Duckman on gun control

[K00L]

There is no reason for folks to collect greeting cards. But they do.

And for that reason we tolerate the tend of thousands of greeting card–related deaths every, oh wait.

Those things are dangerous.

Edit: My brother agrees with HeyYou. Of course my brother's responses to me were. "No its not" "Because." "YOUR A F****** DEMOCRAT!"

How very eloquent.

Edited July 25, 2012 by K00L

[Vagrant0]

There is no reason for folks to have more than one car, but, a fair few folks do. (individuals)

 

There is no reason for folks to collect coins, or stamps, or greeting cards, or scenic photographs, or a host of other things either. But they do.

Maybe, but here is the concern... You, just now stated that you would be willing to use lethal force against people who are just doing their job, or who just happen to get between you and your hobby, just because of some decision made by a politician. How is that like collecting stamps again? When was the last time someone threatened to drive their sports car over some police officer because the specific model of the car they wanted to purchase was not street legal in their country?

 

Yay for extreme attitudes about first world problems!

 

Not everyone that owns an assault weapon wants it for home protection. (in most cases, that's a bad idea anyway, for a variety of reasons.) I have mine because I LIKE having them. I enjoy collecting various weapons. I also use them to control the woodchuck population on my property. (well, not currently, that, that was the idea then, and more than likely will be again in the not so distant future, hopefully....) Could I use something else? Sure. But, I don't WANT to. It is a tool very well suited to the task at hand. I am a firm believer in having the right tool for the job.

An assault rifle would be a horrible weapon for home protection. It would also probably be pretty bad at killing rodents on account of trying to hit an animal about the size of a tennis ball with a bullet. Even if you had a scope on that sucker and could hit a target far enough away for the bullet to expand... That is hardly the right tool for the job on account of the number of times you'd be shooting at the ground and raw hours spent waiting for one to run out of cover. Traps usually work better. They just aren't as fun as sitting out on a lawn chair with a beer in one hand, semi-automatic weapon in the other, and just shooting at anything that moves. That's still not a practical reason to own or fire a weapon any more than it is a reason why you should be allowed to detonate a copious amount of C4 on your spacious lot.

 

That, and I don't particularly trust our government. Allow them to ban one type of weapon this week, and next week, they will try and ban something else. After all, the precedent has been set, we did it once, we can do it again. It's happened in the past, and quite frankly, the way the government is today, I trust them about as far as I can throw them. They do NOT have my best interests at heart. All the hoopla about 'gun control' is just a knee-jerk reaction to a truly unfortunate incident. In my view, they are going the wrong way with this. Had there been other, LEGALLY armed citizens there, the body count would have been significantly less, and we would be short one whack-job.

Although I will grant you the knee-jerk reaction bit. the slippery slope argument is never true. Again, the reasonable solution would be for both sides to come to a firm and fair compromise to a growing problem, but the reality is that neither side is reasonable, and threatening lethal harm against others is so much more entertaining. Fine, don't trust the government... But there are too many idiots in this world for everyone to be armed, nevermind being armed with weaponry that can mow down a small crowd because you got whole milk instead of soy milk in your latte. Lethal weapons should only be allowed to those who are properly trained to use them precisely because an assault weapon (along with most high power weapons (because in a home or urban setting you usually don't have much of a backstop behind the target, so even if you hit the target your bullet will likely travel through a few walls/floors, along with anything else within the trajectory) before it stops)) IS bad for personal defense, but everyone wants to have the big gun.

[Syco21]

When I have a right to something, I do not have to justify my exercise of that right. If you want to take that right away from me, you must justify that desire and you must prove that I am an immediate threat to the well being of the public at large by exercising that right.

 

Also, I'd like to state that HeyYou probably doesn't really have any assault rifles. I mean it's a possibility, but it's not likely. To purchase an assault rifle, one must apply to the ATF and pay a $200 tax stamp. They then must wait 6 months or more for the ATF to approve their purchase. Then they are permitted to purchase only the assault rifle they paid the tax filled out the application for. These rifles will be atleast 26 years old, most will be older. To top it off, the rifle will cost him around $30,000.

 

This is not an assault rifle.

[DaedalusMachina]

Nobody wants to make guns illegal. Nobody with any measurable intelligence, anyway.

 

There's a little something that just about everybody knows about, but it should be brought up here: Black Market.

 

The Black Market is infinite, it is unregulated, and it is unstoppable. Where demand is present, and supply is restricted, the black market will always provide, because demand must be met with supply, no exceptions. The black market does not need to control the guns, the people do. This was done with alcohol once, and the result was a replacement of alcohol with crime and spilled blood. There is no basic, unalienable rights debate about alcohol. To outlaw guns is to declare instant war.

 

So, with that out of the way...

 

Gun regulation exists for a reason. Guns are not to be toyed with. Having a collection of guns makes about as much sense of having a collection of splitting wedges. They're only interesting if they're antiques.

 

The tragedies that take place would be reduced drastically with two things: Regulation and Education. That means that the people can be tracked for being asses (and they know they can), and that means that people don't have to be stupid with what is arguably the worlds most dangerous tool. But there will always, always, always be those that slip through the cracks, and this is something everybody needs to understand, so I'll put it in bold down here on its own line.

 

There is nothing you can do about that. Ever.

 

Edit: Oh, and if there were multiple people in the theater with weapons, the body count would've been higher, not lower. The reaction from Gunman would've been to shoot Protector A, but Protector B, seeing Protector A's gun, might try to attack Protector A, thinking they are a secondary threat. Etc. etc. Bullets flying, richocheting, instead of a massacre, it would simply be a tomb.

Edited July 25, 2012 by DaedalusMachina

[Syco21]

Gun regulation exists for a reason. Guns are not to be toyed with. Having a collection of guns makes about as much sense of having a collection of splitting wedges. They're only interesting if they're antiques.

Or, ya know, you split logs for a living or as a hobby. Kinda like the alcohol collection makes no sense whatsoever. Why do people buy dozens of bottles of whine if they'll probably never drink them all? Why do people have massive gaming collections? Not everyone plays every game they own. I personally I have a sealed copy of MGS4 that I've had for about 2 years not. It's not sealed because it's a collector's item. It's sealed because I haven't bothered to play it yet. Doesn't make sense, does it? But ya know, gaming is one of my hobbies. Why should I justify my hobbies to you? :whistling:

[Ghogiel]

Good question, why should I justify my collection of bombs?

[DaedalusMachina]

Gun regulation exists for a reason. Guns are not to be toyed with. Having a collection of guns makes about as much sense of having a collection of splitting wedges. They're only interesting if they're antiques.

Or, ya know, you split logs for a living or as a hobby. Kinda like the alcohol collection makes no sense whatsoever. Why do people buy dozens of bottles of whine if they'll probably never drink them all? Why do people have massive gaming collections? Not everyone plays every game they own. I personally I have a sealed copy of MGS4 that I've had for about 2 years not. It's not sealed because it's a collector's item. It's sealed because I haven't bothered to play it yet. Doesn't make sense, does it? But ya know, gaming is one of my hobbies. Why should I justify my hobbies to you? :whistling:

 

Nice way to straw man. Games are not weapons. Wine is not a weapon. Weapons are what we're talking about, why are you talking about booze and video games? They are not the same thing. Regulation primarily exists to combat recklessness, so that these weapons don't end up being treated like toys (which is actually what you were talking about, come to think of it). If you collect weapons, and you aren't an idiot and protect and respect the stuff you collect, then you probably aren't part of the problem. Nobody asked you, nor does anybody want you to justify your hobbies; nobody truly cares.

Edited July 25, 2012 by DaedalusMachina

[Syco21]

Good question, why should I justify my collection of bombs?

Exactly, why should you? I have one pound of binary explosives(unmixed) sitting on my desk right now. It's perfectly legal. Should I justify my possession of them? I'm thinking no. Even when explosives were legal for civilian purchase(believe it or not, not that long ago you could buy all the dynamite you could afford at your local hardware store), people didn't go around blowing each other up. Sure their might have been an incident or two where that happened. But hey, guess what? Timothy McVeigh managed to blow up an entire building, despite high grade explosives being illegal. http://stargatewars.herebegames.com/images/smilies/eusa_shhh.gif

 

For those of you arguing that AR-15 type rifles have no 'practical' use in day to day lives, so they should be banned because in rare occasions they are used for evil. Guess what! In rare occasions, that aren't as rare as mass shootings, they're very useful in self defense. For example, Asian shops owners in LA used AR-15 to defend themselves and their businesses from thieves and looters when the police refused to do so.

 

In New Orleans, during Katrina. While the police went around shooting people for being the wrong color, various neighborhoods team up and used AR-15s to patrol their area and protect themselves from the criminal element active in the area at that time.

 

Disasters are rare, but still happen far more frequently than do mass shootings. Last year, when the Bastrop County Complex Fire broke out, thousands of families were evacuated from their homes. While many of those homes were largely safe from the fires, it was still dangerous, the winds could have shifted at any moment and emergency crews needed easy access to the immediate area. This meant that huge portions of neighborhoods were off limits to anyone other than emergency crews. This made it prime pickin for looters. I believe that some individuals went back with their rifles, snuck in and defended their property. I know for a fact this was the case for at least one pecan orchard. Only difference is they refused to leave in the first place. Rather, they stayed behind, used their irrigation system to fight the fires and rifles to protect their property. I don't know that they had any issues with looters, or attempted looting. I never asked.

 

The point is, just because the majority use of AR-15 platforms is plinking, doesn't mean there isn't a time and place when they are the most appropriate weapons for home and self defense.

[Syco21]

Nice way to straw man. Games are not weapons. Wine is not a weapon. Weapons are what we're talking about, why are you talking about booze and video games? They are not the same thing. Regulation primarily exists to combat recklessness, so that these weapons don't end up being treated like toys (which is actually what you were talking about, come to think of it). If you collect weapons, and you aren't an idiot and protect and respect the stuff you collect, then you probably aren't part of the problem. Nobody asked you, nor does anybody want you to justify your hobbies; nobody truly cares.

You stated that regulation is a good thing and that having a gun collection doesn't make sense. This infers that you believe people shouldn't be allowed to have gun collections, unless they're antiques. But I'm saying it don't matter if you think it doesn't make sense.

 

Find me a hobbyist and I'll find you a doesn't people that think that hobby is silly. Find me a collector of anything, and I'll likewise find you a dozen people that thinks his collection doesn't make any sense. You don't need to understand it, it doesn't have to make sense to anyone. No one has any need to justify their collection of anything to anyone, so long as that collection isn't directly harming a third party.

 

There is no strawman, just because guns are different than alcohol or video games, doesn't mean the comparison doesn't stand. Personally, I'd never refer to alcohol as a 'toy,' it most certainly is not.

[Vindekarr]

Well, here in Australia we have a system that works pretty well: we have reasonably strict gun laws, but we also allow private citizens to own, shoot and collect guns, however, the laws a very specific, and despite some annoying glitches to do with paintball guns, it works pretty well. Despite pretty high gun ownership, we haven't had a massacre in nearly 20 years, since assault weapons were banned.

 

The way our laws work, you need to go through the usual checking procedure, but you also need to provide a reason why you want a particular firearm; if you're a range shooter/skeet shooter/hunter, getting a brand new, high-end, bolt action hunting rifle and needed parts are plenty easy, likewise for defence purposes Farmers are allowed to own 12 guage shotguns, scoped rifles, and other a variety of other weapons. Handguns too are legal, provided you have A a licence, which isn't too bad to get, and B can pass the background checks and provide a reasonable explanation as to why you're seeking a firearm. If you're a gunclub member, it's about as easy to get them as it is in america, likewise for farmers, and security contractors.

 

What isn't legal are fully automatic weapons of certain types; you CAN legally get some very nice weapons in Australia, but modern, fully or semi automatic assault rifles, and a very specific few items of "current era military hardware" are illegal unless you're a trained government employee, for example a soldier(soldiers in Aus are allowed to buy/select their own gear, including firearms) or an agent of ASIO. Old generation military weapons have probably the loosest restrictions, with some black powder weapons being virtualy unrestricted. One awesome thing about our laws is that you, as long as you have the right set of licences, are allowed to buy and own a tank, as long as you can get the gun permanently disabled and then inspected. You're even allowed to drive it on public roads. (I'd like to see that in California) This makes for awesome military parades, when the local army base brings out it's twin, spotless old Shermans to celebrate our WWII vets.

 

And it works, as a system. Myself and two workmates like shooting, as a sport, we're gun club members, in my case an archery club member, licenced, and we are able to function as gunclub members perfectly well. There isn't some nanny staring over our shoulder at the range, but yet knowing that some psycho can't just go down to Costco and buy an MK-49, an A-10a and a Paladin is somewhat comforting. Regulation doesn't have to be a bad thing or the end of the world, and maybe there'd be less guncrime if there were less guns, there'd certainly be fewer fatalities if everyone had 9mms instead of bloody AKs and F2000s. It certainly feels that way here, since we've had a couple of gang related shootings, but the way the aquisition laws work, fatalities are very low(only a dozen or so a year) and it's been decades since we had a truly major shooting(Port Arthur, 36 dead, mentally ill teen with a replica AK-47, 7x68 Russian, semi-automatic)