# The gun control thread



## Jakke (Aug 7, 2012)

So, by popular demand in the recent thread about the murders in the Sikh temple (and I would assume in the thread about the tragedy in Aurora), this is the gun control thread.

What are your  about this issue? Do the US need more or less control on this issue, or is it good as it is?


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 7, 2012)

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey! Thanks Wikipedia!

I realise that many of those stats are pretty old, but I find them really telling as well. Gun control laws in Australia are pretty strict: in 1996 Martin Bryant killed 35 people in Tasmania with an assault rifle, and our otherwise notoriously conservative Prime Minister of the time advocated a gun buyback scheme that was supported by the vast majority of the country. We destroyed thousands of weapons, and have continued to do so with occasional "gun-amnesties" where people can hand in illegal firearms without being charged.

I think we're better off for it. The (admittedly almost 20-year old) stat for Australia in the above wiki-link:






Australia 2.94 gun deaths per 100,000 people
0.44 homicides per 100,000
2.35 suicides per 100,000
0.11 unintentional deaths per 100,000
1994

So, those stats existed prior to the ban on assault rifles. I'd love to know what they are now. If you check out the US and Mexico side by side on those stats it seems that the US doesn't have anywhere near the problem many other countries do, because at least half time in the US people are showing the courtesy of shooting themselves before trying to shoot anyone else.


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Aug 7, 2012)

I'm pro gun 100%. that's as far as I'm going though.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 7, 2012)

Gun control in the US is legislated at the State level, as it should be. Talking about whether gun control laws should be more strict in America is, as a result, rather pointless.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 7, 2012)

estabon37 said:


> I think we're better off for it. The (admittedly *almost 20-year old*) stat for Australia in the above wiki-link:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What kind of gun ownership rate was there, when these stats were sampled? For comparison, you still have 15 per 100, also per Wikipedia. (You're number 42)


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 7, 2012)

I love guns.

The problem is people control.

Cash for illegal guns might work a little. Get some off the street anyways.

Also, I dont shoot people.


----------



## loki (Aug 7, 2012)

If somebody crazy is going to kill a bunch of people they will find a way:

Teen kills nine in stabbing frenzy in China | News.com.au

Would you rather die by a shot to the head or being beat to death with a baseball bat? History has shown that less people are victimized since the invention of guns. A frail old woman can protect herself against a giant if see has a gun and uses it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 7, 2012)

estabon37 said:


> List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Some more current data for the US: Gun crime statistics by US state: download the data. Visualised | World news | guardian.co.uk. 

As you can see, in just four years (with no significant drop in gun ownership or significant tightening of regulations) the rate per 100k for homicides dropped from 4.14 to 2.84. 

The trend is continuing as well, and that's without significant change to state policies regarding firearms. In fact, more states are offering gun owners more freedoms, such as concealed carry. 

What's probably the most telling in the info above, is that a state like California that is probably one of the most strict when it comes to owning and buying a firearm has more gun related homicide than Texas, a state known for having lax gun laws.


----------



## Edika (Aug 7, 2012)

This is a delicate subject considering this is a US forum and a lot of the US citizens are gun owners with different reasons for owning weapons such as domestic protection, self protection, collectors, hunters etc etc. From the little knowledge I have of US legislation there is gun control and legally purchased weapons are registered and declared in the authorities. Any crime committed with these weapons would be traced to the owners.

Problems arise mainly from illegal firearms or firearms stolen from their legitimate owners. Of course there are the legal owners that are unsuitable to have a gun in their possession and end up snapping and well, you know the rest.

The US has one of the largest weapon manufacturer industries so there is no way that lobby will want weapons to be banned from citizens. I believe that even the fact of the illegal firearms used by criminals is a good advertizement for gun sales. I don't want to make uninformed claims but the whole portrayal of the US by your media networks as well as the filming industry shows that you can easily purchase an illegal firearm. That there is a kind of wild west mentality where crimes are prevented by the fact that everybody is armed and everybody knows it. I know it's not like that but this is what we receive by your media.

My point of view is that I am against weapons in general. I will not hide my attraction to them and the empowerment one might feel having one but this is merely a psychological effect and an attempt to an unwarranted self importance. In a civilized society there is no place for them. I am sure some will make arguments against this and that it is an utopian view, but you have to start from somewhere. Instead of buying guns why not support your local law enforcement agencies which are supposed to protect you.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 7, 2012)

I'm more worried about all those crazy soccer moms going 85 in their mini-vans while blabbing on their cellies.


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 7, 2012)

The Atomic Ass said:


> What kind of gun ownership rate was there, when these stats were sampled? For comparison, you still have 15 per 100, also per Wikipedia. (You're number 42)



I wish I could remember where I read this, but I'm pretty sure gun ownership in Aus is somewhere around 5% of adults and in the US it's somewhere around 25% of adults. When you balance that against the '88.8 guns per 100 people' stat for the US it really shows that when someone over there buys guns, they buy almost enough to make up for the 75% of the country who don't have any.

@max: Thanks for the more recent (and detailed) info. I'm more interested in getting the info than drawing conclusions. To be honest, I'm 100% in favour of gun control in Australia, but our situation simply can't be applied to other countries; any law which is created requires specific historical circumstances and social attitudes to come to fruition. Personally, I like the recent arguments advocating smaller magazines. In this way, the right to bear arms is maintained, while the capacity to harm large numbers of people is limited.


----------



## Edika (Aug 7, 2012)

^What if you have more smaller magazines .


----------



## nostealbucket (Aug 7, 2012)

cwhitey2 said:


> I love guns.
> 
> The problem is people control.



This.
No matter what you do, people will be stupid. Very stupid.


----------



## Edika (Aug 7, 2012)

nostealbucket said:


> This.
> No matter what you do, people will be stupid. Very stupid.



Then why give them guns?


----------



## renzoip (Aug 7, 2012)

I'm not against guns per se, I'm against guns in the hands of criminals, and in the hands of right wing nationalists (Tea Party/NRA/Fundies/White Supremacist/Etc).


----------



## Jakke (Aug 7, 2012)

I heard an interesting perspective today. I believe it was Duke st Rollins, a liberal Facebook troll who said like this:
See how many massacres with firearms the average american can recount before a historian can find a mention where a well-regulated militia has been useful.

Just a thought.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

loki said:


> If somebody crazy is going to kill a bunch of people they will find a way:
> 
> Teen kills nine in stabbing frenzy in China | News.com.au
> 
> Would you rather die by a shot to the head or being beat to death with a baseball bat? History has shown that less people are victimized since the invention of guns. A frail old woman can protect herself against a giant if see has a gun and uses it.



Now take that and imagine he had an assault rifle. There'd be a lot more deaths.

Most people who shoot someone rarely get shot in the head. Most of the victims at the Aurora shooting were shot and not all died obviously. Some got shot in the head and survived, many are now paralyzed from I assume getting shot probably in their spine somewhere. How is that better? You are really taking a lesser of two evils approach with that.




nostealbucket said:


> This.
> No matter what you do, people will be stupid. Very stupid.



While guns themselves may not be the problem if we had less circulating there would also be less illegal weapons for people to purchase since most illegal weapons were legal in another's hands (probably sold it illegally). A man with a baseball bat is a hell of a lot easier to take down than a guy with an assault rifle IMO, but what do I know. 

Ratios are definitely relevant though (I'm too lazy to bother with stats ) because even when it comes to the Olympics is it a surprise China and US seem to dominate when we both hold such a large population (larger pool to select from). I think the same can be applied to crime and violence, etc. For all I know ratio to population and crime may in fact be worse, but more people committing crime isn't really a shock to me.

Our prison system worries me though...


----------



## nostealbucket (Aug 7, 2012)

Edika said:


> Then why *let them buy* guns?



Fixed. Just because its legal, doesn't mean you have to buy one 
I'd like to add, drugs are illegal... People still get them. It wouldn't help anybody if guns were illegal. Because the government is soooo good at controlling illegal things... Right?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

It stands to reason that if less were in circulation there'd be less illegal weapons around, not eliminated, but less. 

If drugs were legal it isn't as if more people would be doing them either (been proven actually) as most people don't care about the legal aspect in the first place when they participate in illegal drugs so the analogy doesn't work.


----------



## Blind Theory (Aug 7, 2012)

The problem with gun control is it only affects those who don't need it. In an attempt to cut down gun related crime the states have managed to miss what is really the problem. If a criminal wants to get a hold of a gun, regardless of legality in their state, they will find a way. On the other side, average Joe will have done whatever it is the state said to because it is the law. Next thing you know, the criminals are all armed and the only group to match them is the police but they are grossly out numbered. Now to clarify on that last point, I'm not advocating a people's militia against crime. Vigilantism isn't the right thing. What I am saying is that if there are a good number of people allowed to have CCW then criminals will be less likely to use deadly force in a public forum. Why? Well, I damn sure wouldn't stick around if I tried to shoot up some place and someone shot back. Gun control isn't the solution, it's the problem in my eyes.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 7, 2012)

There are more guns now than there have ever been, and the rate of gun related murders is falling over 10% a year, consistently, over the last ten years. The whole less guns equals less gun crime is wrong, and has been proven such over a relatively long period of time. If the amount of gun crime was escalating at the same time the number of weapons in circulation was rising your argument would stand, the data just doesn't back that up.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Aug 7, 2012)

So the number of gun related murders has gone down 100%?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 7, 2012)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> So the number of gun related murders has gone down 100%?


 
Not quite, it's been going down 10% _compared to last year_. Not 10% of "starting number" over ten years. 

For example in 2007 there were roughly 10,000, the following year, 2008, there were just under 9,000. The next year, 2009, there were close to 8,500. Then, based on 2010's data there was around 7,700.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Aug 7, 2012)

Oh, that makes a lot more sense. My apoligies.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 7, 2012)

People are less willing to commit a violent crime against a population they believe owns guns, and is willing to use them.

Japan said they thought invading California would have been suicide, because the American people are stereotypically gun owners. They would have been slaughtered by the American public.

The more guns that your average-law-abiding citizen owns, and is comfortable using (at the range, training, etc), the less violent crimes there will be. Fact. It has been proven (just as Max said). 

A criminal (and I'm making a generalization here, excuse me), is less likely to attack someone that they think will shoot them...opposed to attacking someone they know is unarmed. 

Getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will only increase violent-gun-related crimes. Criminals don't obey the law, and once they realize the public no longer has an effective way of protecting themselves, they'll be like a pig in shit. 

This country was built on a few basic ideals, one of them being gun ownership. The entire reason America is a fucking country is because the people had guns, and knew how to use them. 

But, anybody that is pro-gun-abolishment or pro-uber-strict-gun-laws will disagree with me, anyways. Ignoring the fact that the 2nd Amendment was written with the idea that America might need to amass a civilian milita to protect itself from a foreign or domestic threat.


----------



## Randy (Aug 7, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Gun control in the US is legislated at the State level, as it should be. Talking about whether gun control laws should be more strict in America is, as a result, rather pointless.



Eeeeeh, not too sure about that. There was an article in the local news paper recently about a study conducted by the NYS Attorney General's Office and what they found was a disproportionately larger number of guns recovered from violent crimes in NY originated from states with looser gun laws. If I can find the article, I'll link it.

That said, some things make sense to regulate at the state level (ie. welfare, etc.) but to just act like what happens in one state doesn't effect others is very short sighted.


----------



## Randy (Aug 7, 2012)

Chickenhawk said:


> People are less willing to commit a violent crime against a population they believe owns guns, and is willing to use them.
> 
> Japan said they thought invading California would have been suicide, because the American people are stereotypically gun owners. They would have been slaughtered by the American public.
> 
> ...



So what of those crazy 'sovereign citizen', white supremacist and similar grass roots domestic terrorists that specifically prey on the same privilege? If the barrier to purchasing firearms is having some _prior_ case of committing a violent crime or displaying deranged behavior, we're going to just continue to have mass shootings occur and say 'well, if only somebody caught this guy sooner'. 

I'll take what Jakke said and go a step further. I'd like to see a side-by-side of occurances where somebody violently used a weapon they purchased legally versus the number of incidents of a firearm being used to prevent a violent crime. Which is occurring more often? And if it leans toward the former, are we then just arguing over the right to _have_ weapons as a deterrent to violent offenders?

Last point, the idea of having civilian militias to protect us from ANYbody is absurd. Any modern, invading military will have tanks, planes and bombs. Nothing somebody staked out in their house with an AR-15, pile of bullets and para-military uniform is going to do to stop that. That's the job an appropriately outfitted standing military/national guard.

EDIT: A couple other things I'd like to see. I keep hearing "criminals will get the weapons anyway", alright so I'd like to see some numbers on the % of violent crime (particularly unprovoked) carried out with stolen guns versus legally purchased ones. It also stands to reason that the more legally purchased firearms there are in total, the bigger the stock pile for said criminals to steal from. Any numbers specifically pertaining to mass-shootings carried out with stolen firearms?


----------



## Edika (Aug 7, 2012)

What you are describing Chickenhawk is a cold war logic were the two opposing forces stockpiled massive amounts of nuclear weapons in order to be balance and not erupt in an apocalyptic scenario. Not the brightest move or logic and I would dare say one of the most uncivilized and irresponsible.

That doesn't mean that everyday law abiding citizens will go on a rampage and start killing people with their guns. Obviously that doesn't happened and most probably won't. I find it very unsettling that people in your country feel they need to take matters like these in their own hands concerning protection and really puts a question as to what is the role of law enforcement agencies. Don't forget that the army has the same role, to protect their country from foreign and domestic threats, so when are these militia in accordance with a democratically approved government and the army?


----------



## Jakke (Aug 7, 2012)

Damn, even Sweden had that sort of cold-war readiness as Chickenhawk mentions (if you hear that the fighting has stopped, don't believe it, and run for the nearest forest for guerilla warfare), but the times has changed. I agree with what Randy says, what is a group of enthusiasts going to do against an invading army? The 2nd amendment was written in a time before tanks, aircraft and nuclear weapons, a militia would stand no chance.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> There are more guns now than there have ever been, and the rate of gun related murders is falling over 10% a year, consistently, over the last ten years. The whole less guns equals less gun crime is wrong, and has been proven such over a relatively long period of time. If the amount of gun crime was escalating at the same time the number of weapons in circulation was rising your argument would stand, the data just doesn't back that up.



Gun sales are the same, but less people are buying them. This means that less people overall have guns, but the ones that do have A LOT so that statistic is overall pointless since there are obviously other factors involved.

These countries with stricter gun laws are not living in chaos people.

Not to mention what I have already said, that regulation (not as much as outright removal albeit) cuts down on the amount of guns in circulation therefore incidentally reducing even the criminal strongholds of weapons. As an example people go to somewhere like Arizona to buy a gun and then go back to California. If gun laws were stricter this illegal use would not occur. 

In any case no one said when gun sales are up crime is up because they probably already have the guns to begin with. I'd be more concerned with ammunition sales personally (you know, what you need to commit harm). More than that if guns weren't so prominently allowed it'd be easier to arrest or remove said weapon without an incident occurring because you don't have to ask them for paperwork to know whether they are legal or not.

I too would like to see the stat's of crime stopped thanks to a gun owner versus crime caused by guns as well. (not implying gun owners commit crime, but that the benefit may be overstated) If your weapon is concealed (as in hidden) how is that criminal who was going to mug you or rob your store going to actually even know, that logic seems flawed to me.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 7, 2012)

Randy said:


> So what of those crazy 'sovereign citizen', white supremacist and similar grass roots domestic terrorists that specifically prey on the same privileged? If the barrier to purchasing firearms is having some _prior_ case of committing a violent crime or displaying deranged behavior, we're going to just continue to have mass shootings occur and say 'well, if only somebody caught this guy sooner'.



When did I say anything about preventing gun ownership? I never touched on that half of the subject, whatsoever. I was only talking about legal gun ownership, and it's merits. Illegal gun ownership is another can of worms, that ultimately ends with the fact that if someone wants to get a gun to commit a crime, they're going to get it...regardless of whatever the gun laws state.



Edika said:


> What you are describing Chickenhawk is a cold war logic were the two opposing forces stockpiled massive amounts of nuclear weapons in order to be balance and not erupt in an apocalyptic scenario. Not the brightest move or logic and I would dare say one of the most uncivilized and irresponsible.
> 
> That doesn't mean that everyday law abiding citizens will go on a rampage and start killing people with their guns. Obviously that doesn't happened and most probably won't. I find it very unsettling that people in your country feel they need to take matters like these in their own hands concerning protection and really puts a question as to what is the role of law enforcement agencies. Don't forget that the army has the same role, to protect their country from foreign and domestic threats, so when are these militia in accordance with a democratically approved government and the army?



I don't agree with the cold war senario, but take this situation into consideration (albeit unlikely, still a valid senario):

I'm sitting at home, with my family (girlfriend, and two daughters, 9 and 3 years old). We're eating dinner, and the front door is kicked in. The assailant is high or extremely desperate, and has a lethal weapon.

What should I do? Call the cops? Strong possibility one or more of us are mortally wounded before any of us can even shout our address to the dispatcher. 

What WOULD I do? I'd draw the 1911 that I carry with me while I'm on my own property, and end the immediate threat to my family and myself. 

And you really shouldn't ask what place the Militia has in America. You're showing that you haven't done any research. State Governors are able to create a standing state Milita. Texas has the Texas Guard, which actually partakes in training with the U.S. Army (I've personally trained with them while I was stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas.). Missouri (where I live), has a Militia which is under direct order of the Governor. The Active Duty Military, National Guard and Reserves don't only kill people, they assist in mass emergencies and natural disasters, same with the Militia. There's a headache associated with utilizing Military action on U.S. soil, though, which is where the Militia comes into play. 



Jakke said:


> Damn, even Sweden had that sort of cold-war readiness as Chickenhawk mentions (if you hear that the fighting has stopped, don't believe it, and run for the nearest forest for guerilla warfare), but the times has changed. I agree with what Randy says, what is a group of enthusiasts going to do against an invading army? The 2nd amendment was written in a time before tanks, aircraft and nuclear weapons, a militia would stand no chance.



I really hate to argue this because it's not going to even sway your views, and you're exaggerating what-would-be-my-side of the argument with this
:"(if you hear that the fighting has stopped, don't believe it, and run for the nearest forest for guerilla warfare)," 

The Militia is not a 'group of enthusiasts'. Personally, I am not a member of the Missouri Militia, and don't ever see myself being one, but I'm not an 'enthusiast' either. I am a well armed, properly trained American Citizen (who just happens to be a U.S. Army Combat Veteran.)


----------



## Jakke (Aug 7, 2012)

Chickenhawk said:


> I really hate to argue this because it's not going to even sway your views, and you're exaggerating what-would-be-my-side of the argument with this
> :"(if you hear that the fighting has stopped, don't believe it, and run for the nearest forest for guerilla warfare),"
> 
> The Militia is not a 'group of enthusiasts'. Personally, I am not a member of the Missouri Militia, and don't ever see myself being one, but I'm not an 'enthusiast' either. I am a well armed, properly trained American Citizen (who just happens to be a U.S. Army Combat Veteran.)


 
Ah, that was not your views I was characterizing, that was the standing directive for the swedish people in the event of an invasion. Don't believe any word you get that the resistance has ended, then leg up to the nearest forest (as Sweden has a lot of fucking forest).

Bully for you that you know how to handle a weapon, but I would hazard that most of the militias in fact are enthusiasts (and props to you that you are not a member, they seem like a paranoid bunch), and I can't see them lasting very long against an organized invasion. They seems to be the equivalent of the UK Territorial Army or the swedish Hemvärnet, which is an extra hand for the pros, but nothing you can depend on in the case of an direct attack. With one crucial difference of course, while they are military, the militias are not.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 7, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Ah, that was not your views I was characterizing, that was the standing directive for the swedish people in the event of an invasion. Don't believe any word you get that the resistance has ended, then leg up to the nearest forest (as Sweden has a lot of fucking forest).
> 
> Bully for you that you know how to handle a weapon, but I would hazard that most of the militias in fact are enthusiasts (and props to you that you are not a member, they seem like a paranoid bunch), and I can't see them lasting very long against an organized invasion.



Apologies for misunderstanding the 'hide in the trees' comment 

I would honestly hazard a guess that most the militas in the U.S. are more than enthusiasts. Enthusiasts go to the range to shoot 50 rounds, from a stationary position, at a stationary paper target, then they pack up and head home...only to come back sometime in the next couple months. 

Militias train. 

I'm not a member the Missouri Milita, but I fully understand and support it's existence. I've never joined as a personal decision against a handful of it's members, a political stance against my State's Governor, and because they aren't going to give me the rank and responsibility equal to what I earned in the Army, nor are they going to allow me to operate in the capacity that I'd grown accustomed to while serving my country. (translated...I did cooler shit in the Army than they do...nananananana, stick their heads in doodoo)

Generally, I'm not a member because I'm being a Military Diva 


EDIT:

Here's info on the Missouri Milita:
http://www.missourimilitia.com/FAQ.html

The Texas Milita:
http://www.texasmilitia.org/about-us/

And the Texas State Guard:
http://www.txsg.state.tx.us/


I'm only using the Missouri Militia and the Texas State Guard as examples, because those are the only two I personally have experience with. A lot, as a matter of fact. I'm actually going to shoot some guns with some a few Missouri Militia members this weekend, and a couple guys that are considering joining the Kansas Militia.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 7, 2012)

Chickenhawk said:


> Apologies for misunderstanding the 'hide in the trees' comment


 
No problem at all man

As for the militias, their massive amounts of weapons, couple with the often prevailing paranoid belief in the NWO makes me nervous. The are basically fighting a quixotic fight against something that does not exist, which I also would be nervous about where I a lawmaker (and living in the US). My point is still that if the US army were to fail to repel an invader (and what invading force would even be powerful enough to invade the US?), would these people even stand the slightest chance?
The reason militias succeded in places like Afghanistan and Vietnam was because the terrain did not allow the invaders to use their might full on, a situation that would not arise in the even of an invasion of the US. Even if the militiamen were to leg up to Montana to live with survivalists there, it would be a simple matter for the invading forces to starve them out. Couple that with new technological advances, and the concept of a militia seems very outdated.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 7, 2012)

Chickenhawk said:


> People are less willing to commit a violent crime against a population they believe owns guns, and is willing to use them.



But conversely, the higher the number of publicaly owned firearms in circulation, the more criminals arm themselves. Glasgow has a great deal of violent crime. But very little gun crime even though it's pretty easy to go and buy a gun illegally - I could leave the house now and visit a few certain pubs and come home with a handgun tonight. Criminals don't bother to own guns because it seriously ups the time they'd be in jail for and there's zero chance they're going to encounter someone with one. Therefore, not many people get shot and if you're involved in a violent incident you're very unlikely to require more than a visit to casualty.



> The more guns that your average-law-abiding citizen owns, and is comfortable using (at the range, training, etc), the less violent crimes there will be. Fact. It has been proven (just as Max said).



Can you demonstrate this 'fact'? Might be true, but I very, very much doubt it and would like to see some citations. 



> Getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will only increase violent-gun-related crimes. Criminals don't obey the law, and once they realize the public no longer has an effective way of protecting themselves, they'll be like a pig in shit.



So why do nations with far fewer guns have far less gun crime? A couple with more guns have less gun crime than the states, by many orders of magnitude, but it's places like Switzerland where there are very specific other factors.



> But, anybody that is pro-gun-abolishment or pro-uber-strict-gun-laws will disagree with me, anyways. Ignoring the fact that the 2nd Amendment was written with the idea that America might need to amass a civilian milita to protect itself from a foreign or domestic threat.



If that is to be a valid argument, those militias, and ALL gun ownership associated with them, needs to function in the way it does in Switzerland.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 7, 2012)

Edika said:


> This is a delicate subject considering this is a US forum and a lot of the US citizens are gun owners with different reasons for owning weapons such as domestic protection, self protection, collectors, hunters etc etc. From the little knowledge I have of US legislation there is gun control and legally purchased weapons are registered and declared in the authorities. Any crime committed with these weapons would be traced to the owners.


Yes, there is gun control, and no, not all legally purchased firearms are registered. There is no federal requirement, and my state has no registration, though a few do. Also, contrary to what you may see on CSI-type programs, you generally cannot identify a gun, beyond it's caliber, from a recovered bullet.



Edika said:


> My point of view is that I am against weapons in general. I will not hide my attraction to them and the empowerment one might feel having one but this is merely a psychological effect and an attempt to an unwarranted self importance. In a civilized society there is no place for them. I am sure some will make arguments against this and that it is an utopian view, but you have to start from somewhere. Instead of buying guns why not support your local law enforcement agencies which are supposed to protect you.


Strictly my opinion, but as someone who does carry every day, I have to say a feeling of empowerment is probably a bad thing to feel. A gun should weigh on you as a responsibility.

I do not know how the police are in France, but in the U.S., the ones who aren't out committing crimes (some of which are even justified by the "laws") usually get poor performance reviews and booted out of their jobs here. It's really become a joke.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

I'd just like to point out that the police in my town (league City just outside of Houston so not referring to that cesspool ) are awesome 

Law enforcement doesn't have to be bad and it isn't everywhere.


----------



## Blind Theory (Aug 7, 2012)

Gun control is on the fence right now and I'm not too worried about legislation for gun control being passed. If it was a serious debate that was taking serious strides towards being implemented like people are implying on here (European gun control type stuff), then the "south would rise again" so to speak. Guns are a borderline religion in the U.S. and it wouldn't fly with a LOT of people. It is a scary thought to think of a mass revolt by a bunch of redneck gun lovers who are pissed off but it would happen and I wouldn't be opposed to it. 

Arguing about gun control doesn't get anywhere and won't in the U.S. just like half of everything else our government debates.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 7, 2012)

chronocide said:


> So why do nations with far fewer guns have far less gun crime? A couple with more guns have less gun crime than the states, by many orders of magnitude, but it's places like Switzerland where there are very specific other factors.


I'd hazard to say that the balance is tipped more towards other weapons, all else being equal.

As a group, the U.S. is not as gun-crazy as it purports, with my *guesstimate* being that if a gun ban were put to vote today, it would either pass, or get upper-40% of the vote.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> Gun control is on the fence right now and I'm not too worried about legislation for gun control being passed. If it was a serious debate that was taking serious strides towards being implemented like people are implying on here (European gun control type stuff), then the "south would rise again" so to speak. Guns are a borderline religion in the U.S. and it wouldn't fly with a LOT of people. It is a scary thought to think of a mass revolt by a bunch of redneck gun lovers who are pissed off but it would happen and I wouldn't be opposed to it.
> 
> Arguing about gun control doesn't get anywhere and won't in the U.S. just like half of everything else our government debates.




That's not a reason to avoid them. In many cases they are important issues that just get dodged. Does anything come of them, not always, but in some cases they should.

I here people talk about "starting a revolution" about stuff like that and I can tell you none of them are serious. Most of the people around here (where I live) who say that are too lazy to really do so.



The Atomic Ass said:


> I'd hazard to say that the balance is tipped more towards other weapons, all else being equal.
> 
> As a group, the U.S. is not as gun-crazy as it purports, with my *guesstimate* being that if a gun ban were put to vote today, it would either pass, or get upper-40% of the vote.



IMO a knife (or any other non-gun thing), while painful, cannot cause as much damage as a gun so even if the crime just shifts the chances of mass murder/assault are less likely.

I agree the NRA and many individuals do support gun rights, but at the same time a lot of people don't care. Some who do care, again, don't care enough to actually take action. Half sounds about right.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 7, 2012)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I'd hazard to say that the balance is tipped more towards other weapons, all else being equal.



Doesn't seem to be the case. Glasgow, the most violent city in Europe, doesn't have anything like the number of TOTAL violent crimes as the US does non-fatal (so ignoring all the ones that actually end in deaths) gun crime. 

US gun crime sits around 1039 crimes per 10,000 people. Glasgow sees around 49 violent crimes per 10,000 people. I know that's not comparing like with like, but I'm taking the most violent place in Europe and comparing it with all of the US, factoring in all the places where there's very little.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 7, 2012)

The Atomic Ass said:


> As a group, the U.S. is not as gun-crazy as it purports, with my *guesstimate* being that if a gun ban were put to vote today, it would either pass, or get upper-40% of the vote.





Just saying, no one here is arguing for a gun-ban (and to think Max thought I was being an ass for pointing out that earlier).

Sweden has quite a lot of guns, yet strict gun control. That is because we tend to use them, instead of carrying around them for "protection", which seems to be (correct me if I am wrong) the reason why many americans own guns. If I may play the sociologist here, it seems to be rooted in a deep distrust, which seems to be prevailant in some strata of US society, against institutions like the police and the military. They do not trust them, and therefore security is sought somewhere else. It seems like almost a wild-west mentality to me


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

^^It is the same logic why people hate paying taxes, they don't like where "their" money is going. That in itself shows a deep seeded distrust for the government. And always voting on the "lesser of two evils".

So in other words I agree with you...


----------



## chronocide (Aug 7, 2012)

I don't think that's a remotely valid comparison. Disliking what your tax money is being spent on is rather different than being so distrustful of your government you feel you need to be armed to be safe.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

chronocide said:


> I don't think that's a remotely valid comparison. Disliking what your tax money is being spent on is rather different than being so distrustful of your government you feel you need to be armed to be safe.



Wasn't making a comparison just saying that people seem to not trust their government in general including their spending habits.

I probably should have used a different word rather than logic...


----------



## chronocide (Aug 7, 2012)

Ah, ok. Though I think the prose somewhat suggests they're the same thing.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

I suppose it did  all well...

My rewording second time through kind of avoids that.


----------



## dethFNmetal (Aug 7, 2012)

just think about it, these people that do shootings like this are nuts, they will find a way to get firearms no matter what. if guns are banned then average citizens will have no way of defending themselves. so shootings will happen no matter what. but to limit casualties people need to be able to defend themselves.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 7, 2012)

dethFNmetal said:


> just think about it, these people that do shootings like this are nuts, they will find a way to get firearms no matter what. if guns are banned then average citizens will have no way of defending themselves. so shootings will happen no matter what. but to limit casualties people need to be able to defend themselves.



The people who go out to do mass killings, yes. No one sensible is going to suggest otherwise. But with far fewer guns you vastly reduce the instances of attempted robberies, street fights, hell even arguments in bars that turn into gun crimes and firearms murders.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 7, 2012)

Again, no one argues for banning guns.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

dethFNmetal said:


> just think about it, these people that do shootings like this are nuts, they will find a way to get firearms no matter what. if guns are banned then average citizens will have no way of defending themselves. so shootings will happen no matter what. but to limit casualties people need to be able to defend themselves.



How many times has a gun owner killed the assailant during a massacre (also without harm to others) before it was too late?


----------



## dethFNmetal (Aug 7, 2012)

yeah well i guess any way you look at it there are negatives to either. its just a matter of which option has less. i believe banning guns would be the worse option. just my opinion.


----------



## dethFNmetal (Aug 7, 2012)

flint757 said:


> How many times has a gun owner killed the assailant during a massacre (also without harm to others) before it was too late?



you would never really know because those incidents get much less publicity than the ones with alot of fatalities.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

dethFNmetal said:


> you would never really know because those incidents get much less publicity than the ones with alot of fatalities.



Fair enough, I'll do some digging of my own when I get a chance. Hell if it comes out positive I'll change my opinion.


----------



## Edika (Aug 7, 2012)

Chickenhawk said:


> I don't agree with the cold war senario, but take this situation into consideration (albeit unlikely, still a valid senario):
> 
> I'm sitting at home, with my family (girlfriend, and two daughters, 9 and 3 years old). We're eating dinner, and the front door is kicked in. The assailant is high or extremely desperate, and has a lethal weapon.
> 
> ...



First of all I am not against having a weapon for home protection but the scenario (exaggerated I should add) is something that really makes me feel bad for you guys in the other side of the Atlantic. In a similar situation I would react similarly and if I had a weapon I would use it to protect my family. 
But did I understand correctly in that you have the gun on you while at home just in case somebody breaks in? If yes then what does law enforcement do to actually prevent crimes that you can't actually relax at your own home? If no then disregard the whole comment. 
What I am against is people having more than one firearm and actually being proud about it. This shows problematic personalities that should not be un-scrutinized (sorry gun aficionados, these are not guitars or innocent trinkets).

Concerning the militia you are right that I have not done any research and that should be normal since I don't live in your country. Militia helping in emergencies consisted by volunteers is something I agree is useful. As I stated the only information I have is the media portrayal (fictional and non fictional) by the US media and as you know they tend not to show the positive actions they are involved. I am however kind of wary of civilians that organized, take part in military training (not for rescue and emergency operations) and are allowed to carry weapons. The problem is in this kind of conversations that there usually are bad examples/scenarios and misconceptions that may overshadow the positive action of a certain group.



The Atomic Ass said:


> Yes, there is gun control, and no, not all legally purchased firearms are registered. There is no federal requirement, and my state has no registration, though a few do. Also, contrary to what you may see on CSI-type programs, you generally cannot identify a gun, beyond it's caliber, from a recovered bullet.
> 
> Strictly my opinion, but as someone who does carry every day, I have to say a feeling of empowerment is probably a bad thing to feel. A gun should weigh on you as a responsibility.
> 
> I do not know how the police are in France, but in the U.S., the ones who aren't out committing crimes (some of which are even justified by the "laws") usually get poor performance reviews and booted out of their jobs here. It's really become a joke.



Well I was sure that the CSI programs are exaggerated but I would expect a database for legally owned firearms. The striation thingy though should have some merit. It is logical.
From your post I understand that you are a police officer. Since I am not French and have been in France for a few years, what I understand is that the only police station active after 6 o'clock is the central police station (fucking ridiculous), they don't even lift a finger for petty crimes and in they have a kind of rule that they don't go to the Arab ghettos after a certain hour but if they find Arabs causing trouble in the "good" parts of the town they handle them quite roughly. In general though there is not much of a crime wave but it is a small city with lots of students.
Now if we talk about Greece I am surprised there is such little crime if one considers the inefficiency of police. But I shouldn't really blame the ones actually handling civilian affairs since the majority of the police forces are crowd control units that enforce the will of corrupt politicians and police units that protect said rotten politicians.

As someone that has had army training I must say that it gave me no pleasure having a weapon on me. It made nervous and even more nervous that there were people around me that had the same weapons and that they shouldn't even be trusted with a fork!


----------



## Jakke (Aug 7, 2012)

dethFNmetal said:


> yeah well i guess any way you look at it there are negatives to either. its just a matter of which option has less. i believe banning guns would be the worse option. just my opinion.



And no one here argues for the complete ban of guns, I'm going to keep repeating this until you understand this and stop misrepresenting gun control.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 7, 2012)

Edika said:


> First of all I am not against having a weapon for home protection but the scenario (exaggerated I should add) is something that really makes me feel bad for you guys in the other side of the Atlantic. In a similar situation I would react similarly and if I had a weapon I would use it to protect my family.
> *But did I understand correctly in that you have the gun on you while at home just in case somebody breaks in? If yes then what does law enforcement do to actually prevent crimes that you can't actually relax at your own home?* If no then disregard the whole comment.
> What I am against is people having more than one firearm and actually being proud about it. This shows problematic personalities that should not be un-scrutinized (sorry gun aficionados, these are not guitars or innocent trinkets).
> 
> Concerning the militia you are right that I have not done any research and that should be normal since I don't live in your country. Militia helping in emergencies consisted by volunteers is something I agree is useful. As I stated the only information I have is the media portrayal (fictional and non fictional) by the US media and as you know they tend not to show the positive actions they are involved. I am however kind of wary of civilians that organized, take part in military training (not for rescue and emergency operations) and are allowed to carry weapons. The problem is in this kind of conversations that there usually are bad examples/scenarios and misconceptions that may overshadow the positive action of a certain group.



Ya know...I couldn't honestly tell you what my local law enforcement actively does to prevent someone from getting high (or desperate) and attempting to murder my family. They're not everywhere, and I don't expect them to be. Exactly why I choose to protect myself and my family.

I'm not paranoid. I can relax (and usually am).

This is a joking comment I read a while back, but it rings true:

People say I have a gun because I'm paranoid or worried. What do I have to worry about? I have a gun.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 7, 2012)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Also, contrary to what you may see on CSI-type programs, you generally cannot identify a gun, beyond it's caliber, from a recovered bullet.



I'm not sure this is true. I've a friend currently working on their PhD thesis on the topic. Admittedly they work out of a military academy with the top forensics unit in the UK, so maybe it's just that it's very rare to be able to do so with Police resources.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 7, 2012)

chronocide said:


> I'm not sure this is true. I've a friend currently working on their PhD thesis on the topic. Admittedly they work out of a military academy with the top forensics unit in the UK, so maybe it's just that it's very rare to be able to do so with Police resources.



Their IS a way to do it from what I understand, but you have to get a hold of the gun in question, which is sometimes hard to do on a 'hunch' (or at all, after a crime).

Also, if the gun has been damaged or destroyed (or chucked into a big river or lake for a few days), the necessary attributes that they'll use to match the bore to the bullet will be altered.


----------



## zappatton2 (Aug 7, 2012)

I generally dont comment on gun threads, as I view the gun right debate as an American thing, and as a non-American, I cant say I have any right passing judgment on U.S. political matters. That said, Ive had a couple of beers and am feeling belligerent. It seems to me that much of the gun debate is rooted in a deep-seated fear of random violent crime, but couldnt some of this be viewed as almost an arms race between criminals and the law-abiding, in which the sheer proliferation of arms within the population spurs paranoia of your neighbours and the sentiment that you need to arm yourself just to feel safe, precisely because there are so many guns floating around?
Personally, Ive never even seen a real handgun before, and Ive also never had any fear of being shot, even while strolling about town well into the evening. Yes, shootings do happen in Canada, as witnessed in Toronto, but the fact that they are such anomalies tends to be what makes them such big stories, and Im not sure I see the benefit of everyone pulling out a firearm and blasting away in a crowded area to take out some nut. That said, Americans clearly value their armaments, I wouldnt urge them to take a different course if thats what they want, but NRA-affiliates have been pushing to liberalize gun controls up here, and I am very much opposed. Liberalize the green stuff if you really want to fight crime, let the hunters and rural folks have their long guns, but (IMO) keep the handguns out!


----------



## dethFNmetal (Aug 7, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Fair enough, I'll do some digging of my own when I get a chance. Hell if it comes out positive I'll change my opinion.



i will as well.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 7, 2012)

You know, we keep arguing semantics, but why not be constructive?

What do you folks, who are for more/greater restrictions on firearm ownership, propose we do? If the goal is to limit the amount in circulation, how do you propose we do so? What laws specifically do you feel need changing? 

Perhaps instead of a "yes" or "no" thread, lets turn this into something constructive. Maybe we can come to an understanding.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 7, 2012)

Bearing in mind I'm not familiar with the intricacies of what is currently the legal status of gun ownership in whatever states, so some of these things may already be the case.

Well, I'd basically have zero handguns outwith shooting clubs - no home ownership whatsoever. All firearm transactions subject to police checks and absolutely no weapons being able to be bought and taken home same day. Firearms licenses required prior to purchase and subject to a training course both in safety and use. Requirement of secure cabinets to keep both arms and ammunition (separately), subject to police checks, probably annually. Zero assault weapons. No concealed carry - no carrying of firearms whatsoever unless en route to a range or hunt. Any transgressions seeing immediate, permanent revocation of license.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 7, 2012)

chronocide said:


> Bearing in mind I'm not familiar with the intricacies of what is currently the legal status of gun ownership in whatever states, so some of these things may already be the case.
> 
> Well, I'd basically have zero handguns outwith shooting clubs - no home ownership whatsoever. All firearm transactions subject to police checks and absolutely no weapons being able to be bought and taken home same day. Firearms licenses required prior to purchase and subject to a training course both in safety and use. Requirement of secure cabinets to keep both arms and ammunition (separately), subject to police checks, probably annually. Zero assault weapons. No concealed carry - no carrying of firearms whatsoever unless en route to a range or hunt. Any transgressions seeing immediate, permanent revocation of license.


 
Those are all very valid, and in most states that's exactly how it is. Though, how would that stop criminals and regular citizens buy and own illegal firearms? 

Keep in mind, most firearm owners already do all of the above, minus annual police at-home checks.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 7, 2012)

Where do all the illegal guns come from currently?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

Probably pawn shops, people who just gave a gun to a bud and then so on, someone who needed extra cash and sold it and technically our government since you know they shipped a bunch of unmarked guns to mexico that are probably making there way back home. Funny how we try and help Mexico in their time of need by giving the criminals even more weapons. 

Some weapons can be bought legally, but if altered like turning a semi to a fully auto makes it illegal.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 7, 2012)

Well weapons changing hands would certainly be illegal in my above situation. You could trade them in to licensed gun stores, obviously, or sell them to them. But nothing between people and no gifting them. And any sales other than that would result in the removal of a license from both parties.

Smuggled weapons should obviously be picked up by border controls but some will always slip by and I don't suppose you can do much about that. Those that are stolen would hopefully be seriously reduced by the strictness of how they'd be allowed to be stored at home and the lack of them every being carried around other than in very specific circumstances to and from legitimate uses.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 7, 2012)

chronocide said:


> Where do all the illegal guns come from currently?



At one point, most, if not all were legal. Though, through theft and illegal sales they no longer are properly registered. Heck, even "legal" guns are sometimes not fully/properly registered. 

I'm not denying that less guns circulating equate, eventually, to less illegal ones. Though, what is to happen to the existing millions of guns already out there? Especially those which are already untraceable illegal ones? 

Having a gun go from legal to illegal is a simple as reporting it stolen, and then selling it to the first guy with a couple hundred dollars cash. It happens often enough to be a serious issue. 

Should we make the penalties for losing a gun via theft extremely harsh? What would happen to those who are legitimately victimized? 

How would we even start tracing all the illegal and unregistered firearms already on the streets? Even with constant busts and seizures they're still very prevalent. 

I think, even if we close all gun stores in the nation, it would still take decades to make all firearms compliant with even the current laws on the books. It's a problem that's already quite big. 

I think a few things that need to be done:

- Have better laws at the federal level, not the state level. Make it an even field. 

- Better educate folks about firearm safety and responsibility. 

- Give incentives to having legal, properly registered arms. 

- Teach young people at an early age to respect firearms. 

There will always be gray and black markets for firearms, as well as perfectly law abiding citizens that choose to do terrible things for seemingly no reason. 

I don't think piling registration after registration, training course after training course, and law after law will stop people from doing anything, nor quell the amount of guns out there significantly. It'll just lead to more illegal arms being obtained from various sources. I think it's a societal issue that is going to take a good amount of time to resolve. 

Luckily, despite what certain news outlets want you to think, things are getting better, and they're getting better rather quickly. At the rate it's going, in a decade or so we'll catch up to a good chunk of the developed world.


----------



## dethFNmetal (Aug 7, 2012)

its actually relatively easy for anyone to get ahold of an illegal firearm. i mean look some unemployed loser from Aurora got ahold of tear gas!! they well them anywhere from pawnshops, to the black market, to even back alleys in downtown.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

The problem is we've never really had a handle on it and our population is far too big to get a handle on it.

One way to maybe help with the illegal market is to put restrictions on ammo more so than guns. If you don't have a license you can't buy ammo (may already be the case in some places) and you can't buy in bulk (like dealer amounts) maybe.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 7, 2012)

flint757 said:


> The problem is we've never really had a handle on it and our population is far too big to get a handle on it.
> 
> One way to maybe help with the illegal market is to put restrictions on ammo more so than guns. If you don't have a license you can't buy ammo (may already be the case in some places) and you can't buy in bulk (like dealer amounts) maybe.



That would be part and parcel of my above outline. And ammunition would be _expensive_.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 7, 2012)

flint757 said:


> The problem is we've never really had a handle on it and our population is far too big to get a handle on it.
> 
> One way to maybe help with the illegal market is to put restrictions on ammo more so than guns. If you don't have a license you can't buy ammo (may already be the case in some places) and you can't buy in bulk (like dealer amounts) maybe.



You don't need a lot of ammo to create a tragedy. 

I only ever have one box of ammo for my guns in my house, and sometimes even less. I typically buy ammo at the range and stop shooting once I'm out.



chronocide said:


> And ammunition would be _expensive_.



Then some guy who gets some in bulk, or already has some in bulk will sell it. 

If you think guns are hard to track, imagine tracking something the size of a marble.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

I didn't say it would solve the problem at this point anything is just a band aid.


----------



## Waelstrum (Aug 7, 2012)

If there is no national database on gun ownership in the US, is there a national database of car registration? It seams to me that you should control guns more strictly than cars. A car is a very dangerous thing in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it, just like a gun. However, a car's primary purpose is transport, whereas guns a weapons - literally designed to be dangerous. I'm not sure how car licensing goes in America, but in my home state, to get a provisional license, you need to be on a learner's permit for a year and log one hundred hours driving with a fully licensed driver present. It's also really strict about when/where/with whom you're allowed to drive. You then have a year of a red provisional license, then a year of green provisional license, then you can get your open license, having to pass a driving test each time to get to the next license. It seems to me that a similarly strict, three year process to getting a firearms license should be in place. It should test maintenance, competence, mental stability, and probably some other things I'm over looking (I know very little about guns). There should be a cool off period for each purchase of weapons and ammunition (there probably already is that.) There should be a limit to how much ammunition is stored in any private home. There should also be a federal database regarding who owns which gun.

As you may have noticed, I'm in favour of some fairly strict gun control. I doubt most of that would be implemented in the States, though, because the amount of guns is already too far gone. I just see guns as being a bit like cars: if you know what you're doing (and you're not mental) then you can have it, because you're not likely to cause any harm.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 7, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Then some guy who gets some in bulk, or already has some in bulk will sell it.
> 
> If you think guns are hard to track, imagine tracking something the size of a marble.




The relationship with guns and the crime associated with them in the US if FUCKED. Nobody's trying to suggest something that's going to fix it. Only things that might help aid it's reduction over a long time. Very expensive bullets would help do that. You'd obviously control boxes of ammunition in the same way you do drugs (at least over here). Extremely strict records in and out of anywhere the retails them, documentation from everyone that buys them, colossal fines for stores where any go missing (not individual bullets, box boxes, clearly) and so on.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 7, 2012)

Just thinking out loud here, but I think one of the reasons this is such a hotbutton issue here in the US is a result of the fact that, as many non-Americans so love to point out, we don't really have much by way of an ancient cultural history or time-honored traditions spanning hundred or thousands of years, like many European and Asian nations.

America is a fairly young country, and much of our history has been defined by armed conflict, patriotism, and perhaps militarism. As a result, for much of our history, the right to bear arms (however one might interpret that) was a very important issue, and has sortof evolved into an important aspect of our cultural heritage. 

Perhaps as a result of that, some Americans take it _very_ seriously (and oftentimes peronally) when there's talk of gun control and what that may or may not entail, in much that same way anyone from any other country might react to what they see as an attack on an important facet of their cultural heritage. 

It isn't all just Americans wanting to be able to shoot eachother, or cowering in the corner with the hammer on their .45 cocked, living in fear of the next meth head that's going to come busting down their door, AK-47 blazing. Guns are a part of our culture, and they pretty much always have been. Imposing ever stricter laws controlling that will likely _always_ be met with fervent resistence as a result.

That all makes sense in my head. I hope it wasn't too rambly.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 7, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> If there is no national database on gun ownership in the US, is there a national database of car registration? It seams to me that you should control guns more strictly than cars. A car is a very dangerous thing in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it, just like a gun. However, a car's primary purpose is transport, whereas guns a weapons - literally designed to be dangerous. I'm not sure how car licensing goes in America, but in my home state, to get a provisional license, you need to be on a learner's permit for a year and log one hundred hours driving with a fully licensed driver present. It's also really strict about when/where/with whom you're allowed to drive. You then have a year of a red provisional license, then a year of green provisional license, then you can get your open license, having to pass a driving test each time to get to the next license. It seems to me that a similarly strict, three year process to getting a firearms license should be in place. It should test maintenance, competence, mental stability, and probably some other things I'm over looking (I know very little about guns). There should be a cool off period for each purchase of weapons and ammunition (there probably already is that.) There should be a limit to how much ammunition is stored in any private home. There should also be a federal database regarding who owns which gun.
> 
> As you may have noticed, I'm in favour of some fairly strict gun control. I doubt most of that would be implemented in the States, though, because the amount of guns is already too far gone. I just see guns as being a bit like cars: if you know what you're doing (and you're not mental) then you can have it, because you're not likely to cause any harm.



Have you been reading this thread?  

There is a system of registration, multiple ones in fact. The issue is that, since guns are significantly smaller and easier to conceal than cars, in addition to being many times cheaper, folks obtain them and keep them illegally and "off the grid", and unless the guns are found by police, there is no way for them to detected or tracked.



chronocide said:


> The relationship with guns and the crime associated with them in the US if FUCKED. Nobody's trying to suggest something that's going to fix it. Only things that might help aid it's reduction over a long time. Very expensive bullets would help do that. You'd obviously control boxes of ammunition in the same way you do drugs (at least over here). Extremely strict records in and out of anywhere the retails them, documentation from everyone that buys them, colossal fines for stores where any go missing (not individual bullets, box boxes, clearly) and so on.



I think you're missing the scale in which ammo is already available. It would take decades to enact the kind of policy you're talking about. 

There are_ hundreds of millions_ of guns in the US and more than enough ammo to supply them all. 

These strong arm tracking and red tape ideas aren't feasible given the scale.


----------



## Watty (Aug 7, 2012)

People, in general, suck. Adding a gun to the mix simply amplifies just how much suck a given situation involving said people can amass. Control the guns. Don't control the guns. Won't make any difference until there's less people to make up the inevitable amount of suck. Even then, the difference would be minimal as all it takes is one person sucking to rain suck down on everyone else. Thus, we come full circle to...you guessed it, people suck and guns (while pointless) have little actual bearing on the situation.

/thread


----------



## Waelstrum (Aug 7, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Have you been reading this thread?
> 
> There is a system of registration, multiple ones in fact. The issue is that, since guns are significantly smaller and easier to conceal than cars, in addition to being many times cheaper, folks obtain them and keep them illegally and "off the grid", and unless the guns are found by police, there is no way for them to detected or tracked.



Yep. The part that confused me about national registration was this:


The Atomic Ass said:


> Yes, there is gun control, and no, not all legally purchased firearms are registered. There is no federal requirement, and my state has no registration, though a few do. Also, contrary to what you may see on CSI-type programs, you generally cannot identify a gun, beyond it's caliber, from a recovered bullet.



If there is no federal requirement to register your guns, then that's a pretty weak database. Perhaps I should have specifically said mandatory registration for all guns, and strict tracking of ammunition in a similar way to the tracking of medicine as Chronocide said.

With regards to guns being many times cheaper than cars, perhaps those prices should be artificially increased with heavy taxes just like cigarettes and alcohol. (I don't know the going price of guns, but I assumed they'd be expensive, perhaps not.)


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 7, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Yep. The part that confused me about national registration was this:
> 
> 
> If there is no federal requirement to register your guns, then that's a pretty weak database. Perhaps I should have specifically said mandatory registration for all guns, and strict tracking of ammunition in a similar way to the tracking of medicine as was already posted.
> ...



There are registration issues, but not as many as some make it out to be. I've bought guns in six states now, and needed to register all of them at least three other times since. Some of the more lax regions don't do this, hence why we need a federal stance on it. 

Guns are a lot like guitars. You can get a super cheap import that'll do the job for $200, but if you want something that'll function more than a few shots without jamming or falling apart you'll need to spend a few times that. A good handgun will run you close to a grand. 

All that is null and void though if the gun is acquired illegally.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 7, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Have you been reading this thread?
> 
> There is a system of registration, multiple ones in fact. The issue is that, since guns are significantly smaller and easier to conceal than cars, in addition to being many times cheaper, folks obtain them and keep them illegally and "off the grid", and unless the guns are found by police, there is no way for them to detected or tracked.
> 
> ...



Quite possibly. Though your original question, to which I gave a bunch of laws I'd have, was about what sensible gun control would be, not about how to transform the US gun crime situation in 6 months. It's always going to be a decades long process. It's too out of hand for anything else.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 7, 2012)

chronocide said:


> Quite possibly. Though your original question, to which I gave a bunch of laws I'd have, was about what sensible gun control would be, not about how to transform the US gun crime situation in 6 months. It's always going to be a decades long process. It's too out of hand for anything else.



You're totally right. 

We all agree now that the issue isn't about immediate action, which up till now has been most people's suggestions, but something that will take a good deal of time. 

Luckily, time looks to be on our side as gun crime rates are dropping very steadily. Right now, the US is at ~2.84 gun murders per 100,000 people. If things continue like they have been the last ten years, in another five years it'll be closer to many European nations. It's not all doom and gloom.


----------



## Blind Theory (Aug 7, 2012)

flint757 said:


> That's not a reason to avoid them. In many cases they are important issues that just get dodged. Does anything come of them, not always, but in some cases they should.
> 
> I here people talk about "starting a revolution" about stuff like that and I can tell you none of them are serious. Most of the people around here (where I live) who say that are too lazy to really do so.




That's kind of what I'm talking about. People are all talk. Both our government officials and citizens. That is where I was coming from. The citizens won't try to revolt in any form because the government is not going to take any serious action against it because it is too big an issue here. That is where the problem is. Granted, I think gun control is the problem but that's my upbringing.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2012)

That's the beauty of "meeting in the middle" we can all be wrong and right at the same time because in the middle it can go either way, but it never will. 

We never truly commit to anything in this country so what we get left with is half assed laws.


----------



## BrainArt (Aug 8, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> What's probably the most telling in the info above, is that a state like California that is probably one of the most strict when it comes to owning and buying a firearm has more gun related homicide than Texas, a state known for having lax gun laws.



It's going from "strict gun laws" to "anyone who owns a firearm, legally or illegally will be labeled a criminal and the state authorities can bash down someone's door without a warrant and confiscate any firearms, even though it's against the Constitution to an unwarranted police search of a private residence" in California. At least that's what Sen. Yee wants.

Source: https://www.change.org/petitions/st...utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

I signed this petition against that bill, because I'm 100% pro-firearm and as a former resident of California for twenty years and having family out there that plan on legally purchasing and registering a firearm, it hit close to home.



Jakke said:


> Again, no one argues for banning guns.



No one in this thread may not be arguing for banning firearms, but if you read the above, you'll see that there are people out there who are. 



I was raised around firearms, my dad used to own a few handguns, a rifle and a shotgun. I was taught how to use and respect them at an early age and even though my sister and I were taught that, he still had them under lock and key. We never had to use them for protection, but every once in a while my dad and I would go to a local range and shoot, then he would lock them up when we were done and we'd go home, satisified.


I have a question, as well, pertaining to the "banishment" of firearms. Say, hypothetically, that somehow firearms *were* banned in the US, what happens to all of the people who make their livelihood off of hunting if the tool they use is banned and made illegal? 

Like on the US TV show "Swamp People", not only is their hunting and killing alligators their livelihood, but it's also a form of population control, since out in that area, there aren't any non-human predators that can kill and control the population of alligators.

Also, as an aside, I think this is the first civilized gun control thread that I've ever seen on here, usually they don't make it this far and end in bannings and thread closings. That means we're getting better. 

But, back to my original point, I'm 100% pro-gun, but I'm also mostly opposed to government (let me clarify, before I get negged. What I mean by this is that I believe there needs to be some sort of government, but not with as much power, nor as oppressive as it seems to be getting. That's another story for another thread, though.), so take that as you will.


----------



## areyna21 (Aug 8, 2012)

I am pro gun ownership but with some laws and regulations. I believe that states should have the right to make most of their laws without federal interference. This on the other hand I think needs to be taken to the federal level. We have so many different laws on gun ownership from state to state it is ridiculous. Amount of ammo one can have in a clip, assault weapons bans, amount of guns your legally able to buy in a certain amount of time, and the list goes on. These things get perfectly law abiding citizens into trouble when crossing state lines with firearms. In one state your within your rights in the next you are committing a felony. I see the point of making sure you know the laws and abide by them. For someone who travels regularly should they have to learn all of these laws? Should someone who travels regularly be able to carry a concealed weapon in the first place? I think these are valid questions that need to be answered. If these federal laws were to happen and say it would tighten the law across the board i'm sure their would be some pissed off states. I think though in this day and age this is a step we need to take. To regulate responsible gun ownership for all of americans on the federal level. 

-Background checks are a must but what excludes someone from gun ownership I think needs to be discussed

-We need a national database for gun owners and the weapons they own.

-If assault weapons are allowed I think more extensive training should be taking place to make sure we are taught responsibility. Loaded assault weapons should not be allowed to travel be any means, only unloaded and within a locked case.

-There should be no reason for law enforcement or military to be able to own assault weapons and different types of guns then normal citizens. Although if citizens be granted the right to own the same types of guns they need similar extensive training.

-Criminal records as well as psychiatric records should be used to determine wither someone should own a gun. I think psychological instability should have some say in gun ownership. You could run into hippa violations for using medical records to deny eligibility but this should be changed.

In the end I do not think any responsible law abiding citizens should be denied their right to carry.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 8, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Just thinking out loud here, but I think one of the reasons this is such a hotbutton issue here in the US is a result of the fact that, as many non-Americans so love to point out, we don't really have much by way of an ancient cultural history or time-honored traditions spanning hundred or thousands of years, like many European and Asian nations.
> 
> America is a fairly young country, and much of our history has been defined by armed conflict, patriotism, and perhaps militarism. As a result, for much of our history, the right to bear arms (however one might interpret that) was a very important issue, and has sortof evolved into an important aspect of our cultural heritage.
> 
> ...


 
It made sense, and I'm actually on something along those lines as well. Everyone craves an identity, nations included, and for the US that identity includes firearms.



BrainArt said:


> No one in this thread may not be arguing for banning firearms, but if you read the above, you'll see that there are people out there who are.


 
And there are people who wants all firearms to be completely regulation-free. But no one is arguing that in this thread, so therefore I don't argue against that. It's completely non sequitur as a matter of fact, and if it had been maliciously done, I would have called him out on a strawman as well.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 8, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Sweden has quite a lot of guns, yet strict gun control. That is because we tend to use them, instead of carrying around them for "protection", which seems to be (correct me if I am wrong) the reason why many americans own guns. If I may play the sociologist here, *it seems to be rooted in a deep distrust, which seems to be prevailant in some strata of US society, against institutions like the police and the military. They do not trust them, and therefore security is sought somewhere else. It seems like almost a wild-west mentality to me*


You pretty much summed up the reason why the U.S. is no longer a British colony.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 8, 2012)

The Atomic Ass said:


> You pretty much summed up the reason why the U.S. is no longer a British colony.



Considering how long Sweden has fought Denmark and Russia, we could get away with a lot of things claiming the same

However, these authorities are your own, not a foreign occupating power. There is a thin line between being a healthy skeptic and being a contrarian


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 8, 2012)

Edika said:


> Well I was sure that the CSI programs are exaggerated but I would expect a database for legally owned firearms. The striation thingy though should have some merit. It is logical.


**IF** the bullet wasn't fragmented, you have a reasonable chance of determining the make. The model as well, if dealing with a manufacturer that uses different barrel machines for different model barrels. Unless the specific gun has an aberration in the barrel, you're unlikely to pin it down to an exact serial number. The striation differences&#8212;if there are any between two guns of the same model&#8212;are difficult to detect under a microscope.

As for database, there is a sort've database here, but nothing accessible. I'll elaborate. When legally purchasing a firearm, one goes into the store and fills out a one-page form. The gun shop then calls the ATF to see if you're legally able to purchase, and you get either a green-light or not. They don't inform the ATF whether a sale was subsequently completed, or not, nor do they provide the make, model or serial. They might say whether the call is about a long gun, (shotguns, rifles) or a handgun, because we have a dual-age system (18 for long guns, 21 for handguns).

But, ATF rules require that the make, model and serial number be recorded on the form that you fill out, and the shop must keep the form for 20 years, accessible on demand to ATF. (Whether police can access the forms, I do not know. Probably with a subpeona, they could, but I am unsure of the process there)



Edika said:


> From your post I understand that you are a police officer.


Hahahano.  I am an anarchist, and do not tolerate police.



Edika said:


> But I shouldn't really blame the ones actually handling civilian affairs since the majority of the police forces are crowd control units that enforce the will of corrupt politicians and police units that protect said rotten politicians.


With what I've seen, both here in the U.S., and from media reports abroad, that is a worldwide phenomenon.



Edika said:


> ...and even more nervous that there were people around me that had the same weapons and that they shouldn't even be trusted with a fork!


Some people just need the lessons pounded in a little more, is all. A friend of mine required several corrections (read: the rest of us yelling at him) before he learned the concept of "muzzle control".


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 8, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Considering how long Sweden has fought Denmark and Russia, we could get away with a lot of things claiming the same
> 
> However, these authorities are your own, not a foreign occupating power. There is a thin line between being a healthy skeptic and being a contrarian


I prefer the term "guerrilla fighter", myself.

And foreign occupying power? That's becoming increasingly debatable.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 8, 2012)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I prefer the term "guerrilla fighter", myself.
> 
> And foreign occupying power? That's becoming increasingly debatable.



Guerrilla fighter eh? How much have you fought then? Forgive me, but calling yourself a guerrilla fighter makes you sound terribly full of yourself, you might be out shooting at soldiers, but something tells me you are not.

Debatable? Very well, convince me. It sounds to me like a conspiracy theory, which I enjoy, but I am not in the habit of believing them.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 8, 2012)

I always find the good threads late! 

How does the group here feel about limiting the number of firearms an individual can own?

Wanting a rifle in the bedroom to protect one's family from theoretical intrusion is one thing, and I get it. On the flip side, owning a whole arsenal (a-la Sarah Connor from Terminator 2) is - in my opinion - completely unjustifiable. *edit* For the record, I feel the same way about guitar collections. 

If "Gun Owner X" is only allowed to own one weapon, theoretically it would be that much more difficult for them to ever lose track of the weapon, such that it might end up in the hands of anyone other than the owner. Just a theory, though. I'm sure there's an angle I'm not considering.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 8, 2012)

The issue is the damage is done. the average gun owner already has more than one and there is already a ton on the illegal market so while many of these ideas are good, including that last one, it isn't that it won't make a difference, but it won't resolve anything in a timely manner. that being said it doesn't mean we shouldn't do something, but enforcing it is a whole other matter.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 8, 2012)

Jakke said:


> However, these authorities are your own, not a foreign occupating power.


 
Purely tangental here, but they were closer to being "our own" than an occupying power. It's not like America already existed and then England came and occupied it (unless you ask the native Americans, that is ). We were a colony. They _were_ our authorities, same as the American government is today.

I'm not using that as an arument for or against stricter gun control, of course. Just pointing it out. Carry on!

/tangent.


----------



## wlfers (Aug 8, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I always find the good threads late!
> 
> How does the group here feel about limiting the number of firearms an individual can own?
> 
> ...



I always thought it was odd when in news broadcasts about firearms, they always make a big deal out of an individual with "an arsenal" of firearms, with shots of of the beautifully arranged rifles on the table for the viewers pleasure 

In my opinion, there should be no limit to the number of firearms an individual can own. Expanding on the guitar analogy, your steel string serves a different purpose from your classical, from your electric with actives, from your electric with passives with X wood etc. Having a collection doesn't enable someone to do more damage, since they can only use one rifle at a time. 

And blocking someone from purchasing their n+1 firearm wouldn't make much sense to me because the damage they could do with said firearm could also be accomplished by the others that they already have. It's the same reason I disagree with cooling down periods for people who already own firearms.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 9, 2012)

Well the broader point for a limit on amount allowed to own is that there are less in your hands so if you happen to get robbed they aren't taking a military base with them.

One worthy note is that most people get robbed when no ones home so having a gun to protect your house is for all intents and purposes pointless.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 9, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I always find the good threads late!
> 
> How does the group here feel about limiting the number of firearms an individual can own?
> 
> ...


I would, unfortunately, probably be a better target than my cousin, who has upwards of 40+ guns. His are stored in 2 Liberty safes, built into his house. They are somewhere around 3,000 lbs each, and have vault doors on them. Given the torture tests that they've run their safes through, I highly doubt your average thief is going to make the attempt.



Contrast that with me, who has 4 guns, and a gun cabinet. Which is only a little tougher than the filing cabinets sold at your local office supply store. But, unfortunately, it's all I can afford. 

I would dare say that having a larger collection makes one less likely to have any therein stolen, with government being the exception.

And, to fuel the conspiracy theory flames, let us not forget Fast & Furious. Oh, sorry, I forgot that was no longer a theory. 

Now it's easy to say that one should be restricted to one gun, but what of multiple uses? Guns are, unfortunately, non-versatile, in most cases.

A rifle would not make a good everyday carry, for example. Nor, would it make a good home defense weapon, because of over-penetration (most serious rifle calibers will go through 8-9 walls, or more, and you ARE responsible in most cases for collateral damage). A shotgun is actually the best choice for home defense, as bird shot gets stuck in the first wall it hits, while still packing a punch that an intruder is not going to like. Followed closely by a handgun, whose rounds are only able to go through perhaps 2 or 3 walls, at best.

Even hunting has requirements for different calibers, based upon what is being hunted. Squirrels would be destroyed entirely by calibers suitable for deer, as an example, (such as .308), while deer would not be fazed, merely frightened by a squirrel caliber (.22).

I have two different caliber handguns, simply based on whether I intend to conceal any given day: a .25acp pocket gun, and a .45acp 1911.

The .25 I would probably have to empty a magazine (10 rounds) into an attacker to shut them down, whereas the .45 might do the job in one shot. For that reason, I carry the .45 whenever I don't care to conceal.


----------



## wlfers (Aug 9, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Well the broader point for a limit on amount allowed to own is that there are less in your hands so if you happen to get robbed they aren't taking a military base with them.
> 
> One worthy note is that most people get robbed when no ones home so having a gun to protect your house is for all intents and purposes pointless.



I would feel more comfortable if gun legislation was to focus more on things like requirements for safe firearm storage than limiting arbitrary features like magazines over a 10 round capacity, or evil features (California) that transform a regular semi automatic rifle into a full fledged "assault weapon". 

To any non Californians who don't know or foreigners here, California has silly laws that determine legality of some guns by their features. For instance, a rifle that has both a pistol style grip and a detachable magazine is considered an assault rifle. But these features by themselves are not enough to make it an assault rifle, these features must be present simultaneously. 

Compared to most of the country, gun laws here are pretty strict and convoluted. There are many documented cases of police officers arresting someone and confiscating their legal firearm because they don't even know what's legal. This does not stop us from having some of the worst gun related violence.

Some fun on topic videos:

You can be shot by an unloaded weapon (warning quiet video)


What is a barrel shroud


Heat seeking bullets


----------



## JamesM (Aug 9, 2012)

A general question:

Why do you _need_ an assault rifle?


EDIT:
And if someone says to fight Obama's army I swear to god...


----------



## Jakke (Aug 9, 2012)

JamesM said:


> A general question:
> 
> Why do you _need_ an assault rifle?



I saw some facebook poster wanting one if he ever needed to put down an attacking crackhead....

I kid you not.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 9, 2012)

JamesM said:


> Why do you _need_ an assault rifle?


 
Why do you _need_ a 7-string guitar?
Why do you _need_ a fast car? 
Why do you _need_ to eat chicken nuggets? 

Most folk who own assault rifles in the US are hobbyists who like to show off at the gun range, or collector who never even get around to firing them but once.

Contrary to movies and sensational news headlines, assault rifles are very rarely used in crimes (well under 2%, and that includes "non-assault" rifles), especially legally acquired and licensed ones. It's much harder to get an assault rifle than any other firearm, mainly because they cost more than most folks first, and often second car ($4,000 to $50,000). Speaking of here, in the US, at least. Overseas, especially in most of Africa you can get USSR made AK-47 and derivatives for the cost of a box of ammo here in the US. 

By assault rifle I mean fully automatic, large projectile rifle. If you're talking about a semi-auto gun that looks like something Rambo might use, than it's a moot point, as their fire rate is no different than your common handgun.

Here's a little insight into legally owning certain "extra deadly" firearms:



> *How to Buy Machine Guns, Suppressors, Short-Barreled Shotguns, A.O.W.'s and Shrt Barreled Rifles, as Regulated by the ATF and the National Firearms Act, (NFA.)*
> 
> It is a common misconception that machine guns cannot be owned by law-abiding citizens. This comes from the creation of a variety of confusing laws that have made purchasing a full-auto gun more difficult than purchasing a "normal" gun. But, if you can comply with the law, you may qualify to own a machine gun.
> 
> ...


 
To sum it up, after paying ~$15,000 up front, it'll still take several months and you'll be finger printed and have your photo on file.


----------



## frogunrua (Aug 9, 2012)

I support gun ownership and plan on getting my concealed weapon license.


----------



## McKay (Aug 9, 2012)

Edika said:


> What you are describing Chickenhawk is a cold war logic were the two opposing forces stockpiled massive amounts of nuclear weapons in order to be balance and not erupt in an apocalyptic scenario. Not the brightest move or logic and I would dare say one of the most uncivilized and irresponsible.



Small point of contention here but many argue that the nuclear arms race is what saved the world from ww3. Not trying to tie that into the thread, just thought it was worth pointing out.



flint757 said:


> IMO a knife (or *any other non-gun thing*), while painful, cannot cause as much damage as a gun so even if the crime just shifts the chances of mass murder/assault are less likely.



It's good that you prefaced the paragraph with '_in my opinion_', because you are objectively wrong. Anything more than a very short knife can inflict extremely dangerous wounds and I don't even need to explain why the bolded part is wrong. Only a third of non-suicide related gunshot wounds are fatal, it's an interesting statistic. I've seen it claimed that this drops to 5% if you can get medical attention. I wonder what percentage of axewounds are fatal? Or being hit in the head with a hammer?

As for the thread - I'm all about self defense, guns are a lot of fun but I'd support universal taser ownership as a more palpable solution. The police are society's way of delegating justice to a neutral party so that punishment is fair, they can never be there all the time to protect you.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 9, 2012)

You took my post out of context and yes that is my opinion. I was referring to mass murder not size of wounds. As in if a psycho went on a stabbing spree versus a shooting spree, the death toll would be larger for the latter. What you said is obvious enough you should have known (especially given the context of the posts around it) what I was talking about.

As for ww3 let's not go there as there is zero proof either way.


----------



## McKay (Aug 9, 2012)

Why did you say 'while painful' if you weren't talking about the lethality of the weapon?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 9, 2012)

Why did you ignore *mass murder*?

Given the sentence structure that was just an add on; the sentence is complete without it. My point is that the conversation and majority of what I wrote coincides with what I meant. A knife is painful (as would a gun shot wound), never once did I say that the wound would be worse. It is moot anyhow, now you know for sure what I meant ...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 9, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Why did you ignore *mass murder*?
> 
> Given the sentence structure that was just an add on; the sentence is complete without it. My point is that the conversation and majority of what I wrote coincides with what I meant. A knife is painful (as would a gun shot wound), never once did I say that the wound would be worse. It is moot anyhow, now you know for sure what I meant ...


 

You mean "mass murder/assault," two very different things, one perfectly easy to accomplish with a knife, the other not so much. I can definitely see how he arrived at the conclusion he did. The original sentence was a bit of a jumbled mess of "points."

At any rate, glad you clarified .


----------



## flint757 (Aug 9, 2012)

Jumbled it was, saddened I be 

I meant mass murder/ mass assault (as a gun does not necessarily kill its target)

all well lets move on...


I agree that there should be more laws about the cabinets they are held in as an alternative or in addition to stricter gun laws.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 9, 2012)

I'm all for the mandated use of approved gun boxes and gun safes. As of right now, even the best are cheap relative to the cost of arms inside them. 

I just think it's an impossible law to enforce in most cases. I'm still totally for it though.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 9, 2012)

It would be difficult, but then again not everyone has a weapon and if there was a list somewhere (a better more unified one) I doubt it'd be too difficult. I mean they'd only have to check once or twice as it isn't likely to change dramatically over time. If it did I imagine it'd be an upgrade, not a downgrade. I suppose it depends on how much of the population in a city have weapons. Where I live I don't think it'd be too difficult and the cops aren't as busy here (fairly low crime rate).


----------



## BrainArt (Aug 10, 2012)

While a bullet *can* be more deadly than a knife, axe or sword, there's also a huge chance of a bullet going straight through the victim.

I collect swords and knives and have been since before I even started playing guitar; I can think of several different ways to inflict damage that can be more deadly than a bullet wound, not that I would use my swords (since all but one are dull, which is even more dangerous than a sharpened blade) or knives for that unless if I absolutely had to.

/Off-topic


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 10, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Guerrilla fighter eh? How much have you fought then? Forgive me, but calling yourself a guerrilla fighter makes you sound terribly full of yourself, you might be out shooting at soldiers, but something tells me you are not.


One doesn't have to murder, to fight the enemy.





Jakke said:


> Debatable? Very well, convince me. It sounds to me like a conspiracy theory, which I enjoy, but I am not in the habit of believing them.


I would, but I can't decide whether I want to go with "the federal government is owned by the Federal Reserve, which is owned by the IMF", or "the U.N. is taking over by the 'thousand cuts' method".


----------



## Jakke (Aug 10, 2012)

The Atomic Ass said:


> One doesn't have to murder, to fight the enemy.


And what enemy is this?



The Atomic Ass said:


> I would, but I can't decide whether I want to go with "the federal government is owned by the Federal Reserve, which is owned by the IMF", or "the U.N. is taking over by the 'thousand cuts' method".



Which is a bit too close to what Alex Jones says for me to be completely comfortable...


----------



## Jakke (Aug 10, 2012)

This is very relevant:


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 10, 2012)

I own guns and honestly dont know where I stand on the issue. I'm not sure whether either is a proper deterent for crazy. However, I'm of the mindset that the possibility of others legally having guns would make a would-be crazy think twice about acting out in public with a firearm unless he was looking to go out in a blaze of glory.

And here I've come full circle. Still not sure how I feel about it.

But if someone took them from me, I would just have to find something to do other than going shooting on the weekends. They *can* serve the purpose of protection, but I don't carry them. If someone comes into my home uninvited at the right hour they might get to meet my ladies, though... If not the ladies, then the machete 

Long story short, I don't think more gun control will stop ppl from wanting to hurt other ppl. Human beings are just far too creative when it comes to killing. At the same time, I don't think less regulation is necessarily the answer either. What works well in theory can go to shit quickly in the hands of human beings.


----------



## McKay (Aug 10, 2012)

Jakke said:


> This is very relevant:




What's the point in posting this, really? What are you trying to say?


----------



## Jakke (Aug 10, 2012)

McKay said:


> What's the point in posting this, really? What are you trying to say?



It is relevant because this is a thread about US gun control, and this story entails quite a troubling attitude. Attitudes do not grow in a vaccuum, so you can bet your ass this guy is alone. If there is a segment of a population that thinks pulling firearms is a good solution, you have a fucking problem.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 10, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Which is a bit too close to what Alex Jones says for me to be completely comfortable...



The Federal Reserve has the U.S. Government by the nuts. We've been in debt to them since the first dollar was printed. A debt that is impossible to pay back with the Fed in place.

Thats not Alex Jones-nutjob-conspiracy talk...it's truth.


----------



## Randy (Aug 10, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> However, I'm of the mindset that the possibility of others legally having guns would make a would-be crazy think twice about acting out in public with a firearm unless he was looking to go out in a blaze of glory.
> 
> If someone comes into my home uninvited at the right hour they might get to meet my ladies, though... If not the ladies, then the machete
> 
> Long story short, I don't think more gun control will stop ppl from wanting to hurt other ppl. Human beings are just far too creative when it comes to killing.



Not to pick on you because I get a lot of where you're coming from but it just so happens these are all pro-gun arguments I've heard several times and always took issue with.

1.) "Them" like crazy people are all of the sudden black and white a different group of people from the rest of us. "They'd" pull a gun and of course "we'd" shoot them. Some kind of intangible barrier we think that separates "us sane folk" from "crazy people", not taking into account the shades of grey that cover everybody.

What's missing in this vision is that these rules apply to everybody. If things were so lax as we became the gun toting utopia prescribed in this scenario that means _everybody_ has a gun. A crazy person acts because of their mindset, having the means and the opportunity to execute the act. Take away any of those things, the likelyhood of it being carried out is significantly less. If we were to change things so that carrying a firearm in public no longer becomes unusual, the droves of people who are undiagnosed, depressed or mentally ill have the tool their in their hand, the opportunity to act on impulse. 

If we're in a world where everybody carries a gun all the time, this is a totally new climate. I know "I'm safe" incase somebody opens fire at somebody else or somewhere else, and I have the opportunity to defend myself. That's not taking into account the fact everybody is packing and thus, we could be shot before we're even aware we're a target. In that scenario, unless you go around completely paranoid of every person you see, societally, we become desensitized to situations where there's a potential threat because technically they're there and apparent all the time.

Likewise, the scenario of paranoid people with itchy trigger fingers becomes a bigger issue. As it stands, yes I'm not a heavily pro-gun person, but because the barrier to getting a firearm and getting license to carry it in public is as inconvient as it is, I assume most people I see packing are an authority or at least stable and trained (mentally) enough that there's a reason they're allowed to. If it's Joe Schmo everybody and, instead, you have to be _excluded_ not to carry. I can think of enough people I've met in my life that haven't been convicted of violent crime or certified insane, that I wouldn't be comfortable seeing walk around in a public place with a pistol on their hip.

Endgame, best case scenario in my imagination, the number of people killed in a random/mass shooting decreases because they're 'put down faster' but the amount of collateral damage as well as the number of 'impulse' shootings goes up sharply. 

2.) Firearms =/= melee weapons. I can't recall the last time (in modern history, in the civilized world) dozens of people have been mortally wounded in a machete attack. Murder is a heinous thing no matter what but, referring specifically with regard to "mass murder", there are few means of killing several people in a short amount of time with something other than a gun. 

Explosives aren't that easy to get a hold of and there are multitudes of security checks on people acquiring knowledge or supplies to execute an explosives attack in this country. At the very least, they're significantly more difficult to acquire than a handgun.

Car? Well, getting enough unhindered space to get up enough speed to DEFINITELY hit and kill people isn't all that easy. Likewise, a car is a big object which makes for a big target, easy to see once an initial attack occurs, pretty easy to avoid (ie. enter a building, run behind a tree) and also, prone to being rendered inoperable after taking damage via hitting somebody. Besides, again... last time you've heard of a 'mass murder' via motor vehicle?

You can't stop people from wanting to kill people, you can't stop people from murdering other people as a whole but I think you can cut down on the ability to kill lots of people at a time.


----------



## Randy (Aug 10, 2012)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I would, but I can't decide whether I want to go with "the federal government is owned by the Federal Reserve, which is owned by the IMF", or "the U.N. is taking over by the 'thousand cuts' method".





Chickenhawk said:


> The Federal Reserve has the U.S. Government by the nuts. We've been in debt to them since the first dollar was printed. A debt that is impossible to pay back with the Fed in place.
> 
> Thats not Alex Jones-nutjob-conspiracy talk...it's truth.



Seeing a trend here.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 10, 2012)

Randy said:


> Not to pick on you because I get a lot of where you're coming from but it just so happens these are all pro-gun arguments I've heard several times and always took issue with.
> 
> 1.) "Them" like crazy people are all of the sudden black and white a different group of people from the rest of us. "They'd" pull a gun and of course "we'd" shoot them. Some kind of intangible barrier we think that separates "us sane folk" from "crazy people", not taking into account the shades of grey that cover everybody.
> 
> ...



Perhaps I used less than optimal language to make my point, but I think you may have misinterpreted... 

I don't necessarily think there's a black and white divide per se, as we can all get off for what we call "temporary insanity" meaning none of use are excluded from the ranks of the "crazies".

The idea that if EVERYONE had a gun things would be safer also sounds a bit absurd to me as well for the reasons you've outlined. My point was more that if more ppl were allowed to there's a possiblity that there may be other like minded folks that know acting a certain way could end in a ridiculous shoot out.

What you said about ending massacres early by possibly taking down the threat sooner and collateral damage is a good one, but we also talk abou the bystander effect around here a lot in which someone is being attacked physically perhaps even without a gun and still no one does anything. The addition of the gun *may* give would-be bystanders a bit more confidence, though. Who knows?

The hope is that most would want to avoid this, but I know a few folks personally that already seem like they're just dying for a reason to be justified in shooting someone, so I totally know where you're coming from.

This is precisely why I have no idea exactly how I feel on the issue. 

Seems like the fact that we created them at all is the issue, but that's really a moot point now.

The crazy thing about it is that it's incredibly easy to get your hands on a gun in my state (and I assume others as well). I waited a grand total of 30 min while the store clerk made a phone call to see if I was a danger to society prior to having owned a gun. Nevermind my current mental state, intentions, etc. After that I walked out of the store with a gun. 

What's more? To get a license to carry concealed they have a plethora of options. The most popular I'm aware of are a 3 day class which is free or you can pay $90 and get all in one day. Far be it for me to think someone could go through those motions with minimal effort.

Realistically, the only way everyone having a gun would truly be "safer" is if everyone were on the same page as far as having the proper respect for the weapon itself and for one another, but as we all know, fear and ego tend to get in the way alot.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 10, 2012)

McKay said:


> What's the point in posting this, really? What are you trying to say?



That - _in some cases_ - American gun culture and obscene paranoia are inseperable?

So much the scarier, given that the guy was a cop. No excuse for that kind of behavior from an officer of the law.


----------



## zappatton2 (Aug 10, 2012)

The letter from the cop from Michigan was a bit of a news item here, because most people didn't actually believe it was real. Turns out, he is a real guy, but clearly he is a pretty extreme example of a paranoid nutter. Nonetheless, a guy like that carrying around firearms (and a cop, no less), is a little disconcerting. Remind me never to get pulled over in Michigan.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 10, 2012)

^ Being that we all have that "potential" I feel like it's a question with no answer. Now that they exist whether you regulate it or not ppl will get them if they really want them. Isn't the drug trade poof of that? And wasn't prohibition proof of that too?

If anything, I could see maybe see more gun control as a means for generating state and federal revenue...? Tax em harder perhaps or make [monetary] penalties for non-violent violations higher or something...? Law isn't really my strong suit. 

At least then we'd be working on the economy some


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 10, 2012)

Jakke said:


> And what enemy is this?


Highwaymen, whatever guise they may wear. 


Jakke said:


> Which is a bit too close to what Alex Jones says for me to be completely comfortable...


I WISH I could call Alex Jones a raving lunatic, but he's reported too many things correctly for me to do so these days.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 10, 2012)

Randy said:


> Seeing a trend here.



And what trend would that be? 

EDIT to not get banned


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 10, 2012)

^ How is pointing out that you edited it to not get banned followed by a rolling my eyes emoticon any better? 

Can't the mods see what you wrote anyway?


----------



## Randy (Aug 10, 2012)

I saw it before the change. 

Offhand? Paranoia.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 10, 2012)

Randy said:


> I saw it before the change.
> 
> Offhand? Paranoia.



I'm paranoid? Who's to say you're not blind? 

This really shouldn't turn into a discussion about the Fed. If you don't honestly think the Government is in debt to the Fed, then something is seriously, seriously wrong.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Aug 10, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> If anything, I could see maybe see more gun control as a means for generating state and federal revenue...? Tax em harder perhaps or make [monetary] penalties for non-violent violations higher or something...? Law isn't really my strong suit.


 we tried this with cigarettes in my state. it doesn't work, everybody goes over the state lines to buy. the same thing happens with all commodities in the end really. 

my state is still broke btw. you could try this with a car wash, tailored suits (all new taxes my state approved) and it still won't bring in any extra cash. 

now back to the guns!!!!!! 



flint757 said:


> It would be difficult, but then again not everyone has a weapon and if there was a list somewhere (a better more unified one) I doubt it'd be too difficult. I mean they'd only have to check once or twice as it isn't likely to change dramatically over time. If it did I imagine it'd be an upgrade, not a downgrade. I suppose it depends on how much of the population in a city have weapons. Where I live I don't think it'd be too difficult and the cops aren't as busy here (fairly low crime rate).



i can't agree with this mainly because of the invasion of privacy and the precedent it sets. why would i as a law abiding citizen wish to have my property and belongings searched randomly in order to prove that im not a psycho? i do nothing wrong yet in the end im treated with (made)-lawful paranoia. if you pass this a law like this you have basically opened the door to searches of private homes without a warrant, and in doing so sacrificed your personal freedom to privacy because you felt uncomfortable with another individual buying a 1911. 
i know its done out of a sense of protecting the populous from dangerous individuals such as the Aurora shooter, but in the end it doesn't offer any real solution to _stopping_ said psychos from killing. 

so far the argument in this thread has been that firearms should be further regulated because they can inflict death or serious injury upon multiple individuals in a matter of seconds. and that knives clubs bare hands ect. are not nearly as capable as inflicting a wide range of damage. a very legitimate fear. however this fear is more frightening when you realize the Aurora shooter (just for an example) could have killed far more people had he forsaken the gun route and instead opted to use household ingredients (which you can't track) with some items picked up at a grain and feed store and made a bomb. with the internet, a library card and little patience and dedication, any forum member here could make an Ammonium-nitrate bomb (a la the Oklahoma City Bombing) big enough to kill everyone in that theater. a variety of other explosives can be made ranging from shrapnel (screws, bolts nail ball bearings, glass marbles) to gas (add in a little pool cleaner purchased at Walmart). 

i am a completely well adjusted and non-threatening adult male... and i know i can do all the things states above. just think what if some other random psycho has figured out they can assemble a bomb with ingredients that you can regulate/and or track? that means everyone is still completely vulnerable to these attacks with or without additional firearm registration. feeling helpless yet? 
Moral of the story is, we can't stop people from doing horrific things to fellow human beings, and we (i mean all governments and peoples) cannot prevent this by making the aforementioned dude who bought a 1911 jump through even more hoops and _then_ further have his/her privacy violated by a random unwarranted (and unconstitutional) search/inspection of his home having assumed that after the standard background checks have cleared, that said 1911 owner has done nothing wrong. seems very discriminatory to do that to an innocent person, no? 

Full disclosure: i used to be an NRA member because between the years 13 and 16 of my life i shot competitive Olympic style 3-position air rifle and .22, i had prospects of shooting in college, but i got burnt out on the sport. in those 3 years i got to shoot many different firearms ranging from muzzle loaders, handguns and shotguns, and all the while met some cool kids my age and some of the calmest, most collected and interesting people in my life (there were some dickheads but w/e). so to the individual who earlier stated that would are afraid and concerned about "NRA/Right-Wing Conservative types" owning guns... well you sir/madame can kindly suck my stock  

get it? stock.... har har


----------



## Randy (Aug 10, 2012)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> opted to use household ingredients (which you can't track) with some items picked up at a grain and feed store and made a bomb. with the internet, a library card and little patience and dedication, any forum member here could make an Ammonium-nitrate bomb (a la the Oklahoma City Bombing) big enough to kill everyone in that theater



And documents acquired with said library card as well as suspicious internet searches are flagged. Likewise, I don't know if it's federal or state law, but since the Oklahoma City Bombing, you're only allowed to buy some of those ingredients in small quantities, you're required to sign and show ID, and some of them you have to provide evidence of what you're planning on using it for to purchase. If you REALLY tried, you could probably get around those things but then again, you can't completely stop anything... you throw up roadblocks to slow people down, track them or at least make it less frequent.

All that said, the "Well, they'll always find another way to do it so let's not bother plugging _any_ holes" argument is absurd.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Aug 10, 2012)

Randy said:


> All that said, the "Well, they'll always find another way to do it so let's not bother plugging _any_ holes" argument is absurd.



but with most firearm legislation in US states most of these holes are already plugged (see any post made by Max). what is mostly being proposed here in this thread have crossed the line from "midly inconvenient but manageable" levels of policing firearms to "whatdafuq letz stomp on personal freedoms" levels. none of which has any impact on the fact that firearms get into the wrong hands.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 10, 2012)

Oh boy... Personal freedoms. Your "right to bear arms" isn't that serious. Ppl who talk like that sound like spoiled children.

"This is America and I have rights! Rada rada rada..."

If rights were what we romanticize them to be no one could take them. And far be it for me to think correctional facilities strip a person of rights (although it could be perceived that said rights were forfeited).

Before we go off topic, the prison reference was supporting my point and not a point on its own.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Aug 10, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Oh boy... Personal freedoms. Your "right to bear arms" isn't that serious. Ppl who talk like that sound like spoiled children.



if not that then my right to purchase a gun with non-lethal intent? or even better, (to use an example from this thread to which i was referring to in both posts) the right to NOT have police randomly search my home and invade my privacy without a warrant just to see if i have a gun cabinet with a lock?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 10, 2012)

You don't have that right... It's a luxury--a glorified privilege at best. The house always wins, sir.


----------



## Randy (Aug 10, 2012)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> none of which has any impact on the fact that firearms get into the wrong hands.



Illegal or violent activities carried out with a firearm are either 1.) carried out by a person who acquired it legally 2.) carried out by somebody who somehow acquired a firearm somebody else acquired legally.

So either the person who bought the gun carried out the crime, didn't do their due diligence in locking it up and it was stolen or they (as mentioned earlier in this thread) report it stolen but actually sell it to somebody at a profit. Unless there's an epidemic of guns being stolen from the factory or from the store, the _illegal_ gun problem still originates from _legal_ gun owners.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 10, 2012)

I think the thing I'd be most upset ab if the gov't came and confiscated my guns would be if they didn't reimburse me for the cost of said guns. If they take em from everyone it's not like they're picking on me. 

As long as they don't go all Footloose and outlaw music/dancing. Then I can't have guitars. :-(


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Aug 10, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> You don't have that right... It's a luxury--a glorified privilege at best.



no actually i do. if my home was searched without my consent or without a warrant i can sue my local authorities and local government for authorizing it. America is a nation of checks and balances, i have rights as a citizen which allow me to appeal to authorities if i feel these have been violated. 

you can keep trying to label me as the standard gun toting hick (which im not by any stretch) but it still doesn't take away from the sheer creepy "big-brother" quality of the regulation suggestions taking place in this discussion. had this been an argument about whether or not we should randomly search residences without a warrant and reasonable suspicion, for hard drugs and illicit substances (which i am totally against) the message board would be up in arms about how innocent people who aren't harming others shouldn't have their privacy violated. 

this is the same scenario. a (very) small percentage of people who own firearms are shaddy and sick fucking people, but the vast overwhelming majority of them are good guys and gals who keep their weapons in the privacy of their own home (barring concealment permits, which are a lot more difficult to get) or are at a gun range not hurting other people. yet in order to guarantee what cannot be guaranteed, people wish to punish them with further regulation for simply obeying the law and not being a threat? 

all measures like these suggested here ever do is empower those who would break the law for personal gain. ever wonder why South American drug lords got so powerful and rich? its called the US war on drugs... the Mafia? prohibition. anytime in history when a prohibition has been enacted, it empowers the black market sellers and criminals with millions of dollars in cash flow. 

why would i want that?.... suddenly not such a radical right winger am i?  




Randy said:


> Illegal or violent activities carried out with a firearm are either 1.) carried out by a person who acquired it legally 2.) carried out by somebody who somehow acquired a firearm somebody else acquired legally.
> 
> So either the person who bought the gun carried out the crime, didn't do their due diligence in locking it up and it was stolen or they (as mentioned earlier in this thread) report it stolen but actually sell it to somebody at a profit. Unless there's an epidemic of guns being stolen from the factory or from the store, the _illegal_ gun problem still originates from _legal_ gun owners.



you can't police intent, plain and simple. however in the current state of legality in the United States, the majority of sales do not fund illegal sellers, which would be the case if you made it unnecessarily cumbersome to purchase firearms. i would rather the stats on firearm related deaths to continue to decline naturally (as they have been) rather than ratchet up control measures on a problem which is going away. you only empower the wrong people by doing that.


----------



## Waelstrum (Aug 10, 2012)

Why would you assume that a routine check on gun storage would be done without a warrant? It's not like it's hard to get a warrant to do a routine check of a potential danger. If you have a potential gas leak, the relevant authorities are allowed to check it out. If you have a swimming pool that doesn't have a secure fence around it, the relevant authorities are allowed to check it out. If you have insecure firearms, the relevant authorities should be able to check it out.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 10, 2012)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> i can't agree with this mainly because of the invasion of privacy and the precedent it sets. why would i as a law abiding citizen wish to have my property and belongings searched randomly in order to prove that im not a psycho? i do nothing wrong yet in the end im treated with (made)-lawful paranoia. if you pass this a law like this you have basically opened the door to searches of private homes without a warrant, and in doing so sacrificed your personal freedom to privacy because you felt uncomfortable with another individual buying a 1911.
> i know its done out of a sense of protecting the populous from dangerous individuals such as the Aurora shooter, but in the end it doesn't offer any real solution to _stopping_ said psychos from killing.
> 
> so far the argument in this thread has been that firearms should be further regulated because they can inflict death or serious injury upon multiple individuals in a matter of seconds. and that knives clubs bare hands ect. are not nearly as capable as inflicting a wide range of damage. a very legitimate fear. however this fear is more frightening when you realize the Aurora shooter (just for an example) could have killed far more people had he forsaken the gun route and instead opted to use household ingredients (which you can't track) with some items picked up at a grain and feed store and made a bomb. with the internet, a library card and little patience and dedication, any forum member here could make an Ammonium-nitrate bomb (a la the Oklahoma City Bombing) big enough to kill everyone in that theater. a variety of other explosives can be made ranging from shrapnel (screws, bolts nail ball bearings, glass marbles) to gas (add in a little pool cleaner purchased at Walmart).
> ...





Ibanezsam4 said:


> no actually i do. if my home was searched without my consent or without a warrant i can sue my local authorities and local government for authorizing it. America is a nation of checks and balances, i have rights as a citizen which allow me to appeal to authorities if i feel these have been violated.
> 
> you can keep trying to label me as the standard gun toting hick (which im not by any stretch) but it still doesn't take away from the sheer creepy "big-brother" quality of the regulation suggestions taking place in this discussion. had this been an argument about whether or not we should randomly search residences without a warrant and reasonable suspicion, for hard drugs and illicit substances (which i am totally against) the message board would be up in arms about how innocent people who aren't harming others shouldn't have their privacy violated.
> 
> ...





Waelstrum said:


> Why would you assume that a routine check on gun storage would be done without a warrant? It's not like it's hard to get a warrant to do a routine check of a potential danger. If you have a potential gas leak, the relevant authorities are allowed to check it out. If you have a swimming pool that doesn't have a secure fence around it, the relevant authorities are allowed to check it out. If you have insecure firearms, the relevant authorities should be able to check it out.



I never said randomly or without a warrant either. When you buy a gun it should be required off the back that they check how it is stored and my reference to later, it could be scheduled or with a warrant.

Nobody labeled you anything and I pretty much agree with Randy on this.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 11, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> If you have insecure firearms, the relevant authorities should be able to check it out.



Define 'insecure firearms'.

None of my firearms are in a safe. Would defeat the whole 'home defense' idea.

But, they're secure.


----------



## Blind Theory (Aug 11, 2012)

Chickenhawk said:


> Define 'insecure firearms'.
> 
> None of my firearms are in a safe. Would defeat the whole 'home defense' idea.
> 
> But, they're secure.



And there is a problem with this insecure firearms thing. If you are like most people who own firearms, you won't leave them laying on the counter. They may not be in a gun safe but they are out of sight, out of mind. With that being said, how does one accurately predict who has "insecure" firearms? It seems to me that would begin to cause more problems than not. We've all seen what the government comes up with when they try to predict who might be a potential threat or not (TSA anyone?). I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some sort of guideline for firearm storage but searching peoples houses in hopes of finding insecure firearms is no smart. And as far as home defense goes, you can buy small safes that look like a variety of "things" that aren't hard to get into if needed.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Aug 11, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> And there is a problem with this insecure firearms thing. If you are like most people who own firearms, you won't leave them laying on the counter. They may not be in a gun safe but they are out of sight, out of mind. With that being said, how does one accurately predict who has "insecure" firearms? It seems to me that would begin to cause more problems than not. We've all seen what the government comes up with when they try to predict who might be a potential threat or not (TSA anyone?). I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some sort of guideline for firearm storage but searching peoples houses in hopes of finding insecure firearms is no smart. And as far as home defense goes, you can buy small safes that look like a variety of "things" that aren't hard to get into if needed.



Well, to be fair, the majority of my 1911 was laying on a table in the corner of the dining room for over a month. It wasn't the entire firearm, but what was there was assembled, and in plain sight while I waited for replacement parts to come in.


I'm not afraid to leave my firearms in plain sight during the day, though. My children know, and respect what firearms can and will do. My 9 year old has her own .22, and shoots it with me and her grandfather on the farm. And within the next year my 3 year old will get her own pellet rifle or air rifle and start learning the basics and safety.

My shotgun is always in plain sight, directly next to my headboard in my room. The girls regularly come down to our bedroom on the weekends to wake us, and the shotgun is ignored.

My guns are secure. If we leave the house for any period of time, the guns are put away to prevent theft, but once we return, they go back to their usual positions.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 12, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> And there is a problem with this insecure firearms thing. If you are like most people who own firearms, you won't leave them laying on the counter. They may not be in a gun safe but they are out of sight, out of mind. With that being said, how does one accurately predict who has "insecure" firearms? It seems to me that would begin to cause more problems than not. We've all seen what the government comes up with when they try to predict who might be a potential threat or not (TSA anyone?). I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some sort of guideline for firearm storage but searching peoples houses in hopes of finding insecure firearms is no smart. And as far as home defense goes, you can buy small safes that look like a variety of "things" that aren't hard to get into if needed.



Your missing the point, the check is not to find insecure firearms, but more like protocol just to make sure you have a solid place to keep them in the first place. It isn't like your going to go to Wal-Mart, buy a safe, install it, get inspected and then sell it. So if you don't keep them in the safe at the very least you have proper storage for extended leaves or something, as that is the time your home is ever in any real danger to begin with.


----------



## Randy (Aug 15, 2012)

Man accidentally shoots self in buttocks when gun falls out of pocket at Nevada movie theatre - Yahoo! News


----------



## viesczy (Aug 15, 2012)

I rarely enter this forum, I can be an abject a-hole at times, but I wanna comment here.

Laws don't stop anything, they just set up penalties for those who broke the law. Murder is illegal, doesn't stop folks from killing each other.

Prohibition doesn't work either. Regardless of what the product is, prohibition will fail every time while make a few very rich until prohibition is repealed(who the later become a political power like the Kennedy family).

Now all that said, our right to keep and bear arms is to protect the security of a free state. Our forefathers had seen first hand how an unarmed populace becomes enslaved to a madmen. By guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they did what they could do to be sure that their newly formed country would not fall prey to a despot's tyrannical rule. 

With liberty there always is danger. There always will be those who abuse said liberty, but it is better to suffer those few instances of abuse than be devoid of liberty and suffer the tormetn of a despot. 

Derek


----------



## Jakke (Aug 15, 2012)

viesczy said:


> With liberty there always is danger. There always will be those who abuse said liberty, but it is better to suffer those few instances of abuse than be devoid of liberty and suffer the tormetn of a despot.



And would you look the victims of the recent shootings in the eyes and say this? *People getting murdered is not a price worth paying to stave off a dictatorship which is mainly the fantasy of paranoid militiamen!*


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 15, 2012)

Do you really think that stricter gun control would abolish all gun crime? Or even stop a majority of it? The numbers don't show that. It's easy to use tragedies as talking points, they show the very worst of our society. 

There was more gun crime when there were less guns. I don't know how many times I have to say that before it sinks in Jakke.  

The idea that by limiting firearm ownership and sales you magically take the weapons out of criminal's hands is absurd. At the very best there is potential to someone limit some proliferation, but it's all secondhand. 

For what it's worth I do not buy into any of the militia stuff, nor do I think by stock piling weapons I'll somehow be prepared for some future civil war.



Randy said:


> Man accidentally shoots self in buttocks when gun falls out of pocket at Nevada movie theatre - Yahoo! News



He should be stripped of his right to carry firearms in public, if not entirely.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 15, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> There was more gun crime when there were less guns. I don't know how many times I have to say that before it sinks in Jakke.
> 
> The idea that by limiting firearm ownership and sales you magically take the weapons out of criminal's hands is absurd. At the very best there is potential to someone limit some proliferation, but it's all secondhand.



I did not make such a claim either, I was challenging the concept that gun violence is something people should accept because having guns serves a higher cause (staving off an invasion, the NWO, or whatever).

I have on the other hand laid out mainly how illegal firearms circulate in the US (as it is different to Europe and Asia). How is the idea of making guns less accessible to decrease gun violence absurd?

*EDIT* Oh yes, I do have common sense (that is why I don't believe in conspiracy theories).


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 15, 2012)

Jakke said:


> How is the idea of making guns less accessible to decrease gun violence absurd?



This is a wild world we live in, and sometimes what seems right "on paper" doesn't stack up to the hard data. Given the choice between anecdotal evidence and empirical data I have to go with the latter. In doing so, it appears that even though there are more guns in circulation year after year over the last six years, the amount of gun crime has been dropping consistently. 

What does that mean? As stereotypical, and silly, as it sounds: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Though, it seems less people are becoming incline to kill others, even though, per capita, guns are far more common than they once were. 

Though, the number of folks being killed with knives and blunt objects isn't decreasing. What can we draw from that? That gun crime in particular is on the sharp decline outside of any tightening of current laws. We, as a people, are becoming less violent, despite what you see on TV. 

Perhaps I was being a little hyperbolic in saying it was "absurd", but given the data I'm not too incredibly far off.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 15, 2012)

Are those statistics based on new gun owners or just sold firearms?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 15, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Are those statistics based on new gun owners or just sold firearms?



I believe sold firearms. If I remember correctly, I'll have to search for the data again, the number of new firearms owners is decreasing.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 15, 2012)

So we cannot exclude the possibility of the increase is mainly people increasing their arsenal? 
If so, it seems quite natural that gun violence levels would be unchanged or even decrease, it don't seems plausible that gun enthusiasts with several weapons (often collected or for sport shooting) are the people shooting other people.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 15, 2012)

Jakke said:


> So we cannot exclude the possibility of the increase is mainly people increasing their arsenal?
> If so, it seems quite natural that gun violence levels would be unchanged or even decrease, it don't seems plausible that gun enthusiasts with several weapons (often collected or for sport shooting) are the people shooting other people.


 
But it's still an increase of firearms in existence in the country, and if as people have said in here it's true that most illegal firearms were once legal firearms that were either stolen or sold illegally (which is likely true, I think), then it doesn't matter if the number of gunowners hasn't risen alongside the number of guns. Three guns stolen from three people have the same effect as three guns stolen from one person.

The number of guns in existence and in circulation, likely both legally AND legally, is increasing, while the number of gun crimes is decreasing. That would seem to imply that the link between number of guns available and number of gun crimes isn't as significant as some here are touting it to be, on the face of things. That has potential implications regarding the efficacy of further limiting their legal availablility. I'm not really sure what exactly I think or how I feel about that, I'm just... rambling, I guess.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 15, 2012)

Well if someone owned like 20K or more worth of guns I'm pretty sure they'd have a solid safe which would limit the possibility of them being robbed versus those cabinets I can break open with my hands.

It is true that the majority of guns purchased hve been people who already own other guns. There are less "new" gun owners.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 15, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Well if someone owned like 20K or more worth of guns I'm pretty sure they'd have a solid safe which would limit the possibility of them being robbed versus those cabinets I can break open with my hands.


 

I can also be reasonably sure that not everyone that owns more than one gun owns $20k or more worth. Call me crazy, but I'm prone to believe the vast majority of them don't.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 15, 2012)

Obviously 

My main point is good weapons aren't cheap. If you are going to spend even just a couple thousand on weapons you'd probably have a good place to keep them (or at least should). The number itself was quite arbitrary.


----------



## snowblind56 (Aug 15, 2012)

Megadeth singer says Obama 'staged' Aurora shootings - MSN Music News

Geez, MegaDave has officially lost his marbles...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 16, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Obviously
> 
> My main point is good weapons aren't cheap. If you are going to spend even just a couple thousand on weapons you'd probably have a good place to keep them (or at least should). The number itself was quite arbitrary.


 
If you're going to make up arbitary numbers to make a point, leave hyperbole at the door.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 16, 2012)

Well to be fair I did not equate all multiple gun owners to that number and said if someone had "like" 20k worth they'd have a good safe (as in if someone happened to spend that much which isn't unreasonable considering the lack of a large amount of "new" gun owners and increase in sales). Nothing more nothing less, you drew your own conclusions. 

The number isn't completely pointless as I do know people who spend that much on weapons. What I meant by arbitrary is the number itself could have been 5K, 10K, etc. which you still would have had a gripe about given your responses. You breaking down my posts is unnecessary as the original post you had a problem with was still valid and the second one was valid and sound.


----------



## Semichastny (Aug 16, 2012)

I think that the restrictions in place now are not exactly enough, though I think that they should just be expanded linearly in the same direction (nothing radical). I think their should be a greater set of expectations for gun owners, so that those who are severely mental or have certain crime histories cannot purchase guns. Also if anyone could clear it up for me I was wondering if there is an existing legal framework for creating militias?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 16, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Well to be fair I did not equate all multiple gun owners to that number and said if someone had "like" 20k worth they'd have a good safe (as in if someone happened to spend that much which isn't unreasonable considering the lack of a large amount of "new" gun owners and increase in sales). Nothing more nothing less, you drew your own conclusions.
> 
> The number isn't completely pointless as I do know people who spend that much on weapons. What I meant by arbitrary is the number itself could have been 5K, 10K, etc. which you still would have had a gripe about given your responses. You breaking down my posts is unnecessary as the original post you had a problem with was still valid and the second one was valid and sound.


 
Then what exactly _was_ your point, and what did it have to do with anything? I had assumed (forgive me) based on the first post I quoted that you meant that people with multiple guns are less likely to have them stolen because they keep them in secure safes instead of flimsy cabinets, and then attached the number $20k worth of guns as the amount people who keep their guns in safes would have.

So now that you say $20k is an arbitrary number, what number _is_ the number that you think "most" people with multiple guns have before they keep their guns in safes secure enough for your liking? $15k? $10k? $5k?

Were you only pointing out that there is small percentage out there with enough value in their guns to keep them in safes, regardless of number? Or that everyone with multiple guns keeps them in safes? None of those things?

Given the concept of the post you were responding to (mine), those are pretty much the only ways they make sense. What am I missing?

Clearly me breaking down your posts _is_ necessary, because you either aren't making the point you think you're making, the point you're making is irrelevant, or you aren't making any point at all.

Which is it?


EDIT: After reading this post, its general tone makes me feel compelled to add something...

...


...


*laugh*


----------



## flint757 (Aug 16, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Then what exactly _was_ your point, and what did it have to do with anything? I had assumed (forgive me) based on the first post I quoted that you meant that people with multiple guns are less likely to have them stolen because they keep them in secure safes instead of flimsy cabinets, and then attached the number $20k worth of guns as the amount people who keep their guns in safes would have.
> 
> So now that you say $20k is an arbitrary number, what number _is_ the number that you think "most" people with multiple guns have before they keep their guns in safes secure enough for your liking? $15k? $10k? $5k?
> 
> ...



This



> Then what exactly _was_ your point, and what did it have to do with anything? I had assumed (forgive me) based on the first post I quoted that you meant that *people with multiple guns are less likely to have them stolen because they keep them in secure safes instead of flimsy cabinets*



was my point.

If you have 4 or 5 guns, the price would total around a couple thousand or so. I put my music equipment in a rack, my guitars in hard cases so is it really unreasonable for me to assume if you are enough of an enthusiast to own several that you aren't going to have a safer place to keep them than those cheap wal-mart cabinets. 

You tried equating the fact that if someone had multiple guns it would still increase circulation,thus illegal guns and gun related crime despite the overall amount of owners not increasing as fast. So I guess my counter point would be that if one person has five guns out of five people (the other four don't) the guns are less likely to end up in the wrong hands as they'd have to find the house with the guns (not everyone has a weapon in their house even outside of this very theoretical scenario just in case that isn't clear enough). On the other side there are five people and they each have one gun, in that scenario while the criminal may only end up with one weapon it is significantly more likely that one will end up in the wrong persons hands as the odds are in their favor. (Disclaimer:This is THEORETICAL )

And Explorer wasn't always right.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 16, 2012)

flint757 said:


> This
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

And the reason I originally questioned the $20k figure was because I doubt that many people have the many at all. It wasn't until after I questioned it that I was told you pulled an arbitrary number out of thin air, so you can hardly fault me for picking apart the post.

I still don't think the post is entirely valid, because you're still _assuming_ most multiple gun owners keep them all locked up in safes that can't be broken into or just carried away entirely (like the cases you keep your guitars in). Will the guns of a person who has a sizeable and valuable collection that he keeps locked securely away in a large safe be less likely to end up on the streets than a less secure gun might be? Probably, yes, but what about the not-so-valuable collections of two or three guns (say, a .22, a shotty and a deer rifle) that someone keeps in one of those flimsy walmart cabinets, or worse yet, in their closet or under their bed? Which of those do you think is the more common situation with multiple gun owners?

I'm of course also pulling things out of my ass at this point because I've seen absolutely zero statistics about this sort of thing, but I'd wager the latter is the more common situation. Believe it or not, though, I don't actually fall too strongly on either side of this issue, so I'm always happy to see studies and statistics that prove or disprove any theories we're presenting here.


...



....




....







*laugh*








I've created a monster...


----------



## Jakke (Aug 16, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> But it's still an increase of firearms in existence in the country, and if as people have said in here it's true that most illegal firearms were once legal firearms that were either stolen or sold illegally (which is likely true, I think), then it doesn't matter if the number of gunowners hasn't risen alongside the number of guns. Three guns stolen from three people have the same effect as three guns stolen from one person.
> 
> The number of guns in existence and in circulation, likely both legally AND legally, is increasing, while the number of gun crimes is decreasing. That would seem to imply that the link between number of guns available and number of gun crimes isn't as significant as some here are touting it to be, on the face of things. That has potential implications regarding the efficacy of further limiting their legal availablility. I'm not really sure what exactly I think or how I feel about that, I'm just... rambling, I guess.



That is a fair point, I would really like to know the trend in how many guns that are stolen as well. It is possible that the decrease in crime is not related to more weapons, but less thefts, i.e. people are storing their weapons more securely.
Then we could make an awesome area chart with three axii, one for legal gun onwership, one for gun crime, and one for stolen guns. That would be so great.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 16, 2012)

It is actually gun enthusiast that are now stocking up in preperation for farther gun control law enforcements that are making up the majority of sales increases.

I don't have no stats, but it's been the case and general attitude of our local gun-dudes to "stock up while they can". Especially in the case of ammunitions.

And yes, almost all those guys have huge gun safes.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 16, 2012)

Now I'm genuinely curious about the stats regarding the average number of firearms owned by multiple firearm owners. It'd make sense that the hardcore enthusiasts are wanting to buy "while they can" and have large, well-secured collections, but I wonder what percentage of multiple gun owners is made up of those hardcore enthusiasts.

It sounds like a bit of a silly analogy, but it's sortof like thinking everyone who has multiple guitars has a collection like Bulb's (a bunch of expensive, high quality stuff) and not just a couple indo Ibbies and an LTD .


----------



## Randy (Aug 16, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Do you really think that stricter gun control would abolish all gun crime? Or even stop a majority of it? The numbers don't show that. It's easy to use tragedies as talking points, they show the very worst of our society.
> 
> There was more gun crime when there were less guns. I don't know how many times I have to say that before it sinks in Jakke.





Grand Moff Tim said:


> But it's still an increase of firearms in existence in the country, and if as people have said in here it's true that most illegal firearms were once legal firearms that were either stolen or sold illegally (which is likely true, I think), then it doesn't matter if the number of gunowners hasn't risen alongside the number of guns. Three guns stolen from three people have the same effect as three guns stolen from one person.
> 
> The number of guns in existence and in circulation, likely both legally AND legally, is increasing, while the number of gun crimes is decreasing. That would seem to imply that the link between number of guns available and number of gun crimes isn't as significant as some here are touting it to be, on the face of things. That has potential implications regarding the efficacy of further limiting their legal availablility. I'm not really sure what exactly I think or how I feel about that, I'm just... rambling, I guess.



Just saying 'the total number of firearms in circulation has increased while gun crime has decreased' is a really two dimensional side of the argument. Over this same period of time, we're also talking about upgrades in technology to track violent/repeat offenders/gangs, as well as increased latitude of the police and agencies in surveillance of gangs etc, and also harsher penalties for repeat offenders/violent criminals. In other words, factors that come into play irrespective of gun specific laws. To say that a decrease in gun related violence can only happen in the vacuum of decreased gun circulation is silly, and to imply that the fact that's not the case disproves anything is equally silly.

The 800lbs. gorilla in the room is the fact [we're] lumping in all gun related crimes as the same. To Average Joe, they are not. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the big 'statistical drop' in gun violence would mostly involve criminal-on-criminal (ie. drug dispute) violence. Assuming that the base of our argument here is about gun ownership for home safety or CCW for legal protection of an 'average, upstanding citizen', increases and decreases in that number won't effect that segment significantly (sans stolen weapons in circulation but without the means of executing crimes with those stolen weapons [see previous paragraph], it's a moot point). 

More telling statistics would be the number of accidental gun related incidents, number of 'random' mass shootings, etc. and how they correlate with this perceived "constant increase" of guns in circulation. In my personal opinion, the stat I mentioned earlier that the majority of guns used in violent crimes in NY originate from states with looser gun laws, is _much_ more telling than the 'whitewash' stats that keep coming up. 

Credit where credit it due, increased efficiency of law enforcement has definitely had an effect on criminal v. victim crimes.


----------



## MstrH (Aug 16, 2012)

Gun control is being perpetrated by left wing communist sympathizers. The constitution clearly allows all Americans to keep and bear arms with no restrictions whatsoever. If I want an RPG, the constitution guarantees it. Our founding fathers had vast and deep foresight. The constitutional framers could see that only allowing muskets and cannonballs wouldn't cut it in the future. That's why they left the door open for us future Americans to own and utilize all the cool new high tech stuff by using the broad-based term "arms". If George Washington could've imagined claymore mines and napalm, he sure as hell would've specified that. But, in their all knowing wisdom, they didn't want to limit my god-given right to acquire and use the most lethal weaponry available at any given time. In fact, the framers saw the need for all future Americans to actively defend themselves from the very creation the framers were constructing: our government. The founding fathers knew their evil juggernaught would one day need to be subdued by the very people it was created for. Bastards.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 16, 2012)

Randy said:


> Just saying 'the total number of firearms in circulation has increased while gun crime has decreased' is a really two dimensional side of the argument. Over this same period of time, we're also talking about upgrades in technology to track violent/repeat offenders/gangs, as well as increased latitude of the police and agencies in surveillance of gangs etc, and also harsher penalties for repeat offenders/violent criminals. In other words, factors that come into play irrespective of gun specific laws. To say that a decrease in gun related violence can only happen in the vacuum of decreased gun circulation is silly, and to imply that the fact that's not the case disproves anything is equally silly.


 

I don't think anyone is saying there aren't other factors involved apart from the number of guns. I think that it's pretty obvious that other factors are at play, especially when comparing the difference in gun crime levels in different states with wildly differing gun control laws. There are _obviously_ other factors at play there.

However, when people are saying that decreasing the number of guns will decrease gun crime, which they _are_, it's fair play to point out that the number of crimes has dropped as the number of guns increases. Whether or not there are other factors at play leading to that descrease (which there obviously are) is a bit of an aside. 

Saying "The number of gun crimes has decreased as the number of guns has increased, becase of systems, measures, and other varied circumstances that are already in place apart from the number of guns" would be a more thorough response, sure, but no more effictive at responding to the idea put forth that the number of gun crimes must necessarily increase or decrease right alongside the number of guns than just saying "no, gun crime has gone down as the number has risen."


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 16, 2012)

Randy said:


> In my personal opinion, the stat I mentioned earlier that the majority of guns used in violent crimes in NY originate from states with looser gun laws, is _much_ more telling than the 'whitewash' stats that keep coming up.


 

For further credit where credit is due, Max (who initially brought up the "whitewash" stat) _did_ say he thinks gun control should be handled at the federal level, which might go some ways towards curtailing issues like the one you mentioned.

I'm not sure I agree that it should be, but... there you go, I guess?


----------



## fps (Aug 18, 2012)

I'm not from the US, what is a concealed weapon licence? And why on earth would anyone need to carry a gun around with them in public, which is what it sounds like that means?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 18, 2012)

Concealed weapon is the right to have a hand gun in public basically as it is a weapon that can be hidden easily. In places like Texas you could theoretically walk around with a shotgun/rifle as long as you didn't seem threatening.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 18, 2012)

Concealed carry is the ability to carry a gun that is completely concealed from view in public, as opposed to open carry, which is carrying a gun that is visible. Some state allow just one of the two, some states allow both, and some states allow neither. I'm pretty sure the states that allow concealed carry require permits for it, but I don't know whether you need a permit for open carry in states that allow it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 18, 2012)

Does no one have Google? 



> *Open carry*
> The act of publicly carrying a firearm on one's person in plain sight.
> *Plain sight*
> Broadly defined as not being hidden from common observation; varies somewhat from state to state.
> ...


----------



## wlfers (Aug 18, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Concealed weapon is the right to have a hand gun in public basically as it is a weapon that can be hidden easily. In places like Texas you could theoretically walk around with a shotgun/rifle as long as you didn't seem threatening.



Even in California there is Unloaded Open Carry, which means I can be armed as long as the firearm is visible and it is unloaded. The police will harass the shit out of you, and there are tons of laws pertaining to the location (public vs private, near schools, by state or city institutions) you can do this. Also most firearm enthusiasts condemn exercising this legal activity because we are already have some of the strictest gun control and it's just seen as pushing the boundaries.

Edit: to clarify as of this year Unloaded Open Carry of Handguns is now illegal in my state, but longarms are still legal.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 24, 2012)

Law enforcement agencies use powerful pepper spray gun | News - Home

Thought this article was pretty cool. They just showed on local 2 news in Houston a gun that shoots a concentrated dose of pepper that legitimately knocks out and incapacitates the target (unlike pepper spray) with high accuracy. Seems like a far more responsible weapon of choice for safety and far less reckless in the long run. IMO

Looks like law enforcement over time might actually begin using this (apparently they already do in Europe).


----------



## Murdstone (Sep 25, 2012)

Let's just give them super soakers full of pepper spray. Comical and efficient.


----------



## CannibalKiller (Sep 25, 2012)

Number of gun murders in England and Wales:
41
Number of gun murders in the US:
9,146

/thread


----------



## synrgy (Sep 25, 2012)

CannibalKiller said:


> Number of gun murders in England and Wales:
> 41
> Number of gun murders in the US:
> 9,146
> ...





US Population - 311,591,917
UK Population - 62,641,000


----------



## Necris (Sep 25, 2012)

^
The US has roughly 5 times the population, ~223 times the gun murders. Honestly if all someone were concerned with were the numbers it would seem like he had made a good point, but focusing solely on the numbers ignores the complexity of the issue.


----------



## synrgy (Sep 25, 2012)

Necris said:


> focusing solely on the numbers ignores the complexity of the issue.



That's what I was getting at. 

I consciously chose to offer only as much perspective as the post I quoted did. I guess I'm kind of a jerk, that way.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 25, 2012)

Whether or not the situation is complicated I don't think the discrepancy between the US and other nations should be ignored. We have a problem, the issue is how to handle it and how much of a difference will it actually make.

There have been 4 robberies in the first week at my school, University of Houston, by gun point. Making laws stricter, in this instance, wouldn't do much as if you are on or near a college campus it is usually a felony offense to have a gun or large knife whether it is used or not.

The crime/death problem the states is facing is more in line with the fact that we have a poverty problem and a poor education system. If I had to guess most gun crime is probably committed by those well below the poverty line and they do so out of necessity not blood lust.

As for the article I posted, Houston police has gotten in trouble several times, just in the past couple years alone, for killing people unnecessarily. Hopefully a weapon like this can reduce this problem and bring some respect back to our city.

Honestly, it seems like a far more effective weapon of choice for self defense as well. You don't have to question whether you should pull the trigger, cases like that Zimmerman one would have never happened, you don't have to be an expert mark, and it does enough damage that you can either physically take down your attacker or just run away. If killing someone truly is a last resort there is little reason why people shouldn't prefer something like this IMO.


----------



## Choop (Sep 25, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Honestly, it seems like a far more effective weapon of choice for self defense as well. You don't have to question whether you should pull the trigger, cases like that Zimmerman one would have never happened, you don't have to be an expert mark, and it does enough damage that you can either physically take down your attacker or just run away. If killing someone truly is a last resort there is little reason why people shouldn't prefer something like this IMO.



What if the attacker turns his head?  

I agree that there are more contributing factors to gun violence in America than just crazy killers. Perhaps some things that need to be considered too and put into a chart are the "who did the shooting" and "why did they do the shooting" variables. That can tell a lot about the situation. That's not something that anyone lobbying against the right to own/carry firearms is going to focus on though unfortunately.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 25, 2012)

Choop said:


> What if the attacker turns his head?
> 
> I agree that there are more contributing factors to gun violence in America than just crazy killers. Perhaps some things that need to be considered too and put into a chart are the "who did the shooting" and "why did they do the shooting" variables. That can tell a lot about the situation. That's not something that anyone lobbying against the right to own/carry firearms is going to focus on though unfortunately.



Well I'm sure it is most effective in the face, but I can't see why it wouldn't do some damage in the neck or chest too. I sprayed pepper spray in the sink once and that shit still burned. If this is more potent then it being a few inches from your face should still deal some damage. In a situation where someone has a weapon pointed at you, you are screwed either way honestly. You pull this thing out or an actual gun and they are going to pull the trigger first.

I don't think they would just dismiss it, but we do have an instant gratification society that has little patience to do things the right way.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Sep 25, 2012)

EDIT:

Nevermind, haven't read the entire thread, so I'll just keep my mouth shut


----------

