Do we really need guns everywhere? Update: it Passes

[quote name='mykevermin']Well, let me set you up, then. Tell us: what will "arms" be in the year 2240? (and, more importantly, will we finally have space cars that fold up into briefcases that can be carried into our office at Spaceley Sprockets?)[/quote]

Governments around the world are rushing to develop military robots capable of killing autonomously without considering the legal and moral implications, warns a leading roboticist. But another robotics expert argues that robotic soldiers could perhaps be made more ethical than human ones.

Noel Sharkey of Sheffield University, UK, says he became "really scared" after researching plans outlined by the US and other nations to roboticise their military forces. He will outline his concerns to at a one day conference held in London, UK, on Wednesday.
Over 4000 semi-autonomous robots are already deployed by the US in Iraq, says Sharkey, and other countries – including several European nations, Canada, South Korea, South Africa, Singapore and Israel – are developing similar technologies.

...
Sharkey is most concerned about the prospect of having robots decide for themselves when to "pull the trigger". Currently, a human is always involved in decisions of this nature. But the Pentagon is nearly 2 years into a research programme aimed at having robots identify potential threats without human help.

"The main problem is that these systems do not have the discriminative power to do that," he says, "and I don't know if they ever will."
...
"One of the fundamental abilities I want to give [these systems] is to refuse an order and explain why."
Yet Arkin does not think battlefield robots can be made a smart as human soldiers. "We cannot make them that generally intelligent, they will be more like dogs, used for specialised situations," he says
But he is so far concentrating his research scenarios involving armies. "For those situations we have very clear cut guidance from the Geneva Convention, the Hague and elsewhere about what is ethical," he explains.
Click to expand...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=4354764&page=1


Oh yeah, this seems like a really good time to give up the people's right to bear arms.

Terminators.jpg
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It'll be the same, man - poor robots go to the front lines, while senators' robots go to prep school.[/quote]

:lol:

You could write for Futurama
 
It the right to bear arms is taken away from the lawful then only outlaws will have guns. Period. There is no way around it. Many claim Britain as a great example of a gunless nation having less shootings. What they will fail to mention is that the amount of stabbing crimes more than makes up for it.
 
[quote name='camoor']You're trying to paint the founding fathers as babes in the woods who could never imagine a gun capable of firing multiple rounds in a short period of time - it's downright insulting to insinuate that a gentleman scholar such as the inventive Ben Franklin or the brilliant military leader George Washington couldn't have foreseen that guns would one day be more accurate, more powerful, and more effective then they were in the late 18th century.[/QUOTE]

Well, sirrah, since I've offended the honour of your esteemed colleagues, I'm certain that a man of stature such as yourself would demand satisfaction, and it would be cowardly for me to wilt in the face of such terrible determination, so I must accept. As the challenged, I claim my right to choose the manner in which we settle this dispute, and so when we meet upon the morrow, you shall use the finest dueling pistol available, the very historical artefact with which Aaron Burr slew Alexander Hamilton. Of course, being the offending party in this matter, it is only fitting that I use a commoner's weapon, such as, perhaps, a Glock-17 with a laser sight and an extended 33-round mag, modified for burst fire and loaded with hollow points. Ten paces, turn, and fire, was it?

I'm sure God will judge the rightness of our causes by leading his favoured to victory.

Your humble servant,
TRQ

;)
 
[quote name='trq']Well, sirrah, since I've offended the honour of your esteemed colleagues, I'm certain that a man of stature such as yourself would demand satisfaction, and it would be cowardly for me to wilt in the face of such terrible determination, so I must accept. As the challenged, I claim my right to choose the manner in which we settle this dispute, and so when we meet upon the morrow, you shall use the finest dueling pistol available, the very historical artefact with which Aaron Burr slew Alexander Hamilton. Of course, being the offending party in this matter, it is only fitting that I use a commoner's weapon, such as, perhaps, a Glock-17 with a laser sight and an extended 33-round mag, modified for burst fire and loaded with hollow points. Ten paces, turn, and fire, was it?

I'm sure God will judge the rightness of our causes by leading his favoured to victory.

Your humble servant,
TRQ

;)[/quote]


:rofl:
 
[quote name='trq']As did being stabbed by a rapier -- puncture wounds were notorious for going septic and killing slowly and painfully. So again: why isn't the Second Amendment about swords?[/quote]

Is it illegal for a member of a well-regulated militia to keep or bear any type of melee weapon?
 
[quote name='MarkMark']It the right to bear arms is taken away from the lawful then only outlaws will have guns. Period. There is no way around it. Many claim Britain as a great example of a gunless nation having less shootings. What they will fail to mention is that the amount of stabbing crimes more than makes up for it.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. There's nothing like citing how the British commit crimes with knives to demonstrate the "only outlaws will have guns" argument.
 
[quote name='trq']Well, sirrah, since I've offended the honour of your esteemed colleagues, I'm certain that a man of stature such as yourself would demand satisfaction, and it would be cowardly for me to wilt in the face of such terrible determination, so I must accept. As the challenged, I claim my right to choose the manner in which we settle this dispute, and so when we meet upon the morrow, you shall use the finest dueling pistol available, the very historical artefact with which Aaron Burr slew Alexander Hamilton. Of course, being the offending party in this matter, it is only fitting that I use a commoner's weapon, such as, perhaps, a Glock-17 with a laser sight and an extended 33-round mag, modified for burst fire and loaded with hollow points. Ten paces, turn, and fire, was it?

I'm sure God will judge the rightness of our causes by leading his favoured to victory.

Your humble servant,
TRQ

;)[/quote]

ohhhhhh. Why did I have to provoke a guy that says "sirrah" :D
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Indeed. There's nothing like citing how the British commit crimes with knives to demonstrate the "only outlaws will have guns" argument.[/quote]Forschner and Wüsthof are lobbying hard for the 2nd amendment to be repealed.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:rofl:

Recent news has shown that "CutCo" is part of a lobbying firm trying to enact stricter gun laws.[/quote]Man, just think how history could've been different and CutCo had enacted their original plan to really make use of the 2nd amendment and have college kids sell restaurant-quality handguns door to door!
 
*rimshot*

You're on today, funnyman.

"Now look at the way this Mack-10 really trims the fat on this beef without changing the direction of the grain or color. MARVELOUS!"
 
[quote name='MarkMark']It the right to bear arms is taken away from the lawful then only outlaws will have guns. Period. There is no way around it. Many claim Britain as a great example of a gunless nation having less shootings. What they will fail to mention is that the amount of stabbing crimes more than makes up for it.[/quote]

We get plenty of shootings in Blighty these days as well, 14 year old kid got shot in Liverpool the other day.

No High School massacres though, as of yet, Dunblane was about as close as we've got and that did lead to UK gun law being tightened.
 
I love gun discussions. Very entertaining. For me, the gun argument is summed up easily like this: In a world full of crazy people with weapons, does it make more sense to be with a weapon or without?

I'd love for someone to make a FPS where the player only gets to use statistics, anecdotes, and philosophy about guns against the enemies coming at you.

All I know is gun collectors like me can rejoice whenever a democrat gets elected, because the value of our guns skyrockets. Shit, I've noticed the prices of guns going up the better Democrats do in the elections.

A gun is one of the only things you can buy brand new and be pretty guaranteed (because of the current course of American politics) that it will go up in value. They are a much better investement than U.S. Currency, anyway.
 
n 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one
million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:


List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I love gun discussions. Very entertaining. For me, the gun argument is summed up easily like this: In a world full of crazy people with weapons, does it make more sense to be with a weapon or without?[/quote]My point is to not make it possible for the crazies (or more to the point, idiots) to get the guns. Yes, there will always be smuggling of weapons whether only certain classes are illegal or they're all illegal. It's the moron who keeps a loaded rifle in the house where there are young children or the person who can't control his temper and reached for the weapon stash that I want to keep guns away from. It's not logical to say we'll ban all guns all the time and have that be effective.

Michael Knight never once used a gun after getting shot in the face! The real solution here is that we all need sentient, computer controlled mid-80's Trans-Ams (or '08 Mustangs, I suppose). If that's not a solid argument, I don't know what is.
 
[quote name='DesertEagleXIX']n 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one
million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:


List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.[/quote]

Excellent post - thanks for doing all of this research. I knew the proof was out there but couldn't find it. I used to be a lukewarm gun control advocate until I started looking at real statistics and listening to arguements from rational pro-gun-rights advocates (IMO the gun nuts give the cause a bad name)
 
[quote name='camoor']Excellent post - thanks for doing all of this research. I knew the proof was out there but couldn't find it. I used to be a lukewarm gun control advocate until I started looking at real statistics and listening to arguements from rational pro-gun-rights advocates (IMO the gun nuts give the cause a bad name)[/QUOTE]

Agreed very good an d detailed post. Im sure people with opposing views will be hard pressed to post anything even half as convincing. I cannot recal which but a japanese general during WW2 told his superiors that any thoughts of invading the united states would be suicide because there would be an american with a gun behind every bush. Hard to invade a country where its people are free to defend themselves if they so choose to. Pushing for stricter laws and standards is fine. (I personally dont want psychos to get them myself) but saying that we should just give up the right to bear arms completely is foolish at the very least.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Is it illegal for a member of a well-regulated militia to keep or bear any type of melee weapon?[/quote]

In California it is illegal to possess many melee weapons. Even leaded boxing gloves are illegal here.
 
[quote name='Magehart']In California it is illegal to possess many melee weapons. Even leaded boxing gloves are illegal here.[/QUOTE]

Guess if China invades, California will be a shitty first line of defense. ;)
 
[quote name='MarkMark']but saying that we should just give up the right to bear arms completely is foolish at the very least.[/QUOTE]

Who the hell is saying that? Nobody here, pal.
 
As far as banning guns in certain places such as national parks.....

If your going to ban guns somewhere there should be metal detectors, an armed security presense, and a legitimate reason for the banning. Otherwise, people should be able to carry.

I am ok with not being able to bring a gun into a courthouse/govenrment buildings given the above criteria. I am not ok with banning guns in colleges or national parks.
 
[quote name='Magehart']In California it is illegal to possess many melee weapons. Even leaded boxing gloves are illegal here.[/quote]

If the person claims to be part a well-regulated militia and the government cannot disprove it, the law is unconstitutional.
 
The DC handgun Supreme Court case should set policy straight on this issue.

Gun control advocates - you're in good company. None other then Bush W. and Cheney have come around to your position.

The Bush administration's shifting stance on gun control has added political drama to the case. Ashcroft's position seven years ago made him a hero to the 4 million-member NRA, which put him on the cover of its monthly magazine and called him a "breath of fresh air to freedom-loving gun owners."
The next year, in 2002, Justice Department lawyers said that any government regulation of gun rights should be subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny, which would make it harder to enact gun laws.
Now, the Bush administration is siding with Heller in a"friend of the court" brief — but with a large caveat. Justice Department lawyers have backed off their earlier position and now say gun regulation should be subjected to a lesser level of scrutiny that would allow far more regulation than the 2002 stance.
The reason is explained in the first line of the administration's court brief: "Congress has enacted numerous laws regulating firearms." Current laws ban private ownership of machine guns and limit possession of firearms that can go undetected by metal detectors or X-ray machines. Laws also regulate the manufacture, sale and importation of firearms.
Vice President Cheney, a hunting enthusiast, broke with the administration and signed a brief with a majority of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives urging a high threshold for gun regulation.
Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm

Never, ever thought I'd say this - but Ashcroft wasn't half as bad as I thought.
 
[quote name='DesertEagleXIX']n 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one
million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:


List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.[/QUOTE]

This is too C&P for my liking, and I'm not convinced by the numbers. I'm going to pull a "source please" card here.

wc05_card_gallery__277x400.jpg


Also, the issue here is about national parks, and not whether or not we should have guns at all. I'm happy to debate the merits of gun control, but the moment it turns into this fantasy world where anyone who thinks firearms should be regulated in the slightest speaks up, the response turns into a "end-all" sort of "here's what happens when there are no guns" argument - which isn't really the issue at all, as I see it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This is too C&P for my liking, and I'm not convinced by the numbers. I'm going to pull a "source please" card here.

wc05_card_gallery__277x400.jpg


Also, the issue here is about national parks, and not whether or not we should have guns at all. I'm happy to debate the merits of gun control, but the moment it turns into this fantasy world where anyone who thinks firearms should be regulated in the slightest speaks up, the response turns into a "end-all" sort of "here's what happens when there are no guns" argument - which isn't really the issue at all, as I see it.[/QUOTE]

It may be that this is one issue that we might agree on. Depending on how much control you believe in...

Of course there should be some regulation, but any regulation that is easily bypassed by criminals is really not effective regulation. Most of the proposed gun control laws that I have seen only punish law abiding people. Criminals, who are planning to break the law anyway, have no use for gun control policies and laws.

For example: I have seen some gas stations, stores, restaurants actually have signs posted on the door that says "No guns allowed". Now come on, where is the logic in the store owner in doing that? They may as well have a sign that says "Bad guys with well hidden guns only".

I believe in the concealed carry background checks. I like the background checks for purchasing a gun. And I am totally on board with anyone with a criminal record being banned from gun ownership. In fact, it should be a very serious felony if a felon ever has a gun.
 
I know in my state (IL) that to get a FOID card you can't have been in a mental hospital/ward/wing/floor for at least five years. Seems like a long time but as we saw, there can be people that are out for years and stop taking their medicine and a school shooting happens.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Who the hell is saying that? Nobody here, pal.[/QUOTE]

Its a statement. Relax buddy you'll live longer.
(and we both know there are people out there who are hardcore - no one should have guns but the army)
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Guess if China invades, California will be a shitty first line of defense. ;)[/quote]

Doesn't matter, by that time global warming will have put Cali under water anyway. Time to start buying oceanfront property in Nevada!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It may be that this is one issue that we might agree on. Depending on how much control you believe in...

Of course there should be some regulation, but any regulation that is easily bypassed by criminals is really not effective regulation. Most of the proposed gun control laws that I have seen only punish law abiding people. Criminals, who are planning to break the law anyway, have no use for gun control policies and laws.

For example: I have seen some gas stations, stores, restaurants actually have signs posted on the door that says "No guns allowed". Now come on, where is the logic in the store owner in doing that? They may as well have a sign that says "Bad guys with well hidden guns only".

I believe in the concealed carry background checks. I like the background checks for purchasing a gun. And I am totally on board with anyone with a criminal record being banned from gun ownership. In fact, it should be a very serious felony if a felon ever has a gun.[/QUOTE]

What is your opinion on the Brady Bill?

As far as the gun/criminal connection, I'll repeat what I said earlier: there are crimes committed every day where legally purchased firearms are used, and there are otherwise law-abiding citizens who never commit any other crimes who have purchased guns illegally.

Let's be honest: you probably know someone who owns a gun that isn't properly registered that should be, or was acquired via "nontraditional" means. Gun shows aren't always on the "up and up" themselves. You don't have to admit it to me or anyone here - but just think about what firearms (or ammunition) you and your friends and family have that wasn't legally bought.

Now, don't get me wrong - I think there is a modicum of reality to the "only outlaws will have guns" argument. But giving that argument credence goes back to what I said earlier: it acknowledges an absurd absolutist scenario wherein Americans forfeit their right to any and every firearm. Maybe it isn't absurd (given what we know of Stanley Milgram's research, and even a recent repeat study that demonstrated people are mostly the same some 4 decades later), though.

[quote name='MarkMark']Its a statement. Relax buddy you'll live longer.
(and we both know there are people out there who are hardcore - no one should have guns but the army)[/QUOTE]

And they aren't here, and they aren't making any points. So you're welcome to offer your opinions and debate, but I think you should really read the thread, find things you agree with and disagree with, and work with what folks here are *actually* saying, rather than echoing some silly point that (1) nobody here is saying and (2) you don't know how small a portion of the population agrees with that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What is your opinion on the Brady Bill?

As far as the gun/criminal connection, I'll repeat what I said earlier: there are crimes committed every day where legally purchased firearms are used, and there are otherwise law-abiding citizens who never commit any other crimes who have purchased guns illegally.[/quote]

I know several citizens in California who buy guns illegally for sporting purposes here in California. These guys make on the upper half of 6 figures a year and have no prior record. They just go to Arizona where there is no waiting period and buy it there then truck it into Cali. The purchasing of the firearm is legal but the importation isn't.

[quote name='mykevermin']Let's be honest: you probably know someone who owns a gun that isn't properly registered that should be, or was acquired via "nontraditional" means. Gun shows aren't always on the "up and up" themselves.[/quote]

I have guns that I have acquired throughout the years that aren't registered that are still 100% legal. The laws aren't the problem it's the loopholes within the laws that are. One example is they go through all the details of fingerprinting guns here in California and with a $150 barrel swap I could waste all that work they put into testing them. Another one is you can purchase a black powder rifle or revolver (no wait or registration) and then convert it to a real caliber like .223 or .44 magnum with little effort. All the parts are sold on the internet just drop them in and rock n' roll.

[quote name='mykevermin']You don't have to admit it to me or anyone here - but just think about what firearms (or ammunition) you and your friends and family have that wasn't legally bought.[/quote]

I'm questioning this. What do you mean by ammunition not bought legally? Tracer rounds are banned in some states and AP are federally. But to answer your question I've know people with AP rounds. But the majority of the people with these rounds have bought them at a time when they were legal to purchase (but not illegal to possess).


[quote name='mykevermin'] Now, don't get me wrong - I think there is a modicum of reality to the "only outlaws will have guns" argument. But giving that argument credence goes back to what I said earlier: it acknowledges an absurd absolutist scenario wherein Americans forfeit their right to any and every firearm. Maybe it isn't absurd (given what we know of Stanley Milgram's research, and even a recent repeat study that demonstrated people are mostly the same some 4 decades later), though.[/quote]

I think we need to cut the state by state basis of gun laws and just take it all Federal so we can finally end all these debates once and for all. It's an endless two step. While I don't think we need full-auto at least the feds will let you with the right permits which I think is fine (except in California... everything is banned that can kill someone). California is too stringent on their laws and it's been tying up court costs and time with wasted lawsuits for the past decade. I've had friends guns confiscated by the police and the DA dismissing their cases because the officers don't even know all the laws anymore. Just make a federal list of whats good and whats bad and call it a day.


[quote name='mykevermin'] And they aren't here, and they aren't making any points. So you're welcome to offer your opinions and debate, but I think you should really read the thread, find things you agree with and disagree with, and work with what folks here are *actually* saying, rather than echoing some silly point that (1) nobody here is saying and (2) you don't know how small a portion of the population agrees with that.[/quote]

I'll just round this off with this: Guns aren't dangerous inherently. The North Hollywood Shootout boys had full body armor, fully auto AK-47's, and the dreaded "high capacity" magazines. Equipped with the best of the best for full assault. They're K:D ratio was abysmal. It was 0. In a Halo or CoD game they would be ridiculed till the end of time. The point is guns aren't dangerous. It's a gun in the hands of a skillful person that makes ANYTHING dangerous. give The Rock a bigass piece of lumber and give a 4th grader an Uzi and see who would win.

Fun fact: The high cap mags and the AK's are illegal in Cali then and now.
One more: Last year when the LA confiscated weaponry from gang members guess how many shoulder fired rockets they found? If you said zero you're in for a surprise.

Lawmakers need to stop harassing law abiding citizens and start making tougher laws on crime and hiring more police to kick some ass.

Invent Robocop damnit!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What is your opinion on the Brady Bill?

As far as the gun/criminal connection, I'll repeat what I said earlier: there are crimes committed every day where legally purchased firearms are used, and there are otherwise law-abiding citizens who never commit any other crimes who have purchased guns illegally.

Let's be honest: you probably know someone who owns a gun that isn't properly registered that should be, or was acquired via "nontraditional" means. Gun shows aren't always on the "up and up" themselves. You don't have to admit it to me or anyone here - but just think about what firearms (or ammunition) you and your friends and family have that wasn't legally bought.

Now, don't get me wrong - I think there is a modicum of reality to the "only outlaws will have guns" argument. But giving that argument credence goes back to what I said earlier: it acknowledges an absurd absolutist scenario wherein Americans forfeit their right to any and every firearm. Maybe it isn't absurd (given what we know of Stanley Milgram's research, and even a recent repeat study that demonstrated people are mostly the same some 4 decades later), though.



And they aren't here, and they aren't making any points. So you're welcome to offer your opinions and debate, but I think you should really read the thread, find things you agree with and disagree with, and work with what folks here are *actually* saying, rather than echoing some silly point that (1) nobody here is saying and (2) you don't know how small a portion of the population agrees with that.[/QUOTE]

Good sir, you don't understand, I am. The thread is about gun control. My opinion is that stricter enforcement is ok(we cant be allowed to just walk anywhere with a gun) but taking away all gun rights is foolish. Whats wrong with heading any extremeists off beforehand? I think the with the vast population on the internet and a decent registered members population on CAG gives a decent change of there being a handful of people that fall into that category. Surely we can agree at the very least on that.
 
[quote name='Magehart']Lawmakers need to stop harassing law abiding citizens and start making tougher laws on crime and hiring more police to kick some ass.

Invent Robocop damnit![/quote]

Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
robo_dickjones.jpg
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What is your opinion on the Brady Bill?
[/QUOTE]

In a nutshell, I think the Brady Bill hasn't been that useful when it comes to stopping outright violent crime with guns. However, the aspects of it for gun tracing is very useful. I do think background checks are a good idea, but the waiting period aspect seems noneffective.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket'] I do think background checks are a good idea, but the waiting period aspect seems noneffective.[/QUOTE]

It's kind of hard to assess the effectiveness of the waiting period would you agree? I mean, it works when nothing unusual happens.
 
[quote name='usickenme']It's kind of hard to assess the effectiveness of the waiting period would you agree? I mean, it works when nothing unusual happens.[/QUOTE]

Yes this is true, which is why it's hard to say it's a good idea.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yes this is true, which is why it's hard to say it's a good idea.[/quote]I think it's harder to say it's a bad idea--something that would keep buying a gun out of the slow of a crime of passion.
 
If we really want the government to start deciding which possible impulsive purchases should have wait times on them because of possible detriment to society, maybe we should add more to the list, like Cars or big-ticket appliances. After all, many people sink further into debt and declare bankruptcy......Which isn't good for the economy, right?

Maybe we should have wait times or taxes on all foods deemed unhealthy so fatties with health problems don't weigh down the economy....right?

Maybe the government should pass a law to prevent people that have dated each other less than 6 months from getting married, to help curb the divorce rate and strengthen families..... right?

"Logically", those things might make sense, but it doesn't make them good ideas.

I know buying a car you can't afford, impulsively, isn't usually meant to kill someone, but see where this type of legislation leads?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']In a nutshell, I think the Brady Bill hasn't been that useful when it comes to stopping outright violent crime with guns. However, the aspects of it for gun tracing is very useful. I do think background checks are a good idea, but the waiting period aspect seems noneffective.[/quote]

The waiting period hasn’t been a part of the Brady Bill for at least 8 years. It was replaced by the instant background check.

The most useful part of the Brady Bill often goes unused. Under the law, felons who attempt to purchase a firearm can be prosecuted and imprisoned for up to 10 years. Unfortunately this is seldom done. The current laws should be enforced before new ones are implemented.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If we really want the government to start deciding which possible impulsive purchases should have wait times on them because of possible detriment to society, maybe we should add more to the list, like Cars or big-ticket appliances. After all, many people sink further into debt and declare bankruptcy......Which isn't good for the economy, right?[/quote]

Well you do need a license to operate a car (and apparently it's a priveledge - but I think that part is BS, it should be a damn right). And as for the killer big-ticket appliances - were you watching Maximum Overdrive recently?

[quote name='thrustbucket']Maybe we should have wait times or taxes on all foods deemed unhealthy so fatties with health problems don't weigh down the economy....right?

Maybe the government should pass a law to prevent people that have dated each other less than 6 months from getting married, to help curb the divorce rate and strengthen families..... right?

"Logically", those things might make sense, but it doesn't make them good ideas.

I know buying a car you can't afford, impulsively, isn't usually meant to kill someone, but see where this type of legislation leads?[/quote]

IMO that's taking the slippery slope a bit far. As far as I can see, these are different issues from that of the right to bear arms.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well you do need a license to operate a car (and apparently it's a priveledge - but I think that part is BS, it should be a damn right). And as for the killer big-ticket appliances - were you watching Maximum Overdrive recently?



IMO that's taking the slippery slope a bit far. As far as I can see, these are different issues from that of the right to bear arms.[/QUOTE]

Of course they are different issues. But I am an advocate of government staying out of our lives. I do not want the government to get more use to shimmying it's way into every crack of our lives than they already are. It's a principle thing. Unless you can prove, without any doubt, that waiting periods decrease crime, then it's a dangerous law to freedom, imo.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I know buying a car you can't afford, impulsively, isn't usually meant to kill someone, but see where this type of legislation leads?[/quote]I can see where you took it, but no, I don't see how mandating a waiting period on my being able to buy a weapon will end up forcing me to wait for three months before I buy a car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top