GUN CONTROL!

[Hathradic States]

I like my guns. I really do. I have three in my truck, and many more back at my father's home in Arizona.

I'm not hurting anybody with them.

Most gun owners don't hurt anybody with their guns.

So I really don't see a need to ban them.

[Chernoslavia]

Forks kill people, lets ban them
Sugar kills people, lets ban it
Lions kill people, lets ban them.

Reducing to the absurd is pointless, and honestly rather stupid.

Forks were not made with the express purpose of killing things. Nor was sugar.

Lions are already banned. They're exotic animals, and require permits and special circumstances to own.

Cars cause more deaths than guns yearly.

[Hathradic States]

Ok in regard to "over throwing the tyrannical govt with our guns" thing
The us can blow you up with a robot armed with missiles

Yet we still have an ongoing insurgency in Afghanistan, even though we use those drones.

[Chernoslavia]

They do and have. Why do you think tyrannical governments ban them?

Because many governments including the US but many others, can kill you before you have a chance to resist

Care to elaborate more on that?

[Farnhamia]

Guns were made to kill. They are not shields, they do not "protect you". They do not have a magical "make the bad guy stop trying to blow me up" or "everything proof" shield.

They kill.

Yes, that stops the threat. However, they stop the threat by death.

Indeed guns were made to kill and to protect.

OH SHIT THERES IS A FUCKING MOUNTAIN LION....DAMN I WISH I HAD MY GUN RIGHT NOW.....OH SHIT THE STATE STOPPED ME FROM HAVING THOSE. DAMN, I GUESS I'M CAT CHOW NOW.

Stop being such a drama queen. And by the way, the number of cougar attacks in the US and Canada is very, very low. http://www.cougarinfo.org/attacks2.htm

[Vazdania]

Indeed guns were made to kill and to protect.

OH SHIT THERES IS A FUCKING MOUNTAIN LION....DAMN I WISH I HAD MY GUN RIGHT NOW.....OH SHIT THE STATE STOPPED ME FROM HAVING THOSE. DAMN, I GUESS I'M CAT CHOW NOW.

Strawmen are not arguments. They're just strawmen. Also, they are a sign that you can't argue outside of sound bites.

How classy. Indeed you are now my friend.


But I must say that they are VERY necessary where I live. Wildlife is a very serious threat to the well being of humans in many areas throughout the country. It's clear that handguns need to be regulated in large cities and around population centers, but that doesn't mean that you should ban them everywhere.

[Pandeeria]

Ehhh... parts of that are slightly outdated. Anyways care to summarize it?

To summarize: firearms are used for legal, defensive purposes aprox. 1,000,000 times per year in the United States based on a study in 2000.

In 1982 (pre-assault weapons ban), 34% of male prisoners in the 11 federal prisons visited had been scared off, shot at, or detained by a victim possessing a firearm. Another 40% decided to "GTFO" of there without committing a crime because they believed/knew their victim was armed while another 69% knew another criminal who had been scared off, shot at, or detained by an armed victim.

You are correct in that it is fairly dated. However, also make note of this: the percentage of the population owning firearms has decreased slightly. Whether or not this leads to more or less defensive uses of a firearm is somewhat unknown because we can only record those instances that were reported. Many times someone draws a gun, the criminal backsteps out of there like crazy, and nothing else is done or reported to the police since "nothing happened." There could very well be quite a few cases of self-defense with a firearm (involving only brandishing, not shooting) that have gone largely unreported. As such, it is impossible to determine how many are used when combined with non-firing use. However, hundreds of thousands of defensive, shots-fired usages are reported each year, so I would imagine it offers a decent foundation for the claim that firearms are a very good means of defense. I know my father was once involved in an incident where all it took to diffuse was them noticing the gun on his hip. They stopped creating a problem and left, and he went about his business. Nothing was reported since it never even actually involved drawing his handgun. Anecdotal, but worth noting it is an anecdote that supports the "no shots fired, no report filed" point.

The only problem is that I don't support a full ban on guns. I support a ban on assault rifles, powerful pistols & shotguns, and military grade stuff.

You can still defend yourself with a sensible pistol or rifle.

[Tule]

Irrelevant.

An object that kills is an object that kills regardless of what it is designed for and how the death occurs.

Guns are enjoyable to a lot of people but unnecessary and cause a few deaths as well.

Fast food, alcohol, dangerous sports and fast cars to name a few, are no different.

No, it's quite relevant.

Guns have little to no use outside of killing, or practicing killing.

A fork can be used to build, just as easily as it can be used to feed. Cars are a means of transportation, and enable states that just LOVE their guns to survive with modern conveniences.

Guns don't build things, they don't enable transport or grant commerce. They kill things. What you do with the dead thing is up to you, but the gun's only there to make it dead.

A lot of guns are specifically designed to hit a paper target at long range with no other use in mind, so your claim that guns are only designed to kill is absolutely false.

You also completely ignored my comment. I did not mention forks or cars in general, I specifically mentioned fast cars and fast food. Neither have any practical purpose in a modern society.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Reducing to the absurd is pointless, and honestly rather stupid.

Forks were not made with the express purpose of killing things. Nor was sugar.

Lions are already banned. They're exotic animals, and require permits and special circumstances to own.

Cars cause more deaths than guns yearly.

And are more rigidly controlled and legislated by the Federal Government.

You're not helping your argument.

[Chernoslavia]

Indeed guns were made to kill and to protect.

OH SHIT THERES IS A FUCKING MOUNTAIN LION....DAMN I WISH I HAD MY GUN RIGHT NOW.....OH SHIT THE STATE STOPPED ME FROM HAVING THOSE. DAMN, I GUESS I'M CAT CHOW NOW.

Stop being such a drama queen. And by the way, the number of cougar attacks in the US and Canada is very, very low. http://www.cougarinfo.org/attacks2.htm

Which holds little water for more gun prohibition.

[Imperializt Russia]

You like to play with words don't you?

Please specify what you are talking about.

You're talking about HAND GUNS. Not Guns.

Learn2Differentiate.

Now who's playing with words? "HAND GUNS. Not Guns." That's the thing with anti-gun control folks, you think the best argument is to argue semantics. "Well, it's not REALLY an assault weapon, because, see, a real assault weapon has this little doo-hickey here and this doesn't so your argument is crap."

It is.

Assault weapon is a term that has no meaning.
It exists solely to stir up people's thoughts with the word "assault" and to draw connection to "assault rifle" and from there to "military purpose".

Yes, Yes I do. You probably live in some large city, where you needn't concern yourself with bears, mountain lions, coyotes, and wolves. That is not the case for EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN.

You guys could be like the British. People in rural areas where guns are necessary are given licences and can keep their weapons perfectly legally, whilst people who have no good reason to have them (sport is counted as a good reason) don't get them. It ensures no one is endangered, whilst helping keep guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics.

Sport shooting is not considered good reason.
For legal purposes, the Team GB handgun team is not based nor practices in the United Kingdom.

It also ensures nothing, since all of our shooting sprees were committed by licensed firearms, by people who should not have been permitted to have still kept their licenses. Much like in the US. The regulation in regards to the loss (or prevention) of licence is not tight enough. Yet the licencing itself is bizarre. Semi-automatic centrefire rifles are prohibited. Yet one can own a semi-automatic "combat" shotgun, such as a Vepr-12.

Ban the most convenient self-defense fireearm?

Ban something that is already regulated by the NFA and Hughes Amendment and costs, at minimum, ~$10k? Perhaps you mean the assault weapons that are used in less than a tenth of a percent of homicides? Yeah, those do seem to be pretty dangerous, we should ban 'em for sure.

What shotguns aren't powerful? We talking .410s only that are good for rabbits, squirrels, and literally nothing else?

Yes, ban the type of self defense that kills more people, is unreasonable, and is again unreasonable.

"Is unreasonable, and is unreasonable" is in itself an unreasonable argument that actually conveys nothing whatsoever.

George hated the militia, even when he was a militia officer in the French and Indian war
He was one of the biggest supporters of getting a real army

Because militias are a rabble. He was a professional soldier. A traitor to the crown, but a soldier by the crown's training.

The second amendment is one of the most abused sections of any legal code in the history of humanity. A right to possess a firearm independently would be a good way to update something which with hindsight could've been repealed as soon as the attempt to annex Canada failed.

Then stop bitching about it on the internet, and take it up with the Supreme Court.
Push for a repeal of the Second Amendment.

There's shit in place for this sort of thing, you know.

[The Emerald Dawn]

No, it's quite relevant.

Guns have little to no use outside of killing, or practicing killing.

A fork can be used to build, just as easily as it can be used to feed. Cars are a means of transportation, and enable states that just LOVE their guns to survive with modern conveniences.

Guns don't build things, they don't enable transport or grant commerce. They kill things. What you do with the dead thing is up to you, but the gun's only there to make it dead.

A lot of guns are specifically designed to hit a paper target at long range with no other use in mind, so your claim that guns are only designed to kill is absolutely false.

You also completely ignored my comment. I did not mention forks or cars in general, I specifically mentioned fast cars and fast food. Neither have any practical purpose in a modern society.

Why bother with the other points? Guns receive nowhere near the level of scrutiny from the Federal or State level that cars and food do.

[Farnhamia]

Stop being such a drama queen. And by the way, the number of cougar attacks in the US and Canada is very, very low. http://www.cougarinfo.org/attacks2.htm

Which holds little water for more gun prohibition.

The way Vazdania is carrying on you'd think there were mountain lions in the streets. I'm just replying to his specific point that he needs a gun to protect him from the local wildlife.

[Vazdania]

Indeed guns were made to kill and to protect.

OH SHIT THERES IS A FUCKING MOUNTAIN LION....DAMN I WISH I HAD MY GUN RIGHT NOW.....OH SHIT THE STATE STOPPED ME FROM HAVING THOSE. DAMN, I GUESS I'M CAT CHOW NOW.

Stop being such a drama queen. And by the way, the number of cougar attacks in the US and Canada is very, very low. http://www.cougarinfo.org/attacks2.htm

In Idaho alone there were 4 FATAL attacks by Moutain Lions in 2011. Moreover, they commonly kill livestock.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Strawmen are not arguments. They're just strawmen. Also, they are a sign that you can't argue outside of sound bites.

How classy. Indeed you are now my friend.


But I must say that they are VERY necessary where I live. Wildlife is a very serious threat to the well being of humans in many areas throughout the country. It's clear that handguns need to be regulated in large cities and around population centers, but that doesn't mean that you should ban them everywhere.

How many times have you been attacked by cougars?

[Washington Resistance Army]

The only problem is that I don't support a full ban on guns. I support a ban on assault rifles, powerful pistols & shotguns, and military grade stuff.

You can still defend yourself with a sensible pistol or rifle.

Even though stats on the FBI website showed that the last "assault weapons" ban caused crime to increase as a whole? There many things in the US, such as cars and doctors, that kill many more people per year then guns do.

[Vazdania]

Which holds little water for more gun prohibition.

The way Vazdania is carrying on you'd think there were mountain lions in the streets. I'm just replying to his specific point that he needs a gun to protect him from the local wildlife.

There are mainly wolves that attack my sheep.....Damned things. Luckily we got the alpacas.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Stop being such a drama queen. And by the way, the number of cougar attacks in the US and Canada is very, very low. http://www.cougarinfo.org/attacks2.htm

In Idaho alone there were 4 FATAL attacks by Moutain Lions in 2011. Moreover, they commonly kill livestock.

Wow. Four.

As opposed to...checking FBI...928 by guns.

http://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/Porta ... 202011.pdf

[Farnhamia]

Stop being such a drama queen. And by the way, the number of cougar attacks in the US and Canada is very, very low. http://www.cougarinfo.org/attacks2.htm

In Idaho alone there were 4 FATAL attacks by Moutain Lions in 2011. Moreover, they commonly kill livestock.

Source? Because my source says there weren't. http://www.cougarinfo.org/attacks4.htm

[Pandeeria]

Because many governments including the US but many others, can kill you before you have a chance to resist

Care to elaborate more on that?

They track you and know where you are and what you look at. If the government really wanted you, they would send multiple police officers after you. Guns don't simply stop tyranny. Tyranny slowly creeps up on nations.

Besides if the government really wanted you the could have a sniper kill you, or send in a armored SWAT team.

[Luveria]

Ok in regard to "over throwing the tyrannical govt with our guns" thing
The us can blow you up with a robot armed with missiles

All the more reason to have surface-to-air missile launchers entirely unregulated.

[Hathradic States]

How classy. Indeed you are now my friend.


But I must say that they are VERY necessary where I live. Wildlife is a very serious threat to the well being of humans in many areas throughout the country. It's clear that handguns need to be regulated in large cities and around population centers, but that doesn't mean that you should ban them everywhere.

How many times have you been attacked by cougars?

How many times have you been in a serious car accident?

Yet you still wear your seatbelt every time, don't you?

[Gridea]

I love how there's this big group who says that regardless if the civilian populace was armed, that they would stand no chance against the military who has drones, tanks, helicopters, etc. ... None of those things can enter a building, none of those things can cleanly separate civilian from insurgent and none of those things have people skills. The type of warfare that the militia would be using is not that of the traditional stand and fight mentality, so why do people think that would be the case? A large civilian backed militia in the United States can definitely beat the government; if not beaten, the government will be severely damaged by the warfare.

As for the actual gun control in a normal day-to-day life, one must realize that regardless of the armament of criminals, you'd probably want a gun on hand more than anything else. They pull out a gas-station quality knife? Guess what, you've got a pistol. If they're stupid enough to charge you, natural selection takes place and the one who takes the idiotic route dies. If said gangbanger does pull a gun on you, well shit. At least you have a better chance of fighting back then any other person would. If you're too peaceful to own a gun, well, you will always be at a disadvantage to those who have the power and will to kill. It's not bad to be peaceful, it's bad when you think that peace is going to get you out of every situation.

[THE UNION OF FREE STATES OF AMERICA]

Guns are inanimate objects.

Guns do not think.

Guns are a means to kill people. Technically both guns and people kill others.

So, if a gun is lying on a table or on the ground, and someone walks by it, they will die automatically? No.

Guns do not kill people, mostly because people can use whatever they find around their house to do so.
If they cannot find what they need around they house, they can always strangle someone with a cloth(what they are wearing), or someone can always kill someone else with their hands.

So do hands and clothing kill people, by themselves, because they certainly can?

Should hands be banned?

[Chernoslavia]

Cars cause more deaths than guns yearly.

And are more rigidly controlled and legislated by the Federal Government.

You're not helping your argument.

Wow fucking really? Dude, what you just said destroyed your entire arguement about banning guns. Please reread what you said before you support more of my arguement.