Gun Control Debate

[TheBoberton]

Sorry lad, I have to bite your head off to help you understand how we look at it.

Something thats always struck my mind when these sort of debates; Why don't you illegalise assault weapons and automatics? Surely these are killers as we have seen quite recently at the Conneticut and Cinema shootings. What the hell is an American citizen going to do with an automatic weapon anyway? Shoot at alien space-invaders?

Automatic weapons are nigh impossible to get in the US (Due mostly to the fact that the people who you go to to get them consist of an office of a dozen people, who attempt to cover the entire nation, and not just for automatic weapons either. They also take the nation's applications for silencers and short barreled rifles.). You have to submit a $200 tax stamp, get approval from your local police chief, and then wait upwards of six months for the aforementioned office to approve you. You can then go pick up your pre-1986 manufactured automatic weapon.

Further, were it not for the evil 'assault weapon' used in the Aurora theatre shooting, many more people would have died.. Why is this?

His 100-round magazine, not intended to be used in situations involving rapid fire, jammed. Had he been stuck with a 'normal' magazine, he'd have simply been able to reload after 10, 15, 20, or 30 rounds. (Depending upon which absurd legislation was involved.)

Also, what would I do with an automatic weapon?

Look at it. Shoot it at targets. Have it as a conversation starter. You see, we don't have to need something, to be able to own it.

'Put security guards in schools, hospitals, etc' isn't that just going to make the new American population fear for their lives? or even 'Guns are for protection' If there was no guns in the first place there would be no need for protection, is that not true? Even the suggestion of Security guards searching people, is it not worrying that it has reached the stage where people are even considering this option? All of them are ridictulous.

Oh, indeed, all options are ridiculous. But life is the same way.
However, all the options are becoming less and less necessary given that, over the past two decades, crime has dropped, despite the rise in gun ownership.

I understand all this blah-blah about the constitutional rights and all that malarky, but whats more important, a right written down hundreds of years ago when having a weapon was necessary, or someones life? Most of the world surivives without insane assault rifle-wielding peasantry - why not the US? Maybe just allowing bolt-action rifles for instance, no one is stupid enough to run into a building and even attempt to kill anybody with a slow-reloading rifle, surely thats preserving life and preventing death, as well as fulfilling your constitutional right.

If we want to get into that...
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me; give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

And no, I don't think bolt action weaponry would cover our constitutional right. You're aware of what a New York reporter has done recently, no? He put out a map of all legal pistol owners in the city, and by doing so, he's condemned many people to, at the very least, having their property taken. Surely, in order to fulfill his constitutional right, yet keep the public safe, he should be limited to a printing press, and banned from using the internet.

I mean, when you think about it, we're going up against the Constitution either way.

It's quite obvious the current Gun laws in the US are inadequate and severely flawed and really do need revising. Isn't the whole point of American's having guns is to preserve life? All I've seen is early death.

Indeed they are flawed. It's time we permit concealed carry without a license, reduce the NFA to restrict only automatic weapons, increase the number of people who check off the NFA tax stamps, and begin to bring down the crime rates in the various large cities, by fighting the gang culture present there.

Also, we'll probably want a way to fight the rise in crime that's about to happen in NYC.


Forgive any half-formulated arguments I may have here, as I'm rather tired, and can barely keep a single train of thought at the moment, much less type things out like I usually intend to.

[Tali]

As a small side note; As Anders Breivik demonstrated, killing civilians is equally possible when using semi-automatic firearms.

[Odysseus]

Reduce to bolt actions and other sporting rifles, why? They aren't concealable and they're slow to reload. You can still defend yourself, and those who say the US Government can't implement these laws, well yes they can and they should. Besides, nobody has ever said they had to order a mass ban on guns all at once, it would be a slow procedure where they would have to recall guns one by one.

[Slawtering]

Bolt actions aren't necessary slow to reload especially when you have a charger (stripper clip) with a lee enfield you can reload 5 bullets at a time in a ten round magazine. It takes what maximum three seconds to open the bolt, put new bullet in and close the bolt to reload one bullet, for ten rounds (two charges) it would take a maximum of 10 seconds to load them. and to carry on shooting. If anyones heard of the mad minute for the lee-enfield the record is 38 shots in one minute all accurately hitting their target.  Obviously people arent going to reach this record but many could probably reach the average soldier record of 30+ which lets face it, you could probably get since you would probably have atleast minor training on guns if you were to actually own one (I hope).

[TheBoberton]

Reduce to bolt actions and other sporting rifles, why? They aren't concealable and they're slow to reload. You can still defend yourself, and those who say the US Government can't implement these laws, well yes they can and they should. Besides, nobody has ever said they had to order a mass ban on guns all at once, it would be a slow procedure where they would have to recall guns one by one.

A rifle is actually very concealable, assuming you've a table saw and five minutes. And if you know what you're doing, they can be reloaded very quickly.

And you do realise that a 'recall' on firearms would have three consequences, right?

• The firearm market, which actually makes up a decent part of the US economy, would crash. (Hooray for less jobs, and more crime because poverty!)
• Crime in places like my own state, Florida, which has some decent laws, would see an increase in crime.
• 1861.. Part Dha.

[Tali]

Indeed they are flawed. It's time we permit concealed carry without a license, reduce the NFA to restrict only automatic weapons...

So, everyone, regardless of earlier criminal records, mental health or similar things one could think should disallow one from owning firearms, is to be allowed to carry firearms?

Instead of making it harder for guns to get into the wrong hands, this is what you want?

[TheBoberton]

So, everyone, regardless of earlier criminal records, mental health or similar things one could think should disallow one from owning firearms, is to be allowed to carry firearms?

I apologise.

I logically assumed you would realise that this wouldn't include those who are legally barred from even owning weapons. Clearly I was wrong.

[Tali]

So, everyone, regardless of earlier criminal records, mental health or similar things one could think should disallow one from owning firearms, is to be allowed to carry firearms?

I apologise.

I logically assumed you would realise that this wouldn't include those who are legally barred from even owning weapons. Clearly I was wrong.

And do you think that those that commit these crimes are often logged as "legally forbidden"? At least on the part of the humans with lacking mental health, the problems are often unknown until they commit a mass shooting. How should you stop weapons from getting to these individuals when not even a license is required to buy a firearm?

[Odysseus]

A license should be the first step towards reduced crime, no doubt about it.

[Tali]

A license should be the first step towards reduced crime, no doubt about it.

I think it is fair to assume that people who intend to commit crimes on a bigger scale don't buy their weapons legally, and as such licenses might not have the effect one would think. However, that is no reason not to demand license and personal background checks on firearms purchases, as the opposite, where no licenses and only a look into the criminal register would be needed before getting your hands on firearms.

[TheBoberton]

And do you think that those that commit these crimes are often logged as "legally forbidden"? At least on the part of the humans with lacking mental health, the problems are often unknown until they commit a mass shooting. How should you stop weapons from getting to these individuals when not even a license is required to buy a firearm?

People who have committed felonies cannot obtain firearms legally, actually. Nor can those with any kind of mental issues, that have been diagnosed. And any FFL holder is required to do a background check before selling someone a firearm.

On the issue of unknown mental problems, there's simply no way to know. Clearly we should lock everyone up until we can be certain that they aren't mentally ill, to ensure that they do no harm to themselves or others.

[Odysseus]

Exactly. It isn't going to eliminate crime, but it can do nothing but reduce it.

[Tali]

People who have committed felonies cannot obtain firearms legally, actually. Nor can those with any kind of mental issues, that have been diagnosed. And any FFL holder is required to do a background check before selling someone a firearm.

On the issue of unknown mental problems, there's simply no way to know. Clearly we should lock everyone up until we can be certain that they aren't mentally ill, to ensure that they do no harm to themselves or others.

Hardly lock them up, but restrict firearm access until they have been proven not to be mentally ill, until they have obtained licenses, and they have been giving proper training. Firearms, in my opinion, is to be a privilege,with a lot of responsibilities,  not a god-given right.

It seems to me that you look upon Firearms as a fundamental right. It trumps everything. This makes it rather hard for us to reach an agreement.

[TheBoberton]

Hardly lock them up, but restrict firearm access until they have been proven not to be mentally ill, until they have obtained licenses, and they have been giving proper training. Firearms, in my opinion, is to be a privilege,with a lot of responsibilities,  not a god-given right.

It seems to me that you look upon Firearms as a fundamental right. It trumps everything. This makes it rather hard for us to reach an agreement.

The right to defend yourself is one you have throughout the duration of your life. It only makes sense that firearms go hand-in-hand with that, given that they're the best weapon to do so with.

And no, we won't reach an agreement. Because, frankly, I think you're very uneducated on the issue, and need to learn why someone would have the foolish idea that they should defend themselves.

And registration is one of the most ridiculous solutions I've heard thus far, aside from getting rid of civilian owned firearms entirely. If you look at what just happened in NYC, then you might get an idea of why it'll end up causing more crime than it's worth.

[Tali]

Hardly lock them up, but restrict firearm access until they have been proven not to be mentally ill, until they have obtained licenses, and they have been giving proper training. Firearms, in my opinion, is to be a privilege,with a lot of responsibilities,  not a god-given right.

It seems to me that you look upon Firearms as a fundamental right. It trumps everything. This makes it rather hard for us to reach an agreement.

The right to defend yourself is one you have throughout the duration of your life. It only makes sense that firearms go hand-in-hand with that, given that they're the best weapon to do so with.

And no, we won't reach an agreement. Because, frankly, I think you're very uneducated on the issue, and need to learn why someone would have the foolish idea that they should defend themselves.

I fully agree with you in the point of self defense. It's just the methods that differ.

The only way to defend yourself against another fellow using firearms ( Which we can agree on that he will likely have if your firearm regulations were to be implemented) is to shoot first, which has a very, very broad possibility of mistakes, where people who incorrectly feel threatened fires first.