Gun Control

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

Manufacturing errors can be fixed, user error can be fixed. A bad gun can't be fixed.

Which is why AKs are bad...

AKs arent bad, there is a reason its the most common rifle ever made.

[The East Marches II]

What do you mean by this? The rifles used by most modern militaries, or those that are available in gun stores in many.

Oh, sorry, I suppose I wasn't very clear. I realize that the assault rifles available in gun stores aren't military-grade or anything like that.

But yeah, I'd like to see a blanket ban on assault rifles for civilian use. Things like handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles are fine, but in my opinion allowing civilian use of assault rifles is just taking things a step too far.

I keep telling people, Canada is red. You are example number 1.

[Greater Cesnica]

Never did I say they couldn't. All I was saying is that AK's can suffer from malfunctions as well.

Yes, but a properly made AK rarely fails, I mean have you seen the tests the Russian military does on these things, and they still fire? User errors can be easily ended almost altogether with proper training. And again, a manufacturing error can be easily fixed once you take your new AK to the range and figure out the problem.

From personal experience, I can count 2 times my AK failed from neither of those prior two issues, and It was because I was using crappy hand loaded ammunition.

The AA-12 is more durable in my opinion.

[Greater Cesnica]

Oh, sorry, I suppose I wasn't very clear. I realize that the assault rifles available in gun stores aren't military-grade or anything like that.

But yeah, I'd like to see a blanket ban on assault rifles for civilian use. Things like handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles are fine, but in my opinion allowing civilian use of assault rifles is just taking things a step too far.

I keep telling people, Canada is red. You are example number 1.

I'm Canadian. I'm the same color as the American Flag.

[Valgora]

Anyways, I would say that the OP's argument is fairly reasonable.
Especially that thing about open carry, because I think concealed carry is more effective/useful/etc.

I will agree with licenses for handguns.

[Telconi]

Which is why AKs are bad...

AKs arent bad, there is a reason its the most common rifle ever made.

There is, but cheap doesn't equal good.

[Greater Cesnica]

AKs arent bad, there is a reason its the most common rifle ever made.

There is, but cheap doesn't equal good.

AKs are well made but cheap.

[The East Marches II]

I keep telling people, Canada is red. You are example number 1.

I'm Canadian. I'm the same color as the American Flag.

Northern Border Wall isn't going up fast enough

[Telconi]

There is, but cheap doesn't equal good.

AKs are well made but cheap.

A design cannot be well made.

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

What do you mean by this? The rifles used by most modern militaries, or those that are available in gun stores in many.

Oh, sorry, I suppose I wasn't very clear. I realize that the assault rifles available in gun stores aren't military-grade or anything like that.

But yeah, I'd like to see a blanket ban on assault rifles for civilian use. Things like handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles are fine, but in my opinion allowing civilian use of assault rifles is just taking things a step too far.

You realize that one, any "Assault weapon" in a gun store isn't a assault weapon, mainly because they have to be full auto to be a assault rifle. And two, More people die from hand guns every year than any other type of fire arm, and three, that the number of firearm related homicides are actually decreasing?

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

AKs are well made but cheap.

A design cannot be well made.

The AK isn't a design, its a weapon, one that is well made, and very cheap. Those two things were the whole point of the gun.

[Valgora]

A design cannot be well made.

The AK isn't a design, its a weapon, one that is well made, and very cheap. Those two things were the whole point of the gun.

I'd argue that AK is a design; while AK-47, AKM, AK-74, etc. are weapons.

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

The AK isn't a design, its a weapon, one that is well made, and very cheap. Those two things were the whole point of the gun.

I'd argue that AK is a design; while AK-47, AKM, AK-74, etc. are weapons.

The AK is a platform for any AK-47 esc rifles, such as the AKM, AK-47, AK-74, AK-101, AK-12, AK-15. All of these are Ads, they all have the same firing mechanisms, and are all unique. AK isn't a design, its a family.

[Ifreann]

If I'm going to end up in a fist fight with someone, I'll take the guy with a sucking chest wound any day of the week.

I'd consider the guy who has a few thousand volts coursing through his body at least.

I'd just retreat along the shortest route to safety, using a weapon (whatever it is) to try to clear said route of threats if and only if necessary, cause I'm not looking to test either of these theories really.

But if you don't kill your assailant then you lose action hero points.

[Telconi]

A design cannot be well made.

The AK isn't a design, its a weapon, one that is well made, and very cheap. Those two things were the whole point of the gun.

No, *THE* AK is a design, *AN* AK is a weapon. The design has no bearing on how well made an individual example is made, it would be like me saying "automatic transmissions are well made"

[A Rational Anarchist]

But if you don't kill your assailant then you lose action hero points.

Well, I mean, my concern is less for Assailant's safety and more for my own (although proportionality is certanly a thing, don't get me wrong). Action Hero sometimes seems to forget that if he has a clear shot at Assailant, there is probably just as clear a return shot as well.

[Telconi]

But if you don't kill your assailant then you lose action hero points.

Well, I mean, my concern is less for Assailant's safety and more for my own (although proportionality is certanly a thing, don't get me wrong). Action Hero sometimes seems to forget that if he has a clear shot at Assailant, there is probably just as clear a return shot as well.

My concern would be entirely for my safety, hence the gun is better than a TASER argument. If I can increase my chance of survival by even a small amount, I will, even if it's at the expense of a 10,000% increase in lethality towards the assailant.

[A Rational Anarchist]

Well, I mean, my concern is less for Assailant's safety and more for my own (although proportionality is certanly a thing, don't get me wrong). Action Hero sometimes seems to forget that if he has a clear shot at Assailant, there is probably just as clear a return shot as well.

My concern would be entirely for my safety, hence the gun is better than a TASER argument. If I can increase my chance of survival by even a small amount, I will, even if it's at the expense of a 10,000% increase in lethality towards the assailant.

I would agree in general, if the situation makes retreat impossible or more risky than a firefight. Basically where my back is to a wall and Assailant is standing in the only door. Or if Assailant is giving chase, or is similarly inescapable.

Engaging Assailant when escape is otherwise possible, however, is minimizing my probability of survival for a probably poor reason. For example, If he's rummaging around in another room, I go out the nearest window with cell phone dialing police in hand.

[Sanctissima]

Oh, sorry, I suppose I wasn't very clear. I realize that the assault rifles available in gun stores aren't military-grade or anything like that.

But yeah, I'd like to see a blanket ban on assault rifles for civilian use. Things like handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles are fine, but in my opinion allowing civilian use of assault rifles is just taking things a step too far.

I keep telling people, Canada is red. You are example number 1.

N-no... what nonsense.

*hides Canuckistani currency*

Oh, sorry, I suppose I wasn't very clear. I realize that the assault rifles available in gun stores aren't military-grade or anything like that.

But yeah, I'd like to see a blanket ban on assault rifles for civilian use. Things like handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles are fine, but in my opinion allowing civilian use of assault rifles is just taking things a step too far.

You realize that one, any "Assault weapon" in a gun store isn't a assault weapon, mainly because they have to be full auto to be a assault rifle. And two, More people die from hand guns every year than any other type of fire arm, and three, that the number of firearm related homicides are actually decreasing?

Hey now, I can't have my revived Roman Empire if the plebs are allowed to keep their gun rights. Gotta crack down on that before people start getting any ideas in their heads about opposing Caesar.

[Kernen]

I'd just retreat along the shortest route to safety, using a weapon (whatever it is) to try to clear said route of threats if and only if necessary, cause I'm not looking to test either of these theories really.

But if you don't kill your assailant then you lose action hero points.

Action Hero points are the most important part of self defense theory. That's why I carry a Colt .45 Peacemaker at all times: Increases Action Hero crit ratio, donchyaknow.

[A Rational Anarchist]

Action Hero points are the most important part of self defense theory. That's why I carry a Colt .45 Peacemaker at all times: Increases Action Hero crit ratio, donchyaknow.

Remember to press 'V.'

[Omakhandia]

I completely agree. In modern times the 2^nd amendment has become mostly obsolete. Self-defence is not really a justification when you consider how many non-lethal weapons there are. Tasers and pepper spray have already been mentioned. Although I would like to say the taser is not entirely pain-based - the electrical shock immobilises muscles. But there are a whole host full of other weapons such as baton or air soft. Not that the self-defence arguement matters as the attackers would also have a gun.

I''m curious as to how a person is supposed to defend themselves from a home invader while armed with an airsoft gun.

[Costa Fierro]

Registration and tracking of firearms is all-important, as is licensing for individuals. I'm not sure that there are many circumstances I would support a full ban on a person's right to own firearms, but restricting ownership of certain firearms for certain individuals is probably useful.

The ones I can think of which would be essential for banning people owning firearms includes convicted criminals, specifically those that have had convictions for physical violence like assaults, battery, domestic violence, robbery, theft etc., and those suffering from mental illnesses and other mental trauma, such as PTSD. I would also think those with severe mental disabilities would be other candidates for firearms bans too.

Acquiring a license to own handguns in particular, I think, is a good idea. Criminal activity is overwhelmingly reliant on concealment of weaponry.

That is how it is done here in New Zealand. Anyone wishing to own a firearm must hold a firearms licence by law. Having a licence requirement would also mean that the state or federal government could require mandatory practical courses on firearm use and gun safety, and require that firearms be kept inside a secure storage facility such as a safe in order to keep them away from children.

I do think a limitation on different 'classes' of weapons is useful - but the current definitions of 'assault' weapons are asinine and borderline useless.

New Zealand has a different term called a "military style semi-automatic weapon", which essentially is considered to be any long firearm that isn't a rifle, shotgun or fully automatic.

Silencers is a question I struggle with. Any policy on silencers has to be Federal, not piecemeal state-by-state, but... on one hand, the use of silencers to lessen hearing loss and damage is perfectly legitimate and silencers don't work like Hollywood 'plink plink' kind of bullshit. It turns a roar into a bark. It's not exactly a sneaky-beaky murder weapon. On the other hand, turning a roar into a bark is sometimes enough combined with background ambiance to conceal the firing of a gun in circumstances where a gun should not be fired, which is... problematic.

Limiting silencers to those with hunting permits might be a good suggestion.

Open carry is an issue that I think should mostly be regulated by the individual states, with some exceptions. There is no fucking reason you need to open carry a fully automatic weapon in public, full stop. Keep that shit on private property. I'd prefer it if people didn't carry their AR-15 dick replacements into the local department stores with tactical webbing and camo from head to toe either, but I guess that's more a personal preference.

Personally I think open carry is stupid. There's absolutely no need for it other than "muh second amendment rights".

[Sovaal]

Some gun control measures, such as back ground checks, not allowing violent offenders to have the, etc., I agree with, others, such as weapon and accessory bans and registrations, not so much.


What do you mean by this? The rifles used by most modern militaries, or those that are available in gun stores in many.

If ex-cons can't have guns, then that shouldn't be in the Constitution.

Never said ex-cons, said violent offenders.

[Sovaal]

I do think a limitation on different 'classes' of weapons is useful - but the current definitions of 'assault' weapons are asinine and borderline useless.

New Zealand has a different term called a "military style semi-automatic weapon", which essentially is considered to be any long firearm that isn't a rifle, shotgun or fully automatic.

Still seems like bull to me.

Silencers is a question I struggle with. Any policy on silencers has to be Federal, not piecemeal state-by-state, but... on one hand, the use of silencers to lessen hearing loss and damage is perfectly legitimate and silencers don't work like Hollywood 'plink plink' kind of bullshit. It turns a roar into a bark. It's not exactly a sneaky-beaky murder weapon. On the other hand, turning a roar into a bark is sometimes enough combined with background ambiance to conceal the firing of a gun in circumstances where a gun should not be fired, which is... problematic.

Limiting silencers to those with hunting permits might be a good suggestion. [/quote]
If for hunters why not anybody else? There's a reason militaries the world round use what are pretty much hunting rifles for sniping.