You Crazy Americans Part Two

[hatehabsforever]

So after the overwhelming success (lol) of my first attempt at discussing this issue from the perspective of a non American, let me pose another thought on the issue of guns and gun control involving my southern neighbors.

Why is it that a regular citizen has the ability to go to a gun store and purchase a high power semi automatic weapon?

Forgetting about the issues of background checks, mental competency, history of criminal offenses, violence, whatever, as that was all discussed last time around. Assume for the sake of discussion that some dude is thoroughly examined and deemed to have no restrictions upon his ability to purchase and possess a gun. Why does he have the ability to purchase semi automatic weaponry with the capacity to inflict major casualties and fatalities with minimal effort?

I have my own personal thoughts on guns, and I think I grasp the concept of the Second Amendment. I do not own a weapon, and have no plans to ever do so. But that is my personal opinion and I comprehend the idea that not everyone feels the same way.

I understand (but personally disagree with) the idea of possessing a gun for personal protection and for the protection of your family. Maybe a guy wants to have a gun in his house to protect himself and his family against a potential intruder. Perhaps a woman would like to carry a gun in her purse to protect herself against an attacker. But I don't think this woman will be carrying a machine gun in her purse, and a guy doesn't need a machine gun in his house for the protection of himself and his family.

I understand that some people enjoy hunting. Personally I would be unable to shoot an animal but again, I comprehend the desire of hunters to go out and hunt. But the last time I checked, it doesn't take a machine gun to kill a deer, or a moose, or whatever else someone hunts.

Shooting ranges for recreational purposes, I get that too. A buddy of mine possesses a revolver and periodically goes to a sanctioned gun range for enjoyment purposes. But he brings a revolver, not a semi automatic weapon.

So talk about the Second Amendment all you want. Discuss your rights to personal and familial protection, your rights to hunt, your rights to enjoy shooting ranges for sport. But why does a regular citizen require possession of semi automatic weaponry that can serve no purpose other than inflicting serious harm, if not death, upon multiple persons? Even with appropriate background checks, closure of gun show loopholes, mental health and criminal history investigation, why does my neighbor, or co worker, or random dude on the street, have the inalienable right to possess and potentially use weapons of this nature? Once again, I simply don't get it.

 

[J.J.]

It has never in the history of weaponry been the weapon that killed anyone. Weapons are and will remain inanimate. So, to state that any form of weapon is responsible for any life being taken is just ignorant. A gun of any kind has no intent in and of itself to cause any kind of tragedy.

However, if you put a gun in the hands of someone with no respect for life then it's that person's intent that causes. Again, the gun is not nor can it in and of itself be accountable for what the sentient being using said weapon commits whole weilding said gun. If you ban weapons the only people that will possess them are the ones that have no regard for life and the law.

Which is why in the last topic I was an advocate for more throughly done screenings for gun licenses. Banning weapons puts everyone in danger. And, the ban on semi automatics is just to test the waters of what we will allow the government to do in its current campaign to reduce the citizens freedoms.

Again, need to promote responsible gun ownership and not the erosion of rights given to the country from the founding fathers. I urge people to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, to get into the mindset of the founders. Their ideas are still crucial to this day.

Next, semi-autos are rarely used in crime. I know one crime is too many I do agree, but outright banning semi-autos will simply make it somewhat harder for a criminal to get their hands on it. Criminals do not follow the law, they will acquire the means one way or another. I truly believe that most gun-control advocates want what is best for this country, I respect their opinions. However, I have found that most advocates do not completely understand firearms in general.

 

[enviousdominous]

I've had some pretty loud debates on this issue with friends of mine.

From what I understand; people want to own assault rifles because they look more dangerous, and therefore make them feel more safe. They would much rather scare danger away with their big gun than actually have to use that big gun to eliminate a threat.

If you deny them the right to feel more safe, they'll see you as a threat.

Since murder is illegal, much to the chagrin of those I've argued with; the only way to deal with the threat of your logic and reason threatening to take their dangerous toys away, is to label you every nasty pejorative their petty imaginations can think of. I won't mention any examples because I'll probably give some of them ideas.

Not everyone who wants to own an assault rifle is a coward, some are just hobbyists who admire the craftsmanship.

At the end of the day; assault rifles are a petty indulgence to civilians and a necessary means of self defense to military members. Removing assault rifles of all kinds from our society doesn't -- in my opinion -- equate to a slippery slope that will eventually result in all guns being banned. While some statistics note the lack of homicides as a result of assault rifles when compared to hand guns, I haven't seen a single study noting the benefits of having an assault rifle in the home.

Guns don't kill people, but they make killing people so fucking easy that you'd have to be pretty stupid to write them off as a meaningless coincidence in an event where people died using them.

 

[enviousdominous]

It has never in the history of weaponry been the weapon that killed anyone. Weapons are and will remain inanimate. So, to state that any form of weapon is responsible for any life being taken is just ignorant. A gun of any kind has no intent in and of itself to cause any kind of tragedy.

Habs never implied that guns are sentient and should be prosecuted for deaths resulting from their use. From what I read; he's implying that their potential for improper use should result in government regulation, to include banning assault rifles.

If you ban weapons the only people that will possess them are the ones that have no regard for life and the law.

Oh good grief. Banning assault rifles won't magically put them in the hands of every dangerous criminal, it will however significantly aid in preventing their proliferation. Allowing anyone to purchase an assault rifle using the logic that you're playing with 50/50 odds that a bad person will buy one for every good person that buys one is idiotic. There's also the fact that you can own an automatic rifle as long as it was registered before 1986, the government has never come close to outright banning firearms. The closest they'll ever go is to prevent future sales.

Which is why in the last topic I was an advocate for more thoroughly done screenings for gun licenses. Banning weapons puts everyone in danger. And, the ban on semi automatics is just to test the waters of what we will allow the government to do in its current campaign to reduce the citizens freedoms.

Slippery slope fallacy, I've seen this a thousand times. Basically; you're warning us that if Congress passes a bill that prevents the future legal sale of assault rifles, then the only logical step for them to take afterward is to confiscate all firearms which will result in a more passive citizenry that they can more easily control. Am I in the ball park? Nobody in the US Congress is proposing that all weapons (or firearms as I'm sure you meant to say) should be outright banned.

Again, need to promote responsible gun ownership and not the erosion of rights given to the country from the founding fathers. I urge people to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, to get into the mindset of the founders. Their ideas are still crucial to this day.

Oh for fucks sake, we're bringing up "The Founding Fathers". I'm pretty sure that Habs is Canadian, so unless you support annexing his country I suggest you don't deify the founding fathers to back up an argument you make.

I agree that they had some good ideas, but I'm pretty sure that they would shit themselves and hide if they ever had to face an army that was packing assault rifles as a show of force. Having the capability to defend what's yours against government tyranny is one thing, they never said that it was reasonable to have the capability to take down an elephant wearing body armor.

Next, semi-autos are rarely used in crime. I know one crime is too many I do agree, but outright banning semi-autos will simply make it somewhat harder for a criminal to get their hands on it. Criminals do not follow the law, they will acquire the means one way or another. I truly believe that most gun-control advocates want what is best for this country, I respect their opinions. However, I have found that most advocates do not completely understand firearms in general.

In your statement you didn't clarify why it would be a bad thing to make it "somewhat harder" for criminals to obtain semi-autos.

I'm all about gun control, and I fully understand the mind-fuck that the gun lobby pulls when they do a survey asking people if they support gun control or gun rights. Playing with the semantics of the words "control" and rights" is an easy way to dupe people.

I've been allowed to utilize some pretty cool weapons in my time; I might not "completely understand firearms in general", but I think I have a pretty good idea.

What's best for this country is probably impossible to pin down in a way that will please everyone. I don't seen any negative repercussions if Congress makes the continued sale of assault rifles illegal.

 

[harrythem]

Being English please correct me if I'm wrong but we're the founding fathers mainly white slave owning fellows? So, surely taking away other peoples rights is kind of what America is built on. Surely taking away automatic weapons would be a good thing.

The whole weapons don't kill people, people kill people argument is strange to me too, as well as people banging on about an "amendment" that must be followed without argument as to the ability to amend an amendment.

Saying that I do wish the police over here were allowed to carry guns, might be less trouble if police could shoot the nuts

 

[Trill Co$by]

It's supposed to be for the sport of hunting. Guns aren't meant to be turned onto another man. However, as people started winning wars with them (THE BRITISH ONES) the population started leaning more towards guns as a safety barrier instead of the sport it's meant for.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I think that we're overestimating what an assault rifle shoots. Your standard AR-15 or M-16 shoots .223 ammo. These bullets are small, but travel at high rates of speed. Many kids get started shooting this style of ammo out of traditional long rifles while hinting rabbits Your normal deer ammo is much larger, a .308 caliber and travels at the same speed. The hunting rifle is actually a more dangerous weapon. The problem is that hunting rifles are longer, heavier, and grip in a manner that makes them one shot weapons. The AR has a pistol style grip that makes it stable and easier to shoot multiple rounds.

The AR that you can go buy at a gun store is semi automatic. Semi automatic means that multiple rounds can be fired without "cocking" the gun, or resetting the firing mechanism. It is not the Uzi or machine gun that the OP refers to. One pull of the trigger fires one bullet, just the same as a pistol. You cannot hold down the trigger on an over the counter M16 an unleash hell upon the citizenry. You much reaim and fire one more bullet.

When people hear assault rifle, the see Full Metal Jacket. Those weapons are fully automatic and are only available in some states to those who pass a background check as extensive as an FBI agent and must be bought from a dealer who must pass a background check as extensive as a member of the Presidential detail. Furthermore, the dealer is subject to random audits from the ATF and faces long prison sentences for miscounting ammo. Getting a weapon capable of inflicting GTA style violence is nearly impossible.

As far as wanting to own these guns, there are plenty of legit reasons. As has been said, guns don;t kill people any more than spoons make one fat. Im the South, guns are a tradition. There is also a saying that without the second amendments, the others don't matter. There is some merit there.

 

[Khalifa]

I have the same values as habs. I never intend to own a gun and do I never intend to hunt an animal. The thought of killing anything is hard for me to take, be that insects or animals (although I could kill every fly in the world and feel good about it). That's not to say I don't think hunting is 100% bad. Rabbits aren't from Australia so since they have been introduced decades ago they have only killed what makes the Australian land so beautiful. They kill all our vegetation and then when they burrow their homes that produces danger to kangaroos and dingoes as it's an easy way for one of them to break a leg, especially in the night. Big wild pigs as well kill all our animals and vegetation. So when I hear people hunting those type of animals I don't mind as I know it helps thousands of other species. So based on that alone I can see the incentive to hold a gun.

That would mean you wouldn't need any auto or semi automatic guns at all though so I can't really back anyone's argument for that. I too think that people are either ****** or just want to feel tough when they own a gun. The only reason I hear any justifiable argument is 'protection'. Well here is a good idea, why not just move away from your maniac country. If you guys honestly feel that scared that every second person is going to shoot you leave. Sure it's not easy to just leave your job, sell your house and leave your family. But surely that is better than being scared about every second person, living your life in fear.

Even if your worried about the odd nutball, well guess what they are every where in the world, and most western countries seem to not give to flicks about it compared to America. You don't hear off these crazy shootings every week like you do from America. Seriously it is ridiculous how much is Australians hear about a shooting over in America. Obviously carrying any auto or semi isn't helping at all judging by past events as it is just adding to the problem. I live in a pretty bad place in Australia but I have never ever heard of anyone (personally) getting a gun pointed at them unless it was in some sort of drug scheme. I'm sick of all this second amendment crap. Such a weak argument, considering how the rest of the western world is looking.

I too am scared of even traveling America just because of all this gun crap, so I can kind of understand where Americans are coming from. However, there is no excuse to have anything other than a pistol (if it really comes down to it but I still don't agree) or a hunting rifle of some sort.

 

[A11oftheLights]

Being English please correct me if I'm wrong but we're the founding fathers mainly white slave owning fellows? So, surely taking away other peoples rights is kind of what America is built on. Surely taking away automatic weapons would be a good thing.

DAAAAAAAMMMMMMM

The argument about guns not being the thing that kills people is a weird one for me. Australia had relaxed gun control and had fairly frequent massacres, then the biggest massacre in history (still unbeaten to this day) occurred and we bought in gun control. No massacres since

So on one hand I understand the point being made that the gun needs to have a trigger pulled, but yet it is still the gun that allows someone to go crazy and do damage so quickly as oppossed to say if someone was going to try and go on a stabbing massacre you'd have enough time to get away and only have one or two as oppossed to being able to just go crazy and shoot 10 people inside a 30 second period while covering more distance

 

[FromTheSouth]

I have the same values as habs. I never intend to own a gun and do I never intend to hunt an animal. The thought of killing anything is hard for me to take, be that insects or animals (although I could kill every fly in the world and feel good about it). That's not to say I don't think hunting is 100% bad. Rabbits aren't from Australia so since they have been introduced decades ago they have only killed what makes the Australian land so beautiful. They kill all our vegetation and then when they burrow their homes that produces danger to kangaroos and dingoes as it's an easy way for one of them to break a leg, especially in the night. Big wild pigs as well kill all our animals and vegetation. So when I hear people hunting those type of animals I don't mind as I know it helps thousands of other species. So based on that alone I can see the incentive to hold a gun.

Hunting rabbits is hard. A semi automatic is necessary. They are small and they move fast.

That would mean you wouldn't need any auto or semi automatic guns at all though so I can't really back anyone's argument for that. I too think that people are either ****** or just want to feel tough when they own a gun. The only reason I hear any justifiable argument is 'protection'. Well here is a good idea, why not just move away from your maniac country. If you guys honestly feel that scared that every second person is going to shoot you leave. Sure it's not easy to just leave your job, sell your house and leave your family. But surely that is better than being scared about every second person, living your life in fear.

Then you should move because you're scared of rabbits. Why should anyone run from their home just because of a threat? You call people *****es for wanting to own guns then advocate running away? If you don't face a bully, he continues to bully. In this country, the bullies have guns.

Even if your worried about the odd nutball, well guess what they are every where in the world, and most western countries seem to not give to flicks about it compared to America. You don't hear off these crazy shootings every week like you do from America. Seriously it is ridiculous how much is Australians hear about a shooting over in America. Obviously carrying any auto or semi isn't helping at all judging by past events as it is just adding to the problem. I live in a pretty bad place in Australia but I have never ever heard of anyone (personally) getting a gun pointed at them unless it was in some sort of drug scheme. I'm sick of all this second amendment crap. Such a weak argument, considering how the rest of the western world is looking.

How many people die in American mass shootings? 10-20? Too many. How man died in France? Hundred? Way too many. Our m,ass shootings happen in places where handguns are banned. They don't happen in Texas where everyone is armed. There a mass shooting in Colorado during the premiere of Dark Knight Rises. 13 people dies. Someone stood up and cocked their pistol in San Antonio Texas and got mowed down before any innocent person was harmed. Chicago has tighter gun restrictions than any other major city in the country. They also have more gun violence. Banning guns is fine in a fictional country that doesn't exist. Outlawing guns at this point would leave only outlaws with guns.

I too am scared of even traveling America just because of all this gun crafp, so I can kind of understand where Americans are coming from. However, there is no excuse to have anything other than a pistol (if it really comes down to it but I still don't agree) or a hunting rifle of some sort.[/QUOTE]

Pistols are the tool used in 80% of gun crime. The assault rifles aren't that scary. They don't spray bullets everywhere. They fire one at a time. Pistols are far more dangerous. This is coming from someone who owns pistols, rifles, and shot guns.

Besides, blaming guns for America's violence is like blaming spoons for America's obesity. They are a tool and can be misused by anyone.

 

[enviousdominous]

When people hear assault rifle, they see Full Metal Jacket. Those weapons are fully automatic and are only available in some states to those who pass a background check as extensive as an FBI agent and must be bought from a dealer who must pass a background check as extensive as a member of the Presidential detail. Furthermore, the dealer is subject to random audits from the ATF and faces long prison sentences for miscounting ammo. Getting a weapon capable of inflicting GTA style violence is nearly impossible.

So do you agree or disagree that extensive background checks are a good thing?

As far as wanting to own these guns, there are plenty of legit reasons.

Such as?

As has been said; guns don't kill people any more than spoons make one fat.

Now we're getting to the faulty comparison phase of this debate, I was wondering when someone who try this.

You're implying that guns simply don't kill people, because assuming as much would mean spoons used for any purpose could be blamed for obesity. How about we stop tap-dancing around the purpose of a gun for minute. A gun is designed to kill, every other use for a gun is secondary to the purpose of killing something. A spoon is designed to hold a consumable so you don't have to scoop it with your hands, manufacturers of fatty desserts didn't design spoons to facilitate higher sales.

Guns kill, and that's all there is to that. Guns were designed with the hopes that a person could have more favorable odds in their attempt to kill something.

I'm the South, guns are a tradition.

Awesome.

There is also a saying that without the second amendments, the others don't matter. There is some merit there.

Ah well, you should have probably explained how you interpret the second amendment then. I don't think that anybody on here has suggested that the second amendment has no merit. I think the issue is whether or not suggesting that we should have stricter gun control laws would be a vicarious assumption that the second amendment has no merit.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Well, it doesn't really, unless Cletus and Jim-Bob want to show me their Air Force, Navy, and collection of drones fitted with hell fire missles. Those hunting rifles and your mossy-oak overalls are gonna be super usefull when an A10 comes to your house or a drone drops a GPS guided missle into your coffee cup. People truly don't seem to realize that you having your guns or not is totally fucking irrelevant in the situation that the government decides to dooo....uh whatever it is people seem to think they would do. They could crush and destroy any sort of armed resistance any civilians here could mount with a flick of the wrist.


Anyhow, continue.

 

[FromTheSouth]

So do you agree or disagree that extensive background checks are a good thing?

Of course I do. Anyone who doesn't think its a little too easy to get a gun right now is crazy. I can drive to a sporting goods store and have a new shotgun in my home in five minutes. I live in Texas. It's literally harder to get a fishing license than it is to get a shotgun. We have background checks for pistols. Those go through homeland security and take 10 minutes. I like the idea of people on the Federal No Fly List being banned from buying any firearm.

But the point of that post was that people are way overrating the ability of semiautomatic weapons. You still have to pull the trigger for each bullet. People in this thread are attacking the phrase semiautomatic as if it means it just throws out a slower spray of bullets. To be completely honest, handguns and shotguns are far more dangerous than AR's.

Such as?

Protection is one, but deterrence is just as, if not more, important. As I stated, Illinois has tough restrictions on gun ownership, but rampant gun crime. Connecticut has restrictive gun laws, and that's where Sandy Hook happened. The guns on Fort Hood are locked away, and there was a masacre there. In Texas, we have open carry, and have the 8th lowest murder rate in the country. Wyoming allows concealed carry with no permit and has the lowest murder rate in the nation.

Now we're getting to the faulty comparison phase of this debate, I was wondering when someone who try this.

You're implying that guns simply don't kill people, because assuming as much would mean spoons used for any purpose could be blamed for obesity. How about we stop tap-dancing around the purpose of a gun for minute. A gun is designed to kill, every other use for a gun is secondary to the purpose of killing something. A spoon is designed to hold a consumable so you don't have to scoop it with your hands, manufacturers of fatty desserts didn't design spoons to facilitate higher sales.

Exactly, something.

I bet more deer, more birds, more hogs asre killed annually than people.

Not necessarily people. A gun is an inanimate object. It does nothing bad until put into the hands of a bad person. If that person did not have a gun, he would use a knofe, bow, crossbow, rock, or dagger. Murders happen one of two ways...

1. Pre meditated - No gun, no problem,. I'll plan for another weapon

2. Heat of passion - It will take longer, but since I have lost my senses anyway, I'll kill somehow.

Guns kill, and that's all there is to that. Guns were designed with the hopes that a person could have more favorable odds in their attempt to kill something.

Again, something. Over 99% of gun owners act responsibly. If we restrict everyone's access to firearms because of less than 1%, we might as well ban the internet because less than 1% of people look at child porn. The internet is a tool, just like a gun, or a spoon. People will use tools in all kinds of ways than are not what they're designed for. We need to keep the tools out of those people's hands.

Ah well, you should have probably explained how you interpret the second amendment then. I don't think that anybody on here has suggested that the second amendment has no merit. I think the issue is whether or not suggesting that we should have stricter gun control laws would be a vicarious assumption that the second amendment has no merit.

Quoting Khalifa

However, there is no excuse to have anything other than a pistol (if it really comes down to it but I still don't agree) or a hunting rifle of some sort.

I haven't really done much to debate the premise of his argument. I'm just horrified by the low level of understanding he has for what he wants banned or restricted.

Quoting Harrythem

Surely taking away automatic weapons would be a good thing.

That's already on the books.