Assault weapon bans

[Rampion]

Either it's noone having those guns, or everyone having one. Older citizens, kids, whatever.

exactly. The FIRST requisite of liberty is universal armament. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, even if you want to. Guns have existed for the better part of six centuries, and the knowledge to make them, from crude to amazingly precise, is easy to come by. The most common rifle in the world was designed to be able to be built by a blacksmith if necessary, albeit at significant cost to accuracy and longevity.

If only the rulers have guns, then you have a populace of slaves. Contra what some keep spouting, all the stats I've been able to find over many years show exactly the opposite. The most armed places are the least violent.

Consider, since school shootings are ALWAYS the "disarm everyone but the criminals" groups' main focus, that it is illegal for ANYONE to have firearms in a school, now. Wasn't true in my youth, and we didn't go around shooting each other either. But I digress. ALL of these mass shootings happen where it is illegal to defend yourself. And no, to you liberals, cowering in a corner waiting to be shot doesn't count as defense. These shooters KNOW they face no opposition, and they have a field day. One man with a handgun would have stopped them cold in just about every one of those shootings.

Also, think on heavily armed societies such as Switzerland. They do not have much of a violent crime problem, and it is required that their male citizens have a military rifle on hand. Not the "badass lookin'" semis that Americans get so upset about, either, but the real deal. Full auto at the flick of a switch. The criminal element is well aware of this, and so does NOT invade the home of a man that is likely to shoot them dead.

You are delirious if you think that the most armed countries are the most peaceful - first example, the USA. It's the country in the world with more weapons (35% to 50% of all the privately owned guns in the world are in the US, while its population only amounts to aprox. 5% of the world population), while its one of the most violent countries in the world. So... the problem is you need more guns?? Really?

Then, you are repeating over and over the Switzerland example which is a blatant demonstration of how mistaken some of you are, you are just repeating meaningless clichés - Switzerland is a peaceful and neutral country, thus they do no even have an army. Because they do not have an army and are neutral in all wars, their citizens military duty is to store firearms at home, but:

- carrying a firearm in Switzerland is strictly prohibited, unless you a) are en route to practice with your unit or b) you work in security (meaning your are a policeman or similar). There's no way a regular citizen is allowed to carry a gun, there's no "special permit" or license possible. If authorities catch you carrying a pistol, you go straight to jail. Oh yes.

- the immense majority of firearms "owned" by Swiss citizens are just 3 models of weapons, the ones provided by the State - which also provide the ammo, which has always to be sealed unless there is a invasion, war, etc... And only the Gov. could say "ok we are now at war, take out your guns".

So, this is what you want for the US? You want to store weapons because your Government forces you to (military training is mandatory and the "swiss militia" soldiers are conscripts), but you cannot carry/use those guns unless the Government specifically allows you to because there is some kind of war or invasion? Really? I don't think so, Switzerland is one of the most regulated countries in the world, and is quite the opposite of what you would like for the US. The fact some of you keep repeating over and over the same example of Switzerland demonstrate you know nothing about the reality of their policies, you seem to ignore no one carries firearms, no one is EVER allowed to fire their guns unless they are practicing with their unit, they cannot even use their guns for self defense (if you shot a thief armed with a knife that broke into your house and you kill him, you go to jail for life unless you have an excellent defense that can prove that the thief's intention was not just to steal from you, but to outright kill you... Which is very difficult to prove unless he injured you)... And you still say Switzerland is an example you like? Wow, genius.

What I will have to agree with most in here, is that guns are just tools - evil tools, but just objects nevertheless. People kills, not necessarily guns. As Switzerland (or Finland) demonstrates, there can be a lot of guns in people's houses and very little crime. That's a fact. Do you know why? Because it is a matter of CULTURE. No one in Switzerland thinks carrying a firearm is their "god given right". They are just forced to store them because they have no army. They cannot use them, but nevertheless no one really wishes to carry them. Which is a very different approach than "people can only be free if they have guns, and BTW if I see someone in my property I will blow his brain off because it is my god-given right"... See, the problem in the US is that you have this cult for violence, you think there are a lot of "bad guys" (both inside and outside the US) who are waiting to gang rape your family, so your only chance to survive is to master violence...  Well, this "cowboy mentality" is reflected and executed by the US Government too in its foreign policy.

[Rampion]

Maybe because if its not your family who is threatened you don't really care, even if those murders are committed in YOUR name?

You can't kill someone in someone else's name. If you kill someone, you kill someone. Saying it's in some random guy's name is bs, and no one else is responsible but you.

US soldiers are using YOUR tax money to slaughter people all over the world, thus you could be held responsible for that. You are financing them. Some of those soldiers are probably your very neighbors.

So why don't you use your guns to stop those killings, committed by your neighbors? Because those "bad guys" are just destroying other people's families, and not your own? Or maybe just because you know you do not stand a chance against the Federal Government and the US army?

[Rampion]

As you see the point of firearms protecting citizens against the Government is ludicrous (a point I read a lot here), especially taking into consideration we are speaking about the US, which Government (and army) supports the interests of the people ruling the world.

Actually it is not.  Any one person trying to take on the Federal government will lose.  Only if the government makes the first strike will the people band together and overturn the tyrannical out of control parasite that it is.  Re-read what happened with the "revolutionary war".  The only difference is today's government is completely way beyond what England was doing at the time. 

Your Government is striking NON STOP. First and foremost, its slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people all over the world just because of economic interests. They are killing people, you know? Secondly, they are stripping you naked of your most basic rights, and still you say "if the government makes the first strike the people will band together and overturn them"? Seriously, what kind of strike are you expecting? Please let me know.

Maybe you mean that its OK if thousands of "foreigner" kids are slaughtered in their countries, while its not so OK if the kids in some California town are attacked? Maybe if the Federal Government "strikes" a small town in California, then all the nation will raise its arms and overturn the Government? Well, maybe they will wipe a couple more of towns with drones and the rest of the population will just STFU because they are too comfortable and they just know a rifle can do nothing against a drone or a Tomahawk. Plus, I don't see why they would need to "strike" US population in that way, they will just strip of their rights and squeeze from them all the money they can for their ventures. So, again: what kind of "strike" are you expecting to react?

Finally, there seems to be a lot of "anarchists" here - well, in my book anarchist believe in free associations, they do not believe in States, God or Nations. This is what Bakunin wrote in "The God and the State". Nations and religion are just big lies used to control people and rule over them. But still, you think that "people will band together if the Government strikes first". What people? What kind of strike? Let me know.

[Lethn]

You are delirious if you think that the most armed countries are the most peaceful - first example, the USA. It's the country in the world with more weapons (35% to 50% of all the privately owned guns in the world are in the US, while its population only amounts to aprox. 5% of the world population), while its one of the most violent countries in the world. So... the problem is you need more guns?? Really?

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen. Add to that Americans in particular don't seem to get proper training to use their firearms given how many accidents occur and it's pretty easy to see exactly why there are so many gun deaths in your country compared to the rest of the world.

I've given up trying to be polite because I'm sick of people ignoring the main issues in every problem we have on this planet preferring to blame inanimate objects instead, I also enjoy how in any gun violence debate the medical professionals who actually know what's going on are completely ignored as are the actual experts of subjects in any other debate.

[FirstAscent]

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.

That sounds like the demographic that most craves having guns.

[RodeoX]

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.

That sounds like the demographic that most craves having guns.

And then there is the real world. I'm a liberal, gay loving, race mixing, overeducated atheist.  Generalizing is a path to wrong answers, it is what racism is all about. You may wish that gun owners fit your bias, but here in America we are free to be who we are and do not have to fit a mold.

[Rampion]

You are delirious if you think that the most armed countries are the most peaceful - first example, the USA. It's the country in the world with more weapons (35% to 50% of all the privately owned guns in the world are in the US, while its population only amounts to aprox. 5% of the world population), while its one of the most violent countries in the world. So... the problem is you need more guns?? Really?

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen. Add to that Americans in particular don't seem to get proper training to use their firearms given how many accidents occur and it's pretty easy to see exactly why there are so many gun deaths in your country compared to the rest of the world.

I've given up trying to be polite because I'm sick of people ignoring the main issues in every problem we have on this planet preferring to blame inanimate objects instead, I also enjoy how in any gun violence debate the medical professionals who actually know what's going on are completely ignored as are the actual experts of subjects in any other debate.

I pretty much agree - guns are just inanimate objects (with only one purpose: to kill), and its just stupid to put the blame on inanimated objetcs - the blame is on individuals committing the crimes. The amount of privately owned guns in the US is a cause and reflection of its violent culture, dominated by fear and greed. Gun-lovers are not helping at all to change that culture, though.

[NewLiberty]

I pretty much agree - guns are just inanimate objects (with only one purpose: to kill),

Far most commonly, they are used to coerce rather than kill.

Even most robberies using guns do not involve them being fired.

[FirstAscent]

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.

That sounds like the demographic that most craves having guns.

And then there is the real world. I'm a liberal, gay loving, race mixing, overeducated atheist.  Generalizing is a path to wrong answers, it is what racism is all about. You may wish that gun owners fit your bias, but here in America we are free to be who we are and do not have to fit a mold.

You might be an exception.

[iCEBREAKER]

You are delirious if you think that the most armed countries are the most peaceful - first example, the USA. It's the country in the world with more weapons (35% to 50% of all the privately owned guns in the world are in the US, while its population only amounts to aprox. 5% of the world population), while its one of the most violent countries in the world. So... the problem is you need more guns?? Really?

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen. Add to that Americans in particular don't seem to get proper training to use their firearms given how many accidents occur and it's pretty easy to see exactly why there are so many gun deaths in your country compared to the rest of the world.

I've given up trying to be polite because I'm sick of people ignoring the main issues in every problem we have on this planet preferring to blame inanimate objects instead, I also enjoy how in any gun violence debate the medical professionals who actually know what's going on are completely ignored as are the actual experts of subjects in any other debate.

What a buffoonish POV!   

It's America who repeatedly comes to the rescue and restores peace when the crazy, bloodthirsty Europeans and Asians get into yet another one of their regularly scheduled, historically unavoidable wars.

Of course they resent this fact greatly, and avoid the self-examination acceptance would entail by pathologizing the Rights/Freedom/Liberty Americans enjoy.   

[RodeoX]

I pretty much agree - guns are just inanimate objects (with only one purpose: to kill), and its just stupid to put the blame on inanimated objetcs - the blame is on individuals committing the crimes. The amount of privately owned guns in the US is a cause and reflection of its violent culture, dominated by fear and greed. Gun-lovers are not helping at all to change that culture, though.

With the exception of my CCW, my guns are not for killing. I am not a hunter and I shoot only paper targets. My guns have not "caused" me to be more violent. Guns don't do that. If they did then Montana would be the deadliest place in the U.S. and Chicago would be a peaceful utopia. In fact the opposite is true. 
It is also true that since the mid 1990's Americans have expanded their right to carry throughout the U.S. That same period has seen an unprecedented drop in violent crime. America now has less violent crime than it ever has.

[Rampion]

I pretty much agree - guns are just inanimate objects (with only one purpose: to kill), and its just stupid to put the blame on inanimated objetcs - the blame is on individuals committing the crimes. The amount of privately owned guns in the US is a cause and reflection of its violent culture, dominated by fear and greed. Gun-lovers are not helping at all to change that culture, though.

With the exception of my CCW, my guns are not for killing. I am not a hunter and I shoot only paper targets. My guns have not "caused" me to be more violent. Guns don't do that. If they did then Montana would be the deadliest place in the U.S. and Chicago would be a peaceful utopia. In fact the opposite is true.  
It is also true that since the mid 1990's Americans have expanded their right to carry throughout the U.S. That same period has seen an unprecedented drop in violent crime. America now has less violent crime than it ever has.

I explained myself badly (sorry for my poor english). What I meant is the opposite: I don't think the US is violent because there are many guns - I think there are many guns in the US because it is an extremely violent society, and that violence is rooted in its culture. The USA has always being an imperialist power, and IMO this distinct characteristic emanates from a large part of the population being obsessed with its "god-given right" to apply violence. Yes, its always about "self defense", but you know how relative things might be... Saddam was supposed to have deadly weapons of mass destruction, so slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians was self defense; George Zimmermann killed a 17 year old unarmed teen in self-defense, and this guy (video in the link) shooting a 13 years old kid would have probably been considered self-defense too if we didn't have a video.

My point is that this is a vicious circle - obviously guns are not the core problem, but more guns won't make your society safer, on the contrary it will make it unsafer. Look at that old man who killed the 13 years old, that shit only happens in the third world AND the USA. That old guy probably felt his 4 shotguns gave him "the power" to teach a lesson to anybody who fucked with him (wow, nice feeling), and that he had a "god given right" to kill someone for breaking into his house, even if that person is an unarmed teen. That "cowboy mentality" seems pretty common in the USA, as the aberrant "stand your ground" law indicates. And I know what some of you will tell me - "stand your ground is perfectly fine, because how can someone know if an intruder is armed or unarmed? How do you know if he will try to kill you? If someone breaks into your property, you just shoot him..." Wow, nice society living in constant fear and violence, where random kids go to schools and slaughter their mates. And if not, they can always go to Iraq or whatever come next.

I think the problem is very, very deep. Everybody here is so convinced about them being "the good guys", but you seem to forget that 99% of the people (including the criminals) consider themselves "the good guys", the bad one is always the other guy. That's basic human psychology. I already made the example of the military, and how relative is who is "the bad" or "the good" guy in real life - it's not all about law abiding citizens and psychopathic serial killers, things are more complex and subtle. And there you have people arming themselves and thinking "hey, I have the balls and the means to protect my family", this mentality is deeply rooted, and at some point some idiot will be totally convinced he saw a "bad guy" who might be a threat, who could have the exact same mentality and could be armed too, so its better to shoot first just in case because hey, that's how life is.

That's sick. Human life is the most precious thing we have. I'd for one prefer to live and let live by breaking this pointless and horrendous loop.

[Spendulus]

I think your problem is very, very deep.  I'm not saying that in an insultive or argumentative mode, rather that in your argument, your premises lead to your conclusions.

A) your premises are wrong across the board
B1) your conclusions do not follow from premises as stated
B2) other conclusions are possible from your wrong premises

I read it as if you've been fed misinformation for a lifetime and have built arguments which within a bubble of misinformation, seem logical.  And thus the errors may not be obvious within that bubble...not immediately obvious.  But with some examination, even within the bubble you should be able to discern the truth.

[RodeoX]

@Rampion
You might be surprised at how much we agree on. I despise violence. I have had the misfortune of seeing a lot of it in various wars around th world. War is when society pulls together to make great things, then smashes all those things to dust. It brings sadness and pain to all involved. I protested against the Afghan invasion when George Bush had 80% approval and the country was in a state of war fever. Nobody hates war more than those who have seen it.
I also lived in St. Louis when it was the murder capitol. I have had neighbors killed, a friend shot by a 13yr. old crack user. The day I moved into my apartment I picked up a handful of 7.62x39 casings on the sidewalk. Still, I feel compassion for those criminals. I think we can do a lot to help them make other choices that will benefit us all.
But at the end of the day, if faced with a threat of death. I would gun down anyone for attempting to kill me. It's not malice, it's a calculation. Do what you want, be who you are, but do not try to kill me. That is all I ask from people. 

[Spendulus]

....
The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.....

Then, most likely, those from the US on this forum fit your profiles.

So why do you descend from your lofty perch to talk with us?

[TheButterZone]

You are delirious if you think that the most armed countries are the most peaceful - first example, the USA. It's the country in the world with more weapons (35% to 50% of all the privately owned guns in the world are in the US, while its population only amounts to aprox. 5% of the world population), while its one of the most violent countries in the world. So... the problem is you need more guns?? Really?

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.

Describes the immortally-controlling majority of the totalitarian (including pro-"gun control") government. If not for them, there would be no safe place for mass murderers to become such, because "gun free zones" (where mass murders are committed, against legally disarmed and defenseless innocents) wouldn't exist.

[mdude77]

Maybe because if its not your family who is threatened you don't really care, even if those murders are committed in YOUR name?

You can't kill someone in someone else's name. If you kill someone, you kill someone. Saying it's in some random guy's name is bs, and no one else is responsible but you.

Well, in that case world statistics say that less guns = less violent crime.

Statistics also say less pirates = higher global temperatures. That's a fact. Back when we had lots of pirates, temperatures were way lower. As the number of pirates went down, global temperatures went up. Way up. More recently, in the 2000's, the rise in temperatures leveled off a bit, at the same time that Somali pirates started up their activity. During the last two or three years, US really cracked down on piracy in Somalia, killing a bunch of them, and we also had the two hottest years on record.

You really like to argue this silly and utterly pointless point. Let's consider:

1. Temperatures dropping below 0 degrees Celsius seem to correlate with water turning into ice.

2. Loch Ness monster sightings increase as the hemlines of skirts get higher.

By way of hypothetical example, Rassah trots out an example like number two, claims correlation does not equate to causation, and tries to use it to dispute the conclusion that water turning into ice is the result of lower temperatures.

Your arguments are pointless. Everywhere.

I believe the point is statistics can be shown to support anything.

M

[mdude77]

What I will have to agree with most in here, is that guns are just tools - evil tools, but just objects nevertheless. People kills, not necessarily guns. As Switzerland (or Finland) demonstrates, there can be a lot of guns in people's houses and very little crime. That's a fact. Do you know why? Because it is a matter of CULTURE. No one in Switzerland thinks carrying a firearm is their "god given right". They are just forced to store them because they have no army. They cannot use them, but nevertheless no one really wishes to carry them. Which is a very different approach than "people can only be free if they have guns, and BTW if I see someone in my property I will blow his brain off because it is my god-given right"... See, the problem in the US is that you have this cult for violence, you think there are a lot of "bad guys" (both inside and outside the US) who are waiting to gang rape your family, so your only chance to survive is to master violence...  Well, this "cowboy mentality" is reflected and executed by the US Government too in its foreign policy.

One massive difference between the US and other countries is the belief that individuals are BORN with rights.  They are not granted by governments.  You can choose to disagree with that, as that is your right. 

You are correct about culture.  Culture is the problem.  Disarming the average populace is not going to solve that.  What is your solution?  I've stated mine many times.

M

[mdude77]

Maybe because if its not your family who is threatened you don't really care, even if those murders are committed in YOUR name?

You can't kill someone in someone else's name. If you kill someone, you kill someone. Saying it's in some random guy's name is bs, and no one else is responsible but you.

US soldiers are using YOUR tax money to slaughter people all over the world, thus you could be held responsible for that. You are financing them. Some of those soldiers are probably your very neighbors.

Who in the US voluntarily pays their taxes?  Not a single person, to my knowledge.  In fact, rumor has it a lot of people avoid paying taxes wherever possible.  It's a bit absurd to think the people are responsible for the out of control government.

M

[mdude77]

As you see the point of firearms protecting citizens against the Government is ludicrous (a point I read a lot here), especially taking into consideration we are speaking about the US, which Government (and army) supports the interests of the people ruling the world.

Actually it is not.  Any one person trying to take on the Federal government will lose.  Only if the government makes the first strike will the people band together and overturn the tyrannical out of control parasite that it is.  Re-read what happened with the "revolutionary war".  The only difference is today's government is completely way beyond what England was doing at the time. 

Your Government is striking NON STOP. First and foremost, its slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people all over the world just because of economic interests. They are killing people, you know? Secondly, they are stripping you naked of your most basic rights, and still you say "if the government makes the first strike the people will band together and overturn them"? Seriously, what kind of strike are you expecting? Please let me know.

Maybe you mean that its OK if thousands of "foreigner" kids are slaughtered in their countries, while its not so OK if the kids in some California town are attacked? Maybe if the Federal Government "strikes" a small town in California, then all the nation will raise its arms and overturn the Government? Well, maybe they will wipe a couple more of towns with drones and the rest of the population will just STFU because they are too comfortable and they just know a rifle can do nothing against a drone or a Tomahawk. Plus, I don't see why they would need to "strike" US population in that way, they will just strip of their rights and squeeze from them all the money they can for their ventures. So, again: what kind of "strike" are you expecting to react?

Please understand, it is NOT my government in any way shape or form.  Like you, I was born into my country will little power over the parasite known as the government that pretends to rule the country.  I know very well how evil the powers that be are that are controlling the government.  I know every day they are killing innocent people.  What exactly do you propose I do?

I can make an effort to defend myself and my loved ones.  I can not take on the government alone.

I see a few possible outcomes of the disaster called the Federal government:

1 - it collapses under its own weight
2 - the people rise up and overthrow it
3 - the collective whole return to God and everyone turns to their natural godly ways

#1 and #2 will lead to some replacement.  If it's not #3, we're back where we started.  There is no good solution but God. 

M