Gun Control

[Razkul]

PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS THREAD TO BE USED AS A "FLAME WAR" OR TROLLING

Do you believe guns should be illegal or legal?

Personally I believe they should be legalized. Making something illegal does not magically make them go away. People who legally own guns are not out shooting people / being dumb with guns. Making guns illegal would only remove guns for the law following citizens who take classes to own and operate a gun. Leaving people defenseless against criminals. Look at drugs in America. Drugs are ILLEGAL but yet the government spends BILLIONS of dollars trying to get rid of illegal drugs. And even before guns were invented, violent crimes have always been committed. Whats next outlawing knives?? Where does it stop?

So Id like to hear what everyone thinks about the issue, and if you agree or disagree with me and for what reasons!

[jahasafrat]

Guns should not be outlawed. There should be some amount of control, like most states prohibit violent offenders and felons from possessing or using firearms. But as far as straight up banning guns in the United States, that wouldn't help anything. I'd keep my guns, my state doesn't require them (neither rifles nor handguns) to be registered. And of course criminals would keep their guns.

[Razkul]

Guns should not be outlawed.

Could you elaborate on why they shouldn't

[Kulanae]

I don't see much use for handguns other than killing people. Yes certain forms of hunting require a backup handgun, but by an large handguns are only good for one thing......killing humans.

For home defense, the average person would be much better served by a shotgun. I think there should be a federal tax on amunition to curb the frivilous use of guns. You certainly cannot get rid of the guns....but you can control the ammo quite easily.
I did not vote in the poll because it is simply too broad of a question.

[Kasierith]

I don't see much use for handguns other than killing people. Yes certain forms of hunting require a backup handgun, but by an large handguns are only good for one thing......killing humans.

For home defense, the average person would be much better served by a shotgun. I think there should be a federal tax on amunition to curb the frivilous use of guns. You certainly cannot get rid of the guns....but you can control the ammo quite easily.
I did not vote in the poll because it is simply too broad of a question.

Shotguns work well until you consider that you're shooting within the confines of your property. A shotgun can do considerable damage to a house. Also, ammo is really, really easy to get... taxing it won't hurt crime related gun violence much, but limit the access of people buying it legitimately. Bills aren't passed in a millisecond; if any legislation like that pops up, ammo production would skyrocket as people try to produce as much as they can legally before it is passed through

[Jounichi1983]

Shotguns work well until you consider that you're shooting within the confines of your property. A shotgun can do considerable damage to a house. Also, ammo is really, really easy to get... taxing it won't hurt crime related gun violence much, but limit the access of people buying it legitimately. Bills aren't passed in a millisecond; if any legislation like that pops up, ammo production would skyrocket as people try to produce as much as they can legally before it is passed through

If you're primary concern is the defense of your home and family, damaging the walls and doors with a round of buck shot is a minor concern. There's just no comparisson, and to suggest so is an insult to anyone whom either owns a shotgun for home defense, or is considering owning a shotgun.

[Kasierith]

If you're primary concern is the defense of your home and family, damaging the walls and doors with a round of buck shot is a minor concern. There's just no comparisson, and to suggest so is an insult to anyone whom either owns a shotgun for home defense, or is considering owning a shotgun.

Alright, if you want to go into the logistics of it... shotguns are harder to handle in close quarters. You need a length of clearance to level a shotgun, which is very often limited by things such as doors and walls. If you go around a corner and bump right into someone, you aren't going to be able to use it. The kick is also a lot worse; if you miss, it takes more time to line up another shot if you haven't practiced a lot more. Another thing to consider is that if you shoot a high powered gun, and you don't have dense walls, you could shoot through the wall and hurt someone else (this is an especially large concern in apartment. Also, though this might not be many people's concerns in a home invasion situation, shotguns are far more lethal. If you don't believe in killing someone, even in self defense, a handgun is much more capable of injuring someone but not killing them (quite a few handguns can't even kill a person with a shot to the head)

[robzombay]

In my eyes gun control is a good idea, not to ban guns or certain kinds, but certain people from having them for the record I am an owner of 6+ firearms.

---------- Post added 2012-03-15 at 06:53 PM ----------

That is irrational shotguns do not kick hard. If your perception of guns is from battlefield and COD then please just don't talk about guns. You don't understand, also close quarters gun fights are resolved in ~3 seconds.

[Kasierith]

That is irrational shotguns do not kick hard. If your perception of guns is from battlefield and COD then please just don't talk about guns. You don't understand, also close quarters gun fights are resolved in ~3 seconds.

I've gone hunting using a shotgun, as well as plenty of time practicing with them. Compared to a handgun, there is plenty of kick.. especially since the best way to brace it is unwieldy when moving around inside

Also, isn't your assumption that everyone can just point a gun and end it in about 3 seconds essentially an aspect of the media? You're assuming everyone is going to shoot without any hesitation and is going to be able to sneak up and take out people who are physically fit enough to be willing to break into a house... and the majority of home invasions are done by multiple people at the same time, so..

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Guns are easily concealable. I don't care if a knife can be used as a weapon too, guns are still a weapon that is much more effective and deadly. I don't think they should be outlawed, but I think that there should be much more control on them. I'm sorry, but when a 4 year old can find his fathers gun in a safe place a shoot a classmate, there are some issues.

[Deleted]

People who legally own guns are not out shooting people / being dumb with guns

I stopped reading after that. Of course people who legally own guns are killing other people. Not every murder is down to an illegal gun owner.

I'm glad I live in a country where we have strict gun laws. I'm glad I live in a country with a relatively low murder rate. I'm glad I live in a country where I don't have to live in fear of people breaking into my home with weapons. I feel very sorry for anybody who doesn't.

[PizzaSHARK]

Alright, if you want to go into the logistics of it... shotguns are harder to handle in close quarters. You need a length of clearance to level a shotgun, which is very often limited by things such as doors and walls. If you go around a corner and bump right into someone, you aren't going to be able to use it. The kick is also a lot worse; if you miss, it takes more time to line up another shot if you haven't practiced a lot more. Another thing to consider is that if you shoot a high powered gun, and you don't have dense walls, you could shoot through the wall and hurt someone else (this is an especially large concern in apartment. Also, though this might not be many people's concerns in a home invasion situation, shotguns are far more lethal. If you don't believe in killing someone, even in self defense, a handgun is much more capable of injuring someone but not killing them (quite a few handguns can't even kill a person with a shot to the head)

For home defense, you'd want the shotgun loaded with birdshot, not buckshot. Neither variety has a particularly high chance of penetrating walls or people relative to rifles or even large-caliber handguns, and birdshot has even less of a chance. However, birdshot would not possess the stopping power of buckshot - so it'd be a tradeoff. I guess you'd want buckshot if you have to fight off a demon-possessed human intent on murdering everyone in your small little town, or some freak is hopped up on PCP, but I'd guess birdshot'd be fine for pretty much everything else.

In regards to size, it can be a concern if you're living in a small house, I guess. You could install an after-market stock or customize the default stock to reduce the overall length of the weapon in a legal way, however. Shotguns do not kick particularly hard relative to other guns.

Keep in mind that the very first thing you learn about guns from any decent, qualified instructor is that when you are firing your weapon, you are shooting to kill. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Additionally, while there are reports about bullets from guns (typically a small-caliber handgun, like a .22) literally bouncing off someone's head without doing much more than a flesh wound (your forehead is surprisingly dense at certain places)... this is a head shot, with a very small caliber handgun.

In a home defense scenario, you would be aiming for center mass. It's the most reliable and easiest target, and I don't think the average junkie or cat burglar is gonna be wearing a Kevlar vest. Even a very small caliber handgun will have no problems penetrating a person's chest. Hell, you can usually penetrate the skin with a quality BB gun or pellet gun.

My personal recommendation for someone wanting a weapon for house defense would be a relatively small-caliber revolver - probably a .38 Special. Revolvers are easy to clean and operate, are generally easily available, and .38 Special is a caliber that's both cheap and plentiful, allowing plenty of opportunity to take the revolver to the range to train with it. A .38 Special is also less likely to penetrate walls (and people) than larger calibers like .357 Magnum or common semiautomatic calibers like 9mm or .45 ACP.

EDIT: In regard's the OP's question: there's no point in outlawing guns and there's limited evidence that even gun registration programs aren't particularly effective at doing much more than wasting taxpayer money. I wouldn't oppose stricter requirements and regulations regarding CCW permits, but gun ownership? No way.

---------- Post added 2012-03-16 at 12:07 AM ----------

I stopped reading after that. Of course people who legally own guns are killing other people. Not every murder is down to an illegal gun owner.

I'm glad I live in a country where we have strict gun laws. I'm glad I live in a country with a relatively low murder rate. I'm glad I live in a country where I don't have to live in fear of people breaking into my home with weapons. I feel very sorry for anybody who doesn't.

Wait, what? You really think a criminal couldn't get a gun in your country because they aren't readily available to the law-abiding citizenry?

Additionally, violent crimes committed with guns - at least in the US - are almost always used with illegal weapons.

[Sunseeker]

Guns should be regulated, not outlawed. Testing, tracking, limits on what kinds, how many you can own, these are all fine ways to regulate firearms.

[PizzaSHARK]

Guns should be regulated, not outlawed. Testing, tracking, limits on what kinds, how many you can own, these are all fine ways to regulate firearms.

There have been some reports that gun registration might not really reduce the incidence of gun-related violent crimes, and instead really just waste money. Like most gun-related stats, they aren't conclusive though, because every damn country and county and state has their own ways of reporting and defining crimes.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Assault weapons and anything of the sort - illegal unless you have a special permit that is extremely difficult to obtain. Basically you'd have to be a serious gun collector to get one and there would be strict limitations on how many/what you can have.

Weapons for hunting and self-defense (think handguns, basically what the police might use) allowed but with regulations. You wouldn't be able to own a whole ton of handguns and you'd be tested on safety. Prior violent crimes of a certain degree would count against you. Stuff like a random fight in a bar wouldn't really count against you, but stuff like a planned assault would.

I'm still working on this part: Twice a year you'd need to present your gun to the proper authorities to ensure that you hadn't sold it or anything like that. If you wished to sell your gun to another person, they would need to pass the same tests and undergo the same scrutiny you had at the time when you purchased the weapon and then you'd transfer any relevant paperwork etc. to them.

[Deleted]

Wait, what? You really think a criminal couldn't get a gun in your country because they aren't readily available to the law-abiding citizenry?

Additionally, violent crimes committed with guns - at least in the US - are almost always used with illegal weapons.

In 2010 there were 8775 murders committed with firearms. If even 5% (which is the most conservative estimate I can find) of these involve legally owned handguns that's still 439 murders a year. The idea that people who legally own guns aren't killing anybody is therefore a complete fallacy.

Also, could you please direct me to where I said anything of the sort related to your first point? I'm sure some crazy could get a gun, however I am thankful I live in a country where ALL the crazies don't have guns, legally or otherwise =)

[Sunseeker]

There have been some reports that gun registration might not really reduce the incidence of gun-related violent crimes, and instead really just waste money. Like most gun-related stats, they aren't conclusive though, because every damn country and county and state has their own ways of reporting and defining crimes.

Because the vast majority of gun-crimes are committed with stolen guns. Though I'm sure it certainly keeps firearms out of the general mentally unstable population.

Registration should be tied into how often and what kinds of gun-safety testing you're required to undergo. It's not really a crime issue so much as it's a personal safety, responsibility, and statistical tracking issue. It's like ilvl. It shows what you're capable of, but not really what you can do. Anyone with a gun could go on a murderous rampage, but people who are trained in gun safety and responsibility are certainly less likely to. And that's what registration should accomplish, tracking for means of testing for safety and responsibility.

[DavidGX]

If you outlawed guns, only the outlaws would have guns. You either get rid of them all, at once (which I would support, btw) or you don't get rid of any. It doesn't work anywhere in between.

[PizzaSHARK]

I'm still working on this part: Twice a year you'd need to present your gun to the proper authorities to ensure that you hadn't sold it or anything like that. If you wished to sell your gun to another person, they would need to pass the same tests and undergo the same scrutiny you had at the time when you purchased the weapon and then you'd transfer any relevant paperwork etc. to them.

Hunting waterfowl from a boat. Dropped gun in the lake. No gun to present to the authorities, but also no proof that gun is gone.

[GW2lacky]

No, I don't think they should be outlawed.

For home defense, you'd want the shotgun loaded with birdshot, not buckshot. Neither variety has a particularly high chance of penetrating walls or people relative to rifles or even large-caliber handguns, and birdshot has even less of a chance. However, birdshot would not possess the stopping power of buckshot - so it'd be a tradeoff. I guess you'd want buckshot if you have to fight off a demon-possessed human intent on murdering everyone in your small little town, or some freak is hopped up on PCP, but I'd guess birdshot'd be fine for pretty much everything else.

As an alternative...I use wax slugs. I've been impressed with the results with the shooting I've done. You get the initial punch of a slug with a complete outward energy transfer of the round after impact. I've shot it at meat my bro-in-law gave me and its like having an M80 go off on the inside a tri-tip roast (for the record, the meat was bad...otherwise I would have gladly eaten it...my bro-in-law owns a butcher shop and he'll save me the stuff no one will buy if I ask nicely).

Over penetration is non-issue since it loses its energy so fast after the initial impact.




Here is some buckshot vs birdshot testing for penetration with some good pics some random guy on the internet did (page 3 and 4).