Assault weapons ban

[Underhill]

CAN effect, sure -- if they do what you think they will do.

Thing is, as their desire and motivation to get a firearm is not limited by any particular loyalty the rule of law or moral code, they usually will not. There are no 'assault weapons'? I'll steal a shotgun.

That criminals do not follow the law is a valid counterpoint to any law that only affects those that obey the law.

And I just demonstrated how it doesn't affect only those that obey the law.

But you are right, criminals will find a way if they are determined. Thing is, they usually aren't. If they were, most likely, they'd have a job.

The primary reason I am against bans is it's too late. There are so many guns in this country that trying to ban them now is futile.

This is not really a good thing.

And I'll explain. I think guns in cities is absurd. I don't think everyone should wear a gun. I could do it. But I have no need for it. I don't know why anyone would want to carry a gun when they don't need to.

I realize the world we live in and some feel they need to carry a gun to feel safe. Fine, I get that, and right or wrong I can understand it in the world we live in. But I find the fact that people are scared enough to find it necessary disgusting.

I hunt, I shoot trap once a week, I am not afraid of guns.

But I do find the fear that says 'I need this gun or I might die' a sad state of affairs.

In an ideal world I would erase the old west gunslingers and their mythology, would get rid of the gangsters and gangbangers and yes, get rid of semi automatics, machine guns and pistols. I don't need them to hunt. Nobody should feel they need them.

But that isn't the world we live in. So we will continue to live in fear. Continue to have way more guns than anyone needs. And I'll continue to be against bans, because it's too late.

Much like the economy, we've been fucked for a long time now.

criminals are probably more determined. they just know they can get a bigger payday for less effort and grief than a 9-5. plust they can get welfare and other entitlements on top of it.

It isn't about fear. I have a ton of guns and not one was purchased out of fear. I like to shoot, bottom line. do you buy your hobbies out of fear? you anti gun nuts are so out of touch with why people own guns. you are the ones living in fear. your chances of being shot by one of these deadly assaul rifles with large capacity clips is about the same as being struck by lightning.

That isn't what I am talking about. I shoot too. Own 4 shotguns, a target rifle and a 700 I use for hunting. I am not afraid of guns.

But clearly people who are arming themselves for the coming armageddon are. Those who feel the need to pack a gun 18 hours a day and leave it on the nightstand at night are. And that is sad.

I think you are taking that the wrong way. I don't mean it to question their manhood. But the society we live in promotes fear everywhere. And this is sad.

 

[Underhill]

CAN effect, sure -- if they do what you think they will do.

Thing is, as their desire and motivation to get a firearm is not limited by any particular loyalty the rule of law or moral code, they usually will not. There are no 'assault weapons'? I'll steal a shotgun.

That criminals do not follow the law is a valid counterpoint to any law that only affects those that obey the law.

And I just demonstrated how it doesn't affect only those that obey the law.

But you are right, criminals will find a way if they are determined. Thing is, they usually aren't. If they were, most likely, they'd have a job.

The primary reason I am against bans is it's too late. There are so many guns in this country that trying to ban them now is futile.

This is not really a good thing.

And I'll explain. I think guns in cities is absurd. I don't think everyone should wear a gun. I could do it. But I have no need for it. I don't know why anyone would want to carry a gun when they don't need to.

I realize the world we live in and some feel they need to carry a gun to feel safe. Fine, I get that, and right or wrong I can understand it in the world we live in. But I find the fact that people are scared enough to find it necessary disgusting.

I hunt, I shoot trap once a week, I am not afraid of guns.

But I do find the fear that says 'I need this gun or I might die' a sad state of affairs.

In an ideal world I would erase the old west gunslingers and their mythology, would get rid of the gangsters and gangbangers and yes, get rid of semi automatics, machine guns and pistols. I don't need them to hunt. Nobody should feel they need them.

But that isn't the world we live in. So we will continue to live in fear. Continue to have way more guns than anyone needs. And I'll continue to be against bans, because it's too late.

Much like the economy, we've been fucked for a long time now.

Really people in cities don't need spare tires either. Do you carry a spare tire in your vehicle?

I don't live in the city. But it's a false equivalency either way.

 

[The Rabbi]

And I just demonstrated how it doesn't affect only those that obey the law.

But you are right, criminals will find a way if they are determined. Thing is, they usually aren't. If they were, most likely, they'd have a job.

The primary reason I am against bans is it's too late. There are so many guns in this country that trying to ban them now is futile.

This is not really a good thing.

And I'll explain. I think guns in cities is absurd. I don't think everyone should wear a gun. I could do it. But I have no need for it. I don't know why anyone would want to carry a gun when they don't need to.

I realize the world we live in and some feel they need to carry a gun to feel safe. Fine, I get that, and right or wrong I can understand it in the world we live in. But I find the fact that people are scared enough to find it necessary disgusting.

I hunt, I shoot trap once a week, I am not afraid of guns.

But I do find the fear that says 'I need this gun or I might die' a sad state of affairs.

In an ideal world I would erase the old west gunslingers and their mythology, would get rid of the gangsters and gangbangers and yes, get rid of semi automatics, machine guns and pistols. I don't need them to hunt. Nobody should feel they need them.

But that isn't the world we live in. So we will continue to live in fear. Continue to have way more guns than anyone needs. And I'll continue to be against bans, because it's too late.

Much like the economy, we've been fucked for a long time now.

Really people in cities don't need spare tires either. Do you carry a spare tire in your vehicle?

I don't live in the city. But it's a false equivalency either way.

It's identitcal. But who the fuck are you to tell someone what he needs or doesn't need?

 

[varelse]

Here is a bit of simple math for you. In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen. Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.

That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year. That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.

Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half. Now there are only half as many guns to steal. Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.

So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.

So 100 less guns stolen and a few tens-of-thousands victims now left without means to defend themselves?

You actually like the way that works?

Nope, never said that.

Yes, you did. I have placed in red the text where you accepted disarming numerous victims in the hopes of making some (possibly proportionate) reduction in the supply of stolen firearms criminals may use against this (larger) number of newly disarmed victims.

Or are you recanting your support for criminalizing firearms?

Ever see the picture of the guy standing out there with the Tea Partiers with a big sign reading "Get a Brain Morans". He made the entire protest look like idiots.

Yes, because that was totally a real picture of an actual protester and not a bit of trolling

 

[Underhill]

Really people in cities don't need spare tires either. Do you carry a spare tire in your vehicle?

I don't live in the city. But it's a false equivalency either way.

It's identitcal. But who the fuck are you to tell someone what he needs or doesn't need?

This is a discussion forum. I'm not telling anyone anything other than my own opinion.

And as I pointed out, at this point a ban is pointless.

Quick question though. Do you honestly think people in countries with gun bans feel a great pang of regret every time they think about the guns they don't own? In this country millions of Americans have been programmed to think they need a pistol at all times. But billions of people around the world go through their day without one.

Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?

 

[varelse]

... billions of people around the world go through their day without one.

Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?

In many cases, yes.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
...
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns​

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union

 

[Circe]

... billions of people around the world go through their day without one.

Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?

In many cases, yes.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
...
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns​

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union

I agree with this: the stats are clear, a citizenry prepared and able to defend itself against criminals suffers less crime. BUT ---------- that implies as the study above says, that more of the population go armed, NOTNOTNOT that a few of the population have large stocks of military-style assault rifles.

The hysteria for buying up huge stocks of guns and ammo now is simply leading to more theft by criminals and crazies who use them to shoot up schools -- they go for the coolest guns when they steal, and they are embarrassed for choice in a lot of these homes full of guns like an armory.

People with armories do not prevent crime, they encourage more crime by being a target for theft.

I'd a lot rather see everyone armed at least at home but none of these people with their huge gun collections all over the house who have anger issues and paranoia and may break out at any minute like that guy in Alabama who kidnapped that kid right off the school bus and took him into his well-armed bunker full of guns after killing the bus driver.

 

[varelse]

NOTNOTNOT that a few of the population have large stocks of military-style assault rifles.

You do realize there are already a number of hoops to jump through to get a Class III firearm, right? One can't waltz into a gunshop, put down some cash, and walk out with a fully automatic weapon.

The hysteria for buying up huge stocks of guns and ammo now is simply leading to more theft by criminals and crazies who use them to shoot up schools

Cite. What schools were 'shot-up' with firearms stolen in bulk from a collector's home? And since when is the victim of a theft responsible for what is done with their stolen property? If I steal your computer and use it to steal someone else's credit card info, the problem remains me, the thief- not you, a victim, or your computer.

I'd a lot rather see everyone armed at least at home but none of these people with their huge gun collections all over the house who have anger issues and paranoia

Do you have anything other than broad-brush stereotypes? Please tell me what percentage of murderers, rapists, and kidnappers possess large numbers of legally-owned firearms and fit your little boogie-man picture

 

[Underhill]

... billions of people around the world go through their day without one.

Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?

In many cases, yes.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
...
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns​

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union

So Norway as the model. Got it.

Problem is, it's shit as an argument against gun control as they have very strict guns laws. Look at Norways gun policies.

"To own a gun in Norway, one must document a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defence, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency and the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership.

There are special rules for collectors of guns. They are exempt from many parts of the regulation, but, in turn, they must meet even more narrow qualifications. Collectors may purchase, but not fire without permission, all kinds of guns in their respective areas of interest, which they have defined in advance.

Ownership is regulated in paragraph 7,[1] and responsibility for issuing a gun ownership license is given to the police authority in the applicant's district.

Rifle and shotgun ownership permission can be given to "sober and responsible" persons 18 years or older. The applicant for the permission must document a need for the weapon. Two exceptions exist to this age qualification. Persons under the age of 18, but over 16 may apply for rifle or shotgun ownership licence with the consent of parents or guardian. For handguns, the lowest ownership age is 21 with no exceptions allowed. For inherited weapons, it is up to the local police chief to make a decision based on the individual facts of the case.

An applicant must have a clean police record in order to obtain an ownership license."

Gun politics in Norway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would be in favor of all of that. I kind of doubt many of you would.

And there's more too. They require by law a gun safe bolted in place and can require home inspections....

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't live in the city. But it's a false equivalency either way.

It's identitcal. But who the fuck are you to tell someone what he needs or doesn't need?

This is a discussion forum. I'm not telling anyone anything other than my own opinion.

And as I pointed out, at this point a ban is pointless.

Quick question though. Do you honestly think people in countries with gun bans feel a great pang of regret every time they think about the guns they don't own? In this country millions of Americans have been programmed to think they need a pistol at all times. But billions of people around the world go through their day without one.

Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?

Are people worse off when they lack fundamental rights? Is that your question?

 

[Underhill]

It's identitcal. But who the fuck are you to tell someone what he needs or doesn't need?

This is a discussion forum. I'm not telling anyone anything other than my own opinion.

And as I pointed out, at this point a ban is pointless.

Quick question though. Do you honestly think people in countries with gun bans feel a great pang of regret every time they think about the guns they don't own? In this country millions of Americans have been programmed to think they need a pistol at all times. But billions of people around the world go through their day without one.

Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?

Are people worse off when they lack fundamental rights? Is that your question?

Yes. You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?

 

[martybegan]

This is a discussion forum. I'm not telling anyone anything other than my own opinion.

And as I pointed out, at this point a ban is pointless.

Quick question though. Do you honestly think people in countries with gun bans feel a great pang of regret every time they think about the guns they don't own? In this country millions of Americans have been programmed to think they need a pistol at all times. But billions of people around the world go through their day without one.

Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?

Are people worse off when they lack fundamental rights? Is that your question?

Yes. You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?

Then the pity is on them. Alot of other countries also do not use juries, or have protections against search and seizure. Also alot of them base thier freedom of speech on law, not on a consitutional right. Thus the government can vote your speech rights away.

I like our system better. If you don't, then try to revoke the amendments you dont like.

 

[Underhill]

Are people worse off when they lack fundamental rights? Is that your question?

Yes. You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?

Then the pity is on them. Alot of other countries also do not use juries, or have protections against search and seizure. Also alot of them base thier freedom of speech on law, not on a consitutional right. Thus the government can vote your speech rights away.

I like our system better. If you don't, then try to revoke the amendments you dont like.

That is what the discussion is about.

And I find it funny that those against gun restrictions are using Norway as an example.

Funny mainly because I agree. Norway is actually the model for gun ownership. It is one of the safest places in the world. Everyone is free to own guns with proper regulations in place. I have no problem with that.

But what it is not is an example of how if only everyone carried a gun around we would all be safer. It isn't true and if anything makes clear the exact opposite is the case.

 

[Underhill]

... billions of people around the world go through their day without one.

Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?

In many cases, yes.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
...
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns​

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union

Oh and one more small details. Every country listed, including Sweden and Denmark, while having higher murder rates than Norway, all have lower rates than here in the US.

I'm just saying...

 

[M14 Shooter]

The hysteria for buying up huge stocks of guns and ammo now is simply leading to more theft by criminals and crazies who use them to shoot up schools

You cannot show this to be true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, WHY is an assault rifle "always a good idea"?

Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.

No response?

 

[The Rabbi]

This is a discussion forum. I'm not telling anyone anything other than my own opinion.

And as I pointed out, at this point a ban is pointless.

Quick question though. Do you honestly think people in countries with gun bans feel a great pang of regret every time they think about the guns they don't own? In this country millions of Americans have been programmed to think they need a pistol at all times. But billions of people around the world go through their day without one.

Can you honestly say they are worse off as a result?

Are people worse off when they lack fundamental rights? Is that your question?

Yes. You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?

OK, the answer to your question is that people are better off living under governments that recognize fundamental rights for their citizens and bind themselves to them. Examples where that wasn't the case--Cuba, Russia, etc--tend to be examples of gov't tyranny and oppression.
Yes, most of the world does not enjoy rights of freedom of religion (Saudia Arabia, Egypt, etc), free speech (China etc), assembly, security from unreasonable searches and seizures etc etc. I woudl never want to live in a place where gov't tyranny is the order of the day. If you are fine with it, North Korea would like to hear from you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes. You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?

Then the pity is on them. Alot of other countries also do not use juries, or have protections against search and seizure. Also alot of them base thier freedom of speech on law, not on a consitutional right. Thus the government can vote your speech rights away.

I like our system better. If you don't, then try to revoke the amendments you dont like.

That is what the discussion is about.

And I find it funny that those against gun restrictions are using Norway as an example.

Funny mainly because I agree. Norway is actually the model for gun ownership. It is one of the safest places in the world. Everyone is free to own guns with proper regulations in place. I have no problem with that.

But what it is not is an example of how if only everyone carried a gun around we would all be safer. It isn't true and if anything makes clear the exact opposite is the case.

Norway is the example because we knows Norway eliminated mass shootings, right?
2011 Norway attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RightNorLeft]

I believe that less guns wont mean less crime. Less guns does not mean less criminals or less individuals with the mindset to kill others.
The worst loss of life in a school massacre was not done with guns...but by a bomb.

Worst School Massacre Was Bombing in 1927

I own handguns and I own two combat shotguns..I do not hunt, they are for self defense if needed. I am for gun ownership and have owned guns my entire adult life. Having said that I wouldnt shed tears if there was a ban on assault weapons and mandatory universal background checks.

If you look at the interactive map New Jersey has some of the most restrictive gun purchase laws in America and they are in the second to highest category for murder by gun. Banning guns will not ban crime or murder. We need to get to the source of the mentality that is causing especially american kids to mass murder people. I think there are many in denial as to what the real causes are but its easier to just blame gun ownership.
Gun crime statistics by US state: download the data. Visualised | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[Underhill]

Are people worse off when they lack fundamental rights? Is that your question?

Yes. You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?

OK, the answer to your question is that people are better off living under governments that recognize fundamental rights for their citizens and bind themselves to them. Examples where that wasn't the case--Cuba, Russia, etc--tend to be examples of gov't tyranny and oppression.
Yes, most of the world does not enjoy rights of freedom of religion (Saudia Arabia, Egypt, etc), free speech (China etc), assembly, security from unreasonable searches and seizures etc etc. I woudl never want to live in a place where gov't tyranny is the order of the day. If you are fine with it, North Korea would like to hear from you.

that makes no sense. There are plenty of places around the world where people live in relative freedom and do not take owning an arsenal as a fundamental right.