[JoeSkylynx]

gothiclampshade posted:

I don't think you understand officer, these crates of fragmentation grenades are my collection
Imagine a criminal attacked you with a grenade, you'd regret not having a grenade of your own to defend yourself!

But in all seriousness, I think it's too late for banning firearms in America. It's clear that countries with bans on firearms have far fewer gun-related deaths or crimes but in America's case it's only going to affect people who would have used them for defence- they've been readily available for too long to just expect them to all disappear.

GunFox posted:

And in the United States, they mostly just stay home and don't rob people.

Again, in spite of every societal factor suggesting a greater amount of robbery, the United States ultimately sports fewer victims of robbery.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...obbery-victims

Or if we want to be much more general:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-total-victims

Overall there are fewer victims in the United States. Again, despite sporting a thousand reasons for MORE VICTIMS, we have FEWER VICTIMS.

What is different? The population is armed.

This isn't to say that arming the population is some magic bullet, as solving your underlying issues tends to do the job far better, but it doesn't work like you think it does.

EDIT:

And just to backup dacommie:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...e-rape-victims

We also sport less rape victims by a significant margin. Again, we aren't doing well as a nation. We should statistically have more. AND YET WE HAVE LESS.

America isn't some massive crime riddled nation.

Not exactly.

[Milkdairy]

download posted:

I'm calling bullshit on the source. No one else seems to be reporting this

MSNBC mentioned it, which is why I looked it up.

[Zet]

ROFLBURGER posted:

Collection.

Why would any one want to collect things that can be used to kill people? As an Australian I honestly can't fathom an answer to my own question.

[JoeSkylynx]

Zet posted:

Why would any one want to collect things that kill? As an Australian I honestly can't fathom an answer to my own question.

Amazing pieces of machinery? Historical importance? Understanding the great lengths we go to kill each other over trivial or ignorant things?
Before you state demilled... I want bang for my buck.

[Milkdairy]

Zet posted:

Why would any one want to collect things that can be used to kill people? As an Australian I honestly can't fathom an answer to my own question.

Aren't guns completely illegal in Australia?

[Sobotnik]

Anybody who needs a gun for personal protection lives in a country with a poor police force.

[Wealth + Taste]

gothiclampshade posted:

I don't think you understand officer, these crates of fragmentation grenades are my collection
Imagine a criminal attacked you with a grenade, you'd regret not having a grenade of your own to defend yourself!

But in all seriousness, I think it's too late for banning firearms in America. It's clear that countries with bans on firearms have far fewer gun-related deaths or crimes but in America's case it's only going to affect people who would have used them for defence- they've been readily available for too long to just expect them to all disappear.

That's such a straw argument it's not even funny. Fragmentation grenades are explosives for chrissakes, they can kill tons of people in a short amount of time. You can't really aim for just one person, it kills everything in its radius. They are illegal to own for that reason, and rightfully so. A firearm, however, is a precision istrument that, in the right hands, can take down any burglar/mugger/baddie without much fear of collateral damage. As long as you stay relatively calm and aren't jumping and jittering around, you should hit your target and not , say, a pregnant lady.

Apache249 posted:

I wonder if my Sturmgeschutz is considered an "assault weapon."

Sturm means assault in german, wouldn't get my hopes up

FPChris posted:

Just get a tazer/stungun/pepperspray/knife then goddamn.
Aslong as everybody in America has such easy access to weapons it's never ever going to be one of the greatest countries in the world again.

rip in peace

mr apple posted:

There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle.

"Oh but I want it for my collection"

That's a dumb excuse

mac338 posted:

After two large shootings in near succession, I don't think it's at all strange.

What most people don't seem to get in this thread is that they don't understand the reason we have guns in the first place. We have a constitutional right to bear arms for a reason, and that reason is not "to go out to the gun range and shoot a bunch of targets" and it's certainly not "To kill random people in the street and incite mass murder". No. We have the right to bear arms in case something takes a turn for the worse. In case someone invades our country and we need to defend ourselves. Or if worst comes to worst, our own government starts to break down in a bad way, we are able to keep them in line. Sure, it does have side effects like a slightly higher rate of gun violence and the idolization of gun culture here in the U.S, but I think if it came down to it and we were invaded it would be worth it. Think of how World War 2 would have gone differently if German citizens had the right to own guns and they had as many guns per capita as we do. The government starts coming in and taking people to ghettos and killing them? You bet the people wouldn't stand for it. I'm not saying it could have completely stopped the holocaust or whatever you want to call it, the fact of the matter is that armed citizenry is a freedom given to us to keep the government in check and make sure the U.S doesn't become the 4th Reich.

[Sobotnik]

Wealth + Taste posted:

What most people don't seem to get in this thread is that they don't understand the reason we have guns in the first place. We have a constitutional right to bear arms for a reason, and that reason is not "to go out to the gun range and shoot a bunch of targets" and it's certainly not "To kill random people in the street and incite mass murder". No. We have the right to bear arms in case something takes a turn for the worse. In case someone invades our country and we need to defend ourselves. Or if worst comes to worst, our own government starts to break down in a bad way, we are able to keep them in line. Sure, it does have side effects like a slightly higher rate of gun violence and the idolization of gun culture here in the U.S, but I think if it came down to it and we were invaded it would be worth it. Think of how World War 2 would have gone differently if German citizens had the right to own guns and they had as many guns per capita as we do. The government starts coming in and taking people to ghettos and killing them? You bet the people wouldn't stand for it. I'm not saying it could have completely stopped the holocaust or whatever you want to call it, the fact of the matter is that armed citizenry is a freedom given to us to keep the government in check and make sure the U.S doesn't become the 4th Reich.

Except practically every single government in existence that has been overthrown via a violent revolution (Usually with guns) turned back into a despotic state again.

Wealth + Taste posted:

Think of how World War 2 would have gone differently if German citizens had the right to own guns and they had as many guns per capita as we do. The government starts coming in and taking people to ghettos and killing them?

I can't formulate a response to this to tell you how insane this is.

Wealth + Taste posted:

In case someone invades our country and we need to defend ourselves.

Are you seriously suggesting that a force of untrained people with varying loyalties armed with a wide variety of random weapons (Many of which are not intended for military use) can stand up to a professional military force?

galenmarek posted:

Then it is a good thing people in America don't need one. But having one helps if there are no police around. America is VERY large. Imagine you live in the middle of the desert with the nearest police station several HUNDRED miles away. Do you SERIOUSLY think that they'll go out of their way to check a house in the middle of nowhere every day? One day a random person comes to the house and proceeds to rob everything you hold dear to you. What will you do without a firearm? Just sit there and say, "Thanks for taking my whole life away just be sure to make it quick when you take it literally."

Well how do you think people in the middle of the countryside of nations with restrictive gun laws get by? If what you are saying is true, then surely it must be incredibly dangerous to live in the countryside if criminals know they can break in with few police forces around?

[galenmarek]

Sobotnik posted:

Anybody who needs a gun for personal protection lives in a country with a poor police force.

Then it is a good thing people in America don't need one. But having one helps if there are no police around. America is VERY large. Imagine you live in the middle of the desert with the nearest police station several HUNDRED miles away. Do you SERIOUSLY think that they'll go out of their way to check a house in the middle of nowhere every day? One day a random person comes to the house and proceeds to rob everything you hold dear to you. What will you do without a firearm? Just sit there and say, "Thanks for taking my whole life away just be sure to make it quick when you take it literally."

[Chernarus]

This shit would never happen with communism.

[dookster]

Elecbullet posted:

Sigh okay

When someone has a gun, or instrument otherwise capablle of inducing at the least bodily harm to me, and is openly announcing his intention to use it against me, I don't give a fuck about him.

I like to live, I really do. To put yourself in a position where YOU decide if I live or die and then threaten the latter is pretty goddamned inexcusable in itself.

It is not any less of an offense if the criminal is more likely to just leave me alone and take my walllet. I don't give a shit about statistics. I don't give a shit about his welfare. I care only about protecting myself, and I don't particularly trust a criminal to be a good boy and run away with my wallet, leaving me uninjured.

My main problem with most people's arguments for gun ownership on this forum is that they always boil down to either "I need it for self defence, If a criminal owns a gun then I want one to defend myself" or "It's my constitutional right."

I've yet to actually see an argument that really convinces me civilian gun ownership is a good thing.

[Itsjustguy]

1:12 for the pool for AR ban.

[dogmachines]

dookster posted:

My main problem with most people's arguments for gun ownership on this forum is that they always boil down to either "I need it for self defence, If a criminal owns a gun then I want one to defend myself" or "It's my constitutional right."

I've yet to actually see an argument that really convinces me civilian gun ownership is a good thing.

Then you must not read Gunfox's posts. Besides that, if you can't prove it's a bad thing then why should it be banned?

[galenmarek]

Sobotnik posted:

Well how do you think people in the middle of the countryside of nations with restrictive gun laws get by? If what you are saying is true, then surely it must be incredibly dangerous to live in the countryside if criminals know they can break in with few police forces around?

Your countryside does not border with one of the most dangerous areas on Earth. An area where they happily execute people just because they can. In a country where it's own leader will be leaving the country after his term is up because it is so dangerous. Not to mention the person you are speaking to happens to live just several hours from said place. So yes it IS very dangerous.


"Are you seriously suggesting that a force of untrained people with varying loyalties armed with a wide variety of random weapons (Many of which are not intended for military use) can stand up to a professional military force?"

Quite so actually. When you have a populace that has lived on a land for several hundred years and even thousands of years then of course they will understand the land better than any invader could hope for. Not to mention America's climates vary from pretty much everthing you can think of. Do you think USSR pushed back the Germans just because they were better trained? Let's not forget people in America could use any weapon they want so things like international treaties would not hold back some random person from making a chemical and just launching it at an oppossing force with horrific results. Since the people normally defending America are for some reason or another gone then what would keep someone from just raiding a chemical weapons stockpile? Or even setting off a dirty bomb just to deny an enemy an area even if that means that area can no longer used for another thousand years?

[dookster]

dogmachines posted:

Then you must not read Gunfox's posts. Besides that, if you can't prove it's a bad thing then why should it be banned?

I've read them. They boiled down.

[Sobotnik]

galenmarek posted:

Your countryside does not border with one of the most dangerous areas on Earth. An area where they happily execute people just because they can. In a country where it's own leader will be leaving the country after his term is up because it is so dangerous. Not to mention the person you are speaking to happens to live just several hours from said place. So yes it IS very dangerous.

So that is for the border with Mexico? Alright fine then, let us say for the sake of argument you lived anywhere else in the United States that wasn't near Mexico. (Like say, Maine, that's pretty far from Mexico) Would you still require a gun in that case?

[Fatfatfatty]

I just realized a thing, everyone ever assumes that robbers will shoot you, no matter what you do. They will shoot with the intent to kill you. Why do people think that? They wont shoot you unless you pose a threat to them or refuse to coopreate. Putting a hand down under your shirt to unholster your gun will probably get you shot before you even get the gun up to fire it.

Then I guess you have to carry your weapon in your hand all the time, but that wont have any consequences at all. Not at all, no no.

[dogmachines]

Fatfatfatty posted:

I just realized a thing, everyone ever assumes that robbers will shoot you, no matter what you do. They will shoot with the intent to kill you. Why do people think that? They wont shoot you unless you pose a threat to them or refuse to coopreate. Putting a hand down under your shirt to unholster your gun will probably get you shot before you even get the gun up to fire it.

Then I guess you have to carry your weapon in your hand all the time, but that wont have any consequences at all. Not at all, no no.

Or you get a weapon when you hear somebody break in, and confront them prepared to shoot from the start. It's also not illogical to assume that an armed intruder is prepared to use their weapon, and is in fact a smart thing to assume from a survival perspective.

Edited:

Sobotnik posted:

So that is for the border with Mexico? Alright fine then, let us say for the sake of argument you lived anywhere else in the United States that wasn't near Mexico. (Like say, Maine, that's pretty far from Mexico) Would you still require a gun in that case?

Home invasions happen everywhere, and the police don't respond instantly(assuming you can call them).

[Wealth + Taste]

Fatfatfatty posted:

I just realized a thing, everyone ever assumes that robbers will shoot you, no matter what you do. They will shoot with the intent to kill you. Why do people think that? They wont shoot you unless you pose a threat to them or refuse to coopreate. Putting a hand down under your shirt to unholster your gun will probably get you shot before you even get the gun up to fire it.

Then I guess you have to carry your weapon in your hand all the time, but that wont have any consequences at all. Not at all, no no.

First rule of gun safety states that you don't point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. If someone points a loaded gun at your head, they put you in harm's way, bad intentions or not. Anyone willing to point a loaded gun at someone's head for petty cash doesn't deserve to be on the streets.

[Sobotnik]

dogmachines posted:

Home invasions happen everywhere, and the police don't respond instantly(assuming you can call them).

If you are unable to call them, that's essentially implying you don't have access to a telephone. (And mobile phones are much more common than guns).

Let us say that you keep your gun and mobile phone on your side table. If you are unable to use your phone due to the criminal preventing you from doing so, how are you going to use your gun?

[Fatfatfatty]

dogmachines posted:

Or you get a weapon when you hear somebody break in, and confront them prepared to shoot from the start. It's also not illogical to assume that an armed intruder is prepared to use their weapon, and is in fact a smart thing to assume from a survival perspective.

Edited:


Home invasions happen everywhere, and the police don't respond instantly(assuming you can call them).

A home invasion is one thing, that it makes sense, but if you're walking down the street at night and suddenly you have a gun in your face and a voice asking for your wallet, what will you do? If you do something funny he's gonna shoot you because he has the edge here.

[galenmarek]

Sobotnik posted:

So that is for the border with Mexico? Alright fine then, let us say for the sake of argument you lived anywhere else in the United States that wasn't near Mexico. (Like say, Maine, that's pretty far from Mexico) Would you still require a gun in that case?

This arguement is not about Maine though is it? Are you seriously implying that just because Maine is in an apparently safe area a town on the border of Mexico should follow the same guidelines? Have you ever been to a place where people are executed daily and dismembered and thought to yourself, "Since I want to be more civilized I'll just disarm myself and hope for the best." Do you seriously think this would work? By all means, tell me a single thing this will help.


"If you are unable to call them, that's essentially implying you don't have access to a telephone. (And mobile phones are much more common than guns).

Let us say that you keep your gun and mobile phone on your side table. If you are unable to use your phone due to the criminal preventing you from doing so, how are you going to use your gun?"

A phone is useless if the nearest law enforcement agency is several days away...

[Jon27]

This is going to sound really dumb and like I'm some sort of anarchist but wasn't the second amendment designed to prevent the government limiting rights to own weapons like this, and for the people to be able to self-regulate the government by ownership of said weapons? The idea being, once you have the weapons, some idiotic government cannot take them from you because you'll fight to keep those rights. But I guess the only solution to the government taking away rights now is to bitch and moan.

[Sobotnik]

galenmarek posted:

This arguement is not about Maine though is it? Are you seriously implying that just because Maine is in an apparently safe area a town on the border of Mexico should follow the same guidelines? Have you ever been to a place where people are executed daily and dismembered and thought to yourself, "Since I want to be more civilized I'll just disarm myself and hope for the best." Do you seriously think this would work? By all means, tell me a single thing this will help?

No, I'm asking the exact opposite. I'm asking why somebody in a relatively safe area would require the same access to a gun somebody in a relatively dangerous area would.

galenmarek posted:

A phone is useless if the nearest law enforcement agency is several days away...

Several days away? So it's better to have shot some criminal/s and find somewhere to stick their decomposing corpse/s for a week?

That's an example of a police force that needs improving.

Jon27 posted:

This is going to sound really dumb and like I'm some sort of anarchist but wasn't the second amendment designed to prevent the government limiting rights to own weapons like this, and for the people to be able to self-regulate the government by ownership of said weapons? The idea being, once you have the weapons, some idiotic government cannot take them from you because you'll fight to keep those rights. But I guess the only solution to the government taking away rights now is to bitch and moan.

The problem with using weapons to restrict government powers is that it results in one of either two cases (Eventually if you assume things are getting worse)

1. A civil war.
2. A violent revolution.

And the problem there is that something like a revolution only results in the creation of another dictatorship if you use armed force to get rid of the old regime.

[galenmarek]

Sobotnik posted:

No, I'm asking the exact opposite. I'm asking why somebody in a relatively safe area would require the same access to a gun somebody in a relatively dangerous area would.

Perhaps on the off chance that something would indeed happen. Why should someone following all rules and regulations be limited to what he can own? If I want to own a boat in a desert and many other people own boats in deserts, why should anyone tell me not to own a boat in a desert? The boat does not harm anyone. Obviously the boat would be rather useless but it does not affect anyone around me. If someone killed someone with the boat while they were transporting on the back off a truck, should all boats be banned from deserts? What if perhaps, the government decided to ban boats at lakes aswell just because someone in a far away desert happened to squish someone with his because he wasn't using it properly? Does this situation sound fair?

"Several days away? So it's better to have shot some criminal/s and find somewhere to stick their decomposing corpse/s for a week?That's an example of a police force that needs
improving"

This isn't some space science fiction movie. How do you expect law enforcement agencies to travel hundreds of miles quickly? Teleport them? Even aircraft would take too long. But it is good to hear your country has mastered the art of being able somehow move several hundred miles within the blink of an eye to some house in the middle of no where on the whim of a phone call that could very well just be fake. Or would you just have the criminals just shoot the house owner and have to deal with a homicide instead?

"The problem with using weapons to restrict government powers is that it results in one of either two cases"

America has done fine in the past several hundred years.

[David29]

I don't care if I get rated dumb, but this is a step in the right direction.

[Jon27]

Sobotnik posted:

The problem with using weapons to restrict government powers is that it results in one of either two cases (Eventually if you assume things are getting worse)

1. A civil war.
2. A violent revolution.

And the problem there is that something like a revolution only results in the creation of another dictatorship if you use armed force to get rid of the old regime.

Indeed, I know this and either of those options are totally not viable in a first-world country, especially one such as the USA. Problem is, more and more I get the feeling that the broken bipartisan systems in the UK and US are not going to stop any time soon and the longer we carry on like this, the longer our governments are like a bunch of whiny first-years, the more we are making ourselves look stupid and dragging the rest of the world down with our inability to do anything right. When is it going to stop? And more importantly, how?

[Smug Bastard]

Murderers and mass shooters will get guns and use them whether it's legal to use them or not.

[dogmachines]

Sobotnik posted:

If you are unable to call them, that's essentially implying you don't have access to a telephone. (And mobile phones are much more common than guns).

Let us say that you keep your gun and mobile phone on your side table. If you are unable to use your phone due to the criminal preventing you from doing so, how are you going to use your gun?

The idea behind home defense is that you hear the person break in and arm yourself. If the phone and gun are in the same place, you call the police and stay in your room covering the door with the gun.

[Rusty100]

This is good news. Yall don't need assault rifles, and shouldn't be able to easily obtain one. If you really want guns to protect yourself, or for sport, or whatever (which I disagree with too), you don't need an assault rifle. They are literally just for killing heaps of people really easily.

[dogmachines]

Fatfatfatty posted:

A home invasion is one thing, that it makes sense, but if you're walking down the street at night and suddenly you have a gun in your face and a voice asking for your wallet, what will you do? If you do something funny he's gonna shoot you because he has the edge here.

So because pulling a gun in one situation is more dangerous than complying we shouldn't be able to have a weapon ever?

[Fatfatfatty]

Smug Bastard posted:

Murderers and mass shooters will get guns and use them whether it's legal to use them or not.

That doesn't mean civillians need to have AR-15's lying around the house

[dogmachines]

Rusty100 posted:

This is good news. Yall don't need assault rifles, and shouldn't be able to easily obtain one. If you really want guns to protect yourself, or for sport, or whatever (which I disagree with too), you don't need an assault rifle. They are literally just for killing heaps of people really easily.

Have you not read the thread? The definition of "assault weapon" is laughably vague and focuses more on things that look threatening than things that are actually dangerous, which are generally tightly regulated as it is.

[[IT] Zodiac]

To the people always talking about armed robbers, incredibly deranged thieves and criminals hell bent on taking your lives, do you even KNOW what you're talking about? I live almost in the country, next to a severely under watched medium security prison, and sometimes thieves try go get into the apartment block. They are not serial killers. THIEVES DON'T CARRY GUNS. Thieves are incredibly prudent: they will never enter a house if they suspect someone is inside. They are easily scared. I have friends that live practically in the forest, and all they need to do to scare down thieves is leave a light on. Also, if you actually live in a place where the risk of getting mugged or robbed in plain sight in the streets is so high that you feel the need to bring a pistol with you the whole time, you should really consider to move the fuck out. Or, probably this is just an excuse to justify your attachment to a thing that was designed with the express purpose of killing another human being. I don't get it why you fail to see how morbid gun owners can get about their weapons

[JoeSkylynx]

Fatfatfatty posted:

That doesn't mean civillians need to have AR-15's lying around the house

You haven't provided a reason why we shouldn't have the choice of doing so...

[Fatfatfatty]

dogmachines posted:

So because pulling a gun in one situation is more dangerous than complying we shouldn't be able to have a weapon ever?

not only because of that, but making guns availible will increase gun crime (just because a gun is legal doesn't mean it cannot be used for crime)

[David29]

Smug Bastard posted:

Murderers and mass shooters will get guns and use them whether it's legal to use them or not.

Of course there will always be instances where people will be do whatever they can to kill someone, but there are many instances where attacks are spur-of-the-moment or dissuaded by lack of easy access to the right weapon.

[JoeSkylynx]

David29 posted:

Of course there will always be instances where people will be do whatever they can to kill someone, but there are many instances where attacks are spur-of-the-moment or dissuaded by lack of easy access to the right weapon.

Not really... They just find another weapon usually.

[Fatfatfatty]

JoeSkylynx posted:

You haven't provided a reason why we shouldn't have the choice of doing so...

Because it is in its entirety unnecessary to make weapons made for combat against humans readily availible for any civillians to buy.

[David29]

JoeSkylynx posted:

Not really... They just find another weapon usually.

'Usually'? What are you basing that on?