2012 Firearms Discussion

[malmsteenisgod]

No. You just don't want to see the logic in what i'm saying.

 

First off the typical hunting rifle cartridge is leaps and bounds more powerful then the "assault rifles" that the military uses. The M4/M16 uses a 5.56 Nato round. For hunting anything bigger than a rabid dog it would be pretty ineffective. Thats why most hunters use a .308, a 30-06, a .300 magnum, etc. Labeling a rifle an "assault weapon" does not make it anymore deadly than any other rifle. And banning all these weapons from law abiding citizens will do absolutely nothing to stop crime or stop crazy people from doing crazy things. Thats the thing that anti-gun people don't or refuse to realize. Did China's strict gun laws stop a 17 year old kid from killing 9 people and wounding 4 others? Nope. And guess what. He didn't even use a gun. He did this with a knife. He killed nearly as many people with a knife as the Aurora shooter did with a shotgun, a rifle and two handguns.

 

The bottom line is that gun control does not work. It will never work.

 

While I'm generally for the right to bear arms, I had to jump in on this. Saying that gun control doesn't work is not something you can prove. Simply giving one example of a homicide in China is no better than the salesman example someone gave earlier. In fact, the US has four times the homicide per capita rate that China has.

 

Just taking a quick glance at the Wikipedia list of homicide rates by country and sorting it by the rate, many developed countries with strict gun laws are fairly low on the list. So I don't think you can definitively say that gun control laws don't work and never will. There are certainly some restrictions that do have an impact.

 

Edited for clarity

[flareback]

Well you can always have a look at Australia before and after strict gun laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RDWltHxRc

[Andrewr05]

Depends where you live LOL

Exactly...

 

Sadly THIS was aired on national television:

LINK

 

Watch the whole video...

[malmsteenisgod]

Well you can always have a look at Australia before and after strict gun laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RDWltHxRc

 

Well the problem with any kind of gun buyback program like that is that it will only remove the guns from people are willing to give them up, meaning that criminals can and will probably keep their guns illegally. I'm certainly not an advocate of removing guns from a society, as I already stated I'm generally for the right to bear arms. But there are many restrictions that can prevent homicides and accidental deaths and are already in place in many states in the US.

[Coors]

But there are many restrictions that can prevent homicides and accidental deaths and are already in place in many states in the US.

 

And what restrictions would those be? You can point at one set of statistics and say that gun control works just as easily as I can look at another set of statistics and say that it doesn't. I don't believe that restricting people that don't break the law, that don't go out and mass murder people is going to stop those things from happening. Every time there is a shooting the media starts going off about how there needs to be stricter gun control. But it's a bull crap argument. How about bomb control laws? The Aurora shooter rigged his apartment building with explosives and gasoline. But wait. I'm not a lawyer but i'm pretty sure that having explosives is already illegal. Why would he disobey the law? I guess there needs to be more laws right? Clearly these criminals and crazy people just aren't getting it. Sarcasm aside it's against the law to have explosives. And it didn't stop him from getting/making them. What law could possibly be made to have prevented him from rigging his apartment to explode?

 

 

And no...I don't watch The View. But I saw this poll on another forum and I found the results pretty funny. Especially since most media/hollywood types are anti-gun. Do you think they will show these results on their TV show? lol

 

http://theview.abc.go.com/

 

(there is a poll about gun control)

[CowKing]

No. You just don't want to see the logic in what i'm saying.

 

First off the typical hunting rifle cartridge is leaps and bounds more powerful then the "assault rifles" that the military uses. The M4/M16 uses a 5.56 Nato round. For hunting anything bigger than a rabid dog it would be pretty ineffective. Thats why most hunters use a .308, a 30-06, a .300 magnum, etc. Labeling a rifle an "assault weapon" does not make it anymore deadly than any other rifle. And banning all these weapons from law abiding citizens will do absolutely nothing to stop crime or stop crazy people from doing crazy things. Thats the thing that anti-gun people don't or refuse to realize. Did China's strict gun laws stop a 17 year old kid from killing 9 people and wounding 4 others? Nope. And guess what. He didn't even use a gun. He did this with a knife. He killed nearly as many people with a knife as the Aurora shooter did with a shotgun, a rifle and two handguns.

 

The bottom line is that gun control does not work. It will never work.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'll give you another chance to re-read what I have posted and give a sensible argument to the points I made or this conversation is done.

[Coors]

Don't put words in my mouth. I'll give you another chance to re-read what I have posted and give a sensible argument to the points I made or this conversation is done.

 

If your point is putting words in our mouths that we want RPGs, mines, nerve gas, or nuclear weapons then yeah ok. Discussion over

[CowKing]

If your point is putting words in our mouths that we want RPGs, mines, nerve gas, or nuclear weapons then yeah ok. Discussion over

Then why don't you have RPGs, mines, nerve gas, or nuclear weapons? That argument is so full of crap. If the military did actually want to kill than they could do it across the country.

Your point doesn't stand. I said nothing of the sort. I guess they really do let anyone in the military. Since you rarely have anything of importance to add to any topic on this forum, I am just going to put you in my ignore list.

[Coors]

Does this mean we're not friends? *sniff sniff*

[Onion]

Just sayin'.

 

 

Also...

 

[malmsteenisgod]

And what restrictions would those be?

 

Safe storage laws, permit and registration laws, restrictions on where guns can be taken (ex. gov't property, stadiums, public schools), restrictions on types of guns that can be owned, restrictions on who can own guns (ex. released convicts, mentally impaired). These are all forms of gun control that are widely used and could even be expanded in some areas that I would be perfectly fine with.

 

Also your argument of the Aurora shooter's improvised explosives are a bit of a tangent. I would compare that to a gun equivalent of if guns were banned and someone managed to create something that could fire a projectile. But again, I never suggested guns should be banned, I've only stated that it isn't true that gun control does not work.

 

If someone wanted to, they could use a potato gun to kill somebody, or a hammer, or even a spatula. But guns make it very convenient to bring anywhere, kill instantly, and are easily accessible.

 

If you really think that NO forms of gun control have any effect, then let's remove all current gun control laws, such as the ones I mentioned in the first paragraph, and see what kind of effect it has. I sincerely doubt that gun-related crimes will decrease, but hopefully we'll never find out.

[xPETEZx]

I live in the UK, so the concept of owning a gun is completely alien to me.

So bare with me, but the primary argument I read for having guns is protection.

You read all these stories of some mad man running into a school/church/cinema/shopping mall and gunning down a bunch of people. Yet I have never heard a case of this person getting stopped in there tracks by average joe with his gun.

Do these stories just never get press attention, or does it just not happen?