Covenant]

The real issue at heart is addressing what is the assumed use of a firearm. Clearly, people who are pro-gun assume the weapons are there partially for recreation (targets, hunting, display) and partially for defense--and usually not the same guns for both tasks. Someone may want to keep the AK they got from their brother who was overseas, but also have the pistol they got a concealed-carry permit for.

And if you're anti-gun, you see them as frivolous, messy killing machines that no sane person should own and which clearly must either be used strictly for shooting at animals, or carried by a paranoid, dangerously trigger-happy individual shortly before being stolen from his home and ending up in the hands of a street gang.

Most gun owners are very responsible, and teach this responsibility to their children, just like most people who enjoy fireworks teach fireworks etiquette to their children too. It is certainly true that devoid of guns, crime is still common, and that there are other countries with higher rates of gun ownership that are both less or more likely to commit crimes with them. It seems that while guns are effective at killing, rates of gun ownership neither decrease or increase the rate of crime. And while plinking and target-shooting with a purpose-built rifle is possible, there's also an interest in historic or famous weapons purely from a collector's standpoint, and in military weapons from a "my buddy served and I wanted to know what it was like to shoot it," sort of thing. I know people who've gone to places to get a chance to shoot MP5's and such.

However, I think it's safe to say that not all guns are created equal, and that there is certainly too much of an emphasis on what is or is not acceptable to buy from a gun store. We all can agree that guns can kill people, but it seems unreasonable to discuss a total dis-armament of the Ameican people at a point where gun ownership is still so widespread and generally so responsible. The real problem are that reasonable laws aren't being enforced, and many crimes aren't being enforced, as well as poor records being kept. Furthermore, an ATF report said that one percent of all gun suppliers were arming those responsible for more than 55 percent of gun related crimes. The other big avenue for badguys getting guns, besides a degree of complicity that is impossible to outlaw anyway, would be gun theft. This is most common in high-crime areas where guns are common and secure gun storage isn't used. Everyone from any side of the debate believes in responsible storage, there's simply too many reasons to keep them stored properly when they're not on you.

All that said, this has turned into a bit of a football for different groups to fight it out. Things like the Assault Weapons Ban made no logical sense and just turned gun restrictions into a punitive action that really damaged any efforts to slow the spread of weapons into the wrong hands. And that's really the only problem with gun ownership in America, isn't it?

[Coyote]

In reality, I don't believe that Obama is actually that concerned with gun bans. He has a whole kettle of bigger fish to fry, and he knows that the AWB played a big part in the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. He's smart enough to know that gun control is the death sentence of any national-level Democratic political career.

He'll be unconcerned if states and municipalities fight it out, but I actually doubt he'll want to dive into it himself. And anyway, Heller vs. DC clearly listed the 2nd Amendment to be an individual, not a State, right. So there's that to lean on as precedent, so I'm not overly concerned.

Will there be "some restrictions"? Yeah... and surprisingly enough, some won't bother me much, depending on what they are. The idea of a competency test certainly doesn't scare me because, unfortunately, the Yay-hoo moron stereotype does have some root in truth. I've seen some dumb fuckers at firing ranges that make me uncomfortable, and not only are they dangerous, but make a bad name for the rest of us...

[Coyote]

I don't think that the majority of armed criminals now would be able to afford guns if they were limited to those made by the mob, or imported by the mob.

The mob wants to make money. They won't build a weapon then price it so high that their best customers, or their own stooges, can't afford 'em. The whole idea is to make 'em affordable.

You do know about the "Liberator", one-shot pistol that was made in WW 2 for $1.99, and you do know that Sten sub-machineguns were made in garage factories by Israelis with simple tools and lathes? It won't be that hard to fill the gap.

My opinion is that I don't think people should have access to weapons with no other purpose designed for but to kill.

As opposed to weapons designed to... tickle? Besides, I already covered this appeal-to-emotion fallacy.

If you're really that scared about home protection, but steel shutters on your windows and build a wall around your house. It'll protect you much better.

Even when I'm outside, or downtown? How much cheaper will it be? How easy will it be to take it with me when I move? What if the family finds the idea of living in a fortress to be a bit... stifling?

Or if you really want a gun, have them kept at the range. It's illegal to discharge one within city and town limits anyways.

Um.. unless you're defending your life, that is.

[Coyote]

Really, the last time we had a kerfluffle over this, didn't we come to the conclusion that it's economic conditions that effects crime more than gun availability? When people are poor, hungry, desperate, and the situation looks bad for the future, you see more crime. Surprise. During periods of economic growth and prosperity, crime goes down. Wow.

[ray245]

Because it's not the same. I don't want to rent time on a simulator at a place across town.

Then that is your choice and loss to give up the next best avenue to train. It's like asking for the best possible training site where the next best alternative is decent enough.

Why? I'm not hurting anybody.

Blame others who is irresponsible, not me, nor the government. If we are living in a perfect world where everyone will not use a gun for crime nor murder, then I would support you owning a gun. However, the world is imperfect. It is the same as saying there should be no traffic rules, because I am responsible when I am driving. Same thing as saying why do you impose rules on the traffic, I never knocked down anyone in my life.

And you can become very, very good at shooting Airsoft guns. I specialize in a handful of real weapons. Now, I can enjoy myself, it's my money to waste if I see fit, and I'm not hurting anyone-- and bonus, I can protect myself if necessary.

Ahh...the protection for myself argument. Come on, if you have a gun to protect yourself, doesn't that mean there is a chance for others to kill you with a gun? And wait, in that case, doesn't that mean a bullet-proof vest, a bullet-proof helmet, car or house is a better choice? I can protect myself with those stuff. Unless you are saying you should endanger someone to proect yourself.

Ahh, so the lives of rich people are worth protecting, but the poor scum can be burned up and it won't matter. I see-- elitism.

When gun ownership is lowered, the risk of you getting killed by a mugger is much lower. And Mafia, unless everyone is rich in that gang, no one except for the gang leader can afford a gun. And wait, why the hell do people like Warren Buffett need a gun to protect himself when he can hire security which is much cheaper when you raise the cost of guns to ridiculous price.

I'm not angry. I think your reasoning is flawed and naive, but not anger-inspiring.

Well we think better when we are calm, right?

I'm not killing anybody. I never have, nor has anyone I know that owns a gun as a civilian. By your logic, any time a rape is committed, all males should be locked up, or fitted with special steel underwear that allows them just enough access to pee but not enough to actually get aroused and possibly rape someone. After all, someone in society did it once before, and so you must give up a few things because society is imperfect.

Funny idea. However, being a male is not a choice. You cannot choose that. We can't punish the entire group people for who they are, by being a male. Being a rapist and a male is two different things. However, you can choose to give up a gun, it is a 'want' not a 'need' . Unless we are born to own a gun, then your argument can make sense. Wait, I managed to live for 18 years without feeling the urge of using a gun, which means guns is a want, not a need.

The law is solid. You murder someone, you go to jail, possibly even face the death penalty. We actually consider the murder, not the means the murder was committed, to be the primary problem. It doesn't matter if you kill or injure someone with a baseball bat, a car, a bomb, by setting them on fire... or a gun.

Wait, which government is that stupid enough to legalise a bomb? And wait, it is easier to kill and injure someone with a baseball bat and setting them on fire than a gun? At the least you have a chance of avoiding being hit by a bat, unless you decide to stand there and let someone burn him. You have to catch the person first. With guns, you don't need to be up close to kill someone. And by the way, stop bringing in cars if you know I am opposed to the idea of private ownership of a car.

There is a reason why the armed forces use a ranged weapon as opposed to a melee weapon.

Did you read what I wrote? I said a gun on a plane is a bad idea due to the close-quarters of the people involved. The risk of injury to other sis too high.

Which means, you can’t carry a gun onto your car or any other transportation due to close-quarters issue, right? If there is risk in the potential harm a gun can bring when you are in the plane, why can't you see there is a potential harm in owning a gun? After all, you are defending a potential harm argument as well.

So far all you've said is that anyone who might be capable of ever causing a crime must be pre-emptively punished and restricted, which would mean pretty much everyone; and that only Warren Buffet's life is worth protecting. Again, burden of proof is on you.

It is a small thing to give up an entertainment item, compared to the safety of others. *sigh, at times, we get so used to the idea of certain items, that we start to treat it as a need. And tell me a reason why do Warren Buffet need an own a gun to protect himself, when he can choose to hire security instead, when security in this scenario is so much cheaper? And to protect himself , do you think Warren buffet will take out a gun as compared to letting his security take care of that job? And getting through the security guards which is hard unless you are some super assassin. If that's the case, then security guards should be made affordable instead.

Use the social contract theory instead, I give up some rights to the government to protect my interest as a whole. If you think the need to protect yourself is so great, then we might as well abolish the police force.

Really, the last time we had a kerfluffle over this, didn't we come to the conclusion that it's economic conditions that effects crime more than gun availability? When people are poor, hungry, desperate, and the situation looks bad for the future, you see more crime. Surprise. During periods of economic growth and prosperity, crime goes down. Wow.

So? Compare a crime in a society where guns is not prevalent, and compare it to a society where guns are prevalent. Tell me, does a person who has a gun where he is committing a gun more risky compared to a person who don't have a gun? So why can't we do both action at the same time? Improve economic conditions AND ban guns?

[ray245]

The real issue at heart is addressing what is the assumed use of a firearm. Clearly, people who are pro-gun assume the weapons are there partially for recreation (targets, hunting, display) and partially for defense--and usually not the same guns for both tasks. Someone may want to keep the AK they got from their brother who was overseas, but also have the pistol they got a concealed-carry permit for.

And if you're anti-gun, you see them as frivolous, messy killing machines that no sane person should own and which clearly must either be used strictly for shooting at animals, or carried by a paranoid, dangerously trigger-happy individual shortly before being stolen from his home and ending up in the hands of a street gang.

Most gun owners are very responsible, and teach this responsibility to their children, just like most people who enjoy fireworks teach fireworks etiquette to their children too. It is certainly true that devoid of guns, crime is still common, and that there are other countries with higher rates of gun ownership that are both less or more likely to commit crimes with them. It seems that while guns are effective at killing, rates of gun ownership neither decrease or increase the rate of crime. And while plinking and target-shooting with a purpose-built rifle is possible, there's also an interest in historic or famous weapons purely from a collector's standpoint, and in military weapons from a "my buddy served and I wanted to know what it was like to shoot it," sort of thing. I know people who've gone to places to get a chance to shoot MP5's and such.

However, I think it's safe to say that not all guns are created equal, and that there is certainly too much of an emphasis on what is or is not acceptable to buy from a gun store. We all can agree that guns can kill people, but it seems unreasonable to discuss a total dis-armament of the Ameican people at a point where gun ownership is still so widespread and generally so responsible. The real problem are that reasonable laws aren't being enforced, and many crimes aren't being enforced, as well as poor records being kept. Furthermore, an ATF report said that one percent of all gun suppliers were arming those responsible for more than 55 percent of gun related crimes. The other big avenue for badguys getting guns, besides a degree of complicity that is impossible to outlaw anyway, would be gun theft. This is most common in high-crime areas where guns are common and secure gun storage isn't used. Everyone from any side of the debate believes in responsible storage, there's simply too many reasons to keep them stored properly when they're not on you.

All that said, this has turned into a bit of a football for different groups to fight it out. Things like the Assault Weapons Ban made no logical sense and just turned gun restrictions into a punitive action that really damaged any efforts to slow the spread of weapons into the wrong hands. And that's really the only problem with gun ownership in America, isn't it?

So Tax gun ownership instead? The last time I checked, it is not against what the 2nd Amendment said. And I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment says that gun ownership should be widespread in the public. So we continue to legalise guns, except we tax the guns until the upper level millioniares can afford it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So Tax gun ownership instead? The last time I checked, it is not against what the 2nd Amendment said. And I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment says that gun ownership should be widespread in the public. So we continue to legalise guns, except we tax the guns until the upper level millioniares can afford it.

You're just trying to find a way around the second amendment. How about you start address real problems instead of trying to punish the majority for the actions of a few. The real problems are poverty, and greed (gun shops that don't obey laws).

[ray245]

So Tax gun ownership instead? The last time I checked, it is not against what the 2nd Amendment said. And I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment says that gun ownership should be widespread in the public. So we continue to legalise guns, except we tax the guns until the upper level millioniares can afford it.

You're just trying to find a way around the second amendment. How about you start address real problems instead of trying to punish the majority for the actions of a few. The real problems are poverty, and greed (gun shops that don't obey laws).

Gun ownership is a luxury item that we can live without. And with the strong opposition towards gun ownership using the 2nd amendment as an argument, you have to find a way around it.

Even when you resolve the issue of proverty, there will be crimes. The issue is, I don't want those criminals to carry knifes. And if I remember the school killing, people who use guns can come from a rich or middle-income background.

If gun ownership don't obey laws, arrest them.

[CaptainChewbacca]

If gun ownership don't obey laws, arrest them.

I have no idea what this means.

I've actually been thinking about getting a gun for home protection. Does that make me hateful, monstrous, or more likely to kill than I was a few months ago and wasn't considering getting a gun?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Gun ownership is a luxury item that we can live without. And with the strong opposition towards gun ownership using the 2nd amendment as an argument, you have to find a way around it.

That's not an argument for removing guns from people who do not use them in criminal acts or irresponsibily. Try again.

Even when you resolve the issue of proverty, there will be crimes. The issue is, I don't want those criminals to carry knifes. And if I remember the school killing, people who use guns can come from a rich or middle-income background.

So, eventually you look to remove even knives from homes? Did I misunderstand you?

Poverty is one of the real issues. Another real issue is social segregation, poor parenting, poor education. Do you not get that you're trying to treat the symptom and not the disease?

If gun ownership don't obey laws, arrest them.

Exactly. Now you're talking about a real problem.

[ray245]

If gun ownership don't obey laws, arrest them.

I have no idea what this means.

I've actually been thinking about getting a gun for home protection. Does that make me hateful, monstrous, or more likely to kill than I was a few months ago and wasn't considering getting a gun?

Crap, I mean gun shops. Arrest shop owners if they don't obey the laws.

No it does not, however this makes you a irresponsible person. Guns don't make a person evil and etc, and this is not the argument that the anti-gun crowd using.

It is about responsiblity.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If gun ownership don't obey laws, arrest them.

I have no idea what this means.

I've actually been thinking about getting a gun for home protection. Does that make me hateful, monstrous, or more likely to kill than I was a few months ago and wasn't considering getting a gun?

Crap, I mean gun shops. Arrest shop owners if they don't obey the laws.

No it does not, however this makes you a irresponsible person. Guns don't make a person evil and etc, and this is not the argument that the anti-gun crowd using.

It is about responsiblity.

How does gun ownership make one irresponsible? You haven't justified this statement at all in this thread.

[CaptainChewbacca]

No it does not, however this makes you a irresponsible person. Guns don't make a person evil and etc, and this is not the argument that the anti-gun crowd using.

It is about responsiblity.

So, if I get a permit, buy a gun, go to the California State-mandated gun safety training required for gun owners, and then use (and store) my gun in a safe and aware manner, how am I being irresponsible? Is it your assertion that the mere EXISTENCE of a gun in a functional condition is such an inherent danger to society that it cannot be tolerated?

By that logic, can we ban sharp objects, open flames, and cars which aren't covered with Nerf?

[Formless]

ray245:

1. School shootings are a minority of gun crimes by anyone's statistic. Citing them is a common tactic I have personally seen people use to derail any rational discussion on the subject with emotion.

2. American society is a rather violent one, that glorifies violence at any turn it can, and which does very little to give people options they can use to get themselves out of the bad situations (like poverty) that more often than not lead to murder, irregardless of the weapon used. In order to actually make any change to crime, you must change the culture in a profound way. Guns are part of that culture, but they are red herring to whether or not people actually commit violent crime. Getting rid of them is as hard by itself as changing the real problems (poverty, racism, glorification, etc.), and has been shown to have little to no return due to the black market and crimes that are commited with other deadly weapons. (how do you plan on banning kitchen knives? murder is mostly a crime of opportunity, and anything can be deadly enough for the job.)

3. Alcohol is a blatantly dangerous luxery item, but people recognize quite willingly that it is a matter of personal responsibility that drunk drivers kill people and themselves. How are guns different? Also, it is not banned wither, just regulated, and when they did try to ban it in the twenties, gues what happened?

4. Body armor is nice and all, but, correct me if I'm wrong, it is also rather heavy, and not well suited to everyday civilian attire. A gun can be of a handily small size, be concealable, and still protect you. Besides, what use is a pure defense when you have no offensive punch? or when you have to defend someone other than yourself, like your family? Body armor will be no help at all.

5. Why does anyone have to say this- airsoft behaves nothing like a real gun. Period. Its not as heavy, it lacks the range, and it distinctly lacks the nice damaging effects down range that makes shooting so damn fun. You are an idiot for even bringing that up.

[ray245]

That's not an argument for removing guns from people who do not use them in criminal acts or irresponsibily. Try again.

You can only challenge that argument if society is perfect. Tell me, how do you know if every person who own a gun can be responsible? No matter what kind of test you have, there will be people who use guns to commit crime. If you don't remove guns from people who don't use them in criminal acts, then there WILL be loopholes.

So, eventually you look to remove even knives from homes? Did I misunderstand you?

Crap, I mean guns ( spelling and mental mistakes). Knifes at the very least, is needed to cut food and prepare meals.

Poverty is one of the real issues. Another real issue is social segregation, poor parenting, poor education. Do you not get that you're trying to treat the symptom and not the disease?

Why can't we resolve the issue of social segreation, poor parenting, poor education and gun control issues at the same time? What makes gun control so exclusive from other issues as well?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Why can't we resolve the issue of social segreation, poor parenting, poor education and gun control issues at the same time? What makes gun control so exclusive from other issues as well?

Its a solution looking for a problem. 'Gun Control' sounds good, but you can't make it fair and equitable to all people involved. Solving poverty and education, now THOSE are things you can work on that most folks can get behind.

[ray245]

No it does not, however this makes you a irresponsible person. Guns don't make a person evil and etc, and this is not the argument that the anti-gun crowd using.

It is about responsiblity.

So, if I get a permit, buy a gun, go to the California State-mandated gun safety training required for gun owners, and then use (and store) my gun in a safe and aware manner, how am I being irresponsible? Is it your assertion that the mere EXISTENCE of a gun in a functional condition is such an inherent danger to society that it cannot be tolerated?

By that logic, can we ban sharp objects, open flames, and cars which aren't covered with Nerf?

If I allow you to own a gun, I am allowing a irresponsible person or a criminal to own a gun. Unless you can actually tell me a way to tell if a person will or will not commit a crime.


ray245:

1. School shootings are a minority of gun crimes by anyone's statistic. Citing them is a common tactic I have personally seen people use to derail any rational discussion on the subject with emotion.

Tell me if it is harder to easier to kill so many people if you don't have a gun with you.

2. American society is a rather violent one, that glorifies violence at any turn it can, and which does very little to give people options they can use to get themselves out of the bad situations (like poverty) that more often than not lead to murder, irregardless of the weapon used. In order to actually make any change to crime, you must change the culture in a profound way. Guns are part of that culture, but they are red herring to whether or not people actually commit violent crime. Getting rid of them is as hard by itself as changing the real problems (poverty, racism, glorification, etc.), and has been shown to have little to no return due to the black market and crimes that are commited with other deadly weapons. (how do you plan on banning kitchen knives? murder is mostly a crime of opportunity, and anything can be deadly enough for the job.)

It's not about taking away crime from society. It is about making crime less harmful and less destrutive.

3. Alcohol is a blatantly dangerous luxery item, but people recognize quite willingly that it is a matter of personal responsibility that drunk drivers kill people and themselves. How are guns different? Also, it is not banned wither, just regulated, and when they did try to ban it in the twenties, gues what happened?

In an ideal world, I would not ban alcohol, nor will alcohol be an issue. So the only possible way is to raise tax and increase the price of alcohol, make it very very expensive. I oppose the idea of gun ownership, however, the realistic solution is to tax guns until it is a very expensive item.

4. Body armor is nice and all, but, correct me if I'm wrong, it is also rather heavy, and not well suited to everyday civilian attire. A gun can be of a handily small size, be concealable, and still protect you. Besides, what use is a pure defense when you have no offensive punch? or when you have to defend someone other than yourself, like your family? Body armor will be no help at all.

If person person attacking you don't have a gun, are you going to shoot and kill him? If it is easier to run away from that person now, would you need a gun?

5. Why does anyone have to say this- airsoft behaves nothing like a real gun. Period. Its not as heavy, it lacks the range, and it distinctly lacks the nice damaging effects down range that makes shooting so damn fun. You are an idiot for even bringing that up.

So fun should be more important than safety?

Its a solution looking for a problem. 'Gun Control' sounds good, but you can't make it fair and equitable to all people involved. Solving poverty and education, now THOSE are things you can work on that most folks can get behind.

When is life fair?

[Shroom Man 777]

4. Body armor is nice and all, but, correct me if I'm wrong, it is also rather heavy, and not well suited to everyday civilian attire. A gun can be of a handily small size, be concealable, and still protect you. Besides, what use is a pure defense when you have no offensive punch? or when you have to defend someone other than yourself, like your family? Body armor will be no help at all.

And I think body armor is not allowed for civilian ownership, either. I think it's even written on the Interceptor I have on my bedside...

That incident with the LA Shootout, the ones where two gunmen decided to reenact HEAT by themselves, was deadly not because the two gunmen were totting around automatic rifles, but because they had body armor and none of the police officers had anything that could penetrate their armor (the cops only had handguns and shotguns). The two gunmen were literally walking around with impunity.

5. Why does anyone have to say this- airsoft behaves nothing like a real gun. Period. Its not as heavy, it lacks the range, and it distinctly lacks the nice damaging effects down range that makes shooting so damn fun. You are an idiot for even bringing that up.

Indeed. Airsoft rifles are just toys.


Anyway, my dad has acquired a rather... sizable collection of firearms and I can't wait to get the time to shoot shit with them. However, if firearms become illegal, I don't think I'll really be hurting too much. If an anti-gun government is competent on other fields and makes the nation better, then it's better than a pro-gun government that is incompetent in all other fields and makes the country worse. Voting on an single issue that is actually a non-issue (like like say guns or strategic nuclear arsenals) when compared to bigger problems is silly if a person gets to keep his guns or gets a chubby off seeing his country maintain nuclear dominance but also ends up homeless since he can't pay his medical bills thanks to the wonders of the free market.

Anyway. Would it be better if gun ownership came with mandatory gun safety lessons and mandatory shooting practice and stuff, complete with instructors? If a driver's license requires passing an exam or an actual on-the-wheel driving test, then getting a gun license - an object that's designed to kill things, rather than designed to move people from one place to another - should have more stringent requirements.

You need to know how to signal when turning, to wear your seatbelts, and not drive under the influence in order to get a driver's license. Gun owners should know things like trigger safety, not pointing the weapon at anyone, and other basics to get a gun license.

[ray245]

You need to know how to signal when turning, to wear your seatbelts, and not drive under the influence in order to get a driver's license. Gun owners should know things like trigger safety, not pointing the weapon at anyone, and other basics to get a gun license.

They are saying guns should be used as 'self-defense', which means you have to point it at someone.

[His Divine Shadow]

Yeah sure if we could something as common sense and non-restrictive yet effective as a license, then that'd be great for all involved.

Sadly the way it usually goes is something utterly ineffectual and overcomplicated like the 1994 AWB, it's a law that perfectly described like this: "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".