Print

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

Left - Authoritarian

Left - Centre

Left - Libertarian

Centre - Authoritarian

Centre - Centre

Centre - Libertarian

Right - Authoritarian

Right - Centre

Right - Libertarian

Other

Don't care to do the test / View poll

[Dwarf]

Rifles are not useful to anyone but hunters and only these who should have them, because, frankly, no one else has a bloody use for them (as stated a few words ago). If they are not useful, why should they be openly available? Hell, you can even buy sniper rifles on the internet.
It is easy for anyone to acquire such a weapon, and that is a risk.

Rifles are, in fact, useful. If an armed individual breaks into my house, a rifle will provide a much more effective deterrent than a frying pan or a threat of lawsuit.

Oh please. If you're going to defend your home against a (as Aqizzar pointed out probably not very professional) burglar, why would you want a rifle? It's considerably less wieldy than a handgun and both does the job just right.

Let us assume that a rifle is the most convenient thing at the moment. The days of "chivalrous" burglary are over; I can't ask him to politely wait while I go purchase a handgun from my local sporting goods store.

Wait, what? What is the connection between chivalrous burglary and handguns?
Also, the discussion wasn't if you shouldn't use your rifle if you are a hunter and happen to have one. It was more why you'd want to buy a rifle if it's solely for home defense.

[Andir]

Unless I'm mistaken you can buy guns at gun shows with absolutely no checks.

Guns shows are considered private sales so no check.

I don't see how this negates the stupidity of being able to buy guns with absolutely no background checks.

There is NO WAY the government can track all private sales of anything.  You can sell someone a gun in your garage and not be required to background check this person.  If you go to a gun show and buy a gun from a dealer with a license to sell, they are required to check you for certain weapon types.  Buy the same weapon form a person carrying it around on their shoulder and no check is required.

[Aqizzar]

There is NO WAY the government can track all private sales of anything.  You can sell someone a gun in your garage and not be required to background check this person.  If you go to a gun show and buy a gun from a dealer with a license to sell, they are required to check you for certain weapon types.  Buy the same weapon form a person carrying it around on their shoulder and no check is required.

I think what he's asking, and certainly what I'm asking is, do you think that's a good thing?  It's one thing to acknowledge that with 220 million guns floating around America, you can't track every sale.  But is it a good idea to specifically set up and allow all-comer swapmeets where anyone can sell anything to anyone no questions asked?  Sure, you can't document every trade, but that doesn't mean you should encourage undocumented trade.

[Andir]

There is NO WAY the government can track all private sales of anything.  You can sell someone a gun in your garage and not be required to background check this person.  If you go to a gun show and buy a gun from a dealer with a license to sell, they are required to check you for certain weapon types.  Buy the same weapon form a person carrying it around on their shoulder and no check is required.

I think what he's asking, and certainly what I'm asking is, do you think that's a good thing?  It's one thing to acknowledge that with 220 million guns floating around America, you can't track every sale.  But is it a good idea to specifically set up and allow all-comer swapmeets where anyone can sell anything to anyone no questions asked?  Sure, you can't document every trade, but that doesn't mean you should encourage undocumented trade.

I have no problem with it... that's the free(est) market.  I also believe that some people cannot be properly rehabbed in today's prisons and ex-felons are treated poorly on the job market because of it (and prejudice... "forcing" ex-felons to go back to what worked), but I think that's another topic altogether.  I also think that the death penalty isn't handed out enough to those that will not reform (ie: if you do the crime again... that's it!)

Yeah, with every situation there's a chance someone might get hurt that didn't deserve it, but you can't sit here and tell me that banning guns is going to help that situation by a significant factor if at all.  There will never be a "rubberized" world that people can live in harmonious and free.  Banning guns doesn't put us any closer to that and it never will.  History and record shows that locations with bans in place have higher crime, albeit with different weapons.  Without that risk/chance of the homeowner with a gun criminals are more likely to break in for theft or rape cases.  It's historical proven fact.  Unless you like the idea of leaving your wife to fend for herself with a kitchen knife...

Edit:  Also, a pump shotgun is, IMHO the best home defense weapon.  You most likely don't even have to fire it.  If a criminal hears that noise from the other room... they'll likely run.  Everyone knows that sound.

[Aqizzar]

I do not and never will believe in a personal defense scheme founded on luck and machismo, and I haven't seen a study yet of firearm allowance reducing crime that looked the least bit credible.  But that's a completely different matter.  I'm not speaking for anyone else here, but I didn't say anything about "banning" guns.  Of course guns in and of themselves don't do anything, but it's a lot easier to commit a crime with any gun than any knife, now isn't it?  I'm asking, why make it so easy for people who shouldn't have such useful tools to get them, and why make it so hard to track?

No, the world will never be perfect and shiny and happy.  That doesn't mean we should all just throw our hands up and say, "oh well, the world sucks, so pack heat and hope you draw first."  You can't eliminate all danger in the world, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.  I certainly believe that preventing crime is a bottom-up problem that goes way beyond the tools of the trade, but that's no excuse to think unlimited firepower for all is a good thing.

[Andir]

I certainly believe that preventing crime is a bottom-up problem that goes way beyond the tools of the trade, but that's no excuse to think unlimited firepower for all is a good thing.

I agree that it's a solution that has an answer... I think that answer is education and my response is that the money we spend today on the "drug war" and "gun control" is better spent educating today's youth in both the issues with drug use and gun safety.  We've seen things like this work with alcohol and drunk driving.  Take a look at the numbers on that.  (60% - 37% alcohol related incidents)  Present the kids with the hard truth behind it and you'll see the numbers go down.  Try to hide it from them and they'll be more interested and believe what they see on TV/movies.  I'll bet that most criminals (who were once kids...) believe they can't be hit by pistols and that they NEED automatic weapons to be able to hit someone... because that's what's on TV.  I'd actually be all for adding a class to the regular schedule in High School on the effects and proper treatment for arms.  I'd like to see it as a requirement for voter/draft registration that we all did at 18 since it is our Constitutional right.

[Aqizzar]

Present the kids with the hard truth behind it and you'll see the numbers go down.  Try to hide it from them and they'll be more interested and believe what they see on TV/movies.  I'll bet that most criminals (who were once kids...) believe they can't be hit by pistols and that they NEED automatic weapons to be able to hit someone... because that's what's on TV.

All well and good on your other points, but you'll forgive me if I doubt your sincerity.  You go from one post extolling the virtues of Wild West gun policy, that homeowners are somehow better protected from crime by having firearms around the house, a philosophy founded in imaginary history.  Then you posit, quite rightly, that a lot of unsafe gun ownership and no small amount of street crime is probably based in very unrealistic ideas about weaponry from pop culture.  Well, which is it?  Because from where I'm sitting, anyone believing that keeping a gun around will ward away crime like a tiger-repelling rock is the in the same boat as a thug thinking a piece makes him king of the streets.

I'll admit I'm guilty of this myself though, despite all my consternation.  I was easily persuaded to keep a pump-action shotgun on my wall, precisely because the mechanism racking is one of the most ominous sounds you could hear in a house.  It's reassuring, on a completely ephemeral level.  All the same, I hold no illusion that it in any way protects me from robbery (especially since I don't keep ammunition handy); that's why I have the dog.

[Earthquake Damage]

Assuming they don't actually help protect you from evildoers, guns still function as adult security blankets.  The illusion of security is sufficient reason for all sorts of things.  Why should gun ownership be different?

I have no hard numbers to back me up, but I suspect that a substantial number of housebreakers prefer seemingly unarmed targets.  Armaments in this case include firearms, large dogs, and so forth.  Appearance matters.  Substance does not.

[Andir]

...that's why I have the dog.

Then what do you do when they come for your dog because he bit someone?  The same as guns, there are accidental dog bites every year.  Dogs are not all domesticated fluffy love mittens incapable of harming humans.  If you let someone come into your home to take your shotgun, and they turn and tranquilize your dog... what then?

Edit:  Also, you do realize that with dogs, you replace something that human has control over (a gun) with something that they may not?  Chows are bread to be defensive/protective dogs.  They are kind and gentle to the owner and the provider, but if they misinterpret the intent or they plain outright do not like the look of someone they will show teeth and most likely bite someone with the owner's approval or not.

Do we now have to classify "assault dogs" as illegal to own?

[Aqizzar]

...that's why I have the dog.

Then what do you do when they come for your dog because he bit someone?  The same as guns, there are accidental dog bites every year.  Dogs are not all domesticated fluffy love mittens incapable of harming humans.  If you let someone come into your home to take your shotgun, and they turn and tranquilize your dog... what then?

I'll tell you what then.  Nothing.  Because we don't live in a funhouse mirror world where the slightest acquiescence of bared-teeth liberty cascades into childproof slavery.

[Andir]

...that's why I have the dog.

Then what do you do when they come for your dog because he bit someone?  The same as guns, there are accidental dog bites every year.  Dogs are not all domesticated fluffy love mittens incapable of harming humans.  If you let someone come into your home to take your shotgun, and they turn and tranquilize your dog... what then?

I'll tell you what then.  Nothing.  Because we don't live in a funhouse mirror world where the slightest acquiescence of bared-teeth liberty cascades into childproof slavery.

Sure we do... once they are done with the guns, they'll come after the "next great threat."  If people start getting trained dogs, then the same people that spout rhetoric about guns being only designed to kill will be the same people who claim certain breeds of dogs are only bread to kill.

It has been accepted that dog bites have become too frequent and too violent to be ignored

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm

[Askot Bokbondeler]

that's what happened in countries with more restrictive gun policies?

[Andir]

that's what happened in countries with more restrictive gun policies?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6222689.stm

[Askot Bokbondeler]

well, actually, after reading the article, i fully support restrictive regulations on keeping dangerous animals.

[Vester]

...that's why I have the dog.

Then what do you do when they come for your dog because he bit someone?  The same as guns, there are accidental dog bites every year.  Dogs are not all domesticated fluffy love mittens incapable of harming humans.  If you let someone come into your home to take your shotgun, and they turn and tranquilize your dog... what then?

I'll tell you what then.  Nothing.  Because we don't live in a funhouse mirror world where the slightest acquiescence of bared-teeth liberty cascades into childproof slavery.

Sure we do... once they are done with the guns, they'll come after the "next great threat."  If people start getting trained dogs, then the same people that spout rhetoric about guns being only designed to kill will be the same people who claim certain breeds of dogs are only bread to kill.

Slipperrryyy slooooopppeee