Jump to content


Photo

Gun control in US


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

Poll: gun control (private poll) (8 member(s) have cast votes)

Should there be more gun control in the US?

  1. Yes (7 votes [87.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 87.50%

  2. No (1 votes [12.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.50%

  3. I dont know (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Should automatic waepons and "launchers" be forbidden for normal citisens?

  1. Yes, both should be illegal (2 votes [66.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

  2. No, only rockets and other very explosive guns should be illegal (1 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  3. No, only automatic waepons should be illegal (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. No, both should be allowed normally (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,075 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 04 October 2017 - 03:57 PM

If you take your statistics, Lo

 

 

Lo?

 

Theo brought that up, not me. But I trust those data are correct.

 

I brought the statistics that the US rule in gun-ownership. 9 out of 10 has one. So if Queenbee doesn't have one, how many do you own, Gary? Must be 2? That's only logical.

 

My main question would be, do you agree we need to get rid of the guns used by this 64-year old? Just have your pistol to protect yourself, Gary, but why the machineguns?


Lo

#22 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,558 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 05 October 2017 - 04:47 AM

Machine guns would have been illegal, Lo, as has been stated. What the guy used were guns that somehow did an endrun around the fully automatic rules in a loophole that needs to be closed. Quickly and tightly.

Actually I do not own a gun. I was never raised around them. My dad was not the hunter type. But that in no way means I can't believe they are necessary. The Constitution does two large) things: it enumerates the rights of the people, and it chains down the government. Both these things are hinged upon a free-minded populace with guns to assist them.

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#23 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,467 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 05 October 2017 - 06:27 AM

Machine guns would have been illegal, Lo, as has been stated. What the guy used were guns that somehow did an endrun around the fully automatic rules in a loophole that needs to be closed. Quickly and tightly.

 

Thank you for saying this.  Darth, do you agree too?  The guy used a bump stock (currently legal) to turn his gun into a fully automatic weapon.  He also used a flash suppressor to make it harder for the police to see where he was firing from.  I really hope the Republicans can at least summon the will to ban these items. 

 

Here are so other common sense reforms, in my opinion.  I'm interested to get the gun rights supporters take on these:

  • Close the gun show loophole,  Currently background checks are not required for sales a gun shows or private sales.
  • Limit the number of bullets in magazine clips to 10 (currently 100 is legal) to at least give people a chance while the shooter reloads.
  • Don't sell guns to people on the no-fly list - the government thinks you're too dangerous to be allowed on a plane but you currently have no problem buying semi-automatic rifles.
  • Strengthen safeguards against mentally ill people buying guns (last year Congress voted down a bill that would have done this)

I know that gun control measures will not prevent all gun violence, but if they can limit some portion of deaths by making mass shootings less lethal, and maybe less frequent, then are they not worth it?  I don't believe anything I've said above infringes upon the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens.  Also, I have to say this idea that a well armed population serves as a protection against a tyrannical federal government seems particularly illogical to me.   If this goal is something to be attained then it would help if people could acquire rocket propelled grenades, machine guns, and shoulder fired missles.   But even the strongest second amendment supporters do not go this far, and even if with these weapons the people would be no match for government tanks and gps-guided five-thousand pound bombs.   



#24 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,558 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 05 October 2017 - 07:07 AM

Yes, it would help if all the weapons were available to the people that the government has. But as I said previously, we're like the ants to their grasshoppers at this point. Commonplace guns will certainly make it much harder to get rid of us, and I'd quickly back someone who wants to claim this right of self defense.

Do you remember Longshanks not wanting to use up his expensive arrows on Braveheart? Super expensive 5,000 lb. bombs would be far less preferable to use on an armed populace than simple bullets on an unarmed one with zero defense.

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#25 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,096 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 05 October 2017 - 04:42 PM

Interesting discussion. First of all i think one should differentiate between cause of deaths. Obesity, drug addiction, alcoholism etc cannot be compared with murders or mass killing. In the first category people "kill themselves" while in the 2nd people "kill other people". 2nd point is that the average number of deaths by guns is of 27000 per year in usa. This is a huge number even if usa is a big country. Freedom to have guns is a cultural habit in usa so if you change this you change a part of the culture. Now the important thing is not to change something but to have a better control of it. In Switzerland all people who make army will receive a gun. This gun they take it home when they are finished and it is part of our culture. Nobody will be surprised to see a gun in each home. The only difference is with the regulation of ammunition. Soldiers receive a closed can with a few bullets that they have instruction to open only in case of war. In case of war all swiss people aged less than 32 who have finished military will have to join army and on their way they already have their gun ready. Switzerland has no proffessional army but within 24 hours from war declaration we can setup an army of 200000 trained soldiers.
For all other cases ammunition is heavily regulated. One cannot just go to a shop and buy bullets. Who likes shooting as a hobby can go to a special shooting stand and can buy the necessary quantity of bullets he wants to shoot right there. But after he is finished he is controlled and cannot take some home with him. Same kind if cintrols for who likes hunting. They have to declare ammunition used and unused.
With these regulations we have very few deaths from guns. These regulations on ammunition are what would be useful to reduce all these deaths in usa not the regulation of the guns.
  • Don_Homer likes this

If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#26 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 06 October 2017 - 03:39 AM

Wow.  A lot of activity on this thread the last couple of days.  The other Offtopic threads have such little participation that I’m kindof surprised this many people are still here.  :)

 

The US Constitution was constructed to ensure citizens had the ability to resist an oppressive govt.  There’s nothing outdated about that.  The framers couldn’t have imagined the tech advances we’ve experienced though.  I don’t think the right to bear arms should extend to personal nukes, for example.  We have to have a threshold that gives citizens realistic security, but I think we can limit the types of weapons to what’s reasonable.  We also need to take reasonable steps to ensure public safety.
 
I’ve been working a lot this week and don’t have time to reply everything here but I’ll hit the important points.   
 
Malcom: Don’t underestimate a rifle.  It kills people dead even if they’re sitting in a Humvee or Blackhawk.
 
Lo: you missed the point about criminals.  I’m saying anyone who commits a gun crime is a criminal.  They don’t have to be a criminal before the crime occurs. 
 
Unladen: I said nothing about dystopian societies.  We revolted against England over taxes.  I’m happy you’ve got a nice country without guns and it works for you right now.  Others don’t do so well.  Look to Venezuela for the most recent example.  Cuba, North Korea?  I wonder if Tiananmen Square would have happened if Chinese citizens were all armed?  You’re right we do need to do a better job keeping guns away from kids.  That’s more of a societal problem though.  “You are spouting nonsense with lines like ‘I need a gun because criminals can get guns too’..”  I also never said that.  Are you reading what I write?
 
Gary: I think we’re mostly in agreement.
 
The alcohol comparison is strong here.  Far more are killed by drunk drivers than by guns and it’s totally senseless.  I’ve lost family to a drunk driver myself.  But we don’t ban cars or alcohol.  We punish the person.  Cars are just too practical to ban, but alcohol could be banned.  It has little practical use.  It’s just a recreational drink.  We don’t ban it because people want it.  Why?  Because they do.  And people want guns too.
 
TheOptician: thanks for coming back with more thoughtful comments.  I’ve really enjoyed my previous chats with you and was surprised by your first post.  You don’t need to be able to overwhelm a modern army.  Only provide sufficient resistance.  Our modern army has been in Afghanistan for 16 years and can’t control a bunch of goatherds with rifles and IEDs.  But it’s unlikely the US army will even be fighting a citizen uprising anytime soon.  It’s a fantastic notion in 2017.  The conditions just aren’t there and we’ve got plenty of peaceful recourse before it ever got to that point.  But conditions can change.  The framers felt this was important and I tend to agree.  Of course freedom exists in a collective.  Absolute freedom, no, but that doesn’t exist anywhere.  There will always be something you could have done to make the world more safe.  The benefits of gun ownership outweigh the downsides though.
  
Prof: Yes, I agree that fully automatic weapons should be heavily controlled and this “bump stock” modification should be illegal.  To your other questions: I think all gun purchases should get a background check.  I think a 10 round limit is reasonable.  I disagree with a no fly list ban simply because it’s too easy to land on it and too hard to get back off.  We’ve had stories of folks mistakenly placed there who had real trouble.  With changes though I might be ok with it.  I don’t think anyone mentally handicaped or with certain psychological conditions should have a gun and I support strengthening these safeguards.  As with the no fly list, my concern there is inducing any type of loophole that might allow the govt to declare people they don’t like unfit to own guns.  I would also support additional rules for weapons around children.  For example, a trigger lock or gun cabinet should be a requirement if the gun is kept in a home with minors. 
 
Napoleon:  I didn’t know that about the Swiss.  That’s a pretty versatile arrangement that I like a lot.  You know one of the side benefits that’s rarely discussed is the second layer of protection we get from invasion.  The US hasn’t been under serious threat of that for a long time, but it would be a daunting task for anyone.  If we use a reasonable figure like 25 million gun owners in the US and only 10 percent of them were able to shoot a member of an invading force that would be 2.5 million casualties.  That’s more than China has in their entire army.  Even had Japan beaten us in the Pacific it’s unlikely they could have mounted a successful invasion.  Thanks for your cultural comments because I don’t think that’s what some of these other European folks are appreciating.  Many hunt, many target shoot, many like feeling safe in their home, and many like knowing they do have the potential to resist if things really went south.  I’m not sure your ammo limitation would have been useful against a guy like the Vegas shooter though.  There will always be a black market and he was a multimillionaire.  He was going to get what he needed to pull it off.  But again, I would be against that anyway in the US because I want a lot of bullets. 

  • The Prof likes this

#27 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 06 October 2017 - 01:28 PM

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=_67xn1QC-z0 Sometimes humour is making things clear better than 1000 words.

This video of Homer is my argumentation why I also do not like to tolerate rifles for normal citisens.

#28 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,455 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 07 October 2017 - 11:17 AM

 

The benefits of gun ownership outweigh the downsides though.

 

 

My initial reaction was born out of anger and confusion as to how this opinion can be held by so many, so I'd really be interested to see your list of benefits v downsides (and the reasoning). 



#29 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 07 October 2017 - 03:56 PM

We have 9 different people reacting here but only 6 votes, all in favor of more control. Surprising when you read the heated but interesting discussion.

I added another question for more details. I just noticed you have to delete your vote to vote again on both questions.

Edited by Don_Homer, 07 October 2017 - 04:12 PM.


#30 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 07 October 2017 - 05:03 PM

My initial reaction was born out of anger and confusion as to how this opinion can be held by so many, so I'd really be interested to see your list of benefits v downsides (and the reasoning). 

 

I understand.  I think I’ve already touched on most of this, but to summarize.
 
Benefits:
1) The ability to forcibly resist a govt that was out of control.
2) Recreation:  Hunting, target shooting, collecting, competition.
3) Personal defense. 
4) National defense.  And don’t discount this for a minute just because we’re currently a superpower.  It was only a few decades ago that we were under serious threat in WW2, and if human history is a reliable guide it’s likely we will be again at some point in the future.   
 
Downsides:
1) Children or unstable persons might come into possession of the weapon and use it.
2) Accidents.
3) The ready availability of guns makes it easier for criminals to get them.  Some criminals would always get guns, but a total ban would lower those numbers.


#31 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 07 October 2017 - 05:05 PM

Don, I didn't vote on your poll because while I think some legislation might help, I am very wary of unintend consequences and slippery slope precidents.  Hopefully, my posts give more clarity than a poll answer would.
 



#32 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 07 October 2017 - 07:22 PM

The answers always give more clarity Darth. But the poll currently is as unreliable as can be with such high non-respons. Im sure presidents will not use it :). Also there is nothing in it about changing the constitution of the founding fathers.

#33 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,075 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 08 October 2017 - 11:32 AM

the poll currently is as unreliable as can be with such high non-respons.

We should get the aliases of the rightwing-conspiracy back (check the other latest polls) to at least get the numbers up :ph34r: :rolleyes:


Lo

#34 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,455 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 October 2017 - 11:50 AM

Darth,
 
Allow me to respond to your list of benefits of gun ownership:
 
Benefits:
1) The ability to forcibly resist a govt that was out of control.
2) Recreation:  Hunting, target shooting, collecting, competition.
3) Personal defense. 
4) National defense.  And don’t discount this for a minute just because we’re currently a superpower.  It was only a few decades ago that we were under serious threat in WW2, and if human history is a reliable guide it’s likely we will be again at some point in the future.   
 
---------
 
Point 2 has no respectful place on this list. We are talking about mass loss of human life, and you are quoting relative trivialities. 
 
Points 1, 3 and 4 are really the same argument with a different subject - someone defending themselves against another. It strikes me as a little absurd that you are effectively citing 'safety' as the 3 main benefits of gun ownership, when I am arguing the exact same point as the downside. Given that it is not a benefit to self-defence if both sides have a gun - How specifically does gun ownership help these causes?
 
Is public gun ownership necessary for national defence? Are there safer weapons that can be used to protect an individual or property against an assailant who did not attack with a gun? Are there other methods of opposing a tyrannical government that do not require gun ownership? Can the recreational aspects be regulated so that hunting and shooting could continue? The answer to all these questions is yes if your main concern is human life.

  • Don_Homer likes this

#35 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 October 2017 - 03:37 PM

The answers always give more clarity Darth. But the poll currently is as unreliable as can be with such high non-respons. Im sure presidents will not use it :). Also there is nothing in it about changing the constitution of the founding fathers.

I think polls are manipulated in Europe just like they are here.  :)  Any politician looking at this poll will think he has to rush out and do something right now.  And the media will proudly display it and suddenly the "low-information" segment of the electorate will think everyone wants to do it so it must be right and the snowball gets bigger.  And before it's over we're nowhere close to where we should be.  Much better to have real dialog.


  • Lonello likes this

#36 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 October 2017 - 03:40 PM

If point 2 has no respectful place then we should ban items like alcohol too. 
 
I was trying to give the detail you asked for, but if you want to summarize then we can collapse the entire list into “Liberty”.  “Safety” is not the argument.  

 

Given that it is not a benefit to self-defence if both sides have a gun - How specifically does gun ownership help these causes?

I really don’t understand what you are saying here.  It’s self-evident that a gun is preferable in these situations, especially if the other party has one.

 

My main concern is not human life but human liberty.  Life is important for sure, but liberty is more important.  As a famous American said: “Give me liberty or give me death.” 



#37 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,075 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 08 October 2017 - 04:14 PM

I really don’t understand what you are saying here.

 

I'm not really understanding everything either.

 

Is public gun ownership necessary for national defence? Are there safer weapons that can be used to protect an individual or property against an assailant who did not attack with a gun? Are there other methods of opposing a tyrannical government that do not require gun ownership? Can the recreational aspects be regulated so that hunting and shooting could continue? The answer to all these questions is yes if your main concern is human life.

 

Human life = public gun ownership necessary for national defence, answer yes, is your claim? I thought this was one of Darth's weaker points actually. Malcom already addressed this.

 

I think there's something to be said for personal defence. Don't mind a pistol if the Americans like it there. But it could be addressed differently too, as Swallow showed for the UK. And in Japan they had this decade 2 fatalities by guns in a year compared with 10.000 in the same period for the US. In Japan there is very strict control ofcourse. I'd rather have Japan's system there.

 

“Give me liberty or give me death.”

Sounds Klingon to me :D :lol: :P :P


Lo

#38 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,096 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 October 2017 - 04:42 PM

Darth, 

 

 

... see the famous sentence below ... does this reflect what the average guns defenders in America think?:

 

You accomplish more with a smile, a handshake, and a gun than you do with just a smile and a handshake.

Al Capone


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#39 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 October 2017 - 04:50 PM

Darth, 

 

 

... see the famous sentence below ... does this reflect what the average guns defenders in America think?:

 

You accomplish more with a smile, a handshake, and a gun than you do with just a smile and a handshake.

Al Capone

lol.  I don't think the average gun defender thinks this way, but there is an element of truth there.



#40 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 October 2017 - 04:51 PM

Human life = public gun ownership necessary for national defence, answer yes, is your claim? I thought this was one of Darth's weaker points actually. Malcom already addressed this.

 

 

Actually, I thought this was one of my stronger points.  :)


Edited by DarthRemark, 08 October 2017 - 04:52 PM.

  • Lonello likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users