Biden Talks Gun Control Proposals

[Stark]

While people can say that high-capacity weapons don't contribute to much crime (not that I support the idea that a weapon becomes more dangerous by having more than xyz bullets), does that mean they have no impact on crime at all? Is it fair to say that a perception that THUGS AND HOODLUMS have UZIS AND SHIT or URBAN MODIFIED FULL AUTO TEC-9 MACHINE PISTOLS has no impact on people's firearms buying habits/sense of fear/reaction to home invaders/desire for 'self defence'?

Saying people with 100 round belts don't kill many (or any) people can be true, even as those people (or the perception that those people are common or dangerous) create a specific need for guns in other people. People (especially the media) drive this sort of perception all the time. If the gun isn't INTERESTING OR SCARY people don't even mention what it was.

[Simon_Jester]

Interesting point, Stark.

[Shrugs] What, Duchess in office? I've seen worse.

No you haven't.

Based on some years of acquaintance, I may not have seen more unusual in office, but I do believe I've seen worse.

As to the rest of your point, I (not everyone I admit) recognize both sides of the argument just fine.

You have to protect against people like Hitler. Governmental Tyranny is a very real thing. Some people think it is happening right now in fact.
I'm sorry that people think that in "this day and age" no one like that can rise to power again, but they are wrong. What I think is ironic is that if someone like that does come to power in America, it will be from the Right and all the Pro-Gun people.

Here's a thought for you.

It is a historical accident that the American right is pro-gun and the left isn't.

There's no obvious reason for gun ownership to be a right-wing issue. Not in an era where "conservatism" and the right have nothing to do with each other, because the right is actively trying to repeal a status quo that's been on the books for 30, 50, or even 100 years.

What happened is, quite simply, that the Democrats decided to align themselves with gun control (perhaps because it is popular in urban areas?). While the Republicans decided to align themselves with gun ownership (perhaps because gun control is wildly unpopular in rural areas?)

And so a collection of swingable voters vote Republican, against their economic interests, against other civil rights issue interests, against pretty much anything else, because they see the Second Amendment as a Big Fucking Deal, and a challenge to it as a Bad Sign.

You can call that stupid of them. I won't even argue. But we may have lost a lot of political opportunity in this country by making gun control a 'required' position for the American left. And giving the Republicans that one serious constitutional position to stand on while undermining so many others. There isn't a lot else left of the Bill of Rights where their position is more credible than the Democrats'.*

Just by saying "we have no intention of passing any further gun control laws during this [Congress/term]," the Democratic leadership could give themselves a free boost in political capital. And when it's kind of questionable how much effect gun control laws really have on crime in America, that makes me feel pretty frustrated.

In my opinion, deciding to align with, shelter, and promote gun control hurts the American left. And the payoff for doing so is uncertain.
_______________

*Insert predictable cries about Obama and drone strikes here; I know it's real but it's not the topic right now, and I'm talking about something that's been going on since the '80s, NOT since 9/11 or 2008.

At the same time, even one death that can be averted by getting guns off the street should be a goal worth chasing. One gun per adult aged citizen unless cause is shown to own more. There is zero reason to have more than two really and there is no argument out there that can prove otherwise. One for home or self defense, and one for your chosen recreational use. Whether that be hunting or target shooting or whatever. Sorry but your right to feel cool and "safe" is not worth more than even one person's life.

Does the existence of gun collecting have any real impact on the danger of firearms?

Limiting the number of a thing someone can own is another good way to piss off harmless people while having little or no effect on harmful people. A psycho killer only needs one (at most two) guns to kill as many people as they like; a guy who collects hundred-year-old rifles for the same reason he might collect stamps isn't hurting anyone.

[Thanas]

Whatever. I'll never support gun control no matter what happens. There. You already think shit of me, Ando, why does this pettiness of your's matter? I conceded! Make of it what you will. I acknowledged my argument doesn't have a logical basis--I am not trying to hide from it.

I mean, the honest fact is that I just view the world different from you, and nothing either of us can say will ever bridge that gap. Is it wrong to admit that?

That certainly is very mature of you. I thought the "LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU SHUT UP" stuff got old in fifth grade?

[Beowulf]

Interesting thought: What if gun manufacturers spearheaded the reduction in gun manufacturing while increasing the costs of their products?
Like you said, people that want them will pay to be manly and perhaps having something of more value will prompt owners to be far more careful with storage since obviously financial worth is clearly more of a driving factor to Americans than the value of life.

You apparently missed econ 101. There's a market niche to be captured at the low end. If the big names stop catering to that niche, then smaller manufacturers will step in to fill the void. The only limit is how cheap they can make them, still make a profit, and still have them work.

At the same time, even one death that can be averted by getting guns off the street should be a goal worth chasing. One gun per adult aged citizen unless cause is shown to own more. There is zero reason to have more than two really and there is no argument out there that can prove otherwise. One for home or self defense, and one for your chosen recreational use. Whether that be hunting or target shooting or whatever. Sorry but your right to feel cool and "safe" is not worth more than even one person's life.

If even one death can be averted by proactively assassinating terrorists overseas, that should be a goal worth chasing. Don't like that analogy? How about government surveillance of everyone? If you have nothing to hide then why won't you let the government look? Ban high capacity soda cups, to fight deadly obesity! Doing anything to avert just one death leads to absudity, except when people talk about banning guns, apparently. This isn't even getting into whether banning guns could cost lives, as a 250lb, 6ft tall gangbanger is going to be able to use that lead pipe infinitely more effectively than a 90lb 5ft tall girl.

[Grumman]

Saying people with 100 round belts don't kill many (or any) people can be true, even as those people (or the perception that those people are common or dangerous) create a specific need for guns in other people. People (especially the media) drive this sort of perception all the time.

Are you suggesting that because people lie about the prevalence of criminals armed with automatics, it is necessary to enact stronger gun control laws?

[Stark]

It doesn't appear I am, no. I'm saying that maybe it's wrong to dismiss the existence, presence or prevalence of XYZ thing because it doesn't directly cause gun crime if it makes people more likely to buy guys, use guns, be generally afraid, etc, which DO contribute to gun crime.

I guess your finger just slipped when you snipped that part out.

[fordlltwm]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of U.S. illegal gun deaths are done by fire arms which are NOT OWNED LEGALLY right? For example the gangbangers have probably not gone to a gun store and being back ground checked before buying right? So how the fuck does making them more illegal than illegal help?

Given the state of one estate in my tiny welsh city, I can imagine that the equivalent shitehole in the states would be so bad that the only time they saw a cop would be when the cop was selling the recently acquired "evidence" to people who could split it up and sell it on, so they're not going to be bothered by some rich bitch in D.C. screaming "Think of the children", they're not going to care about Duchess throwing money into the NRA, nor will they care about Starks snarky comments, they'll likely just carry on as before, and not be bothered by the new list of illegal guns, because well, they're guns are likely held illegally anyway, so making the gun itself illegal ain't going to bother them.

[Stark]

Criminals are also the people who commit crimes. They may not respond to laws prohibiting crimes the way 'other' people do. Clearly, laws are useless and simply make people into criminals.

Regardless, the whole point of things like buybacks is the recognition that the huge pool of guns (legal or otherwise) is a contributor to the problem. Indeed, things like buybacks target exactly those kind of people; the people who will think their ninety-seven stolen pistols are less useful than a few lines of coke.

[TheFeniX]

Interesting thought: What if gun manufacturers spearheaded the reduction in gun manufacturing while increasing the costs of their products?
Like you said, people that want them will pay to be manly and perhaps having something of more value will prompt owners to be far more careful with storage since obviously financial worth is clearly more of a driving factor to Americans than the value of life.

Translation: fuck poor people. They should just cowboy up and earn more money if they want access to a valuable self-defense tool. They are only one of the highest risk groups to be victimized and also have the lowest amounts of police protection.

At least then people like you might stop pissing their pants.

But hey, guns stolen from private owners is the easiest ways criminals get guns.... except it isn't.

there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list...... ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. Cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF. What's needed, according to Wachtel, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers.

These guys have to be licensed by the federal government to sell weapons.... and they are the ones arming criminals. I'm drowning in the faith pool over here....

At the same time, even one death that can be averted by getting guns off the street should be a goal worth chasing. One gun per adult aged citizen unless cause is shown to own more. There is zero reason to have more than two really and there is no argument out there that can prove otherwise. One for home or self defense, and one for your chosen recreational use. Whether that be hunting or target shooting or whatever. Sorry but your right to feel cool and "safe" is not worth more than even one person's life.

A 12-gauge for dove hunting.
.270 rifle for deer hunting.
Large-caliber revolver for possible animal attacks.

I could list other numerous examples, but your "zero reason" bullshit was pretty brain-dead to begin with, so I don't really see wasting the effort.

So I have an honest question, why do civilians need anything more than a bolt action weapon? If you say you need it for self defense, you're only going to get one or two shots off with a semi-auto before the person closes the ground on you to where you can't shoot them anyways,

Back this up. I'd explain how terribly stupid this is, but I'd like to see you actually try and defend it, even if you didn't just give a perfect example why being able to fire more than one bullet isn't a bad thing.

if it's for hunting, if you're not good enough to hit with your first shot, you suck,

Yea, no point in having more than 1 round in a shotgun for Dove hunting. No point also in having a large-caliber pistol in case of a bear attack or something like a Judge with snake shot in case of snakes.

and if it's for entertainment, well fuck you I don't care about that. So, seriously, why allow magazines on weapons at all?

Yes, entertainment serves no purpose when it comes to avoiding death. Let's ban private swimming pools then.

[Havok]

Limiting the number of a thing someone can own is another good way to piss off harmless people while having little or no effect on harmful people. A psycho killer only needs one (at most two) guns to kill as many people as they like; a guy who collects hundred-year-old rifles for the same reason he might collect stamps isn't hurting anyone.

Honestly those harmless people? They will fucking get over it. Just like they always get over big social changes that were unthinkable.

As for collectors of guns, I have no problem with that. Fill the barrel with lead, remove firing mechanisms... oh wait, that's right, it will devalue it and that is far more important than someone, even one person, getting hurt or killed with a "collectible" pistol or rifle.

And seriously... this is the fault I find in EVERY SINGLE COMPARISON made about guns to XYZ... Stamps are little pieces of paper designed to facilitate mail delivery while guns are designed solely to put holes in peoples bodies.
Cars are designed to ferry people from point A to point B. Guns are designed to kill people.
Bats are designed to hit baseballs. Guns are designed to kill people.
Rocks are designed to sit on the ground and be tripped over. Guns are designed to kill people.

But your point about only needing two guns is perfectly valid, which is why I have already said the problem is the genie in the bottle, as in getting it back in because the guns are already out there and they aren't going back in the bottle.

[Aaron MkII]

Criminals are also the people who commit crimes. They may not respond to laws prohibiting crimes the way 'other' people do. Clearly, laws are useless and simply make people into criminals.

Regardless, the whole point of things like buybacks is the recognition that the huge pool of guns (legal or otherwise) is a contributor to the problem. Indeed, things like buybacks target exactly those kind of people; the people who will think their ninety-seven stolen pistols are less useful than a few lines of coke.

IIRC buy backs here have usually just resulted in people using the funds to upgrade to a better gun, and dumping stuff they never use and then buying new. They've started offering things like cameras instead now.

I'm not sure how well it translates to America, as I wouldn't consider the average owner in Canada to be a poor guy worried about self defence. I can certainly see how removing broken guns from the pool could be beneficial.

[Stark]

Yeah, those alternatives are still benefits. If a guy sells his 5 guns and buys one better gun, good for him: guns aren't illegal. So long as people understand what buybacks can and can't achieve, I don't see any problem with this sort of thing.

[Thanas]

It is a historical accident that the American right is pro-gun and the left isn't.

Really? Pray list the nations that have a left-leaning gun lobby. After all, I cannot really remember a left-leaning gun lobby in all of Europe. They are mostly right-wingers over here in Germany as well.

[Flagg]

Criminals are also the people who commit crimes. They may not respond to laws prohibiting crimes the way 'other' people do. Clearly, laws are useless and simply make people into criminals.

Regardless, the whole point of things like buybacks is the recognition that the huge pool of guns (legal or otherwise) is a contributor to the problem. Indeed, things like buybacks target exactly those kind of people; the people who will think their ninety-seven stolen pistols are less useful than a few lines of coke.

IIRC buy backs here have usually just resulted in people using the funds to upgrade to a better gun, and dumping stuff they never use and then buying new. They've started offering things like cameras instead now.

I'm not sure how well it translates to America, as I wouldn't consider the average owner in Canada to be a poor guy worried about self defence. I can certainly see how removing broken guns from the pool could be beneficial.

Alot of buybacks are in high crime areas and the goal is to get illegal guns off the streets. In Orlando they do a "kicks for guns" thing where you got high prices sneakers like Nikes and Reeboks in exchange for guns. They used to have kids come in with guns.

[Havok]

Interesting thought: What if gun manufacturers spearheaded the reduction in gun manufacturing while increasing the costs of their products?
Like you said, people that want them will pay to be manly and perhaps having something of more value will prompt owners to be far more careful with storage since obviously financial worth is clearly more of a driving factor to Americans than the value of life.

You apparently missed econ 101. There's a market niche to be captured at the low end. If the big names stop catering to that niche, then smaller manufacturers will step in to fill the void. The only limit is how cheap they can make them, still make a profit, and still have them work.

I know how economics work numbnuts. If you enact laws that limit how many guns are made, just like we enacted laws that limit how much waste big corporations can make then at least it's a step in the right direction if not problem solved through attrition in the long run.

Keep in mind my stance is not ERADICATE ALL GUNS!!!! it is regulate, strictly, their creation and who can purchase them and in what quantities.

At the same time, even one death that can be averted by getting guns off the street should be a goal worth chasing. One gun per adult aged citizen unless cause is shown to own more. There is zero reason to have more than two really and there is no argument out there that can prove otherwise. One for home or self defense, and one for your chosen recreational use. Whether that be hunting or target shooting or whatever. Sorry but your right to feel cool and "safe" is not worth more than even one person's life.

If even one death can be averted by proactively assassinating terrorists overseas, that should be a goal worth chasing. Don't like that analogy?

I love that analogy. I am all for it. You aren't arguing with a left wing liberal homie. Some people need to die.

How about government surveillance of everyone? If you have nothing to hide then why won't you let the government look? Ban high capacity soda cups, to fight deadly obesity! Doing anything to avert just one death leads to absudity, except when people talk about banning guns, apparently. This isn't even getting into whether banning guns could cost lives, as a 250lb, 6ft tall gangbanger is going to be able to use that lead pipe infinitely more effectively than a 90lb 5ft tall girl.

You are getting into different constitutional issues there but don't let that stop you.
As for Soda, no one is throwing soda at people and killing them en mass. No one is FORCING people's deaths with soda. YOU PERSONALLY have to actively maintain bad habits for decades for soda to hurt you. You only have to pull the trigger once to kill a person and it pretty much always against their will. Nice try.

As to your issue with gangbangers, they used to use lead pipes, blackjacks and baseball bats back before they were actually called gangbangers. We made carrying a baseball bat or a black jack or brass knuckles around around a felony. Ok, might as well just carry a gun then.
As I have stated before, the problems on the street have to do with escalation not with guns. The thing is once you take guns off the table there is nothing left to escalate to.
Criminals are criminals. They are going to kill,extort,coerce,beat people regardless of guns, HOWEVER, most criminals want to make money. Being dead doesn't really facilitate that. My issue with the ease of access of guns is the problem based on the pure abundance of them, not because a smart criminal can figure out how to get them or how to conduct his business without them.
However 90lb 5ft tall girl still has a better chance living after a beating with a pipe or bat then a beating with bullets.

[Havok]

Interesting thought: What if gun manufacturers spearheaded the reduction in gun manufacturing while increasing the costs of their products?
Like you said, people that want them will pay to be manly and perhaps having something of more value will prompt owners to be far more careful with storage since obviously financial worth is clearly more of a driving factor to Americans than the value of life.

Translation: fuck poor people. They should just cowboy up and earn more money if they want access to a valuable self-defense tool. They are only one of the highest risk groups to be victimized and also have the lowest amounts of police protection.

Uh... isn't that the stance of pretty much every right wing pro-gun person any way? And again, get guns off the table and poor people can defend themselves with the same thing they will be threatened with. Of course I hear poor people are high value targets of criminals.

At least then people like you might stop pissing their pants.

Oh please elaborate more on my pant pissing please.

But hey, guns stolen from private owners is the easiest ways criminals get guns.... except it isn't.

there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list...... ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. Cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF. What's needed, according to Wachtel, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers.

These guys have to be licensed by the federal government to sell weapons.... and they are the ones arming criminals. I'm drowning in the faith pool over here....

Hey wow, this totally backs up my point. Stop making so many fucking guns and regulate their manufacture and sales. Idiot.
And I never said anything about theft so why you think you are making some grand point is beyond me.

At the same time, even one death that can be averted by getting guns off the street should be a goal worth chasing. One gun per adult aged citizen unless cause is shown to own more. There is zero reason to have more than two really and there is no argument out there that can prove otherwise. One for home or self defense, and one for your chosen recreational use. Whether that be hunting or target shooting or whatever. Sorry but your right to feel cool and "safe" is not worth more than even one person's life.

A 12-gauge for dove hunting.
.270 rifle for deer hunting.
Large-caliber revolver for possible animal attacks.
I could list other numerous examples, but your "zero reason" bullshit was pretty brain-dead to begin with, so I don't really see wasting the effort.

I'm sorry is a deer not going down to a 12 gauge? Get closer. Shoot twice. Better yet, buy a bow. Please, if dove and deer hunting is your big argument you are a fucking mouthpiece tool.
Of course I have nothing against protecting land or your family and showing just cause for that is totally acceptable, but your arguments for multiple weapons are idiotic based on what I said, which of course you clearly didn't read. A husband and wife would be able to own a total of four guns, more than enough to cover dangerous dove attacks and hunting the elusive deer.

So I have an honest question, why do civilians need anything more than a bolt action weapon? If you say you need it for self defense, you're only going to get one or two shots off with a semi-auto before the person closes the ground on you to where you can't shoot them anyways,

Back this up. I'd explain how terribly stupid this is, but I'd like to see you actually try and defend it, even if you didn't just give a perfect example why being able to fire more than one bullet isn't a bad thing.

Yeah Block, don't be an idiot. If you are going to have a gun for whatever reason, you want as many rounds as possible.
If I have to shoot at somebody or a wild rampaging flock of doves, I want as many holes in them as I can get.

if it's for hunting, if you're not good enough to hit with your first shot, you suck,

Yea, no point in having more than 1 round in a shotgun for Dove hunting. No point also in having a large-caliber pistol in case of a bear attack or something like a Judge with snake shot in case of snakes.

Again, as I don't really care about this aspect of the argument because it is fucking asinine, you can have all the bullets you want if you are going to get to have the weapon otherwise what is the point.

and if it's for entertainment, well fuck you I don't care about that. So, seriously, why allow magazines on weapons at all?

Yes, entertainment serves no purpose when it comes to avoiding death. Let's ban private swimming pools then.

Again... comparisons like this are egregious at best. A pool is designed to be swam in. A gun is designed to be shot at a person.
If you die because of a pool it is A) probably an accident and B) in no way what the pool was intended for.
If you or a family member die on accident because of a gun then A) you probably shouldn't have had it in the first place because you are an idiot and B) it did exactly what it was designed to do.

[Havok]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of U.S. illegal gun deaths are done by fire arms which are NOT OWNED LEGALLY right? For example the gangbangers have probably not gone to a gun store and being back ground checked before buying right? So how the fuck does making them more illegal than illegal help?

Given the state of one estate in my tiny welsh city, I can imagine that the equivalent shitehole in the states would be so bad that the only time they saw a cop would be when the cop was selling the recently acquired "evidence" to people who could split it up and sell it on, so they're not going to be bothered by some rich bitch in D.C. screaming "Think of the children", they're not going to care about Duchess throwing money into the NRA, nor will they care about Starks snarky comments, they'll likely just carry on as before, and not be bothered by the new list of illegal guns, because well, they're guns are likely held illegally anyway, so making the gun itself illegal ain't going to bother them.

Could we leave the "rich bitch" out of this you fucking imbecile.

My point, stance and issue is that the problem is the amount of guns. Stricter manufacturing controls... as in lets actually have some and regulate it like any other company that creates a product that is a risk to public safety. (And yes, we should regulate automobiles and license them better before any of the "well traffic accidents cause more deaths than guns do" reply pops up)

Good thing there isn't amendment that guarantees the right to free industry that was written vaguely and before the industrial revolution happened.

Lets Ban Second Hand Bullets! Mothers Against Drunk Shootings! Silly yes, but we as a society have recognized that these products pose an inherent danger to our society (talking about cigarettes and alcohol) so why do we let gun manufactures completely slide?

[Alyeska]

At the same time, even one death that can be averted by getting guns off the street should be a goal worth chasing.

To be blunt. This is the worst argument you can make. When you have decided that averting one death is the goal, you have to apply this argument to everything.

All private ownership of cars in urban areas should be banned to save lives. Alcohol should be banned to save lives. Tobacco should be banned to save lives. Soda should be banned to reduce obesity. Oreo Cookies should be banned. Contact sports should be banned.

If even one death can be averted, its worth the complete sacrifice of absolutely everything.

[Alyeska]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of U.S. illegal gun deaths are done by fire arms which are NOT OWNED LEGALLY right? For example the gangbangers have probably not gone to a gun store and being back ground checked before buying right? So how the fuck does making them more illegal than illegal help?

Where did those illegal guns come from? In all likelihood the illegal guns are leaking into the market from legal sources at significant rates. Straw purchases and theft primarily. Sure, there are black market imports. But those would be expensive to one degree or another.

So, if you reduce legal gun rates, you have an impact on illegal gun access. But this only works if applied country wide. Strict state gun laws are absolutely worthless. California bans high capacity magazines. If a criminal actually cared to have high capacity, he drives to Nevada and buys them. Chicago bans pistols. Well, the criminals will acquire them from outside the city.

[Knife]

We're not talking one life though. We're looking for a balance between property rights and people being killed. Extremes are easy to find and see, it's the middle that is harder.

[Alyeska]

We're not talking one life though. We're looking for a balance between property rights and people being killed. Extremes are easy to find and see, it's the middle that is harder.

And laws that can target gun crime without infringing on property rights should be top priority.

Virginia's Project Exile could become federal. It would have a dramatic impact in high crime areas just like it had in Virginia.

[JLTucker]

At the same time, even one death that can be averted by getting guns off the street should be a goal worth chasing.

To be blunt. This is the worst argument you can make. When you have decided that averting one death is the goal, you have to apply this argument to everything.

All private ownership of cars in urban areas should be banned to save lives. Alcohol should be banned to save lives. Tobacco should be banned to save lives. Soda should be banned to reduce obesity. Oreo Cookies should be banned. Contact sports should be banned.

If even one death can be averted, its worth the complete sacrifice of absolutely everything.

What is with you and these false equivalencies? A car was not designed to kill. Tobacco wasn't either, along with alcohol. Everything you listed weren't designed to kill. Have you been reading what Hav has been posting? He believes guns were made to kill, thus the bit of his post you quoted operates under that view point. Your comparisons are not apt.

[JLTucker]

Also, Hav has said he doesn't want to ban all guns, Alyeska. Your comparisons say he does. Essentially, you've strawmanned him into oblivion.

[Lusankya]

Can I just say that the "well cars kill people too" analogy always struck me as fucking stupid, because we rely on cars and trucks to maintain the supply chains in our heavily urbanised society. Yeah, you can argue that we don't need to use cars as much as we do now, and I'm all for reducing our reliance on cars, but claiming these two things are equivalent is rubbish, because no developed country manages without the internal combustion engine, whereas plenty of developed countries manage just fine with no personal gun ownership.

Personally I wouldn't actually give a shit if any gun control laws actually did decrease the number of guns in society. I just think that by having actual real licensing requirements and legislation requiring proper storage, it will help create a culture of responsibility among the US gun culture, as opposed to the culture of entitlement that exists now. Because I swear, US gun rights advocates come across as the most entitled pieces of shit in the entire world.

Christ, the US accidental gun death rate is more twice as high as the UK total gun death rate. If you could halve that by (say) legislating proper storage, then the US would save as many lives as are taken by guns in the UK every year. But noooooooo the US gun lobby doesn't give a shit about that, because their entitlement complex doesn't allow them to consider the possibility that they should take some responsibility for the dangers inherent to their hobby.

[Thanas]

Hav, actually you need two different types of hunting rifles to shoot deer and geese. If you shoot a deer with a 12-gauge you are not going to be able to eat that deer and in many cases it is actually illegal.