Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[GreatOak]

In what way? Its not like we aren't combating drugs here...

It's the primary driver of violence here

[Catta]

It's the primary driver of violence here

Because you have a bad prison system and an overzealous judiciary system. Both things that can be changed.

In the end most people join gangs and sell drugs because they cant get out of their situation. They can in my country where education and healthcare is free of charge.

[Deleted]

Uhhhh... actually I was pointing out that Germany's Weimar Republic was a Constitutional government very much like ours. Hitler was democratically elected to power.

And if they had guns he would not get elected? Oh please, he was loved by the people since the start and he was praised. So no guns would have not solved the problem there and won't save any "tyranny" problem you think you might have in US. It's the opposite, citizens with guns, rallying under a non-elected ruler, acting like a militia. And it's easy done via religon, or any group with an agenda that is concentrated. That's what you do have to fear about, not about the government turning into facism and one ruler.

[Grizzly Willy]

Because you have a bad prison system and an overzealous judiciary system. Both things that can be changed.

In the end most people join gangs and sell drugs because they cant get out of their situation. They can in my country where education and healthcare is free of charge.

And I wholeheartedly agree with doing this and ending the war on drugs. Stop making it profitable to be a criminal, and make sure that everybody has access to education and are free from worrying about their health.

[Laize]

In what way? Its not like we aren't combating drugs here...

Imagine you're where you are and everything is the same.

Now imagine Germany, instead of being awesome, is a developing nation where the rule of law is tenuous and these guys make about $30 billion/year running drugs.

They come into your country, seed gangs, traffic drugs and weapons and oppose attempts to police their actions with extreme prejudice.

So unless you're bordering a country that's run by criminals your "drug war" isn't anything like our Drug War.

Because ours is pretty much a literal war.

[Svifnymr]

You just proved my point. How many bullets do you need to take out ONE mass shooter. You don't need as many as he has. One clip would be enough to take out one guy. Be it 10-15 rounds, if you know how to use a gun you can take him out. Unless he's using body armour, then you might as well run.

Uh, one Defender = SomeONE defending themselves, not that there is only one person attacking. You didn't even address what I said, the simple fact that the only thing you're trying to prevent with a magazine ban is the extremely rare mass shooting, in which case the shooter is prepared with extra magazines regardless of capacity, vs a self defense situation wherein the person is likely to have 1 or 2 loaded magazines. If they only need 4 bullets, fine, if they need 15, so be it. Why limit them for some feel good measure that will not affect the mass shooter anyway?

[Laize]

And if they had guns he would not get elected? Oh please, he was loved by the people since the start and he was praised. So no guns would have not solved the problem there and won't save any "tyranny" problem you think you might have in US. It's the opposite, citizens with guns, rallying under a non-elected ruler, acting like a militia. And it's easy done via religon, or any group with an agenda that is concentrated. That's what you do have to fear about, not about the government turning into facism and one ruler.

He was loved by them for like the first year or so... you know... when he was actually fixing Germany's problems?

Then he started rescinding German civil liberties...

[Deleted]

He was loved by them for like the first year or so... you know... when he was actually fixing Germany's problems?

Then he started rescinding German civil liberties...

He was loved even past that, regular german law abiding citizen joined in his vision almost until the end, hence young german nazi, people weaving and considering to serve and protect Germany, add the war also on that. It sucked for his target citizens, as in jews and gypsies but then no guns could have saved them since they were the minority while the majority and the government was agaist them.

So no guns do nothing in case of "tyranny" or in any case where you are in the minority. Your oponent, the government/the majority will outgun you or have better grade. Still does not justify owning a gun, hence why the 2rd amendment is not viable.

But guns and having the options to easy form a militia in times of peace and in a democratic 21th century country scares the shit out of me more then not having guns or barly any and being at the "mercy" of the state and the police force. Like I said before, that's how tyranny can get in the US, from within and not from the government.

[Svifnymr]

He was loved even past that, regular german law abiding citizen joined in his vision almost until the end, hence young german nazi, people weaving and considering to serve and protect Germany, add the war also on that. It sucked for his target citizens, as in jews and gypsies but then no guns could have saved them since they were the minority while the majority and the government was agaist them.

I don't really know the numbers, so don't take this as me citing facts or whatnot. But, I'd think the difference in the Nazi regime was more that he had the PEOPLE behind him, not a military that controlled the people. He didn't disarm his loyal people, he directed their emotions against his specific targets. Again, it would seem to come down to percentages I guess. If 90% of the US was against guns, the 10% wouldn't stand a chance, military or not. I mean, what percentage of Germany was supportive of the "Blame The Other Guy" party and would willingly turn in their neighbor for being a gay half gypsy half jew to be removed to someplace "more appropriate" for them?

Yeah, we've come a ways since then, so the current "we don't want your foreigners using our healthcare/ welfare!" stuff from any number of developed countries mirrors that to some extent, doesn't it? No one is saying "put them in cages/ furnaces", but most of the Germans probably didn't think "that family of jews next door was moved" meant they were moved to a death camp, did they?

But I'm not saying that US civilians would take their guns and form up ranks to fight the Air Robotic Deployment Force or something. For myself, I think it's just a matter of "does this raise the cost of a totalitarian government to the point they'd rather work around people instead of through them" sort of deal.

[Dillon]

I never said it was fair or logical.

I want to win. I don't want to be nice. I want anti-gun people to fight pro-gun people on so many fronts, and so hard, it's utterly exhausting and they lose because they can't stop and win every fight.

I want to end a culture of a gun and take everyone's tools of death away, and I don't want to be nice about it. You may not like my position, but there it is. I view the gun for what it is, and I view their owners for what they are. And I want to deprive them of their toys and smile while doing it.

If you don't want to be nice, you're more than welcome to try and take it.

Or, maybe we could go shooting sometime.

[Laize]

He was loved even past that, regular german law abiding citizen joined in his vision almost until the end, hence young german nazi, people weaving and considering to serve and protect Germany, add the war also on that. It sucked for his target citizens, as in jews and gypsies but then no guns could have saved them since they were the minority while the majority and the government was agaist them.

So no guns do nothing in case of "tyranny" or in any case where you are in the minority. Your oponent, the government/the majority will outgun you or have better grade. Still does not justify owning a gun, hence why the 2rd amendment is not viable.

But guns and having the options to easy form a militia in times of peace and in a democratic 21th century country scares the shit out of me more then not having guns or barly any and being at the "mercy" of the state and the police force. Like I said before, that's how tyranny can get in the US, from within and not from the government.

Ok. I'm done with you. If you think it's your place to force defeatist beliefs on others, have at it. There are between 75 and 100 million people in this country who'd laugh at you though.

[Grizzly Willy]

If you don't want to be nice, you're more than welcome to try and take it.

Or, maybe we could go shooting sometime.

Oh please, that's so barbaric.

[Templar 331]

Uh, one Defender = SomeONE defending themselves, not that there is only one person attacking. You didn't even address what I said, the simple fact that the only thing you're trying to prevent with a magazine ban is the extremely rare mass shooting, in which case the shooter is prepared with extra magazines regardless of capacity, vs a self defense situation wherein the person is likely to have 1 or 2 loaded magazines. If they only need 4 bullets, fine, if they need 15, so be it. Why limit them for some feel good measure that will not affect the mass shooter anyway?

The second part of your last post has nothing to do with this discussion. The point I'm trying to get across is how many bullets does the average joe need? If every other guy has a concealed pistol with 10-15 rounds and one crazed lunitic has a banded weapon with 30-100 rounds, how many shots does it take to kill him? In a one vs. one senario, you don't need more bullets than the other guy. In a one crazy vs. everyone, you only need a few bullets to kill the one crazy. If you are in a situation where you had multiple assailants each with his own gun, what good would having more than 10 bullets do you when they are shooting you? Nothing. This ban on mag size is as much a "feel good" messure as is an unlimited mag size is. You feel better with everyone using mags that carry more than 15 bullets, I feel better with everyone using mags with less than 15 bullets. But it makes more sense(objective I know) to limit EVERYONES mag size. And if the criminal has a bigger mag? Doesn't matter when someone shoots him. But it does matter in how many shots he gets off. If all mags bigger than 15 bullets were confiscated, destroyed, and banded from manufacture world wide, they would be harder to get. It is a pipe dream, but it's a step in the right direction.

[Roelath]

Ok, you just threw me off for a second. I agree with conceal and carry pistols. A pistol is the proper tool to defend yourself in that situation.

Can I ask where you grew up at? And why didn't you carry if your life was in danger so often?

An Assault Rifle is a proper weapon in defense against the State which is the reason why US citizens are allowed access to them.

Haverhill MA. Because I wasn't old enough to carry a firearm.

[Svifnymr]

The second part of your last post has nothing to do with this discussion. The point I'm trying to get across is how many bullets does the average joe need? If every other guy has a concealed pistol with 10-15 rounds and one crazed lunitic has a banded weapon with 30-100 rounds, how many shots does it take to kill him? In a one vs. one senario, you don't need more bullets than the other guy. In a one crazy vs. everyone, you only need a few bullets to kill the one crazy. If you are in a situation where you had multiple assailants each with his own gun, what good would having more than 10 bullets do you when they are shooting you? Nothing. This ban on mag size is as much a "feel good" messure as is an unlimited mag size is. You feel better with everyone using mags that carry more than 15 bullets, I feel better with everyone using mags with less than 15 bullets. But it makes more sense(objective I know) to limit EVERYONES mag size. And if the criminal has a bigger mag? Doesn't matter when someone shoots him. But it does matter in how many shots he gets off. If all mags bigger than 15 bullets were confiscated, destroyed, and banded from manufacture world wide, they would be harder to get. It is a pipe dream, but it's a step in the right direction.

I believe artificially limiting the capacity of a handgun to less than what the handgun naturally holds via the space of the grip should be justified before being enacted. It's going to adversely affect the defensive shooter more, less room for error in a stressful situation with his life on the line. You have arbitrarily decide that because a situation usually only involves a few rounds, that we should enact a hard limit on the peaceful.

The trade off is that in one of the very rare mass shooting situations, the guy will have more magazines and reload more often, in the hopes that at some point someone will take one of the breaks to stop the guy. Assuming the person that's going to stop the criminal has a gun and doesn't miss.

You refuse to see any defensive scenario in which a person would need more than 11 rounds? Even in your wildest imagination, you can't see such a defensive scenario occurring say, 5 times a year? Thus making it much more likely to use a Standard Capacity magazine much more than the occurrence of a mass shooting?

And again, what is wrong with a magazine limit that says "you can't have a magazine that extends more than 1/2 inch below the magazine well"? 15-17 for handguns would be normal, An AR15 would be 20 rounds. An AK47 doesn't have much of a magwell, nor does a Mini14, so they'd be screwed at like 5 rounds probably, but I'm just using it as an example. Why is "ten rounds" reasonable?

[Dillon]

Oh please, that's so barbaric.

What is? I invited him to take it, or I could take him shooting and see what he thinks of it, since most anti-gun people have never even fired a gun. I don't see the problem.

[ugotownd]

....huh!? o_O

Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber, the mafia that plants car-bombs and countless others are laughing at this very minute at your ignorance.

It's actually easier to manufacture a bomb in your home than a gun. People don't often use them because they don't need to - they can use a gun instead. Greater chance of surviving. Give everybody a gun and they'll simply look into what can counter a gun... and a bomb is one of those very things.

Funny how when a progun person compares the deaths a bomb can make all the antiguns jump out to say omg no you can't make a bomb all the materials are regulated and they would know. Now you come along and make it like every person on the street has a bomb in there pocket no one says shit. Amazes me.

[FusedMass]

What is? I invited him to take it, or I could take him shooting and see what he thinks of it, since most anti-gun people have never even fired a gun. I don't see the problem.

You kind of people that talk like that Over my cold dead fingers or that thread a week ago that had a banner in Texas that Read Come and take it don't act so native your pretending your unsure of what the person thought you meant. In fact a author of a book on guns was murdered by an Iraqi War Vet..at the shooting range.

If guns make everything and everyone so much safer. Using that logic solely the gun range would've been safest place in the world. This took place in Texas where some of the most relaxed gun laws in the United States

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2611789.html

[Catta]

And I wholeheartedly agree with doing this and ending the war on drugs. Stop making it profitable to be a criminal, and make sure that everybody has access to education and are free from worrying about their health.

I mean, we still have low lifes and the usual scumbags. We have gangs. Albeit not so violent that they cower the police into submission. But I am confident that it would be much worse if people had little chance to change their lot in life so dramatically as they can now.

[mvaliz]

What is? I invited him to take it, or I could take him shooting and see what he thinks of it, since most anti-gun people have never even fired a gun. I don't see the problem.

A poster earlier said it best.

If it's a choice between preventing me from having fun at a shooting range or saving 9,000 lives a year, I'm going with the 9,000 lives per year.