The general gun control thread

[North Calaveras]

Are you kidding? Some media outlets, like the NY Daily News was talking about gun control CONSTANTLY after Sandy Hook.

They talked a lot but IIRC the assault rifle ban and high-capacity magazine ban was nullified in the senate.

im still waiting for an accurate definition of an assault rifle and "high capacity" magazine from these politicians.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I don't want to live in a community where regular, untrained, unsupervised people have even the remotest access to deadly weapons. I feel much safer in communities where only police services, which are trained to keep me safe, can access and use firearms. And even then, I'd prefer that the police don't carry them around on regular patrols.

*facepalm*

I've said it before, I'll say it again; if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.

LOL, first post.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Yeah, I'm not gonna run and hide when someone tries to attack me. Sorry.

...why not?

That's what I'd do. If some insane person comes in my house, I'll be out of there. Why would I want to stay around waiting to see them?

Some people don't have anywhere to go. For example, my apartment is on the 2nd floor, and I only have 1 door into/out of the apartment. Where would I go?

[Washington Resistance Army]

...why not?

That's what I'd do. If some insane person comes in my house, I'll be out of there. Why would I want to stay around waiting to see them?

Some people don't have anywhere to go. For example, my apartment is on the 2nd floor, and I only have 1 door into/out of the apartment. Where would I go?

The window, lrn2parkour.

[Imperializt Russia]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... wrong.html
That incident is indicative of that mindset.

Drunks drivers are a danger to the public. Do it on their own property, fine. Not on the public highways where they drive their tonne or three of deadly weapon at speeds of fifty, seventy miles an hour against hundreds of others of similar objects at similar speeds.
Or a fucking pedestrian.

Obviously his party trick wasn't as safe as he thought. Sucks for him and his victim. But yeah, let's stick with discussion guns, I don't want to thread jack this.
But hey, lots of stupid people out there.

He didn't harm anyone on previous occasions. He did the same thing again and now a squadronmate has to wear a colostomy bag.

What was that about "perceived potential harm"? There's blind fucking idiocy. That occurred in this incident - it occurs with drunk driving.

[Gun Manufacturers]

that's funny cause the anti-gun crowd is NEVER satisfied

passes anti-gun law, shooting happens

" OMG we need more gun laws"

Shooting happens again and more laws are passed with NO EFFECT.

Uh huh. Just like the pro gun won't be satisfied until we have toddlers armed to the teeth.

What orifice are you pulling that out of?

[Gun Manufacturers]

Why can't we just have background checks and stuff like that. I live in Australia and we have very good gun control laws (Sorry but I don't know very much about it so don't drill me with questions, I'm just stating my personal opinion)

Background checks are already required in the US when purchasing from an FFL holder. Now, if you're talking about background checks for private sales, it might be possible to pass it nationally IF they make it so non-FFLs can access NICS.

[Gun Manufacturers]

We already have background checks...

for some sales, for others we have no background check.
no background check for private sales, many states don't even have background checks for gun show purchases.

FFLs MUST runs a NICS background check, no matter WHERE they sell their firearms. Even if they sell firearms at a gun show, a background check must be performed. The "gun show" loophole isn't real, what GCAs are talking about is PRIVATE sales.

Want required background checks for private sales? Give non-FFLs access to NICS.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Some people don't have anywhere to go. For example, my apartment is on the 2nd floor, and I only have 1 door into/out of the apartment. Where would I go?

The window, lrn2parkour.

I'm almost 42, I'm too old to learn something like that.

[New Genoa]

Uh huh. Just like the pro gun won't be satisfied until we have toddlers armed to the teeth.

What orifice are you pulling that out of?

Sarcasm. Though after school shootings we do hear about making sure schools are armed.

[Grinning Dragon]

They talked a lot but IIRC the assault rifle ban and high-capacity magazine ban was nullified in the senate.

im still waiting for an accurate definition of an assault rifle and "high capacity" magazine from these politicians.

You will be waiting an awful long time I'm afraid. 99.999999999% of politicians don't even have two brain cells fighting each other, let alone the ability to string together a cognitive rational thought.

[Ifreann]

And if it doesn't, then they might kill you, no matter what weapons you might possess. So why not run? Why fight?

And I'm willing to take my chances that I'll come out on top if they don't run. I'm not in the business of running and cowering in fear for 10-15 minutes while I wait for the cops to show up.

But it might save your life.

---

It could save your life.

---

Is one not defended from harm when one escapes the potential cause of harm? They can't kill you, after all, if you aren't there.

The same way a firearm works as a means of self-defence when shooting your assailant isn't an option.

---

You don't have to be. Running can place obstacles between you and your attacker that will also protect you. Plus, adrenaline's a hell of a drug.

The attacker will not only likely have a firearm which they might shoot me in the back with should I run,

Moving targets are harder to hit, I imagine.

but even if they do not, could easily catch up since they likely are more fit than I AND have adrenaline pumping through their veins just as I do.

Quite possibly

Run some other way. If you're totally surrounded then it hardly matters what you do.

You do realize there are several situations where there are few or one exit(s). Such as, you know, interior rooms. Or when you are behind a counter at a store. Or the upstairs of a house. Or the basement of a house. Or any number of other locales.

Yes, I'm aware.

Take your family with you. Leave your property behind. Unless it's small and easy to carry.

You are operating under the assumption that I have prior warning to such a scenario.

They're called burglar alarms. They do sometimes work.

What if I come downstairs during the night and discover an armed intruder? Do I run upstairs to get my children as he follows me and then proceeds to bash all of our heads in? Do I run away and try to save myself, leaving them to die?

The former would probably be a better option.

Or how about this: I shoot the people currently attacking/threatening/surrounding me and/or my family, or better yet, hold them at gunpoint until the police arrive.

You carry a gun with you when you wake up at night and go downstairs as a matter of course? You believe you could draw, ready, and aim your gun before the intruder in your home can do anything to stop you? What if you level your gun and demand that the intruder drop their weapons and get on the ground, but their accomplice, alerted by your threats, sneaks up behind you and bashes your head in?

Do I need to explain to you how "the police" and "outlaws" are generally two distinct groups?

You believe the police are the only ones who should have access to firearms - and in such a situation that you get your way, yes, police are the only people capable of obtaining a weapon through legal means.

But criminals and terrorists and mass shooters and what have you will still have extralegal access to firearms. You take away guns from those who use them responsibly for hunting or self defense and leave guns only in the hands of police and criminals.

So contrary to what you called a strong argument, outlawing firearms will not, in fact, leave only outlaws in possession of firearms.

---

all these arguements are bullshit because at the end of the day I'm going to do what it takes to defend myself and my family, just like many other Americans.

I'm sure your family would be well defended if you were in prison for breaching hypothetical gun control laws.

given the oppurtunity I bet even the anti-gunners would pick up a glock if it was the only thing they could use to put distance between themselves and an attacker, cause when your scared shitless there is only fight or flight.

Which apparently really means "only fight or fight".

---

(Image)

I'm reminded, as I so often am, of one Yumyumsuppertime's proposal that the homeless be provided with firearms at the expense of the state.

---

...why not?

That's what I'd do. If some insane person comes in my house, I'll be out of there. Why would I want to stay around waiting to see them?

Some people don't have anywhere to go. For example, my apartment is on the 2nd floor, and I only have 1 door into/out of the apartment. Where would I go?

Where would you go if you awoke of a night to find that a fire had rendered the door impassable?

[Keyboard Warriors]

Quit the strawman. Pro-gun control is not equivalent to banning guns.

Ok fair enough, but how do they differ and how is there not a slippery slope from restriction of firearms to out right ban?

Same reason banning rape isn't a slippery slope to stationing federal agents in every bedroom.

[Patridam]

The attacker will not only likely have a firearm which they might shoot me in the back with should I run,

Moving targets are harder to hit, I imagine.

If you're running away, particularly with your back towards them in a straight line, you are a figurative sitting duck.

but even if they do not, could easily catch up since they likely are more fit than I AND have adrenaline pumping through their veins just as I do.

Quite possibly

You do realize there are several situations where there are few or one exit(s). Such as, you know, interior rooms. Or when you are behind a counter at a store. Or the upstairs of a house. Or the basement of a house. Or any number of other locales.

Yes, I'm aware.

You are operating under the assumption that I have prior warning to such a scenario.

They're called burglar alarms. They do sometimes work.

Sometimes. Also, if you're going to complain about the elitism inspired by the price of owning a gun - considering a simple rifle, shotgun, or revolver can be had for a little bit above $100 - then really shouldn't advise for burglar alarms, considering they cost $500 to $1000 and have a $30-$50 monthly fee.

What if I come downstairs during the night and discover an armed intruder? Do I run upstairs to get my children as he follows me and then proceeds to bash all of our heads in? Do I run away and try to save myself, leaving them to die?

The former would probably be a better option.

Defending yourself and your children, would be a better option than "nobly" dying with your children.

Or how about this: I shoot the people currently attacking/threatening/surrounding me and/or my family, or better yet, hold them at gunpoint until the police arrive.

You carry a gun with you when you wake up at night and go downstairs as a matter of course?

I carry a gun with me everywhere (excluding those idiotic "gun free zones") as a matter of course.

Even if I didn't, I would have a significantly greater chance of survival in that I could run to the location of the gun and fight rather than run and cower with my children before our collective death.

You believe you could draw, ready, and aim your gun before the intruder in your home can do anything to stop you?

Yes. Tis' what the quickdraw competitions at the Fish & Game club are for, and its not as if aiming is a great deal of bother in CQB.

What if you level your gun and demand that the intruder drop their weapons and get on the ground, but their accomplice, alerted by your threats, sneaks up behind you and bashes your head in?

In that very specific scenario, then I'd be in no worse of a position then I would if I didn't have a gun. There is always of course the option to just shoot him rather than detain him, a perfectly legal course of action, sometimes even if he didn't have a weapon.

You believe the police are the only ones who should have access to firearms - and in such a situation that you get your way, yes, police are the only people capable of obtaining a weapon through legal means.

But criminals and terrorists and mass shooters and what have you will still have extralegal access to firearms. You take away guns from those who use them responsibly for hunting or self defense and leave guns only in the hands of police and criminals.

So contrary to what you called a strong argument, outlawing firearms will not, in fact, leave only outlaws in possession of firearms.

Actually, no. Outlawing firearms will leave only outlaws with firearms. Outlawing firearms for civilians and not for police will - you guessed it - leave them in the hands of police and (many more of them than there are police, mind you) criminals.

You have failed to in fact address the point of said argument; that making weapons illegal for civilians will not make any significant difference in the illegal weapons market, but will take guns away from responsible law-abiding owners.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Assault weapons are a made-up scare tactic designed to win lying fuckwads the votes of the ignorant and/or manipulative, many 'gun-control' ideas are racist (either in their effect(s) or by their very design), a modernization of the NICS program in the US could avoid the racial discrimination problems of other typically proposed systems for a 'universal' background check (and such should be carefully implemented as opposed to rushed into as by the aforementioned fuckwads in ways that has the ACLU criticizing it's shittiness), 922(r) provisions could be axed entirely, the ban on newly-manufactured NFA items could be lifted seeing as how such legal NFA items haven't been an issue, Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil, and the government is lying about...well, a whole lot of shit, really.
Thank you.

here's a cookie

*OFFERS WHOLE JAR*

[Ifreann]

Moving targets are harder to hit, I imagine.

If you're running away, particularly with your back towards them in a straight line, you are a figurative sitting duck.

Then maybe don't do that.

Quite possibly


Yes, I'm aware.


They're called burglar alarms. They do sometimes work.

Sometimes.

Yes. Anything that works only works sometimes.

Also, if you're going to complain about the elitism inspired by the price of owning a gun - considering a simple rifle, shotgun, or revolver can be had for a little bit above $100 - then really shouldn't advise for burglar alarms, considering they cost $500 to $1000 and have a $30-$50 monthly fee.

You were the one complaining about elitism, not me. I just pointed out that you're not exactly following through on your opposition to firearms being only in the hands of the "elite". Or do you actually support arming the homeless for their own safety?

The former would probably be a better option.

Defending yourself and your children, would be a better option than "nobly" dying with your children.

I expect a lot of people would think so, yes.

You carry a gun with you when you wake up at night and go downstairs as a matter of course?

I carry a gun with me everywhere (excluding those idiotic "gun free zones") as a matter of course.

Weird.

Even if I didn't, I would have a significantly greater chance of survival in that I could run to the location of the gun and fight rather than run and cower with my children before our collective death.

So you cannot expect to escape an intruder in your home, especially not if you have to carry your children, but running to your gun is perfectly viable without just getting knifed in the back. Gotcha.

You believe you could draw, ready, and aim your gun before the intruder in your home can do anything to stop you?

Yes. Tis' what the quickdraw competitions at the Fish & Game club are for, and its not as if aiming is a great deal of bother in CQB.

So the $100 investment of a gun actually also requires...how many hours of training to draw quickly?

What if you level your gun and demand that the intruder drop their weapons and get on the ground, but their accomplice, alerted by your threats, sneaks up behind you and bashes your head in?

In that very specific scenario, then I'd be in no worse of a position then I would if I didn't have a gun. There is always of course the option to just shoot him rather than detain him, a perfectly legal course of action, sometimes even if he didn't have a weapon.

I'm sure if we were so inclined we could come up with no end of scenarios where having a gun wouldn't save one's life.

You believe the police are the only ones who should have access to firearms - and in such a situation that you get your way, yes, police are the only people capable of obtaining a weapon through legal means.

But criminals and terrorists and mass shooters and what have you will still have extralegal access to firearms. You take away guns from those who use them responsibly for hunting or self defense and leave guns only in the hands of police and criminals.

So contrary to what you called a strong argument, outlawing firearms will not, in fact, leave only outlaws in possession of firearms.

Actually, no. Outlawing firearms will leave only outlaws with firearms.[/quote]
And you called that a strong argument when it was posted in response to someone posting that they think only the police should have firearms.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

They talked a lot but IIRC the assault rifle ban and high-capacity magazine ban was nullified in the senate.

im still waiting for an accurate definition of an assault rifle and "high capacity" magazine from these politicians.

Isn't that the shoulder thing that goes up?

[Jamzmania]

They talked a lot but IIRC the assault rifle ban and high-capacity magazine ban was nullified in the senate.

im still waiting for an accurate definition of an assault rifle and "high capacity" magazine from these politicians.

There is an accurate definition of an assault rifle and they are already illegal. "Assault weapons" means "scary looking guns."

[Washington Resistance Army]

And I'm willing to take my chances that I'll come out on top if they don't run. I'm not in the business of running and cowering in fear for 10-15 minutes while I wait for the cops to show up.

But it might save your life.

And it might also get me killed, I'd much rather take my chances with defending myself.

[Imperializt Russia]

im still waiting for an accurate definition of an assault rifle and "high capacity" magazine from these politicians.

There is an accurate definition of an assault rifle and they are already illegal. "Assault weapons" means "scary looking guns."

Not even illegal.
Assault rifles are classified by US law as machine guns and are therefore restricted in the civilian market.
Assault rifles and other machine guns used by US LEO are NFA registered same as privately owned weapons (making a 50/50 split or thereabouts between private and LEO ownership of machine guns), but LEO does not abide by the 1986 registry limit.

[Jamzmania]

But it might save your life.

And it might also get me killed, I'd much rather take my chances with defending myself.

Plus I have my property and family to defend.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And it might also get me killed, I'd much rather take my chances with defending myself.

Plus I have my property and family to defend.

Exactly, I'm not just gonna run off and let someone do whatever they want in my house while I wait for the cops to show up. That's just absurd.

[Ifreann]

But it might save your life.

And it might also get me killed, I'd much rather take my chances with defending myself.

Which also might get you killed. Why is 'fight' preferable to 'flight'?

---

And it might also get me killed, I'd much rather take my chances with defending myself.

Plus I have my property and family to defend.

I'm sure your TV would be forever appreciative if you were shot defending it from burglars.

---

Plus I have my property and family to defend.

Exactly, I'm not just gonna run off and let someone do whatever they want in my house while I wait for the cops to show up. That's just absurd.

And you would consider yourself to be a safe and responsible gun owner? Because I'm not sure that people who would seek out an armed confrontation and write off any possibility of avoiding it could necessarily be so considered.

[BK117B2]

I see a lot of comments regarding fight/flight, but most of them seem to be missing the point.

First, making a decision on one or the other before the situation arises would be stupid.

Second, a firearm only increases ones ability to defend oneself, it doesn't diminish the ability to flee.

[Ifreann]

I see a lot of comments regarding fight/flight, but most of them seem to be missing the point.

First, making a decision on one or the other before the situation arises would be stupid.

Second, a firearm only increases ones ability to defend oneself, it doesn't diminish the ability to flee.

As I've said, I don't mean to suggest that running away is some kind of self-defence panacea, only that some seem too eager to consider 'fight' the only real option, and that perhaps they consequently ought not have guns.