Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RabblerouserGT]

I see both sides. You have every right to possess a firearm.

At the same time, what idiots seriously need fucking ASSAULT RIFLES to defend themselves?

[Kilroy the Grand]

2. Your argument again treats all things as the same. You know what the difference between a knife and a gun is? It's harder to kill mass amounts of people with a knife in a few seconds. Substitute "rock" for "knife" in your example. It's now 3x as ridiculous. As opposed to only 2x when talking about a knife.

Yeah there is a difference, knife is almost infinity more concealable, it's quiet, never runs out of ammo, and if you're stabbed in any major organ you'll likely to bleed out before help arises. If someone wants to kill someone else, or even a group of people banning a weapon isn't going to stop it.

>_< No one is claiming that gun laws will magically prevent all shootings. But arguing for the inverse of a ludicrous strawman results in an equally ludicrous strawman. By the same logic:
 
1.No amount of food inspection and regulation will prevent every single E. Coli outbreak, so we should dispense with regulation entirely.
2. There are already laws against embezzlement and fraud, and yet billions of dollars get embezzled in the corporate world every year. So we shouldn't try to enact any kind of tough financial regulation.

It's libertarianism ab reductio absurdum. Because current laws are ineffective and unwieldy, ALL laws must be, and therefore the best course of action is NO law.

Just like I've never claimed that getting rid of every single gun law will magically make it rain friendship and love. I'm for some gun laws, like keeping them out of the hands of felons, that gun stores should keep records. For some reason you people think that I'm advocating giving children SAWs and I'm demanding the complete abolishment of gun laws.

I see both sides. You have every right to possess a firearm.

At the same time, what idiots seriously need fucking ASSAULT RIFLES to defend themselves?

I've gone over this over and over again. In California, if you added a pistol grip to a bolt-action rifle, it would be an "Assault Rifle". It's a meaningless term.

[nenjin]

No, it was your straw mans to justify private citizens owning assault weapons.

[Blizzlord]

I see both sides. You have every right to possess a firearm.

But the real question is: why should you have the right to bear arms? It only ends up with a bunch of actual accidents where people shoot family members and strangers simply because something made them afraid.

[Kilroy the Grand]

I see both sides. You have every right to possess a firearm.

But the real question is: why should you have the right to bear arms? It only ends up with a bunch of actual accidents where people shoot family members and strangers simply because something made them afraid.

Okay, Now you guys are just trolling me. I'm going to watch upotte, I've said my peace.

Have a parting .gif of gun slinging lolis

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[scriver]

Countries like Sweden, where everyone has a gun and is required to use it have incredibly low crime rates. Criminals are deterred if they know people around them have guns. Or Switzerland, in 2001 they had about 420,000 assault rifles in the hands of civilians, yet they don't even have 100 homicides a year. Have those countries become mad-maxesque hellscapes filled with biker gangs? No, no they have not.

You're not allowed to have any guns in Sweden except for hunting and at most professional target shooting (and heavily regulated with licenses and all), and I doubt any more than 4% of our population has ever seen any other gun than their dad's old elk-shooter. So yeah, definitely thinking of another country there. You can't run around with knives unless you've got a good reason here either.

Most likely you're thinking of Switzerland in both cases. Here's the thing with the Swiss and their guns, though - the whole populace is their army. Trained army. So unless you want to mandate army training (and/or being in service) for anyone who wants to own a gun, that's not comparable to the US in any way.

Oh, and it's also not a nation of great social injustice or, as far as I know, especially high in population/area.

[Blizzlord]

Kilroy, my statement had no relation to what you had posted earlier. Heck, I haven't even read all the pages in the thread! I simply expressed my own thoughts regarding the abundance of firearms in the United States, with no harm intended towards anyone.

[mainiac]

Redking, you had some pretty amusing posts in this tread.  Hat tip to you.

Most likely you're thinking of Switzerland in both cases. Here's the thing with the Swiss and their guns, though - the whole populace is their army. Trained army. So unless you want to mandate army training (and/or being in service) for anyone who wants to own a gun, that's not comparable to the US in any way.

Gee, what an interesting idea.  So everyone who wanted a gun would need to be part of some sort of disciplined military organization.  Perhaps you could call it a well regulated militia for short.

[nenjin]

Gee, what an interesting idea.  So everyone who wanted a gun would need to be part of some sort of disciplined military organization.  Perhaps you could call it a well regulated militia for short.

In other words, socialism. (Sorry, I couldn't help it.)

[Sensei]

So, I'm going to completely ignore the whose-country-is-more-dangerous pissing match and you should too. I want to do some disambiguation because at first this whole SB249 made no sense to me.

However, as a gun owner in Washington State, I'm a little confused by both California's specific breed of the Assault Weapons ban and the pragmatism of the bill itself. I have an AR-15 myself, and I go to gun shows and the like, and I can say I see TONS of AR's (and other rifles) which violate California's assault weapons ban. For example, I'd never seen an AR that didn't have a pistol grip until I saw them online just now. I had also never heard of a "bullet button".

Apparently, it goes like so: Any rifle-sized, semi-automatic, centerfire RIFLE with a removable magazine AND a pistol grip, flash suppressor, folding stock, or some other things (including grenade launchers, which I would expect to just be illegal on their own) is an illegal assault weapon. The "Bullet-button" exists only to skirt California's assault weapon law by removing the removable magazine part, and basically still having a removable magazine. I can completely see why they want to ban that, it's basically a loophole! The weapon you see below is a standard AR-15 in all 49 US States other than California, you can see it has a grip like a pistol. In California, you can attach a bullet button and boom, at the cost of a slower reload (and having to have no more than 10 rounds in a magazine) it's legal!


However, I think there are some huge problems with the initial ban itself. First and foremost, people will immediately use another loophole: the "featureless" AR-15: This doesn't have a pistol grip. It also can't have some mundane features, like a flash suppressor.

I REALLY recommend you watch the second video link in the OP, which features a weapon like this. As you can see, it reloads faster and has larger magazines than the current "bullet button" loophole design.

I do not see how this bill could possibly make people safer, as it is currently written. Keep in mind that the assault weapon ban prevents various kinds of rifles from being used, but NOT pistols. It bans short rifles and pistols with foregrips, which are more accurate than pistols, but I wouldn't say less "dangerous". I understand fully automatic weapons were banned not only because they were effective, but because of the danger of collateral damage. Currently, it would be legal to have a pistol with no foregrip that fires as many .556 rounds as an illegal AR-15: It would be just as deadly, but less accurate.

Keep in mind as well, that (as far as I'm aware) the extremely power .50 caliber Browning Machine Gun round is still legal in California, and is used in rifles such as the one below, which can kill you through a wall or whatever. That's fucking scary, if they are trying to limit the amount of firepower a citizen can have, that seems like a logical place to start. It would be legal, because it is not semiautomatic.


I think the philosophy of rifles being more dangerous than pistols is a poor one; the rest of US firearms law considers a hidden weapon to more dangerous than a powerful weapon. SB249 will cause major inconveniences to AR-15 owners in California, but will not prevent AR-15s which are as or more powerful than the "bullet button" ones from being available. Even if certain AR-15's were illegal, anyone who really wanted one could easily acquire one out-of-state and bring to California, which would be trivial if they already were dead set on murdering somebody with their particular favorite kind of rifle.

Lastly, I see there is a strong anti-gun sentiment among many of you. I understand, really! But I would like you to know that shooting for hunting or sport is much more common than you probably realize. You might even be surprised to see who you know has a gun! In fact, I know a lot of gun owners who don't even vote republican (though I'm not gonna lie, there's some right-wing nuts too and if you visit a gun show you'll definitely see a republican majority). AR-15's are a somewhat expensive rifle used mostly for sport; they are not typically a murderer's weapon of choice. Cheaper and more convenient pistols, in my opinion, present a bigger danger and most people who are going to commit a crime with a firearm just take whatever they can find. I would also argue, though this is less certain, than banning guns because they are powerful simply means that only people already intent on breaking the law will have powerful guns.

Senate Bill 249, judging by my research, will not make California one iota safer. It will just cause a lot of inconvenience for AR-15 sport shooters. If you are strictly anti-gun and do not believe that citizens should possess deadly weapons, then you should encourage bills which do so directly. Just trying to pass every bill which restricts firearms will not help you cause. This bill in particular suggests that the people writing it do not really understand the weapons they are regulating, and presenting bills like this will only rally people in opposition of firearms regulations.

In short, taking things away from people is bad, and people dying is bad. Unless you're certain that taking things away will prevent enough people from dying to be worth it, don't do it. I don't think anyone's life will be saved because every AR-15 owner in California has to buy a featureless grip.

[Levi]

Maybe it would be simpler to just stop selling them, instead of banning existing ones.


Also, to add a fun twist:  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/30/3d_printed_assault_rifle/

Pretty soon its not going to matter much what your laws are when anybody can just print off an assault rifle.

[nenjin]

In short, taking things away from people is bad, and people dying is bad. Unless you're certain that taking things away will prevent enough people from dying to be worth it, don't do it. I don't think anyone's life will be saved because every AR-15 owner in California has to buy a featureless grip.

One is arguably worse than the other.

If just one sale of an AR-15 that would have gone into the hands of someone that shouldn't have had it....is prevented because of this legislation, I consider the increased amount of headaches sport shooters have to go through to be a worthy trade. I believe being proactive at this point is better than continuing to do nothing. The legislation can be refined, informed by professionals (or undercut, depending on whose is doing the talking.)

If the argument is that the inconvenience is not worth what the bill is going to do, I reject it. Convenience should not carry that much weight when it comes to questions of deadly weapons and the proliferation thereof. People can sport shoot with any gun imaginable, they have alternatives. And honestly, "sport shooting" is really a euphemism for "unload my fully automatic weapon." This isn't trap or even hunting we're talking about. Real hunters don't use a fully automatic weapon, because you end up with hamburger, and if you're shooting trap with an automatic weapon, it's because you're goofing off....not because it's the way the sport is actually conducted.

[Loud Whispers]

Also, to add a fun twist:  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/30/3d_printed_assault_rifle/

Pretty soon its not going to matter much what your laws are when anybody can just print off an assault rifle.

Sure to spice up office accidents a bit...

[kaijyuu]

We should stop trying to restrict guns. We should start trying to restrict ammunition! Make bullets extremely expensive and rare. Why? Because then people will actually think before shooting.

Say a murderous individual wants to kill someone. What do they have to do? Save up! They need to get a job, make something of themselves, and once they do, that other guy's a dead man! Plus it fixes the 3d printer thing.


*Kaijyuu makes no claim as to the actual practicality of this ludicrous plan.

[Sensei]

In short, taking things away from people is bad, and people dying is bad. Unless you're certain that taking things away will prevent enough people from dying to be worth it, don't do it. I don't think anyone's life will be saved because every AR-15 owner in California has to buy a featureless grip.

One is arguably worse than the other.

If just one sale of an AR-15 that would have gone into the hands of someone that shouldn't have had it....is prevented because of this legislation, I consider the increased amount of headaches sport shooters have to go through to be a worthy trade.

I understand this logic. However, the thing is, you're just making acquiring a gun slightly less convenient. The same argument could be used for people wearing mandatory helmets at all times of the day. It would probably save more people than this bill even! Anyone who wanted a gun could still get one. And I'd like to say again, people aren't out there murdering eachother with AR's. They're murdering eachother with cheap pistols, and maybe AK's or TEC9's if they are after an automatic weapon.

People can sport shoot with any gun imaginable, they have alternatives. And honestly, "sport shooting" is really a euphemism for "unload my fully automatic weapon." This isn't trap or even hunting we're talking about. Real hunters don't use a fully automatic weapon, because you end up with hamburger, and if you're shooting trap with an automatic weapon, it's because you're goofing off....not because it's the way the sport is actually conducted.

AR-15 are not fully automatic (fires multiple rounds when the trigger is pulled). They are semi-automatic (fires once each time the trigger is pulled). I agree with you on these points but they are not pertinent to SB249. Fully automatic weapons are illegal*, will remain illegal, and should be illegal for civilian use. An M16 is a fully automatic weapon, an AR-15 is the semi-automatic variant for civilian use.

*You can get a special license, usually only if you're involved with manufacturing them, which will allow you to take it to your local shooting range.