Print

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

[Darvi]

I guess any army that doesn't have tanks?

[MonkeyHead]

<What are Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms?>
//Googles it//

Yeah.... I really see no reason at all to ban those 

The ban is ostensibly in order to reduce crime, I am unaware of any crimes committed with such a weapon.

Nadaka, could you explain to me exactly why anyone needs a firearm that can fire 10 times in reasonably rapid succession without needing to be reloaded?

1: Self defense against 2 or more attackers. You can not count on an arbitrary number of bullets being able to end a threat. Even someone with an eventually fatal wound can pose an immediate threat to your safety.

2: Shooting skeet/paper targets 10 or more times without reloading.

Can you explain to me exactly why a law abiding citizen needs to not be capable of firing 10 times in reasonably rapid succession without reloading?

As I strongly belive that citizens, law abiding or otherwise, do not have the right to own or carry devices that are designed with only one purpose in mind: to kill. Any law which reduces anyones capacity to kill or anyones access to devices that are designed to kill is in my mind a good thing, regardless if the weapon is intended for use as a tool or recreational item. They do have thier place, but not in the hands of someone in the street. There have been enough mass killings in the US recently to hopefully bring the effects of people having a +10 bullet capacity into clear focus.  YMMV though, for obvious reasons. Living in the UK where our law enforcement agencies on the whole do not need firearms due to thier control has clearly been influential in forming my opinion though.

Whilst your first answer is more than reasonable, it is narrow in scope - I suspect very few people will be able to succesfully use a gun to fight off 2 attackers in the vast majority of circumstances, 10 bullets or otherwise. Where would you like the line to be drawn, if anywhere?

Answer number 2 is not really much of a convincing point. What is so bad about having to reload a gun in a sporting competition or during use as a recreation?

On the other hand, I really dont think I want to be responsible for yet another gun law debate.

[GlyphGryph]

Most such weapons are used for target shooting rather than defense anyway. Or just kept by collectors with an interest in historical weaponry.

If they aren't used in crimes, and don't kill people, and people don't buy them to kill people, why does it matter what they were designed for?

Now handguns, handguns ARE used in crimes, and kill people ALL the time, and most people buy them specifically for killing folks. I would definitely support banning handguns. But banning weapons that aren't really used for the purpose they are purportedly being banned to prevent just seems silly.

[Loud Whispers]

Which country is this where the military isn't above the law (or at least doesn't see themselves that way)? I'd like to visit.

Welcome to Britain.

In case no one wants to read what is a lengthy trial, an SAS soldier was found to be in possession of a glock. Pleas guilty, gets sentenced to 18 months prison.

[Owlbread]

I don't see why young men should have to suffer disproportionately. Women should be conscripted along with men out of the very principle of equality.

Why don't you just go and do the better, egalitarian thing and remove conscription for all sexes?

Sometimes these days I wonder...

If you had asked my views on that before you made an assumption like that you'd have found out I am vehemently opposed to conscription. I just think if you're going to have it then it should be equal.

[Loud Whispers]

If you had asked my views on that before you made an assumption like that you'd have found out I am vehemently opposed to conscription. I just think if you're going to have it then it should be equal.

Apologies, the 'you' was an indirect statement; I made no assumptions but didn't make it clear.

[Nadaka]

Most such weapons are used for target shooting rather than defense anyway. Or just kept by collectors with an interest in historical weaponry.

If they aren't used in crimes, and don't kill people, and people don't buy them to kill people, why does it matter what they were designed for?

Now handguns, handguns ARE used in crimes, and kill people ALL the time, and most people buy them specifically for killing folks. I would definitely support banning handguns. But banning weapons that aren't really used for the purpose they are purportedly being banned to prevent just seems silly.

Handguns are certainly much more often used for crimes, they are also much more often used for self defense. I am not averse to some kinds of gun control, but bans are unconstitutional. The supreme court agrees, having already lifted the D.C. handgun ban.

Expanded background checks? yes please
Mandatory tests for firearm safety/self defense law? yes please
More accountability for firearms dealers? yes please
More liability for unsecured firearms being used in crimes? yes please

[darkrider2]

Most guns used for street crime are personal defense weapons like pistols or shotguns.

So any argument along the lines of "This legislation won't actually stop crime" is invalid because it proposes a contradiction. To ban pistols/shotguns would evoke a near revolutionary outrage from the public, to ban anything but pistols/shotguns won't stop crime because that's what's getting used.

Weapons that can fire a lot of bullets in succession are the weapons of choice for school shooters, because the shooters know they'll have a lot of targets. The ban on 30 round clips is perfectly reasonable since it was a school shooting that started the discussion, or do we even care about that anymore?

So gun advocates, tell me how you would stop crime.

[Darvi]

So gun advocates, tell me how you would stop crime.

With bigger guns and more dakka, obviously.

[Leafsnail]

As I recall, the last time we discussed women in combat roles Strife opposed it. I don't remember why, though.

I do remember Nikov talking about how he'd shoot women if he were a Taliban member.  Damn I really miss Nikov now.

[Helgoland]

So gun advocates, tell me how you would stop crime.

With bigger guns and more dakka, obviously.

Relevant?

[USEC_OFFICER]

As I recall, the last time we discussed women in combat roles Strife opposed it. I don't remember why, though.

I do remember Nikov talking about how he'd shoot women if he were a Taliban member.  Damn I really miss Nikov now.

I remember reading that too. Wasn't it something to do with morale, or the male soldiers acting like Big Damn Heroes to try and save them? Or maybe it was a combination of the two.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Which really is silly, and just something to say with no backing in order to keep women out of combat roless. Such bravado would be drummed out by training.

If anything, women fighting might scare the Taliban, given how they are.

[Owlbread]

I think the Taliban reaction will be unpredictable. They might be threatened or they might actively target them because of what they represent.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Either way, we're frustrating the Taliban. I always approve of frustrating the Taliban.