Gun Control...

[BTGBullseye]

Link requires login to a separate forum.

[ThePest179]

Link requires login to a separate forum.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot, only registered users can witness those types of threads. Well, if you want to know what they said, I would recommend signing up to their forums (you'd make an interesting addition, I'm sure of it ). Otherwise, I might post a link they shared.

[BTGBullseye]

I don't generally sign up for random forums... It's always for a specific reason. Thanks for the invite though.

[ThePest179]

I don't generally sign up for random forums... It's always for a specific reason. Thanks for the invite though.

 

Well, here's the main page, if you change your mind.

[BTGBullseye]

I'll keep it in mind.

[BTGBullseye]

Well, I figure I'll give an update to what my gun looks like, and a little bit of an update to the thread...

 

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/11/americans-gun-rights-more-important-than-gun-control

[K4_Kydure]

That's a cute little Ruger you have there.

 

My stance on the situation is against gun control and I'm all for open carry.

 

I normally hate people who fit stereotypes but I want the stereotype of everyone in Texas is armed to be true.

Also is there a thread for just discussing guns or does this one double for that?I'm too lazy to check right now.

[BTGBullseye]

This doubles... As long as you're serious about the topic. lol

 

It is a nice gun. Good feel, 15 round mag, 9 round mag, picatinny rail, manual safety, striker instead of hammer, Glock-style trigger safety, magazine safety, (i removed that, and in the owner's manual it shows how to do so very clearly) 3.4 inch barrel, hits decent groups at 30 yards...

[K4_Kydure]

In news about guns there's the Heavy Counter Assault Rifle (HCAR) from Ohio Ordnance Works.

Essentially a modernized Browning Automatic Rifle. I'm glad to see my favorite AR getting a sexy modern makeover. I wish I could get one but that $4,699.99 price tag.

 

Have some video:

mxWXa9l0XMI

[BTGBullseye]

I've been looking at that for some time... I just want one with a little longer barrel.

 

[EDIT] Additional info about sound suppressors...

 

vtPdjGa0VB8

[Collective Foal]

In the past several months, my views on gun control have changed. I personally believe in adopting Australia's gun control laws. Here's the thing. The Second Amendment was established so that civilians had the right to protect themselves against a young government that had the potential of being corrupted into an oppressive dictatorship. We're past that stage, and while things aren't perfect, I doubt there's any risk of Obama's boys knocking on our front doors and executing us for disagreeing with his welfare plans.

 

All of our crazy personal opinions on firearms aside, let's look at how the argument has gone every single time I've seen it come up.

 

Gun Control Advocate: "I think we should control guns as it would result in less homicides and mass shootings."

 

Gun Advocate: "But if someone really wants a gun, they will always be able to find a way to get one anyways, so there's no point. The only way to be sure that gun-related homicides don't happen is by letting everyone carry a gun to kill the perp.

 

Now, the person against gun control brings up what seems to be a VERY viable point. Black markets are incredibly hard to control. HOWEVER, if we look at factual, statistical evidence from the past twenty years, we find that the Gun Control Advocate's viewpoint is confirmed in several instances.

 

Japan:

Japan's gun policies are notoriously strict. Civilians cannot possess handguns, automatic assault weapons, semi-automatic assault weapons, military rifles, or machine guns. Japanese civilians aren't even allowed to own swords.

 

Without a license, a Japanese citizen isn't even permitted to touch a firearm. Failure to follow this law can result in up to 10 years in prison.

 

Japanese civilians hold a mere 710,000 guns, with 0.6 firearms for every person. In 2008, there were 11 gun homicides. For perspective, there are 122,800,000 people in Japan. That year is not an anomaly. In 2006 there were 2 gun homicides and in 2007 there were 22, a national scandal.

 

Australia

Australia had 30 gun homicides in 2010, which amounted to 0.13 gun deaths for each 100,000 people. Australians hold 3-3.5 million guns, a rate of 15 guns for every 100 people.

 

Australia is a rare nation that has had a significant shift toward additional gun control in recent years. Following a 1996 shooting spree that left 35 Australians dead at the Port Arthur tourist location in Tasmania, the government launched a major overhaul of gun laws.

 

In the decade before Port Arthur, Australia saw 11 mass shootings; since then, there has not been a single mass shooting and the gun murder rate has continued its steady decline.

United Kingdom

In 2011, the U.K. had 0.07 gun homicides for every 100,000 people; the U.S., by contrast, had 3 gun homicides for every 100,000. In 2009 there were 138 gun deaths in the U.K, where there are 6.7 firearms for every 100 people.

 

One reason contributing to this is the U.K.'s strict gun laws. According to an English rifle and gun club legal center, any person possessing a firearm in the U.K. must posses a Shotgun Certificate or a Firearm Certificate.

Canada

The U.S.'s neighbor to the north also has outstandingly low gun casualty statistics. In 2009, there were 0.5 deaths per 100,000 from gun homicide — only 173 people. Still, the ownership is comparatively high — there are 23.8 firearms per 100 people in the country.

 

There is no legal right to possess arms in Canada. It takes sixty days to buy a gun there, and there is mandatory licensing for gun owners. Gun owners pursuing a license must have third-party references, take a safety training course and pass a background check with a focus on mental, criminal and addiction histories.

 

So it's become quite apparent through statistical evidence and NOT hypothetical black market conspiracy that gun control reduces gun-related homicide.

 

Here is my source, which lists the sources for its statistics as hyperlinks within the text of the article:

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

[BTGBullseye]

I have 2 points against what you're saying...

 

1. It isn't about gun-only crime, but the overall violent crime rate. Guns have been proven to significantly reduce the violent crime rate in every case. The UK has extremely high violent crime, but guns are merely replaced with other weapons. I guarantee it's harder for a woman to keep from being raped if all she has is a knife instead of a gun.

 

2. *watch the videos*

 

evEg1VNfX3o

vlMMZvMJ3c4

[Rover]

I'm not entirely sure America has a gun problem, I'm also equally unsure it doesn't have a gun problem.

However, with one bloody massacre after another I am fairly sure America has a violent murderous nutjob problem.

That said, surely it can't be a bad idea to keep lethal weapons like firearms, which make it very easy to quickly kill many people, out of the hands of people who have mental problems. But if the U.S. can't even pass legislation that calls for more background checks right after a classroom full of children got gunned down it's simply never going to happen.

So relax gunfondlers, stop stroking your barrels while checking for black helicopters over your house and communists under your bed, the big bad black man isn't coming for your guns anytime soon.

Gun manufacturers love it when there are democrats in office, make no mistake. But far be it from me to suggest those with ties to the industry purposefully spread fear and paranoia to this exact effect, no sir-ee, not me, never. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gun-industry-thrives-obama-article-1.1187506

 

Personally, I do feel a lot safer that around here very, very few people could be packing heat. But I recognize there are countries where there are both a lot of guns, and few, if any, spree killings. Switzerland for example.

[Collective Foal]

You have to take into account, however, the size of the Swiss population as well as how relatively high their standard of living is. The Swiss are a generally affluent nation and, as such, violent crimes are going to be much lower there than anywhere else. With not too many people and a lot of money to go around, nobody has any reason to kill anybody else, so they can all have firearms to go hunting in alpine forests and all that jazz.

 

America has a ridiculous wealth disparity and a very large population. There is a lot of unhappiness in our country and that gets channeled into violence. Removing firearms from civilian hands other than what's necessary is crucial to lowering the murder rates in our country, and especially crucial to preventing mass killings.

 

Give me a list of any other weapon you could potentially go on a killing spree with that isn't a semi-automatic or automatic firearm. Like seriously, give me one, because I can't think of any. A guy with a knife can be avoided and apprehended relatively easily compared to a guy with an AR-15. So unless you think we should train children, who have a poor sense of their own mortality and can often be overcome by emotion, to handle firearms so they can protect themselves when someone barges into the room with a military-grade weapon, I'd say you're shit out of luck on solving our mass shooting problem other than getting rid of the damned things all together.

[BTGBullseye]

Give me a list of any other weapon you could potentially go on a killing spree with that isn't a semi-automatic or automatic firearm.

Pipe bombs, most other explosives, (99% of which are unregulated, and I know of at least 30 different formulas that I could whip up in a couple hours from inexpensive household chemicals that could make a 250T explosion when filling the trunk of a car) rocket motors, (when properly arranged and triggered) gasoline, (as an accelerant for arson) a car... I can list quite a few, (and some very obvious ones like the car) are you sure you want me to clutter up the thread with all of them? (tip: plain old flour can be used as a low-power fuel-air explosive in a contained area, and wouldn't be difficult or significantly suspect for an employee to set up in a school cafeteria)

 

On the topic of avoiding the weapon, you can avoid a military grade firearm pretty easily by having 3 people in the room with handguns, all of whom return fire. Also, at very close range, (10 yards or less) 5.56mm NATO rounds fired from most rifles will do minimal damage to a person because they are moving too fast, and are too narrow. (they would have to manage to hit one of two extremely small target areas [brain stem or heart] to have any hope of killing someone, as medical support in the USA is very good)

 

Also, automatic weapons are already banned, and I agree that those should be reserved for trained individuals, as they currently are. (military, militia, specific law enforcement sections like SWAT, and licensed individuals) Automatic weaponry is a completely different animal than a semi-auto, as it has massively different handling requirements and performance, or you can't hit shit with it. (it also eats ammo like crazy)

 

And yes, poverty levels definitely have a lot to do with some violent gun crime, (it is a separate subsection of gun crimes in general, as gun crimes include illegal modifications, possession, concealment, transfer, etc.) but so far as I can find, has nothing at all to do with any mass shooting in US history. If you can find one, please let me know. (this means it was listed as part of the defined reasons someone used them, not just that the person was robbing a bank with a gun, or happened to have low/no income as a side note to their actual criminal intentions)

 

I'm seriously considering posting a decidedly graphic (possibly forum-rules-breaking graphic) video of a medical lecture on firearm injuries... Nah, I don't want another ban.

[Rover]

 

On the topic of avoiding the weapon, you can avoid a military grade firearm pretty easily by having 3 people in the room with handguns, all of whom return fire. Also, at very close range, (10 yards or less) 5.56mm NATO rounds fired from most rifles will do minimal damage to a person because they are moving too fast, and are too narrow. (they would have to manage to hit one of two extremely small target areas [brain stem or heart] to have any hope of killing someone, as medical support in the USA is very good)

 

 

I would expect having even more guns around would greatly increase the chances of accidents and personal conflicts with deadly outcome though.

And I think I know why you said there should be at least 3 people around.

A pro-gun rights group in Texas re-enacted the Charlie Hebdo attacks with paintball rounds, in an attempt to see whether an “armed civilian” could have stopped the two gunmen who attacked the Paris office of the satirical magazine, killing 12. The civilian “died” in almost every scenario except immediate flight from the scene.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/15/texas-gun-group-charlie-hebdo-paintball

Of course it's hardly a scientific experiment.

[BTGBullseye]

I would expect having even more guns around would greatly increase the chances of accidents and personal conflicts with deadly outcome though.

I can't find any instance where that has happened, and can however find a very prominent one where the release of gun restrictions in Texas was heralded as "returning to the wild west", but in reality all forms of violent crime dropped dramatically.

 

And I think I know why you said there should be at least 3 people around.

Because if a gunman enters a room and manages to take down one of the civies with guns in the first shot/salvo, there are enough left to have time to take some form of cover and return fire. It also means there is a very high likelihood that at least one will remain uninjured to perform basic first aid, and call for help.

 

A pro-gun rights group in Texas re-enacted the Charlie Hebdo attacks with paintball rounds, in an attempt to see whether an “armed civilian” could have stopped the two gunmen who attacked the Paris office of the satirical magazine, killing 12. The civilian “died” in almost every scenario except immediate flight from the scene.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/15/texas-gun-group-charlie-hebdo-paintball

Of course it's hardly a scientific experiment.

Very unscientific. 2 well trained assailants with automatic weapons will always outclass one civilian with an unfamiliar weapon. The trick is whether that civilian managed to 'kill' one of the assailants or not. (your source doesn't say whether they did or not, just that one of them was hit in 2 exercises) Also, one civilian with a gun is a huge distraction, and theoretically could have save many or all of the lost lives by sacrificing his own. (this is a part of the topic that nobody seems to touch on)

[Collective Foal]

By all means, BTG, clutter the thread with all the examples of the same exact thing. You listed one "weapon" in that entire wall of text, and that was "explosives." And yes, explosives can kill multiple people and no, we can't regulate every ounce of ammonium nitrate being shipped around the country. But what we can do is limit the number of ways people can murder each other by eliminating the weapons that hold the record for attendance at murder scenes.

 

And by the fucking by, how can you even claim that you haven't seen an instance where accidents happen??? Like seriously, children and other innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire of violent shootouts ALL THE TIME.

http://abc11.com/news/man-caught-in-crossfire-in-durham-shooting/495428/

http://fox4kc.com/2015/01/28/witnesses-teenage-girl-caught-in-crossfire-gets-struck-by-bullet-in-leg/

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/7yearold-shot-after-getting-caught-in-crossfire/28059548

http://www.cbs46.com/story/27945550/mother-describes

 

I just googled "caught in crossfire news" and found 4 instances just like that, 3 of which happened in the last fucking week. Seriously BTG, that was the biggest shrug-off on a question I've ever seen. Innocent lives are put in jeopardy and even taken every single hour of every single day because people are allowed to own and abuse firearms. Here, let's find some more instances, shall we??? This time I'm searching "Police friendly fire news"

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/police-friendly-fire-kills-cops-film-crew-member

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/us/boston-watertown-shootout/

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_25866927/da-no-charges-will-be-filed-fatal-shooting

 

OH AND LET'S TALK ABOUT ALL THE TIMES WHEN THE POLICE EXECUTE NO-KNOCK HOUSE RAIDS AND PEOPLE, THINKING THEY'RE DEFENDING THEIR HOMES FROM INTRUDERS, END UP KILLING POLICE OFFICERS OR GET THEMSELVES KILLED

 

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/prosecutor-seeking-death-penalty-officer-killed-knock-raid/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/david-hooks-raid/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/jermaine-darden-swat-raid/

 

But gosh dang ain't dem guns da darn coooliest ah'd luv tuh tayk a buzzerd's hed awf wit mah twelv-gaej n shute sum o dem muderfukin islahms wen day trah tuh blow up mah hometauwn.

[BTGBullseye]

children and other innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire of violent shootouts ALL THE TIME.

That is not what an "accident" is. That is called collateral. Not even close to the same thing. More guns at one shootout doesn't really change the statistics for the shootouts, however the location of the shootout does significantly. (also, 4-7 total incidents is less than lightning strike kills per year)

 

As for true 'accidents' increasing proportionally to the number of guns in an area, I would like to see the statistics you find on that. (that means the gun discharged and injured someone, and the gun was either unintentionally fired, or was never intended to injure a person)

 

Concerning no-knock raids... They deserve every shot fired at them if they go to a non-criminal's house. (not saying that they should stop doing them, no-knocks are intended to keep the cops from being shot through the door because they are waiting to serve a warrant to a suspected "armed & dangerous") Who the hell would believe that someone that just broke into your house in a violent manner with no forewarning wasn't there to intend you serious harm? (or for that matter, believe them just because they yell at you that they're police) Why would you use no-knock raids as an argument concerning 'accidents' anyways? (unless the cops go to the wrong house, there is no 'accident' involved)

 

And finally, do you really think size and color changes of the text, or writing [what I can only assume to be] a mocking line of very poorly written gibberish, makes you look smarter? Just an FYI, it doesn't.

[Collective Foal]

My favorite part was the one where you completely ignored the "friendly fire" instances and pulled everything else apart. You're precious. And 4-7 instances is what I found in 5 minutes on Google. Like seriously, where are your sources BTG? Where are your sources EVER?

 

And no, the satirical hypothetical quote of a typical gun-toting conservative hillbilly was not meant to make me look smart. It was actually a logical fallacy put to good use. I essentially built a straw man by composing this ridiculously stupid southern bimbo and making him vouch for the right to own guns in his idiotic manner of speaking. This then implements the idea that by association, people who support gun freedom are on the same level of thinking as this mentally challenged piece of white trash. While it has no actual backbone to it, it still serves as a humorous tidbit that amuses the reader and makes them more likely to find my argument the more sound of the two because firstly, it puts the reader in a good mood and, secondly, it writes off the opposing argument as stupid rambling garbage that takes likeness to an uneducated southern man.