I'd be happier if responsible people were denied guns than if irresponsible people were allowed to have them.
As an individual with no need for a firearm and no interest in having one that is a reasonable stance for you to take. By that same token, it's reasonable for someone living in a rural are with both a need and an interest in firearms to take an opposing stance.
I don't think there's much of a good case for most people who say they need firearms in rural areas, to be honest. Heavy regulation that does still allow it, but with SEVERE penalties for straw sales, unreported losses, and so forth, would be fine.
I don't think there's much of a good case for most people who say they need firearms in rural areas, to be honest. Heavy regulation that does still allow it, but with SEVERE penalties for straw sales, unreported losses, and so forth, would be fine.
Actually, many people who own firearms in rural areas often use them for hunting in order to affordably supplement their diets. If you live way out in the boonies, it's not always easy to go to the supermarket to get some meat and, even then, it may be too expensive for you to do it on a regular basis. I mean, in some poor rural areas, squirrel pot pie is an actual thing (and supposedly can be quite delicious if made properly).
I do not like to say that I'd deny guns from people who like to go target shooting, or hunt, but if that's the price to pay for keeping guns away from hands which would be willing to point the gun to other people, then it's so, sacrifices sometimes have to be made.
You know, it's not just on this issue, but it seems that I'm hearing the words "Sacrifices must be made" more and more often lately, and it's almost always from those who are not making any sacrifices. And it's never something that those demanding sacrifice wish for that's being sacrificed, it's always what someone else has or wants that must be sacrificed.
If you want gun control, fair enough, but spare us the high-handed talk of "Sacrifices have to be made." No, they do not, and let's not beat around the bush here, you want them to be made, by other people, because it serves your goals or ideals. Dressing it up as some sad but acceptable or inevitable loss that you don't put the slightest thought or care to preventing - even when others have already managed to do so - is just a bit rich for my taste.
Need for a firearm. Interesting phrase. I acknowledge that there any many reasons, some even good, for person to want a firearm, but actual need for it, I don't think exists.
I do not like to say that I'd deny guns from people who like to go target shooting, or hunt, but if that's the price to pay for keeping guns away from hands which would be willing to point the gun to other people, then it's so, sacrifices sometimes have to be made.
It's impressive how often folks are willing to demand a sacrifice of others that doesn't effect them at all. I don't mean to imply that you personally don't have a horse in this race, I don't know your situation and wont presume to, but most of the voices calling for "taking guns away from people who like to go target shooting" or saying "actual need for it, I don't think exists" are so far from the issue that they can just about see it on a clear day.
If someone lives someplace with unreliable methods of contacting the police, and a police response time measured in hours, and with no legal recourse should the police fail to take action to protect their well being, then it's not unreasonable for that person to claim the need for a firearm. (That last one applies to most everyone incidentally)
It's ludicrous for them to claim the need for a fully automatic AK-47, but that's an argument to have with crazy people. I don't think there are any of that variety of crazy hanging around here.
I do not like to say that I'd deny guns from people who like to go target shooting, or hunt, but if that's the price to pay for keeping guns away from hands which would be willing to point the gun to other people, then it's so, sacrifices sometimes have to be made.
You know, it's not just on this issue, but it seems that I'm hearing the words "Sacrifices must be made" more and more often lately, and it's almost always from those who are not making any sacrifices. And it's never something that those demanding sacrifice wish for that's being sacrificed, it's always what someone else has or wants that must be sacrificed.
If you want gun control, fair enough, but spare us the high-handed talk of "Sacrifices have to be made." No, they do not, and let's not beat around the bush here, you want them to be made, by other people, because it serves your goals or ideals. Dressing it up as some sad but acceptable or inevitable loss that you don't put the slightest thought or care to preventing - even when others have already managed to do so - is just a bit rich for my taste.
Pretty sure I was going to address this on my initial post, but didn't find the words for it and don't think I still do.
Of course I understand that it's easy for me to say things that wouldn't affect me directly in any way. And if there were a reliable efficient way to separate people who would point a gun towards other person, from those who would not, I'd have no issue with giving guns to the second group of people, but there are no such means. And if it were to my call to make, which it is not, but let's imagine, I would be willing to make the second group unhappy in order to keep guns away from the first group.
I believe that generally in society we should and do give up personal freedoms and convenience for common safety, it's just the question of where the line goes in different subjects and when it comes to guns, I'd go for more safety and less freedom.
Pretty sure I was going to address this on my initial post, but didn't find the words for it and don't think I still do.
Well, you didn't, but I also can't be too harsh on you for not being able to find the words for it. I'll be harsh on you for what you did say, but fair enough if there's more you wish to say but cannot.
Of course I understand that it's easy for me to say things that wouldn't affect me directly in any way. And if there were a reliable efficient way to separate people who would point a gun towards other person, from those who would not, I'd have no issue with giving guns to the second group of people, but there are no such means. And if it were to my call to make, which it is not, but let's imagine, I would be willing to make the second group unhappy in order to keep guns away from the first group.
Except, there's other countries that have. Somehow, despite our broken, self-contradictory and fucking silly laws, we manage it for the most part - we still have people with guns(more people and more guns, in fact, than before our idiotically lauded laws came into effect), even people with the semi-autos we supposedly banned, but manage to mostly keep legal firearms out of the hands of those who would use them on others. Sweden, to the best of my knowledge, manages it despite allowing practically every firearm I can think of for citizen ownership, including a few that even give me pause. The Czech republic manages it - christ, there was a year, I think 2010, where the Czech republic had precisely two homicides committed with legally owned firearms, over the entire twelve months. That's just the first three examples that pops to mind, too, I'd be surprised if there wasn't others.
There's no key, no perfect solution for the problem - god knows I wish there was - but they're clearly doing something right, and managing to do exactly what we're talking about. They're examples of countries who are somehow - I don't claim to know precisely how, but I have a few ideas - doing it right, and I think that it means that it's possible to give everybody a good proportion of what they want.
Admittedly, I don't think that it will be easy by any means, especially with the current US system which is not only broken, but then further fractured into 50 broken little pieces, but I do think it's certainly possible.
I believe that generally in society we should and do give up personal freedoms and convenience for common safety, it's just the question of where the line goes in different subjects and when it comes to guns, I'd go for more safety and less freedom.
I agree, but I also think that before freedoms are surrendered, it should be very, very carefully considered if there isn't another way to maintain those rights, while simultaneously making people safer on the whole.
You know, it's not just on this issue, but it seems that I'm hearing the words "Sacrifices must be made" more and more often lately, and it's almost always from those who are not making any sacrifices.
Those who want unlimited ownership of guns seem to be okay with the sacrifice of many innocent lives. Is that their sacrifice, or the sacrifice of the many innocent lives, or the families of the victims?
Is the person who goes to a house to ask for help after a car accident, who is then shot to death, enough of a sacrifice for the "no guns" side already? The sheer number of death by guns in America is enough of a sacrifice already. How about the gun ownership advocates admit that, and we can put the whole thing in perspective.
You know, it's not just on this issue, but it seems that I'm hearing the words "Sacrifices must be made" more and more often lately, and it's almost always from those who are not making any sacrifices.
Those who want unlimited ownership of guns seem to be okay with the sacrifice of many innocent lives. Is that their sacrifice, or the sacrifice of the many innocent lives, or the families of the victims?
Is the person who goes to a house to ask for help after a car accident, who is then shot to death, enough of a sacrifice for the "no guns" side already? The sheer number of death by guns in America is enough of a sacrifice already. How about the gun ownership advocates admit that, and we can put the whole thing in perspective.
And you can prove that all that violence would be averted with the type of gun laws that are being proposed in the US right now? Or with any gun laws?
Killing someone with a firearm is already illegal. I'm not entirely sure we can make it more illegal. Should we instead try to figure out what object caused the incident in question? Should we make the car that the person got in the accident with illegal? It's unlikely they would have died without a car. Or the house? They wouldn't have been killed in front of a house if there wasn't a house there.
The gun isn't the problem in this instance any more than the car or the house is. The problem is with the person doing the shooting. Someone who is paranoid enough to shoot a stranger on their porch is paranoid enough to keep something lethal inside the door, whether they have a gun or not. A splitting axe can kill a stranger as neatly as a shotgun.
As an aside, don't straw-man the argument by acting like anyone who argues against a wide ban is in favor of unlimited ownership. No one in this thread made that assertion.
I think this is tangental to the whole thing but... I can make a variety of weapons in my basement with mostly hand tools and a drill press. I've already manufactured working AR-15s, AK-74s, and a STEN gun. Those were from parts kits which were legally purchased, and the weapons were all legal to construct at the time, and are legally owned now. That's besides the point though. If I were not interested in legal, and the supply of parts kits was not possible... There's still no reason I couldn't fabricate similar components from more base materials.
And I don't have many tools. And I wouldn't even use the 3D printer I have. Maybe I'd print some comfortable grips but I could also carve some really nice ones with wood.
Not that I would do any of that illegally because my interest is to enjoy my hobby of tinkering, collecting, and sport shooting legally... and the felony associations would sadly be too much for me to risk continuing that hobby illegally because I'm trying to do things with my life. But for others who don't have that? The technology is too pervasive. I can download plans and blueprints for dozens of weapons at any time. You can always take a paintball gun and use the parts to make something a bit more dangerous. It's easier to buy a production weapon, but there's countless examples from war-stricken areas of improvised, or home-grown weapons that are often crude, but usually effective. Those are being made in shacks and basements by people with no tools and probably minimal background in manufacturing. The resources available in america... you can get anything you want if the price is right.
Pandoras box is open, any attempt to shut it will likely cause more harm than good, hurt more lives than it protects, and my fear is the long-term ramification of closing it is something on the whole closer to Oceana than Pandora.
Should we make the car that the person got in the accident with illegal?
The car is illegal, though, after a fashion. You cannot legally drive a car without demonstrating the ability to do so safely and competently. (Setting aside the pitifully low standard that we're tested to in the States.) I, for one, don't see any problem with holding firearms owners to the same standard. Especially given that the arguments put forth by the pro-gun activists that more firearms would increases public safety hinge on those weapons being in the hands of competent shooters. This is a point that I feel is completely ignored by both sides of the gun control debate in favor of a black and white argument of "killing versus freedom."
And for the record, I don't have enough faith in the intelligence of the average American for that "mo guns, mo safer" argument to seem even a little credible, but I'm not well versed enough in psychology and such to debate that point intelligently.
And you can prove that all that violence would be averted with the type of gun laws that are being proposed in the US right now? Or with any gun laws?
Killing someone with a firearm is already illegal. I'm not entirely sure we can make it more illegal. Should we instead try to figure out what object caused the incident in question? Should we make the car that the person got in the accident with illegal? It's unlikely they would have died without a car. Or the house? They wouldn't have been killed in front of a house if there wasn't a house there.
The gun isn't the problem in this instance any more than the car or the house is. The problem is with the person doing the shooting. Someone who is paranoid enough to shoot a stranger on their porch is paranoid enough to keep something lethal inside the door, whether they have a gun or not. A splitting axe can kill a stranger as neatly as a shotgun.
I'm not having a conversation about proof that gun laws will work in the USA specifically or not. I have no proof, nor any kind of reasoning.
My point is that PEOPLE are being sacrificed on the alter of gun ownership rights. Giving up a gun you want to own is NOTHING compared with anyone dying.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty much a non-killing extremist. Or an anti-killing fundamentalist. I don't think ANYONE should be killed for any reason. Nobody at all.
If someone wants to rob you on the street? I don't believe you should have any right to kill that person. Nothing you have or own is worth more than that person's life. Nothing. If someone wants to break into your home? That is no reason to kill that other person. What about risk of harm to you or your family physically? I still don't think that is good enough reason for anyone to die.
If you own a gun for self defense, or "for protection", you are admitting that you think it is okay to kill someone. That you are willing to kill someone. Again, I don't feel like I'm the crazy one thinking that is utterly fucked up.
As soon as you start allowing for it to be okay for people to die sometimes, it opens up way too many opportunities for people to die often, and for no good reason. For example, George Zimmerman killed a kid with a gun. All the laws and trial revolved around if it was okay or if he was within his rights, etc. The lines get super fuzzy and fucked up.
And don't tell me that his victim would still be dead if Zimmerman had any other weapon than a gun. That's total bullshit. It's very hard to accidentally kill someone with practically ANY other weapon or improvised weapon, short of a chainsaw or motor vehicle. Someone standing on a porch isn't going to die at a distance from the person defending their home if the home defender has a baseball bat or knife or something similar. By the time you are close enough to kill someone with a non-gun, you are close enough to ask them who they are, see they are an injured woman, etc.
The thing with guns is that the default outcome when used is DEATH. With other weapons, the default outcome is merely fucked up. To make someone incapable of hurting you or your family using a baseball bat, that means a swift crack over the head, or a swing at the groin, or across the arms, or similar. At that point, your attacker is unconscious or groaning on the floor, but either way they are out of action. They will probably recover. If you attacked them by mistake, they will probably recover. With a gun? If you did everything RIGHT, they will still be dead.
If the problem is psychotic people, and those psychotic people would still be willing to kill an unconscious or otherwise incapacitated victim, I'd say they are still a problem. Fine. But then there is a VERY clear line. Just how hard it is to kill people with non-gun weapons means they have obviously crossed a line.
I say lets make it super hard for psychotic people to use guns (including the police, in this case). Any gun ever that isn't in a locked safe, a locked case in a car on the way too and from a range/hunting spot, or similar, should be confiscated and destroyed. Anyone found with a loaded gun on them for any reason should be fined or otherwise punished, and their gun confiscated and destroyed.
It'll never happen in America, but don't bullshit me by saying that if it did happen, thousands of people would still die.
Im totally cool with keeping guns for target shooting and hunting. hell some of the old antique peices are works of art. I mean I don't understand why you need an AR-15 or 50.cal for target shooting but it takes all sorts I guess.
What gets me is the people who harp on about needing one for home defense. I know living in the UK has coloured my prespective but the idea of people carrying guns for the perpouse of killing someone is fucking crazy. This is even assuming that the people using them are actually going to shoot to kill, rather than warning shot, shoot to wound or even be able to shoot the person. From what I have read/spoken/seen it takes a lot of grunt to kill someone, and to be prepaired to live with the conisquences. Its a kicker as I feel presonal defence is totally the wrong reason to have a weapon of any sort, but ends up clouding the whole issue.
That and I often find those that hold to view to induldge in redicules amounts of posturing. Something rubs me totally the wrong way as soon as people talk of how "they feel safer with a gun" It screams boarder line sycopathy to me. Then there is the need for getting tons of guns, and not even good ones at that(ref1). I mean when does it stop? The Jones have two shotguns next door and the Smiths have a couple of AR's dear whe had better get our selves some 50's and that armoured car we saw at the militaria fair.
TLDR; Buur home defense is silly get a better police force buur personal opinion buur.
You absolutely need an AR-15 for many types of target shooting.
Some people think that ALL target shooting is either Skeet, or sitting at a bench, shooting at a piece of paper 100m away and hoping to get bullseye every time in an ever-harder game of precision.
Yes, that is a very big aspect of shooting sport; being the most precise. But, many other types of sport shooting are becoming very popular because they are a lot more dynamic. IDPA, 2 gun, 3 gun, Dynamic carbine/rifle, etc are sports that are based around the use of a highly tuned tactical-type semi-automatic rifle, commonly an AR-15 or AK variant. These are serious events where speed, reflexes, ability to identify targets and mind-body dexterity are pushed to the edge.
I'm not pointing this out as evidence one way about gun ownership being good or bad, as independent of the factors there, this type of sport would either continue by special permits or storage/oversight solutions, or it would be abandoned... I'm just trying to add to the knowledge base here, that there are whole genres of target shooting that are based specifically around the weapons that people say 'aren't for target shooting'.
And I can pretty safely say that people who engage in this sport and activity, yes some are military background, and some are wannabe military types, but these events are not full of 'psychos' or people who I would regard as crazy, psychopathic, sociopathic, racist, or anything else. These are pretty professional, fun, educational events.
Edit: I had a point about the AR-15 being designed as a civilian weapon, but some research reminded me that the AR-10 came first, and was in-fact designed for military contracts. So, the long and short is, the AR-15 and AR-10 rifles were military weapons that also were heavily marketed for civilian use as a practical all-purpose carbine, useful for target shooting, ranching duty, security use, etc since the 19560's. The AR-15 is popular now, yes, but the application of it for civilian use is no modern invention: people have been selling them to target shooters for almost 50 years now.
This is even assuming that the people using them are actually going to shoot to kill, rather than warning shot, shoot to wound or even be able to shoot the person.
That's actually one of the things I'd ask be included in the training. If you shoot at a person, you shoot to kill, no exceptions. Your warning shot - presuming it's fired into the air, or at a hard surface like concrete - stands a good chance of harming or killing someone unintentionally, for which I think you should be fully responsible. Shooting to wound is a Hollywood fiction that I'd bet has gotten more than a few people killed - What, you're going to shoot them in the shoulder, or the arm, or the leg, all of which have nice, fat blood vessels and arteries that are easily disrupted by the impact of a bullet? In the stomach, where they'll die slow and hurting?
In turn, I think that would mean that these trained shooters would be less likely to shoot someone over a mugging, for example - because your wallet is not worth a life, and if you are getting your iron out, then you are meaning to shoot, and you shoot to kill. If someone intends to kill you, then by all means, do unto others before they do unto you, but most things short of that are not worth it.
That said, anyone who wants an AR, AK, or similar for home defense is a fucking idiot. A Remington or Mossberg pump action will serve your purpose FAR Better, because you can load them with much lighter loads, such as birdshot, which will still do what you want it to do - if that's what you're looking for - and won't also punch through your walls and ruin little Timmy next door's whole day. Overpenetration is a huge problem, and you're not selecting something for home defense with that in mind, then you shouldn't be selecting a firearm for home defense in the first place. If you're going to do that sort of thing, then for fuck's sake, at least make some effort to keep your rounds inside your own home, and not punching speed-holes in your sidings.
Oddly, I do agree with Luke on one point - People in the US are being sacrificed in the service of the second amendment every day. Though, I don't think this is a function of the existence of guns - as I said, there are nations which manage to both have guns AND general saftey. I think this is a function of the US's broken system of firearm laws, which ideally would be burned to the ground and replaced with something far more logical and sensible, not a piecemeal collection of metaphorical inches given up by both sides of the argument.
Well I was going to formulate a post but I realised my thoughts have already been conveyed though Dave, Luke and Amp's posts.
However going back to the "rural people need guns". I find this untrue, I had to visit 5 farms during my 2nd and 3rd years at University and live/work there for 2 weeks each to get an understanding of how farmer's deal with animal husbandry and their views on Veterinarians. Many of these were very distant from any convenience (like a 1 hour drive to get to the equivalent of a corner shop and a pub). I did not see any requisite use of any guns during my stays at sheep and cattle stations or at the piggery, dairy or horse stud I worked at.
The only situations where a gun could have been used was when humanely putting livestock in distress to sleep. However even in these situations it was preferable to use a captive bolt gun. Even though we all took gun safety courses in final year none of my friends carry a gun and the few that absolutely feel it is necessary while on the road, keep a captive bolt gun.
I'm not having a conversation about proof that gun laws will work in the USA specifically or not. I have no proof, nor any kind of reasoning.
My point is that PEOPLE are being sacrificed on the alter of gun ownership rights. Giving up a gun you want to own is NOTHING compared with anyone dying.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty much a non-killing extremist. Or an anti-killing fundamentalist. I don't think ANYONE should be killed for any reason. Nobody at all.
If someone wants to rob you on the street? I don't believe you should have any right to kill that person. Nothing you have or own is worth more than that person's life. Nothing. If someone wants to break into your home? That is no reason to kill that other person. What about risk of harm to you or your family physically? I still don't think that is good enough reason for anyone to die.
If you own a gun for self defense, or "for protection", you are admitting that you think it is okay to kill someone. That you are willing to kill someone. Again, I don't feel like I'm the crazy one thinking that is utterly fucked up.
As soon as you start allowing for it to be okay for people to die sometimes, it opens up way too many opportunities for people to die often, and for no good reason. For example, George Zimmerman killed a kid with a gun. All the laws and trial revolved around if it was okay or if he was within his rights, etc. The lines get super fuzzy and fucked up...
I'm pretty anti killing. But there are people who commit homicide and shit. At what point is your life more valuable than someone trying to kill you? If there is an escalation of violence to the point where it is kill or be killed, what does one do?
I would get my ass beat to death if I had to face off against probably half the population. But, I don't live my life in fear of being killed; I'm not afraid to walk the streets and I generally believe I am safe 99% of the time and places I go of receiving anything but the utmost respect and kindness. I believe my society and place of residence is safe for me and my siblings. Even with a state prison less than a mile from my house and a large casino within a half-hour walk. Even though the cities/towns 5 miles north and south of me have both had mutliple homicides, stabbings, rapes, etc in the last few years. Even though the neighbor is a retired Vietnam Veteran, or that people randomly wander the streets in groups of 5-10, even if there's a tattoo parlor and dive bar down the street, Despite that the Cheshire Home Invasions happened within an hour drive of my current house. I still, truthfully, have zero fear or reason to believe I would be attacked around here. I have no problem going out and saying that I would be fine having zero self defense ability or capabilities of my own here.
Nor did I feel any different while living in Providence where the Mafia ruled for decades and some areas were a bit... unsavory. There was maybe one night where I felt I would have been smarter to be carrying a serious blade or a small handgun... and that was a situation where I assessed that things weren't comfortable and I made myself scarce.
Because of that, I don't live my life training for combat, I don't go looking for fights, and I've never been in a conflict with anyone where things got physical since the 2nd grade; I don't practice martial arts, or work out to gain enough strength to take on anyone I meat in a fist fight, or really do anything to increase my capacity or taste for physical violence. I want none of it... I want to get along and not kill people.
But, I have no qualms with the idea that we are animals at heart, that we are only as civilized as the veneer of society graces us with being. I know that smart, sane, loving people, will do horrible things if the situation turns bad. And I know that ultimately humans are as capable of creating death as any animal, any creature on this earth or another... and within me is the same 'ability/curse' should it come to it.
I have a shotgun and a bolt-action .22 in my safe (both weapons would be legal in almost any country that allows gun ownership of any kind), and I know where some shells are in a high closet should I need them. I reasonably believe that I can defend myself against some kind of event with those tools better than I could with a blunt object or a sword or something else... in the EXTREMELY unlikely even that someone were gonna come to my house with some mal-intent, I feel that is the most suitable way of handling that contingency. A physical confrontation is best handled quickly, violently, and with the least risk of personal harm. The opponent should not be given the opportunity to inflict more harm on me or mine, than I am him/her.
The guns were not purchased for that purpose. The shotgun was for shooting skeet and because I had a love of the mechanical system involved in the old 1897 Winchester. The 22 was my fathers, who had it as a kid for shooting cans in the backyard after graduating from a pellet gun. So I diddn't quite get them with malice in my heart.
The AR-15s, the AK, and the PTR-91 I keep next to them, they would be useful for home defense as well, sure, but those are for sport shooting and appreciation factor... and again I have so little worry of need that I'm not even going to concern myself with their application.
If I bought a handgun that too would be for sport. It would have the added benefit of home defense use if needed, but that's not really why I'd get it.
You absolutely need an AR-15 for many types of target shooting.
Some people think that ALL target shooting is either Skeet, or sitting at a bench, shooting at a piece of paper 100m away and hoping to get bullseye every time in an ever-harder game of precision.
Yes, that is a very big aspect of shooting sport; being the most precise. But, many other types of sport shooting are becoming very popular because they are a lot more dynamic. IDPA, 2 gun, 3 gun, Dynamic carbine/rifle, etc are sports that are based around the use of a highly tuned tactical-type semi-automatic rifle, commonly an AR-15 or AK variant. These are serious events where speed, reflexes, ability to identify targets and mind-body dexterity are pushed to the edge.
I shall have a read of the primer this afternoon when I get up, it certainly looks interesting. As I said I shall read up on it more, and Im sure I will have a different view later, but I the shooting that I was brought up with and in part trained with was being consistently accurate. Not changing between weapons, or rolling around. It doesn't mater if your weapon is more tricked out than 50 cent if you can not shoot then you can not shoot. I feel that should be the core of shooting. Also 100m is baby distance :P.
There is other stuff that I'd like to to talk about but not without sleep.
But don't you know? According to the conspiracy theorists, there's no possible way that Oswald made an 81 meter shot to hit Kennedy, that's impossible for even trained shooters!
Taking the piss aside, a lot of the more dynamic shooting sports are pretty interesting to watch. I like a lot of the cowboy events too - Six-gun(Unlike three-gun where you have three guns, in six-gun you have one gun), Gunfighter six-gun(unlike regular six gun where you have one gun and not three guns, Gunfighter six gun is where you have two guns, not three, but they must be used in both your left and right hands) CAS three-gun(similar to regular three-gun, but with a single-action revolver, a lever action, and a coach-gun), Mounted three-gun(three gun on a horse), and so on.
Actually as John Green points out in Crash Course: American History the Second Amendment was drafted to ensure individual citizens had technologically similar weapons to the army, therefore keeping the balance. Therefore, it could be argued, that every American citizen not only has the right to purchase a select-fire rifle, a tank, a jet fighter, or even a drone, but that if we do not have the cash to that the government should provide those to us.
Yes that's rather silly but remember that the height of technology back then was to have a rifled barrel, so either I want a drone or the entire US army has to use weapons available to civilians.
Edit: Yes he may have been partially facetious but I still want a goddamn drone. And not just one with the missile rack removed!
Edit: Yes he may have been partially facetious but I still want a goddamn drone. And not just one with the missile rack removed!
Fun facts - the full load of armament on a predator drone is worth more money than the pair of us make in a year, put together.
Anyway, if you could afford to buy and maintain Global Hawk drone+control equipment, you've already got enough money to get just about whatever gun you like anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.
Comments
If you want gun control, fair enough, but spare us the high-handed talk of "Sacrifices have to be made." No, they do not, and let's not beat around the bush here, you want them to be made, by other people, because it serves your goals or ideals. Dressing it up as some sad but acceptable or inevitable loss that you don't put the slightest thought or care to preventing - even when others have already managed to do so - is just a bit rich for my taste.
If someone lives someplace with unreliable methods of contacting the police, and a police response time measured in hours, and with no legal recourse should the police fail to take action to protect their well being, then it's not unreasonable for that person to claim the need for a firearm. (That last one applies to most everyone incidentally)
It's ludicrous for them to claim the need for a fully automatic AK-47, but that's an argument to have with crazy people. I don't think there are any of that variety of crazy hanging around here.
Of course I understand that it's easy for me to say things that wouldn't affect me directly in any way. And if there were a reliable efficient way to separate people who would point a gun towards other person, from those who would not, I'd have no issue with giving guns to the second group of people, but there are no such means. And if it were to my call to make, which it is not, but let's imagine, I would be willing to make the second group unhappy in order to keep guns away from the first group.
I believe that generally in society we should and do give up personal freedoms and convenience for common safety, it's just the question of where the line goes in different subjects and when it comes to guns, I'd go for more safety and less freedom.
Sweden, to the best of my knowledge, manages it despite allowing practically every firearm I can think of for citizen ownership, including a few that even give me pause. The Czech republic manages it - christ, there was a year, I think 2010, where the Czech republic had precisely two homicides committed with legally owned firearms, over the entire twelve months. That's just the first three examples that pops to mind, too, I'd be surprised if there wasn't others.
There's no key, no perfect solution for the problem - god knows I wish there was - but they're clearly doing something right, and managing to do exactly what we're talking about. They're examples of countries who are somehow - I don't claim to know precisely how, but I have a few ideas - doing it right, and I think that it means that it's possible to give everybody a good proportion of what they want.
Admittedly, I don't think that it will be easy by any means, especially with the current US system which is not only broken, but then further fractured into 50 broken little pieces, but I do think it's certainly possible. I agree, but I also think that before freedoms are surrendered, it should be very, very carefully considered if there isn't another way to maintain those rights, while simultaneously making people safer on the whole.
Is the person who goes to a house to ask for help after a car accident, who is then shot to death, enough of a sacrifice for the "no guns" side already? The sheer number of death by guns in America is enough of a sacrifice already. How about the gun ownership advocates admit that, and we can put the whole thing in perspective.
Is the person who goes to a house to ask for help after a car accident, who is then shot to death, enough of a sacrifice for the "no guns" side already? The sheer number of death by guns in America is enough of a sacrifice already. How about the gun ownership advocates admit that, and we can put the whole thing in perspective.
And you can prove that all that violence would be averted with the type of gun laws that are being proposed in the US right now? Or with any gun laws?
Killing someone with a firearm is already illegal. I'm not entirely sure we can make it more illegal. Should we instead try to figure out what object caused the incident in question? Should we make the car that the person got in the accident with illegal? It's unlikely they would have died without a car. Or the house? They wouldn't have been killed in front of a house if there wasn't a house there.
The gun isn't the problem in this instance any more than the car or the house is. The problem is with the person doing the shooting. Someone who is paranoid enough to shoot a stranger on their porch is paranoid enough to keep something lethal inside the door, whether they have a gun or not. A splitting axe can kill a stranger as neatly as a shotgun.
As an aside, don't straw-man the argument by acting like anyone who argues against a wide ban is in favor of unlimited ownership. No one in this thread made that assertion.
And I don't have many tools. And I wouldn't even use the 3D printer I have. Maybe I'd print some comfortable grips but I could also carve some really nice ones with wood.
Not that I would do any of that illegally because my interest is to enjoy my hobby of tinkering, collecting, and sport shooting legally... and the felony associations would sadly be too much for me to risk continuing that hobby illegally because I'm trying to do things with my life. But for others who don't have that? The technology is too pervasive. I can download plans and blueprints for dozens of weapons at any time. You can always take a paintball gun and use the parts to make something a bit more dangerous. It's easier to buy a production weapon, but there's countless examples from war-stricken areas of improvised, or home-grown weapons that are often crude, but usually effective. Those are being made in shacks and basements by people with no tools and probably minimal background in manufacturing. The resources available in america... you can get anything you want if the price is right.
Pandoras box is open, any attempt to shut it will likely cause more harm than good, hurt more lives than it protects, and my fear is the long-term ramification of closing it is something on the whole closer to Oceana than Pandora.
That said, the mechanism of pulling a trigger is pretty different than the mechanism of jamming an axe into the back of someone's head.
And for the record, I don't have enough faith in the intelligence of the average American for that "mo guns, mo safer" argument to seem even a little credible, but I'm not well versed enough in psychology and such to debate that point intelligently.
I'm not having a conversation about proof that gun laws will work in the USA specifically or not. I have no proof, nor any kind of reasoning.
My point is that PEOPLE are being sacrificed on the alter of gun ownership rights. Giving up a gun you want to own is NOTHING compared with anyone dying.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty much a non-killing extremist. Or an anti-killing fundamentalist. I don't think ANYONE should be killed for any reason. Nobody at all.
If someone wants to rob you on the street? I don't believe you should have any right to kill that person. Nothing you have or own is worth more than that person's life. Nothing. If someone wants to break into your home? That is no reason to kill that other person. What about risk of harm to you or your family physically? I still don't think that is good enough reason for anyone to die.
If you own a gun for self defense, or "for protection", you are admitting that you think it is okay to kill someone. That you are willing to kill someone. Again, I don't feel like I'm the crazy one thinking that is utterly fucked up.
As soon as you start allowing for it to be okay for people to die sometimes, it opens up way too many opportunities for people to die often, and for no good reason. For example, George Zimmerman killed a kid with a gun. All the laws and trial revolved around if it was okay or if he was within his rights, etc. The lines get super fuzzy and fucked up.
And don't tell me that his victim would still be dead if Zimmerman had any other weapon than a gun. That's total bullshit. It's very hard to accidentally kill someone with practically ANY other weapon or improvised weapon, short of a chainsaw or motor vehicle. Someone standing on a porch isn't going to die at a distance from the person defending their home if the home defender has a baseball bat or knife or something similar. By the time you are close enough to kill someone with a non-gun, you are close enough to ask them who they are, see they are an injured woman, etc.
The thing with guns is that the default outcome when used is DEATH. With other weapons, the default outcome is merely fucked up. To make someone incapable of hurting you or your family using a baseball bat, that means a swift crack over the head, or a swing at the groin, or across the arms, or similar. At that point, your attacker is unconscious or groaning on the floor, but either way they are out of action. They will probably recover. If you attacked them by mistake, they will probably recover. With a gun? If you did everything RIGHT, they will still be dead.
If the problem is psychotic people, and those psychotic people would still be willing to kill an unconscious or otherwise incapacitated victim, I'd say they are still a problem. Fine. But then there is a VERY clear line. Just how hard it is to kill people with non-gun weapons means they have obviously crossed a line.
I say lets make it super hard for psychotic people to use guns (including the police, in this case). Any gun ever that isn't in a locked safe, a locked case in a car on the way too and from a range/hunting spot, or similar, should be confiscated and destroyed. Anyone found with a loaded gun on them for any reason should be fined or otherwise punished, and their gun confiscated and destroyed.
It'll never happen in America, but don't bullshit me by saying that if it did happen, thousands of people would still die.
What gets me is the people who harp on about needing one for home defense. I know living in the UK has coloured my prespective but the idea of people carrying guns for the perpouse of killing someone is fucking crazy. This is even assuming that the people using them are actually going to shoot to kill, rather than warning shot, shoot to wound or even be able to shoot the person. From what I have read/spoken/seen it takes a lot of grunt to kill someone, and to be prepaired to live with the conisquences. Its a kicker as I feel presonal defence is totally the wrong reason to have a weapon of any sort, but ends up clouding the whole issue.
That and I often find those that hold to view to induldge in redicules amounts of posturing. Something rubs me totally the wrong way as soon as people talk of how "they feel safer with a gun" It screams boarder line sycopathy to me. Then there is the need for getting tons of guns, and not even good ones at that(ref1). I mean when does it stop? The Jones have two shotguns next door and the Smiths have a couple of AR's dear whe had better get our selves some 50's and that armoured car we saw at the militaria fair.
TLDR; Buur home defense is silly get a better police force buur personal opinion buur.
Ref this is what I mean by a good gun. This is a work of art. http://tinyurl.com/o2kpspo
This is a wankers gun, to quote the butcher; http://tinyurl.com/ydgyjk7
Some people think that ALL target shooting is either Skeet, or sitting at a bench, shooting at a piece of paper 100m away and hoping to get bullseye every time in an ever-harder game of precision.
Yes, that is a very big aspect of shooting sport; being the most precise. But, many other types of sport shooting are becoming very popular because they are a lot more dynamic. IDPA, 2 gun, 3 gun, Dynamic carbine/rifle, etc are sports that are based around the use of a highly tuned tactical-type semi-automatic rifle, commonly an AR-15 or AK variant. These are serious events where speed, reflexes, ability to identify targets and mind-body dexterity are pushed to the edge.
Here's a good primer on the subject:
http://www.nssf.org/events/featurette/2012/0712.cfm
I'm not pointing this out as evidence one way about gun ownership being good or bad, as independent of the factors there, this type of sport would either continue by special permits or storage/oversight solutions, or it would be abandoned... I'm just trying to add to the knowledge base here, that there are whole genres of target shooting that are based specifically around the weapons that people say 'aren't for target shooting'.
And I can pretty safely say that people who engage in this sport and activity, yes some are military background, and some are wannabe military types, but these events are not full of 'psychos' or people who I would regard as crazy, psychopathic, sociopathic, racist, or anything else. These are pretty professional, fun, educational events.
Edit: I had a point about the AR-15 being designed as a civilian weapon, but some research reminded me that the AR-10 came first, and was in-fact designed for military contracts. So, the long and short is, the AR-15 and AR-10 rifles were military weapons that also were heavily marketed for civilian use as a practical all-purpose carbine, useful for target shooting, ranching duty, security use, etc since the 19560's. The AR-15 is popular now, yes, but the application of it for civilian use is no modern invention: people have been selling them to target shooters for almost 50 years now.
In turn, I think that would mean that these trained shooters would be less likely to shoot someone over a mugging, for example - because your wallet is not worth a life, and if you are getting your iron out, then you are meaning to shoot, and you shoot to kill. If someone intends to kill you, then by all means, do unto others before they do unto you, but most things short of that are not worth it.
That said, anyone who wants an AR, AK, or similar for home defense is a fucking idiot. A Remington or Mossberg pump action will serve your purpose FAR Better, because you can load them with much lighter loads, such as birdshot, which will still do what you want it to do - if that's what you're looking for - and won't also punch through your walls and ruin little Timmy next door's whole day. Overpenetration is a huge problem, and you're not selecting something for home defense with that in mind, then you shouldn't be selecting a firearm for home defense in the first place. If you're going to do that sort of thing, then for fuck's sake, at least make some effort to keep your rounds inside your own home, and not punching speed-holes in your sidings.
Oddly, I do agree with Luke on one point - People in the US are being sacrificed in the service of the second amendment every day. Though, I don't think this is a function of the existence of guns - as I said, there are nations which manage to both have guns AND general saftey. I think this is a function of the US's broken system of firearm laws, which ideally would be burned to the ground and replaced with something far more logical and sensible, not a piecemeal collection of metaphorical inches given up by both sides of the argument.
However going back to the "rural people need guns". I find this untrue, I had to visit 5 farms during my 2nd and 3rd years at University and live/work there for 2 weeks each to get an understanding of how farmer's deal with animal husbandry and their views on Veterinarians. Many of these were very distant from any convenience (like a 1 hour drive to get to the equivalent of a corner shop and a pub). I did not see any requisite use of any guns during my stays at sheep and cattle stations or at the piggery, dairy or horse stud I worked at.
The only situations where a gun could have been used was when humanely putting livestock in distress to sleep. However even in these situations it was preferable to use a captive bolt gun. Even though we all took gun safety courses in final year none of my friends carry a gun and the few that absolutely feel it is necessary while on the road, keep a captive bolt gun. I'm trying to imagine an axe manslaughter charge. For serious? Damn I was only going to get a model Klingon Bird of Prey with working LED lights. You guys have the best model distributors.
If you still posses things resembling thumbs, too, you're a master.
I would get my ass beat to death if I had to face off against probably half the population. But, I don't live my life in fear of being killed; I'm not afraid to walk the streets and I generally believe I am safe 99% of the time and places I go of receiving anything but the utmost respect and kindness. I believe my society and place of residence is safe for me and my siblings. Even with a state prison less than a mile from my house and a large casino within a half-hour walk. Even though the cities/towns 5 miles north and south of me have both had mutliple homicides, stabbings, rapes, etc in the last few years. Even though the neighbor is a retired Vietnam Veteran, or that people randomly wander the streets in groups of 5-10, even if there's a tattoo parlor and dive bar down the street, Despite that the Cheshire Home Invasions happened within an hour drive of my current house. I still, truthfully, have zero fear or reason to believe I would be attacked around here. I have no problem going out and saying that I would be fine having zero self defense ability or capabilities of my own here.
Nor did I feel any different while living in Providence where the Mafia ruled for decades and some areas were a bit... unsavory. There was maybe one night where I felt I would have been smarter to be carrying a serious blade or a small handgun... and that was a situation where I assessed that things weren't comfortable and I made myself scarce.
Because of that, I don't live my life training for combat, I don't go looking for fights, and I've never been in a conflict with anyone where things got physical since the 2nd grade; I don't practice martial arts, or work out to gain enough strength to take on anyone I meat in a fist fight, or really do anything to increase my capacity or taste for physical violence. I want none of it... I want to get along and not kill people.
But, I have no qualms with the idea that we are animals at heart, that we are only as civilized as the veneer of society graces us with being. I know that smart, sane, loving people, will do horrible things if the situation turns bad. And I know that ultimately humans are as capable of creating death as any animal, any creature on this earth or another... and within me is the same 'ability/curse' should it come to it.
I have a shotgun and a bolt-action .22 in my safe (both weapons would be legal in almost any country that allows gun ownership of any kind), and I know where some shells are in a high closet should I need them. I reasonably believe that I can defend myself against some kind of event with those tools better than I could with a blunt object or a sword or something else... in the EXTREMELY unlikely even that someone were gonna come to my house with some mal-intent, I feel that is the most suitable way of handling that contingency. A physical confrontation is best handled quickly, violently, and with the least risk of personal harm. The opponent should not be given the opportunity to inflict more harm on me or mine, than I am him/her.
The guns were not purchased for that purpose. The shotgun was for shooting skeet and because I had a love of the mechanical system involved in the old 1897 Winchester. The 22 was my fathers, who had it as a kid for shooting cans in the backyard after graduating from a pellet gun. So I diddn't quite get them with malice in my heart.
The AR-15s, the AK, and the PTR-91 I keep next to them, they would be useful for home defense as well, sure, but those are for sport shooting and appreciation factor... and again I have so little worry of need that I'm not even going to concern myself with their application.
If I bought a handgun that too would be for sport. It would have the added benefit of home defense use if needed, but that's not really why I'd get it.
Just a perspective on it.
There is other stuff that I'd like to to talk about but not without sleep.
Taking the piss aside, a lot of the more dynamic shooting sports are pretty interesting to watch. I like a lot of the cowboy events too - Six-gun(Unlike three-gun where you have three guns, in six-gun you have one gun), Gunfighter six-gun(unlike regular six gun where you have one gun and not three guns, Gunfighter six gun is where you have two guns, not three, but they must be used in both your left and right hands) CAS three-gun(similar to regular three-gun, but with a single-action revolver, a lever action, and a coach-gun), Mounted three-gun(three gun on a horse), and so on.
Yes that's rather silly but remember that the height of technology back then was to have a rifled barrel, so either I want a drone or the entire US army has to use weapons available to civilians.
Edit: Yes he may have been partially facetious but I still want a goddamn drone. And not just one with the missile rack removed!
Anyway, if you could afford to buy and maintain Global Hawk drone+control equipment, you've already got enough money to get just about whatever gun you like anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.