General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Ithekro]

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

Home demolitions

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

I would point out that they are America citizen, too. Standing up to them is the same as standing up to everyone else. Laws come and laws go, but the people...as a whole, decide. 50-50% does not mean one is oppressing the other, nor does it mean the other side is being oppressed. It means there is not a single way, one way or the other yet, as there is no majority ruling.

Even then, it is "majority rules, minority rights"

[Kyuu]

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.

If the US military comes after you, you're still a dead man, because a little pee shooter isn't enough against a missle.

As for domestic threats, I tend to view targets other than the government. Our worst nightmare would be the government itself becoming a domestic enemy; but we have mechanisms other than gun use to prevent that.

[GoddyofAus]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Home demolitions



I would point out that they are America citizen, too. Standing up to them is the same as standing up to everyone else. Laws come and laws go, but the people...as a whole, decide. 50-50% does not mean one is oppressing the other, nor does it mean the other side is being oppressed. It means there is not a single way, one way or the other yet, as there is no majority ruling.

Even then, it is "majority rules, minority rights"

They're American citizens who could give less of a stuff about peoples lives. I think that should probably be taken into account. Maybe my opinion is the most dangerous, because try and take away guns from the craziest of the crazies in the South and you might just have Civil War 2 on your hands. THAT is how bad the rot has been allowed to get.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

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.

Then you'd have to pretty much outlaw every single piece of guns and knife. Again, there really isn't such a thing as military grade in this context that doesn't quite literally cover everything.

Small arms technology have remained relatively static for more than half a century, in some cases even longer. There are incremental advancements in some areas, but ultimately they haven't changed much.

And yes, the HUMVEE is primarily driven on road We don't usually take them "off roading", nor is it all that "robust". Besides, the Hummers of today have zero connection with actual HUMVEE outside of the name.

Originally Posted by GoddyofAus

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

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective. From what I stand, "military grade" for small arms is a misnomer used by civilians. You'll never hear people in the military referring to this or that firearm as "military grade", it's simply not a real standard.

And yes, .50 rifles are used for recreation, at least for those rich enough as both rifles and ammo are very expensive. As far as worrying over mass shooting goes, the .50 rifle would be an extremely poor choice due to portability issues.

Nice spin. You would make a good Politician.

nice ad hominem. I called you out on your incorrect use of words, and all you can come up with is personal attacks

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?

more personal attacks, you're really demonstrating your abundance of intelligence

I'm beginning to think you can't really debate the issue without using red herrings and strawman arguments. The US military budget is a completely different issue, not to mention in the US police budget comes from the state and local level, not federal.

Get your facts in order before spouting off crap.

And remind me again why the bad guys have guns in the first place.

They've never NOT have guns, go brush up on your American History 101.

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.

Ironically, you're more similar to those you're bashing than you know, both you and the conservatives you're bashing thinks it's democracy only when the result is what you want

"IT'S DEMOCRACY, THE PEOPLE WILL DECIDE!!!!! EXCEPT FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT DISAGREES WITH ME, THEY DON'T COUNT!!!"

[GoddyofAus]

Knife attack in China. 22 Children affected. Deaths = Zero.

Gun attack in Newtown. 27 people involved. Deaths = all 27.

Guns and Knives are not comparable. end of story.

[Ithekro]

How do you fight a Government that is suppressing you with unmanned drones?
__________________

The Afghani seem to be doing it. And the Vietnamese did it to the US military in the 1960s. Also it depends on how much of the population and the military side with the "tyranical government". The US population outnumbers the US military by a lot, and is rather armed even if it is only civilian equipment. They civilians, if pushed, know were to get better arms. It will be costly, but Army reserve bases, national guard units, and some collections are possible to break into if the situation has gone that far.

While the example it old and outdated, see what the Confederate civilians did before they gained access to their own production centers.

If they start really hammering people (missiles, air bombing of cities), not only have they lost the war, they also kill their civilains. At that point the country does not exist anymore and the rest of the world will do something about it. Probably something not nice.

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by kyp275

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

What legitimate use of a high-capacity assault rifle could you come up with?

[willx]

Originally Posted by kyp275

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.

That's actually not terribly legitimate. There was significant gun proliferation in Canada as well during the "race to the west". Even if I give you a historical contextual nod and an O.K., how do historical practices dictate what should or shouldn't be allowed in a modern day civil society.

I think one of the main arguments people have regarding gun control is: "There are so many guns out there already! We can't stem the tide! Genie's out of the bottle!"

Of course you can, guns break down, restrictions can be put on bullets. Ultimately it's the same argument about people unable to halt unsustainable spending. Government and the policies they create should take the "long view" on things. A failure to do so is the failure to govern.

We all disagree on many things, but let's start with a thought experiment:
In a world where no civilian ever owned guns .. they simply never existed. Then someone invented it and the government immediately took control of that person. In that circumstance, in our modern day society, should the government release the technology for sale or strictly safeguard it?

Outlook is .. getting curiouser and curiouser

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Then you'd have to pretty much outlaw every single piece of guns and knife. Again, there really isn't such a thing as military grade in this context that doesn't quite literally cover everything.

I didn't say:

Outlaw.

Instead, I advocate civilian versions.

[KiraYamatoFan]

In my book, firearms should only belong within boundaries of law enforcement units, military facilities, hunting and biathlon clubs. If anything comes out of those particular boundaries and into what is deemed civilian areas, carrying, owning and using a gun should be illegal for all that I care.

And before anyone brings up the Second Amendment, let me say bluntly that I wipe my butt with the page on the Second Amendment. After all that happened since Columbine, I have all reasons to do so.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Asuras

What legitimate use of a high-capacity assault rifle could you come up with?

Considering no assault rifles are legal anyway, I find your question to be moot.

Originally Posted by Kyuu

I didn't say:

Outlaw.

Instead, I advocate civilian versions.

Which is what we already have. For example, the AR15 is the civilian version of the M16/4, which removes the burst-fire mode.

For others like handguns, you can't really break it down further. What are you gonna do, make them muzzle loaders?

Originally Posted by willx

how do historical practices dictate what should or shouldn't be allowed in a modern day civil society.

That's not my argument, which was that the proliferation of guns in the US wasn't caused by gun laws, but rather that it was due to the fact that it has always been an integral party of the nation since before its founding.

Guns break down, restrictions can be put on bullets.

Guns were built by hand before they were mass produced, bullets are also super easy to make. You're simply not gonna be able to regulate them away, it would require a conscious movement of society to move away from guns, which is how it should be anyway.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Which is what we already have. For example, the AR15 is the civilian version of the M16/4, which removes the burst-fire mode.

For others like handguns, you can't really break it down further. What are you gonna do, make them muzzle loaders?

Why not? They'll be collectibles.

On average -- how many bullets are inside the clip of a semi-automatic handgun? This has been the common weapon of choice among these shooters.

If you want my opinion, that number should be less than 10.

[Ithekro]

Average for a 9mm is 15 bullets, because that is what fits in a clip the size of the handle.

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Considering no assault rifles are legal anyway, I find your question to be moot.

Understandable. Nevertheless, I still wonder what someone would need from a semi-automatic rifle besides killing... a lot. A pistol at the very least has few bullets, and is a lower caliber.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

And before anyone brings up the Second Amendment, let me say bluntly that I wipe my butt with the page on the Second Amendment. After all that happened since Columbine, I have all reasons to do so.

Be carefull with that; we both are canadian and we don't have the same feeling toward our constitution than the american have with their, that something than you should keep in mind.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Why not? They'll be collectibles.

On average -- how many bullets are inside the clip of a semi-automatic handgun? This has been the common weapon of choice among these shooters.

If you want my opinion, that number should be less than 10.

Like Ithekro says, it depends on the caliber and the size of the gun.

a full size 9mm typically have a 15 round magazine, though they go down to 12, 9 etc. the smaller they become.

On the other hand, the typical .45 pistol have a 8 round magazine, since the diameter of the round is larger, hence less can be fit into the same space.

[GoddyofAus]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Be carefull with that; we both are canadian and we don't have the same feeling toward our constitution than the american have with their, that something than you should keep in mind.

Perhaps that is a bigger part of the problem then you realise. The Americans seem to find it convenient to forget that the Constitution is hundreds of years old, written in an era of Tyranny and bloodshed.

This hundreds of years old piece of paper has made it very easy for gun enthusiasts and the NRA to paint Freedom and being armed to the teeth as the same thing. You can't have one without the other apparently.

You'll forgive me if I call bullshit.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Be carefull with that; we both are canadian and we don't have the same feeling toward our constitution than the american have with their, that something than you should keep in mind.

Funny. There are Americans who would metaphorically wipe their butt with the Fifth Amendment in many cases (some of them not revealed to the public), so I have no issues with showing the same level of "respect" towards the Second Amendment.

Too many people have died because of that god-forsaken Amendment and the NRA taking the piss only a few days after Columbine in 1999 was the last straw on what I think about firearms running free in any civilian population.

edit:

Originally Posted by GoddyofAus

Perhaps that is a bigger part of the problem then you realise. The Americans seem to find it convenient to forget that the Constitution is hundreds of years old, written in an era of Tyranny and bloodshed.

This hundreds of years old piece of paper has made it very easy for gun enthusiasts and the NRA to paint Freedom and being armed to the teeth as the same thing. You can't have one without the other apparently.

You'll forgive me if I call bullshit.

Indeed. There are things in that Constitution which should just be thrown out of the window because the reality has irreversibly changed since 1776.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

a full size 9mm typically have a 15 round magazine, though they go down to 12, 9 etc. the smaller they become.

Two clips = 20 people dead; give or take the shooter's accuracy (or lack-thereof). Make it 6 rounds per magazine, then the death toll should be reduced by at least half.

Yea, it's sick that I'm arguing by the numbers.

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

Indeed. There are things in that Constitution which should just be thrown out of the window because the reality has irreversibly changed since 1776.

Well, there's the thing about the Bill of Rights as "untouchable". At least, culturally, that is the case. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean limits on certain rights cannot be imposed just because they are in the Bill of Rights. Rights CAN be abused (even the First Amendment); and therefore, they must be regulated.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by GoddyofAus

Perhaps that is a bigger part of the problem then you realise. The Americans seem to find it convenient to forget that the Constitution is hundreds of years old, written in an era of Tyranny and bloodshed.

This hundreds of years old piece of paper has made it very easy for gun enthusiasts and the NRA to paint Freedom and being armed to the teeth as the same thing. You can't have one without the other apparently.

You'll forgive me if I call bullshit.

I do realise than it's part of the problem, but I wouldn't say than it's as problematic than the NRA or what some call the ''gun culture''.
To be honest, the militia part of the 2nd Amendment is completely out of date and probably dangerous.