GUN CONTROL!

[Imperializt Russia]

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

"Moreover, they commonly kill livestock"
There was more than one point in that post.

[Domenic and friends]

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.

What do you define as "Powerful' Shotguns and Handguns? 45 calibers? 12 gauges? and cant a 38 Special Still kill someone? Your ideology is flawed. And why ban assault rifles? The gun only shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger. So why ban a semi-automatic rifle? why restrict someones rights to own something? How bout i tell you someday you can only own this kind of Forks and knives because they can kill. Wouldn't like that to much right? I got one message for the government stay the fuck out of my life and away from my guns or you going to have to take them from my cold dead hands

[Vazdania]

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

Be honest and eliminate those caused by suicide. Pff, those hardly count.

[Farnhamia]

Wow. Four.

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

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

"Moreover, they commonly kill livestock"
There was more than one point in that post.

Which means that livestock needs guns more than Vaz does. Again, attacks by wildlife is a dubious reason for less gun control. And I don't believe anyone has proposed taking away guns from ranchers and farmers, or really from anyone.

[GrandKirche]

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.

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.

Ok...

Sport shooting is considered good for sports like Grouse shooting and clay pigeon shooting. Hand guns were banned as a result of a panic in the 90s, however we also have a very low rate of gun crime since people can see any gun legally owned a long way off and call the police. Equally, since we invented most sports, I think we know sports, and shooting at paper is pretty dull. Seriously, try a Grouse. It's much better, and tastier.

If I was going to repeal anything, I'd repeal the declaration of independence. The whole thing has failed, it's time that we worked on a solution that will not disadvantage the rest of the world.

[Vazdania]

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

excuse me....NON Fatal.

[Pandeeria]

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?

No, guns kill people. If guns didn't kill people, what would all the controversy about gun control be about?

[Farnhamia]

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

excuse me....NON Fatal.

Right.

[The Emerald Dawn]

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.

You don't think that proper regulation and funding for enforcement could help lower the number of deaths, the same way it helped lower auto-related deaths since the upsurge of enforcement in the 80s?

Are you that narrow-minded?

[Vazdania]

"Moreover, they commonly kill livestock"
There was more than one point in that post.

Which means that livestock needs guns more than Vaz does. Again, attacks by wildlife is a dubious reason for less gun control. And I don't believe anyone has proposed taking away guns from ranchers and farmers, or really from anyone.

Because livestock can totally protect them self.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Wow. Four.

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

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

Be honest and eliminate those caused by suicide. Pff, those hardly count.

Nice. Good to know you don't care about people who could use our help instead of our disdain.

Puts your arguments in the right light.

[Spreewerke]

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.

The thing is that all of the things you listed (except for "military-grade" which is just a very inaccurate description of anything you can get as a civilian, honestly) excel at being used for self-defense.

If you want to know what you should use for self-defense, look at your local police department. They're fighting the same criminals that walk the same streets as you. What do they use? AR-15s, Remington 870s, Mossberg 500s, Glock 22s, Glock 17s, Beretta 92FSs, SIG P226s, the list goes on and on. When I'm potentially faced with defending myself from the same type of criminal as a police officer encounters (who has body armor: I don't), why should I have to settle for sub-par means of defense? Am I saying "lolmachineguns for ever'body!"? No, not at all. However, caliber restrictions, "feature" limitations/assault weapons bans, and other such number-and-looks-based laws are, frankly, stupid, as they have no bearing in reality. One of the most lethal intermediate cartridges ever fielded by a military? 5.45x39mm. For reference, that is a diameter smaller than the "measley" .22LR that everyone loves. Bans by caliber do relatively little, as do bans based on cosmetic features. The flash hider, 30-round magazine, adjustable/folding stock, barrel shroud, etc., are all in place for shooter comfort. They don't make "spraying from the hip!" more accurate. If anything, a pistol grip makes it less so due to the awkward angle. A magazine only means more rounds between a reload. A reload that lasts a total of two seconds at the absolute most: the average length of time between shots in mass shootings is longer than this. Flash hiders simply dissipate flash from the muzzle so your vision is not impaired when shooting, some muzzle devices reduce felt recoil, while others still make staying on target easier (and yet, those were not counted as "evil" parts in the AWB). Collapsible stocks just mean my 6'0" 280lbs. coworker can shoulder the rifle comfortably by extending the stock, and when he hands it to 5'11" 130lbs. me, I can collapse it and also use it comfortably. Doesn't make it any deadlier in any way whatsoever. The only thing that affects how "deadly" a weapon is is the intent of the person firing it. I can shoot a .50BMG M82A1 at paper targets all day long. Meanwhile, across the nation, someone could be using a lever-action .22LR Henry to shoot up a post office or daycare. Which gun is more dangerous? Is it the firearm, or is it the person?

[Vazdania]

Be honest and eliminate those caused by suicide. Pff, those hardly count.

Nice. Good to know you don't care about people who could use our help instead of our disdain.

Puts your arguments in the right light.

Well Obviously they could have used help. I'm not devaluing there life.
They could have committed Suicide other ways. They just chose to use a gun.

[Occupied Deutschland]

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?

No, guns kill people. If guns didn't kill people, what would all the controversy about gun control be about?

Political pandering to people unfamiliar with firearms in order to strengthen a political base and win an election by appearing to be addressing an 'issue' with governmental action.

[Chernoslavia]

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?

No, guns kill people. If guns didn't kill people, what would all the controversy about gun control be about?

Ignorance. Like it is now.

[Trollgaard]

Not really a fan of increased control...like at all.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Nice. Good to know you don't care about people who could use our help instead of our disdain.

Puts your arguments in the right light.

Well Obviously they could have used help. I'm not devaluing there life.
They could have committed Suicide other ways. They just chose to use a gun.

It's a lot harder to kill yourself if you don't have to just pull the trigger.

There's a reason that more men commit suicide by gun than women.

All of this feeds into deeper discussion about mental health and the need for more work on that end.

However, removing the ease of access to guns? That'd be a good start to reduce the numbers of corpses.

[THE UNION OF FREE STATES OF AMERICA]

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?

No, guns kill people. If guns didn't kill people, what would all the controversy about gun control be about?

How about this, you do realize that criminals do not follow laws. Correct?

[Domenic and friends]

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.

The thing is that all of the things you listed (except for "military-grade" which is just a very inaccurate description of anything you can get as a civilian, honestly) excel at being used for self-defense.

If you want to know what you should use for self-defense, look at your local police department. They're fighting the same criminals that walk the same streets as you. What do they use? AR-15s, Remington 870s, Mossberg 500s, Glock 22s, Glock 17s, Beretta 92FSs, SIG P226s, the list goes on and on. When I'm potentially faced with defending myself from the same type of criminal as a police officer encounters (who has body armor: I don't), why should I have to settle for sub-par means of defense? Am I saying "lolmachineguns for ever'body!"? No, not at all. However, caliber restrictions, "feature" limitations/assault weapons bans, and other such number-and-looks-based laws are, frankly, stupid, as they have no bearing in reality. One of the most lethal intermediate cartridges ever fielded by a military? 5.45x39mm. For reference, that is a diameter smaller than the "measley" .22LR that everyone loves. Bans by caliber do relatively little, as do bans based on cosmetic features. The flash hider, 30-round magazine, adjustable/folding stock, barrel shroud, etc., are all in place for shooter comfort. They don't make "spraying from the hip!" more accurate. If anything, a pistol grip makes it less so due to the awkward angle. A magazine only means more rounds between a reload. A reload that lasts a total of two seconds at the absolute most: the average length of time between shots in mass shootings is longer than this. Flash hiders simply dissipate flash from the muzzle so your vision is not impaired when shooting, some muzzle devices reduce felt recoil, while others still make staying on target easier (and yet, those were not counted as "evil" parts in the AWB). Collapsible stocks just mean my 6'0" 280lbs. coworker can shoulder the rifle comfortably by extending the stock, and when he hands it to 5'11" 130lbs. me, I can collapse it and also use it comfortably. Doesn't make it any deadlier in any way whatsoever. The only thing that affects how "deadly" a weapon is is the intent of the person firing it. I can shoot a .50BMG M82A1 at paper targets all day long. Meanwhile, across the nation, someone could be using a lever-action .22LR Henry to shoot up a post office or daycare. Which gun is more dangerous? Is it the firearm, or is it the person?

One of the most logical arguments i have heard all day thank you for that sir

[Vazdania]

Not really a fan of increased control...like at all.

I am.....for large cities, but I don't believe they need to be controlled in rural areas.

[Farnhamia]

No, guns kill people. If guns didn't kill people, what would all the controversy about gun control be about?

Political pandering to people unfamiliar with firearms in order to strengthen a political base and win an election by appearing to be addressing an 'issue' with governmental action.

I would have gone with political pandering to frighten people into thinking that some government goon squad is going to come take away their guns, without which they and they're loved ones will soon be overwhelmed by a horde of robbers and muggers and rapers,

[Washington Resistance Army]

Well Obviously they could have used help. I'm not devaluing there life.
They could have committed Suicide other ways. They just chose to use a gun.

It's a lot harder to kill yourself if you don't have to just pull the trigger.

There's a reason that more men commit suicide by gun than women.

All of this feeds into deeper discussion about mental health and the need for more work on that end.

However, removing the ease of access to guns? That'd be a good start to reduce the numbers of corpses.

Or you could just stop beating around the bush and fix mental healthcare?

[Vazdania]

Well Obviously they could have used help. I'm not devaluing there life.
They could have committed Suicide other ways. They just chose to use a gun.

It's a lot harder to kill yourself if you don't have to just pull the trigger.

There's a reason that more men commit suicide by gun than women.

All of this feeds into deeper discussion about mental health and the need for more work on that end.

However, removing the ease of access to guns? That'd be a good start to reduce the numbers of corpses.

Should we stop access to razors then???

[Farnhamia]

It's a lot harder to kill yourself if you don't have to just pull the trigger.

There's a reason that more men commit suicide by gun than women.

All of this feeds into deeper discussion about mental health and the need for more work on that end.

However, removing the ease of access to guns? That'd be a good start to reduce the numbers of corpses.

Or you could just stop beating around the bush and fix mental healthcare?

Fine but we're going to have to raise taxes and institute single-payer health care. That okay with you?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Political pandering to people unfamiliar with firearms in order to strengthen a political base and win an election by appearing to be addressing an 'issue' with governmental action.

I would have gone with political pandering to frighten people into thinking that some government goon squad is going to come take away their guns, without which they and they're loved ones will soon be overwhelmed by a horde of robbers and muggers and rapers,

Nah, that comes after mine.