Okay, nothing in particular inspired this, but I was thinking about gun control laws in the United States and globally. If I had my way, things would go more like this:
-automatic and burst-fire weapons are illegal to have in your possession
-pistols of higer calibre than .22 are illegal to have in your possession
-high powered rifles are illegal to have in your possession
-shotguns larger than 12-gauge are illegal to have in your possession
-accessories such as silencers, flash suppressors, 12+ round clips, are illegal to have in your possession
-If you are under 21, have ever committed any felonies, or broken firearm regulations, you may not possess a firearm
Since I'm not savvy about rifles, I'm not sure precisely how to define a high-powered rifle, but seriously, what does it take to shoot a deer?
Gun Control
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Gun Control
Uhh... Im not into bambi-murdering myself but... Where are you getting your above ideas from? I bet its a smelly dirty placeFizWizz wrote:Okay, nothing in particular inspired this, but I was thinking about gun control laws in the United States and globally. If I had my way, things would go more like this:
-automatic and burst-fire weapons are illegal to have in your possession
-pistols of higer calibre than .22 are illegal to have in your possession
-high powered rifles are illegal to have in your possession
-shotguns larger than 12-gauge are illegal to have in your possession
-accessories such as silencers, flash suppressors, 12+ round clips, are illegal to have in your possession
-If you are under 21, have ever committed any felonies, or broken firearm regulations, you may not possess a firearm
Since I'm not savvy about rifles, I'm not sure precisely how to define a high-powered rifle, but seriously, what does it take to shoot a deer?
I actually disagree with everything you said except for the last line (21, no whammies, etc.).
BTW
-.22 is like the smallest caliber used in handguns, period
-12-gauge is like one of the largest guages of shotgun (with most deer hunters usigng 20-gauge or 420 slug shotguns, iirc)
-silencers/automagic/burst are all darned near illegal in the US, [and btw silencers don't work well on high-powered-rifles(tm)]
-small clips are obnoxious! Especially so in most situations where ppl use semiautomatic weapons like shooting ranges.
Anyhow it isn't just about hunting at least here in the states. Whats rediculous is that the constitution should be ensuring my right to own a fully automatic .50 caliber light machine gun, not some dinky .22... We're supposed to have the firepower to overthrow a corrupt gov't heh..
I really am not a Moses fan but there is truth in the observation that criminals break the law anyhow. <Queue all the trite 'only criminals will have...' arguements>
PS I would pay good money to see you take on a buck with a .22 pistol
okay, maybe I should bone-up on my gun knowledge before passing judgement, lest I start acting like a politician 
oh yeah, I forgot exceptions for law enforcement too, so it's not comprehensive
I'll plea ignorance on shotguns and rifles, I don't know what people use, but I still stand by my other statements. I don't think that ordinary people need any more than a .22 to do harm to other people, regardless of their intentions. I still stand by my position on automatics and burst-fire weapons too, they are totally inappropriate as far as I can imagine. I still stand by my position on accessories too. I do realize that criminals will break the law, but it would be a relief to people on the wrong side of the barrel if firearms were more restricted.
I know that some people like having firearms for recreation, defense, etc., but I think that the United States is on the wrong side of the line as far as the right to bear arms goes.
oh yeah, I forgot exceptions for law enforcement too, so it's not comprehensive
I'll plea ignorance on shotguns and rifles, I don't know what people use, but I still stand by my other statements. I don't think that ordinary people need any more than a .22 to do harm to other people, regardless of their intentions. I still stand by my position on automatics and burst-fire weapons too, they are totally inappropriate as far as I can imagine. I still stand by my position on accessories too. I do realize that criminals will break the law, but it would be a relief to people on the wrong side of the barrel if firearms were more restricted.
I know that some people like having firearms for recreation, defense, etc., but I think that the United States is on the wrong side of the line as far as the right to bear arms goes.
Why anybody would want to have a gun in the first place if ti isnt for harming people is beyond me. It's only when crime uses guns extensively and guns can still be legally used that I'd ahve a gun adn even then I think havign a gun for defence is a bit silly, it's like being given a choice between bullet proof clothing and a gun and taking a gun.
And this leads to ludicrous arguements such as:
We cant ban guns to stop them being used in crime because it's our right to defend ourselves from criminals with guns using our guns.
Which strangely enough some people in the UK used as an arguement against the banning of handguns.
Granted if it where my choice we'd all be wielding samurai swords.
And this leads to ludicrous arguements such as:
We cant ban guns to stop them being used in crime because it's our right to defend ourselves from criminals with guns using our guns.
Which strangely enough some people in the UK used as an arguement against the banning of handguns.
Granted if it where my choice we'd all be wielding samurai swords.
Ack, no not really. If you are wrongly on the wrong side of the gun, well then I doubt that the regulations have made you any better off.FizWizz wrote: but it would be a relief to people on the wrong side of the barrel if firearms were more restricted.
It may well be that our constitution overreated a bit, but it was because europe was utterly corrupt. You must remember that we were going into uncharted territory with all this democratic republicanisms stuff.I know that some people like having firearms for recreation, defense, etc., but I think that the United States is on the wrong side of the line as far as the right to bear arms goes.
There are basic arguements to the right to self defense, but I'm not arguing them here.
If it helps you A, I know many people with both long guns and pistols and not one of them has any intention of harming other people with them.Alantai Firestar wrote: Why anybody would want to have a gun in the first place if ti isnt for harming people is beyond me.
Im starting to think that maybe the fact that you're still a Britton plays a significant role in this. Americans are self-selectedly a different type of person... Let's face the fact: If you werent going to take the abuse [from the Gov't, Church, etc.], you emigrated. People who were self reliant and entrepreneurial also generally emigrated. So it would make some sense that a britton might not understand the whole 'gun thing.'
Quite frankly I'd want guns just in case my government ever tried to go after 'anti social behavior'
[The above is not an American>European arguement, I'm not saying people who aren't willing to take shit are better or worse... Just different]
BTW I think your 'ludicrous arguements' were in fact what I meant by '<queue all the trite 'only criminals will have...' arguements>' heh. Just because its an annoying, overused, obtuse arguement- doesn't mean there isn't a grain of truth to it. Criminals don't particularly care about breaking laws.
And I'm still trying to digest the body-armor simile...
Actualyl no, if we ahve a corrupt government then we dont uprise in arms, we dotn emigrate ro do any of it.
Instead we protest and elect a new government. But we are a highly politically charged nation compared to america. In america you seem more fo the "I trust the president" sort of people. Here we're more critical (very critical), we find fault witht he government and we protest about ti, we tell them whats wrong we make big headlines about it and we kick them out if they do wrong, heck if they dont kick themselves out the press has a field day.
Your government does wrong a few stand up, our government does wrong we speak out and we keep at it, we picket we protest we decide not to vote in a year or two for that party.
But then again you've had guns for a long time and in some cases it's cheaper to own a gun that buy bullet proof stuff. You may even ahve it for other reasons such as a family heirloom or an antique ro rare piece thats worth a lot, or simply because you feel secure even tho it hasnt got ammunition and probably doesnt work anyways.
But anyways, gun crime in the UK is pounced on by the media and used to ridicule the police and government funding.
Instead we protest and elect a new government. But we are a highly politically charged nation compared to america. In america you seem more fo the "I trust the president" sort of people. Here we're more critical (very critical), we find fault witht he government and we protest about ti, we tell them whats wrong we make big headlines about it and we kick them out if they do wrong, heck if they dont kick themselves out the press has a field day.
Your government does wrong a few stand up, our government does wrong we speak out and we keep at it, we picket we protest we decide not to vote in a year or two for that party.
But then again you've had guns for a long time and in some cases it's cheaper to own a gun that buy bullet proof stuff. You may even ahve it for other reasons such as a family heirloom or an antique ro rare piece thats worth a lot, or simply because you feel secure even tho it hasnt got ammunition and probably doesnt work anyways.
But anyways, gun crime in the UK is pounced on by the media and used to ridicule the police and government funding.
No, in the UK firearms are illegal outright. There are special cases where certain types of firearm are allowed given you have a license but that's rare. Also police have them depending on what rank. Tha average police officer doesnt have a gun. Guns are usually only used to counter guns or in raids/special circumstances.
Firearms licensing is up to individual states.Das Bruce wrote:Do you need a licence to own a firearm in your respective countries?
In NY (where I live) you need to apply for a license for handguns (weapons with <16" barrel IIRC) but not for long guns. Getting a CCP (concealed carry permit aka handgun license) involves references, fingerprints, and about a 6 month wait. NY is not a 'will issue' state, so you may or may not get it (it is up to the local police and judges)...
Other states are what are known as 'will issue.' You submit the proper application and you will get a permit.
Then in some states, like VT, all you need is a valid in-state drivers license.
All 50 states set their own rules.
[and yes, I am just completely ignoring AF's last post
][EDIT] make that AF's post-before-last... damn you posting while Im typing... [/EDIT]
Last edited by mother on 13 Dec 2005, 23:04, edited 1 time in total.
-
GrOuNd_ZeRo
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 01:10
Mother, good to see you back again!
I am not very knowledgable about .240 rounds, .222 rounds and other such odd rounds so I am not sure if the can be used on deer, the .222 is similar to the .223 I believe.[/b]
To take out a deer, you atleast want a .30cal or 7.62x39 to humanly kill it, many use .308's and comparable rounds, some states like Iowa and Minnesota ban hunters to use high-powered rifles for hunting since they pose too much of a threat to other people since the round travels very far.Okay, nothing in particular inspired this, but I was thinking about gun control laws in the United States and globally. If I had my way, things would go more like this:
-automatic and burst-fire weapons are illegal to have in your possession
Agreed, there is no justifiable usage for fully automatic rifles for the average civilian.
-pistols of higer calibre than .22 are illegal to have in your possession
Disagree, for self defense, you minimally need a 9mm, I do think over-sized pistols should be harder to get like .50cals or armor piercing guns like the Five-seveN, or rather the AP ammo, no the JHP rounds.
-high powered rifles are illegal to have in your possession
High-powered rifles are used for hunting, anything that is over .223 is considdered a high-powered rifle I believe, I do agree that .50BMG's should be HARDER to get but not to be illegal.
-shotguns larger than 12-gauge are illegal to have in your possession
100% disagreed, 12ga is used for deer-hunting, bear-hunting and is also very popular for self-defense.
-accessories such as silencers, flash suppressors, 12+ round clips, are illegal to have in your possession
Disagreed, it's nice to have atleast 30rounds in a magazine for a rifle, maybe for a pistol this would be OK in my book, but Hi-Cap mags will always be available.
-If you are under 21, have ever committed any felonies, or broken firearm regulations, you may not possess a firearm
I think minors should be able to own light guns such as .22's, .20ga shotguns and such quite well (but should be educated, but so should be the other gun owners), I 100% agree with the ones with felonies though.
Since I'm not savvy about rifles, I'm not sure precisely how to define a high-powered rifle, but seriously, what does it take to shoot a deer?
I am not very knowledgable about .240 rounds, .222 rounds and other such odd rounds so I am not sure if the can be used on deer, the .222 is similar to the .223 I believe.[/b]
-
Tim Blokdijk
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18
This reminds me of a classmate I had a good time with about 4 years back.
Very nice person, smart, liked to play with computers and we could really connect at some level.
She had also completed extensive training on how to kill people and drive a leopard tank.
She was 17 when she had joined the military.
Very nice person, smart, liked to play with computers and we could really connect at some level.
She had also completed extensive training on how to kill people and drive a leopard tank.
She was 17 when she had joined the military.
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
Why anyone would want to rob a bank, or rape a woman, or vote for Ralph Nader is beyond me.Alantai Firestar wrote:Why anybody would want to have a gun in the first place if ti isnt for harming people is beyond me.
I can, however, list at least three reasons why people would want to have guns, other than to "harm people":
-Hunting
-Target shooting
-Collecting
Of course, the prohibition on harming people eliminates the number one reason, in my mind, to own a gun: self-defense. I maintain that I have the right to defend myself against aggression. The best way to defend myself is to carrry a concealed handgun. In addition, I maintain that the best way to reduce violent crime is for everyone - or rather, everyone who desires to - to carry a concealed handgun. Why? Well, muggers, rapists, etc. go after people because they know that their chosen victim will, in all likelihood, be unable to defend him/herself.
If a rapist knows that there's a good chance that any given potential victim would be carrying a concealed handgun and that he'd get himself shot if he attempted his crime, then he'd be much less likely to rape. Same for muggers, robbers, etc.
Look at Switzerland. All adult males are required to own a military-use rifle. Is the murder rate there high? No, in fact, it is much lower than that in the UK (where guns are illegal) or the USA (where guns are regulated).
In addition, public firearm ownership is a very powerful force when it comes to keeping governments from abusing their own people. If many German Jews had owned their own weapons, do you believe that the Holocaust would have even started to happen? Look at the United States as well. It has never suffered dictatorship or extraconstitutional government in its over 200 years of existence - which is exceptional in the world. It has been one of the most gun-favoring countries during its existence. Coincidence? I beg to differ. Public gun ownership prevents the government from abusing its people.
In response to a later statement from Alantai: you said that, if you don't like a government, you vote it out. What happens if your government somehow gets into a situation where it declares itself a dictatorship and cancels all elections? What then? Do you calmly write letters to the new dictator asking him nicely to reinstate your voting rights? Do you go out on the streets and protest? What happens when the military opens fire on protesters? Do you simply go with the flow? Remember, Hitler was a democratically elected leader - if a democracy can transition into a dictatorship as quickly as the Weimar Republic turned into the Third Reich, it can certainly happen again.[/code]
Law enforcement (and the military when used against the citizienry) are the one group of people for whom there should not be an exception.FizWizz wrote: oh yeah, I forgot exceptions for law enforcement too, so it's not comprehensive
Disparity of weaponry makes it easy for a corrupt regime to supress a people, even with equal armament you'd need somewhere in the region of 2million 'rebels' to otherthrow a government (in the US).
At the very least there needs to be a restriction on when law enforcement can bring the 'big guns' out, and that's when the people they're dealing with have illegal 'big guns'. (this, of course, would limit the total number of heavy weapons available to the police if they were ever turned on 'the people' in general).
-Gurkha
(ohmygoodnessme, what a hotbutton issue to delurk on)
I love gun laws. I genuinely would hate for the american laws to be brought over here; gun crime in the US is something like 500% greater. Also, and i quote Brady here;
A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.[2]
So most arguments for self defense are not really that good...
Also, the rising against the goverment thing, i really doubt the government could somehow take ove rthe whole army, which has allegiance to only the Queen, really. So for a governement to really kae over the British Army would be an absoloutely monumental task, especially with the regimental system. I generally do not see any need for guns to be legalised.
The sport of hunting has thrived here for waaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than the US existed, and has survived many changes in gun law, so i think we're all right.
EDIT: fixed bold.
A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.[2]
So most arguments for self defense are not really that good...
Also, the rising against the goverment thing, i really doubt the government could somehow take ove rthe whole army, which has allegiance to only the Queen, really. So for a governement to really kae over the British Army would be an absoloutely monumental task, especially with the regimental system. I generally do not see any need for guns to be legalised.
The sport of hunting has thrived here for waaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than the US existed, and has survived many changes in gun law, so i think we're all right.
EDIT: fixed bold.
Last edited by Gus on 26 Dec 2005, 14:42, edited 1 time in total.
The gun laws are very strange in the USA ... The NRA has ALOT
of power to change things ... to be better but they don't use
there power to enforce it. Here is my take on this subject ....
handguns ... if you aren't a convicted feonly you should be able the
get a permit for a handgun.
automatic or assault weapons .... only the military should have
shotguns and rifles ... special permits and only can be used during
hunting season.
semi-automatics ... scrap them all ....
The most important thing .... LEARN how to use them correctly ...
of power to change things ... to be better but they don't use
there power to enforce it. Here is my take on this subject ....
handguns ... if you aren't a convicted feonly you should be able the
get a permit for a handgun.
automatic or assault weapons .... only the military should have
shotguns and rifles ... special permits and only can be used during
hunting season.
semi-automatics ... scrap them all ....
The most important thing .... LEARN how to use them correctly ...
My stance on the issue is this: I believe strongly that if everyone in the world had a gun, crime would drop quickly. The knowledge that you're for a certainty risking your life every time you commit a crime would be a strong deterrent for me. I mean, who's gonna rob a bank when everyone else in that bank has a pistol aimed at you? Heh...
In any case, I think basically every figure for or against gun legalization or banning is manipulated. I mean, the statistic that people are more likely to kill themselves if they have a gun... uh... that's just bullshit, clearly. If I'm thinking about killing myself, a gun will expedite the process, but if I haven't got one I can just as easily jump in front of a car or dive off a bridge or leap off a building. Are you against construction over one floor tall now? Makes no sense.
When I've got the dough for it, I'm going to invest in personal defense a bit. I'm going to be a freaking BATMAN or something... I'll have a stun gun, a couple of electric prods... I believe that I could probably defeat someone armed with a gun in close quarters if I had any of the above. And who threatens you with a gun from 100 feet away? Basically guns are just used in situations like, gimme yo' wallet! A cattle prod would be cool too.
The UK's idea, sending officers armed with big, scary, BATONS doesn't really make sense... to me.
In any case, I think basically every figure for or against gun legalization or banning is manipulated. I mean, the statistic that people are more likely to kill themselves if they have a gun... uh... that's just bullshit, clearly. If I'm thinking about killing myself, a gun will expedite the process, but if I haven't got one I can just as easily jump in front of a car or dive off a bridge or leap off a building. Are you against construction over one floor tall now? Makes no sense.
When I've got the dough for it, I'm going to invest in personal defense a bit. I'm going to be a freaking BATMAN or something... I'll have a stun gun, a couple of electric prods... I believe that I could probably defeat someone armed with a gun in close quarters if I had any of the above. And who threatens you with a gun from 100 feet away? Basically guns are just used in situations like, gimme yo' wallet! A cattle prod would be cool too.
The UK's idea, sending officers armed with big, scary, BATONS doesn't really make sense... to me.
Erm... Genblood, I admit my knowledge here is limited, but aren't virtually ALL guns semi-automatic? Every time you pull the trigger, it fires a round, that's what a semi is, AFAIK. Unless you mean you want... like... black powder pistols...genblood wrote:The gun laws are very strange in the USA ... The NRA has ALOT
of power to change things ... to be better but they don't use
there power to enforce it. Here is my take on this subject ....
handguns ... if you aren't a convicted feonly you should be able the
get a permit for a handgun.
semi-automatics ... scrap them all ....[/b] ...