Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

Except that's an assumption drawn under false pretenses. There are millions of guns in European countries, too, and in some cases they are subject to less restrictions than in the US - there might be no absurd assault weapons law, for instance, or no 20/10 magazine restrictions, or both. Sure, the overall number of guns is lower because it's a lot difficult to get the appropriate licenses; the background checks are merciless, the psychiatric evaluations very thorough, one has to attend courses both theorical and practical and pass an exam etc., but "gun control" does not mean "no guns". The regions in which I live and work, in particular, have two of the highest numbers of guns per household in the whole of Europe, and it's one of the safest to live in as well. Coincidence?

And I can assure you that whatever the number of guns per household is, the US has easily 10 times more guns. And add to that zero precautions as to who purchases a gun.

- - - Updated - - -

It is for myself. And I do not care what other countries do in regards to them allowing their citizens to have firearms. Their country, their business. And you do know a victim of a violent attack, does not care about statistics or how many others have not had a attack on them.

Here in the US, the Constitutional right to keep and carry firearms, is the only reason I need to exercise that right. It insures such right is not based on popular opinion or some single judge. And yes, it has been amended down thru the years and can still be. But I am not aware of any Bill of Rights being taken away. Only adding more citizens to be covered by it. And since your are not a US citizen, your opinion is nothing more than that and has no bearing on it's effectiveness here. Meanwhile, I get to exercise my opinion every day.

So does several other illegal drugs make you feel good. Apart from weed ( which should be legal for medical applications ), they all are illegal for good reasons and yes, do destroy many lives. The illegal dealers of the hard core drugs, in my opinion, should be executed. Because for all practical reasons, they are mass murderers.

Studies have shown that cocaine use speeds up HIV infection. According to research, cocaine impairs immune cell function and promotes reproduction of the HIV virus. Research also suggests that people who use cocaine and are infected with HIV may be more susceptible to contracting other viruses, such as hepatitis C, a virus that affects the liver https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio...gfacts/cocaine

I can never understand this. Just as I cannot agree with religious extremists who blindly follow their texts, I cannot understand Americans who blindly worship the forefathers and the constitution as the word of Gods.

To me, it's all about pragmatism. All statistics show that the US is the most dangerous western nation in the world, and the correlation between this and amount of guns is undisputable. And there's not much more to it.

But we will never agree, good conversation though!

[Coolthulhu]

And I can assure you that whatever the number of guns per household is, the US has easily 10 times more guns. And add to that zero precautions as to who purchases a gun.

Three to four times more than many EU countries actually; again, not everywhere in the old continent things are as restrictive as in the UK. Regardless of numbers though I've already mentioned both of your points and I don't see how they'd invalidate my observations.

[Ghostpanther]

And I can assure you that whatever the number of guns per household is, the US has easily 10 times more guns. And add to that zero precautions as to who purchases a gun.

- - - Updated - - -



I can never understand this. Just as I cannot agree with religious extremists who blindly follow their texts, I cannot understand Americans who blindly worship the forefathers and the constitution as the word of Gods.

To me, it's all about pragmatism. All statistics show that the US is the most dangerous western nation in the world, and the correlation between this and amount of guns is undisputable. And there's not much more to it.

But we will never agree, good conversation though!

You are wrong. There are several restrictions on who can buy or possess firearms. Many thousands are turned down each year across the nation who tried to purchase a firearm or get a conceal carry license. The one big issue we have is a lack of stronger enforcement of the laws. And failures by the authorities to follow up on those who should not have any. Such as the Fla school shooter and the Texas church one, for 2 examples.

*https://www.statista.com/statistics/...eck-in-the-us/ From 1998 - 2018, over 1 million failed background checks according to the statistics.

You are misled. For one, they allowed slavery to exist. So they were for certain, not perfect. But they got it right about most things.

Western nations? Conveniently leaving out some countries because it fits your agenda better? There are a lot of places in the US which have lots of firearms, yet have low violent crimes rates that rival some European nations. It is in isolated sections of the country which have the highest. And those have much more other factors at play then the number of firearms. Gangs associated with illegal drugs is one major factor.

[shimerra]

You are misled. For one, they allowed slavery to exist. So they were for certain, not perfect. But they got it right about most things.

Western nations? Conveniently leaving out some countries because it fits your agenda better? There are a lot of places in the US which have lots of firearms, yet have low violent crimes rates that rival some European nations. It is in isolated sections of the country which have the highest. And those have much more other factors at play then the number of firearms. Gangs associated with illegal drugs is one major factor.

Yes places where there are 50 guns and 1 person per 10 square miles. Way to miss the forest for the trees.

You talk about a number of factors and then you immediately ignore a bunch of factors that don't fit your narrative.

[Vankrys]

You are wrong. There are several restrictions on who can buy or possess firearms. The one big issue we have is enforcement of the laws. And failures by the authorities to follow up on those who should not have any. Such as the Fla school shooter and the Texas church one, for 2 examples.

You are misled. For one, they allowed slavery to exist. So they were for certain, not perfect. But they got it right about most things.

Western nations? Conveniently leaving out some countries because it fits your agenda better? There are a lot of places in the US which have lots of firearms, yet have low violent crimes rates that rival some European nations. It is in isolated sections of the country which have the highest. And those have much more other factors at play then the number of firearms. Gangs associated with illegal drugs is one major factor.

context is everything

population density, wild untamed continent, nation insecurity, low gun technology, all of these have changed over 2 century.

You said it yourself, not everything that was proclaimed during that period was perfect, mistakes and misjudgment were made. You talked about slavery, we could have lack of equality between gender (woman suffrage), freedom of sexual orientation, medical procedure (abortion) etc...

You chose to believe that the 2nd amendment was however perfect, although many factors cited above could be argue that the context has so dramatically changed, it no longer is right.

Clear case of cherry picking the amendment you like best.

[Ghostpanther]

context is everything

population density, wild untamed continent, nation insecurity, low gun technology, all of these have changed over 2 century.

You said it yourself, not everything that was proclaimed during that period was perfect, mistakes and misjudgment were made. You talked about slavery, we could have lack of equality between gender (woman suffrage), freedom of sexual orientation, medical procedure (abortion) etc...

You chose to believe that the 2nd amendment was however perfect, although many factors cited above could be argue that the context has so dramatically changed, it no longer is right.

Clear case of cherry picking the amendment you like best.

Yes, I believe the fundamental right to protect myself with a firearm is for certain, still applicable for today. Same as freedom of religion, speech, etc. Nothing has changed to make those non applicable for today.

[Vankrys]

Yes, I believe the fundamental right to protect myself with a firearm is for certain, still applicable for today. Same as freedom of religion, speech, etc. Nothing has changed to make those non applicable for today.

a lot have changed. Vigilantism is not the norm, or even legal.

Nowadays, you have laws, police, court. You have a justice system and multiple law enforcement agency. A lot have changed since the 18th and 19th century.

[Ghostpanther]

a lot have changed. Vigilantism is not the norm, or even legal.

Nowadays, you have laws, police, court. You have a justice system and multiple law enforcement agency. A lot have changed since the 18th and 19th century.

Sorry, but when it takes the police a average of 8 mins to respond to a violent attack on a person, nothing has changed as far as the need to defend myself. Defending yourself from a deadly attack is not vigilantism. And actually, more murders go unsolved than they did over 40 years ago. According to what I read lately. Until humans can create a non lethal 90%+ effective weapon to stop a criminal, I will continue to use a firearm for such.

[Vankrys]

Sorry, but when it takes the police a average of 8 mins to respond to a violent attack on a person, nothing has changed as far as the need to defend myself. Defending yourself from a deadly attack is not vigilantism. And actually, more murders go unsolved than they did over 40 years ago. According to what I read lately. Until humans can create a non lethal 90%+ effective weapon to stop a criminal, I will continue to use a firearm for such.

hand gun or long gun.

Because carrying a long gun just in case you might need it for self defense seems over the top to me. The title of this thread is about assault weapons.

[Ghostpanther]

hand gun or long gun.

Because carrying a long gun just in case you might need it for self defense seems over the top to me. The title of this thread is about assault weapons.

A long gun sucks for conceal carry and in some cases, can be too restrictive because of the length of the weapon. But they have certain advantages over a handgun. For one, accuracy and another, increased ammo capacity of larger calibers.

And this thread has changed from discussion on assault rifles to gun control in general. You are welcome.

[nacixems]

hand gun or long gun.

Because carrying a long gun just in case you might need it for self defense seems over the top to me. The title of this thread is about assault weapons.

thats NOT the title of this thread! its a stupid poll that was put it.

[Citizen T]

thats NOT the title of this thread! its a stupid poll that was put it.

The title was changed when it was designated as the Gun Control Megathread

[Roxinius]

a lot have changed. Vigilantism is not the norm, or even legal.

Nowadays, you have laws, police, court. You have a justice system and multiple law enforcement agency. A lot have changed since the 18th and 19th century.

in what world is self defense vigilantism?

[Vankrys]

A long gun sucks for conceal carry and in some cases, can be too restrictive because of the length of the weapon. But they have certain advantages over a handgun. For one, accuracy and another, increased ammo capacity of larger calibers.

And this thread has changed from discussion on assault rifles to gun control in general. You are welcome.

if only the matter of personal protection in urban setting is the concern, then a handgun is not only more than enough, but probably the best option too.

So keep your glock and ban the AR-15?

[Ghostpanther]

if only the matter of personal protection in urban setting is the concern, then a handgun is not only more than enough, but probably the best option too.

So keep your glock and ban the AR-15?

Actually, a AR-15 makes for a good home defense weapon, using rounds which will expand on impact, thus reducing over penetration if that is a concern. And no, I am not for banning any semi-auto rifle ,.50 caliber and under. A handgun is more convenient in some circumstances, esp for conceal or open carry. But I do agree in the great majority of cases, a handgun is going to be good enough for home defense. But if you happen to have several home invaders at once?.......I would prefer having a semi-auto rifle to use, with a 30 round magazine.

[Coolthulhu]

if only the matter of personal protection in urban setting is the concern, then a handgun is not only more than enough, but probably the best option too.

So keep your glock and ban the AR-15?

What do you guys have against AR-15s? Some journalist who he fired one and got PTSD, or is it the graphic descriptions of what happens when a 5.56 round - or actually, "an AR-15 round" (sic) enters a human body, at which point we should ban all rifle rounds? Or maybe they just look evil?

[Roxinius]

if only the matter of personal protection in urban setting is the concern, then a handgun is not only more than enough, but probably the best option too.

So keep your glock and ban the AR-15?

how about we keep both banning the ar-15 wont do anything to curb gun violence we all know libs want it banned cause it looks scary

[Svifnymr]

how about we keep both banning the ar-15 wont do anything to curb gun violence we all know libs want it banned cause it looks scary

It's easy to demonize in the eyes of the common folk, even though it is vastly under represented in crime. They need to gloss over the actual sporting uses of the firearms, ignore the actual defensive uses, and just use it to find something to ban. Then they'll move on to the next.

[Roxinius]

It's easy to demonize in the eyes of the common folk, even though it is vastly under represented in crime. They need to gloss over the actual sporting uses of the firearms, ignore the actual defensive uses, and just use it to find something to ban. Then they'll move on to the next.

pretty much why gun owners are done giving inches when it comes to gun control

[skr1107]

I found it funny that recently the local schools here protested the lack of security; and the mayor responded by allocating funds for armed guards for every school in the district.