Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Fuzzknuckles

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

Saggy

Whenever I hear about a debate of gun control, There's always that special snowflake that argues that guns kill people or we need to ban guns or restrict the flow of guns.

 

I have yet to see a gun sprout legs and cause fatalities.

 

If you want to decrease gun violence, you obviously need to put more funding in mental heath programs and make sure people who have a history of violence apparent in their background check have no chance of having access to a firearm.

 

The people who deserve to have a firearm are mentally capable, well-educated adults who can determine right from wrong and know when to use deadly force.

 

Sounded like you were focusing on the mental health aspect to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chewie

I'm extremely liberal but I don't believe in banning guns in the U.S. There's statistics of other countries that banned guns and their homicide rates went up. In 2009, there was a study that the UK had the worst rate for all kinds of violence compared to the U.S. and South Africa. In Australia, homicide rates went up 3.2% and robberies went up 44%. I don't believe that the U.S. should ban guns. I think there should be more regulation when a person wants to get a gun. There should be mental health tests to buy a gun. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and that's just my opinion. Even if guns were banned. Criminals would find ways to get guns on the black market.

Edited by TheGoatKing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You must of misunderstood me. I didn't pinpoint who the "certain" people were behind the gun violence. It could be the hardened violent criminal, it could be the disgruntled employee, it could be the overly-jealous significant other, it could be anyone who can't determine right from wrong.

I think you've missed the point I'm making. The cultural attitude toward, and proliferation of, firearms in the US is a direct cause of the disproportionately high number of firearm fatalities. Questions of "blame" are largely irrelevant, if these incidents are only happening because of ease of access to firearms then there's a clear issue that needs to be addressed.

 

 

That "study" (which isn't actually a study, but is taken from a Daily Mail article that doesn't cite it's sources) has brought up numerous times in this discussion, and is flawed on several counts. One, the claimed crime statistics the Mail publishes don't actually match with the published violent crime statistics for the same period of time.

 

Secondly, the UK has a much broader definitions of violent crime than other nations. Whereas in the US the most commonly used violent crime statistics, those published by the FBI, only addresses murder, attempted murder, forcible rape and robbery, the UK counts all crimes against the person as violent. If you look at direct comparisons between the UK and US in individual recorded crimes, you see a very different conclusion. The US has four times the homicide rate of the UK; seven times the aggravated assault/grievous bodily harm rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KyleKeeling

 

Whenever I hear about a debate of gun control, There's always that special snowflake that argues that guns kill people or we need to ban guns or restrict the flow of guns.

 

I have yet to see a gun sprout legs and cause fatalities.

 

If you want to decrease gun violence, you obviously need to put more funding in mental heath programs and make sure people who have a history of violence apparent in their background check have no chance of having access to a firearm.

 

The people who deserve to have a firearm are mentally capable, well-educated adults who can determine right from wrong and know when to use deadly force.

 

Sounded like you were focusing on the mental health aspect to me...

 

 

Keep reading the quote you put in bold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gnocchi Flip Flops

I honestly don't get this argument. Guns are an issue. Duh. But what is banning them gonna do? Those that still want em are gonna get them. Period. If I'm home and somebody breaks in with an intent to kill, how am I gonna defend myself. Pray? :lol: Since when does that work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Thing is, the only arguments about "banning guns" anyone ever makes are the straw men created by pro-gun activists.

 

And KyleKeeling, the problem is that the majority of murders in the US aren't committed by people with mental illnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

The obvious flip on the 'only bad guys will have guns, then' argument is that there'd be one more thing to arrest bad guys for before they hurt anyone.

 

But, of course, protecting people is the least of concerns when it comes to taking away the automatic assault rifle you use to shoot at paper targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daz

But, of course, protecting people is the least of concerns when it comes to taking away the automatic assault rifle you use to shoot at paper targets.

1: You can't buy fully automatic weapons over the counter. Only a very minor majority of the civilian public can access fully automatic weapons and those are usually well over the $10,000 mark. Those people aren't an issue.

 

2: The reason why gun owners get so angered by the anti-gun types is because they literally have NO knowledge of firearms whatsoever. They create bans and legislation based off made up jargen and change things that have no effect on safety or ability to be used improperly.

 

The best example is the NY ban of rifles with a pistol grip. Something that makes completely no difference on how dangerous a gun can be yet it effects every law abiding shooter that has to pay far more for these butchered AR-15 rifles that have been modified to meet the law.

 

 

If there is something we could do to stop shootings, of course we would do it, but restricting magazines, banning flash hiders, bayonett lugs, pistol grips, etc. None of it has any difference. A firearm is still a firearm, even if it can only discharge one shot before reloading. Firearms are always dangerous and should always be owned by responsible people.

 

The issue is that is not the case, and though it is illegal to get a family member or girlfriend to buy you a gun to get around the background check, people still do it. They are also in such abundance that they can easily just be stolen to get around background checks. The fact is guns are out there and they aren't ever going away, even if they were all banned right now, there is no tracing where they are or who has them. So the best thing to do is make it harder for new buyers, but easier for existing owners. That way if you are really serious about it, you can do it and enjoy them, but I don't think they should just be treated as a random tool you throw in your shed. They do need to be looked after. But that can't be enforced either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

I honestly don't get this argument. Guns are an issue. Duh. But what is banning them gonna do? Those that still want em are gonna get them. Period. If I'm home and somebody breaks in with an intent to kill, how am I gonna defend myself. Pray? :lol: Since when does that work?

Then why have laws at all? There will always be people willing to break them, but that doesn't mean we throw up our hands and say "Fine... rape away, you sick f*cks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

 

Whenever I hear about a debate of gun control, There's always that special snowflake that argues that guns kill people or we need to ban guns or restrict the flow of guns.

 

I have yet to see a gun sprout legs and cause fatalities.

 

If you want to decrease gun violence, you obviously need to put more funding in mental heath programs and make sure people who have a history of violence apparent in their background check have no chance of having access to a firearm.

 

The people who deserve to have a firearm are mentally capable, well-educated adults who can determine right from wrong and know when to use deadly force.

Sounded like you were focusing on the mental health aspect to me...

 

Keep reading the quote you put in bold.

I think I misinterpreted what you meant by mentally capable and the pursuant comments about right and wrong to be discussing mental competency.

 

I honestly don't get this argument. Guns are an issue. Duh. But what is banning them gonna do? Those that still want em are gonna get them. Period. If I'm home and somebody breaks in with an intent to kill, how am I gonna defend myself. Pray? :lol: Since when does that work?

Really using a gun in a home defense situation happens so rarely thst people are more likely to kill or injure themselves with their own gun while cleaning it or just a sleu of other things. Point is if your home is broken into, odds are you won't be able to reach your gun, and odds are even greater you will flee to a different room for safety and call the police while they take your stuff, or more likely run because they were not expecting someone to be home. In the very few home invasions with violent intent, they would still have to get through a barricade, and you could still fend them off by other means. If they were going to shoot you through the walls of the house they could have done that without exposing themselves to harm.

 

 

But, of course, protecting people is the least of concerns when it comes to taking away the automatic assault rifle you use to shoot at paper targets.

1: You can't buy fully automatic weapons over the counter. Only a very minor majority of the civilian public can access fully automatic weapons and those are usually well over the $10,000 mark. Those people aren't an issue.

 

2: The reason why gun owners get so angered by the anti-gun types is because they literally have NO knowledge of firearms whatsoever. They create bans and legislation based off made up jargen and change things that have no effect on safety or ability to be used improperly.

 

The best example is the NY ban of rifles with a pistol grip. Something that makes completely no difference on how dangerous a gun can be yet it effects every law abiding shooter that has to pay far more for these butchered AR-15 rifles that have been modified to meet the law.

 

 

If there is something we could do to stop shootings, of course we would do it, but restricting magazines, banning flash hiders, bayonett lugs, pistol grips, etc. None of it has any difference. A firearm is still a firearm, even if it can only discharge one shot before reloading. Firearms are always dangerous and should always be owned by responsible people.

 

The issue is that is not the case, and though it is illegal to get a family member or girlfriend to buy you a gun to get around the background check, people still do it. They are also in such abundance that they can easily just be stolen to get around background checks. The fact is guns are out there and they aren't ever going away, even if they were all banned right now, there is no tracing where they are or who has them. So the best thing to do is make it harder for new buyers, but easier for existing owners. That way if you are really serious about it, you can do it and enjoy them, but I don't think they should just be treated as a random tool you throw in your shed. They do need to be looked after. But that can't be enforced either.

How much practical difference is there between a murderer using a semiautomatic ar15 and one using a full automatic m16? Do you think the person with the m16 would kill any more? We both know there's good reason to think they might even kill less due to being able to fire less accurately... Or more likely they would just fire in shirt bursts not that unlike simple semiautomatic fire.

 

Shooting guns is awesome, I love taking a 22 autoloader and a hundred round magazine and seeing how long I can keep a can in the air plinking it. Imagine how much carnage would happen if someone plinked people instead of cans, and instead of a 22 they were using a 223. You can buy an ar15 in the same aisle as a 10/22 at Wal-Mart. You could even buy both at the same time.

 

This is all failing to mention the aftermarket accessories like bumpstocks and rotary triggers that for all practical intents and purposes will enable a semiautomatic to operate with the same output as a full auto.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B7tzaYgp5g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr quick

I honestly don't get this argument. Guns are an issue. Duh. But what is banning them gonna do? Those that still want em are gonna get them. Period. If I'm home and somebody breaks in with an intent to kill, how am I gonna defend myself. Pray? :lol: Since when does that work?

 

Yeah, people still kill&steal so let's ditch those laws as well. If someone steals from me, I should be able to steal from them, right?

 

Remaining with your "if" narrative, why on EARTH would someone break in to your residence with the intent to kill? Who have you pissed off? If you really need a gun for self-defense that badly, why aren't you already dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gnocchi Flip Flops

I'm backing out of this "debate" some of the logic used here is hilarious! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

I'm backing out of this "debate" some of the logic used here is hilarious! :lol:

We've been TRYING to tell you this, man, glad it's finally clicking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr quick

I'm backing out of this "debate" some of the logic used here is hilarious! :lol:

Not really answering any questions. If it's so funny it must be hella easy to explain.

Edited by Marwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UshaB

Good watch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dee.

I hate it the most when there's a shooting and people are like "good god, america!!" As if shootings only occur here. And people want to ban guns like it'll change anything significantly. Weed is illegal mostly in the country and dozens of millions are still getting high out there. Myself included. I'm just so amazed at how people think banning guns will do anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

It'd help if you read the thread to understand the reasoning behind people's point of view, instead of throwing out what's basically an uninformed opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr quick

I hate it the most when there's a shooting and people are like "good god, america!!" As if shootings only occur here. And people want to ban guns like it'll change anything significantly. Weed is illegal mostly in the country and dozens of millions are still getting high out there. Myself included. I'm just so amazed at how people think banning guns will do anything

 

Well, if you can't stop it completely why even f*cking try am I right?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

See, that's exactly the kind of shallow thinking that I've learned to expect from a pro-gun advocate. First of all, nobody is punishing law abiding citizens. What the f*ck are you talking about? How does Obama's announcement in any way prevent law abiding citizens from acquiring guns?

 

And of course illegal guns won't disappear over night. But what do you think will happen in the span of a decade or two? Criminals are caught with illegal guns all the time. When that happens that gun is no longer in the possession of that criminal and it's no longer in the streets posing a danger to others. Over time you reduce the amount of illegal guns in the streets by simply doing police work and with gun control you can prevent or at least reduce the influx of more illegal guns.

"Gun control" is too broad of a term for those with a healthy degree of skepticism to be either for or against without some policy clarification. Most rational folks would be on board with the general notion of keeping homicides down. Unfortunately, problems arise in the political process of doing so...

 

- Right off the bat, we have the creation of new meaningless (outside of their political context) terms such as Assault Weapon. This undermines the debate all together because it highlights a need to obfuscate details just to convince people that a law makes sense. This is an attempt to take advantage of the fact that Americans with the least knowledge and exposure to firearms have the most to say about this issue. It's kinda like looking for Rap/Hip Hop critics among soccer moms in a country club and expecting the critique to be taken seriously in the Rap community.

 

 

- Quality laws, not quantity. Tracking straw purchases should be a central issue. Not mag size and all of this other nonsense. Random Fact: As it stands in some of the locales where I have lived, one must be 21 to purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer. Yet an 18 year old in the same locale can obtain a handgun through a straw purchase from an unlicensed dealer. That's ass backwards.

 

 

- The industry is firmly established. This contributes to the US role in the black market for guns globally. US & Russia have the largest arms industries in the world. So though we can learn from many western European strategies, our gun control model will inherently require a unique approach.

 

 

- The nanny state approaches to gun control in California, New York, and Illinois have produced negligible results. These states ignore the fact that gun laws are irrelevant to murderers. You're left with more hoops to jump through for law abiding citizens while hoodlums run the streets with 100 round drum mags on fully automatic rifles with little trouble. Chicago is an embarrassing example of how little these laws have done at the expense of legal gun-owners. So any similarly-designed laws cannot be taken seriously.

 

 

- The prevalence of civilian gun ownership as a standalone variable is the scapegoat. There are many places with high gun ownership rates and low gun violence. Violence in general is the more serious societal problem resulting from a general lack of public services, mental illness (sometimes a scapegoat too), drugs, and a host of other issues.

 

 

When gun control activists can acknowledge these realities, then the discussion will be taken seriously. Until then, gun owners in the United States will have no inclination to believe that "gun control" is anything more than a euphemism for the gradual disarming of the civilian population. Or even worse, a means of preserving the 2nd amendment for only the elite who possess the resources comply with increasingly complicated regulation.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mateivad

Personally, I believe that while the gun license checks should be way more strict, I do believe that citizens should have the right to own a gun. Although you may claim that they could snap one day and shoot someone, psychological tests could easily detect unusually violent behavior or mental instability. Obviously, 1-2 people per year may be able to pass all tests and shoot someone, but the amount of guns used for safety strongly outweighs the amount of legal guns used for malicious purposes. Due to the fact that most crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons, seizing the firearms of citizens would only have it easier for criminals to hurt them or their family. You see very sad posts about how a child who was shot by his neighbor (or something) could have turned ten today. Well, if all guns are seized, then another 10 children would have turned ten today because their family were unable to protect them after the government took their firearm.

 

But that's just my opinion, and I am not necessarily fixed on it. A couple of could points could change my view on gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

the amount of guns used for safety strongly outweighs the amount of legal guns used for malicious purposes.

I really don't think this is accurate. 45% of murders involve family or other perpetrators known to the victim; killings committed by husbands or partners comprise a third of all murders of women, and if I remember correctly familicide is one of the largest single statistics as a component of murder rates.

 

I simply don't believe that firearms in the US, even legally owned ones, are used for protection from crime more frequently than they are for committing crime. It's a line I've often seen repeated but I haven't ever seen anyone quantify it with some kind of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AEsob

Firearms, in my opinion, aren't going to protect you.

 

I dunno how a murder charge works in the US, but I think you need an eyewitness to even plead self-defence.

 

In India, with tightly regulated gun laws, sh*t will hit the fan if your gun is on a 1951 list of banned calibres. Basically shooting anything other than a 9mm a or .32 or a .38 will get you behind bars. Then there's the old trick the police will use: "Since you were carrying a firearm, it was obvious that you wanted to shoot somebody. " Same thing happens if you use a knife outside the kitchen or your house, or if the knife has a 'Tactical', 'Combat' 'Urban Defender' etc. prefix. By all means, kill someone in a kitchen, with a kitchen knife or a vegetable knife or whatever and then plead self-defence.

 

So with all the sh*tty laws, the bad guys have all the guns, and you can't do sh*t. Because even if you have a gun, the cops will screw you, and you will serve 10 years in prison before the high court even gives a judgement. Ahh, don't even get me started how slow the judicial process in India is.

 

What is required, in my opinion, is some sort of a middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

the amount of guns used for safety strongly outweighs the amount of legal guns used for malicious purposes.

I really don't think this is accurate. 45% of murders involve family or other perpetrators known to the victim; killings committed by husbands or partners comprise a third of all murders of women, and if I remember correctly familicide is one of the largest single statistics as a component of murder rates.

I simply don't believe that firearms in the US, even legally owned ones, are used for protection from crime more frequently than they are for committing crime. It's a line I've often seen repeated but I haven't ever seen anyone quantify it with some kind of evidence.

Yeah it only takes a quick Google to confirm this. Of course concealed permit holders tend to be the best tracked because if it's a concealed gun and the owner had a permit then obviously it was a legally purchased gun. The waters get a little murky though when a kid tames his father's gun or steals one. These are used to commit crimes as stolen guns, but they didn't start out that way did they. One could argue the guns purchased by the Columbine shooters were obtained illegally, but all they had to do was find someone willing to make a straw purchase. So I mean where do you draw the line.

 

Also,Vaccum Seal, I dont agree the use of "assault rifle" vernacular is arbitrary or designed to mislead the less I educated. I know quite a bit about firearms, and I do not see the merits and practicalities of owning an Ar-15 over a bolt action rifle for virtually anything but pest eradication and recreation. I definitely think there should be some kind of marked difference in the ability to get a semiautomatic rifle that's been tailor fitted for killing in high volumes. Sure there are far deadlier weapons, an auto-loading 308 would be far more damaging, but do they sell with 30 round clips and expanding hollow points surrounded by an industry that exclaims thei man stopping ability? It may not be a big technical difference, but culturally it's huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

Banning guns is just impossible. There are millions of guns in the US and if the US Government decided to force Americans to turn in their guns, the result would be many guns "being lost" and being sold in alleys by criminals with their serial number erased, something that would make the police's work harder if their was a murder or a shooting. If the government wants to get serous, they should be harsh on how easy it is for anyone to have a gun and a gun license. It shouldn't be ONLY a class on how to shoot and some safety tips. No, it should be much harder and include a medical check and psychological check. This must sound a bit ridiculous to some, but we have to have this done here in Spain just to obtain our driving license so yeah.

 

And don't get me wrong, i would be the first to go and buy a few guns if i lived in the US, but safety first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

Also,Vaccum Seal, I dont agree the use of "assault rifle" vernacular is arbitrary or designed to mislead the less I educated. I know quite a bit about firearms, and I do not see the merits and practicalities of owning an Ar-15 over a bolt action rifle for virtually anything but pest eradication and recreation. I definitely think there should be some kind of marked difference in the ability to get a semiautomatic rifle that's been tailor fitted for killing in high volumes. Sure there are far deadlier weapons, an auto-loading 308 would be far more damaging, but do they sell with 30 round clips and expanding hollow points surrounded by an industry that exclaims thei man stopping ability? It may not be a big technical difference, but culturally it's huge.

Did you mean the use of "assault weapon"? I never had a problem with the use of the term assault rifle. The latter actually means something and reflects distinct, functional characteristics of a weapon.

 

I don't understand how it isn't arbitrary and misleading to use the term assault weapon. The introduction of the term adds nothing to the understanding of the AR-inspired firearms. Much like the use of term GMO, it's an empty term with purely rhetorical purposes. The crafters of the "assault-weapon" bans knew this. Obfuscation was the intent from day one, which sadly hampered the integrity of the legislative efforts to curb gun violence. It exposed the movement's largely political intentions to placate those who foolishly believe that any gun control policy is good gun control policy. More importantly, such bans don't make the streets any safer, which serves as the basis for these bans.

 

Your reluctance to see the practicality in owning an AR-inspired firearm seems mostly based in personal preference. To the civilian gun market as a whole, it has been seen as very practical. It's one of the more ergonomic guns I've fired, a 30 round magazine allows for less-frequent reloading, and its pretty accurate given its lack of recoil with modest calibers.

 

@AEsob

 

Most of my friends from India tell me that gun laws there are very strict. But they also tell me that those with money and political influence can carry weapons with very little restriction. I wonder if this is still the case in urban areas.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AEsob

@Triple Vacuum Seal

 

In urban areas you don't have what you might call an open display of weaponry. Concealed carry, yeah, but because nobody ships, say, a .45ACP or a .500 S&W to India, you need to illegally import both the gun and the ammunition unless it is a nine millimetre.

 

Money and Political influence? Why, that's 75-80% of the parliament, that money and political power trickles down and then you have the chief minister of your state, who is a woman, running to a police station to bail out a rapist.

 

That is India. Incredible India. If you speak out against this incredibleness of India, the government calls you an anti-national, uses doctored videos to land you in jail, and uses political party goons to dress up as lawyers and beat you up in front of courts.

 

Faulty state machinery, corruption and mismanagement mean that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class get f*cked.

 

While millions of tons of grains rot in buffer stock granaries, the poor work their ass off only to go to sleep hungry.

 

Well, we're going off topic, sorry. This is just an emotional issue.

 

Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

Also,Vaccum Seal, I dont agree the use of "assault rifle" vernacular is arbitrary or designed to mislead the less I educated. I know quite a bit about firearms, and I do not see the merits and practicalities of owning an Ar-15 over a bolt action rifle for virtually anything but pest eradication and recreation. I definitely think there should be some kind of marked difference in the ability to get a semiautomatic rifle that's been tailor fitted for killing in high volumes. Sure there are far deadlier weapons, an auto-loading 308 would be far more damaging, but do they sell with 30 round clips and expanding hollow points surrounded by an industry that exclaims thei man stopping ability? It may not be a big technical difference, but culturally it's huge.

 

Did you mean the use of "assault weapon"? I never had a problem with the use of the term assault rifle. The latter actually means something and reflects distinct, functional characteristics of a weapon.

 

I don't understand how it isn't arbitrary and misleading to use the term assault weapon. The introduction of the term adds nothing to the understanding of the AR-inspired firearms. Much like the use of term GMO, it's an empty term with purely rhetorical purposes. The crafters of the "assault-weapon" bans knew this. Obfuscation was the intent from day one, which sadly hampered the integrity of the legislative efforts to curb gun violence. It exposed the movement's largely political intentions to placate those who foolishly believe that any gun control policy is good gun control policy. More importantly, such bans don't make the streets any safer, which serves as the basis for these bans.

 

Your reluctance to see the practicality in owning an AR-inspired firearm seems mostly based in personal preference. To the civilian gun market as a whole, it has been seen as very practical. It's one of the more ergonomic guns I've fired, a 30 round magazine allows for less-frequent reloading, and its pretty accurate given its lack of recoil with modest calibers.

 

@AEsob

 

Most of my friends from India tell me that gun laws there are very strict. But they also tell me that those with money and political influence can carry weapons with very little restriction. I wonder if this is still the case in urban areas.

I can see that point but a part of me wonders if perhaps a rifle like the AR15 trips some kind of threshold. People have been adopting military designs for civilian use for just about as long as we've been a nation. That guy who says "I've never seen a hunter who needs an AR15 to down a deer," is probably saying something pretty similar to every Winchester using rancher when bolt guns started becoming popular. Meanwhile we see bolt guns as this modest hunting implement, when they were virtually the deadliest thing to be invented in the history of firearms until very recently.

 

Anyway getting a little off point but it wasn't long until civilians adopted the use of bolt action guns for crime. Charles Whitman for example. Hell the assassinations of JFK a few MLK alone kind of point to the influential power and lethality a simple bolt action rifle had.

 

Now we're in the next evolutionary step, we've traded long range and high powered rounds for volume of fire and weight considerations, and adopted a technology that is suited to a new type of fighting, suppression fire. The result is a medium caliber weapon with a high rate of fire, ability to carry large quantities of ammo and deadly to within 200 yards, with "recoil so manageable a twelve year old could shoot it," as Eugene Stoner would say when pitching it to the military.

 

Now what do we see happen in mass shootings? Dozens of casualties, hundred of rounds fired and basically every bit of combat effectiveness the rifle has, being used by an attacker to hurt and kill.

 

To me this all doesnt make sense with what the 2A is really about. When it was written they could not even fathom the technological improvments. I mean only hunters of this time even used rifles... A rifled barrel was state of the art. Now we're talking self-contained cartridges, smokeless powder, semi-automatic repeating fire, cartridge advancements to increase pressure and velocity, expanding hollow tip bullets, laser pointer and red dot target acquisition... I mean seriously, a little history I am sure you know of, but the bloodiest battle in US history until WW2 was the result of the Mine ball, and those were coming out of smooth bores with iron sights and ammunition you were lucky if you only had to bite off and ram home.

 

Frankly, the founding fathers never considered people going nuts and shooting twenty, thirty, forty people... The technology to do such a thing was not in firearms at the time, certainly not for a single man. There were certain arms that were capable of such rapid fire needed at all, and all of them would require great skill, preparation and luck. I mean a guy could go around with a bow and arrow, they even had repeating air rifles Lewis and Clark held the Natives at bay with, but there was nothing comparable to an AR15 and certainly nothing comparable to what people have done with them in terms of mass murder.

 

I mean how much more deadly is a M16, capable of full automatic fire, versus an AR15 on semi-automatic. I mean considering the military doesn't even advocate full automatic fire except in specific circumstances should be a bit of an indicator. Yet to get a full auto M16 a person needs a special license from the ATF with an extensive background check. For virtually the same rifle they sell at WalMart with a 15 minute call to the NICS, but instead you have to keep pulling the trigger.

 

I know it seems arbitrary but people are buying these particular rifles to do these things for a reason. Tell me why a person with seemingly no gun knowledge can walk into Walmart and in a second acquire one of the deadliest implements known to man, walk out and kill several people the next week or two. Why not a 9mm carbine? Hell even a 22 rifle with an extended clip would do a lot of damage. I can't think of the specific incident, but I remember in the UK or Australia some guy went around with a 22 and a shotgun. Point is people know if they wanna kill a lot of people, that's a gun that will do it. Any lay person that has watched an action movie in the last thirty years would come to the same conclusion.

 

I mean I don't see the sense in characterizing a gun based on how or what it was designed to do, because we are innovators by nature. When people keep choosing a particular weapon for a particular act it's going to get an association, whether people like it or not. I mean look at the Ak47, it's known both as a "freedom fighter" weapon and a "terrorist weapon" and it's just a rifle. However you can't ignore the facts... When an oppressed people wants to revolt, they pick up Ak47. When a disturbed individual wants to kill dozens of people, they pick up an AR15.

 

That is more of a cultural construct for sure than a manifestation of technology but the problem is this cultural problem isn't new. Charles Whitman climbed the tower in 1962, all we have really done since then is make sure those that came after him had more deadly guns. Where's the cutoff where we decide "Okay this is too deadly for civilian access" because it doesn't seem to be clearly defined. If automatic fire is the cutoff that makes an M16 so much more necessary to safeguard better, then what is their answer to things like bump stocks?

 

The lift of the assault weapons ban and the Obama gun-grab scare were the best things to happen to the arms industry. Now you have millions of these things being sold, sometimes two to a person, all predicated on thoughts of fear and suspicion. I don't think it's really such a huge surprise that as gun sales and ownership rose during this period, so did these high profile incidents. If anything this has actually helped the arms industry because it creates more fear to capitalize on.

 

Let's consider the San Bernardino shooting. Two people get AR-15s and rack up a modest body count for their armament and number of attackers. Then what does everyone do? Think "Wow we need tighter restrictions on those guns." Of course not, instead they think "Wow that could have happened here, I better get a gun." In the meantime the incident gets spun as a terrorist incident so we forget that anybody could have picked up the same guns and done the same thing. Yet somehow it's been transformed into a reason to buy more guns. Win-win for the arms industry once again.

 

Anyway it's early morning and I'm rambling so I'm sure there's more than enough here to correct fact wise but surely you get the gist if what I am saying. We seem to just want to deny the lethality of the weapons we sell the most of. The AR15 to me is just the most egregious example, but I don't know why things like double-stacked 9mm handguns are so popular either. There seems to be a huge disconnect between what gun owners actually need for protection and recreation and what the gun makers want to sell them... I am not saying people would not be able to get them in the long run anyway, but I just don't see it making good sense and it seems to have a lot of unwanted repercussions.

 

Edit:Okay I should totally not post after morning coffee

Edited by SagaciousKJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

Perhaps when a mass-shooter has to choose from a legal domestic arsenal, these high volume magazines will be the preference. But the fact of the matter is that mass shootings make up such an overwhelmingly small portion of gun-homicides (and homicides in general for that matter), that gun legislation specifically targeting them would be among the least effective gun control efforts since it leaves the bulk of gun crimes completely unaddressed. Even with such laws in place, the illegal alternatives are far deadlier. As soon as you mention volume of fire to an illegal arms dealer, you get a range of options from 30 mags to 100 round drum mags loaded onto fully automatic weapons. These mass shootings are just too calculated for me to buy into the idea that shooters will be deterred if gun stores lack the inventory. We really lucked out in San Bernardino where this wasn’t the case because these extremist types are most certainly calculated enough to source fully autos if they struggle to easily find something that works for them. Now I do not intend to make the whole “small avalanches prevent big ones” argument with gun control. But judging from the extremist attacks in Paris and throughout Africa, it’s just worth pointing out the patience and calculation of these ideological shooters in places where guns lack a legitimate marketplace. I digress. All in all, mass shootings don’t pose a threat to greater society relative to shootings in interpersonal disputes and crime-ridden neighborhoods. If we wanted to target the mass shootings, which would do very little to combat the overall gun-related crime, we would have to address the much more insidious and under-explored issues regarding the mental health of these shooters. Some would argue that antidepressants and guns don’t belong under the same roof.

 

Even when we narrow our focus of the overall violence and crime problem onto that of gun violence, these disputes ending in homicide typically don't involve AR-inspired designs. Handguns are more of an issue there. People who know nothing about the capabilities of a firearm can free associate terms all they want. But that wasn’t the case with the term “assault weapon”. It was a term created by anti-gun politicians/activist and perpetuated by a mass media that will say just about anything for shock value. The term has always been disingenuous. People should be free to use the term “assault weapon” ad nauseam. But such colloquial reference to a device has no place in a law that is designed to regulate specific technological capabilities. In an objective sense, the word translates to nothing other than “scary looking”. It is only used to conflate characteristics.

 

To address your overall point of contention, I generally agree that our culture of excess has not been absent in the gun industry. The discrepancy between the actual threat and the threat the industry caters to is certainly there. Many people may actually need to be armed to the teeth to the extent that the law allows them to. But most people don’t. This trend for fear-profiteering is present in the arms industry from small arms all the way up to defense aircraft. As pertains to the AR, its sales are largely driven by a fetishization of military and action movie/video game figures. Much of the gun community (especially those who work in marketing at these arms firms) get off to the fact that their rifles don't have to function like military ones in order to look like them. It enhances the overcompensating bad ass persona some people are looking to perpetuate with gun ownership. I say some because as a general rule in my family, we were always taught to neither advertise our gun ownership to those around us, carry without willingness to use (which isn't really bad ass in a legal sense), nor use a deadly instrument as a social gesture. Meanwhile this image of what resembles military hardware in the hands of casual gun owners and even supervised children scares the gun-snatchers sh*tless leading them create laws that attack superficial elements of our violence problem such as the aesthetics of the gun or the threat of mass shootings. So to be fair, the fear mongering is coming from both sides at everyone’s expense.

 

 

As for the jump in sales after the shootings, much of that is attributable to the panic caused by anti-gun sentiment as people fear for access to currently-available products. The post-Sandy Hook scare was one of the worst of these. I remember people in my county buying 30 round mags like crazy and even redistributing them just in case they got banned. In fact, I would keep an eye out for the share price of small-arms manufactures just after Hillary wins in November. They will likely be sold at a discount before rebounding. The next discount will be when she reacts to her first mass shooting as president. Then once the sales jump out of fearful purchases, the prices will be back up for a nice gain. At least that’s when I’ll sell.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iacs69

SHARE THIS WITH EVERYONE!

So these are guns that wind up on the streets in the usa and all across Europe. So I'm just going to say this..

-- The harder the government tries to make anything illegal, the higher The price gets driven up

-- The higher the price goes, the more people get drawn to the business

-- The more people that get drawn to the business, the more people that will get involved in the importing and exporting of that illegal business

-- Thusly if guns were made illegal, the illegal gun business would prosper! Putting more money into the hands of criminals and taking it away from our government in the form of sales tax.

-- Example:During the alcohol prohibition era, crime skyrocketed. Organized crime made a huge profit, and used it to further build their criminal empire. US Government after realizing this swiftly re-legalizes alcohol.

--Another example:When a country legalizes a drug, that takes money away from gangs and criminal organizations, causing crime to drop. That money in turn goes to the government, which can then use the extra revenue as they see fit.

-- PLEASE SHARE THIS STATUS! If you love your freedom and your right as a human being to be able to defend yourself, do yourself a favor and don't just hit the like button. Share this and help other people to understand what the results of restricted gun laws would be.

--Not only would here in the USA making guns illegal most likely incite a civil war, and cause more violence than it solves. It would generate more funds for criminals that want nothing but to line their own pockets with the money that would most definitely find its way into their hands.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Let's ignore the fact you've basically just ripped that from someone's Facebook wall and address the other elephant in the room- the complete lack of anything resembling a coherent argument.

 

Firstly it assumes that the government is interested in making firearms illegal, which quite literally nobody in their right mind actually believes.

 

Then it ignores the fact that trade in firearms requires either access to a reliable supply of them, or the ability to construct them (which in turn requires precision machinery). Literally anyone can brew bathtub alcohol; trying to compare with firearms is patently ridiculous. If this was a logical conclusion, then you would expect to see far more prolific illegal trade in firearms in nations with extensive restrictions or complete prohibition but you don't; in fact there tends to be less demand as the lack of supply elevates prices to such a point that weapons become extremely hard for run-of-the-mill criminals to obtain. In the UK firearms are more of a status symbol amongst criminals; practical use of them is quite rate and use involving their discharge even rarer due to the scarcity and cost of ammunition.

 

The drug analogy is also flawed because when a government decriminalises a drug they can control the trade of it, undercutting the prices of illegal sellers. Unless the government runs all firearm stores and makes private sale illegal, that's basically not possible with firearms- there will always be an underground market.

 

Additionally much of the drive behind illegal firearm sale in the US is from buyers who otherwise would not be able to obtain weapons through legal means- convicted felons etc.

 

The "civil war" comment is just silly, and the assertion that prohibition would cause more violence than it solves completely lacking in empirical basis.

 

In short, it's utter hogwash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.