Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. GonZo_626

    GonZo_626 Well Shit!

    521
    Jul 29, 2016
    Yes but not killing. So should everything that can shoot in a sense that it may be used to kill go then. Goodbye bows and arrows good bye crossbows. Lots of tools that have zero control on them were designed to kill. Just because one thing may be better than another does that mean we should ban it.

    I do get that you have to have some form of control but i am heavily against demonizing an individual firearm or complete disarment. The ar-15 is no different from hundreds of different firearms. And firearms do have both practical and sporting purposes. Death by firearm no matter how you look at it or where you look barring some very uncivilized places is in a vast minority and generally just a sympton of different problems. Drinking and driving kills way more people.
     
  2. Dr Fallout

    Dr Fallout Centurion

    Aug 17, 2015
    Except driving is necessary for society. A large part of our civilization requires transport and cars provide that. Drinking... ehh I wouldn't mind that being banned but it doesn't work.
     
  3. GonZo_626

    GonZo_626 Well Shit!

    521
    Jul 29, 2016
    So banning booze does not work. I think thats a little ironic ban this and not that. Strong gun control does not affect anything. Statistics have proven that gun deaths are all over the board. Gun deaths have been dropping for a long time in the civilized world. The peak per capita was in the 60s or 70s in most places. Implementing strong gun control has not increased the rate that it has been dropping. In fact sometimes for brief periods it has halted or increased the drop. Australia had an increase in violent crime for 2 years after their last foray into banning. This was due to an increased braziness in criminals knowing the chances of getting shot were reduced. After 2 years violent crime started to decrease again.

    Lets just face it culture is probably one of the biggest factors into violent crime. I mean us canadians have close cultural ties to britian, france, and the u.s. we are neighbors to the states and we have less gun control then european nations. We arent killing each other.

    I just think we need something that makes sense as the firearm is not the cause of the problem so running around banning stuff wont solve the real problem.
     
  4. Dr Fallout

    Dr Fallout Centurion

    Aug 17, 2015
    Massive majority of people drink booze, only a small amount own guns. Banning one thing is harder then the other.
     
  5. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Nov 26, 2007
    I think it is simply that banning something intensely wanted is really hard to enforce (be it booze, drugs, or weaponry). As I mentioned many pages before, there are enough gunsmiths in the US' 322+ million population that there will be gun suppliers for those that intensely want them, whether they are banned or not.
     
  6. Dr Fallout

    Dr Fallout Centurion

    Aug 17, 2015
    True... it's just that the government isn't willing to change other problems which feed into gun violence.
     
  7. TheGM

    TheGM The voice of reason

    Aug 19, 2008
    Lots of stuff.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  8. Dr Fallout

    Dr Fallout Centurion

    Aug 17, 2015
    I cannot load videos so...
     
  9. TheGM

    TheGM The voice of reason

    Aug 19, 2008
    You have my symphony.
     
  10. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dogmeat

    Nov 22, 2009
    Hmm, getting off topic here but I invite you to come to Finland. It ain't perfect here and the weather ain't as great as it is down under but we got cheap internet.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  11. Atomic Postman

    Atomic Postman Vault Archives Overseer

    Mar 16, 2013
    Regardless of whether you want to ban guns or not, you have to accept that gun control in the USA is utterly unrealistic and a total lost cause (Whether you think that's a good thing or bad)

    If you did a widespread ban on firearms in the USA, it would be generous to say that half would hand in their guns lawfully. That's being generous, and that's still a lot of guns out there in the wild. That's not even counting black market weapons, which are massively popular in urban areas (Where the vast, vast majority of gun violence in the USA occurs) due to the fact that they're cheap and largely untraceable, compared to buying it from a store which could lead back to the owner. So now you have this issue where guns are removed from the hands of law abiding citizens, and are only in the hands of criminals. Not a good situation. It would not be anywhere close to being like Europe. It's a different situation with entirely different circumstances.

    Now, that's not even mentioning the argument that firearm ownership is actually an entrenched right and the 2nd Amendment arguably has very valid reasons for existing, but to be honest I really cannot be bothered to spend 10 pages of a thread arguing it. So I'll just leave it at that.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  12. GlutinousRice

    GlutinousRice Ne travaillez jamais

    247
    Nov 7, 2015
    I wonder, if the US ban firearms, and put in place an effective way of control on them, would gangs and unaffiliated criminals start resorting in using muskets, antique revolvers, rifles and carbines, pipe guns and messer?

    I'd like to see that happening.
     
  13. Dr Fallout

    Dr Fallout Centurion

    Aug 17, 2015
    What do you think I've planned out after I leave Uni?
     
  14. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Yes, there are 'civilian' versions available, I have never ever said that you can't use them as civilians. NOR did I ever said that you SHOULD NOT use them, if you like to.

    But I would argue that you have for almost all cases, if we concentrate on sport and hunting, better choices. Which are either cheaper or better suited for the task. There is a reason why bolt action rifles for example, are a very popular choice by hunters and sports shooters. And they come with many different cardridges, depending on what you're hunting.

    The point is, that the characteristics of the 5,56mm was not made for civilian use in particular, but specifically with the needs of war and the military in mind. Look at the history of the round. It was made with the intention of easier recoil while maintaining the same accuracy of larger calibers up to at least 300 meters the usual combat ranges on the battlefield, it was specifically made for the needs of a modern war where assault rifles became the new standard for pretty much any large army around the world. And all this, uh but it is not made to kill the target! Is nothing more but a try to misslead the discussion. Obviously a question in the military is the efficiency of weapon systems, and that means to neutralize the target fast and quickly. What ever if that means now killing or wounding, is not the point, by the way I would also argue that the military prefers in most cases to kill their targets rather then to 'only' wound it. A wounded target, can still respond sometimes. A killed one, can do nothing. I mean, so many veterans that I have seen mentioned that they did a lot of things to make sure that their target was actually dead, and not just wounded.

    I mean you can love guns all you want, but you can not ignore nor denny the background of certain weapon systems and what their intended purpose was and STILL is. I love guns, their look and their mechanics and the history behind certain fire arms. I am not a pro, where I know absolutely every detail, but I can pretty well estimate how gun nuts feel, because I feel very much the same about weapons. If it was allowed to get a machine gun in Germany, and I had the money, I would get one for example, the M249, Hk21, Mg3 awesome weapons! And why? Because it's fucking fun! That's why. But what I don't like, are bullshit arguments by gun nuts, where they act like certain weapons are a commodity like any other. If the 5,56mm with a 30 round mag in a fast firing assault rifle, wasn't such an effective 'tool' in killing another human beeing, no one would ever get it for self defence, because a 9mm with a 7 round mag in a pistol could do the same job. But it can't, because the rifle is a better choice here if you want a weapon that is more effective.

    How many machine guns and assault rifles are used there?
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
  15. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dogmeat

    Nov 22, 2009
    I don't know. Go to the beach and celebrate? That's one thing you guys have plenty of, beaches. But be careful of the sharks in the water.

    What, you mean like go live somewhere else?
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  16. SuAside

    SuAside Testament to the ghoul lifespan
    Admin

    May 27, 2004
    In the same way that the point of living is to procreate and die.

    Anyhow, I don't feel like there's been any actually useful discussion or new arguments in this thread for many pages now. I guess it's going the same way as all the previous gun control threads.
     
  17. GonZo_626

    GonZo_626 Well Shit!

    521
    Jul 29, 2016
    Well second question first, none. But even in the US owning a machine gun or assault rifle is pretty much non-existent (youtube makes it look like everyone has one, as well as everyone being ex special forces haha). As these are full-auto its is very hard and expensive to get one as well as having to do a lot of extra paperwork as I understand it. But an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Also your understanding of target shooting is very limited. You seem to think target shooting is just sitting at a bench shooting targets. Look up action shooting sports (cowboy action shooting, 3 gun, and IPSC shooting. For these sports a bolt action is essentially useless, and they are just target shooting.

    Now as far as talking about the 5.56 you seem to think that an Armalite Rifle (AR) comes in only 5.56, and yes while this is the most popular it is not the only. Lets list the calibers I can think of off the top of my head. .22lr, 9mm, .45 acp, .223/5.56x45, 7.62x39, 7.61x51/.308 (a hunting round very popular for bolt guns), .300 aac, .50 Beowulf, and of course the big boy .50 bmg. So if your argument is just against the type of ammo well that doesn't really work haha. And this is just off the top of my head as I know that they have been made for more. Also I have brought up fast and small animals that the .223/5.56x45 is the perfect platform for hunting them (hogs, wolves, coyotes, in general pest control)

    This is texas hog hunting(pest control)

    Also you talk of ownership for self-defence well I don't own my for self-defence. In the words of a buddy of mine "Nothing, and I mean nothing will make a criminal shit his pants like the sound of racking a pump action 12 gauge shotgun. In fact in home or self defence the AR is almost useless as is most rifles and that is why handgun ownership is way higher. Rifles will blow a hole through your wall, your neighbors wall, and most likely there neighbors wall, this is not Hollywood or a video game, plywood and drywall will not stop a rifle round. So in the home a pump shotgun with buck rounds is way better. On the street a handgun provides protection without needing to carry a huge rifle.

    So you see even with some understanding of firearms you have flawed perceptions about them. The AR platform is a versatile, ergonomically correct, modern sporting firearm that yes has been sold to regular people (and advertised by Colt at the time as a modern hunting rifle) since the 1960s.

    Hell you want to see hunting firearms that are based off the AR's design look up the ATRS Modern Hunter. This rifle has almost zero parts shared with an AR but I am sure most would look and go scary m-16, oh god, theres a bad smell in my pants.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
  18. Mak

    Mak The Ayatollah of Rock and Rollah!

    80
    Aug 22, 2016
    Many guns are weapons of war, yes. I don't see this as an argument AGAINST civilian gun ownership. I see it as an argument FOR civilian gun ownership. If a population does not have the tools of warfare, are they truly free or sovereign at all? If the state has a monopoly on violence, who can stop them aside from other states? Private citizens should have access to killing machines. To kill. To kill threats, be they foreign invaders, or domestic threats. Domestic threats such as criminals, terrorists, animals, or potentially, corrupt/tyrannical governments.

    TLDR; Yeah, guns are intended to kill. That's why they're so fucking rad.
     
  19. TheGM

    TheGM The voice of reason

    Aug 19, 2008
  20. Mak

    Mak The Ayatollah of Rock and Rollah!

    80
    Aug 22, 2016