Print

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

Total ban

3 (5%)

Strict laws, harsh penalties, strict regulation and record-keeping with check-ups every so often

23 (38.3%)

Something in between

9 (15%)

As it stands now

6 (10%)

Total freedom

17 (28.3%)

Abstain

2 (3.3%)

Total Members Voted: 59

[mainiac]

Guns are important for the people to be able to stand against their government if it will try to take their liberties, that is the point why those are in the U.S. Constitution.

Gee, if only the founders had wrote extensively on this subject.  Too bad they literally didn't leave a scrap of their personal views.  So we better just believe a bunch of legal doctrines invented in the 1950s which are popularized by people with an obvious conflict of interest.  My personal opinion is bad assumptions in, irrational conclusions out.

You are aware of the existence of the Federalist Papers, yes?

Whoa, you are blowing my mind here!  Who knew there was this extensive debate before the second ammendment which focused on guns as a means of national defense?  Who knew that it had bugger all to do with "personal liberty".

I'm sure that this shocking, shocking information will immediately change the mind of the people who said "but the founders said so".  After all, they were basing their views on the founders.  Now that it turns out that the people who wrote the second ammendment were just talking about the national defense they will immediately change their minds.  It's not like they were stating their views in bad faith.

Bonus: let's throw a bit from the greatest speech in american history into the mix:

Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experience - to reject all progress - all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.

Gee, I wonder if guns have changed at all in the past two centuries which might mean we might need to form our own opinion instead of knee jerk statements of "but the founders said so!"  After all, this statement is really old so it must be the correct way to lead out lives.  (as proof just look at Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 which is even older then the founders and thus even smarter).

So do you believe I should be allowed to build a nuke in my back yard? I mean, you don't have the right to come into my yard and tell me not to put stuff together.

Personally I think if you have the know-how to pull that off you are to be feared and respected.  You can have whatever you want.  Our money?  Our women?  I will dance for you.

[O.Wilde]

Well, that depends, I believe that it all depends on what we are talking about, while having the principle of the legitimate self-defence in mind. Nuke building, terorrist organizations, criminal organizations - In these cases it is justified to use collective self-defense against them in my opinion. In case of guns - no.

So where do you draw the line? Mustard gas? Sarin? A fuel-air bomb? Pipe bombs? Machine guns? Rifles? Muskets? Knives?

The problem I see, is that every single person is going to have a different idea of what exactly justifies 'self-defense'. You can't just say 'Guns don't' and expect everyone else to agree.

[NullForceOmega]

I for one don't draw a line.  If you want a nuke, then by all means acquire or construct one, if I want a tank then I should be able to have one, and if someone wants to carry a waraxe around then let them.

[Ekaton]

Well, that depends, I believe that it all depends on what we are talking about, while having the principle of the legitimate self-defence in mind. Nuke building, terorrist organizations, criminal organizations - In these cases it is justified to use collective self-defense against them in my opinion. In case of guns - no.

So where do you draw the line? Mustard gas? Sarin? A fuel-air bomb? Pipe bombs? Machine guns? Rifles? Muskets? Knives?

The problem I see, is that every single person is going to have a different idea of what exactly justifies 'self-defense'. You can't just say 'Guns don't' and expect everyone else to agree.

It is always very difficult to draw a clear line for everybody to accept and praise. I think that the main criterium of making a distinction is the danger to the general public - in case of a nuke or chemical weapons it is easy to wipe out an entire population and those can be hardly used for the purpose of legitimate self-defence by an individual. Guns on the other hand, even machine guns can be used for such a reason, and in nearly every case in civilized societies are.

[O.Wilde]

Well, that depends, I believe that it all depends on what we are talking about, while having the principle of the legitimate self-defence in mind. Nuke building, terorrist organizations, criminal organizations - In these cases it is justified to use collective self-defense against them in my opinion. In case of guns - no.

So where do you draw the line? Mustard gas? Sarin? A fuel-air bomb? Pipe bombs? Machine guns? Rifles? Muskets? Knives?

The problem I see, is that every single person is going to have a different idea of what exactly justifies 'self-defense'. You can't just say 'Guns don't' and expect everyone else to agree.

It is always very difficult to draw a clear line for everybody to accept and praise. I think that the main criterium of making a distinction is the danger to the general public - in case of a nuke or chemical weapons it is easy to wipe out an entire population and those can be hardly used for the purpose of legitimate self-defence by an individual. Guns on the other hand, even machine guns can be used for such a reason, and in nearly every case in civilized societies are.

What qualifies 'general public' in this scenario? Guns can kill a loooot of people.

Also, what exact situation do you think a machine gun would be used for legitimate self defense?

[NullForceOmega]

Off the top of my head I would say during a block war in an inner city environment, or during a major riot.  There would definitely be some need to consider the employment of such a weapon but if one honestly felt that their life/property/family were in sufficient danger then the use could well be justified.

[Shadowlord]

> 17 new replies
I'm slow tonight.
> 2 new replies
:|

My personal opinion is that banning things has never stopped anything.

Yup.  That's why tanks are a common sight on american highways.  My personal opinion is bad assumptions in, irrational conclusions out.

You can amend the statement to make it valid. Let's compare marijuana to tanks to see why banning marijuana didn't work, but there isn't an epidemic of tanks:
1. You need a factory and precision manufacturing techniques to make tanks. You can just grow marijuana and bob's your uncle as long as the cops don't find out.
2. Marijuana is easily concealable; tanks are not
3. Marijuana and other drugs are consumed on use; tanks are not (but require a ton of maintenance, fuel, ammo if you want to fire the weapons, etc)

As for guns:
1. You still need a factory to manufacture reliable, accurate guns. You could make one yourself with your own tools, or 3d print one, but it would be kind of shit.
2. Some guns - pistols, for instance - are easily concealable. Rifles, shotguns, etc, aren't.
3. Like tanks, guns are not consumed on use - however, bullets are.

Due to #3 and the abundance of guns in the USA, you couldn't simply ban them and expect that to work, since they're already out there.
Bullets, on the other hand... Of course, you cannot simply get all the bullets off the street or expect everyone to use them up when there's no way to get more.
One possibility would be to nationalize the companies that make bullets, make them a monopoly (only their bullets are legal), and gradually raise the prices and decrease the amount of bullets being manufactured each year.

Hunters would need a replacement for guns and bullets, but fortunately bows and arrows still exist!
People would want a replacement for self-defense, sell 'em the stuff cops use (tasers, beanbag rounds for shotguns). There's even a taser shotgun round which isn't connected to the gun.

Spoiler: taser shotgun (click to show/hide)

Yes, people could sneak guns and ammo over the border. That's not easily solved. Is anyone sneaking machine guns over the border now?

[mainiac]

That taser looks like a fun toy but why is it based on a shotgun?

Due to #3 and the abundance of guns in the USA, you couldn't simply ban them and expect that to work, since they're already out there.

Which is why there are so many guns in Australia and Ireland today.   My personal opinion is bad assumptions in, irrational conclusions out.

[Ekaton]

The problem I see, is that every single person is going to have a different idea of what exactly justifies 'self-defense'. You can't just say 'Guns don't' and expectWhat qualifies 'general public' in this scenario? Guns can kill a loooot of people.

Also, what exact situation do you think a machine gun would be used for legitimate self defense?

In law general terms are always used, as I've said it is very hard to define terms like "General Public" and I don't want to do it. It should be used as a term the purpose of which is to give a general idea of something.

Machine gun can be used against a group of armed criminals or a larger group that threatens and individual or a group.

[O.Wilde]

Off the top of my head I would say during a block war in an inner city environment, or during a major riot.  There would definitely be some need to consider the employment of such a weapon but if one honestly felt that their life/property/family were in sufficient danger then the use could well be justified.

I don't believe that mass-killing is ever really a solution for an individual. Unless you are literally attempting to create a massacre. There will never be a riot in which you need to gun down hundreds of people. There will barely ever be a riot where you need to gun down one. Even at that point, a semi-automatic weapon would take care of any threat you would need to face.

@Shadowlord
Bullets are ridiculously easy to make. There's quite a thriving hobby focused around packing your own shells. Just FYI, not dissing your plan.

[Ekaton]

O. Wilde - in case of machine guns you don't need to kill hundreds of people, you can fire upon several if they are armed with guns, it is to give you an edge in combat against them. In the military machine guns are often used merely to pin down the enemy, they don't need to kill him outright, although in an armed conflict it is obviously a welcomed possibility too.

[O.Wilde]

But we're talking about individuals, not the military. You can fire upon several people with a semi-automatic gun with more accuracy, and more lethality when used against a non-massive mass of people. 5 bullets are just as likely to pin someone down as 5 bullets shot from an automatic weapon. There is no reason for the speed of an automatic weapon unless you are attempting to kill a mass of people.

[Shadowlord]

That taser looks like a fun toy but why is it based on a shotgun?

The reason it's a shotgun is that it needs sufficient barrel diameter for the projectiles, I expect.

Due to #3 and the abundance of guns in the USA, you couldn't simply ban them and expect that to work, since they're already out there.

Which is why there are so many guns in Australia and Ireland today.   My personal opinion is bad assumptions in, irrational conclusions out.

I don't think things would go the same here since so many people (and congresscritters) are opposed to any form of gun control at all. Of course, that just means it's impossible in the first place without changing minds or whatnot.

Also with the repeated line, you are sounding like

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Ekaton]

If you are protecting yourself from a group of armed individuals, you might want to kill them as swiftly as possible, so that they won't kill you. There is only so people you can shoot at short time and if there is a group of them, chances are that someone might shoot you back, especially if you are not trained.

EDIT: There is always something you can massacre others with - a car, a plane, a boat even, but you are not banning them all. You can easily kill more people with a car than with a handgun for example.

[O.Wilde]

If you are protecting yourself from a group of armed individuals, you might want to kill them as swiftly as possible, so that they won't kill you. There is only so people you can shoot at short time and if there is a group of them, chances are that someone might shoot you back, especially if you are not trained.

I do not think there is ever going to be a situation where a group of armed individuals is attempting to kill you. Like, as I said, unless you are actually looking for people to kill I don't think that's ever going to happen.