How did we go 24 pages w/o a gun control debate?

[Modern Outlaws]

As a side note...

I'm 18 and have yet to buy my first gun.

Which one should I get? (Reasonable, please.)

Where do you live? Build yourself an AR. Learn how things work, cheaper than buying one outright, have that pleasing smugness of "I built this!" (a.k.a. built not bought). And you can make it exactly what you want.

[Secruss]

NVM.

I started a new topic.

[Gun Manufacturers]

As a side note...

I'm 18 and have yet to buy my first gun.

Which one should I get? (Reasonable, please.)

What are you planning on doing with it? Self defense, hunting, target shooting? Rifle, pistol, or shotgun?

[The South Islands]

As a side note...

I'm 18 and have yet to buy my first gun.

Which one should I get? (Reasonable, please.)

A moist nugget is the only responsible choice.

[NERVUN]

Really before 1934(The National Firearms Act), it was possible to match the government in destructive power.
Artillery pieces were purchasable as were

Oh, of course, how foolish of me. I compleatly forgot the civilian Great White Fleet composed of civilian bought and armed battleships following after the Navy. And of course we all know about how right after getting a Model T, many proud people went out and got a tank next.

The history of the country where Civilians could not match the government is less then 1/3 of the entire countries existence.
As for human history it is a very slim margin indeed.

And we have had nuclear weapons for just over 60 years, which is a blink in the terms of human warfare, so obviously we should promote the battlefield tactics of Ceaser, because we all fought on foot and with horses a whole hell of a lot longer, right?

However a look at Vietnam, and possibly Iraq today shows enough people with AK-47's willing to die shows that technology can be overcame.

Except the proper way to look at it would be the US Civil War. the government can't just go back home, because it IS home. Also, if there were such an occation as, say, a military dictatorship in the US, the chances are that they are not going to want to play nice due to political reprocutions.

[Zutroy]

precisely, the civilians have been 'knocked out of the box' as they say in baseball.

i wouldnt mind my government having a monopoly on crime if it meant my doors didnt need locks and my children could run around freely, if all governments commit "crimes" and already have a monopoly on laws then why not advance that to its logical conclusion?

You'd trade freedom for "safety"? Safety in a gulag?

Read some Solzhenitsyn.

stalin would be so ashamed of your bourgeois revisionism...

i was merely stating that the present situation should be carried to its logical confusion one way or the other, switzerland seems to work well with heavy private ownership and knowledge

[NERVUN]

Bill Gates could easily afford to purchase (if not maintain and operate) a fleet of aircraft carriers.

Any weapons system is within the reach of civilians who want to pool their resources.

Um, no. The last Nimitz class carries was 6.2 billion. Bill could afford a few, but that's just to build them, not crew and arm one.

To reach the capasity to actually challege the US military would take the money of the US government. No, civilians can't just get togther and buy one.

There is a difference between aircraft carriers and American Supercarriers.

He could easily do it if it was a Russian one...

He would be facing a US supercarrier group, a lot of them, with fully trained crews and that are fully armed as well.

I don't see Bill going out to buy them now, do you?

[NERVUN]

I never realized the Taliban or the Mujahideen or the Mahdi Army or what-have-you had budgets in the trillions of dollars...

Are you seriously claiming that the Taliban is in any way, shape, or form, able to millitarily topple the US government?

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

as for the gun control debate... GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK. PERIOD.
It's the law abiding citizens these laws hurt, not the criminals.

The last two pages have had lots of discussion about whether "gun control" should be abolished to allow private citizens to own working tanks, aircraft, anti-aircraft missiles etc.

Indeed, the 2nd amendment doesn't make any distinction between those and a personal firearm.

BUT, the fact that the weapons used in crime are almost without exception weapons which can be legally bought somewhere in the States has to show you something. Gangs aren't shooting it out with artillery or bombers because they can't buy them on the black market ... and they can't buy them on the black market because they aren't available on the legal market.

The usual approach to showing that gun control does work is to compare entire countries by their crime (and particularly murder) rates, and by their gun-control laws. That argument is fairly conclusive to me: gun control works.

But it isn't even necessary to make that argument. Control of the sale of heavy weapons means that criminals in the States very rarely have heavy weapons. If they want such weapons, they have to steal them from the military or smuggle them into the country, and in practice that almost never happens. That's "gun" control working right there.

[NERVUN]

as for the gun control debate... GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK. PERIOD.
It's the law abiding citizens these laws hurt, not the criminals.

Damn straight! It's why Japan, with its draconian gun control laws is such a haven for crime and it's gun shooting deaths are... er... wait... The whole nation has less gun deaths than New York City.

My bad.

[Imota]

I believe that the best way to counter gun crime is to make the possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime a capital crime. This way, law-abiding citizens who carry guns are free to do so, while criminals would be deterred by the fact that even being in possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime would lead to a death sentence. As a side note, I feel the government does have an interest in restricting the ability for convicted felons, sex offenders, and the insane from carrying guns, and that children should need the permission of their parents or legal guardians to carry guns.

[Techno-Soviet]

as for the gun control debate... GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK. PERIOD.
It's the law abiding citizens these laws hurt, not the criminals.

The last two pages have had lots of discussion about whether "gun control" should be abolished to allow private citizens to own working tanks, aircraft, anti-aircraft missiles etc.

Indeed, the 2nd amendment doesn't make any distinction between those and a personal firearm.

BUT, the fact that the weapons used in crime are almost without exception weapons which can be legally bought somewhere in the States has to show you something. Gangs aren't shooting it out with artillery or bombers because they can't buy them on the black market ... and they can't buy them on the black market because they aren't available on the legal market.

The usual approach to showing that gun control does work is to compare entire countries by their crime (and particularly murder) rates, and by their gun-control laws. That argument is fairly conclusive to me: gun control works.

But it isn't even necessary to make that argument. Control of the sale of heavy weapons means that criminals in the States very rarely have heavy weapons. If they want such weapons, they have to steal them from the military or smuggle them into the country, and in practice that almost never happens. That's "gun" control working right there.

This.

[The South Islands]

as for the gun control debate... GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK. PERIOD.
It's the law abiding citizens these laws hurt, not the criminals.

Damn straight! It's why Japan, with its draconian gun control laws is such a haven for crime and it's gun shooting deaths are... er... wait... The whole nation has less gun deaths than New York City.

My bad.

To be fair, you are comparing apples and mangoes here. Japan is significantly different in History, Culture, and in general Socio-Economic conditions compared to the United States. Furthermore, compare firearms ownership in Sweden and Finland, where there are many firearms in civilian hands (a good portion unregistered), but orders of magnitude less gun crime (or crime in general).

Addressing crime by frivolous bans on firearms is nothing but a feeble attempt at addressing a symptom of a deeply rooted problem in American cities.

[Gun Manufacturers]

as for the gun control debate... GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK. PERIOD.
It's the law abiding citizens these laws hurt, not the criminals.

The last two pages have had lots of discussion about whether "gun control" should be abolished to allow private citizens to own working tanks, aircraft, anti-aircraft missiles etc.

Indeed, the 2nd amendment doesn't make any distinction between those and a personal firearm.

BUT, the fact that the weapons used in crime are almost without exception weapons which can be legally bought somewhere in the States has to show you something. Gangs aren't shooting it out with artillery or bombers because they can't buy them on the black market ... and they can't buy them on the black market because they aren't available on the legal market.

The usual approach to showing that gun control does work is to compare entire countries by their crime (and particularly murder) rates, and by their gun-control laws. That argument is fairly conclusive to me: gun control works.

But it isn't even necessary to make that argument. Control of the sale of heavy weapons means that criminals in the States very rarely have heavy weapons. If they want such weapons, they have to steal them from the military or smuggle them into the country, and in practice that almost never happens. That's "gun" control working right there.

Please google Philip Luty.

[Brogavia]

as for the gun control debate... GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK. PERIOD.
It's the law abiding citizens these laws hurt, not the criminals.

The last two pages have had lots of discussion about whether "gun control" should be abolished to allow private citizens to own working tanks, aircraft, anti-aircraft missiles etc.

Indeed, the 2nd amendment doesn't make any distinction between those and a personal firearm.

BUT, the fact that the weapons used in crime are almost without exception weapons which can be legally bought somewhere in the States has to show you something. Gangs aren't shooting it out with artillery or bombers because they can't buy them on the black market ... and they can't buy them on the black market because they aren't available on the legal market.

The usual approach to showing that gun control does work is to compare entire countries by their crime (and particularly murder) rates, and by their gun-control laws. That argument is fairly conclusive to me: gun control works.

But it isn't even necessary to make that argument. Control of the sale of heavy weapons means that criminals in the States very rarely have heavy weapons. If they want such weapons, they have to steal them from the military or smuggle them into the country, and in practice that almost never happens. That's "gun" control working right there.

Ok, so instead of looking at the US, lets look at Mexico.

Very, very tough gun laws. And yet, the America Mexico Border isn't all rainbows and sunshine on the Mexican side. With the number of guns in America, and by your arguement, the American side should be the bloodbath, not the Mexican one. Mexican gun bust fequently show full automatic weaponry, hand grenades, and anti-armor weapons. All of these are illegal in America. So how are they getting them? The black market.

Your arguement that you can't get them on the black market is because you can't get them on the legal market, must also mean that because you can't get crack cocaine on the legal market, you can't get it on the black market.

[Parthenon]

as for the gun control debate... GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK. PERIOD.
It's the law abiding citizens these laws hurt, not the criminals.

The last two pages have had lots of discussion about whether "gun control" should be abolished to allow private citizens to own working tanks, aircraft, anti-aircraft missiles etc.

Indeed, the 2nd amendment doesn't make any distinction between those and a personal firearm.

BUT, the fact that the weapons used in crime are almost without exception weapons which can be legally bought somewhere in the States has to show you something. Gangs aren't shooting it out with artillery or bombers because they can't buy them on the black market ... and they can't buy them on the black market because they aren't available on the legal market.

The usual approach to showing that gun control does work is to compare entire countries by their crime (and particularly murder) rates, and by their gun-control laws. That argument is fairly conclusive to me: gun control works.

But it isn't even necessary to make that argument. Control of the sale of heavy weapons means that criminals in the States very rarely have heavy weapons. If they want such weapons, they have to steal them from the military or smuggle them into the country, and in practice that almost never happens. That's "gun" control working right there.

There is a very sizable black market for heavy weapons. American criminals realize these aren't necessary given the abundance of people like you working to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

[Illydea]

I think that it's pretty much pointless to effect any sort of ban on weaponry... Those who want to protect themselves will lose their means of doing so, and those who want to do bad stuff with guns will find a way to get those guns on the black market. Of course, there are exceptions to this laissez-faire policy -- rocket launchers and tanks are definitely out of the list of allowed civilian weaponry.

[Brogavia]

I think that it's pretty much pointless to effect any sort of ban on weaponry... Those who want to protect themselves will lose their means of doing so, and those who want to do bad stuff with guns will find a way to get those guns on the black market. Of course, there are exceptions to this laissez-faire policy -- rocket launchers and tanks are definitely out of the list of allowed civilian weaponry.

why?

[The South Islands]

I think that it's pretty much pointless to effect any sort of ban on weaponry... Those who want to protect themselves will lose their means of doing so, and those who want to do bad stuff with guns will find a way to get those guns on the black market. Of course, there are exceptions to this laissez-faire policy -- rocket launchers and tanks are definitely out of the list of allowed civilian weaponry.

why?

Tanks get piss poor gas mileage, and probably wouldn't meet EPA guidelines for emissions.

[Brogavia]

I think that it's pretty much pointless to effect any sort of ban on weaponry... Those who want to protect themselves will lose their means of doing so, and those who want to do bad stuff with guns will find a way to get those guns on the black market. Of course, there are exceptions to this laissez-faire policy -- rocket launchers and tanks are definitely out of the list of allowed civilian weaponry.

why?

Tanks get piss poor gas mileage, and probably wouldn't meet EPA guidelines for emissions.

I guess there's that.

[Greed and Death]

I think that it's pretty much pointless to effect any sort of ban on weaponry... Those who want to protect themselves will lose their means of doing so, and those who want to do bad stuff with guns will find a way to get those guns on the black market. Of course, there are exceptions to this laissez-faire policy -- rocket launchers and tanks are definitely out of the list of allowed civilian weaponry.

why?

Tanks get piss poor gas mileage, and probably wouldn't meet EPA guidelines for emissions.

Unless you register it as a farm vehicle. then your exempt from EPA guidelines. Now how to haul hay with my tank with out ruining my field is the question.

[Brogavia]

Unless you register it as a farm vehicle. then your exempt from EPA guidelines. Now how to haul hay with my tank with out ruining my field is the question.

It probably has less ground pressure than a tractor, you should be find.

[Greed and Death]

Unless you register it as a farm vehicle. then your exempt from EPA guidelines. Now how to haul hay with my tank with out ruining my field is the question.

It probably has less ground pressure than a tractor, you should be find.

if farming with an M1 Abrams is the only way to avoid EPA regulations.

Though technically EPA emissions standards are only for when you drive on public roads. and if your doing that your missing the entire point of owning a tank.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

I believe that the best way to counter gun crime is to make the possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime a capital crime. This way, law-abiding citizens who carry guns are free to do so, while criminals would be deterred by the fact that even being in possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime would lead to a death sentence.

The presumption in carrying a gun while "committing a crime" is that the carrier is prepared to shoot someone to carry out the crime or to escape. While in most cases, threatening with a gun would be all that is necessary, the threat is meaningless without preparedness to carry it out, ie shoot someone.

So your suggestion makes some sense. Essentially, you would automatically add 'conspiracy to murder' to any other charge, if the perpetrator is carrying a gun.

I think you have to add a proviso that the gun is actually instrumental to the crime. If they point it at someone and make a demand, then yes it is. But if it remains hidden in their bag or in a shoulder-holster? If they don't actually threaten anyone with it ... how does possession of a gun become part of the crime, that a court can punish it so harshly? If it's not part of the crime, I can't see how it doesn't remain a right as due to any law-abiding citizen, if the local jurisdiction allows such to carry weapons.

I'm not a lawyer. But I do understand that denying someone a right retrospectively (as a criminal, which isn't a legal definition until they have been convicted) is going to be tricky.

Already, use of a gun (or even some other weapon) in a crime, aggravates the crime. The only unique feature of your suggestion is that the aggravation (making worthy of harsher punishment) should outweigh the crime itself, by the maximum imaginable amount.

If I were to menace you right now (eg, threaten to shoot you dead) and if that menace were credible (eg, I were to use your real world name, and show some photographs I took of you to demonstrate that I have physical access to you) that would quite rightly be a crime. I would probably get a month of community service or some such, or perhaps only a suspended sentence since I have never been convicted of any crime before.

Does it really make sense, that I should be liable for the death penalty, if I was in possession of a gun while committing that crime?

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

I think that it's pretty much pointless to effect any sort of ban on weaponry... Those who want to protect themselves will lose their means of doing so, and those who want to do bad stuff with guns will find a way to get those guns on the black market. Of course, there are exceptions to this laissez-faire policy -- rocket launchers and tanks are definitely out of the list of allowed civilian weaponry.

why?

Tanks get piss poor gas mileage, and probably wouldn't meet EPA guidelines for emissions.

...

Maybe that's the way to get around the 2nd! Own as many guns as you like, but no gunpowder allowed. All that sulphurous shit has to be bad for the environment!