General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at... political statement? Obviously there are many factors that contribute to a state's violent crime levels, but we're not discussing the causes of crime. We're trying to determine how much of an impact guns have, and if it goes one way or another. Based off of this data, one cannot argue that guns clearly contribute to violent crime, but they also cannot argue that guns prevent violent crime.

To put it more succinctly, criminals are not emboldened by a lack of guns, but they're also not cowed by their presence.

Nah, no statement just noticed what the states were and had a good laugh (or maybe it was, because gun control always comes up during election time). But as the data states there really no trend, because each state has its own demographics and/or factors that may lead to the violence. Each state is unique in its own way :P

[Mr. DJ]

GOP wants broader gun rights, unlimited clips.

Republicans have strengthened the pro-gun-rights portion of their party platform, including a new call for unlimited bullet capacities in guns, in a defiant response to criticism that followed recent mass shootings at a Colorado cinema and an Arizona congresswoman's gathering.

The 2012 platform, approved this week by GOP convention-goers who nominated Mitt Romney for president, also endorses "stand your ground" rights for gun owners. That legal concept, which says gun bearers don't have to retreat if they feel threatened in a public place, drew national attention after February's fatal shooting of an unarmed Florida teenager by a neighborhood watch volunteer.

Republicans traditionally embrace gun rights in their quadrennial party platforms. The one approved this week went farther than those of 2004 and 2008.

Gun control advocates see it as an audacious answer to calls for firearms restrictions after a gunman killed 12 people in Colorado last month, and another gunman killed six people in Tucson, Ariz., early last year. Gabrielle Giffords, then a Democratic congresswoman holding an outdoor meeting, was gravely wounded in the Tucson assault.

"Gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens," the 2008 Republican platform said. This year's platform adds: "We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines."

The shooters in Colorado and Arizona used large-capacity weapons capable of firing many rounds quickly.

The 2004 GOP platform said "law-abiding citizens" should have the right "to own firearms in their homes for self-defense." This year's platform supports "the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be."

It calls for federal laws "that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents."

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said that, by making these changes, Republican leaders have "put themselves farther out of touch with their constituents."

His group supports bans on large-capacity weapons, which it says are "designed to shoot a lot of people quickly and efficiently."

David Keene, president of the National Rifle Association, told the NRA News that the 2008 GOP platform "was perhaps the most gun-friendly platform that any party had ever adopted," and "this year's Republican platform is even stronger in terms of dedicating a major party to the protection of the Second Amendment."

Presidential nominees, not to mention the general public, often ignore party platforms. Top Republicans in Tampa, however, implored the public to study the 50-page platform document.

"We invite Americans to consider this platform, a call for dramatic change in government," Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said in his convention speech Tuesday.

I personally don't see the need for such things

[erneiz_hyde]

If the intent is self-defense, I don't see the point of going beyond handguns. Maybe a lever-action at home to scare most invaders, but you wouldn't bring that or SMGs to public places would you?

[DonQuigleone]

Something that bears thinking about is that while something like 50% of households own a gun, only a smaller fraction actually practice concealed carry. According to the figures, there are 8 million active concealed carry licenses(and growing). While that is indeed a big number, that's only 3% of the adult population of the United States. Meanwhile, as can be seen in figures from kyp's post, 67% of homicides, 41% of robberies and 20% of assaults took place using a gun. Now I can't speak for homicides and assaults(they can take place anywhere), but Robberies take place outside the home (burglary is inside the home.

While people might be able to adequately defend themselves inside their home with a gun, most people still don't choose to exercise their right to defend themselves outside it. In a potential robbery, the chance of the robber meeting a person with a (legally) carried gun is still negligible, and women, who are more vulnerable, are much less likely to carry then men. As it is right now, criminals are attacking with guns, while only a very small minority are legally defending themselves. Most are leaving their guns at home unattended and presumably unused.

Though some states do have very high rates of concealed carry permits, namely Iowa, Indiana and Georgia, at about 10% each. Those states have 294, 333 and 493 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

An interesting case is Vermont and New Hampshire, one has unrestricted concealed carry (and has had so for a very long time), while neighbouring New Hampshire has been more restrictive. Vermont has a violent crime rate of 124 while New Hampshire is 137, which I don't think is statistically significant.

To be honest, I don't see any major trends. Perhaps things would be different if the numbers of concealed carry permit holders who exercised their right was higher. But if most Americans don't want to carry around their weapons with them, I can't see them doing much to protect people.

[GundamFan0083]

Fresno County Woman Stops Kidnapping By Pulling Gun on Home Intruder

http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Fre...167733085.html

Bystander Fired Deadly Shot, Not Officer
http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4527526

[GundamFan0083]

Are you ladies and gents putting a hex on me or something?
My MSI 870 g45 motherboard died yesterday (no video card detected and card works), so now I'm on my laptop (ick).
I have some time now to post...amazing!

Originally Posted by Ledgem

To put it more succinctly, criminals are not emboldened by a lack of guns, but they're also not cowed by their presence.

I would agree, it also depends on each individual criminal.
Some will flee if challenged with a firearm, others will not.

Because I'm going to have to stop coming to these forums pretty soon, and won't have the time to write long posts, here's a final thought.

WHAT!? NO, that sucks.

As I mentioned in one of my first posts on this thread, there are many ways of staving off the intent of firing a bullet that don't involve gun control. I am open, honest, and am not pushing any agenda other than saving lives and preventing injury, so of course I recognize this. However, even those who are against gun control cannot deny that if you reduce the number of guns, the chances of encountering someone with a gun decreases - and that includes people (whether criminals or not) who have ill intent. Having a gun grants you control over certain situations (such as GundamFan0083 being accosted by two men who were warded off by his handgun), but you're still powerless over others (again, the two instances where we were fired upon).


During our discussion something has become clear to me. I tend to focus more on the "others," those situations where a gun is used offensively and without warning; the situations where having a gun on you doesn't offer any real protection. It seems that GundamFan0083 is focusing more on those situations where having a gun allows you to directly influence a situation by negating a firearm-bearing criminal or assailant. Both situations occur, and both are valid. My take is that reducing the number of guns would reduce both instances.

I've thoroughly enjoyed the discourse, and thank everyone who took the time to write up their thoughts for doing so

That's the problem with this entire argument, the proverbial Genie was let out of the bottle over 100 years ago in the US, and there is no way to put it back in.

The ATF is only aware of the firearms that have been purchased since 1968, anything made before that is a complete unknown for the most part because records were not kept (Form 4473 not required).

Reducing the number of firearms is just not practical nor realistic at this point in US history.
Gun owners will (for the most part) not turn in their weapons willingly, and any attempt at confication will lead to a blood bath that nobody wants but many are willing to fight.

Because of the level of resistence that will happen in any attempt to reduce access to firearms, we must take into account if such a reduction in firearms will actually have any meaningful effect on the incidences where a firearm is ued in a crime and/or assault (since that is the crux of what we are all discussing here).

A rather controversial study was done on this subject by Don B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**

*Don B. Kates (Ll.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer
associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco.

**Gary Mauser (Ph.D., U. California, Irvine, 1970) is a Canadian criminologist and
university professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada.

Their conclusion was as follows:

This article has reviewed a goodly amount of evidence from a wide variety of
international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil, at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences.

Nevertheless the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the "more guns = more death/fewer guns = less death mantra, especially since they propose public policy ought to be based on that mantra.
To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations which imposed stringent gun controls achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those things are precisely what is not demonstrated when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Over a decade ago University of Washington public health professor Brandon
Centerwall undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the U.S. and Canada to determine whether Canada's much more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:

If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research
with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is -- a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources.

When studied properly, and with all the available evidence, the conclusion to this sitution is clear.
Gun control is a failure, that's why I keep repeating it like a broken record.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

*Snipped*

Removed a lot of this post to focus on the issue of gun control, and not our snarky fun, so as to keep us out of trouble.

I'll attempt to keep the tone of my post as professional as possible.

Let me try and explain this one to you. Crime is crime, and it occurs regardless of what weapons are available. Even if people had nothing but their fists, there would be crime. Agree? In some crimes it's simply a matter of property being stolen; in other crimes, people get hurt. Put a powerful weapon into people's hands, and what do you think will happen when those crimes take place? The magnitude of damage inflicted is increased. The ease with which a life can be taken is increased. This is pure logic.

Define a powerful weapon.
As a former Thermo-Nuclear Weapons Specialist of the USAF, a powerful weapon to me is a MIRV or an ALCM, or a B83 (I hated working on that damn bomb, most were older than me).

A grenade launcher is a firecracker compared to that, and a firearm is a spit-ball.
Also, the lethality of a firearm varies by type and skill of the user, as I've demonstrated throughout this entire thread.
A level action rifle in the hands of a skilled shooter is more deadly than a semi-auto rifle in the hands of an incompetent one.
Whereas a shotgun is the most deadly in CQB irregardless of skill level.
This is why the reduction of say "military-style" rifles with high capacity magazines does nothing to reduce crime...at all.
The magnitude of a melee weapon such as a firearm or blade is determined by the skill of the person using it, not the weapon itself.
Take for example the latest shooting in Trenton NJ. That ex-marine used a civilian AK-47 look-a-like. He fired 16 rounds in a crowded supermarket and killed 2 people.
Now take the latest mass killing by knife in Britain, six people were killed in an apartment building, two of them children.
Which was more deadly, the knife or the gun?
Obviously the knife.
The Colorado theater shooting is also a good example.
Which was more deadly, the AR-15 or the Remington 870 shotgun?
Obviously the shotgun.
So we see that magnitude of lethality does not depend on the weapon used when dealing with small arms. It has to do will the person committing the crime: how well they planned their attack, their skill with the weapon of choice, and the place chosen for their deed.
Prevention of these types of attacks requires the public to become more diligent and responsible for their own safety.

Your argument against it is that allowing for force to be equalized is a method to guard against that. I have not argued that it isn't (although I take issue with the unrealistic manner with which you claim it protects you). However, the other argument is that we can guard against it by keeping these weapons out of people's hands. Now don't get too excited: this isn't stretching to say that firearms should be entirely banned from society. What it is saying is that if we reduce their numbers, the chances of their being used in crimes (but not the number of crimes) will decrease. This is also pure logic.

It's not logical when the evidence doesn't support it and it's practicality is basically zero.
It's magical thinking to believe that guns will evaporate just by banning most of them. The sheer magnitude of force that would be required to reduce the number of firearms in the US doesn't justify the cost in both lives and materiale to execute such an operation.
Starting a civil war in the name of public safety is illogial.

Hold on a second...And now you're saying that you're not the one worried about somebody jumping out and gunning you down? And somehow you're implying that I am afraid and insecure, even though I head out each day without a gun and without ever thinking that I'll be a victim?

A bit of paranoia is good and healthy, and I'm not making fun of you for it, but let's call it for what it is, OK?

Don't confuse paranoia with personal responsibility.
Choosing to take responsibility for your own personal safety by owning a firearm, learning how to use it correctly (via the Civilian Marksmanship Program or the like), and being aware of your surroundings is a very positive step in the right direction for not only the individual but also for society as a whole.

Um, dude? America is a country. Do you know what a country is? It's a society made up of people who live together to make life easier (or even possible). That I am a collectivist just means that I care about the people around me and am occasionally willing to put their needs above my own "

That's cooperativism (which is a good thing) not collectivism (which is basically a statist).

Also, I'm a classical Liberal, that means I understand the balance between individualism and cooperativism.

Nice distractor. Two points:

1) The abortion argument is totally separate from this, and hinges on your personal belief as to when life begins. No human can truly say when life begins, but many arrogant fools like to proclaim a certain time and then act as if their view is the ultimate truth. I clearly do not view life as beginning at the same time as you do, therefore I do not recognize your claim about "lives being terminated."

I disagree.
The abortion argument is only partially removed from this one.
The reason for this is due to the fact that life is ended in both situations.
Whether by gun or abortion, a life comes to an end. I believe we can recognize that, yes?
Therefore, if a position is taken that life can be ended under specific conditions, we must recognize that killing is distinct from murder.
What is the difference?

Killing is ending a life in a justifiable manner for the purpose of protection, mercy, or similar condition.
Abortion falls into this realm of thought IMHO, as does killing for self defense, the death penalty, warfare, killing animals for food, or the like.

Murder on the other hand is killing with intent to profit or gain off the death for entirely selfish purposes.
As when a spouse hires a hit-man/woman to kill their husband/wife for the insurance money. Or a rapist kills his/her victim to keep from being caught. Or a madman enters a theater to mow down as many people as possible to make himself feel powerful. Or a national leader chooses to wipe out a whole race/ethnic group because they look different or aren't of the correct political persuation.

2) You've tried these types of distractors before, such as bringing up deaths related to automobile accidents. I know you're not stupid, so why are you acting like we can only focus on one thing at a time?....A preventable death due to a gun is just as tragic as a preventable death due to some other cause, and I think we can all agree that we should always strive to eliminate those deaths as much as we possibly can.

When speaking of accidents, we must take into account all forms of accidents, not cherry pick one or another.

Nope, it's about reducing to avoid preventable deaths. Should we ban cars? No, but we can set lower speed limits in areas with high incidences of accidents. Should we ban fatty foods? No, but we can encourage businesses to avoid using them, and we can encourage people to reduce their intake. Ban unprotected sex? No, but we can try to reduce its occurrence by teaching people about protection.

Ban guns? No, but we can reduce their numbers, and in doing so we might be able to knock out some of those preventable deaths that are related to them.

Automobile accidents far out weight incidents with firearms, as do poisonings, falls, and many others.
Attempts to reduce accidental deaths from all causes usually hinges on education and again personal responsibilty: don't drive drunk or drive fast; don't let your children have access to poison or guns, be careful when climbing icy stairs or when cleaning your weapon, etc, et nausium.

Your example of the speed limit is invalid since the state has a monetary motive to impose such a limit in the form of revenue generation via speed traps and other schemes. It can be argued that safety is a secondary not a primary motivator for such speed restrictions.

If we were to apply the same types of restrictions on cars that are applied to guns (magazine bans, cosmetic bans, etc), you would NOT BE ABLE to drive above 55 mph because your car would be unable to go that fast, no sportscars would exist, no SUVs would exist, and we would be limited to whatever the nanny state imposed upon us.
That is a significant difference than simply asking people to take responsibility for themselves and not drive faster than 55 mph (or whatever the limit may be for a particular street).


Therefore, if we are talking about public safety, we must first determine if the restrictions proposed are more or less effective then simply an educational campaign to get people to take the initiative themselves and prevent these accidents as best they can.

The safety issue really is a separate issue entirely than the gun-control issue, however many gun-control advocates poison the waters of the debate by introducing this issue when it really is not part of the debate.

I didn't reply to a number of your paragraphs because I'm trying to keep my post length down. Rest assured, I didn't leave things out because I had no retort. If you felt that I bypassed a winning argument, let me know and I'll respond specifically to it.

I agree, the debate needed thinning out and distilling down to it's core issues.

[Kyuu]

Another shooting today -- and no one bothered to bring this thread back up. Well, looks like I have to do it:

Originally Posted by headline

Eleven facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/

Point #6 -- I find funny.

For the most part -- as a country, America is pathetic in this department. As long as nothing is done about this, these shootings WILL continue; AND I most certainly do EXPECT the next one to occur within 1-2 years.

[Ithekro]

You know perfectly well you are asking for a "shitstorm", right?

I just making sure before the regulars come down of both sides of this again.

[GoddyofAus]

If everyone wants to have a calm, rational debate about it then lets have it; The argument that Criminals will commit crimes with or without guns is ridiculous. Ah yes, Criminals won't follow laws, so lets make it so easy for them to commit the crime just so we keep our right to protect our backyards from the evil clutches of King George. It is just pathetic how touchy America is about its guns. Not even tougher laws, not an outright ban are good enough, the second amendment is on a pedestal like an ornament to the archaic. Lets go shoot some cans with our M16 because it gives us that....funny feeling.

I tell you what, if the country were this defensive of human rights, specifically the rights of minorities, it would be a shitload better place. There are not many things Americans are as passionate about as its guns and everytime I've brought it up, I've been shouted down as if I'm an advocate for a blanket ban. I haven't got the time or the patience for such infantile crap. I do not support a blanket ban, I support rational and logical safeguards that DO NOT EXIST CURRENTLY [mod edited].

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by GoddyofAus

I do not support a blanket ban, I support rational and logical safeguards that DO NOT EXIST CURRENTLY [mod edited].

Indeed. If people want guns -- fine. Go get your guns.

But I have to ask: What is the purpose for people to get high capacity clips? Deer hunting?

[Ithekro]

"Rational and logical safeguards"

Such as what? We have lots of gun laws. The largest problem is that most are not enforced or not enforcible (depending on the law in question).

Also, state to state, the situations of the citizens of that state have different needs when it comes ot guns.
Some only want them for recreation.
Others want them for defense, since the police will not or cannot get to them in a reasonable amount of time.
Others simply need them for living (hunters and farmers, particularly those that live away from from the cities).
And lastly we have those that want them based on the notion they are the US or State militia and are suppose to have them to defend the nation against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

What is the purpose for people to get high capacity clips?

Conveniance. Like a Big Gulp or Extra Large fries is a conveniance. Recreation shooting gets more annoying the more times you have to stop reload the clip.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

"Rational and logical safeguards"

Such as what? We have lots of gun laws. The largest problem is that most are not enforced or not enforcible (depending on the law in question).

...

Also, state to state, the situations of the citizens of that state have different needs when it comes ot guns.
Some only want them for recreation.
Others want them for defense, since the police will not or cannot get to them in a reasonable amount of time.
Others simply need them for living (hunters and farmers, particularly those that live away from from the cities).
And lastly we have those that want them based on the notion they are the US or State militia and are suppose to have them to defend the nation against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

And I get all that.

Laws? Impose them at the production/business end. Limit general public weapons to just that -- civilian weapons.

Are there laws banning military grade weaponry to civilians? I sure freaking hope so.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Conveniance. Like a Big Gulp or Extra Large fries is a conveniance. Recreation shooting gets more annoying the more times you have to stop reload the clip.

Well, deal with it. It's a minor inconvenience. Not like the delay in reloading is gonna get you killed -- unless you're in an actual firefight or playing an FPS game.

I have to ask you: What's more important: lives or recreational convenience?

[GoddyofAus]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

"Rational and logical safeguards"

Such as what? We have lots of gun laws. The largest problem is that most are not enforced or not enforcible (depending on the law in question).

Also, state to state, the situations of the citizens of that state have different needs when it comes ot guns.
Some only want them for recreation. If people are looking at Guns as Toys, then that is a serious problem.
Others want them for defense, since the police will not or cannot get to them in a reasonable amount of time. Then a review of the Police Force is needed. Are we supposed to promote Vigilantism? Australians seem to do fine defending themselves against home invaders with Baseball Bats.
Others simply need them for living (hunters and farmers, particularly those that live away from from the cities). Again, not good enough. I wonder how many Dick Cheneys are amongst them. If Farmers need them, they can get a license for it, but I don't see how a Farmer needs a Glock.
And lastly we have those that want them based on the notion they are the US or State militia and are suppose to have them to defend the nation against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Aww because an overfunded Military by hundreds of billions of dollars isn't enough. That's the sort of argument I'd expect from some low I.Q bogan in Rural Alabama.

All of which are terrible arguments. My answers to each are in bold in quote.

[willx]

@Ithekro: Everything you state may be what people feel. So, the question is, how do you tell people their feelings are wrong? I mean, just cause someone feels something doesn't mean we should care, people overreact all the time. See: Dating.

Seriously speaking here, the argument about needing a gun to defend yourself is somewhat circular as you can see here:
1) Criminals have easy access to guns
2) Can't depend on police
3) Have to be able to have easy access to guns

Anyways, this goes fundamentally to the nature of the U.S. and it's citizens. Does a regular person not vested in the authority of government have the authority to use force and how much force is still considered legitimate? Yes, a gun is a tool, but it is a tool designed to magnify the use of "force" or let's be honest here "violence"

Lincoln amended the constitution to abolish slavery. The constitution also at one point considered a slave 3/5ths of a person. Just cause the constitution says you have the right to bear arms doesn't make it a good idea. Since some of us are watching "Girls und Panzer" -- should people be allowed to all own tanks working turret and all? Why and why not?

I mean: It's a tool. I can use it to clear trees. I can drive it easily in the snow.

PS: I think guns are cool. I actually go to the shooting range and may plan to buy one myself. I do think however that the world would be a safer place if no one owned any

Reply hazy, ask again later

[Ithekro]

Arms sales are big business (not just civilian sales in the US). There are plenty of "military grade" pistols sold to civilians...mainly because a lot of them were civilian designs repurposed for military use.

Many of the semi-automatic rifles that look like military grade weapons are secondary line production that remove the fully automatic parts (and in many cases make it so you can't just convert it back easily) for sale to civilians. Why? Because some people think they look cool.

This also goes the other way. In instances of the "Assualt Weapons Ban" of the 1990s, it was mainly aimed at weapons that looked scary. No actually substance to it since the weapons these are modeled after are already illegal since the 1930s (machines guns of any sort).

For instance, you should not be able to purchase a M16 or AK47 in the United States without a special permit for collectors, museums, or Hollywood (would usually falls under collectors I believe). You can however by guns that look like these weapons, but are not fully automatic nor, have three round burst setting on it either. They can fire only one shot at a time, like any other rifle.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Are there laws banning military grade weaponry to civilians? I sure freaking hope so.

Define "military grade", because for the most part there is no such thing.

Originally Posted by GoddyofAus

If people are looking at Guns as Toys, then that is a serious problem.

Recreation use =/= Toy. Automobiles are used for recreations use, are they toys?

Then a review of the Police Force is needed. Are we supposed to promote Vigilantism?

Welcome to reality. No matter where you live, there is FAR fewer police officers than there are civilian population, it's a matter of laws of physics that it's going to take time for police to respond. Also, self-defense is not vigilantism.

Australians seem to do fine defending themselves against home invaders with Baseball Bats.

Many Americans do as well, though bad things happen when all they have is baseball bats when the bad guys have guns.

Again, not good enough. I wonder how many Dick Cheneys are amongst them. If Farmers need them, they can get a license for it, but I don't see how a Farmer needs a Glock.

I'm glad you're the authority on deciding what other people can and can't have or need or don't need in their life

Aww because an overfunded Military by hundreds of billions of dollars isn't enough. That's the sort of argument I'd expect from some low I.Q bogan in Rural Alabama.

Yes, please get more anti-American shots in, because you aren't obvious enough yet.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Define "military grade", because for the most part there is no such thing.

In my opinion -- Military Grade is anything used and designed specifically for the military.

For example: Hummers

The military version is the Humvee. Civilians get Hummers. While both are capable of off-roading, the Humvee is more robust, as it is not primarily driven on the roads.

[Ithekro]

I would point out that the overfunded military is one of those things that those that think in terms of the old State malitia are worried about. The key phrase is "threats foreign and domestic" Meaning they see the 2nd Amendment as a potental curb on the US Government from becoming a tyrannical state towards its own people.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by willx

Seriously speaking here, the argument about needing a gun to defend yourself is somewhat circular as you can see here:
1) Criminals have easy access to guns
2) Can't depend on police
3) Have to be able to have easy access to guns

In the US's case, there was never a period in its entire history where there wasn't widespread civilian ownership of guns. It's not that easy access led to there being lots of guns in the US, it was already that way before the nation was born, and remained a necessity as the the nation grew westward.

Anyways, this goes fundamentally to the nature of the U.S. and it's citizens. Does a regular person not vested in the authority of government have the authority to use force and how much force is still considered legitimate? Yes, a gun is a tool, but it is a tool designed to magnify the use of "force" or let's be honest here "violence"

The answer is yes, as for what's legitimate, it varies by state laws.

Since some of us are watching "Girls und Panzer" -- should people be allowed to all own tanks working turret and all? Why and why not?

What legitimate use of a 120mm gun can you come up with?

[GoddyofAus]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Define "military grade", because for the most part there is no such thing.


.....You cannot be serious. A Barrett 50 calibre Sniper Rifle isn't military grade? Really?


Recreation use =/= Toy. Automobiles are used for recreations use, are they toys? Nice spin. You would make a good Politician.



Welcome to reality. No matter where you live, there is FAR fewer police officers than there are civilian population, it's a matter of laws of physics that it's going to take time for police to respond. Also, self-defense is not vigilantism. Then how about you take those hundreds of billions of dollars the Military is overpaid with which you didn't have an argument worth shit to respond to me with and insentivise the job of Policing better?



Many Americans do as well, though bad things happen when all they have is baseball bats when the bad guys have guns. And remind me again why the bad guys have guns in the first place.


I'm glad you're the authority on deciding what other people can and can't have or need or don't need in their life Don't start with the semantics, you'll do yourself a disservice. It's called a Democracy and the people will decide. America has never had the chance as of yet because no Politican has had the balls to go up against the Red States who are gun crazy.



Yes, please get more anti-American shots in, because you aren't obvious enough yet. See answer to the Police point.

Again, answers in bold.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I would point out that the overfunded military is one of those things that those that think in terms of the old State malitia are worried about. The key phrase is "threats foreign and domestic" Meaning they see the 2nd Amendment as a potental curb on the US Government from becoming a tyrannical state towards its own people.

How would they even know the Government has turned Tyrannical. Some would argue it already has. Even so, Modern Warfare is so fundamentally complex now that any rebellion would get crushed by exceptional military hardware that most civilians wouldn't have access to. How do you fight a Government that is suppressing you with unmanned drones?