Grab the guns while we still can

[AJ Rimmer]

oh ok, my fault

I'm not sure they'd force people to turn in their guns ..they'd most likely ban the sale of guns, have some sort of trade and amnesty ..but I cant see them criminalising the ownership of guns ..this is what most gun erroneously believe as the OP of this thread proves

True, you can't make [whatever high percentage of Americans are legal gun owners] of a people criminals over night. Voters tend to get cranky about that sort of thing, and what's worse, these particular voters will get cranky and have guns. But you could do some kind of trade-program or amnesty thing like the Swedish police do, yeah.

 

[Ridge]

But the question still arises, why punish the millions who follow the law because a few thousand do not?

Perhaps instead of passing new laws, the local agencies should work on actually enforcing the laws already passed...

 

[CptStern]

well tbh that's too ****ing bad for those millions, god forbid they give up their killsticks so that people arent killed

According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries

this is appalling ..your right to shoot at paper targets somehow justifies this?

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Emos should be banned from owning guns.

 

[PvtRyan]

this is appalling ..your right to shoot at paper targets somehow justifies this?

Well, that's the thing really, it's a right now, while it should be a privilege. Driving a car here isn't a right, it costs 2000 eurobucks and a shitload of time to pass your exam, so it's a privilege. Just like you shouldn't be able to cruise around without proper qualifications, endangering others, you shouldn't be able to own a gun without proof of competence with it. I have no problem with guns in the hands of certified marksmen.

 

[Pesmerga]

This is a shitty argument, and has been proven so several times on this forum.

Wow, proven by a bunch of statistic tossing gamers. Sweet.

The argument is valid- just because it's law doesn't mean it's not going to happen. I think it's called crime, or something.

I think banning small arms for recreational (read: collecting, bringing to ranges, etc) is retarded, and only further proves the Soccer Mom mentality of the United States population.

 

[CptStern]

marksmen still get angry and shoot their wives/siblings/parents/kids/perfect strangers to death ..they're not immune. obviously not all of them but I'm sure there'd stil be incidents ..the only good thing is that they potentially minimise innocent bystander casualties ..cuz they're such good shots ..on the other hand fatalities are almost 100% in those they do aim at

 

[Kyorisu]

True, you can't make [whatever high percentage of Americans are legal gun owners] of a people criminals over night. Voters tend to get cranky about that sort of thing, and what's worse, these particular voters will get cranky and have guns. But you could do some kind of trade-program or amnesty thing like the Swedish police do, yeah.

Current owners would be fine. You'd have the following options;

1. Sell guns to government at market value. The amount of guns the government would pay for would be limited.
2. Give guns away to government for free.
3. Register all firearms with explanations for their use.

Current owners would be fine in situation 3. Any new guns wouldn't be able to be purchased for recreation or self defence however. You'd then need a damned good reason for having a firearm or additional firearms.

 

[xcellerate]

Well, that's the thing really, it's a right now, while it should be a privilege. Driving a car here isn't a right, it costs 2000 eurobucks and a shitload of time to pass your exam, so it's a privilege. Just like you shouldn't be able to cruise around without proper qualifications, endangering others, you shouldn't be able to own a gun without proof of competence with it. I have no problem with guns in the hands of certified marksmen.

yea, and I bet everyone who pays 2000 eurobucks and spends a shitload of time passing their exam is NOT a perfect driver. That's because there's no way to test for how good a driver somebody will be. And along that same line, there's no way to test for if somebody will be a smart gun owner.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

yea, and I bet everyone who pays 2000 eurobucks and spends a shitload of time passing their exam is NOT a perfect driver. That's because there's no way to test for how good a driver somebody will be. And along that same line, there's no way to test for if somebody will be a smart gun owner.

So, just because a driving test isn't 100% accurate in determining whether or not someone is a safe driver that's a good reason not to have them? Surely they're better than the alternative, IE not having such tests at all, woefully inadequate that they may be...

 

[CptStern]

to illustrate the point:

tell me this, if I walked up to you and cold cocked you and then beat the crap out of you would you pull your gun?

Yeah if you walked up to me and attacked me I'd shoot you with a quickness

so simply owning a gun means a simple assault would/could escalate to murder. Rakurai is legally trained in the use of firearms. T

 

[Ridge]

Current owners would be fine. You'd have the following options;

1. Sell guns to government at market value. The amount of guns the government would pay for would be limited.
2. Give guns away to government for free.
3. Register all firearms with explanations for their use.

Current owners would be fine in situation 3. Any new guns wouldn't be able to be purchased for recreation or self defence however. You'd then need a damned good reason for having a firearm or additional firearms.

Ya know, the Jews had to register where they lived in Germany in 1934, too....that turned out really good for em, didnt it?

to illustrate the point:

so simply owning a gun means a simple assault would/could escalate to murder. Rakurai is legally trained in the use of firearms. T

If he feels he is in danger of his life, then he has every right to blow away the person assaulting him..

If you are Joe Sunday just walkin down the street and some random guy unproked runs up to you and starts beating the ever loving hell out of you, then you feel you dont have the right to defend yourself?

 

[AJ Rimmer]

And Godwin's law was never better demonstrated.

 

[Eejit]

Ya know, the Jews had to register where they lived in Germany in 1934, too....that turned out really good for em, didnt it?

Godwin's Law.


But yeah you're right, one minute it's the government knowing where you live, NEXT STOP = GAS CHAMBERS!!1

 

[Ridge]

Thats all you ever say in these threads....Godwins law, godwins law....

The fact is, that Registration means giving the government information they really dont need to know....if they needed to know it, it would be on your birth certificate or your driver's license...

The fact is that Hitler commented on how the banning of guns would make Germany a safer place...11 years later the country was blown to bits and millions were dead...

 

[Eejit]

How about you stop using logical fallacies?

 

[Ridge]

How about you show a place where guns are banned and nobody has a single one...

 

[Eejit]

How about you make points which are worth answering?

 

[Ridge]

I am making points. Points like how Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City and Washington, D.C. have the highest crime rates in the nation. They also share another brotherhood....they all have banned firearms...

Here is something to scare the hell out of you liberal pansies...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJwpH1dbbJo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th_FpwgGc-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31vm3-BQRJU

 

[AJ Rimmer]

The fact is, the US is one of the very few places in the world where having a firearm is considered a right. The government doesn't have a right to know everything you do, but they do have an obligation to protect its citizens, now most people in the western world consider knowing and/or controlling who is allowed to have guns and who's not to be an excellent example of that obligation.

How about you show a place where guns are banned and nobody has a single one...

A hundred percent success rate is not a requirement for something to qualify as a good idea. If it was, no-one would get anything done, anywhere, ever.

 

[CptStern]

If you are Joe Sunday just walkin down the street and some random guy unproked runs up to you and starts beating the ever loving hell out of you, then you feel you dont have the right to defend yourself?

you completely missed the point. I dont see why you even bother ...you dont bother replying to half the points people make and the ones you do reply to it's obvious that either you dont understand the point or you sidestep it altogether by bringing up something completely unrelated

 

[Ridge]

Oh, you mean like how the ATF protects citizens from people with illegal machine guns?

WASHINGTON - The ATF lost 76 weapons and hundreds of laptops over five years, the Justice Department reported Wednesday, blaming carelessness and sloppy record-keeping.

Thirty-five of the missing handguns, rifles, Tasers and other weapons were stolen, as were 50 laptops, the internal audit found. Two of the stolen weapons were used in crimes.

The audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found "inadequate" oversight of weapons and laptops resulted in "significant rates of losses" at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

"It is especially troubling that that ATF's rate of loss for weapons was nearly double that of the FBI and DEA, and that ATF did not even know whether most of its lost, stolen, or missing laptop computers contained sensitive or classified information," he added.

In a Sept. 10 letter responding to the audit, ATF acting Director Michael J. Sullivan said his agency "agrees or partially agrees with most of the recommendations."

"We are revising our procedures of reporting losses of weapons or laptops," Sullivan said.

The audit looked at ATF's inventory of weapons, laptops, ammunition and explosives between Oct. 1, 2002 and Aug. 31, 2007.

It found that ATF lost three times more weapons each month than it had in a similar 2002 audit by the Treasury Department, which used to oversee the agency. It also lost 50 times as many laptops as reported in the earlier audit.

Of the 76 weapons, 35 were reported stolen, 19 lost and 12 missing from inventories, investigators found. Of the 418 missing laptops, 50 were stolen, 8 lost and 274 could not be found during inventory. Another 86 laptops were unaccounted for because ATF had either destroyed or lost documents showing where they were, the audit concluded.

Two weapons reported stolen were used to commit crimes. In one instance, a gun was stolen from an ATF car parked outside the agent's home and later used to shoot through the window of another residence, the audit found. In the other, a stolen ATF gun was taken from a burglary suspect.

Additionally, ATF employees did not report 13 of the 76 lost weapons, or 365 of the 418 missing laptops, to internal affairs as required. ATF officials also did not report much of the lost equipment to the Justice Department.

Investigators could not conclude what was on 398 of 418 missing laptops ? except that few were encrypted. That means any sensitive material on the laptops could have been exposed.

Moreover, "we found that ATF did not regularly attempt to determine whether the lost, stolen or missing laptop computers contained sensitive or classified information," the audit said.

But few ? only 18 of 7,500 ? ATF laptops were authorized to hold classified information.

Compared to weapons loss rates for the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration, the ATF misplaced almost twice as many guns. The audit found that the ATF lost .52 weapons per 1,000 employees, compared to .29 at the FBI and .28 at the DEA.

Fine's investigators concluded there were proper controls and oversight of explosives in ATF's possession, and good security for ammunition. However, nine of 20 ATF field offices surveyed did not have proper accounting methods for ammunition.

Good thing guns used in crimes and captured are off the streets for good, right?

 

[Eejit]

Why would gun porn scare us?

Oh, and HITLER LIKED GUN PRON!!1

 

[Pesmerga]

In the case that all firearms (handguns, semi automatic rifles, automatic rifles) are banned from every civilian (not law enforcement) of the United States in all states.

Point 1: Criminals will still get their hands on firearms. Gun possessions might even flourish due to high demand (where there's a will, there's a way).

Point 2: Unarmed Americans have no means to effectively protect themselves from criminals with those firearms. Tazers are not an effective means to stop an aggressor.

Question: Is it lawful to disarm Americans? To take away the very basic means of self defense? This country was born when the majority of citizens owned and knew how to use a rifle. The very revolution that created this nation was waged by those same farmers.

It is the case that perhaps criminalizing possession of weapons will reduce illegal violent gun crimes. But it is also the case that criminalizing alcohol is an effective means of reducing drunk driving and drunken violent assault. Censoring war correspondence is an effective means to rally war support from the people.

But are those things lawful? Shit, there's a ****ing amendment dedicated to giving Americans the right to own guns. My stance is... that exam you need to pass and permit you need to earn when you apply for a concealed carry license should be mandatory for all guns, concealed or not.

I frown upon automatic rifle ownership, but that's another story. Completely banning guns, however effective it is at reducing gun crime, is unlawful and unethical. We are a nation of weapons, warfare, laws, and freedoms. American law is going to snow ball into a nation without freedoms so long as we look only at what is effective at saving lives.

Saving lives isn't the OMG END GAME of what is right and what is wrong.

 

[CptStern]

Oh, you mean like how the ATF protects citizens from people with illegal machine guns?



Good thing guns used in crimes and captured are off the streets for good, right?

When you reach over and put your hand into a pile of goo that was your best friend's face...Forget it, Marge, it's Chinatown



wait what? what does that have to do with anything? and did it ever occur to you that law enforcement agents just might be keeping the seized guns? ..I mean who is better suited to keep illegal guns than legal gun owners? or hell they may even be selling the guns to criminals ...JUST LIKE SOME JEWS SELL GUNS TO PALESTINIANS!!!

not quite invoking godwins law but I think I parroted Ridge somewhat successfullly

AND THE JEWS!!! .....

 

[CptStern]

In the case that all firearms (handguns, semi automatic rifles, automatic rifles) are banned from every civilian (not law enforcement) of the United States in all states.

Point 1: Criminals will still get their hands on firearms. Gun possessions might even flourish due to high demand (where there's a will, there's a way).

how is that possible if the source for guns dries up to a trickle? there'll be far less guns in circulation ..they would over time dwindle in number

Point 2: Unarmed Americans have no means to effectively protect themselves from criminals with those firearms. Tazers are not an effective means to stop an aggressor.

or the cup is half full version: more people would be alive due to not being shot to death by their own hand or someone elses

my brother in law works for a company that does crime and trauma cleanup ..out of the 4 or so suicides he's done in the last 2 months or so 3 were with a firearm ..the other was a jumper from the 22nd floor ..even in his case it was a crime of opportunity.

Question: Is it lawful to disarm Americans? To take away the very basic means of self defense? This country was born when the majority of citizens owned and knew how to use a rifle. The very revolution that created this nation was waged by those same farmers.

there is no way they'd take people's guns away in the manner you suggest. Kyorisu gave an example from his country's decsision to ban guns

http://halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2809400&postcount=48

it would have to be gradual, there would have to be a ton of concessions, amensty programs etc etc

It is the case that perhaps criminalizing possession of weapons will reduce illegal violent gun crimes. But it is also the case that criminalizing alcohol is an effective means of reducing drunk driving and drunken violent assault. Censoring war correspondence is an effective means to rally war support from the people.

sure but this isnt like criminalising alcohol it's more like criminalising the ownership of flame throwers or tactical nukes ..the principle is the same ..I get it that demand would rise but only relative to the number of guns alreay in place. with no new guns being purchased the number of guns available diminishes

But are those things lawful? Shit, there's a ****ing amendment dedicated to giving Americans the right to own guns. My stance is... that exam you need to pass and permit you need to earn when you apply for a concealed carry license should be mandatory for all guns, concealed or not.

that wont stop the number of guns used in crimes ..22% had no previous criminal record, they could potentially still get guns

I frown upon automatic rifle ownership, but that's another story.

assualt rifles only make up about 1% of the firearms used in crimes ..at least 70% of the firearms used to commit crimes are handguns

Completely banning guns, however effective it is at reducing gun crime, is unlawful and unethical. We are a nation of weapons, warfare, laws, and freedoms. American law is going to snow ball into a nation without freedoms so long as we look only at what is effective at saving lives.

you're being a bit alarmist and I for one would gladly give up the right to own guns if it meant my family is safer ..which they are, the crime rates involving firearms proves this ..it's easily 3 times as much in the US as in canada

Saving lives isn't the OMG END GAME of what is right and what is wrong.

the main justification to gun ownership is the right to defend yourself ...saving your own life ..so it is the end game of what is right and wrong on both sides of the fence

 

[Pesmerga]

The main justification for gun ownership is freedom. People shouldn't need a reason to do something. Criminals will get their guns from Canada, Mexico, and overseas. People might even start manufacturing firearms illegally like moonshiners. But that isn't the point.

The point is, owning a small arm is a freedom granted by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is, like all laws, a point of argument. I know you think the statistics prove a normative change is in order, but having the freedom to own a firearm is worth a great deal more than the number of lives it may cost. We can help minimize the number of those deaths by enforcing private gun owners to certify for them like it is for getting a drivers license. We cannot presume a gun owner's guilt, we can only react swiftly and justly to criminality. It is a price to pay, but to become comfortable with creating a society based on destroying freedoms in order to achieve some maximum comfort level is absolutely stupid.

Government was built to maintain order and protect its population from all enemies, foreign and domestic. There are certain freedoms I am willing to give up because I know it is necessary to maintain order. But gun crime is not a cause of disturbance great enough to warrant a total restriction on them. America will never collapse under the weight of gun crime. If my family is able to live free in this country, the risk of violent gun crime is a tiny price to pay. I'd rather them die free than live a slave.

As a note, comparing gun crime rates between countries based on a single variable is unscientific.

 

[Eejit]

It's a 'right' which is past it's sell by date. The second amendment is antiquated, it's original purpose obsolete in the modern world.
Losing it wouldn't have to mean "slippery slope ohshiiiiii-!" for rights and civil liberties.


Why is this dated 'freedom' more important than people's lives?

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Can I ask something, what is it you fear you will lose if you give up gun ownership? You say it's about freedom, but lots of countries have lots of freedom and liberty without gun ownership, why is it so important for you Americans? Why are you so afraid of changing your Bill of Rights? Lots of countries have Constitutional laws, and lots of countries realized that those laws were written down in older times and needed modification to apply to modern views and modern technology, even when the laws in question weren't more than a century old and we didn't make a fuzz about it. Why did you get stuck on the idea that yours must be absolutely unchangeable?

 

[CptStern]

because someone has to line the pockets of the gun industry ..or else start more wars ..these poor rich people need to ake a living

 

[CptStern]

The main justification for gun ownership is freedom. People shouldn't need a reason to do something. Criminals will get their guns from Canada, Mexico,

lol the main source of guns in canada and mexico is the US ..if you were to cut off the sale of guns in the US our crime rate would drop dramatically

and overseas. People might even start manufacturing firearms illegally like moonshiners. But that isn't the point.

lol, I kinda pictured some sort of Fred Flintstone gun ..

The point is, owning a small arm is a freedom granted by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is, like all laws, a point of argument. I know you think the statistics prove a normative change is in order, but having the freedom to own a firearm is worth a great deal more than the number of lives it may cost. We can help minimize the number of those deaths by enforcing private gun owners to certify for them like it is for getting a drivers license. We cannot presume a gun owner's guilt, we can only react swiftly and justly to criminality. It is a price to pay, but to become comfortable with creating a society based on destroying freedoms in order to achieve some maximum comfort level is absolutely stupid.

ya but at one point americans fought for their right to own slaves ...times change

Government was built to maintain order and protect its population from all enemies, foreign and domestic. There are certain freedoms I am willing to give up because I know it is necessary to maintain order. But gun crime is not a cause of disturbance great enough to warrant a total restriction on them. America will never collapse under the weight of gun crime. If my family is able to live free in this country, the risk of violent gun crime is a tiny price to pay. I'd rather them die free than live a slave.

oh come on, canada is just as "free" as the US and my life is immesureably safer than yours ..statistically speaking ..name one city with a population of 4.5 million that has 50 murders a year ..less than half of those committed with a firearm. you cant because there isnt

 

[Pesmerga]

Why is cutting up a chicken for ritualistic purposes still a right? Why are Americans allowed to drive their atmosphere raping cars to work everyday? From a single chicken to the end of humanity, everything is at risk of dying. We're not going to outlaw practices of religion because a fraction of a percent of people practice it, are we? We're not going to simply outlaw driving cars, are we?

Laws are designed to tell people what they cannot do because it infringes on another's rights, or puts the risk of order at compromise. There are more intelligent and effective ways of dealing with gun crimes than putting a complete ban on guns. Owning a gun is not an antiquated freedom. Small arms have a huge industry behind them, and they are used by civilians mostly for recreational and self defense purposes. There's a huge number of people who love guns and believe it to be a right worth fighting for, for a large number of reasons.

There needs to be control on who is allowed to own a firearm (no violent criminal record, no one under the age of 18 or 21, no mental illnesses) and then require a class, a field instructor, and an exam to earn a permit for a small arm.

I'm embarassed by people who call for a complete ban. Mostly by non-citizens who don't even live in the country they want to legislate change in.

AJRimmer, if you read what I wrote, you'd know that I said that all US laws are a point of argument. I never said anything about how our constitution wasn't allowed to change. This is just one right that shouldn't. I wouldn't vote for it. If the American people voted for it, I'd respect the change. There are laws in existence that I don't believe are totally good, and I'd argue and vote my way for it.

CptStern, you may not be effected by gun control, but thank god we have some diversity in our population. Not everyone is like you, and not everyone is OK with the government being the only one with guns. You have to accept the fact that there are other lines of thought than yours, and some might even be, *gasp*, more intelligent.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

I'm embarassed by people who call for a complete ban. Mostly by non-citizens who don't even live in the country they want to legislate change in.

Yes, which is why I'm asking you, an American, why you're so scared to have your guns taken away, when so many other western nations had theirs taken away/never had theirs and are doing just fine despite it. What do you think would happen if you weren't allowed to have firearms, or at least if ownership of firearms was the exception, not the rule?

 

[Pesmerga]

In my life? Nothing more than the fact I couldn't own a gun for the house to protect myself with if an intruder were to threaten me or any of my family's lives. In my twenty years of living, I have never even heard a gun shot that wasn't at a range. But, like CptStern, I do not represent every American. There are some people who's happiness derives from collecting and firing small arms for recreation. There are businesses that manufacture and service civilian weapons. I do not fear change inherently, I just fear this one.

Why do we have to ban guns completely in order to minimize gun crime? Can't America put tougher requirements for them? Enact harsher punishments? If something goes wrong, ban it forever! If a nuclear power plant explodes, ban them forever!

 

[MJ12]

I went to a gun show recently with some friends ... the AR-15 is the least ridiculous of the ridiculous. Some of the shit they were selling there is just absurd.

Now I know gun nuts will defend their right to M82's, Uzi's, flamethrowers or whatever the **** ... but I have a serious question - silencers. Why the **** is it legal to sell silencers? What the **** else do you do with a silencer besides murder people?

It's just crazy.

Hunting so you don't scare the animals away if you miss or want to hunt more.

 

[Ridge]

It's a 'right' which is past it's sell by date. The second amendment is antiquated, it's original purpose obsolete in the modern world.
Losing it wouldn't have to mean "slippery slope ohshiiiiii-!" for rights and civil liberties.


Why is this dated 'freedom' more important than people's lives?

Perhaps we can also remove the amendment saying slavery is illegal. That is past its time, too, right?

Or Amendment 4? The one that about unlawful search and seizure. People will gladly open their doors if they have nothing to hide, right?

Amendment 6 is effectively gone....

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Perhaps we can also remove the amendment saying slavery is illegal. That is past its time, too, right?

Or Amendment 4? The one that about unlawful search and seizure. People will gladly open their doors if they have nothing to hide, right?

Amendment 6 is effectively gone....

Why would that happen? In any possible way of reasoning, why would that happen? Why would removing (or, alright, amend, change it so firearms at least aren't as readily available) the second amendment lead to all those things? Now, I realize you're a moron, so I'm not sure why I even respond to you, but please, give me your reasons for thinking that banning firearms is the first step towards re-instituting slavery and creating a police state, since there is no possible proof that that would happen, and hasn't happened anywhere else (and God help me if you bring up Nazi Germany again...). And "once you pop you can't stop" isn't a good enough reason.

 

[Ridge]

Its along the same lines of "Its so old its not needed anymore"

Your constant personal attacks on me dont help your cause, IMO...

 

[Cornerstone]

Your opinion is dumb, debate over.

 

[Ridge]

And yours is worthless, F off.