Your stance on gun control?

[Mallaska]

Honestly, I hate gun control, simply because it punishes the law-abiding citizens who own firearms. It doesn't punish the actual criminal, who gets his weapon out of the trunk of a car. Gun control is simply middle school "One bad apple" politics, simply going by "You're all just as guilty because you have one bad apple. No stuff for you!" Why should I be regulated for what some asshole does with a gun he illegally obtained? Millions of law-abiding gun owners didn't kill anybody today, why should they lose their rights?

[Frisivisia]

Other countries manage well enough without them. British parliamentary democracy has been chugging along for centuries now.

Well, without guns, the US wouldn't have separated from them. That would be... Interesting...

Stop equating the current gun control issue with that of colonial America. They were on the frontier, they needed guns.

[Vareiln]

Its called smuggling.

And it's SUCH a huge problem in the UK, which has a ban on guns. There are mass shootings all the time, and since no one has a gun to defend themselves with, the shooters shoot even more people. OHWAIT

Right, because what works for the UK will so obviously work for a country with a radically different culture.

[Without Remorse]

For example in culture difference and view on tyrannical governments, the average American wouldn't stand for this:http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/93080/

[Vareiln]

For example in culture difference and view on tyrannical governments, the average American wouldn't stand for this:http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/93080/

Worst. Source. Ever.

[Without Remorse]

Well, without guns, the US wouldn't have separated from them. That would be... Interesting...

Stop equating the current gun control issue with that of colonial America. They were on the frontier, they needed guns.

I'm in a non urban zone with plenty of dangerous wildlife, should I have a gun?

[Bafuria]

I think that about 15 of the worlds countries have higher gun crime rates. Mostly Latin American countries

Both Switzerland and the United States have some of the highest firearm-related death rates in the OECD, although the United States leaps ahead in the overall intentional homicide rate, ranking just behind Mexico and Estonia.

There is a very strong link between gun ownership rates and gun suicide rates, but that's a poor reason to restrict firearms.

The Link between gun ownership rates and total homicide rates on the other hand is non-existent once socioeconomic and demographic factors have been taken into account.

http://www.cepr.org/pubs/new-dps/dplist.asp?dpno=5357

[Without Remorse]

For example in culture difference and view on tyrannical governments, the average American wouldn't stand for this:http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/93080/

Worst. Source. Ever.

I don't really know that source. I got it from a book, and thought a website would be better. So use google. https://www.google.com/search?q=average ... ent=safari

[Without Remorse]

Both Switzerland and the United States have some of the highest firearm-related death rates in the OECD, although the United States leaps ahead in the overall intentional homicide rate, ranking just behind Mexico and Estonia.

There is a very strong link between gun ownership rates and gun suicide rates, but that's a poor reason to restrict firearms.

The Link between gun ownership rates and total homicide rates on the other hand is non-existent once socioeconomic and demographic factors have been taken into account.

Right, because I can commit sluice just a easily with a knife or other instrument.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

For example in culture difference and view on tyrannical governments, the average American wouldn't stand for this:http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/93080/

Now you're just flopping around, looking to discredit someone. I could just as easily claim that no self-respecting Briton would stand for the Patriot Act being passed here, but then we'd be delving into unverifiable silliness.

[Mkuki]

Honestly, I hate gun control, simply because it punishes the law-abiding citizens who own firearms. It doesn't punish the actual criminal, who gets his weapon out of the trunk of a car. Gun control is simply middle school "One bad apple" politics, simply going by "You're all just as guilty because you have one bad apple. No stuff for you!" Why should I be regulated for what some asshole does with a gun he illegally obtained? Millions of law-abiding gun owners didn't kill anybody today, why should they lose their rights?

What rights are they losing? They can still own guns. They just can't own RPGs, Nukes, and Assault rifles.

Why should I be regulated for what some asshole does with a gun he illegally obtained?

If I recall correctly, the guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, Colorado got his guns legally.

[Vareiln]

Worst. Source. Ever.

I don't really know that source. I got it from a book, and thought a website would be better. So use google. https://www.google.com/search?q=average ... ent=safari

I'm not really seeing anything except that source...

[Without Remorse]

Honestly, I hate gun control, simply because it punishes the law-abiding citizens who own firearms. It doesn't punish the actual criminal, who gets his weapon out of the trunk of a car. Gun control is simply middle school "One bad apple" politics, simply going by "You're all just as guilty because you have one bad apple. No stuff for you!" Why should I be regulated for what some asshole does with a gun he illegally obtained? Millions of law-abiding gun owners didn't kill anybody today, why should they lose their rights?

What rights are they losing? They can still own guns. They just can't own RPGs, Nukes, and Assault rifles.

Why should I be regulated for what some asshole does with a gun he illegally obtained?

If I recall correctly, the guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, Colorado got his guns legally.

But they wee illegal in the theater. Meaning no law abiding citizen had one...

[Vareiln]

Honestly, I hate gun control, simply because it punishes the law-abiding citizens who own firearms. It doesn't punish the actual criminal, who gets his weapon out of the trunk of a car. Gun control is simply middle school "One bad apple" politics, simply going by "You're all just as guilty because you have one bad apple. No stuff for you!" Why should I be regulated for what some asshole does with a gun he illegally obtained? Millions of law-abiding gun owners didn't kill anybody today, why should they lose their rights?

What rights are they losing? They can still own guns. They just can't own RPGs, Nukes, and Assault rifles.

Why should I be regulated for what some asshole does with a gun he illegally obtained?

If I recall correctly, the guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, Colorado got his guns legally.

While I'm fine with the first two being banned to the average civilian(Ironically, the second one isn't in the US), the third is where I have a problem.
First, do you even understand the definition of an assault rifle? Because if you do you would know it's already banned. Unless it was made before 1986.

[Without Remorse]

I don't really know that source. I got it from a book, and thought a website would be better. So use google. https://www.google.com/search?q=average ... ent=safari

I'm not really seeing anything except that source...

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli ... OiYfWPiEZo

[Spreewerke]

What rights are they losing? They can still own guns. They just can't own RPGs, Nukes, and Assault rifles.


If I recall correctly, the guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, Colorado got his guns legally.

While I'm fine with the first two being banned to the average civilian(Ironically, the second one isn't in the US), the third is where I have a problem.
First, do you even understand the definition of an assault rifle? Because if you do you would know it's already banned. Unless it was made before 1968.

I'm assuming type: 'tis 1986, and not 1968.

[Vareiln]

While I'm fine with the first two being banned to the average civilian(Ironically, the second one isn't in the US), the third is where I have a problem.
First, do you even understand the definition of an assault rifle? Because if you do you would know it's already banned. Unless it was made before 1968.

I'm assuming type: 'tis 1986, and not 1968.

*Self-facepalm*

[Vareiln]

I'm not really seeing anything except that source...

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli ... OiYfWPiEZo

Much better.

[Without Remorse]

For example in culture difference and view on tyrannical governments, the average American wouldn't stand for this:http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/93080/

Now you're just flopping around, looking to discredit someone. I could just as easily claim that no self-respecting Briton would stand for the Patriot Act being passed here, but then we'd be delving into unverifiable silliness.

Not really. There are just so many points to be made. I was answering your post about not having to worry about a tyrannical government in the uk.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Now you're just flopping around, looking to discredit someone. I could just as easily claim that no self-respecting Briton would stand for the Patriot Act being passed here, but then we'd be delving into unverifiable silliness.

Not really. There are just so many points to be made. I was answering your post about not having to worry about a tyrannical government in the uk.

With an iffy source about the prevalence of CCTV in London? I think we'll be okay.

[Without Remorse]

Not really. There are just so many points to be made. I was answering your post about not having to worry about a tyrannical government in the uk.

With an iffy source about the prevalence of CCTV in London? I think we'll be okay.

Source was corrected. I didn't do the sourcing proper justice.

[LeftNightmare]

How about an IQ test for aspiring heat packers?

[Erucia]

*snip*

This is somewhat complicated for me.

Obviously, a convicted criminal shouldn't have legal access to a firearm. But what about those who have turned their lives around? I believe they should have access to firearms, but it would have to be far more restricted (longer waiting periods, restrictions on certain types of firearms).

I, however, believe that their should not be a restriction on the amount of firearms a person could own, nor do I think their should be a ban on burst-fire or full-auto rifles (but getting them should require some sort of a federal license, putting you into a database, and the license should be relatively strict). I am for requiring waiting periods and licenses on some kinds of firearms (mainly assault weapons, such as full-auto rifles, but also for military attachments like extended magazines), and I am for having to be registered into a police database upon purchasing a firearm.

[Natapoc]

*snip*

This is somewhat complicated for me.

Obviously, a convicted criminal shouldn't have legal access to a firearm. But what about those who have turned their lives around? I believe they should have access to firearms, but it would have to be far more restricted (longer waiting periods, restrictions on certain types of firearms).

I, however, believe that their should not be a restriction on the amount of firearms a person could own, nor do I think their should be a ban on burst-fire or full-auto rifles (but getting them should require some sort of a federal license, putting you into a database, and the license should be relatively strict). I am for requiring waiting periods and licenses on some kinds of firearms (mainly assault weapons, such as full-auto rifles, but also for military attachments like extended magazines), and I am for having to be registered into a police database upon purchasing a firearm.

Why is it obvious that a "convicted criminal" should not have access to a firearm while non convicted criminals presumably should?

[Mkuki]

What rights are they losing? They can still own guns. They just can't own RPGs, Nukes, and Assault rifles.


If I recall correctly, the guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, Colorado got his guns legally.

While I'm fine with the first two being banned to the average civilian(Ironically, the second one isn't in the US), the third is where I have a problem.
First, do you even understand the definition of an assault rifle? Because if you do you would know it's already banned. Unless it was made before 1986.

Yes, I do know what an assault rifle is. There are plenty of conservatives who would want assault weapons unbanned and out in the hands of citizens. If I recall correctly, Mitt Romney mentioned unbanning assault weapons during the campaign. Lemme look for a quote.

Edit: Scratch that Romney point. I was wrong.