Gun Bans

[Alowwvia]

Alright, let me try again:

I am for THE MORE COMPETANT REGULATION of ALL WEAPONS. I am not for "ban this and that bcuz MASS SHOOTINS MUH FEELIN'S WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILLUN'S"

I am sternly against banning an AR-15 because it has 'the shoulder thing that goes up', or anything else that 'increases its child-killing capacity' or whatever the fuck. I'm against people making exceptions for politicians or anyone else, and I'm against people not only ASSUMING I'm incapable of defending myself right off the bat, but also being unwilling to acknowledge that I could EVER be able to do so. That's what pisses me off the most.

And hey, here's the thing: The police can fail when you need them most. My step-father is a police-officer, and they're good people, generally. I love cops, actually. But, they're fallible. My step-father knows the value of keeping a gun in the home, and while I agree that fully-automatic firearms aren't always needed for self-defense, there is always the chance it might be. Even if it's the chances of, say, getting struck by lighting. But I still don't carry umbrella's made of electric-conducting material out in the rain.

I do practice self-defense, as often as I can, really. I'm not paranoid, even if you disagree, but I just don't want to become a statistic myself. I don't want to be the girl in the headline 'Woman Raped and Strangled to Death in Own Home Last Night', or the 'Girl Beaten to Death by Boyfriend'. These things happen. They really do. Not often, no, but they do, and I'm determined to minimize my chances of it happening to me.

1. There we can agree, most definately.

2. I'm against banning anything outright. Regulate, don't ban. That's me. I think we may have a bit of a misunderstanding here.

3. Aye, and a safe can fall on my head, but I still feel perfectly comfortable walking under tall buildings. A crazy-ass terrorist could detonate a nuke in my hometown, but you don't see me cowering in a fallout shelter.

4. Which is great. But you don't need an automatic for that story to end well. The #1 weapon recovered by police is a knife. The #1 firearm recovered is a short-barreled revolver, usually .38 Special. Only 2% of gun crimes are committed with a rifle. This is what criminals carry. You don't need to suppress them with fully automatic fire to allow artillery or other indirect fire to finish them off (the only reason for automatic weapons), a simple M1911 clone, preferably in 10mm Auto, is more than enough to fend off your average thug or angry spouse.

Could we meet in the middle and say that a good PDW would be an ideal self-defense weapon, then? I, personally, wouldn't need a fully automatic weapon for anything (in my opinion, I think that having a small revolver in .357 is a good home defense weapon, and ideally a pump-action shotgun on the back-up), but the idea that it can be banned outright... bothers me. Rubs me the wrong way, knowing that as a member of a free state, I couldn't, say, take up arms against a foreign nation that invaded. I acknowledge that such a scenario is hilariously silly, considering that nobody is going to, or reasonably CAN defeat the United States military in such a way that their tanks are now rolling on my street. But hey, if they did, I'm pretty fucked now aren't I?

I acknowledge, again, that it's a silly idea. I even think it's silly to assume that our own military would ever try to go full Gestapo on us, like a few very, VERY right-wing people (or left wing, I'm not sure what to call that stance) might think. I'm just bothered by the restriction of my ability to use a weapon that I MIGHT need to defend myself, my liberty, or the people of those around me, in the outrageous event that I MIGHT need it.

I think we have a long way to go to deal with the social issues that turn people into spree-killers, before we go ahead and start to place the blame on objects, which is always bullshit. Whether it's drugs, or video-games, or now guns, there's no such thing as an evil object. There are only bad people, and bad enviorments.

I'm glad, however, that we agree that we should do more to keep weapons in the hands of only responsible people, instead of banning certain types of weapon for everybody, and of course, generalizing the people who object to that as 'gun nuts'.

[Nua Corda]

1. There we can agree, most definately.

2. I'm against banning anything outright. Regulate, don't ban. That's me. I think we may have a bit of a misunderstanding here.

3. Aye, and a safe can fall on my head, but I still feel perfectly comfortable walking under tall buildings. A crazy-ass terrorist could detonate a nuke in my hometown, but you don't see me cowering in a fallout shelter.

4. Which is great. But you don't need an automatic for that story to end well. The #1 weapon recovered by police is a knife. The #1 firearm recovered is a short-barreled revolver, usually .38 Special. Only 2% of gun crimes are committed with a rifle. This is what criminals carry. You don't need to suppress them with fully automatic fire to allow artillery or other indirect fire to finish them off (the only reason for automatic weapons), a simple M1911 clone, preferably in 10mm Auto, is more than enough to fend off your average thug or angry spouse.

Could we meet in the middle and say that a good PDW would be an ideal self-defense weapon, then? I, personally, wouldn't need a fully automatic weapon for anything (in my opinion, I think that having a small revolver in .357 is a good home defense weapon, and ideally a pump-action shotgun on the back-up), but the idea that it can be banned outright... bothers me. Rubs me the wrong way, knowing that as a member of a free state, I couldn't, say, take up arms against a foreign nation that invaded. I acknowledge that such a scenario is hilariously silly, considering that nobody is going to, or reasonably CAN defeat the United States military in such a way that their tanks are now rolling on my street. But hey, if they did, I'm pretty fucked now aren't I?

I acknowledge, again, that it's a silly idea. I even think it's silly to assume that our own military would ever try to go full Gestapo on us, like a few very, VERY right-wing people (or left wing, I'm not sure what to call that stance) might think. I'm just bothered by the restriction of my ability to use a weapon that I MIGHT need to defend myself, my liberty, or the people of those around me, in the outrageous event that I MIGHT need it.

I think we have a long way to go to deal with the social issues that turn people into spree-killers, before we go ahead and start to place the blame on objects, which is always bullshit. Whether it's drugs, or video-games, or now guns, there's no such thing as an evil object. There are only bad people, and bad enviorments.

I'm glad, however, that we agree that we should do more to keep weapons in the hands of only responsible people, instead of banning certain types of weapon for everybody, and of course, generalizing the people who object to that as 'gun nuts'.

Well, the ideal self-defense weapon if you're expecting constant attack by well-armed opponents is probably something like the CBJ MS in, of course, 6.5 CBJ. But I can't think of any reasonably possible scenario where a civilian would need that.

Of course. It's like the Computer Analogy.

Agreed.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

The Bill of Rights were written to set ourselves apart from other countries. "We the People" & representation without a state religion were very radical ideas in 1791 when the Bill of Rights were ratified. At the time, part of the fear if the Bill of Rights were not ratified was that in time we could slowly slip into a government that would closely resemble a European monarchy & the lack of freedoms that historically, they could come with.

I don't know if you know this or not, but Europe today is not the ye old Europe that once practice oppression against its people. In this day and age, countries like Japan, Australia, and Switzerland tend to enjoy freedom and security, you know, eating the cake and having it. United States isn't the only advanced country that enjoys freedom you know. And besides, the last time that a tyrannical regime overthrew the American government was in...(fill in the blanks please... if you can).

I don't think you get the point. It is the right of every US citizen to be part of a militia. What if the next tyrannical regime IS the US government? That was part of the point in 1791 when the Bill of Rights were ratified, that's part of the point now. I know a lot of US citizens are here because their grandparents came over from Europe before or after WWII or maybe their parents came from Latin American in the 80's or early 90's, but some of us actually have ancestors that fought in the revolution. The Bill of Rights was a result of what our ancestors fought for. Try to remember that when you are telling people what steps Australia took to disarm their public. I don't want my tax dollars going to buying back people's guns. I don't need to buy a government approved licence to own a gun, because of the bravery & foresight of a generation of Americans, my right as a citizen of this country is to own a firearm effective enough to be part of a militia. the 2nd amendment is my licence. As far as Japan goes, what has worked for them is the ban of having a standing army, another constitutional amendment that a generation of Americans fought for.

[Free Detroit]

Well, the ideal self-defense weapon if you're expecting constant attack by well-armed opponents is probably something like the CBJ MS in, of course, 6.5 CBJ. But I can't think of any reasonably possible scenario where a civilian would need that.

Of course. It's like the Computer Analogy.

Agreed.

My personal defense weapon, which I think is pretty ideal, is a S&W DAO revolver loaded with safety slugs (regardless of what Biggie Smalls taught ya, common thugs don't wear body armor, don't have to be killed to be deterred, and that bullet going through your neighbor's wall and hitting a kid is NOT covered any castle law I know of).

[Nua Corda]

Well, the ideal self-defense weapon if you're expecting constant attack by well-armed opponents is probably something like the CBJ MS in, of course, 6.5 CBJ. But I can't think of any reasonably possible scenario where a civilian would need that.

Of course. It's like the Computer Analogy.

Agreed.

My personal defense weapon, which I think is pretty ideal, is a S&W DAO revolver loaded with safety slugs (regardless of what Biggie Smalls taught ya, common thugs don't wear body armor, don't have to be killed to be deterred, and that bullet going through your neighbor's wall and hitting a kid is NOT covered any castle law I know of).

Which is why I said I can't think of a scenario where that would be appropriate for a civilian. My personal weapon is an M1911, usually with hollowpoints.

[Free Detroit]

My personal defense weapon, which I think is pretty ideal, is a S&W DAO revolver loaded with safety slugs (regardless of what Biggie Smalls taught ya, common thugs don't wear body armor, don't have to be killed to be deterred, and that bullet going through your neighbor's wall and hitting a kid is NOT covered any castle law I know of).

Which is why I said I can't think of a scenario where that would be appropriate for a civilian. My personal weapon is an M1911, usually with hollowpoints.

Yeah, I understood you. I can think of a number of scenarios where it would be appropriate for a well-functioning civilian to possess. Some people like collecting and shooting guns, and the more the better; there's nothing inherently problematic with that at all. But, I totally agree that people should not be reckless idiots when it comes to threat assessment and thereby endanger everyone around them by strutting around with the most lethal weapon they can afford.

[Spreewerke]

My home-defense set-up is currently underway.

Base rifle is a Daewoo DR200/K2 with a Stormwerkz free-floating quad-rail, ACE LTD pistol grip, ACE LTD fixed skeleton stock, DRP gas piston (fo' 922r), and DRP K2 birdcage flash hider.

Magazine I'll be using is a 30-round STANAG loaded up on 40gr. Hornady V-Max .223 Rem. ammunition to maximize flesh damage and minimize barrier penetration (begins fragmenting extremely fast after penetrating only one interior wall [two layers of drywall]).

I will probably add either a MagPul handstop or MagPul AFG simply because holding a quad-rail bare-handed sucks. A lot. I've got blista's on m' finga's!

I am also looking into a good light. Perhaps a SureFire Fury of some kind (forget its actual model name) with an output of 500 lumen. Thumb-activated with a dual click-switch and pressure switch for quick on-off or solid-on usage mount just forward my AFG, 9 o'clock position. Sitting on top, ideally, will be an EOTech: the model that runs off of two AA batteries (just sold one to a guy today: they seem pretty top-notch and AA batteries are everywhere).

Less lethal capabilities than 12 Gauge 00 Buck after one interior wall. Ditto for the majority of hollow-point handgun rounds (drywall can sometimes fill the cavity, turning them into pseudo-FMJs). Added bonus of the rifle's three points of contact (handguard, grip, stock), extended sight radius (moot with the EOTech), and magazine capacity.

This won't be a problem as I plan on buying/renting only homes rather than apartments. If it penetrates an interior wall, no harm, no foul. If it penetrates an exterior wall, after that 40gr. V-Max makes it through sheet rock, insulation, siding, etc., it will basically be like sand speckling a neighbor's home or vehicle: pretty much no collateral.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

I don't think you get the point. It is the right of every US citizen to be part of a militia.

I don't need to buy a government approved licence to own a gun, because of the bravery & foresight of a generation of Americans, my right as a citizen of this country is to own a firearm effective enough to be part of a militia. the 2nd amendment is my licence. As far as Japan goes, what has worked for them is the ban of having a standing army, another constitutional amendment that a generation of Americans fought for.

Ah so does that mean that you agree that the 2nd Amendment applies more to the support of militia than individual rights? Besides, and what's wrong with government-approved gun licenses? It would at least insure some sort of federal universal gun control to be consistent throughout the country rather than relying on state-by-state laws. If I ever had to own a gun for protection, it's more than likely I would either enlist in the military, militia, or join the police force.

What if the next tyrannical regime IS the US government?

Tyrannical regime can either come from within our government or from the outside our country. Either way, when was the last time the American government got deposed?

Try to remember that when you are telling people what steps Australia took to disarm their public. I don't want my tax dollars going to buying back people's guns.

Even if it meant that your taxes could be spent in an effort to save millions of lives from further gun bloodshed?

---

My home-defense set-up is currently underway.

Base rifle is a Daewoo DR200/K2 with a Stormwerkz free-floating quad-rail, ACE LTD pistol grip, ACE LTD fixed skeleton stock, DRP gas piston (fo' 922r), and DRP K2 birdcage flash hider.

Magazine I'll be using is a 30-round STANAG loaded up on 40gr. Hornady V-Max .223 Rem. ammunition to maximize flesh damage and minimize barrier penetration (begins fragmenting extremely fast after penetrating only one interior wall [two layers of drywall]).

I will probably add either a MagPul handstop or MagPul AFG simply because holding a quad-rail bare-handed sucks. A lot. I've got blista's on m' finga's!

I am also looking into a good light. Perhaps a SureFire Fury of some kind (forget its actual model name) with an output of 500 lumen. Thumb-activated with a dual click-switch and pressure switch for quick on-off or solid-on usage mount just forward my AFG, 9 o'clock position. Sitting on top, ideally, will be an EOTech: the model that runs off of two AA batteries (just sold one to a guy today: they seem pretty top-notch and AA batteries are everywhere).

Less lethal capabilities than 12 Gauge 00 Buck after one interior wall. Ditto for the majority of hollow-point handgun rounds (drywall can sometimes fill the cavity, turning them into pseudo-FMJs). Added bonus of the rifle's three points of contact (handguard, grip, stock), extended sight radius (moot with the EOTech), and magazine capacity.

This won't be a problem as I plan on buying/renting only homes rather than apartments. If it penetrates an interior wall, no harm, no foul. If it penetrates an exterior wall, after that 40gr. V-Max makes it through sheet rock, insulation, siding, etc., it will basically be like sand speckling a neighbor's home or vehicle: pretty much no collateral.

Umm, is there a zombie invasion I'm not aware of? O_O

[Free Detroit]

If it penetrates an exterior wall, after that 40gr. V-Max makes it through sheet rock, insulation, siding, etc., it will basically be like sand speckling a neighbor's home or vehicle: pretty much no collateral.

"Pretty much no collateral" might not be enough to save you from charges of recklessness. I'm not questioning your assessment of destructiveness, only suggesting that the law may or may not care.

[Spreewerke]

If it penetrates an exterior wall, after that 40gr. V-Max makes it through sheet rock, insulation, siding, etc., it will basically be like sand speckling a neighbor's home or vehicle: pretty much no collateral.

"Pretty much no collateral" might not be enough to save you from charges of recklessness. I'm not questioning your assessment of destructiveness, only suggesting that the law may or may not care.

Speckling their siding is easier to fix than putting a slug through it.

[Dyakovo]

In 1996, Australia passed a massive reform gun regulations and laws after a devastating mass shooting in a small town killing 35 people in one afternoon which marked as their 13th case of mass shootings over the last 15 years. As a result, the vast majority of citizens pushed their government for sweeping reforms which passed through legislation in only 12 Days under a heavily Conservative prime minister no doubt.

Here are some of the results from the major sweeping reforms.

1. Government spending to buy back as many firearms in half a billions dollars' worth.
2. Large-scale volunteer surrendering of firearms.
3. Banning of all shotguns and rapid-fire rifles.
4. Remaining firearms were registered to uniformed national standards.
5. Stricter and tighter reforms on gun owner licenses.
6. Destroyed a third of the nation's stock of firearms in the millions.
7. Risk of getting killed by firearms dropped to 50%.
8. Gun Homicide rate still remains under 30x lower than the U.S.

16 years later, wanna know how many cases of mass shootings they've had since then? A big stinking fat ZERO!

In Japan, take 2006 for example, they suffered only 2 gun homicides while the US, whose population is 3x larger, suffered 10,225. No one can own a gun in Japan, except air-powered rifles. And even then, you'd have to jump through hoops and red tape to even own an air-powered rifle.

Do Australia and Japan have an equivalent to the Second Amendment?

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Do Australia and Japan have an equivalent to the Second Amendment?

Who knows, but these countries are definitely enjoying freedom and security at the sametime. It's not like their citizens are living under an oppressive dictatorship, nor are they are in danger of living in an O.K. Corral are they.

[Big Jim P]

Do Australia and Japan have an equivalent to the Second Amendment?

Who knows, but these countries are definitely enjoying freedom and security at the sametime. It's not like their citizens are living under an oppressive dictatorship, nor are they are in danger of living in an O.K. Corral are they.

I am still wondering just who is going to provide for the security of myself, my property and my family if guns were banned.

[Dyakovo]

Who knows, but these countries are definitely enjoying freedom and security at the sametime. It's not like their citizens are living under an oppressive dictatorship, nor are they are in danger of living in an O.K. Corral are they.

I am still wondering just who is going to provide for the security of myself, my property and my family if guns were banned.

The police.
*nods*
Just ignore the detail that they don't do anything until after the fact...

[Caninope]

Besides, and what's wrong with government-approved gun licenses?

Should we have government-approved licenses for free speech or free media?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Who knows, but these countries are definitely enjoying freedom and security at the sametime. It's not like their citizens are living under an oppressive dictatorship, nor are they are in danger of living in an O.K. Corral are they.

I am still wondering just who is going to provide for the security of myself, my property and my family if guns were banned.

Ooh! I have another new business idea: Adopt-A-Gurkha! What better security system could you ask for?

[Chucklaslovokia]

Baraack Osama is afraid that if we get fed up enough we will start a revolution so he will take away guns so it will be harder for us to do that. the second ammendment says "right to bear arms aganst govenments foriegn AND DOMESTIC" there i have made my point

[Dyakovo]

Baraack Osama is afraid that if we get fed up enough we will start a revolution so he will take away guns so it will be harder for us to do that. the second ammendment says "right to bear arms aganst govenments foriegn AND DOMESTIC" there i have made my point

Your point was "I don't know what the Second Amendment says"?

[Yes Im Biop]

Baraack Osama is afraid that if we get fed up enough we will start a revolution so he will take away guns so it will be harder for us to do that. the second ammendment says "right to bear arms aganst govenments foriegn AND DOMESTIC" there i have made my point

The fuck is a Barrack Osama?

[Nua Corda]

Do Australia and Japan have an equivalent to the Second Amendment?

Who knows, but these countries are definitely enjoying freedom and security at the sametime. It's not like their citizens are living under an oppressive dictatorship, nor are they are in danger of living in an O.K. Corral are they.

No, but neither of those countries have massive illegal gun markets, or huge amounts of crime, or a huge drug trade that fuels the illegal gun trade. The US has a lot of crime, mostly because we're too stubborn and moralistic to surrender to the inevitable and just legalize drugs.

[Nua Corda]

Baraack Osama is afraid that if we get fed up enough we will start a revolution so he will take away guns so it will be harder for us to do that. the second ammendment says "right to bear arms aganst govenments foriegn AND DOMESTIC" there i have made my point

Another tinfoil-hat libertarian bawwing his eyes out about teh ebil gubernments. News at 11.

[Dyakovo]

Do Australia and Japan have an equivalent to the Second Amendment?

Who knows, but these countries are definitely enjoying freedom and security at the sametime. It's not like their citizens are living under an oppressive dictatorship, nor are they are in danger of living in an O.K. Corral are they.

So you admit the situation is not comparable...
Спасибо.

[AiliailiA]

Why should we trust you, just because you bought that gun legally, to sell it legally? Why should we trust you to sell it only to a sporting shooter or hunter, or collector, when you could sell it for a far greater price to a prohibited purchaser?

"Privacy" isn't a good enough reason to permit that. It would be to grant you an enormous criminal opportunity, to buy many guns legally and stockpile them, then later when they are harder to get, to sell them at enormous mark-up to the people who are legally prohibited from owning a gun. Children, ex-cons, lunatics, whoever has the money to buy.

Fuck that. If anything good comes of this latest round of gun control, let it be a crackdown on private sales.

You know it is still illegal to knowingly sell guns to a criminals and the mentally ill.

That is meaningless without background checks.

If you're looking to sell something, and a buyer is there offering the asking price, you have no incentive to check their criminal or mental health status. Maybe you ask them politely and maybe they lie to you, but to say to them "I need your name and social security number, or current address, and I need to sight some ID, oh and you'll have to wait a week before taking possession of this fine gun" is very likely throwing away the money YOU want in exchange for the gun you want to sell.

Gun dealers do that because they're required to by law. Private owners should be similarly compelled before selling (or gifting) a gun to anyone.

[Nua Corda]

You know it is still illegal to knowingly sell guns to a criminals and the mentally ill.

That is meaningless without background checks.

If you're looking to sell something, and a buyer is there offering the asking price, you have no incentive to check their criminal or mental health status. Maybe you ask them politely and maybe they lie to you, but to say to them "I need your name and social security number, or current address, and I need to sight some ID, oh and you'll have to wait a week before taking possession of this fine gun" is very likely throwing away the money YOU want in exchange for the gun you want to sell.

Gun dealers do that because they're required to by law. Private owners should be similarly compelled before selling (or gifting) a gun to anyone.

You should have to take the weapon to a dealer, with the person you want to give/sell it to, and transfer the weapon there. It gets registered to the other person, and the dealer can run a background check and hold the weapon for a period, as well as serving as a witness. The dealers could potentially charge a small fee for doing this.

[Emile Zola]

Do Australia and Japan have an equivalent to the Second Amendment?

As a representative of the Commonwealth. No we don't have seconded amendment, thankfully.