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

[Morrigi]

Death of countless thousands of civilians? WTF are you even talking about? I don't remember arguing for death camps for gun owners.

You are arguing for policy that will cause war.

2 ponderings.

1) If you are a responsible gun owner, surely you would welcome anything that ensured that responsible gun ownership was the norm and limited the nutbags from using guns for criminality which would place your rights under threat due to weight of popular opinion because "democracy"?

I would consider it if pro-gun control groups in the US had not repeatedly shown that they wish to eliminate all or most legal ownership by responsible people via salami tactics.

Edit: I do support the NRA-supported bill that would allow a 72-hour hold to be placed on the purchase of firearms by suspected terrorists, with a more permanent hold on those grounds involving due process.

[Baffler]

Dammit, this thread is moving to fast to jump on board.

Mandatory military service?


Also, isn't there a town somewhere where gun ownership is mandatory?

The only place I can think of where you have to own a gun is Svalbard, on account of all the polar bears.

[nenjin]

First of all, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon".

Fine. The M16A4. Let's ban specific weapons and determine what specific weapons fit in to the currently ill-defined "assault weapons" category. Even though I guarantee you any 12 year old kid could look at a list of weapons and easily pick out which ones qualify as an assault weapon.

Secondly, in what way has it been proven that semi-automatic rifles are not highly effective at home defense, hunting, and so on?

They're effective. They're just unnecessary. You don't need an M16 to hunt, and chances are any gun is effective at defending your home, there's no reason why it needs a 30 round clip. Unless your house is going to be invaded by a platoon.

Thirdly, it is not called the "Bill of Needs". It is called the Bill of Rights.

When your "right" puts the entire nation at risk, its efficacy to the nation is well within being questioned. It's my right to smoke if i want to, yet I've been roundly told my "right" isn't acceptable in just about anywhere that isn't my home. Your "right" to own a military grade weapon and have it be readily available in the US puts the rest of the US at risk for dying to such weapons.

Lastly, semi-automatic rifles are also useful to the well-regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment mentions.

Yes, a well-regulated militia. That is nothing like every individual home owner choosing for themselves how they're going to handle their weapons, get training, put gun locks on it, and a dozen other things. The current situation in America is nothing like a "well-regulated militia." Regulation implies oversight, someone telling you what you can and can't do, organization, structure, control. None of these things exist in American gun culture and are actually actively rejected by ardent gun owners, because it's "someone telling me what to do with my guns."

You are arguing for policy that will cause war.

You're taking the position you'll start a war. The onus is on you, pal. Frankly I think it's a bunch of macho bullshit bluster like those morons who took over the Nature Reserve.

[Sheb]

Nah, Keneesaw, Georgia.


Morrigi, you're full of shit. Seriously. No, I'm not kidding. You are. You're calling me Stalin because I'd like to see the 2nd amendment gone? How does that even make a remote amount of sense? Do I have the right to disagree with you on any point, or are you just going to answer anything by "If you do that, we will kill people. So you're a Nazi"?


Edit: Just to be clear, if you're saying "It's not politically practical at the moment to abolish the 2nd", I'll agree with you. If you're saying "At the moment, efforts to abolish the 2nd from a major politician would backfire and not get anywhere", I'd agree with you. That doesn't mean however that I'm not allowed to think removing it would be a good idea.

[MorleyDev]

As a Brit, America's attitude to guns just looks weird. Though the focus on the homicide rate seems weird. I would like to throw out that this us generally not why the UK policemen support the strict firearms control in the UK. At least, according to the policemen I've spoken to (including members of my family).

In the UK, police don't generally walk around armed and want the firearm limits to remain, and actually oppose attempts to give even them guns as standard for a few reasons.

One is the concern it will lead to an arms race between police and criminals. If police started carrying guns, this would mean police would have to start treating every criminal as potentially armed, whilst at the moment it's a "drop everything, cordon off the area, bring in the special squad" situation when someone is armed or even suspected or being armed (Outside of London we have special teams of the police who are trained and permitted to carry firearms).

Another is the current main tactic for our police to detain someone is a physical altercation (basically, tackle them to the ground), hence why they have stab vests but not guns. Can't get so hands-on when there is a risk of the gun being grabbed. An issue armed American police face is they have to be aware of their own gun at all times because if someone grabs it, that's trouble. British police don't want to be armed because it puts themselves at risk.

In America, the arms race has already happened. Police simply have to assume any criminal could be armed or have quick access to a gun at any time. It just seems to create a real cold-war type situation between police and suspects, even innocent suspects (who will be the ones who suffer the most). Not a healthy environment for the whole "protect and serve" thing.

I'm not in your culture. In the UK a gun is often a 'holy shit' type deal, it's a big thing. Legally owning a hunting rifle/shotgun is rare, at least in cities, and not really seen as worth the paper work for most people. That's a cultural attitude to them. Law can't fix culture, and let's be honest: America does look to the outside world to have a pretty fucked up gun culture. It's most likely only a loud minority of Americans, but...well, a culture is judged by it's extremes.

[Erkki]

First of all, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". It is an intentionally vague political term. Secondly, in what way has it been proven that semi-automatic rifles are not highly effective at home defense, hunting, and so on? Thirdly, it is not called the "Bill of Needs". It is called the Bill of Rights. Lastly, semi-automatic rifles are also useful to the well-regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment mentions.

It's not about being not effective, but less capable weapon types being equally good for most civilian purposes. Discounting reservist stuff and IPSC the only one I can imagine where a semi auto rifle is needed, as in safest too, is probably hunting big cats and bears. For those too a bolt action is always just an inch more reliable and with practice still quick to fire your 2nd or 3rd aimed shot. Canadian Rangers picked SAKO's .308 Tikka-family bolt action for their new rifle.

Semi auto rimfires are good for practice, the gas action eats and slows some of the recoil so they're easier to shoot. Semi auto shotguns OTOH are great for hunting(rabbits, birds etc. for quick second shots if you miss, also, effective self defense).

[Loud Whispers]

ptw high capacity assault threads

[Morrigi]

Fine. The M16A4. Let's ban specific weapons and determine what specific weapons fit in to the currently ill-defined "assault weapons" category. Even though I guarantee you any 12 year old kid could look at a list of weapons and easily pick out which ones qualify as an assault weapon.

The M16A4 is not available to the masses.

They're effective. They're just unnecessary. You don't need an M16 to hunt, and chances are any gun is effective at defending your home, there's no reason why it needs a 30 round clip. Unless your house is going to be invaded by a platoon.

There is no conclusive evidence that limiting magazine size has any effect on the homicide rate.

When your "right" puts the entire nation at risk, its efficacy to the nation is well within being questioned. It's my right to smoke if i want to, yet I've been roundly told my "right" isn't acceptable in just about anywhere that isn't my home. Your "right" to own a military grade weapon and have it be readily available in the US puts the rest of the US at risk for dying to such weapons.

I am a law-abiding citizen who is no risk to anyone who does not threaten me. Also, military grade select-fire weapons are extremely heavily regulated already, to the point that they simply aren't used in crime.

Yes, a well-regulated militia. That is nothing like every individual home owner choosing for themselves how they're going to handle their weapons, get training, put gun locks on it, and a dozen other things. The current situation in America is nothing like a "well-regulated militia." Regulation implies oversight, someone telling you what you can and can't do, organization, structure, control. None of these things exist in American gun culture and are actually actively rejected by ardent gun owners, because it's "someone telling me what to do with my guns."

"Well-regulated" does not imply government regulation, it means "well-functioning" or "effective". Brush up on your 18th-Century English. Furthermore, the meaning of the Second Amendment is quite clear. Militias, and the ability to form functional ones in times of crisis, are important. One must have arms to arm a militia, and therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You're taking the position you'll start a war. The onus is on you, pal.

I won't, but you are a fool to believe that there aren't millions of people who will.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm not in your culture. In the UK a gun is often a 'holy shit' type deal, it's a big thing. The average person doesn't really want to interact much with a man who owns a gun. It's looked at with suspicion. That's a cultural attitude to them. Law can't fix culture, and let's be honest: America does look to the outside world to have a pretty fucked up gun culture. It's most likely only a loud minority of Americans, but...well, a culture is judged by it's extremes.

You seriously never met anyone with a gun in the UK? I can understand London but the whole of UK, that's pretty surprising
I also have not met this culture of suspicion in the UK either

[nenjin]

The M16A4 is not available to the masses.

Then its cousin designed to look and act like it sans the full auto fire selector.

There is no conclusive evidence that limiting magazine size has any effect on the homicide rate.

Tell that to Florida, and the guy who managed to wound or kill 100 people with it.

I am a law-abiding citizen who is no risk to anyone who does not threaten me.

You'll never, ever be able to say that about all gun owners, or even a majority of gun owners. We have laws for murder for this same reason. Sure, *I'm* a law-abiding citizen who only would act in self-defense, but guess what? I ain't everyone, and neither are you. That's why we have laws in the first place.

"Well-regulated" does not imply government regulation, it means "well-functioning" or "effective". Brush up on your 18th-Century English.

Times change, just like the language, just like the reality. See earlier comments about not trying to dry hump the words of the founders as though times haven't changed since they put their opinions to paper. We don't use militias in the US. We have law enforcement, the national guard and the military. So if we don't use the "organization" that the founders envisioned or were familiar with, why are we still cleaving to their definitions of what it should mean?

Your hostility to pretty much any change or questioning of the system is why we're still referring back to statements made over 200+ years ago that have no basis in reality anymore. Hence why we can't even begin to make changes or update the laws for today's reality, because "it'll start a war."

I won't, but you are a fool to believe that there aren't millions of people who will.

I am a law-abiding citizen who is no risk to anyone who does not threaten me.

I really hope the irony of these two statements put together is not lost on you.

[MorleyDev]

You seriously never met anyone with a gun in the UK? I can understand London but the whole of UK, that's pretty surprising
I also have not met this culture of suspicion in the UK either

Forum went down as I was trying to edit that last bit to be clearer. When I said 'man who owns a gun', I wasn't thinking of the hunting rifle/shotgun admittedly. My bad there, I meant "outside of the very hard to get a-hold of license". You know, the illegal "holy shit what the fuck dude?", which in the UK includes handguns. Even then I don't know anyone who wouldn't view it as a quirky thing to own, not that common.

But still, not met everyone in the UK after all, and lived in cities my whole life. Hunting rifles may be more common away from the cities though, can't speak for country life. Have family members who used to own handguns and were in shooting clubs before the ban, but they obviously gave those up when the ban hit.

[mainiac]

If a loophole ridden law doesn't reduce the assault rifle ban, I dont know what possibly could.

I mean come the fuck on people.  It takes EFFORT to be this intentionally obtuse.  Want a real conversation?  Stop being intentionally obtuse.  You wouldn't accept this in any other thing the government does.  It's a learned ignorance.  This is why it's a bullshit debate.  You aren't the least bit honest.

[Baffler]

Nah, Keneesaw, Georgia.

Not really.

Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a)
In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)
Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)

Sec. 34-22. - Use of firearms.
No person shall fire a gun, pistol or other firearm in the city, except in the defense of person or property, and except peace officers or military forces of this state or the United States, in the discharge of official duties.

(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)

So gun ownership is indeed required, except for people who aren't allowed to own one, can't afford one, or just don't want to have one. The main purpose of the law seems to be to help organize the city's response to disasters with that bit on the end included but deliberately made meaningless as a sort of symbolic gesture.

[Frumple]

That civil war thing again. Do we actually have any meaningful indication a substantial revolution (i.e. hundreds of thousands of lives lost) would occur if they just straight up kicked out the 2nd and banned firearms entirely? Some sort of poll ran that had X% of the population saying they would start killing people if it happened, anything along those lines? I know there's people that bluster about it, and claim their millions of guns and terrorist gun owners waiting in the bushes and whatnot, but do we have anything particularly concrete supporting that position? Anything pointing to it being something beyond a fringeward flight of fancy?

Nevermind no one actually wants that. We know many/most people do support gun control to some degree. We know most people aren't willing to go out and murder other people, basically regardless, and especially not when there's not a direct threat to their lives. In the face of that, it's... kinda' doubtful a revolution worth the title would occur, y'know? And almost certainly not one that would match or surpass our current firearm fatality numbers, if such a repeal had teeth and actually cut out firearm suicides and homicides outside of those folks in open rebellion. Maybe some domestic terrorism campaigns would be expected, but 30k dead and 80+k injured per year is a pretty serious bar to pass. Half of that would be a pretty serious bar to pass, as insurgencies go. You're talking a terrorism campaign with a body count that would approach that of the rest of the world's terrorism campaigns combined (either the full 30k or the 15k, depending on the year chosen in recent history). Like. I know we have some murderous bastards in this country. But that's a helluva' claim.

I guess what I'm asking is, if the NSA and such hasn't led to open rebellion, despite shitting all over amendments that have considerably greater import for our liberty and whatnot, why should we assume a gun ban would? It's complete fairy world fancy as a consideration, since basically no one sane in this country actually wants a full ban, but still. How are folks so sure the fervor would last in the face of it actually happening?

"Well-regulated" does not imply government regulation, it means "well-functioning" or "effective". Brush up on your 18th-Century English. Furthermore, the meaning of the Second Amendment is quite clear.

Do try to remember that for the first two centuries of this country's existence, the 2nd amendment was not interpreted as an individual right; I have living family that predates the point that legal interpretation appeared to basically any extent and certainly the point it was considered with any seriousness. Fulfillment of the amendment's mandate pretty clearly does not require anyone and everyone to be able to keep and store weapons in the home.

Your hostility to pretty much any change or questioning of the system is why we're still referring back to statements made over 200+ years ago that has no basis in reality anymore.

See, this isn't even accurate. This individual mandate is something that started popping up in the 60s. We're referring to statements made <=58 years ago when we talk about it; 200 years ago the right of the government to take weapons away from the individual wouldn't have been much of a question. You as an individual had a right to a gun then much like the police have a legal mandate to protect you in particular today.

[Loud Whispers]

Forum went down as I was trying to edit that last bit to be clearer. When I said 'man who owns a gun', I wasn't thinking of the hunting rifle/shotgun admittedly. My bad there, I meant "outside of the very hard to get a-hold of license". You know, the illegal "holy shit what the fuck dude?", which in the UK includes handguns. Even then I don't know anyone who wouldn't view it as a quirky thing to own, not that common.

But still, not met everyone in the UK after all, and lived in cities my whole life. Hunting rifles may be more common away from the cities though, can't speak for country life. Have family members who used to own handguns and were in shooting clubs before the ban, but they obviously gave those up when the ban hit.

In the latter case having an illegally owned handgun would immediately bring up suspicion because we are a paranoid people whose CCTV blots out the sun, and someone illegally holding a gun and showing it to you is obviously trying to get you done in for something / is an OAP who's got bad memory