DeletedUser16008
Not exactly I dont see one person advocating banning guns. I'm certainly not just there isnt any need whatsoever to have anything but basic single shot weapons as protection.
All I really see is gun advocates not really accepting theres a responsibility towards self regulation before its forced on you. Or too little too late, if you dont want to lose it all its the gun holders that should be driving the need for regulation not the other way around.
Which leads me to conclude there IS a need for regulation on the general irresponsible public. After all the armed criminals also tend to be members of the public, restrict the flow you restrict the criminals ease of purchase no less than the publics. Forget about the hardware like full autos etc and the criminals they will get them anyway and mostly from corrupt government sources or other criminal groups.
The violent gun crimes the public are usually involved in I suspect are with petty criminals and other members of the public not cartels.
All I really see is gun advocates not really accepting theres a responsibility towards self regulation before its forced on you. Or too little too late, if you dont want to lose it all its the gun holders that should be driving the need for regulation not the other way around.
Which leads me to conclude there IS a need for regulation on the general irresponsible public. After all the armed criminals also tend to be members of the public, restrict the flow you restrict the criminals ease of purchase no less than the publics. Forget about the hardware like full autos etc and the criminals they will get them anyway and mostly from corrupt government sources or other criminal groups.
The violent gun crimes the public are usually involved in I suspect are with petty criminals and other members of the public not cartels.
DeletedUser
I am not even going to bother answering that completely ridiculous argument ... fast fingers WOW ...
What we are discussing here tiger is the renewed discussion around banning assault rifles, with an accent put on AR15, because they were recently used in mass shootings. The point made by people who want to ban this weapon (in the past and again today) is that the weapon is "military grade". The fact is that: an AR15 is no more military grade than any other semi-automatic weapon and it is purposefully portrayed similar to the M16, full auto version of the gun not accessible to the public. The only similarity is the look.
Because of that similar look and because through the media these weapons are portrayed as more dangerous than other semi's, people believe that banning AR15's will make the world better. In fact, banning them makes no difference.
And what I think they are trying to achieve with this is to start a general ban on all semi's. And I will say it again: that is unacceptable.
@Vic: I think you should look into Vermont's gun laws and crime rate.
What we are discussing here tiger is the renewed discussion around banning assault rifles, with an accent put on AR15, because they were recently used in mass shootings. The point made by people who want to ban this weapon (in the past and again today) is that the weapon is "military grade". The fact is that: an AR15 is no more military grade than any other semi-automatic weapon and it is purposefully portrayed similar to the M16, full auto version of the gun not accessible to the public. The only similarity is the look.
Because of that similar look and because through the media these weapons are portrayed as more dangerous than other semi's, people believe that banning AR15's will make the world better. In fact, banning them makes no difference.
And what I think they are trying to achieve with this is to start a general ban on all semi's. And I will say it again: that is unacceptable.
@Vic: I think you should look into Vermont's gun laws and crime rate.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser16008
lets face it D if its not nationwide it wont work, and you wont get an immediate result overnight either. Change takes time, resolve and all pushing in the same direction and reading off the same page... anything less is doomed to failure.
DeletedUser
So you're saying that open carry (no permit required) nationwide would work? That would be less gun control than it is now. Kinda contradicts what you were saying.
Or are you saying that the proposal about "$500 fee for non-gun owners" would work nationwide? Cause that would be interesting to hear from you ...
http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/a-novel-idea-register-nongun
Basically what I was trying to point out is that Vermont is an open carry state (minimal gun control) and ranks one of the lowest in crime rate per 100000 people...
And now I would like you to look at the gun laws in the District of Columbia and the crime rate/rank in the US. No carry allowed, not even with a permit, permit required to purchase and ranks 1st in crime. So please compare the two and tell me how is more gun control working?
Or are you saying that the proposal about "$500 fee for non-gun owners" would work nationwide? Cause that would be interesting to hear from you ...
http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/a-novel-idea-register-nongun
Basically what I was trying to point out is that Vermont is an open carry state (minimal gun control) and ranks one of the lowest in crime rate per 100000 people...
And now I would like you to look at the gun laws in the District of Columbia and the crime rate/rank in the US. No carry allowed, not even with a permit, permit required to purchase and ranks 1st in crime. So please compare the two and tell me how is more gun control working?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser16008
Im saying you dont have a comprehensive nationwide law you dont have continuity, you have areas that differ and of course if you as a criminal have more a chance in one state than another its going to differ... thats not proving anything. If anything it just confuses figures when theres no borders or controls.
It dosnt however bring any long term solution, you have many states all running around with different rules and laws... try being a nation with nationwide laws and you might just find out it works far better.
Thats the problem with the states imo its hardly United in many things and it gives you a lot of problems putting on any kind of united front. Mores the pity.
It dosnt however bring any long term solution, you have many states all running around with different rules and laws... try being a nation with nationwide laws and you might just find out it works far better.
Thats the problem with the states imo its hardly United in many things and it gives you a lot of problems putting on any kind of united front. Mores the pity.
DeletedUser
I don't think you want to get into a discussion about working political systems. Because all have their flaws. Start with what we have, the current system and work from there, not from a utopia of how great things would be if ... because there's no perfect system.
It is not confusing at all. There are federal laws and state laws. Federal laws apply to every state, state laws apply to the specific state. The 2 examples given go to prove that more gun control does not work in favor of anybody but criminals.
It is not confusing at all. There are federal laws and state laws. Federal laws apply to every state, state laws apply to the specific state. The 2 examples given go to prove that more gun control does not work in favor of anybody but criminals.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser16008
Then you make it federal not state law. Either your united or your not and your examples are exactly what the problem is, This dosnt prove you need guns of all kinds to protect yourself just that you can buy your guns in a state with no laws and rob in the ones with them. You dont even have a border to cross let alone any checks where would you go with your arsenal to rob given the choice ? Ahhh duh 
However if there is a blanket federal law where are the criminals gonna go then, wallmart in Mexico ?
I was under the misconception the United states on a matter such as this would be a law for everyone not a pick n mix what you wish.
What your saying is your a group of separate states and not really a nation of one law for all in the slightest. There you go after all these pages thats the real problem, why didnt someone say so in the first page ? lol
Your right you got no chance in a place where you can walk over a state border buy whatever you want,come back and rob whoever you please when they are like sitting ducks and then leave again. Its one thing to have borders you thinly control and quite another when all you have to do is cross a state line to reload... imo ridiculous.
The whole argument of gun control is totally moot if its not acted on equally by federal law and no chance of it being accepted nationwide so your basically up poop creek without a paddle... end of. And I thought Europe was a mess yeeesh lol
Interesting stuff you learn something every day.
However if there is a blanket federal law where are the criminals gonna go then, wallmart in Mexico ?
I was under the misconception the United states on a matter such as this would be a law for everyone not a pick n mix what you wish.
What your saying is your a group of separate states and not really a nation of one law for all in the slightest. There you go after all these pages thats the real problem, why didnt someone say so in the first page ? lol
Your right you got no chance in a place where you can walk over a state border buy whatever you want,come back and rob whoever you please when they are like sitting ducks and then leave again. Its one thing to have borders you thinly control and quite another when all you have to do is cross a state line to reload... imo ridiculous.
The whole argument of gun control is totally moot if its not acted on equally by federal law and no chance of it being accepted nationwide so your basically up poop creek without a paddle... end of. And I thought Europe was a mess yeeesh lol
Interesting stuff you learn something every day.
DeletedUser
But the federal law does cover that Vic. It is the law to abide by the state rules in which the buyer resides.
DeletedUser16008
So which is it a call for federal or not... cant have it both ways or it dosnt and wont work... Look its quite simple, its either nationwide laws and penalties identical or not. Until then any claim about where your safer is moot, totally and utterly moot. Irrelevent, unpolicable, undefendable, illogical and entirely expected.
Yeesh its like having a kid ask mummy dont like the answer then go ask daddy then Bro then sis then whoever until you get the one you like. Total BS.
Seriously, can you get your head around how stupid it is to have different rules for the same thing in the same country depending where you reside for a matter like this ? you may as well have explosives legal in some states, same thing. Or do you ? lol
United States ? Gimmie a break.
Yeesh its like having a kid ask mummy dont like the answer then go ask daddy then Bro then sis then whoever until you get the one you like. Total BS.
Seriously, can you get your head around how stupid it is to have different rules for the same thing in the same country depending where you reside for a matter like this ? you may as well have explosives legal in some states, same thing. Or do you ? lol
United States ? Gimmie a break.
DeletedUser
Vic, we should not be discussing the "United" in united states here. And like it says, they are "states", each with their own.
And I don't see why you think it is so complicated. I think it is fair that each state have the liberty to have their own rules. If the majority of the society in that state is pro gun, they should not be under the tyranny of the majority in any other state. Right now, pro-gun and anti-gun people have the liberty to move to a state that is more pro or anti gun to suit their needs. Making it the same for the whole country is wrong.
Plus, you have states where you don't need guns for protection against bears for example and states where you absolutely necessarily do. Because it is such a big country, it would not work.
I was in complete favor of regionalism in my tiny home country, which is the size of the state I reside in now. We can make another thread about this, this is not the place to discuss it.
I don't know why you are so confused anyway. When it comes to crime do you know when is an federal case or local case? When it crosses borders. Same here. The resident in one state crosses border in another state to buy a gun. Federal law comes in play. Federal law says the dealer needs to abide by the gun laws imposed in the state the buyer resides. When you become a gun dealer and get your licence to sell, you learn all you need to learn. As a citizen, if you wish to sell a gun, the best thing to do is go through a certified gun dealer. Because you cannot advertise on craigslist
And I don't see why you think it is so complicated. I think it is fair that each state have the liberty to have their own rules. If the majority of the society in that state is pro gun, they should not be under the tyranny of the majority in any other state. Right now, pro-gun and anti-gun people have the liberty to move to a state that is more pro or anti gun to suit their needs. Making it the same for the whole country is wrong.
Plus, you have states where you don't need guns for protection against bears for example and states where you absolutely necessarily do. Because it is such a big country, it would not work.
I was in complete favor of regionalism in my tiny home country, which is the size of the state I reside in now. We can make another thread about this, this is not the place to discuss it.
I don't know why you are so confused anyway. When it comes to crime do you know when is an federal case or local case? When it crosses borders. Same here. The resident in one state crosses border in another state to buy a gun. Federal law comes in play. Federal law says the dealer needs to abide by the gun laws imposed in the state the buyer resides. When you become a gun dealer and get your licence to sell, you learn all you need to learn. As a citizen, if you wish to sell a gun, the best thing to do is go through a certified gun dealer. Because you cannot advertise on craigslist
DeletedUser
Methinks you need to look up the definition of united, actually, don't bother, I'll do it for ya;
Dictionary
united
adjective
joined together politically, for a common purpose, or by common feelings : women acting together in a united way.
DERIVATIVES
unitedly adverb
unite |juːˌnʌɪt|
verb
come or bring together for a common purpose or action : [ intrans. ] he called on the party to unite | [ trans. ] they are united by their love of cars.
• come or bring together to form a unit or whole, esp. in a political context : [ intrans. ] the two Germanys officially united | [ trans. ] he aimed to unite Italy and Sicily under his imperial crown | his work unites theory and practice.
See note at join .
Look at the US, look at the definition of united. Look back to the US.
...
I think that's pretty conclusive.
I don't know why you are so confused anyway. When it comes to crime do you know when is an federal case or local case? When it crosses borders. Same here. The resident in one state crosses border in another state to buy a gun. Federal law comes in play. Federal law says the dealer needs to abide by the gun laws imposed in the state the buyer resides. When you become a gun dealer and get your licence to sell, you learn all you need to learn. As a citizen, if you wish to sell a gun, the best thing to do is go through a certified gun dealer. Because you cannot advertise on craigslist
Thanks for pointing out the obvoius there.
DeletedUser
Exactly:
I would invite you to look into federalism and regionalism and the purpose of it. I see you don't know to well what it is all about. But I repeat: this is not what we are discussing here, open another thread for this.
Would you like to have the same law and system as every country in the EU? UK didn't even give up the pound for the euro
Just so you know tiger, you will join Eli in the "ignored posters in this thread" category, because I cannot discuss with you, you are continuously belligerent with me for no reason.
And I had to point out the obvious because Victor was confused. Do you even read what everybody else says? Or do you just like to pick on me over and over and over again? You have a personal issue and there's no room for personal here. You can post, I'll just not answer you anymore.
I'd like to raise another question: should all people under a certain medication treatment be denied the right to bear arms, if only 1 in 100000 is at risk to be violent and there's no way to determine who?
I would invite you to look into federalism and regionalism and the purpose of it. I see you don't know to well what it is all about. But I repeat: this is not what we are discussing here, open another thread for this.
Would you like to have the same law and system as every country in the EU? UK didn't even give up the pound for the euro
Just so you know tiger, you will join Eli in the "ignored posters in this thread" category, because I cannot discuss with you, you are continuously belligerent with me for no reason.
And I had to point out the obvious because Victor was confused. Do you even read what everybody else says? Or do you just like to pick on me over and over and over again? You have a personal issue and there's no room for personal here. You can post, I'll just not answer you anymore.
I'd like to raise another question: should all people under a certain medication treatment be denied the right to bear arms, if only 1 in 100000 is at risk to be violent and there's no way to determine who?
DeletedUser16008
Actually there are unilateral laws in the EU as a member. Especially re weaponry. I think your confusing common sense with cherry picking. No one died over what currency you pay in far as I know but thats ok im about all debated out re Gun control. Safe to say until you stop messing about, coming up with various excuses and making it a blanket United law for ALL it will continue to get worse.
I'd like to raise another question: should all people under a certain medication treatment be denied the right to bear arms ? if only 1 in 100000 is at risk to be violent and there's no way to determine who?
That figure is a guess and probably far far lower but for want of an answer hell yes, how do you justify worrying about terrorists otherwise ? its far less in numbers yet look at the panic over them.
but thats ok im about all debated out re Gun control. Safe to say until you stop messing about, coming up with various excuses and making it a blanket United law for ALL it will continue to get worse.I'd like to raise another question: should all people under a certain medication treatment be denied the right to bear arms ? if only 1 in 100000 is at risk to be violent and there's no way to determine who?
That figure is a guess and probably far far lower but for want of an answer hell yes, how do you justify worrying about terrorists otherwise ? its far less in numbers yet look at the panic over them.
DeletedUser
Hi Duduie, you seem to be having a fun time going on tangents left and right. It would probably help your arguments if you actually knew what you were talking about when you went on your tangents because, quite frankly, you don't.
Federal laws exist that mandate guns. There are certain provisions within those Federal laws that allowed for States to dance around. This has been the issue, and it is the issue that the Federal government, when revisiting these laws, needs to ensure that the States don't have the luxury of dancing around. For example, the Baker Act stated that anyone who was reported with mental health issues that made him a threat to others, he would not be able to buy a gun. Unfortunately, there was no stipulation in that requiring mental health evaluators to "report" it, and thus States sat on that and didn't require priests/pastors, psychiatrists, psychologists, or doctors or medical facilities to report it to the authorities. This is one example, but there many other such examples.
Next, we return to your silly AR15 argument. Let's face it, you put your foot in your mouth on that one.
The AR15s was produced later. It is not capable of burst fire, or full-automatic. It is only capable of semi-automatic. It is nonetheless the same weapon and is used by law enforcement. The AR15s poses the same threat to human life as the AR15, as the M16, in the manner in which it projects the bullet and shreds upon impact, resulting in a brutally destructive shrapnel-like wound. The AR15s/AR15/M16 is effective at only one thing, killing a human being. It is inapplicable for hunting due to the damage it causes to the meat and the potential for hide damage. This weapon design, the manner in which is propels the bullet through the air, and into a target, is specifically geared to cause significant internal damage to a human target. It was designed for military use, not for hunting.
I fired and instructed in the use of an M16. I likewise fired the AR15s. Both accomodate all the accessories that are geared for military-use, including double-strap clips, suppressors, etc. Once again, these weapons are designed to kill humans.
I strongly suggest you watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6BFarrICWs
It shows what an AR15s can do using a bump fire stock, which can be legally obtained online from Slide Fire ---> http://www.slidefire.com/index.php
See, the problem here Duduie, is that while I understand your stance, and your arguments, you really don't know what is going on, you don't know what these weapons are capable of. Using a bump fire stock, the AR15s is capable of firing 900 rounds per minute --- legally.
Likewise, you don't seem to know that the U.S. government defined the AR15s, and other weapons, as assault weapons. This was stipulated in the 1994 US Federal Assault Weapons Ban (click here) and in previous ATF titles. This is because these guns have multiple features that differentiate them from other rifles, features that really only have military or war-time applicability.
Federal laws exist that mandate guns. There are certain provisions within those Federal laws that allowed for States to dance around. This has been the issue, and it is the issue that the Federal government, when revisiting these laws, needs to ensure that the States don't have the luxury of dancing around. For example, the Baker Act stated that anyone who was reported with mental health issues that made him a threat to others, he would not be able to buy a gun. Unfortunately, there was no stipulation in that requiring mental health evaluators to "report" it, and thus States sat on that and didn't require priests/pastors, psychiatrists, psychologists, or doctors or medical facilities to report it to the authorities. This is one example, but there many other such examples.
Next, we return to your silly AR15 argument. Let's face it, you put your foot in your mouth on that one.
Automatic weapons is a different category (Title II) and is addressed by the ATF.
Duduie, you're the one playing with words. The AR15 is and was a military grade weapon, designed specifically for the military. The M16 "is" the U.S. Military label for the AR15. All other countries purchased the AR15 "as" the AR15.
The AR15s was produced later. It is not capable of burst fire, or full-automatic. It is only capable of semi-automatic. It is nonetheless the same weapon and is used by law enforcement. The AR15s poses the same threat to human life as the AR15, as the M16, in the manner in which it projects the bullet and shreds upon impact, resulting in a brutally destructive shrapnel-like wound. The AR15s/AR15/M16 is effective at only one thing, killing a human being. It is inapplicable for hunting due to the damage it causes to the meat and the potential for hide damage. This weapon design, the manner in which is propels the bullet through the air, and into a target, is specifically geared to cause significant internal damage to a human target. It was designed for military use, not for hunting.
I fired and instructed in the use of an M16. I likewise fired the AR15s. Both accomodate all the accessories that are geared for military-use, including double-strap clips, suppressors, etc. Once again, these weapons are designed to kill humans.
Incorrect, the AR15s has the same fire power. Fire power has nothing to do with "rate of fire," but if you wish to argue "rate of fire," rapid-fire capability is indeed available with the AR15s, as Tigermite indicated. It is semi-automatic only in respects to how the firing mechanism works, not in respects to the ease at which multiple bullets can be fired in short succession.
I strongly suggest you watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6BFarrICWs
It shows what an AR15s can do using a bump fire stock, which can be legally obtained online from Slide Fire ---> http://www.slidefire.com/index.php
See, the problem here Duduie, is that while I understand your stance, and your arguments, you really don't know what is going on, you don't know what these weapons are capable of. Using a bump fire stock, the AR15s is capable of firing 900 rounds per minute --- legally.
Likewise, you don't seem to know that the U.S. government defined the AR15s, and other weapons, as assault weapons. This was stipulated in the 1994 US Federal Assault Weapons Ban (click here) and in previous ATF titles. This is because these guns have multiple features that differentiate them from other rifles, features that really only have military or war-time applicability.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
We can dance around terms till we get dizzy, it still won't change the fact that you are saying the same thing as I am saying, without admitting the one true fact: the AR15 is not more deadly than any semi-automatic handgun and it does not compare in fire power with the M16. They just look the same and feel the same.
I can't put it better than this: http://www.assaultweapon.info/
As for the hunting argument: I don't think anybody goes hunting with a handgun and a bunch of defensive rounds. They do just as much damage to the meat. And the AR15 is actually very effective against coyotes.
The real reason why assault rifles are pushed towards a ban right now is because cosmetically they look convincingly deadly to the population and they were used in recent mass shootings. They were used in recent violent crimes BECAUSE they are portrayed to be more deadly, WHICH THEY ARE NOT. Then the argument will come that all other semis are just as deadly and they will be pushed towards a ban as well. Open your eyes!
I can't put it better than this: http://www.assaultweapon.info/
As for the hunting argument: I don't think anybody goes hunting with a handgun and a bunch of defensive rounds. They do just as much damage to the meat. And the AR15 is actually very effective against coyotes.
The real reason why assault rifles are pushed towards a ban right now is because cosmetically they look convincingly deadly to the population and they were used in recent mass shootings. They were used in recent violent crimes BECAUSE they are portrayed to be more deadly, WHICH THEY ARE NOT. Then the argument will come that all other semis are just as deadly and they will be pushed towards a ban as well. Open your eyes!
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Just so you know tiger, you will join Eli in the "ignored posters in this thread" category, because I cannot discuss with you, you are continuously belligerent with me for no reason.
And I had to point out the obvious because Victor was confused. Do you even read what everybody else says? Or do you just like to pick on me over and over and over again? You have a personal issue and there's no room for personal here. You can post, I'll just not answer you anymore.
So...you accuse me of ignorance, and of making it personal, neither of which I am guilty of, and what do you do in response? Make it personal, and ignore my posts.
I did mention bump fire earlier...
Even though...
They do just as much damage to the meat. And the AR15 is actually very effective against coyotes.
Just as effective against humans.
Assault weapons are more deadly! Have you not read a word of my or HS' posts?
Of course not, because you have me on ignore.
Ahh...denial, the most predictable of human responses.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser30224
I must say that I've only brushed these last 2 pages but will leave my imprint anyhow IMO weaponry should be banned to general population, people should have no business carying guns with them if their job does not require them to.
As for protection against animals ... we've deprived animals of their natural habitats so much that we have no right to kill them just because we can. You have animal problem? you can very well move to other places where this problem disappears or use other kind of protection.
It's painfully idiotic to have said that, but ultimately we are just as important as every other living thing on this planet. To kill for fun is wrong. To kill to extinction is wrong. To think yourself above nature is wrong. therefore to be human is almost wrong in itself, but while we are at it we are better of with no guns whatsoever.
I come from Central Europe and currently living in Ireland...UK and Ireland police carries no guns except for special forces. Central and eastern Europe countries to my knowledge allow their police to carry guns. General population have no guns, in fact in all my 25 years of existence, I didn't see a single one person with a gun in his or her possession. To cling to the fact that you need a gun for your protection is out of the question in "my" Europe.
rant over
IMO weaponry should be banned to general population, people should have no business carying guns with them if their job does not require them to. As for protection against animals ... we've deprived animals of their natural habitats so much that we have no right to kill them just because we can. You have animal problem? you can very well move to other places where this problem disappears or use other kind of protection.
It's painfully idiotic to have said that, but ultimately we are just as important as every other living thing on this planet. To kill for fun is wrong. To kill to extinction is wrong. To think yourself above nature is wrong. therefore to be human is almost wrong in itself, but while we are at it we are better of with no guns whatsoever.
I come from Central Europe and currently living in Ireland...UK and Ireland police carries no guns except for special forces. Central and eastern Europe countries to my knowledge allow their police to carry guns. General population have no guns, in fact in all my 25 years of existence, I didn't see a single one person with a gun in his or her possession. To cling to the fact that you need a gun for your protection is out of the question in "my" Europe.
rant over
DeletedUser34315
Maybe animals are not an issue in Europe, but where I live, they are. We've lost dozens of sheep and cattle to mountain lions, bears, and coyotes. I'd far rather have a gun when tangling with those, than have nothing.
Banning guns will not work: those who own them for legitimate reasons (self defense, concealed carry) will no longer have guns, whereas those who have them illegally, criminals, will still have them, and plenty of unarmed victims to choose from.
Banning guns will not work: those who own them for legitimate reasons (self defense, concealed carry) will no longer have guns, whereas those who have them illegally, criminals, will still have them, and plenty of unarmed victims to choose from.
DeletedUser
I can see your point here. And that is why in the event of a possible US gun ban, it should be possible for people like you (i.e farmers with predator problems) to attain a firearms license, look up firearms laws over here in the UK and you will see that is pretty much the system we have in place.
Ah, the never-ending wheel of a circular argument, I could point out the flaws, but I would be repeating what I, HS, Eli, Victor, Braet and Zemmy have pointed out before (If I have missed out any other pro-gun control posters in this thread, my apologies for not remembering you), and then at which point you have either ignored the point or gone off on a completely different subject, before circling back to the start.
Last edited by a moderator: