The Crowd-Sourced Debate Post: Week 1 [Gun Control]

Trying something new here, so bear with me, credits go to those who used to debate appropriately on the site that stand out in my mind : ).

Obviously, people on Sharenator have differing opinions about things, especially with regard to politics, religion, and other controversial topics. There is a want to discuss them. However, this want often translates into angry discussion, abusive downrating, personal attacks, and more negative results. Some of which I am guilty of myself.

So, to move on from that, and to get back to what the Sharenator debate culture used to be, I need the community's help! In order for a true debate/discussion to be had, we must keep every post at +1, the default, preserving the order of discussion and preventing anyone's opinion from being censored due to downrate. My requests from those who post here:
Do not downrate or uprate anyone else's posts: let their words speak for themselves.

If you see a post at any rating other than +1, as long as that post is not spam or overly offensive (or a TOS violation), up or downrate it so it reaches a +1 equilibrium. We have enough sensible people on here that we should be able to keep an entire conversation at "+1" so we can have a legitimate discussion that others can follow.

Make sensible posts, and back up your opinions with facts (be able to source facts upon request)

Personal attacks are not arguments

Memes are not arguments
It's my belief that following these simple guidelines should have a positive impact on whatever discussion follows.

FIRST TOPIC: Gun Control, in the US or elsewhere. This seems to be an apparent, current issue, so discussing it seems sensible. Next week there will be a new topic, if this goes well.

DISCLAIMER: There are some I no longer engage with on Sharenator, but that doesn't mean anyone else should refrain from engaging with people. Have the best discussion you can!

(Tldr: Talk about gun control, keep all posts at +1)

You might be interested


Reply Attach
  • 1

    I think that it is alright to own guns if you are a citizen, but in no way should you be able to own a military grade weapon or anything automatic. I understand that some people want protection, but those weapons aren't for protection. They are created to destroy/kill.

    Yes they destroy the invader.
    Where I live a pizza gets here faster than the police.
    I don't dial 911, I dial 1911
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 2:06 pm
    I'm just saying that if you need defense a simple handgun will do. And I am from the south so hunting equipment is reasonable. but if you need some kind of automatic/military grade weapon just for defense, I think it is a little much.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 2:10 pm
    Please for the sake of this topic , please define a little much.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 2:28 pm
    I think it is unnecessary to need those kinds of weapons for defense if you are a citizen. Like I said before, hunting equipment is fine and a handgun will suffice, but those kinds of weapons are created to destroy anything they are pointed at and I do believe that it is unnecessary for the public to own one.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 2:33 pm
    Ever Been hog hunting? They are mean bastards that will try and kill you. That is what the custom aug and beta mag are used for. I have a red jacket saga 12 that I use for bird hunting. All these guns that are considered assault rifles are used for hunting and home defense. God bless the poor fool who breaks into my home, I won't. And I will make sure I have every advantage to make sure my family lives.
    No the investor in me loves these talks. All gun regulation will do will greatly add value to my collection/investment.
    Guns are designed to shoot, but its the person who holds it who decides what it shoots at.
    Last part, I always trust the government more when the people are armed, it keeps them "honest".
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 2:57 pm
    See where I'm from they do more deer and squirrel hunting. All they need is a rifle. When it comes to home defense all you truly need is a handgun, and if you do hunt then you will have another firearm to use. But the assault weapons as defense for a home I don't agree with.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 3:06 pm
    Last part, I always trust the government more when the people are armed, it keeps them "honest".

    That's just silly. I don't think the gov't will ever be scared of your population no matter how many guns you buy. I think the gov't can arm itself better with 600+ billion/year for defense then you possibly could. Predator drones > rifles
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 3:33 pm
    I'm going to jump in this for a second. When he says it'll keep the government honest, I don't think he plans on fighting a full on war with the U.S government =. I think what he's trying to say is, the government will be less likely to try and violate the citizens constitutional rights (the 2nd amendment), which guarantees the right to arm yourself and for the state to keep a militia if need be ( not that we really need one but I'm not opposed to it at all), since we have our weapons. If some high up snooty law maker wants to try and deny the right for me, or anyone, to defend myself with my own weapons, which they have themselves 24/7, they're gonna have to pry them from my cold dead fingers.

    And on the government being able to arm itself, part of that would obviously be the military, I'm in the Marine Corps, and I'll be damned if I'm going to take someones weapon from them. Ever.
    - exile December 30, 2012, 3:50 pm
    That's ok but all I am doing is enjoying one of the many right that make this country unique. So which is worse, the sega 12 or the aug?
    To say all you need is a handgun means you might have a hand gun while the perp has something more powerful. I will not be put in a place where the crook outguns me. You make it so that only people who follow the laws may use hand guns, criminals will use something better for their advantage. In my home, it's my advantage to win or loose.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 3:58 pm
    History would say populations without weapons are easier to control. History also shows that populations that are armed have an easier time controlling their government.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 4:00 pm
    Care to cite a few examples? Most democratic gov'ts in this day and age have stricter gun laws than the US. Yet besides that, they still have the same amount of freedoms, if not more. There are better reasons to argue for or against than that. But I think I've weighed in plenty so far, I'll let someone else take it from here.
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 4:25 pm
    I doubt it makes much difference. If you're hell bent on violating your own people's rights, you'll probably be better armed regardless.

    The 2nd amendment needs context. Back when it was written, the US barely had an organized militia, (it wasn't really the US so much as a former British colony.) hence the need for citizens to bear arms. This was also before concealable, magazine fed or full auto guns, where it was easier to cut someone up with a sword. I would suggest reassessment after technological/societal changes, though I do understand desire for self defense.
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 4:26 pm
    Nazi Germany was a wonderful example.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 4:31 pm
    I know criminals don't follow laws, but if the only thing someone of the public can get a hold of are handguns, then there would be no need to be worried of getting outgunned. It is a right to own a gun, that is why I don't think we should ban all of them. But I don't think the public should own high power assault firearms that you would find in the military.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 4:43 pm
    I could no had said it better myself.
    I am happy, as always, my marine brothers and sisters are true to the constitution we swore to protect.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 4:44 pm
    Was that because of gun control, or because of Hitler's cult of personality and ability to control the press? Even if it was: Canada, Netherlands, UK, France, Australia. That's just off the top of my head, you don't see those countries starting global wars or turning into brutal dictatorships.
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 4:45 pm
    At the time when the constitution was written State of the art firearms were what the 2nd amendment was talking about. It didn't say the government gets guns and the people get bow and arrows. It gave the people the right to arm and defend them self with the best.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 4:48 pm
    1.) Boars are fucking legit hunting targets and you need a strong gun for that type of hunting. i can understand using those guns for that type of a hunt but i think it would be a smart thing to require some kind of restrictions on those guns just for the sake of safety wouldn't that be better? even if it's to just reduce the carrying capacity or some kind of licensing system (make it so they have to renew the license ever year or something idk i'm not familiar with gun laws myself but still think the regulations should be fairly strict as they are guns. it's purpose is to kill.)
    2.) more regulations= more cash for you. i can get on board with that lol. good investing
    3.) true but i don't trust people, so this is the theory of self preservation. you won't shoot if you think i have a gun. but sometimes crazy people will shoot anyway. i get the idea but i feel like most people just endanger others if they have guns.
    4.) yea.... some how i think all those guns we have out here aren't going do shit to keep government "honest". only saying it cause really i don't think the american people would stand a chance if the government turned on us. (though i will say a SHITTON of people would leave the armed forces to fight against them if the government turned on us out right, but i feel it would be more subtle than that. most people wouldn't even know they had done anything till it was to late.)

    over all it's a difficult choice that ultimately i feel should be left to the states. massachusetts has no need of anything more than a basic hunting rifle (most we have are some deer, though i guess coyotes could be hunted like i said i'm not too familiar.) i get that many people who hunt here do so out of state but if it was state laws then at the least they can decide on a more local basis
    - 24paperwings December 30, 2012, 4:49 pm
    No matter how struck the laws, criminals always find a way. The only person you can effectively ban guns from are the people who follow the laws.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 4:54 pm
    Don't confuse me saying that its a garontee with it being easier. I wonder how many Jews are alive today because they were able to find a gun.
    In the US guns from crimes have been decreasing over the last 20 years except for the places that have gun bans, like Chicago, dc and NYC
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 4:57 pm
    State law does not trump the constitution.
    What good is it to regulate high capacity mags when you can buy old ones that were produced when they were legal or use a 3d printer to make your own? You can add all the new laws you want and it only stops the people who follow the law. What if the laws that we already have, what if they were enforced?
    You will never be able to out regulate crazy.
    Did you know that mini guns are legal to own? That one of the most powerful guns ever made are owned by citizens. No one has ever been murdered with one. Could that be due to the fact that the owners are responsible?
    You say that citizens owning guns have do e nothing to keep the government honest. I ask how much worse it might be if we did t have guns?
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 5:15 pm
    1.) you're correct, just a simple idea and i'd rather not go amend the constitution as it becomes more trouble than it's worth
    2.) i could make the same claim for weed. though i admit you're correct as even that law is showing signs of failing.
    3.) obviously
    4.) yea but it's also inefficient unless you have large groups of people coming after you, thats an area spray gun which is most effective against large numbers of people. plus the thing is pretty friggen obvious, you see someone walking around with a mini gun and most people are peacing the fuck out before they start shooting. a light weight machine gun would be much more effective and thats what most crazies will use.
    5.) i'm not gonna disagree with you on this. but thats only if the government actually tried to do it. (personally i think it's possible but not very likely to happen)
    i still strongly feel that the licensing idea is good. at the very least if you are getting a gun you should have to have not only a license but submit to background checks and must renew the license every year. this would get people to keep better track of the guns and may keep people on top of knowing who does have guns. it shouldn't be hard to at least make it more difficult to get a gun (only in the sense that if there is a mental illness history [this would need be better defined as some wouldn't hinder them really] to or history of violence then they can't get one) i only say this because a gun is designed only to kill. nothing more or less. people may have a right to them, but i have a right to live. my right to life trumps their right to own a gun. if they are going to put me in danger then i don't want them to have the gun. if there are regulations that we can put in place then we should.
    - 24paperwings December 30, 2012, 5:34 pm
    And I understand this. Hopefully there will be a way to get these off the streets. If not then it's going to be impossible to limit anything.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 5:39 pm
    Let me ask you a question. You live by yourself. Some one breaks in high on meth. Does the 12 gauge under your bed make you feel safer or more in danger?
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 5:49 pm
    In today's world you may print a gun. Before that in the US there are way to many guns out there to make sure you get them all.
    Let me ask you what I ask others. Say you live by yourself. A meth head breaks in. You call the police. It will be anywhere from five to twenty min Bedford they arrive. Does having a gun for protection give you a chance of living until the police arrive? Does that gun give you a better chance of life than not having the gun?
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 5:52 pm
    Pa if you have never been try pig hunting. They are one of the few animals out there that can hunt you.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 5:55 pm
    No the hatchet and 4 1/2 inch combat knife do. like i said guns are for cowards.
    - 24paperwings December 30, 2012, 5:55 pm
    My experiqnce is that gun kills knife 99.999% of the time. you knife will only work if they intruder is not armed. tell me, is a 70 year old man a coward for not being able to protect himself from a 25 year old high on meth? God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal. And if you break in my house I do not owe you an equil fight. I owe you a 12 gauge supasitory.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 6:00 pm
    johne I've already said a gun is fine for protection. a handgun is okay in my book. I'm saying something as powerful as assault rifles or anything military grade is a little over the top for household protection.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 6:08 pm
    Can you answer the question about the 79 year old man being a coward for having a gun? Dies that also mean you think the police and military are full of cowards when it comes to using guns.
    No offense my friend but I would not call you an expert on home invasions and what is and is not appropriate to use. I will only trust myself when it comes to my protection. You have no idea what other people need for protection, you can only speak for yourself.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 6:13 pm
    oh trust me i know, problem is i don't hunt, i simply allow them to live a few moments longer (jokes john i actually can't hunt for shit lol). anyways you seemed to have switched from your original point that guns are for defense. well along with that are many other lethal and non lethal weapons. many of which are not only cheaper but probably more effective provided you're not five or can't swing to save your life (though i guess you could just taze them...) gun's lead to crime more often than they are used to protect ones self. but i still think it's a persons right to have one. i just wish to make it harder to get the most dangerous types. a gun that has a 30 round clip and is designed for war? make that gun a bit difficult to get, require people take safety courses learn about the gun and make sure these people can safely use and operate it. make sure we know who these people are that own stronger than average weapons. it's not much to ask and it's in the interest of all, personally like i said i say fuck guns, i'll use my fists and if needed close combat weapons. i don't like guns because i think they are a cowards tool.
    - 24paperwings December 30, 2012, 6:17 pm
    I know I'm not an expert on home invasions, I don't claim to be. I'm saying that in my opinion all someone in the public needs is a handgun for protection and hunting equipment if they hunt. I don't think someone is a coward for owning a gun, and I am not quite sure why you are using that example.

    In my opinion, all you need for protection is a handgun.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 6:19 pm
    Guns are tools that more uses than just home defense. Hunting is just one. Pigs are just one example of when big mags come in handy.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 6:21 pm
    What if the intruder has a hand gun? Should you as the home owner night have the right to make sure home invaders don't have a fair chance? It's your life, you want a killer to have a fair chance to kill you or do you want every advantage for your right to live?
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 6:24 pm
    um johne, i said that i believe we should own guns. i don't see how you keep missing that. all i said was that the public shouldnt be able to get high-powered automatic stuff.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 6:25 pm
    I have no issue with the regulation of automatic guns.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 6:30 pm
    they have three uses in total. kill, maim, hunt. thats it.
    - 24paperwings December 30, 2012, 6:33 pm
    my point was, you cannot take away guns. It's an amendment. we can however regulate them. Leave little handguns to help protect and leave hunting equipment. Anything else is unnecessary.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 6:34 pm
    I would never consider using any of my class 3s for defense, I own them for the same reason people own classic cars.
    - triclebickle December 30, 2012, 6:37 pm
    But what the three uses are being used for are up to the user. A gun is neither good or bad. It's what ever the user wants it to be.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 6:37 pm
    The founding fathers would disagree, and so do I. You will never be able to rid the US of the millions of guns here. So I always want to be as well armed if not more so than the person trying to kill me.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 6:39 pm
    true but limiting the damage it can deal is better than saying fuck it. there are factors we can change in this equation. they will only be subtle changes but changes none the less.
    - 24paperwings December 30, 2012, 6:43 pm
    I know this. I'm saying that there should be some sort of ban on high powered guns. I guess I am also not extremely paranoid about people breaking into my house either. There are millions of what ifs, but to me there should be some sort of ban on them.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 6:58 pm
    And see, that's where it does get tricky. Some people do collect certain guns. A nice looking rifle can make a living room look very good. But those who use them for stupid reasons is why I say that the more high-powered stuff needs to have some sort of ban.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 7:01 pm
    My .22 will not kill you more dead than my 30.06. All a ban does is make sure the people who follow the rules are out guned by those who don't. Guns are a form of insurance. You pray you never need it but are thank you have it if you do need it.
    Also most murder in the US is performed with a hand gun, not by assault rifles.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 7:03 pm
    My opinions still stand bud. I believe that the higher-powered guns should be illegal, wherever they decide that line is.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 7:06 pm
    You can't fix stupid, but if you added rifles that fire large calibers like a .50 BMG or 338 lapua to the class 3 list then you can effectively prevent most stupid people from getting their hands on them while maintaining availability to people who have the proper licensing.
    - triclebickle December 30, 2012, 7:24 pm
    Very good point sir.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 7:26 pm
    Thank you.
    - triclebickle December 30, 2012, 7:27 pm
    Well, I do agree with Johnecash on one thing. There's too many guns out there, you can't just ban certain ones and expect the gov't able to keep track of them all. The best you can do is restrict them with licensing practices...But if the gov't does want to try seizing illegal weapons, they need to offer incentive for people to turn in their guns (maybe exchange program for legal weapons, or an imposed buyback program for gun makers?) Johnecash even said he collects guns partially for value, if the moneys good, it gives collectors like him reason to cash in on their investments.
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 7:57 pm
    In all fairness, there's got to be a cheaper, less dangerous way to tie a room together. :P
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 7:59 pm
    An unloaded gun is a glorified club regardless of caliber.
    - triclebickle December 30, 2012, 8:11 pm
    There probably is, but some people think it's cool. I can't hate on anyone with collections. I collect NASCAR stuff.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 8:17 pm
    That is true. In a perfect world it would be easy to ban certain things, but unfortunately this isn't a perfect world. If these firearms are going to be around, I think the next best option is to do all kinds of training to be required for them
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 8:20 pm
    My uncle own an old school .50 cal elephant gun. It's a single shot rifle. I don't think it threatens the public like a 38 snub nose does. What about muzzle loader guns... They get big but they are not used for crime. The size of the bullet has nothing to do with with crime. Most crimes are done with hand guns not rifles, assault or otherwise
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 8:45 pm
    Johne I still think it would be better if there were at least restrictions on the more powerful guns.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 9:55 pm
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 10:09 pm
    I never said I thought ALL guns should be restricted. Just the higher powered stuff that is unnecessary.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 10:16 pm
    That's what I am asking? Why the high powered stuff when the low power is what criminals use. I would love to know when the last murder/robbery was done by a 270, 30.06 or larger. Most high powered stuff is too expensive for criminals (street thugs) to buy.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 11:16 pm
    Because if you add in higher power or something automatic, then more people will be killed.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 11:39 pm
    But most are killed with handguns, not rifles. Gang violence kills way more ( handguns for the most part) than crazy people with rifles. You are more likely to be killed by a handgun than you are a rifle

    •Two-thirds of the 179,000 homicides committed during the 2000s made use of a firearm, usually a handgun.
    - johnecash December 31, 2012, 10:27 am
    And I'm saying that had you added an automatic or a higher-powered firearm into that equation, it could have been much worse. I know that there are going to be people shot, it's a given. People get mad at others and will use anything to get back at them. If it is something automatic or of a higher power, that total could go through the roof.
    - had5244888 December 31, 2012, 2:02 pm
    But the thing is, even if you make bigger calibers harder to get, you're not fixing a problem. The majority (and I mean vast majority) of homicidal fire-arms crime, comes from handgun ammunition. So why put regulations on the rifles that are in the minority for the crimes commited?
    - xRAYZ0Rx December 31, 2012, 3:08 pm
    Just wondering do you mean fully auto or semi?
    - johnecash December 31, 2012, 4:58 pm
    Fully. Most guns out there are semi automatic.
    - had5244888 December 31, 2012, 5:14 pm
    Ok I'll give you that. Now my next question is do you ever watch red jacket on discovery?
    - johnecash December 31, 2012, 5:58 pm
    I do not
    - had5244888 December 31, 2012, 6:55 pm
    I was addressing only high powered calibers not to reduce crime, but to prevent idiots getting their hands on them.
    - triclebickle December 31, 2012, 8:53 pm
    In one episode they arm the new orelans sherif armored car with a fully automatic saw. Do you feel as a civilian organization they should not play by the same rules the rest of us play by?
    - johnecash December 31, 2012, 9:34 pm
    First, I'm not sure why you are using a television show as foundation for your argument. Second, if they are civilians, then they should play by the rules like the rest of us.
    - had5244888 December 31, 2012, 9:36 pm
    I am telling you about the work the show did arming a civilian police force. The fact that a show documented it has nothing to do with the point.
    - johnecash December 31, 2012, 9:47 pm
    And I got your point, I just didn't know why you were using a tv show as a reference.
    - had5244888 December 31, 2012, 9:51 pm
    It's how I found out New Orleans has armored cars with full automatic belt fed machine guns.
    - johnecash December 31, 2012, 10:15 pm
    haha I gotcha
    - had5244888 December 31, 2012, 10:26 pm
    They also have river patrol boats with mk19 grenade launchers. Remember by doing this and using them they are setting presidenc for future court cases that garonte the right of we the people. That is due to the fact that even the police are still governed by the same laws as the rest of us are.
    - johnecash January 1, 2013, 12:16 am
    First off happy new year!

    Second, to my knowledge, police only carry a handgun. Course New Orleans is out there, so I'm not sure what they are doing now.
    - had5244888 January 1, 2013, 12:18 am
    Happy new year.
    By police I mean all law enforcement agencies.
    Which include swat, ATF, FBI, sheriff, ect . . .
    - johnecash January 1, 2013, 2:03 am
    The black market arms trade is alive and well. Groups like Hamas, Yakuza, the mafia, and the cartels are all known for trafficking military weapons.
    - triclebickle January 1, 2013, 2:25 am
    I can use a war club for home defense against some meth head, I cannot say the same for my GF though which is why the handgun is on her side of the bed.
    - triclebickle January 1, 2013, 2:45 am
    Johne I'm not quite sure which side you are debating for anymore. At first you wanted no more rules, and now you are pointing out everything bad with even handguns.
    - had5244888 January 1, 2013, 11:32 am
    I am trying to point out what you are asking is not going to be the solution. If the solution you are looking for is less death by guns. We already have thousands if laws. The solution is the enforcement of laws we already have.
    - johnecash January 1, 2013, 1:44 pm
    To me it isn't necessary for simple citizen to own guns of high power. Unfortunately, too many idiots have proven to me that guns aren't exactly a good thing to own. To me it would be easier to put all kinds of restrictions on them. However, another solution could be to put those who want these kinds of firearms through some intense training to get them.
    - had5244888 January 1, 2013, 1:57 pm
    The founding fathers and the 2nd amendment would disagree. My 30.06 is way more powerful than my stg assault rifle. My 1911 shots a bigger projectile than my assault rifles. I have never believed its the governments place to overstep constitutional law. A killer will find a way to kill. Just ask the Unabomber, he never used guns and we are not regulating fertilizer.
    - johnecash January 1, 2013, 2:29 pm
    In your opinion, what is the purpose behind the 2nd amendment?
    - johnecash January 1, 2013, 2:38 pm
    First, I really don't care what guns you have.
    Second, the second amendment to me was written to give people the right to own guns. I don't think they had in mind though the destruction people would use them for. At that time, people needed protection from almost anything. However, I still don't think the higher-powered stuff is necessary for protecting your house. I think at least we should have some kind of intense training to own them if they don't want to ban anything.
    - had5244888 January 1, 2013, 2:46 pm
    The point has nothing to do with what I own so let me say that again.
    When it comes to boar size of the three projectiles I just gave you, the smallest is the assault rifle. The most powerful, deadly, accurate is the 30.06,the hunting rife.
    The only training that was I had to do was for my concealed carry permit for the hand gun.
    So there are restrictions on deadly guns depending. Go look up laws on fire arms in your state, I bet there are already more than you expected.
    Nw here is and away swill be the problem. Bad guys don't play by the rules. Crazy murders don't play By the rules. To this date, the most effective way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
    - johnecash January 1, 2013, 4:14 pm
    And again I shall point out that I don't care what guns you own. The bottom line for me is: If you can't put restrictions on the selling of these guns, or ban them, then make people take some kind of intense training course. That is my opinion.
    - had5244888 January 1, 2013, 4:22 pm
    Again sorry for mentioning I owed them. I did not realize you might fixate on that and not the point.
    Guns are regulated.
    Fully automatic weapons are not available to the general public.
    The on,y thing that makes a gun deadly is the user.
    Crazy does not follow regulation. So training in firearm safety is always a good thing, but the mass murderer is not concerned with safety.
    - johnecash January 1, 2013, 5:52 pm
    I got your point, I just don't care. You have my opinion on everything. If you wonder how I feel on something, then reread my previous comments and figure it out.
    - had5244888 January 1, 2013, 6:28 pm
    I am trying to understand. What you are asking for is already in place. What I don't understand is how more laws are going to help make sure the good guys have the guns, not just the bad guys.
    - johnecash January 1, 2013, 7:22 pm
    What defines unnecessary?
    - Jofus1992 January 1, 2013, 7:51 pm
    To Jofus, unnecessary means not necessary?
    and to johne, that's my opinions on it bro. I feel at least some kind of intense training course for certain firearms should be necessary to own them. Whether you understand it or not, it's how I feel about it.
    - had5244888 January 1, 2013, 8:50 pm
    As I have told you those are already in place.
    - johnecash January 1, 2013, 9:30 pm
    Wonderful. Then put in the intense training part and there ya go.
    - had5244888 January 1, 2013, 10:06 pm
    don't agree with either statement, god didn't make man (at least in my eyes) so thats out the window, and guns don't make anyone equal they just leave people dead. i personally know how to use both my hatchet and knife well enough that i wouldn't feel to uncomfortable fighting someone who had a gun in my own house (i also have over 8 years of wrestling experience that would give me a hell of an advantage in this) my point is that i think guns actually give people an unfair advantage.
    to the point you made about the old guy, this is why i don't advocate the removal or banning of guns completely. some people are already disadvantaged by age and strength. so hand guns i think are really fine. but assault weapons are simply to powerful.
    i'm not saying guns should be illegal but some forms of them should be restricted. it's always been my philosophy that if i can't take a person on in hand to hand combat then i deserved to lose. if it means my life then i'd die happy knowing i did the best i could. BUT i will never force that ideology on people. it's the choice that has to be made by the individual, but i will not break that idea simply because someone has a gun. i know my weapons, i know how to use them, and i know my own strengths. i will use that and ever advantage possible to win. but i will not use a gun unless i'm against multiple assailants who are all armed with guns. it just doesn't seem right to me. if you need to kill me the you better be able to look me in the eye when you do it, and i will do the same for you. that would be a death i could smile about.
    - 24paperwings January 2, 2013, 9:03 pm
    You think a murderer cares at all about looking you in the eyes? While you die a happy man due to you notions of a fair fight, I live a happy life because I made sure the intruder had no fair fight.
    It would seem you are not familiar with the saying or meaning behind GOd made man, colt made man equal.
    If you can't beat an intruder in hand to hand you deserve to loose you life? My life must mean. A Lot more to me, imposing self righteous limit ions on fighting for your life are just foolish at best. Possibly get you killed for no good reason at worst.not sure what your plan is if your intruder who has a gun and you don't kills you without looking you in the eye. Something as a proud combat vet I can tell you, the best attack is the one your enemy never sees coming and has no counter or defense to. It has nothing to do with hand holding or looking into each others eyes like star crossed lovers.
    Please define assault weapon and state your case against your 2nd amendment right,
    - johnecash January 2, 2013, 10:08 pm
    my life mean's a lot to me as well, but my honor and my sense of fairness means more. if he chooses to invade my house he would learn what it means to feel pain. i know my home better than anyone. they wouldn't even have a chance to scream, that i promise you.
    but this is part of my personal pride. i don't expect you or anyone else to understand my reasoning because truth is there isn't much reason behind it other than my pride and my own rules to life. and i will not break them even if it costs me my life.
    and the assault weapons i would choose to ban would be auto machine guns and pistols. if it's semi- automatic then i don't care. but a bullet sprayer like that isn't meant to hunt just main and kill.
    i also get the stament about god and the colt. i just don't agree with it.
    i don't care how honorable the intruder is, i know he wouldn't give a shit. these are my rules and mine alone, i expect no one else to follow or adhere to them, i would like people to come to this idea on their own. but i'll explain it as best i can

    my reasoning is this, (and again i hope this is as well explained as i hope if it's not please ask me to clarify) if you can't look a man in the eye and watch as he dies, watch as all who he was and all he ever could be slip away into nothingness. if you can't watch as a man's life ends so that yours can continue, then you didn't deserve to live in the first place. because a life is precious no matter who you are. life matters. and taking that life to preserve your own shouldn't come with out consequence, i don't care who you are. taking the life of another deserves punishment, and the only punishment i can think of that would satisfy this would be watching the light leave the eyes of the man you just killed. that why i hold this idea. because if i were forced to kill someone to save myself then i had better be ready to watch that and remember for the rest of my own life that i ended his. that i took that away from him. it's not something i want to do, it's my punishment for doing what i needed to.
    nothing comes without consequence.
    - 24paperwings January 2, 2013, 11:03 pm
    You see my life and the others who live with me, my soon to wife, one day our child, mean more to me than anything.
    Have you ever been in combat? Has anyone ever shot at you in anger? I have been. What you are describing about having a semi gay eyes locking moment has nothing to do with how the world works.
    Then again you were trained by the wrestling coach I was trained by the always faithful.
    Your statements remind me of what one of my heron once said. Richard marchincho, the guy who invented seal team six, was once asked why he does not take his survival knife? His answer, "I plan on shooting the sun of a bitch before I get close enough to use a knife."
    - johnecash January 3, 2013, 12:07 am
    And i plan to be close enough that i have to live everyday knowing that i took his life. i'm saying this to because it was something i decided when i was very young. it's something that i always thought was needed in society. guns are another way we can distance ourselves from the fight and make it easier for us to live with killing others (though when there's bodies in war you see the dead almost no matter what)
    look i get why people have guns to protect their families but i'm not going to start using one because of that. maybe i'll change my mind when i get to that point in my life, but until i do have a family my hatchet and knife are all i need and all i want. the intruder will die and i will live. and i'm not saying i'm gonna be staring them in the eyes like i love them, i'm saying that it a punishment. truthfully when they get stabbed they won't be looking me in the eye. truthfully they probably won't see my face when they die. but i need to know what i did and i need to be able to handle watching someone die close up if i have to kill them. i'm not going to hide from it and shoot around a corner. it's my choice and no one elses. you think it's dumb but i call it honor. a gun is about who shoots first, nothing more.

    i find it pathetic that someone can hide a mile away to kill someone, i think it's pathetic and cowardly, i always have. if someone is going to die they should do so face to face against another. able to defend themselves and ready to die. it's my sense of fairness. i know it's irrational. and i know that not everyone agrees. but i don't care. i will not let someone else dictate how i fight my battles, i take pride in my life and i will take pride in my death when the time comes.

    And to answer your question no i haven't been in combat, and hopefully i never will be. but i'm not fool enough to run around a battlefield with a hatchet and knife as my only weapons (they'd come with me but they wouldn't be my weapon of choice in that situation). my hope is that i never have to do this at all. but if it comes down to protecting myself in my house then that is what i'm using.
    - 24paperwings January 3, 2013, 11:34 am
    You seem to think there is honor in killing, any time.. There is not. The only honor is life. It's Darwinism at its finest.
    - johnecash January 3, 2013, 11:54 am
    no there's no honor in killing, there's honor in defending myself and not breaking my choice. thats where my honor comes from. life is precious as i said before. at least i'm willing to give them the chance to protect their lives as well. it's all about fairness to me. i would never harm an unarmed man.
    please don't attempt to twist my words into something other than what i'm saying again. and listen to what i've said. honor has never come from killing, only from defending what you believe in. thats what i've been saying.
    - 24paperwings January 3, 2013, 12:20 pm
    If they care about your life or theirs, they would not be invading a home. Then again this is what you say you will do. I would love to watch what you would really do. Live or die.
    When you go to war you don't give the other side a chance. A sniper is not a coward for killing an insurgent at a mile away.
    Place all the rules on your self you like, I just wonder how faithful to those rules you will be when your rule is the difference between you life and the life of some one trying to kill you.
    - johnecash January 3, 2013, 12:35 pm
    the sniper isn't a coward but wields a cowards weapon. they are actually some of the bravest and most highly trained people in the world and i give my respect to all of them, i just hate the thought that someone could kill me without having a chance to survive from a mile away. but thats war, war is different, it has little rules and is never forgiving.

    i will be true to my rules until i die. i know how likely it is to cause my death but that's my problem. of course it is all talk until it happens. but i know more about combat than most and i know my weapons. it's not likely that an ordinary person will be able to take me on with no training. against a marine or someone from the armed forces? i admit i'd likely get destroyed, i'm not claiming i will magically win every time. i know the risks and i'm willing to take them. it's that simple.
    - 24paperwings January 3, 2013, 1:17 pm
    This I got to hear. Please go telling me more about a cowards tactics?
    Coward: Noun
    A person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.
    Do you agree or disagree with the definition? If you agree notice how it says nothing about being in close proximity.
    - johnecash January 3, 2013, 1:42 pm
    here's how i define it
    Coward: fuck your definition it's cowardly to hide.
    as i said before snipers aren't cowards but the weapon is cowardly. but again war is different i would never say that a sniper is a coward as they are probably some of the bravest people in the armed forces. it's a personal philosophy and i don't believe you should hide to fight. if i had it my way we wouldn't even have wars. just champions of the countries. one on one fighting. to me that's more fair and can even spare the lives of those who fight (no need to fight to the death). it's better than having hundreds of people die.

    anyways keep it up johny you're acting like an idiot. i've explained that my view on hand to hand combat is not something i would force on anyone and i've said i think guns are for cowards. i've explained my reasoning and that i do agree that there are cases where it's acceptable to use them. basically i've agreed with you on every point you made except my own ideology that i will not use guns unless in war. thats it.
    guns are a cowards weapon. i have always viewed them as that, nothing you say will change my mind on that. now if you would kindly fuck off and stop being a pretentious douche we can move on with our lives.
    - 24paperwings January 3, 2013, 3:14 pm
    - Churchill January 3, 2013, 3:30 pm
    Not sure hiding has anything to do with being a coward.
    We have already been down the road of gladiatorial death match.
    I think you may be confusing what life and death battles are, with a wrestling match.

    I won't lie, the more you talk about looking in a man's eyes as you fairly wrestle him, a champion of the countries, you just make me think of ths;

    I would argue that any time you are fighting for your life you are in a war. War is not something the politicians decide, its when you fight for your life.
    - johnecash January 3, 2013, 3:43 pm
    War is a battle of many that often leads to the deaths of many.
    funny video as well but wrestlers aren't fucking idiots, if i'm fighting someone wrestling moves will help but i'm not there to wrestle. the wrestling moves would be used when i could use them. just as a judo move would be as well. it gives a person a distinct advantage to know how to use their own body effectively. enough so that i can take on someone who out weighs me by 30lbs or more. if the don't know how to react to me then that weight could easily double and i could fight someone up to 60 lbs more than me and still win. there's more to it than what you see, wrestling and other fighting styles can be easily incorporated in fighting, any MMA fighter could tell you that.

    i think you are attempting to insult me and my fighting style because you have been brought up as someone who loves guns. you seem to think any other way of thinking is wrong and you can't stand that. so you attempt to belittle the sport and make it seem as though i am staring in someones eyes. i said that stuff to say that if you can't handle watching someone die then you should not be killing anyone.

    and i'm not talking about gladiators in the sense that you are. i'll make a post to explain it more clearly, not that you will listen as you are so wrapped up in your own ideas that you will never accept what another has to say.

    again you have proven yourself to be a pretentious douche.
    - 24paperwings January 3, 2013, 4:11 pm
    Take a chill pill and turn it down bro, just trying to understand.
    I don't care how big and well trained you are, a six year old girl could shot you dead. A fight between you and a 97 year old wwii vet in a wheel chair with their 1911, you loose again. lets not even get into if there are, god forbid, two intruders or more. while your looking into the eyeys offering oil before the wrestling match, the other guy shot you dead. now you Have your poor crying mother wishing you had more to protect Youself with that massage oild and a Suplex. Don't forget the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
    - johnecash January 3, 2013, 4:27 pm
    i've repeatedly said that guns are ok in certain situations, that wrestling is not the only form of fighting i know, that i have both a hatchet and 4 1/2 combat knife both of which i am highly skilled with, and that i will not under use a gun in the case of a home invasion. yet you slander the sport that i take pride in, dismiss my views of guns using ridiculous examples (no five year old should ever have a gun and a 97 year old may not even be capable of lifting the gun to fire it). you disrespect me and my ideology which i do not force upon anyone and then you ack me to chill out.
    heres my problem with you johne you've acted like a know it all ass this entire conversation even though i've repeatedly stated these things over and over. i've been more than civil to you, and while yes i do think guns are a cowards weapons i've explained why i hold this idea and also stated that is a personal belief and only holds true in america.
    i've said War demands different weapons so i would use a gun. that maybe when i have others to defend as well as my self that i may use a gun. that guns should not be illegal but better regulated. that the looking in the other persons eye as they die is to emphasize that you must be able to watch the man you killed die so that you can understand what it is you have done. i've explained everything to you over and over yet you insist upon trying to change my view on this.

    I will not use a gun unless in war. it is what i have always said and why i trained to be able to use both my weapons of choice to the point that i know i could fight off even an intruder with a gun. it's why i still train in both wrestling and boxing. it's why i've learned my house so well. it's why i've learned to be as silent as possible even when traveling through brush and the woods. it's why i would survive when others would die in the same situation. i take pride in my ability to defend myself. and i take pride in the fact that if i wanted to i could not only kill an intruder with my bare hands but i could just as easily spare his life. i take pride in the fact that i don't need a gun and will not use one. because in the end i want to know that i gave him his chance to fight as well. it's my choice and mine alone. and i'll be damned if i let anyone who hold that against me or try to sway me from my choice.
    and what stops bad men aren't good guys with guns. its people who are willing to fight for what is right and defend it till their breath leaves them one final time. be it gun, knife, sword, or bow. be it in the sky or at sea. what stops a bad man is those who fight to protect what right. so long as they fight it doesn't matter what they use.
    - 24paperwings January 3, 2013, 5:14 pm
    Ahhh no. No no no on so many levels. Sorry you assume I am attacking you. I am though saying my 97 year ild grandfather whit his 1911 could beat you and your wrestling,knife skills. That's a you problem. Children should not have guns but in today's world our service men see just that shooting at them.
    At age 97 my grandfather could still shoot a quarter at 10 yards with his 1911.
    Would you really like to dive In to the argument about go ad guys with guns can only be stopped by good guys?
    - johnecash January 3, 2013, 7:26 pm
  • 1

    I admit i'm on the fence about this issue for the simple reason that while i personally hate guns (if you can't fight man to man then you are a coward, fight with your fists and let everyone walk away. there is no need to kill over stupid shit) but i see that it is someones right to own one.

    that being said i think that they need to limit what we can purchase. it's perfectly reasonable to limit the clip sizes and whether someone can have an automatic weapon. even if it's not an out right ban you could make them have to go through an extremely intense screening process so that given the right circumstances (maybe for a profession or other reason idk) they can purchase these weapons.

    I share your internal conflict, or at least did for a long time. Owning a gun should be fine, and people have the right to. I think it was Joe Biden who first articulated my thoughts on the issue, which are similar to yours. I promote an assault weapons ban and a ban on high capacity magazines, as well as mandating psych evals and background checks for any guns purchased. I think. Haha X D.
    - Logos385 December 30, 2012, 2:55 pm
    seems i've pissed someone off.... whatever

    and i agree assault weapons need to be removed or at least EXTREMELY difficult to get and lowering the carrying capacity for such weapons would also be another great option. honestly it should be extremely difficult to purchase a weapon simply because it's a weapon. it's only purpose is to harm others so it should be something that is hard to get. you have to be a responsible person to own something that can be used to harm others. it's that simple.
    - 24paperwings December 30, 2012, 3:16 pm
    I apologize about that sir. I actually hit the +1, then remembered that they didn't want people doing that, and tried to subtract it off. It was my bad.
    - had5244888 December 30, 2012, 3:36 pm
    lol it's all good dude i already told ya you don't needa say sorry bout every little thing. it's all goody
    - 24paperwings December 30, 2012, 4:28 pm
  • 1

    I grew up in a gun heavy family, I got a BB gun when I was 5 and learned to treat guns with respect. I believe that an armed society is a polite society, because of the area I grew up in. And really when you look at it, the states with a lot of restrictions have higher gun related homicides than states without them and US crime rates are lower than Europe's despite the vast amounts of fire arms in the US.
    But there should be things like background checks, licensing, hell even mandatory training prier to first purchase of a firearm. Really no one like to see people senselessly murdered by deranged gunmen, but the methods that they want don't solve anything. If you taught children in elementary school firearms safety we wouldn't have as many children accidentally shooting themselves or others. If we reformed how we handle the mentally ill and actually got them the help they need these mass killings would drop significantly. If we allowed teachers to conceal carry a firearm on campus provided they pass a training course by an approved instructor, have a CCW permit, and registered their weapon in the main office each day there would be less school shootings.

    I'm sorry but can i please uprate this? it's bloody brilliant (iffy about the teacher part though, still don't know if i'm on board with that... how bout we give them sword canes instead lol)
    - 24paperwings December 30, 2012, 6:46 pm
    That would be incredible to see.
    - triclebickle December 30, 2012, 6:55 pm
    I'm pretty sure Euro crime rates are actually lower than the U.S. Though this could vary by country. (Depends on the type of crime too, violent crime theft, rape, etc.) I know Canadian rates are lower, and we have heavier restrictions and less guns. (However, my city is pretty bad for drunken misconduct) Though I grew up in pretty much the opposite scenario you did. Never owned, used or even seen a gun in person, unless you count a cop's holstered weapon. I don't think more guns could make us safer, since it just increases the chance that someone will snap and shoot someone else. If teachers are allowed to have guns, what happens if a student somehow gets it? Do we want to pay for teachers guns, combat training, combat salaries? If a shooter shows up, will the teacher be able to fight under pressure or fear? What if they accidentally shoot a student? You could end up with a larger shoot-out with higher casualties, despite intentions. However, you could argue this makes training/safety and mental health evaluations are even more important but I think making it harder for irresponsible people to get guns is more effective. (Not just crazy people, but idiots who will leave their gun lying around for their kids to play with.)
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 8:15 pm
    Hmm, I enjoy this post because it's a perspective different from mine but one I can understand. However, I think you have some things not quite right. This is a good (and quick) read:

    We have more guns than most other "developed" countries per population, and more homicides per population as well. Well this is by no means more than correlation, it should be noted.

    I'm very interested in your statement that "an armed society is a polite society." In what way does owning a gun correlate to being polite?
    - Logos385 December 30, 2012, 8:52 pm here's the study for Euro/US crime rates. Really if someone snaps they could use any weapon sure with more guns that will be the likely choice, but there would be less casualties overall. What if a student got the school's resource officer's gun? The teachers pay for their own weapon, training, and there wouldn't be combat pay since there isn't any regular combat. As for teachers being able to defend students under pressure you would hope that the training would increase the probability of them being able to pull the trigger and have to common sense to keep students out of the line of fire. You really need to think is it right to punish the many for the actions of the few? It's like driving, irresponsible people kill people with their vehicle all the time but you don't make it harder or outright ban a certain type of car, you make laws that weed out irresponsible people for guns these are background checks, licenses, and firearms training prier to purchase. As for kids playing with firearms that's why I think firearms safety should be taught in elementary school.
    - triclebickle December 30, 2012, 9:00 pm Here's a map of homicides by state. I looked at the dates of the UNODC data collection and they don't all match up so there's a skewed result. And it even said it doesn't have all the key countries so it's an incomplete survey. And really a counter argument could be made by the data shown for countries in South America, low gun .

    And by An armed society is a polite society I should use the full quote, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back his acts up with his life." So put yourself in the mindset of someone looking to rob a convenience store, would you try and rob the one with the gun under the counter or the place without one? When you have a higher percentage of places with guns than you do without, not many places get robbed. Criminals aren't idiots, they understand the concept of risk to reward pretty well.
    - triclebickle December 30, 2012, 9:36 pm
    Why should teachers pay for their own weapons and training? School shootings are rare enough that teachers are likely not to bother with it unless you subsidize it. If you force them to buy, is that any better than trying to take guns from people who aren't misusing them? Firearms safety in elementary school is another stretch, can we at least wait until they're big/smart/educated enough to use a gun? If it's not done properly, it might do the opposite of what it's intended for, I don't think elementary school kids are mature enough for guns (among several other things. Hell, they don't even stop drawing penises everywhere until ages 14-15 for Christ's sake.) You don't bother with car safety until they're old enough to learn to drive. I say wait until high school and make it optional.
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 9:55 pm
    It is optional which is why I said allow them to carry not make it mandatory. And teaching elementary school children firearms safety doesn't mean we would give them a gun or even teaching them to use a gun it means we would teach them that guns are not toys, should be treated with respect, and that when they are misused they can hurt and kill people. The vast majority of the firearm accidents that involve children are because of them playing with guns, so if you teach them firearms safety at the age that the majority of those accidents happen less of them happen.
    - triclebickle December 31, 2012, 9:04 pm
    While I don't want to get off topic, the idea that politeness comes from preventing oneself from being shot? That's pretty backwards to me.

    As per how it applies to your risk/reward discussion, some crimes, like robbery, have intrinsic risk/reward calculations. However, other crimes, such as murder, simply don't. Murder is caused by passion or pathology usually, and also infrequently by profit. If caused by passion, there is no risk/reward factored in, simply an argument or fit if anger that ends in death. Murders due to pathology represent someone's compulsion: no risk/reward either. Murders for profit may seem like they factor in risk/reward, but really at best it's a bad risk/reward calculation, and usually the murderers do so because they think they would never get caught.

    This discussion is similar to the reality that the death penalty, statistically, has absolutely no deterrent effect on violent crime. This is why, in my estimation, the tactic has been to disarm rather than to arm, as deterring criminals is quite, quite difficult, and disarming them may be hard, but possibly slightly easier.
    - Logos385 January 2, 2013, 1:35 pm
    I see what you're saying and really I wasn't even factoring in murder, but I really don't think disarming is the way to go it seems like a much riskier move. We are disarming the people we really don't need to be all too worried about in the hopes that it will disarm a few of the people we need to worry about. Really it seems like arming is the safest move to make since it has the least known risks.
    - triclebickle January 2, 2013, 10:55 pm
    Hmm. I'm not sure how giving someone a gun has the "least known risks." I feel like that statement is wholly incorrect. However, I do understand the wish to arm for protection, event though I never will myself.
    - Logos385 January 2, 2013, 11:30 pm
    Let me put this out here. I am against banning weapons and things like high cap feed systems, bans are far too often a complete failure. There are much better way around these type of issues. I say least known because there could always be something that pops up, but the problems we know about we can fix easily and without banning things. For example,
    with the high cap feed systems base the standard mag off the 20 round mags they are smaller than the 30 and current 10 round mags so they take longer to change out, they are damn near impossible to modify to accept more rounds, and they use a smaller spring so you can't make you're own 30 rounders. And require a license for everything 30 and up, that way you keep high caps for the most part out the hands of irresponsible people without banning them so you get more support.
    - triclebickle January 3, 2013, 12:48 am
    Sounds good to me! I don't know enough about guns or gun culture to get into those specifics, which is part of the reason that I wanted this to be the first topic. What other kinds of more specific policies would you support?
    - Logos385 January 3, 2013, 1:22 am
    Really the only one that I can think of directly pointed at guns is requiring a license to purchase high caliber chambered rifles past a certain caliber based on ballistic data recorded based on shots taken at and past 1000 yards. At that distance you would be hit before you heard the shot.
    - triclebickle January 3, 2013, 2:00 am
  • 1

    I don't see what needs to be discussed. Gun laws are fine as they are.

    I know logos said no memes but...
    - CrazyJay December 31, 2012, 5:21 am
    Why do you hold this opinion, in light of the high rate of gun violence and mass shootings in America?
    - Logos385 December 31, 2012, 12:15 pm
    I didn't say no memes, just that they shouldn't be used as argument ; ).
    - Logos385 December 31, 2012, 12:15 pm
    With the laws currently on the books:
    It is illegal to sell guns to criminals, and for them to possess them.
    It is illegal to sell guns to mentally ill people, or for them to possess them.
    It is illegal to sell guns to non-citizens or illegal aliens, or for them to possess them.
    It is illegal to sell guns to minors(rifles), or people under 21(handguns) or for them to possess them.
    It is illegal to sell or possess armor-piercing ammunition.
    It is illegal to have guns within 1000 feet of any school property(with a few exceptions).
    It is illegal to possess or sell automatic weapons registered after 1986(legal ones usually cost over $10,000, and are highly regulated)

    I see a lot of people complaining how automatics should be banned, but they often don't realize how hard it is to get them legally. I also see lots of people wondering why mentally ill people are allowed to have guns, when really federal law makes them ineligible. People want to keep throwing more laws about guns on the books when really all that is needed is better enforcement of the ones already there. As far as new laws, I would be OK with closing loopholes in the system, but that is about it.
    - casper667 December 31, 2012, 3:01 pm
    The situation isn't quite as you present it. Many states override some of those restrictions, there are loopholes in many cases, etc. The biggest issue is that most of those restrictions apply only to dealers and not to private trade, sale, or gifts.

    Would you also support the ban of high-capacity magazines?
    - Logos385 December 31, 2012, 4:39 pm
    I agree, it's the enforcement part that needs to be worked on.
    - johnecash December 31, 2012, 4:54 pm
    I can attest to the difficulty, I had an easier time getting my Q and TS clearances than my class 3 license.
    - triclebickle January 1, 2013, 12:14 am
    I really don't see the effectiveness of a high capacity magazine ban. I mean sure the shooter would need to reload more often, but it only takes a few seconds to change a magazine. And really all that separates a 30 round mag and a 10 round mag is some plastic that prevents additional rounds from being fed into the mag. I really don't think it's worth it since it isn't difficult to just produce your own mags.
    - triclebickle January 1, 2013, 12:32 am
    I always assumed federal gun law would take precedence over state gun laws. I don't think a ban on high capacity magazines would be effective, given how easy guns and gun accessories are to mod.

    Also, I do not think stricter gun laws would prevent mass shootings anyways; since 1980 the majority of mass shootings where guns were used have happened in states such as california, washington, and wisconsin, states with strict gun laws.

    Everyone always talks about how many people are killed every year by guns, however, looking at the data: homicides in the US by firearms has steadily been decreasing (only 8,500 homicides in the US by firearms in 2011 down from 10,100 in 2007, less than 0.0001% of population)
    - casper667 January 1, 2013, 9:38 pm
    Isn't something "worth it" if it increases the difficulty of mass shootings by even the smallest degree?
    - Logos385 January 2, 2013, 1:23 pm
    I understand what you are saying, and much of it resonates with me, which is why I've never had unbelievably strong opinions on the subject. In the end, guns are dangerous, but it is hard to legislate away that danger. Furthermore, guns are not dangerous in sensible hands.

    In the end though, as I have just posted above in a reply: even if mods are easy, isn't enacting a High-capacity mag ban worth it if it makes mass shootings even just slightly more difficult?
    - Logos385 January 2, 2013, 1:25 pm
    No. Most mass shooters have been preparing or had the idea for a long time rather than just instantly snapped and went and did it (Columbine, Aurora), and it's impossible to catch something like a high capacity mag before it's used for a mass shooting.

    Also, I don't think basing gun-law on trying to stop mass shooting is the right way to go about it. Yes, they are horrible, but they are rare in comparison with armed robberies and other violent crime that involves gun homicides, and do not take nearly as many lives as other types of gun crime per year. Legislation to specifically stop mass shootings may make armed robberies or violent gun crime easier, by making victims have less bullets to defend themselves with if they need to (such as a store clerk).

    Here's a nice video I found on the topic of the high capacity magazine ban that might explain it better than I can:

    Also, how are you going to go about collecting all the high capacity mags in existence? What is the punishment for having one? Will this possibly open up an illegal market for them?
    - casper667 January 2, 2013, 4:18 pm
    I agree that gun law should not be based around mass shootings. However, I still don't see how banning high capacity magazines has any negative effect? And even if it still has the smallest chance of being mildly helpful, why not go for it?

    It would leave current high. capacity mags that are in existence alone, only stop the further production/transfer of them.
    - Logos385 January 2, 2013, 4:38 pm
    In summary, during robberies and other violent gun crime, 10 bullets may not be enough to protect yourself (shooting a real gun is not like COD where you hardly miss). You can also be sure robbers will have illegal high capacity mags, making your odds even worse if you do get into a gunfight. Maybe the store clerk needs 13 rounds to successfully defend himself against 2 armed robbers, maybe the ex girlfriend needs to defend herself from a deranged ex boyfriend and uses 15 bullets. In both of these scenarios the high capacity magazine ban would end up with the victim dead or injured because they did not have access to the tools they needed to defend themselves with. Did you even watch the video?
    - casper667 January 2, 2013, 4:55 pm
    In my mind, a ban like this would be like banning marijuana.

    Sure, you may help prevent some bad things:
    driving while high / making it harder to obtain a magazine with capabilities to inflict more damage

    but you also prevent lots of good things:
    medical marijuana & other helpful uses / being able to defend yourself or others if you do need more than 10 bullets to successfully do so

    and create the possibility of actually having more violence in the form of illegal markets for the banned items:
    drug dealers / illegal weapon dealers are often involved in violent activities that stem from a ban on the item they're selling

    I'm not saying there are no pros for this ban, I'm saying the cons outweigh the pros.
    - casper667 January 2, 2013, 5:07 pm
    What you don't think proabition in the country has not worked to make us safe!?! Please go on.
    - johnecash January 2, 2013, 5:10 pm
    I did watch the video, and I understand what you are saying. However, all of those arguments are based on the possibly faulty assumption that guns for personal safety actually work. Yes, viscerally, gun owners believe that they are well-trained and educated on gun use, and would be able to aptly wield their chosen weapon in a life or death situation. This is not always the case. Personally, knowing how mind-numbingly unintelligent much of the American population is, I don't trust much of that population to be able to wield a gun effectively and take care of/store it properly.

    All in all, assuming that the wielder of the gun is truly mentally and physically able to use that gun for protection, stores it properly, etc. etc, I have no issue with that person utilizing a firearm on a day to day basis. However, much of America is not that responsible.

    I guess you are mostly convincing me in this discussion of what I already held to be true, but also convincing me that some of my beliefs may be questionable. Primarily, I think everyone approves of enhanced enforcement. And this discussion affirms that. But to add on to that, I guess, policy stance, and move into "what should we ban/should we ban" territory, I really need to research more. I appreciate the discussion, I've always been fairly naive on gun culture : ).
    - Logos385 January 2, 2013, 5:45 pm
    When you look at it from only that perspective it would be worth it, but it creates its own downfalls. The black market that would be created by the ban would render the ban completely useless, and the design of the 10 round mags are easily altered to accept 30 rounds which again would render the ban useless. So no banning high cap magazines isn't worth it since ultimately it wouldn't make a mass shooting anymore difficult.
    - triclebickle January 2, 2013, 11:06 pm
    Guns for personal safety do work, I don't see how this is a possibly faulty argument at all. Obviously not everyone with a gun will be able to use it to successfully defend themselves or others 100% of the time, especially if the perpetrator also has a gun, but it does give them much better odds.

    I would also argue that, given the person has no criminal history/mental illness, the average American would most likely be able to responsibly handle a gun. Have you ever used a gun before? They really are not that difficult once you've had at least some basic practice. Sure, you're likely not going to outgun a trained police officer, but most criminals are not at that level either. Most of the people I know have and use guns on a regular basis, and it's not like they're all rocket scientists.
    - casper667 January 3, 2013, 6:16 am
    Do you have any data to back up the idea that owning a gun is safer than not owning a gun? I have seen many dubious statistics on both sides of scholarly work on this issue. It is not uncommon to have accidents with firearms in the home, have firearms improperly stored, etc. I would hope most gun owners are competent, but I know not all of them are.

    Furthermore, the idea that having a gun in a situation like a robbery is better than not having one could be flawed as well. Guns escalate situations. It seems possible to me (no data here, just musings) that someone without a gun may be less likely to incite violence on the robber's part, whereas someone with a gun may be more likely to enter into a violent shoot out of sorts.
    - Logos385 January 3, 2013, 11:09 am
    I don't have any data to back up my statements, but I know personally I have had a few instances where I was glad to have a gun (though did not have to use it in the end). And also one of my old roommates has had to shoot a robber in his house before.

    I think for most people who have guns and are the victim, the goal is not to incite violence by threatening the robber to leave, but to end the threat as quickly as possible. Of course, someone without a gun would most likely hide and not engage the robber while they wait for the police to get there and lose their stuff.

    After a quick searching gov websites, this was the most recent report I could find on the topic:

    There was an ABC study done also on 20/20 recently, but I think their methods shown of testing were flawed:
    - casper667 January 3, 2013, 6:06 pm
    Haven't had much time to look at these, will soon!
    - Logos385 January 7, 2013, 3:08 pm
  • 1

    Awww, I get 25%. :D Thanks buddy. Yay, for respectable differences in opinion!!!!!

    love - the crowd-sourced debate post: week 1 [gun control]

    <3 ; )
    - Logos385 January 2, 2013, 1:21 pm
  • 1

    I know I've already commented on some people's comments so I'll pretty much be banging on the same drum.

    Many sensible people want a ban on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons. What exactly defines either of these things. I think our gun-control laws already in place are pretty good.

    Are mandatory gun safety classes for gun buyers really gonna do any good? We did the same thing for driving and there's a metric fuck-ton of people who drive like female asians on PCP. I'm not saying Driver's Education is stupid but at the end of the day it's not going to do much good and that's just more government money spent.

    Please by all means give me a pleasant rebuttal. I enjoy bright minds exchanging ideas and opinions more than you know.

    The current High-Capacity bill on the table would ban any further purchase or transfer of magazines or any "ammunition-feeding" device to 10 rounds. Exempt from this would be current or retired law enforcement using high-capacity mags for that purpose, and federally authorized citizens for security purposes. This bill seems sensible. In actuality, you are right: we don't know whether it will deter, reduce, or prevent mass shootings. However, it should make the preparation/act itself a teensy bit more difficult. And that is good enough reason for me.

    I'm not extremely well-verses in the realm of assault weapons (one of the reasons I chose this topic), but as per what defines an assault weapon, this is what I found first (lol Wikipedia warning): "The term, assault weapon, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic." That's all I got for ya.
    - Logos385 January 2, 2013, 1:21 pm
    I don't see how a high capacity mag restriction would help. So many are already distributed. I personally own over a dozen 5.56 magazines.

    I support a ban on fully automatic weapons but making a law banning a weapon for it's cosmetic features? That's completely insane. People can buy pellet rifles that look like AK-47's or M-16/M-4's. There are so many weapons in the country that look like one of these but fire any caliber round.
    - Jofus1992 January 2, 2013, 5:20 pm
    I mean, its not about how many are out there. Stopping legal production would absolutely reduce the amount that are available in the future.

    As for the assault weapons ban, I agree with you. Cosmetics have nothing to do with danger, volatility, lethality, etc. etc. etc. That particular part of the discussion is ridiculous. There definitely needs to be a better definition. Like, holy god that's awful X D.
    - Logos385 January 2, 2013, 5:32 pm
  • 1

  • 1

    I'm not very well-versed in the land of firearms, and I have a few question that probably have super, super easy answers, I just don't know them.

    I know fingerprint technology exists to restrict firearm usage. Is there a reason this isn't more widely utilized? And is it easily bypassed?

    How do gun owners feel about the rising popularity of "gun buyback" programs?

    How would gun owners feel about a legal requirement involving the proper storage of firearms in the home? Does one currently exist?

    Thanks for the help, team.

    1. I cannot say, I have no experience with it.
    2. They're stupid. "I'll give you a $100 gift card for that AR-15 that you put $1600 into." Yeah... that's awesome...
    However, if the buyback program paid (pending on condition) a fair price, then go for it, however, I won't be selling.
    3. How would you enforce that? Send a police officer into every gun owner's home in the U.S every week? We already have too many laws that aren't properly enforced. It's just another one to ignore... Here in Maryland, you're supposed to have trigger locks, empty mags, and have your rifles/handguns stored in a safe. Needless to say, I can't remember the last time I saw a trigger lock.
    - xRAYZ0Rx January 2, 2013, 7:42 pm
    As far as laws being made about the proper storage of firearms; if a law was made stating that all empty electrical plugs must have those plastic child safety "things" (I don't know the proper term for them.) would it be practical for law enforcement to regularly come into every home to ensure every person had them in place? Not so much in my opinion.
    - Jofus1992 January 2, 2013, 10:02 pm
    I would say it's more of a cost issue, but it is also relativity easy to bypass.
    I am not fond of them, yeah it has the potential to take guns out of areas that have more violent crime rates, but last I checked they weren't giving full price for the weapons being brought in.
    There is a massive enforcement problem that comes in with that, but either way I wouldn't be affected as the hand gun in my bedroom is in a lock box opened by finger prints, the ones that aren't locked up are antique shotguns and black powder rifles, and the rest of the fire arms I have are safely tucked away in my gun room which I would enjoy watching someone try to get into by force.
    - triclebickle January 3, 2013, 10:33 pm
    True, however, there are many people, myself included, that look to regulations as guidelines for behavior, whether or not enforcing them is a reality. Might nudge some gun owners in the right direction? I'm not sure.
    - Logos385 January 7, 2013, 3:07 pm
  • 1

    An assault weapon ban is not restricted to guns, as a weapon can be anything, brass knuckles, knifes, pencils; because anything can be used as a weapon. As for assault in this case it would be verbal or actual physical harm done to others.
    Sorry for any grammar mistakes.

    • sgocke
    • January 2, 2013, 10:57 pm
  • 0

    Well, my perspective is different, since I live in Canada instead of the US. What a lot of Americans don't get is that guns are nowhere near as common or culturally relevant in my country and many others compared to their own. Most people here don't even own a gun, let alone multiples unless they hunt. I've never owned one, never needed one.

    I'm for certain gun control laws for the same reason I am for licences for vehicles. They're potentially dangerous, especially in the wrong hands. Gun licences for different types of guns aren't unreasonable. (long guns, semi-auto, handguns, etc.) this should come with mandatory training/safety courses as well as mental health evaluations. (If you're unstable/dangerous, the last thing we should do is arm you.) I'm also against allowing civilians to purchase military grade or high power weapons and ammo. For the same reasons tanks/fighter jets and predator drones are prohibited for the average joe.

    There are other basic laws/restrictions that could be put in place to reduce accidents, or risk of theft. Such as coded bullets. (If there is a murder and police find the shells, they can trace to the store and maybe figure out who bought it.) Or custom grips (In some European countries, they have grips that only recognize the owners hand, and can only be fired by said person.) While these laws wouldn't stop ALL crime, they could severely reduce the chances of accidents without infringing on anyone's rights.

    What is really wrong with the US, in my opinion anyway is the gun culture. I understand wanting to own a gun...A gun. Not a closet full of rifles, shotguns, handguns and enough ammo to arm several platoons. I will never understand this, life isn't a video game where you can carry all of your weapons at once.

    Also, I know sharenator's full of gun enthusiasts. Bracing myself for a grilling. :3

    I really enjoyed this post, but in the spirit of this debate post idea had to give you a -1 : (. Maybe the next version will be modified a bit X D. I agree with most of what you said, and live in America, but am definitely an outsider looking in on the intense gun culture. I definitely support an assault weapons ban that includes the ban of high-capacity mags.
    - Logos385 December 30, 2012, 1:19 pm
    It's a shame you can't make up/down rates disabled for your post's comments. Some jerk gave me another +1. XD
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 1:46 pm
    - MalverdeAl100 December 30, 2012, 1:48 pm
    I have a closet full of guns.
    My newest being the latest generation of aug.
    My home collection has over 20 functional weapons.
    3 beta mags
    All of which are going up in value.
    The law gives me the right to enjoy my Hobbe/investment.
    It also gives me the right to defend myself.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 2:12 pm
    So your rational is to allow certain weapons to increase in value, then sell them later? Fair enough I guess, but are they stored effectively? You wouldn't want to risk an intruder stumbling upon your weapons before you manage to react. A point I forgot to make was lack of owner responsibility. In the recent Sandy Hook shooting, the shooter took the guns from his mother (who also took him to shootings ranges), had they been locked up/better hidden or had she not taught her son to shoot the whole thing MAY have been avoided. Another case that comes to mind (brought up on sharenator, a good year or two ago) Was a kid who gunned down his mother, using a handgun his father neglected to lock up. Little things can make a world of difference.

    My point? I worry that many gun owners aren't responsible enough for their own weapons, reason enough for stricter laws.
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 2:45 pm
    Out of instinct I almost gave Malverde a +1 X D.
    - Logos385 December 30, 2012, 2:55 pm
    Yet the only people you hear about using guns are crazy people, not law abiding citizens.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 3:01 pm
    But like in both examples, crazy people can stumble upon a legal owner's weaponry easily enough. Assuming said person was a law abiding citizen until they went postal. The second you shoot an innocent, you're not a law abiding citizen anymore, are you? Regardless of how you came upon the weapon.
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 3:24 pm
    I was tempted as well. By the way, any ideas for next weeks debate, or are you still working on that?
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 3:27 pm
    Now you get it. You can't plan for crazy. You can only defend yourself from it with the proper tools.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 4:04 pm
    Hard to defend yourself when you've already been shot. Someone who wants you dead isn't going to wait while you draw/get your weapon. In a pinch, you're pretty much fucked. That said, if you live in so much fear that you think you need to be armed 24/7, I think you should consider moving somewhere else or seeing a psychiatrist/doctor to deal with your stress.
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 4:22 pm
    I could not agree more. None the less being able to defend yourself gives you a chance. Also I would love to see anyone sneak past my germane Shepard (chewbaca), without him barking. Then get past the security. I feel safe.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 4:36 pm
    I was also going to suggest getting a dog instead. If there's one breed you do not fuck with, it's the German Shepard.
    - CrazyJay December 30, 2012, 4:42 pm
    Chewie was a rescue from the bomb dedposial unit. He still stands guard.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 4:52 pm
    I can agree with most of this, though I do disagree with not allowing people to own military hardware, because the way they have the licensing, and transfer process structured there isn't a chance in hell I would use one in a crime. And the same people with those licenses are the people who can get top government clearances that put them near things like top secret documents, nuclear material, and classified projects so they aren't the ones who need to be restricted.
    - triclebickle December 30, 2012, 6:32 pm
    ok can't even lie that is literally the best name for a dog ever
    - 24paperwings December 30, 2012, 6:37 pm
    He likes to chew and you try telling a marine war vet no. He is a good boy, loyal as they come.
    - johnecash December 30, 2012, 6:41 pm
    Canada has more Guns per capita than the US
    - greeknorse January 1, 2013, 1:52 pm
    No, it doesn't. The US is ranked #1 in the world with roughly 88.8 per capita. Canada at 13th with only about 30.8

    While these are the wiki numbers, I've checked other sources as well. Including NRA stats. All of which place the US between 87-90 and Canada between 30-31.
    - CrazyJay January 1, 2013, 3:53 pm
    I am for some forms of gun control, but what do you define as an assault weapon? or high capacity mag?
    - Jofus1992 January 1, 2013, 7:40 pm
  • 0

    Open letter to Joe Biden on guns

    ‘Gun control’ won’t save lives


    Congratulations on your appointment to lead a presidential commission to end gun-related violence.

    As a National Rifle Association board member, husband, father, grandfather, law enforcement officer and genuinely concerned American, I too want nothing more than to see evil, senseless massacres stopped. I concur with the president and caring people everywhere: It’s time to end these slaughters.

    As you gather your team to study massacres and how to stop them, I offer to you my services and a lifetime of expertise on guns in all their implementations. While I strongly differ with President Obama on many issues, I agree with him that we must work with all we can possibly muster to end these tragedies.

    As you begin to formulate your thoughts on how to proceed with your task, I hope your starting point is to provide the president with the facts regarding these slaughters and to offer him common-sense recommendations that are void of a political agenda and will actually make a meaningful difference. If the American people smell a political agenda here, that will only bog down our efforts.

    In the spirit of goodwill and a deep desire to end gut-wrenching, incredibly sad and senseless rampages, I offer you the following recommendations:

    I encourage you to persuade the president to lead this effort by providing a number of public service announcements. The announcements should include watching out for each other, encouraging parents to be more involved in their children’s lives regarding entertainment choices, and knowing various indicators we should watch for in people who are unstable.

    Clearly, the focus on solving these mass murders must be on the mentally ill. In almost every instance of mass killing, there were ample red flags and warning alarms that either were avoided or were not acted upon by mental health professionals, family members, friends and acquaintances. While I deeply respect an individual’s privacy and civil liberties, the American people need basic awareness of what indicators to look for regarding potentially violent, psychotic people. Our collective safety begins with being collectively vigilant.

    You will find in your assessment that all of the massacres have occurred in gun-free zones. What gun-free zones create is an environment where good people are unarmed and virtually defenseless against an unstable person intent on committing mass murder. Gun-free zones are modern killing fields. I implore you to recommend that Congress pass a law to ban gun-free zones immediately.

    Just like your full-time, armed security detail, qualified citizens with authorized, legal concealed-carry permits should be able to carry weapons virtually everywhere to protect themselves, their loved ones and innocents.

    I also implore you to strongly consider recommending that trained school officials have access to weapons to protect students. Just as airline pilots may have access to a weapon to prevent another Sept. 11 mass murder, school officials also should be trained to stop shooting sprees at our schools.

    I don’t encourage you to recommend a ban on any weapon, magazine capacity or type of ammunition. That won’t accomplish anything other than prevent the 99.9 percent of responsible, law-abiding Americans from enjoying these modern weapons as we do now. We should never recommend or develop public policy that restricts the rights of the good guys based upon what evil people do or might do. If that were the case, alcohol still would be banned. As you may know, drunk drivers kill an estimated 12,000 Americans each year and hurt tens of thousands more.

    I encourage you also to keep this misnamed “gun violence” in perspective. While all deaths are tragic, the vast majority of gun-related murders and violence are committed by gang members who do not use guns that look like — but do not perform like — military assault weapons. The majority of crimes that involve a firearm are committed with handguns. I concurred with you back in 2008 when you stated, “If [Mr. Obama] tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem.” I trust you still maintain those sentiments.

    Again, I offer you my services and a lifetime of expertise. I look forward to hearing from you.


    Ted Nugent

Related Posts