Duckman on gun control

[Syco21]

I agree with the second point even more strongly, my own virtually gun free city, has a firearm homicide rate of precisely zero. And to quote wikipedia

"In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher", so a relatively unarmed society, can and does thrive, without the 'weak' unarmed being slaughtered by those few that have firearms.

In fairness to the people of the USA, as I have already stated, the wide availablity of cheap easy to purchase firearms, means the cats' already out of the bag, and their society requires more self-protection than my own does.

I think I've said it already in this thread, but I'll go ahead and say it again:

 

Crime has been on the decline in America for over a decade now. That includes violent crimes such as murder.

 

http://www.bloomberg...hs-decline.html

 

During the same period, the Assault Weapons Ban expired and both gun ownership and gun rights have skyrocketed. Hell, during the 2008 election and the months/year immediately following, ammo sales were up so much that ammo was sold just about everywhere.

 

i find it funny how some of you bring as an argument for (automatic) weapon possession the eventuality of using them against the government if this kind of situation arises. Why funny? Just look what happens when rebels are armed - Syria for example, opposed to the anti-communist revolutions in East Europe , where army was reluctant to open fire against unarmed civilians. Even in Romania where the number of fatalities was higher, the army did not fire on revolutionaries, and my guess is they would have done it if firearms were present on both sides.

Going back to OP, i wonder why this issue, and many others, are not solved by public vote? After all, no one expects someone who bought an automatic (for whatever reason) to agree to give it up, unless forced by law. And then, how many buy automatics anyway?

You're right that not many people purchase automatic weapons. But that's because they all cost more than a car and require an extremely lengthy application process.

 

If you're saying that the American military would fire on American citizens, think again. In the event of an armed rebellion, many of our armed forces would either do nothing or join the rebels.

 

The Aurora shooter didn't use an automatic weapon. And if you tried to take the automatic weapons away from those that already own them, most would rebel and fire upon the people attempting to confiscate them. Let's not forget the demographic of those who own these types of weapons. A lot of them belong to militias and are hardcore gun-rights advocates. The people that give up their guns, atleast those in the US, tend to be people that have inherited or were given the guns from someone else.

 

And persoanlly I have no use for a hand gun or an automatic weapon. I've handled and shot both and they are a waste of ammo. I'm from the old school of open sights, bolt action, one shot one kill. That auto-fire 'spray and pray' BS is for gangstas and the military. Reasonable marksmen don't subscribe to that.

I disagree. Assault rifles, you know the actual full auto weapons, are used for suppression fire. They're designed for assault, when someone needs to lay down suppression fire while the other assaults a position. Hence the term assault rifle. When shooting 'bad guys' soldiers will, more often than not, use either single or burst fire because it's more accurate and effective than full auto, which again is used for suppression fire.

[DaedalusMachina]

The moment this stopped being about protection and safety, and started becoming about irrelevant politics, I lost interest in this topic. Keep it real, yo.

[HeyYou]

The moment this stopped being about protection and safety, and started becoming about irrelevant politics, I lost interest in this topic. Keep it real, yo.

 

Gun control IS a political issue. The dems want it, the repubbies don't.

 

The whole "spray and pray'" thing is hollywood hype. I rarely, if ever, fired more than three rounds in a burst from my M-16. Even on the M-60 (light machinegun) it was six round bursts. There was no pull the trigger and wave it around and pretend you are Rambo...... Even the troops only pull that stunt when there are enough targets in the area to make it practical. (beach landing at Normandy anyone?)

[Maharg67]

@ Maharg67

Do you mean your own nanny talk seriosly?

Realy, i can't stand that when people even make lists about what others could/should have and what not. What the hell are you talking about revolvers and stuff? First of you have no idea about homedefence, secound this is non of your business.

A bolt rifle for homedefence... Give me a break kid.

 

but again only with licensing and training as part of a local organization.

Yeah these weapons are to complex for stupid citizens to use them but easy enough that every mentaly ill loon could do a massacre with them... *vomits*

 

 

jim_uk

A functional democracy should offer the people a choice, when that choice is between one group of self serving whores and another group of self serving whores then that democracy becomes a sham.

What the... Choice about what?? Democracy isn't self determination, its the voting process about the collektive, other peoples lifes. And guess what. Everyone of us is a self servin prostitute. Why you get up in the morning and go to work? For your boss? For your neighboring? No, for yourself. F*** that democracy s***. I'am sick of all this "greater good" talk.

 

@Moveing

 

Nanny talk?Nanny talk? Really?

 

I was talking about establishing guidelines as an opening to a possible discussion.

 

The very way our civilization is run is about government, the law, establishing 'lists about what others could/shout have and what'. Such 'lists' are normal like citizens are not allowed to own (1) atomic bombs (2) 105mm howitzers (3) etc.

 

As for home defense, you have no idea what I do know and what I do not know; what I wrote hardly gives you, or anybody else, a good basis of such an understanding.

 

Of course it is my business, as a citizen of a democratic and law abiding nation, to know what types of weapons can be legally owned and used by the nation's citizenry. I also have my right to my opinion and if that includes a list or two, so be it!

 

Nanny talk?

 

As for being sick of the 'greater good' talk, we all belong to a great group of people and so we all have to deal with society, and its demands, no matter how much we do not like it.

 

As for the rest of your statement, I am not even going to reply to that because it makes no sense to me.

 

As for swear words, even if poorly hidden, please do not use them in debates here.

[Moveing]

@Moveing

 

Nanny talk?Nanny talk? Really?

You said it yourself,.

 

I was talking about establishing guidelines as an opening to a possible discussion.

 

Hey, this is non of your business what kind of weapons people buy for what. You said something about home defence with revolvers and bolt-action rifles. Has nothing to do with reality. Mind your own business.

 

so we all have to deal with society, and its demands,

Yeah, this shtuff is nannytalk. Totaly.

 

 

@Syco21

I linked Operation Fast and Furios before and they don't listen. They don't even notice. If they want tyranny, they deserve tyranny.

[LadyMilla]

This thread has degenerated into petty personal attacks.

 

Also, Moveing, although a lot of things are permitted in a heated debate, but insulting people who happen to oppose the right to carry/own weapons goes beyond what is considered acceptable on these sites.

 

Since you seem to unable to control your temper and treat other debaters with civility, you leave me no choice.