Gun Control: Your Opinion

[Gun Manufacturers]

Ok, When it comes to gun controle, it's rather simple. Sell the bullets for the guns for like, 10k a round and noone will die from ails of gun fire for no reason....that simple....i would say just stop making guns, but we all know that would never happen.

It's too easy to make your own bullets, so that won't work. It's not rocket science.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I think guns should be rounded up, tortured, and systematically murdered by gassing them with Zyklon B and incinerating their bodies in ovens. When that method's not available, they should be lined up against a wall... and shot.

You want to torture, murder, then incinerate inanimate objects?

[Grave_n_idle]

Ok, When it comes to gun controle, it's rather simple. Sell the bullets for the guns for like, 10k a round and noone will die from ails of gun fire for no reason....that simple....i would say just stop making guns, but we all know that would never happen.

It's too easy to make your own bullets, so that won't work. It's not rocket science.

No, but it is chemistry - so sell the components for greatly increased prices, same effect.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Ok, When it comes to gun controle, it's rather simple. Sell the bullets for the guns for like, 10k a round and noone will die from ails of gun fire for no reason....that simple....i would say just stop making guns, but we all know that would never happen.

It's too easy to make your own bullets, so that won't work. It's not rocket science.

No, but it is chemistry - so sell the components for greatly increased prices, same effect.

If nothing else, match heads can be used for propellant. It won't be as good as gunpowder, but it will work. Also, black powder isn't too hard to make, and recipes are online.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ok, When it comes to gun controle, it's rather simple. Sell the bullets for the guns for like, 10k a round and noone will die from ails of gun fire for no reason....that simple....i would say just stop making guns, but we all know that would never happen.

It's too easy to make your own bullets, so that won't work. It's not rocket science.

No, but it is chemistry - so sell the components for greatly increased prices, same effect.

If nothing else, match heads can be used for propellant. It won't be as good as gunpowder, but it will work. Also, black powder isn't too hard to make, and recipes are online.

Even black powder does require basic ingredients, though - which can also be targetted for an increased price. How many would-be-blackpowder-makers would even recognise Potassium Nitrate in unrefined form even if they had it on their property? How many could divine it for themselves? How many people have access to raw Sulphur, or could convert it to usabe form on their own if they had access?

License 'legitimate' users of the raw materials. Sell to them at an agreed price, on condition of certain basic security measures to maintain stocks and avoid a black market - and limit sales to un-licensed users to a seperately agreed price. Voila - even home-made ammunition is expensive.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Ok, When it comes to gun controle, it's rather simple. Sell the bullets for the guns for like, 10k a round and noone will die from ails of gun fire for no reason....that simple....i would say just stop making guns, but we all know that would never happen.

It's too easy to make your own bullets, so that won't work. It's not rocket science.

No, but it is chemistry - so sell the components for greatly increased prices, same effect.

If nothing else, match heads can be used for propellant. It won't be as good as gunpowder, but it will work. Also, black powder isn't too hard to make, and recipes are online.

Even black powder does require basic ingredients, though - which can also be targetted for an increased price. How many would-be-blackpowder-makers would even recognise Potassium Nitrate in unrefined form even if they had it on their property? How many could divine it for themselves? How many people have access to raw Sulphur, or could convert it to usabe form on their own if they had access?

License 'legitimate' users of the raw materials. Sell to them at an agreed price, on condition of certain basic security measures to maintain stocks and avoid a black market - and limit sales to un-licensed users to a seperately agreed price. Voila - even home-made ammunition is expensive.

I guess you missed the part where match heads could be used. Also, since both salt peter and sulphur are used in magic, raising the prices so that the majority of people can't afford them could possibly be considered a violation of their first amendment rights of religion and/or free speech. Not to mention that both potassium nitrate and sulfur have MANY uses beyond blackpowder manufacturing, and you'd have a hell of a time regulating it, while driving up the prices of the other products that use potassium nitrate and sulphur. As far as charcoal, anyone can make that.

[Grave_n_idle]

I guess you missed the part where match heads could be used.

Why would you make such an obviously nonsensical 'guess'?

Also, since both salt peter and sulphur are used in magic, raising the prices so that the majority of people can't afford them could possibly be considered a violation of their first amendment rights of religion and/or free speech.

Horseshit.

Not to mention that both potassium nitrate and sulfur have MANY uses beyond blackpowder manufacturing,

WHich is why I explicitly referred to licensing it's non black-powder use.

...and you'd have a hell of a time regulating it, while driving up the prices of the other products that use potassium nitrate and sulphur.

Seriously - did you even READ what you're allegeldy responding to?

This was addressed.

As far as charcoal, anyone can make that.

Yes - and, if you'd read my post, you'd see it's the one key ingredient that I didn't specifically mention, while I was talking about the difficulties of home production of the other two.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I guess you missed the part where match heads could be used.

Why would you make such an obviously nonsensical 'guess'?

Also, since both salt peter and sulphur are used in magic, raising the prices so that the majority of people can't afford them could possibly be considered a violation of their first amendment rights of religion and/or free speech.

Horseshit.

Not to mention that both potassium nitrate and sulfur have MANY uses beyond blackpowder manufacturing,

WHich is why I explicitly referred to licensing it's non black-powder use.

...and you'd have a hell of a time regulating it, while driving up the prices of the other products that use potassium nitrate and sulphur.

Seriously - did you even READ what you're allegeldy responding to?

This was addressed.

As far as charcoal, anyone can make that.

Yes - and, if you'd read my post, you'd see it's the one key ingredient that I didn't specifically mention, while I was talking about the difficulties of home production of the other two.

The guess was because you didn't respond to it. So I assume you agree that match heads can be used as a propellant?

Are you saying that magic can't possibly be considered a religion by a portion of the people that practice it? Or that restricting items or supplies used by practitioners of magic isn't against the first amendment?

The cost of licensing and regulating the sale of sulfur and potassium nitrate will end up being passed down the line, to everyone that has a legitimate use for them. The government isn't going to license and regulate that stuff for free, and no sane business is going to absorb the cost.

I brought up charcoal simply to be thorough. I know you didn't mention it.

BTW, did you know that most chemical stump remover products have potassium nitrate as the main ingredient (about 98% concentration). Or that you can buy potassium nitrate at the pharmacy? Did you know that sulfur can be purchased as an acne treatment?

[Katonazag]

That is cowardly, you would let someone steal your money and possibly your identity? I person that just let person get away with a crime will constantly get assaulted and mugged because the mugger will figure that the person will not stand up for themselves. Those who will not stand up for something will fall for anything.

Its cowardly to not endanger other people?

The endangering is being caused by the person doing the assaulting. To allow someone to get away with something illegal when you have the capacity to stop them - yes, that probably is cowardice.

I've been in those situations, the only one in danger was myself. How is it cowardly of me to face my own personal danger when I could easily try to fight back and hence endanger some random person sleeping in their home or walking by unnoticed?
I very calmly looked down the barrel of a .45 pistol and didn't flinch, I was more concerned someone else might get hurt than with my own well being, but that makes me a coward??
I thought that's what made people heroes, the willingness to be harmed so others can be safe.

Every situation is different. One stipulation on most state firearms laws is that you are responsible for where your projectile goes and what damage it does, even in a self/home defense situation. In a real firearms training class, the instructor should be teaching tactics and the law just as much if not more than mechanical technique. Whether by scenario setting, weapon at hand, or skill level, if you suspect that the possibility may exist that you may harm an innocent, don't draw your weapon in the first place. If it's already drawn, don't fire. In your scenario, because of your concern, you definitely did do the right thing.

Funny this topic should come up - today I ran into an ex-employee that was fired under rather messy conditions for refusal to follow policies, and who had threatened me because I was the one making the bust. I saw her, she saw me, fortunately she didn't do anything. I can tell you one thing, though. I felt a lot better knowing that I had my pistol concealed [lawfully - I'm licensed] in my jacket pocket.

For me, weapons are a necessity. I work in an environment that makes me a potential target of revenge, and I live far away from the umbrella of a fast police response. Even in these scenarios, planning is key. Fortunately at home, the low population density means that I know from what positions and what directions I can safely fire even a high-powered weapon on an intruder without endangering anyone. Conversely, the pistol I carry is what some consider a lesser caliber, .380 Auto. That, combined with hollow-points means that the chances of over-penetration of a person or surface is much lower than with a 9mm and even lower than .45 Auto. So, the next consideration is making sure that I can hit what I'm aiming at without endangering others. This means not only looking at your target, but looking past your target, and knowing what lies behind barriers you can't see through but may penetrate. On any of those, if you are uncertain, meaning you don't have a clear shot, you should ideally not pull your weapon at all. But if you have, you shouldn't fire.

[Soviet Commu-Facism]

I think guns should be rounded up, tortured, and systematically murdered by gassing them with Zyklon B and incinerating their bodies in ovens. When that method's not available, they should be lined up against a wall... and shot.

Hey! I happen to know some guns very personally, and anyone who dares even consider hurting Walther PPK and his family will be feeling a whole lotta hurtin! Besides, the alternative to guns is bombs or asking Chuck Norris or Mr.T to run around and kill people, which would in turn bring about the end of the world.

[Omnicracy]

I was saying the roll roll played in socioty as stated by the Founding Fathers, not the roll of the Right to Bear Arms. The argument was about the former, not the latter.

But that doesn't describe the role in society, except as part of the role of the militia - which DOES argue against sole, un-regulated ownership.

I was addressing your argument on the role, but also applying it across to the actual 'rights' argument.

Let me put it this way

The right to bear arms extends to all free men. The dutie of free men with arms is to form a militia to ensure socioty remains free, and rebelion atempted if nessisary to acomplish that goal.

Except that other historical data of the time suggests that. no - it did not ever extend to all free men. And, certainly not to all free persons.

Who wasn't alowed to have a gun?

[Omnicracy]

On most issues? No, I would never revolt for such a reason. On certain key issues? Yes, of corse. If the majority of people say we should start killing babies, and a constitutional amendment is made saying each citizen must kill at least one baby a year, I would rebel. If my ability to effectively rebell has been legaly removed, I may rebel. Or, I may stockpile weapons illegaly for the eventuality that tyranny rears its ugly head.

But, we're not talking about killing babies.

We're talking about the Second Amendment - which protects your right to keep and bear arms, being suspended by democratic mechanism - which is entirely legal AND constitutional.

If the Second Amendment were overturned, and you decided to lead revolt - it would be a revolt AGAINST the Constitution, and against the democracy that altered it.

That's what I'm asking you about - would you fight an un-Constitutional revolution against democracy and your peers, if the Second Amendment was the casualty of democratic revocation?

I answered that in the bottom part. The killing babies amendment was an example of a time that having an un-Constitutional revolution against democracy and peers is a universal good, wich you seemed to imply was an imposible eventuality.

[Omnicracy]

But what is to stop that under the current system or a total ban? Nothing. Therefor, the best argument is still more guns, for your weaker links are still stronger.

note: You did not show that they were not, you showed that sometimes nothing can be done.

Well, an actual effective total ban would obviously reduce the ability to obtain guns and silencers. But an effective ban is difficult to orchestrate.

There is a proportional increase problem with your math, though... there is a point where 'more guns' simply can't help. I'd say, that the absolute limit of that calculation is probably about one gun per hand.

Not so. Just ask Moe Syzlak.

[Omnicracy]

In and of itself? No. However, as I have said, it can restrict a populases ability to defend itself. It can be harmfull to socioty as a whole.

We have a military to defend us... don't we?

Who watches the watchmen?

[New Kereptica]

In and of itself? No. However, as I have said, it can restrict a populases ability to defend itself. It can be harmfull to socioty as a whole.

We have a military to defend us... don't we?

Who watches the watchmen?

Who watches those who watch the watchmen?

[Omnicracy]

I would like to note that a voice is meaningless when it cannot have direct say.

note: I speak of groups to government, not individuals to policy

Direct say? It's representational democracy - everyone has the ability to have 'direct say' to an extent, but without much weight - and the ability to be represented with greater weight, by action of representatives.

The fact that you helped elect someone when you voted, doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay tax, or that you have a legitimate claim against the government for not listening to you directly.

But it wasn't equivicable to electing someone and then not paying a new tax they make. It was more like not being able to vote for no legitamet reason, then not paying a new tax. Still not that close though.

[Omnicracy]

That massive private army you don't like would acctualy be dozens of private armies (aka militias) organised seperatly threw (sorry) out the country. As to access to military hardware, you and I clearly disagree.

Also, bomb the supply convoy to stop it then shot the people to get supplies. Just one example. Do the Insurgents not use guns at all? If not, how are there fire fights in Iraq and Afganistant? If so, then would not millions with guns waging a massive guerilla war be benifitial?

The advantage of bombs in guerrilla tactics, is that you dont have to stand and fight - always an advantage in asymmetrical warfare. Gun use is not as effective, overall - especially in today's world - because it means being present on-site, which means you're always expecting to lose lives.

As for the private armies - another reason I don't much care for them, is that allowing organisations other than the elected government to build an actual military, opens up the potential for foreign interests to 'own' an army WITHIN America. Surely you can see how that isn't ideal?

1) Yes, bombs are better if you never have to be near your enemy and they can never find you. Niether of those two things will universaly be true. The more guns, the better.

2) The US would have to allow their citizens in, and if they are our citizens, then I can't see some great army of China forming here. Do you have more opposition?

You wouldn't have to build an especially 'great' army, if you're using modern military grade equipment.

Looking at current political climates... would you trust, for example, an Iranian or Saudi company to own and operate a large private military force on US soil?

1) You didn't adress it

2) Okay, significant army then. It would be greatly out numbered. As I said, there armies would be too small to be effective if treasoness. I alsready said the reasoning.

[Omnicracy]

And they get shot like any other brown shirt.

Why would they get shot?

They'd have guns.

Yes, they would. In fighting (or out of it) the good guys would shoot them, not so?

I thought we argued earlier about whether being armed stopped other armed people shooting you.. or something?

For crime, yes. Criminals are less likly to attack armed people because they are armed. In a revolution, you shoot all the bad guys.

[New Kereptica]

And they get shot like any other brown shirt.

Why would they get shot?

They'd have guns.

Yes, they would. In fighting (or out of it) the good guys would shoot them, not so?

I thought we argued earlier about whether being armed stopped other armed people shooting you.. or something?

For crime, yes. Criminals are less likly to attack armed people because they are armed. In a revolution, you shoot all the bad guys.

Criminals are quite likely to attack armed people, specifically because they are armed. They pose a threat, and engaging that threat preemptively is a tactical decision.

[Omnicracy]

Note: My argument for guns is not fear-based, but human nature based.

So, you don't believe you need a gun for self-defence?

You're one of the rarer breed that would just argue that you need it for sport or hunting, for example?

1) No, one would have guns for self defence. That is from an understanding that bad people exist, not a fear of them,

2) Does the defence of ones rights count as self-defence?

The argument that you need to be able to employ lethal-force to defend yourself is an argument from fear.

If you didn't have fear of harm, you wouldn't need to prepare a potentially lethal response.

Note: I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's NOT a bad thing, it's only sensible - but we should understand what masters we are serving.

1) It seemed like you were saying it was a bad thing. I, however, would still see a differance between concern and fear.

2) Does the defence of ones rights count as self-defence?

[The Adrian Empire]

Ok, When it comes to gun controle, it's rather simple. Sell the bullets for the guns for like, 10k a round and noone will die from ails of gun fire for no reason....that simple....i would say just stop making guns, but we all know that would never happen.

It's too easy to make your own bullets, so that won't work. It's not rocket science.

No, but it is chemistry - so sell the components for greatly increased prices, same effect.

Except the same components to create bullets can likely be used to create any manner of things, making the components too expensive could destabilize markets and effect industries far more beneficial then the arms manufacturing industry, if one believe there is one.

[Omnicracy]

Most Neo Nazis are currently armed. Your racists with guns are obviously armed. If they could win right now, why haven't they tried anything?

Fear or apathy. Those are usually the two obstacles you have to overcome for anything - even a mobrule.

Have you ever heard the beliefs of the US Neo Nazis? The only fear would be not enough support (wich they would be right on) and they would definitly not be apathetic.

[Omnicracy]

Hey, just because he is a political pupit doesn't mean he can't have the right idea on occasion!

No, but I'm not willing to say he's 'rarely completely wrong'

Its not like his arguments don't involve facts.

[Omnicracy]

Well, one of the points of the constitution was that it be re-interpreted by the people as nessisary, so it should do that now, even if that was not the initial intent.

I'm not sure I agree. One of the points of the Constitution was to make it amendable, I'm not sure it was ever intended it should be re-interpreted.

Well, I don't feel like finding a source right now, so we will just have to dissagree on this point.

[The Adrian Empire]

And they get shot like any other brown shirt.

Why would they get shot?

They'd have guns.

Yes, they would. In fighting (or out of it) the good guys would shoot them, not so?

I thought we argued earlier about whether being armed stopped other armed people shooting you.. or something?

For crime, yes. Criminals are less likly to attack armed people because they are armed. In a revolution, you shoot all the bad guys.

Criminals are quite likely to attack armed people, specifically because they are armed. They pose a threat, and engaging that threat preemptively is a tactical decision.

Evidence, would suggest otherwise, such as the two million some legal uses of guns to deter crime in the United States along, and numerous recorded stories of it working against what you think. A sane criminal is not stupid enough to risk his life over a wallet. Or try to take advantage of an armed woman. And in a situation where crazed murderers are looking to kill people, tactical thinking is likely not his strong suit, if it is, then there is still the very good chance that the person they are attacking will successfully defend themselves.

And again, the reason it's called concealed carry is that he doesn't knows you are carrying a gun (besides those you tell and the police) until you draw it and it is too late to strategically take you out, also criminals are scared individuals, like schoolyard bullies, when you stand up to a bully you will usually scare them off, other wise you will have the ability to win effectively ending the power of said bully