Print

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

[Max White]

If someone is trying to rob you then they are accepting the risk that you will shoot them, and are solely responsible for whatever happens to them in the course of their criminal activities.

See I think this is the problem with the US and its attitude towards guns. Guns are seen as the solution to problems, rather than a sporting implement.
If somebody robs your store, does that give you the right to shoot them? No, it does not! You are not a qualified judge, and if you are then you sure aren't acting as one. They aren't attacking you, they are taking your stuff, so you call the police afterwards.

Honestly, it is better a criminal robs you and gets away and you let insurance take care of it, than you shoot the guy.

[Virex]

I don't know myself, but that would kind of suck.  I enjoy going to my parents for a weekend and setting up targets if I want.  What I would not enjoy is having to clear it with the local sheriff.  I just don't see guns as that much of a threat that I'd have to clear it with the local sheriff... and if that was the case, I'd be voting for a new sheriff next election.  If my neighbors disagree, they can keep him in.  So far, we've had no problems.  In fact, some of my neighbors join us from time to time.

It's not on a case-by-case basis, the area just has to be cleared as safe for shooting. Basically they want to know what areas people could legally be shooting on, and make sure there's no risk of people accidentally entering the premise or a stray shot hitting a bystander. If your future range is next to a children's playground you're probably not going to legally be allowed to fire guns there for example (No one is stupid enough to actually fire towards the playground of course, but there's always the possibility of ricochets)

Which is why having guns at your home isn't such a good idea (Like what that guy wrote earlier about his family in South Africa.)

As for the corn range, well, things like that just don't happen in Belgium. :p We just don't have fields that big. I guess this would be one of the few legitimate cases that would be forbidden by Belgian-style regulation. I personally think the gain in gun crime rate are worth it, but even if you don't, there is plenty of room in the spectrum between Belgium and what's going on in the state. That room include harder tests before buying, banning assault weapons, no conceal carrying except for off-duty cops and the like, etc etc.
 

I don't understand your statement there.

The regulations you suggest in the bottom are pointless. Criminals don't apply for concealed carry permits, so making them impossible for a responsible citizen to obtain is basically disarming a victim. Or potentially creating one, rather. Banning assault weapons is of dubious value. Those types of weapons are simply not used in crimes, despite what you see in movies and video games. Gun manufacturers will find loop-holes around the restrictions anyways. The whole reason the Clinton Assault Weapons ban was allowed to sunset and die was because it accomplished nothing. There was no evidence it made anybody safer.

I'd back up the harder tests, better vetting and more serious instruction and training requirements for purchasing a firearm or applying for a concealed carry permit. Most deaths caused by firearms are self-inflicted or accidents. Ensuring that the people owning a firearm are responsible enough to do so is a valid consideration. Making silly laws further restricting the styles and types of firearms a responsible person can own is pointless.

Not having concealed carry permits is more of a way to prevent escalation. Of course criminals aren't going to abide it, but one of the biggest causes of weapon-related injuries is actually drunkenness. Having to pull two drunks apart is tough enough for a bouncer, but if one of them, or both, are carrying guns that adds a whole new dimension.

[Andir]

If someone is trying to rob you then they are accepting the risk that you will shoot them, and are solely responsible for whatever happens to them in the course of their criminal activities.

See I think this is the problem with the US and its attitude towards guns. Guns are seen as the solution to problems, rather than a sporting implement.
If somebody robs your store, does that give you the right to shoot them? No, it does not! You are not a qualified judge, and if you are then you sure aren't acting as one. They aren't attacking you, they are taking your stuff, so you call the police afterwards.

Honestly, it is better a criminal robs you and gets away and you let insurance take care of it, than you shoot the guy.

In the US, we have castle doctrine.  You invade my home (or in my state, car) I do not have to retreat and can defend my/family's life with lethal force if need be.  (e: to clarify, a shop is not a home, it's a public place so it doesn't really apply... and no, I don't know anyone that thinks a store owner can draw a gun on just anyone that walks in.)

Better for who?  If a criminal keeps breaking into my home and gets away uncaught, I get penalized in anguish, loss of property, higher insurance rates... and it's not even something I did.  For a criminal, that would be great.  Less threat of loss, better odds of getting away with it.

[Sheb]

I meant: "I think our strict regulation is worth it. And even is you don't think such strict regulation is a good idea (I was referring to the fact that sport guns need to be stored at the gun range) there is plenty of other things that can be done to improve the situation.

Now, to answer you, criminal don't apply for conceal carry permits? Well, I dunno. I wouldn't be surprised if they did. But the that's not the point. The point is that we should reduce the amount of gun in circulation. That gun in your jacket can be stolen and used to kill someone. The gun in your safe that should "protect your home" can be used against you, or against someone else.

Guns don't reduce crime. If both you and your aggressor have guns you're no more secure than if neither of you don't. But someone is likely to get shot (And even a criminal killed is a bad thing.)

The assault weapon ban isn't about safety in the US, it's about safety in Mexico, were US guns are used by the hundreds to kill police, troopers and civilians. And it did help (which is why the Mexican government is whining so hard).

[Nadaka]

Guns do reduce crime by making criminals choose not to continue an attack under threat of death.

[Andir]

Guns don't reduce crime.

Guns can deter crime, it's proven in statistics.  If you are a responsible/practiced owner, the outcome is heavily weighed in your favor unless the criminal is a practiced shooter as well.  And since most criminals are not going to head down to the local range or register their guns.... I doubt they get much practice.

[Sheb]

Okay, we're just going in circle here. I quit.

[Loud Whispers]

Herpa derka derp.

Guns for anyone who wishes to obtain one, providing they pass mental, physical and police exams.

Fix the problem?

[Max White]

Guns can deter crime, it's proven in statistics.  If you are a responsible/practiced owner, the outcome is heavily weighed in your favor unless the criminal is a practiced shooter as well.  And since most criminals are not going to head down to the local range or register their guns.... I doubt they get much practice.

Whoa, that is a big assertion! Prove it!
Show that guns in the hands of civilians cause a majority trend towards lower crime rates.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You aren't going to be able convince most Americans to accept gun bans. You just won't. You might as well be advocating communism.

[Leafsnail]

And since most criminals are not going to head down to the local range or register their guns.... I doubt they get much practice.

I like this bit most.  It seems to assume that criminals are a completely different species that are too lazy or stupid to learn how to use guns properly.

You aren't going to be able convince most Americans to accept gun bans. You just won't. You might as well be advocating communism.

Yeah, and?  You said earlier that some people would call your viewpoints communistic.  Are they wrong because the majority oppose them?

[Max White]

You aren't going to be able convince most Americans to accept gun bans. You just won't. You might as well be advocating communism.

Do you know how much resistance Darwin met when you proposed his theory of evolution, from not just the church, but the scientific community? He was never going to convince them, and even now their are assholes who think their beliefs are as valid as real science.

It isn't about how much effort it will take to change a mind, or even if it is possible, it is about the principle of the matter.

[Montague]

I meant: "I think our strict regulation is worth it. And even is you don't think such strict regulation is a good idea (I was referring to the fact that sport guns need to be stored at the gun range) there is plenty of other things that can be done to improve the situation.

Now, to answer you, criminal don't apply for conceal carry permits? Well, I dunno. I wouldn't be surprised if they did. But the that's not the point. The point is that we should reduce the amount of gun in circulation. That gun in your jacket can be stolen and used to kill someone. The gun in your safe that should "protect your home" can be used against you, or against someone else.

Guns don't reduce crime. If both you and your aggressor have guns you're no more secure than if neither of you don't. But someone is likely to get shot (And even a criminal killed is a bad thing.)

The assault weapon ban isn't about safety in the US, it's about safety in Mexico, were US guns are used by the hundreds to kill police, troopers and civilians. And it did help (which is why the Mexican government is whining so hard).

Concealed carriers are not incidentally arming criminals. I don't think you can find any statistic to show that they are. It's really not safe to try to wrestle a gun away from somebody.

No, carrying a gun probably won't help you if you are suddenly ambushed by a mugger at gun point or something. There isn't much of anything you can do in a situation like that. However, there are plenty of other circumstances where a firearm can be legitimately used to defend oneself or somebody else. Many confrontations are solved without a shot fired, brandishing a firearm is often the only thing you need to do. Surely, you can't win them all, armed or not, but it doesn't justify denying a person a means to defend themselves.

As for Mexico, that's a good reason to better secure the border. It isn't justification to strip the freedoms of it's citizens to appease a foreign government.

[Willfor]

The main problem is that this is a rural vs urban problem. Sheb pretty much admitted that there aren't fields as big as Nadaka is talking about in Belgium. In America, fields that large, and larger exist in abundance. There is a large number of people who live so far away from urban centres that trying to rely on other people for the defense of your property is unpractical at best. Urban America, in my opinion, could use a hell of a lot more gun control. Rural America needs as much help in the gun department as it can get.

You aren't going to be able convince most Americans to accept gun bans. You just won't. You might as well be advocating communism.

Do you know how much resistance Darwin met when you proposed his theory of evolution, from not just the church, but the scientific community?

You realize the majority of the resistance appeared years after he proposed it, and that you're only restating a popular myth?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You aren't going to be able convince most Americans to accept gun bans. You just won't. You might as well be advocating communism.

Yeah, and?  You said earlier that some people would call your viewpoints communistic.  Are they wrong because the majority oppose them?

The people who call my viewpoints communistic are doing so because they see liberalism as wrong, not because I'm actually advocating anything even remotely communist. My point is that you are arguing against a point that is not only held by the majority, but by almost everyone and American culture itself. And is in the Bill of Rights. This isn't a majority vs. minority argument, it's a super-majority vs. fringe argument.

I am saying that there is absolutely no point to continuing this line of discussion.