[OFFICIAL] Gun Control Thread

[breadisfunny]

I was surprised to see that this thread kind of exploded all of a sudden. Then I read what's being said and how people are deriving that Skroesec suddenly wants to air strike gun owners (when that's not what he said at all) and I realized it's just the pro-gun posters propagating unneeded fear and hate. Pretty par for the course really.

And yes, the country is run by the people still. All of the conspiracy nuts can take their crazy theories elsewhere. Should the majority ever decide that the US should join the rest of the first world in gun regulation (either through banning, or go all the way the other direction like Sweden) then the government will do as the people direct it.

or maybe the u.s. is just fine the way it is. gun banning wont make the poverty any better and it wont make the gangs go away. banning guns will solve absolutely nothing.

[GreatOak]

I want government to have a monopoly of force. Yes absolutely. That is one of the characteristics of a legitimate government, that it, not any other party has the right to use force. If you think your guns protect your freedom, you are lying to yourself. Let me ask, how long do you think you'd last with your guns in the woods, against a drone?

And yes in a free country the people control the government, not the other way around. But guns play no role in that in a free country. Let me ask you a hypothetical question: lets say the US somehow passed a comprehensive ban of private gun ownership and repealed the 2nd Amendment. Lets say it required you to turn your guns in or face a felony. Would you do it? Or would you say "come and get them"? Would you go down to the state house with your gun?

Because here is the quandary you face my friend. If you REFUSE to give up your guns, you are saying that the RULE OF THE GUN should win out over the RULE OF LAW, and that those with guns should make the law, even when your guns have become illegal. Furthermore a country where LAW and the PROCESS of MAKING LAW is supreme was the dream of the founders of our country. To hold onto your guns would be to betray the philosophical underpinnings of the constitution. On the other hands, if you GIVE UP your guns, you are compromising what you believe is your right even though, due to the process of passing a new Amendment, the majority of the country via our republican form of government disagree. So which is it?

As for airstrikes, I was pretty clearly referring to third world unauthorized, illegal factories, obviously not a gun factory in any country where the rule of law is strong and obviously not American citizens.

The rule of law is the rule of the gun. A law is just an opinion with a gun to your head. They have no inherent legitimacy. It's just up to society to grant them legitimacy.

[Decklan]

or maybe the u.s. is just fine the way it is. gun banning wont make the poverty any better and it wont make the gangs go away. banning guns will solve absolutely nothing.

You've been using that incredibly faulty logic for awhile now. Nobody ever suggested altering gun laws to fix poverty or gangs. Gun bans are to prevent gun homicides, which it has been proven to be effective at. Or we could go the other direction and go all out with requiring people to go through a year of military service and make guns an "every household" thing and that would be equally as effective.

But this argument that you've been touting that gun bans will not work because people will always use guns is incredibly flawed. Laws are ultimately and ideally meant to completely halt a behavior or activity, but in reality that doesn't happen. Laws are a deterrent to what is deemed detrimental to the public. Should we not make murder illegal because people will always kill one another? That kind of argument sounds good but when held up to scrutiny, falls apart.

[Maneo]

What like police and military work? It works both ways friend. Guns can be used for good, bad, or neutral reasons. You keep going on about the evils caused with guns but never mention everything else.


Because bombings don't happen right?


http://www.khou.com/news/local/21-ye...192475271.html

Force multipliers work both ways.


So guns are more of a factor in destabilizing a region than famine, poverty, education, and disease? You seem to be going to great lengths to justify killing this goat.


My right to own my self-defense weapon is not a hobby.




See that AK47 clone. I don't have to justify owning it to you.

If you want to stop global instability then you should go after the causes of it. Not just just slapping your pet issue on it and giving yourself a pat on the back.

Damn nice firearm been thinking about picking one up myself.

I read that the Czech make the best ones I need to do more research.

And I would be proud to own one.

I also was published before I was 25. Hold a BA in information technology with a emphasis on military intelligence, and a associates in psychology and another in business.

So just cause your opinion is anti-gun it sure as hell doesn't make you smarter, or better then anyone else on this message board.

[Roelath]

You've been using that incredibly faulty logic for awhile now. Nobody ever suggested altering gun laws to fix poverty or gangs. Gun bans are to prevent gun homicides, which it has been proven to be effective at. Or we could go the other direction and go all out with requiring people to go through a year of military service and make guns an "every household" thing and that would be equally as effective.

But this argument that you've been touting that gun bans will not work because people will always use guns is incredibly flawed. Laws are ultimately and ideally meant to completely halt a behavior or activity, but in reality that doesn't happen. Laws are a deterrent to what is deemed detrimental to the public. Should we not make murder illegal because people will always kill one another? That kind of argument sounds good but when held up to scrutiny, falls apart.

Ban guns and watch as other crimes rise... Once the criminals know it's open season for the law abiding citizens they're going to feast. Tell me when the Cartels and Gangsters stop using Automatic weapons as it is w/o their class III license. You're only preventing a few deaths and few accidents for a future laid out for criminals to take advantage of the citizens. While at the same time a Government that can turn on its people with ease.

Chicago is a prime example of a major gun ban area or even Washington D.C... Being completely surrounded by towns, cities, states and countries that legally (or don't give a damn) allow their citizens to carry weapons. You would have to ban the manufacturing and exportation of every firearm from Canada to Chile in order for a gun ban to work. It didn't work for the alcohol prohibition and it certainly won't work for a Gun ban.

[vinmmo]

As I wrote a while back, I'm confident that as this country continues its urbanization over the course of this century, that by late century public safety will be a larger concern than gun rights, as it has been in every other Western country so far.

After that we have a mechanism to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It's called passing another Amendment that voids it. That is the fate that befell the 18th Amendment (Alchohol prohibition), and I think this is a good case for it. We could even include clarification of the role of the National Guard and the 2006 proposed War Powers Act reforms (the WPA likely being illegal itself), and have it be a well rounded "National Security" Amendment.

I'm well aware right now, this is a non-starter. But I'm not thinking 6 months or 6 years. I'm thinking 60 years. I'm interested in the long game. Making a moral case against gun ownership will take decades to gain sufficient traction to engender a 2nd Amendment voiding. But time and demographics are not on the pro-gun supporters side. Anti-gun laws are popular in cities, even in the US they are popular. If two thirds to three quarters of Americans live in cities, and today's suburbs are tomorrows city centers as urban sprawl continues, and our population increases from 310 million to 430 million in the next fifty years, many of them urban latinos, yeah... I think you'll see decisive movement against guns.

But make no mistake. I'm under no illusion anything besides some minor reforms and some strong but limited state laws anytime soon.

---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 05:10 AM ----------

by the way that's it for me tonight. it's been fun!

So, you want to create the idea that owning a gun is immoral. I posit that inhibiting a man's ability to defend himself without (at least) equally and previously reducing the need to defend himself already is immoral.
Need a sensational example? There's a large angry bear in the room. It wants to hurt you. If I trip you in front of the bear so you can't escape, I am reducing your ability to defend yourself. You're probably dead. If I remove the large angry bear from the room before I trip you, then I'm a jerk because I tripped you, but you're not going to be maimed by a large angry bear.

[Dillon]

I was surprised to see that this thread kind of exploded all of a sudden. Then I read what's being said and how people are deriving that Skroesec suddenly wants to air strike gun owners (when that's not what he said at all) and I realized it's just the pro-gun posters propagating unneeded fear and hate. Pretty par for the course really.

And yes, the country is run by the people still. All of the conspiracy nuts can take their crazy theories elsewhere. Should the majority ever decide that the US should join the rest of the first world in gun regulation (either through banning, or go all the way the other direction like Sweden) then the government will do as the people direct it.

Well, Skroesec has an irrational fear of guns and gun owners. Not sure why. It sounds rather likely that they have never handled or fired a firearm, since most people with said irrational fear never have. Exceptions do exist though, such as Dianne Feinstein, who owned a .357 magnum (maybe still does).

To say that only one political side uses hate and fear and its propagation as a weapon for their purposes is simply sensationalist, and to call it "par for the course" reveals a selective view of the matter, I should think. You're grouping the opposition together as having some sort of irrational one-mindedness, when in reality everyone on both sides of the matter have their own reasons, even if they aren't produced from careful thought and deliberation. Where is the conspiracy, or the theorists that claim it?

[Extrazero8]

Again. Not all forms of violence are guns. Its just that, as my link showed, 90% of civilian casualities in conflicts around the world are from small arms. Thus invalidating your point.

You're ignoring the causes. You only care about your pet issue and the plight of those people are meaningless to you. If you wanted to solve those problems you would be advocating for going after their causes.

Even home-invaders have rights, and do not deserve to be killed on sight. It's crazy to suggest they should be.

I didn't say they lost their rights. However if someone were to break into my home I will use my right to defend myself from them. If they happen to die from that then they should have made better life decisions. I honestly hope that never happens but I don't to do nothing if it does.

More? That relative argument is complicated to make. Are another form of destablization? Absolutely. If anything I think any smart person would say famine, poverity, lack of education, disease, guns, political instability all feed off each other.

We have an almost 1:1 guns to people ratio in this country. Why are we stable while others are not?

No it's a hobby. It isn't making you safe.

It isn't there to make me safe. It's there to respond to a threat.

I think it's disgusting you own one. I'm actually legitimately repulsed.

Good

Why would you own a firearm clone of the weapon that has killed countless US Service members in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The same reason I own a clone of the weapon that our US Service members in Iraq and Afghanistan are using. Home defense.

That was designed by the Soviet Union's state controlled arms manufacturers to be the weapon of choice for third world anti-western insurrection and the main infantry weapon of the Army that would conquer Western Europe?

I'm not sure why that is a question but so what?

You don't have to justify it. But I think the fact you have one is distasteful, embarrassing and you should be ashamed of yourself. I judge you for owning it.

Lol, OK buddy.

I see it as an object of weakness and fear, not a symbol of strength and confidence.

Its neither of those things but alright then.

I think it shows lack of education.

How does owning an inanimate object show any education level? Well.. other than a diploma/degree.

I think it shows backwardness.

Considering its history and length of time in use as a general service weapon I think it shows ingenuity.

Looking upon it is offensive, and the fact you are proud of it I find incredibly sad. In all the universe, that piece of metal, plastic and wood, designed for the purpose of killing other human beings, is what you're proud of?

Well it did cost a fair amount of money when I wasn't making very much. It took about a month of eating mostly ramen noodles and taco bell to save for it. Now I could sell it for about triple what I paid for it.

So yes. I'm proud that my investment is so far paying off and that my small sacrifice did not go to waste.

Other than that, just look at it. It has an elegance that so many rifles made today don't have. The pic doesn't do the wood justice. I refinished it myself and it took a while getting it to how I like it. Also the furniture really feels great when shouldering it. It balances the rifle perfectly for me. That muzzle brake does a great job cutting back the recoil too. Of the AKs that I own, it has to be my favorite for both shooting and aesthetics.

I'm proud of being published before I was 25. You're proud of that? I pity you.

Considering your fear of weapons I pity you.

Just kidding. Good job being published. I'm sure it was for something really important.

No you don't have to justify it. But make no mistake, god willing, one day it will be taken from you.

I doubt it will happen but good luck with your pet project.

Edit: Here you go friend. Family pic.

[Daerio]

One thing I really don't like about this whole gun debate, is that the 'elite' that typically want to ban guns also have next to no need to own one, compared to 'the rest of us.' They aren't living in the kinds of neighborhoods where somebody really might break into your house and do all sorts of violence and harm. If something does happen in their neighborhood? Well, you can bet the cops show up in seconds rather than hours. A lot of them have armed guards/security camping their house, or literally have cops sitting outside. Most of the population doesn't have that security.

They're also in control of what's going on in government, (at least more than the rest of us are) and also don't have to fear the possibility of being targeted by a tyrannical style government, as if that were to happen, they would be the ones with the guns anyway. It's just the rest of us that would have to worry.

There's certainly some hypocrisy to be found in someone who wants guns banned, but also has a cop or armed guard sitting at their mansion.

[Extrazero8]

Damn nice firearm been thinking about picking one up myself.

I read that the Czech make the best ones I need to do more research.

And I would be proud to own one.

I also was published before I was 25. Hold a BA in information technology with a emphasis on military intelligence, and a associates in psychology and another in business.

So just cause your opinion is anti-gun it sure as hell doesn't make you smarter, or better then anyone else on this message board.

Try to find a Zastava PAP with a square back on it. If you can find it the Zastava PAP M77PS is also a great choice and its in 308 NATO.

If you're going to buy a Century International Arms AK build you'll want to look it over first. They have been known to have canted sights.

[Svifnymr]

Damn nice firearm been thinking about picking one up myself.

I had an AMD-65 built up as a pistol, was a fun thing, not very "practical" though. I also converted a Saiga to pistol grip/ side folder, the saiga was quite nice after all that and it'd be "authentic russian", though I never bothered redoing the front handguard since i liked the saiga one.

I also was published before I was 25. Hold a BA in information technology with a emphasis on military intelligence, and a associates in psychology and another in business.

So just cause your opinion is anti-gun it sure as hell doesn't make you smarter, or better then anyone else on this message board.

Most of my regular customers when I worked at a gun shop were educated folks in professions that allowed them to have the money to buy stuff, as it were. The AMD pistol I mentioned, I sold to a judge that just had to have it. The Saiga went to a shooting buddy of mine that's a professor. Plenty of lawyers and doctors also.

So yeah, I don't think pro-gun rights folks are uneducated from my experience. It's just easier to paint the opposition that way to justify things.

[Laize]

Again. Not all forms of violence are guns. Its just that, as my link showed, 90% of civilian casualities in conflicts around the world are from small arms. Thus invalidating your point.


Even home-invaders have rights, and do not deserve to be killed on sight. It's crazy to suggest they should be.


More? That relative argument is complicated to make. Are another form of destablization? Absolutely. If anything I think any smart person would say famine, poverity, lack of education, disease, guns, political instability all feed off each other.


No it's a hobby. It isn't making you safe.




I think it's disgusting you own one. I'm actually legitimately repulsed. Why would you own a firearm clone of the weapon that has killed countless US Service members in Iraq and Afghanistan? That was designed by the Soviet Union's state controlled arms manufacturers to be the weapon of choice for third world anti-western insurrection and the main infantry weapon of the Army that would conquer Western Europe?

You don't have to justify it. But I think the fact you have one is distasteful, embarrassing and you should be ashamed of yourself. I judge you for owning it. I see it as an object of weakness and fear, not a symbol of strength and confidence. I think it shows lack of education. I think it shows backwardness. Looking upon it is offensive, and the fact you are proud of it I find incredibly sad. In all the universe, that piece of metal, plastic and wood, designed for the purpose of killing other human beings, is what you're proud of? I'm proud of being published before I was 25. You're proud of that? I pity you.

No you don't have to justify it. But make no mistake, god willing, one day it will be taken from you.

I take comfort in knowing that fanatics like you are the minority and shall remain so for the foreseeable future.

I mean jesus christ, even the Scandinavian nations let you have guns.

In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.

[Zhangfei]

I take comfort in knowing that fanatics like you are the minority and shall remain so for the foreseeable future.

I mean jesus christ, even the Scandinavian nations let you have guns.

In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.

It doesn't, but there you go.

[Laize]

It doesn't, but there you go.

I could have sworn the UK banned everything except extremely simple, single-round hunting rifles (Which no one in their right mind considers a "gun". Those are toys fit for 10 year olds to operate in most countries).

[Zhangfei]

I could have sworn the UK banned everything except extremely simple, single-round hunting rifles (Which no one in their right mind considers a "gun". Those are toys fit for 10 year olds to operate in most countries).

Are they? Most countries are Satanic hellholes of vicious slaughter, so I agree.

But shotguns are also for kids? Right?

If you knew we didn't outright ban guys, why lie and say we did outright ban guns? Anyone who wants to hunt or practice shooting can do so.

[Extrazero8]

But shotguns are also for kids? Right?

Remington 870 Youth
http://www.basspro.com/Remington-870...duct/10217886/

[Laize]

And you know what I REALLY take comfort in?

The parts to make a FAR more deadly gun are available from everyday materials and simple enough to make that anyone with a working understanding of electrical circuitry can do it.

Don't believe me? Either a railgun or coilgun can be made with nothing but wire (or metal rods, in the case of a railgun), a conductive/magnetic projectile and an electrical source.

[Zhangfei]

Remington 870 Youth
http://www.basspro.com/Remington-870...duct/10217886/

I laughed!

And you know what I REALLY take comfort in?

That you were just caught lying and won't apologise?

[Laize]

Are they? Most countries are Satanic hellholes of vicious slaughter, so I agree.

But shotguns are also for kids? Right?

If you knew we didn't outright ban guys, why lie and say we did outright ban guns? Anyone who wants to hunt or practice shooting can do so.

I first fired a .22 caliber rifle when I was in summer camp. I'm not sure I was even 10 at the time.

It's a gun in the same sense that an airsoft is a gun.

They're bolt action and aren't going to kill anything. I mean I don't even think you can use them to hunt deer in the US... the projectile isn't damaging enough to kill instantly.

If you want to consider a .22 a gun, be my guest.. but I won't "apologize" just because I view a .22 as more of a BB-gun 2.0 than an actual firearm and you view it as a legitimate weapon.

[Zhangfei]

I first fired a .22 caliber rifle when I was in summer camp. I'm not sure I was even 10 at the time.

It's a gun in the same sense that an airsoft is a gun.

They're bolt action and aren't going to kill anything. I mean I don't even think you can use them to hunt deer in the US... the projectile isn't damaging enough to kill instantly.

It's still a gun and legal - along with shotguns.

Could you simply apologise outright and say not all guns are banned in the UK? They're not. You've acknowledged they're not. It'd make you a man to do so.