Question about guns
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
there I thought you'd answer with bears or something and you come up with foxes and badgers (yes, I deliberately ignore coyotes). really now, you need a gun to defend yourself from foxes and badgers?
kidding aside, I believe in gun control (not banning). As far as I'm concerned owning guns is a priviledge, not a inherent right. And since it's a priviledge, it can be taken away (like a driver's licence, basically).
Apart from that, I don't think anything bigger than an assault rifle (and in many cases even that) should belong into private hands. Sorry, no RPG's or MBT's for you.
If you can bring the bayonet to bear on the bear you can certainly do better by pulling the trigger than you can by trying to stab the critter.
You're much braver than I am if you want to run up to a bear armed with only a knife on a stick and some foul language! Not to mention that shooting accuracy goes out of the window when you stick a weight on the end of your rifle - its pivot point is your left hand or the magazine, depending on whether you shoot standing or prone, and moment = force * distance from pivot... you can do the sums yourself.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
From my previous cursory Google search people seemed to agree that bear spray was the best way to deal with a bear attack.
The point is that it's stowed in a backpack rather than in my hand all the time, so if I get jumped on by Winnie the Pooh I'm probably going to be bear food. It's the price I pay for not being paranoid.
Mad Man
Your lord and master
1. People without a history of violent behavior should be allowed to own weapons regardless of type(except explosives) unrestricted.
2. For the most part it is, I can see why states would have separate gun laws but when cities and counties start issuing there own laws then there taking it to far.
3. Like I said above the only people that should be bared from owning firearms are minors and people who have a history of violent crime, and even those should be taken on a case-to-case basis.
2. For the most part it is, I can see why states would have separate gun laws but when cities and counties start issuing there own laws then there taking it to far.
3. Like I said above the only people that should be bared from owning firearms are minors and people who have a history of violent crime, and even those should be taken on a case-to-case basis.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Gun violence is NOT the problem. If the same number of people, that were killed with firearms, were killed with butter knives, would it be any less of a problem? The issue is violence itself. So, the problem is a matter of culture. We cherish and glorify the use of violence to solve our problems through television, movies, video games, and our history. You cannot solve the problem by addressing it through the legislation that prohibits one particular class of tools that we use to commit violence. You have to address the cultural views on violence, itself.
That being said, I do not believe that the Constitution of the United States of America grants states and/or citizens the unrestricted right to own any firearm they wish. The Constitution was written during a time when firearms were still in a rather primitive stage of develop. The use of firearms to inflict mass casualties was decision that required a plurality. One lone gunman today does not need such plurality when choosing to kill a multitude. He can act unilaterally to do so.
A fully-automatic firearm has absolutely no other practical use (besides a lot of fun) than to kill a multitude of people, very quickly. There are virtually no self-defense situations wherein you would be require the use of an automatic weapon. Semi-automatic handguns and long rifles are perfectly adequate for your protection.
I do believe that my stance is constitutional. My words are backed
I would consider an amendment to the Constitution that alters the wording of the 2nd Amendment, but I would be very reluctant to pass it.
In the case of firearms, as well as with alcohol, the problem is within the people, not the tool by which they use to cause the problem. Addressing the problem through legislation aimed at the tool does nothing to solve the problem. Semi-automatic weapons have a use beyond simply killing people. Automatic weapons do not. That is where I draw the line.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
What is an assault rifle (by your defintion)?
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Well, I can't speak for most other people, but I carry when I'm in the bush primarily as a defense against that most vicious of animal species, homo sapiens sapiens. Without the ability to carry my handgun, the gun fight would turn into a knife fight and I'm not nearly as good with a knife.
I'd say an automatic rifle that's has at least burst capacity... sure, some assault rifles get modifed to remove that capability (such as swiss service rifles once you leave millitary service) but by default it should have that to qualify (usually full auto too)
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Well, then those are already restricted to the point that they are virtually illegal.
yeah, but he was answering to Ghostwriter who said that restriction should be lifted
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
No, he was answering Ghostwriter who said that the Assault Weapons Ban made no sense.
Here is the exact passage of Ghost's that he himself quoted.
Ghost said:
well I interpreted it that if he thinks the ban makes no sense he feels like the ban should be lifted, no?
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban automatic weapons.
ah, ok, I see it now 
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
ah, ok, I see it now
Its not your fault. The gun grabbers gave it that name (Assault Weapons) in order to confuse the public into thinking exactly that; That the weapons covered in the legislation were military-grade firearms and accessories. The reality is that none of what the legislation covered can be considered military grade, anymore. Those weapons are no more military grade than muskets or swords are.
Gun restrictions don't seem all that different in principle to driving restrictions. Granted, driving restrictions are partially justified on the grounds that you're using public roads, but the main point is control of an otherwise overly dangerous contraption. Getting a driver's licence in the US is quite easy, it seems, compared to how stringent it is in Australia, but I'm sure making the requirements stricter would not meet nearly the same opposition as what is termed 'gun-grabbing'. Yet even though the two types of restrictions as comparable, they cannot be equivalent. The legitimate purpose of driving a car far outweighs the risk posed to others. That is not to say that there is no risk, or that in some cases there is unacceptable risk. It's just that the risk is justifiable on the grounds that there is far greater utility in allowing reduced restrictions on driving (as compared to guns). On the other hand, guns do not have nearly the same legitimate value (however legitimate a purpose or purposes you may think they have, surely no-one would contend there isn't far greater utility in society's most widely-used means of transport), and the risk they pose is relatively significant. This basic realisation in itself indicates that obvious point that there should be more restrictions on guns than on driving, and from there it's just a matter of how great you consider their legitimate purpose as compared to the damage they can do. I don't believe there is any legitimate reason to own an assault rifle, for instance, so it's natural to conclude that you shouldn't be able to personally own one. In an urban environment, there isn't really any legitimate reason to be carrying or using any sort of gun; the number of situations in which you might have a legitimate reason to use a gun are so negligible that they shouldn't have a drastic impact on policy. Being mugged doesn't provide a legitimate reason, because any use of a gun would be disproportionate to the potential loss of property.
I would not have thought that a Constitution would be incapable of changing to cope with clearly different circumstances to that envisaged. However, stranger things than the US Constitution being ridiculous have been known to happen, so it's not like I couldn't be persuaded that the US Constitution does rightfully prohibit gun control. But if you're taking that view, the 'shall not be infringed' part is pretty clear and the rationalisation for some gun restrictions would seem to be the same as the rationalisation for all gun restrictions.
What is the 'general right to self-defence'? Surely it does not involve anything beyond a proportionate response. If you accept that restricting the ownership of RPGs doesn't infringe on this supposed right, then you accept that restricting other types of weapons is simply a matter of balancing the legitimate purpose against the risks.
Just because you have to have a licence to drive a car doesn't mean your innocence has been brought into question in the absence of proof of guilt. It would be silly if everyone was allowed to drive as they pleased up until the point where they caused some sort of accident, simply because up until that point they'd done nothing to demonstrate their inability to drive, or there 'innocence'. Society deems it appropriate to proactively minimise risk rather than sit back and wait for the consequences and deal out punishment accordingly. This is the same concept as with duties of care; you owe one whether or not you've done actually done anything wrong.
Alcohol can cause societal harm, and this is why there are some restrictions on it (e.g. tying into the driving example, drink driving). But going back to legitimate purpose, alcohol actually has much more of one, and the risks to others are not as great (a large part of the risk is to yourself). It's simply a matter again of weighing the risks against the benefits.
This would seem to be missing the fairly obvious point that butter knives in fact aren't killing the same number of people.
I would not have thought that a Constitution would be incapable of changing to cope with clearly different circumstances to that envisaged. However, stranger things than the US Constitution being ridiculous have been known to happen, so it's not like I couldn't be persuaded that the US Constitution does rightfully prohibit gun control. But if you're taking that view, the 'shall not be infringed' part is pretty clear and the rationalisation for some gun restrictions would seem to be the same as the rationalisation for all gun restrictions.
What is the 'general right to self-defence'? Surely it does not involve anything beyond a proportionate response. If you accept that restricting the ownership of RPGs doesn't infringe on this supposed right, then you accept that restricting other types of weapons is simply a matter of balancing the legitimate purpose against the risks.
Just because you have to have a licence to drive a car doesn't mean your innocence has been brought into question in the absence of proof of guilt. It would be silly if everyone was allowed to drive as they pleased up until the point where they caused some sort of accident, simply because up until that point they'd done nothing to demonstrate their inability to drive, or there 'innocence'. Society deems it appropriate to proactively minimise risk rather than sit back and wait for the consequences and deal out punishment accordingly. This is the same concept as with duties of care; you owe one whether or not you've done actually done anything wrong.
Alcohol can cause societal harm, and this is why there are some restrictions on it (e.g. tying into the driving example, drink driving). But going back to legitimate purpose, alcohol actually has much more of one, and the risks to others are not as great (a large part of the risk is to yourself). It's simply a matter again of weighing the risks against the benefits.
This would seem to be missing the fairly obvious point that butter knives in fact aren't killing the same number of people.
Similar threads
