Assault weapon bans

[Spendulus]

"Efficiently"

Absolute bullshit. What's efficient about paying $6/round plus thousands of USD per rifle to fire it, to have far more than a snowball's chance at actually killing someone (not strapped to a chair at more than point blank range) with a single shot?

Hands and feet are free and used in about double the murders in the U.S. than rifles. So if you had any intellectual consistency, you would be calling for the preemptive full amputation of all human beings' limbs....

that would have the additional advantage of putting a stop to this thread.  Or at least slowing it down to the rate at which letters get typed by pointing a straw held in the mouth at keys on the keyboard.

Unfortunately, the Full Amputation legislation would get bogged down with special interests and exceptions, notably Congress members and their staff would be excluded....

[Spendulus]

I would sell my right to self-defense for all 21 million BTC, and then I would carry a gun anyway, because so do 100% of criminals giving zero fucks about any and all laws short of summary execution for even thinking about having a gun.

I wasn't thinking about the right to self defense.   Just the right to firearms.  Flamethrowers, rapid fire fire ax catapults, and cannons shooting rabid dogs would still be okay.  Drones with spears would of course qualify due to their absence of firearms...

[RodeoX]

And what if you suddenly go bonkers? Stress, infidelity of your wife, even in the heat of argument. Maybe you want to scare someone off, and it goes too far. Itchy fingers? Carrying it with you day in and day out, it grows on you, and you will want to blow some steam eventually. Having that power. Power which eventually corrupts. I for sure would not want to be around that day.

Oh please. 

[Peter Lambert]

If a population have guns, they are more likely to die if something goes wrong because you can kill more efficiently with guns than with your hands & feets.

If you are trying to kill people efficiently, like a terrorist, then bombs are much more efficient than guns. Driving a heavy vehicle through a crowded space is also much more efficient than shooting a gun.

Not many murders are done with rifles, more crimes are committed with handguns, but it is the rifles which are demonized as "assault weapons".

[FirstAscent]

"Efficiently"

Absolute bullshit. What's efficient about paying $6/round plus thousands of USD per rifle to fire it, to have far more than a snowball's chance at actually killing someone (not strapped to a chair at more than point blank range) with a single shot?

Hands and feet are free and used in about double the murders in the U.S. than rifles. So if you had any intellectual consistency, you would be calling for the preemptive full amputation of all human beings' limbs and not just the most effective tools for statistically overwhelmingly non-lethal self-defense against violent crime, guns. Good luck killing anyone with just your head and torso!

Then I guess guns are inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessary.

[mdude77]

"Efficiently"

Absolute bullshit. What's efficient about paying $6/round plus thousands of USD per rifle to fire it, to have far more than a snowball's chance at actually killing someone (not strapped to a chair at more than point blank range) with a single shot?

Hands and feet are free and used in about double the murders in the U.S. than rifles. So if you had any intellectual consistency, you would be calling for the preemptive full amputation of all human beings' limbs and not just the most effective tools for statistically overwhelmingly non-lethal self-defense against violent crime, guns. Good luck killing anyone with just your head and torso!

Then I guess guns are inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessary.

Beep!  Wrong conclusion.  Would you like to try again?

M

[NewLiberty]

Then I guess guns are inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessary.

Beep!  Wrong conclusion.  Would you like to try again?

M

I'd give him that opinion, if it would stem the irrational fears he has adopted which are causing him to unjustly launch these incessant assaults on your property rights.

[Rassah]

Then I guess guns are inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessary.

They are inefficient and not as effective, but they are a hell of a lot more convenient. You're not going to carry around a bulky bomb to throw, or run to your car and drive it until it's aimed at someone, every time you want to thwart an atacker   Plus with a gun, just pointing it at someone is often effective enough to stop the other person from doing what you don't want them to.

Actually, yeah, if your purpose is to do the maximum amount of damage and carnage, cars and bombs are way more efficient and effective. If your purpose is to stop someone else from doing damage and carnage, guns are most efficient and effective.

[Spendulus]

Then I guess guns are inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessary.

They are inefficient and not as effective, but they are a hell of a lot more convenient. You're not going to carry around a bulky bomb to throw, or run to your car and drive it until it's aimed at someone, every time you want to thwart an atacker   Plus with a gun, just pointing it at someone is often effective enough to stop the other person from doing what you don't want them to.

Actually, yeah, if your purpose is to do the maximum amount of damage and carnage, cars and bombs are way more efficient and effective. If your purpose is to stop someone else from doing damage and carnage, guns are most efficient and effective.

You've made a great point there.  Firearms *exist* because of their range and accuracy against common targets for lethal weapons.  Otherwise, we'd still be using bows and arrows, spears, and so forth.

And in turn because of that known and recognized capability, someone who sees a gun pointed at him is very likely to change his behavior in the direction required to keep the gun from being fired.

In turn this implies something of the sort ....

Effective violent deadly tool -----> less violence .....

[Mike Christ]

You've made a great point there.  Firearms *exist* because of their range and accuracy against common targets for lethal weapons.  Otherwise, we'd still be using bows and arrows, spears, and so forth.

And in turn because of that known and recognized capability, someone who sees a gun pointed at him is very likely to change his behavior in the direction required to keep the gun from being fired.

In turn this implies something of the sort ....

Effective violent deadly tool -----> less violence .....

It seems everyone but the cowards among us can see this: you don't rob a person who is, more likely than not, carrying.  Even if the person isn't visibly carrying a gun, if most people in any given area are armed, it's far too risky for any criminal to even attempt a crime, for there's no telling if the person, or anyone around them, has a concealed handgun.  You do, however, rob someone who is defenseless.  I've never committed a violent crime in my life, but I don't think it takes a lot of thought to come to the conclusion that stealing from unarmed people is a lot easier than stealing from armed people.  Even if we make the assumption that the police are always on their game and respond as fast as possible to crimes, you can never have a cop following you around everywhere you go.  Police do not prevent crimes.  They only help after a crime has taken place.  To stop crime before it happens, you must know how to defend yourself.

I'm going to go out on a limb (slightly off topic as well) and say this: if guns were allowed on the planes which crashed into the twin towers, there would have been no 9/11.  Even if every hijacker was packing, they would've been completely outnumbered by the passengers who were.  In the very least, the job would've been considerably harder, and those who died would not have died in vain.

[TheButterZone]

Yep, pretty much any atrocity requires the immediate victims be made defenseless. 100% of war criminals agree.

[Spendulus]

...
I'm going to go out on a limb (slightly off topic as well) and say this: if guns were allowed on the planes which crashed into the twin towers, there would have been no 9/11.  Even if every hijacker was packing, they would've been completely outnumbered by the passengers who were.  In the very least, the job would've been considerably harder, and those who died would not have died in vain.

Maybe.  The thing is, at the time of 9/11 pilots and crew were trained to go along with hijackers.  Hijackers were not suicide bombers, they were thought to be people who wanted a quick easy ride to somewhere like Cuba.

What's interesting to me is that regardless of people on planes having or not having weapons, 9/11 could probably never happen again.  The element of surprise would not be there.

[Rampion]

Effective violent deadly tool -----> less violence .....

As I stated many times I would never support those willing to take from you the right to buy your guns (which I hate, but that doesn't give me the right to BAN them), but nevertheless I do not understand how you can argue in favor of "gun rights" with such stupid (and false) arguments.

There is an undeniable hard cold fact, which is that in countries with more guns per inhabitant, there are more violent death per inhabitant. We've already gone through the cold numbers a few pages ago, and now you can nitpick and make the example of Switzerland (which was already covered too, as nobody carries a gun on the streets and the approach is totally different) or you can make the nitpicked example of this and that state in the US where violent deaths went down after some "gun friendly" law, but that is just a phallacy as you would be missing the big and undeniable world wide picture.

Just a very recent example: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/teenagers-allegedly-murder-college-baseball-player-boredom-article-1.1431445

Three US teens just murdered a guy making jogging because they were "bored". We hear news like that every few weeks coming from the USA (leaving alone school shooting et al), in the rest of civilized world that shit simply doesn't happen as often. Then, I will make you one question:

- would the guy making jogging have been any safer carrying a gun? He was shot in the back and he didn't even see the shooters.

Plus, is pretty clear to me that the only way you would kill someone "because of boredom" is if you have a gun. Killing someone with a gun from your car and run away might resemble a video game, you may not even see the blood - killing someone with a knife or with your bare hands is a completely different business, first of all is much more difficult, secondly is totally a different mental approach than just shooting someone from the distance and seeing his body fall. A gun is made to kill - if everybody thinks guns are cool and having them is the only way to be free and BLAH BLAH BLAH you will have people who will just want to use them - and they only have ONE use, unlike knives, cars, and so on...

Again, the obvious problem is not "the guns", which are just an object, but the culture in the US - these guys were PLAYING with the fucking gun like is a toy - coming back to the old example, you won't EVER see nothing like that in Switzerland. But, first step to change the culture, is to stop glorifying lethal weapons which only use is to kill a person. They might be a necessary evil, but everybody would be better if they wouldn't exist at all. Acknowledging that would be a good step towards a better world/society. What I see in a lot of NRA folks and so on, is a true LOVE for guns - and that is sick, extremely sick.

EDIT: how retarded has someone to be to proudly upload pics of his firearms to Facebook, or to upload a video like this to the net? https://vine.co/v/b2b20xgBQMe

This is one of the guys that killed the jogging man. That a 15 years old kid easily accesses a firearm and plasy with it like that, uploading videos and pictures on internet of it, is just a synonym of a rotten society. Like Somalia, Zimbabwe, the USA and so on.

[PrintMule]

You've made a great point there.  Firearms *exist* because of their range and accuracy against common targets for lethal weapons.  Otherwise, we'd still be using bows and arrows, spears, and so forth.

And in turn because of that known and recognized capability, someone who sees a gun pointed at him is very likely to change his behavior in the direction required to keep the gun from being fired.

In turn this implies something of the sort ....

Effective violent deadly tool -----> less violence .....

It seems everyone but the cowards among us can see this: you don't rob a person who is, more likely than not, carrying.  Even if the person isn't visibly carrying a gun, if most people in any given area are armed, it's far too risky for any criminal to even attempt a crime, for there's no telling if the person, or anyone around them, has a concealed handgun.  You do, however, rob someone who is defenseless.  I've never committed a violent crime in my life, but I don't think it takes a lot of thought to come to the conclusion that stealing from unarmed people is a lot easier than stealing from armed people.  Even if we make the assumption that the police are always on their game and respond as fast as possible to crimes, you can never have a cop following you around everywhere you go.  Police do not prevent crimes.  They only help after a crime has taken place.  To stop crime before it happens, you must know how to defend yourself.

I'm going to go out on a limb (slightly off topic as well) and say this: if guns were allowed on the planes which crashed into the twin towers, there would have been no 9/11.  Even if every hijacker was packing, they would've been completely outnumbered by the passengers who were.  In the very least, the job would've been considerably harder, and those who died would not have died in vain.

Sometimes even cops on duty get robbed, BECAUSE they carry a gun, which is a desired tool for a criminal who cannot acquire said gun in a easier way. You will devise another way of robbing, maybe sneaking with a blunt object from behind. If i were a cowardly criminal, I would never go face to face, gun or not. You must disable person in question first. Be it a blow to the head, tazer or whatever.

About 9/11 those terrorists were outnumbered and could be neutralized by passengers themselves, guns or no guns. If you expect them to blow you up, you would do it. If you expect a hostage situation, you would probably sit quiet. Your attempt could cost somebody his life. Also would you shoot a guy in a c4 vest?

EDIT:

Again, the obvious problem is not "the guns", which are just an object, but the culture in the US - these guys were PLAYING with the fucking gun like is a toy - coming back to the old example, you won't EVER see nothing like that in Switzerland. But, first step to change the culture, is to stop glorifying lethal weapons which only use is to kill a person. They might be a necessary evil, but everybody would be better if they wouldn't exist at all. Acknowledging that would be a good step towards a better world/society. What I see in a lot of NRA folks and so on, is a true LOVE for guns - and that is sick, extremely sick.

EDIT: how retarded has someone to be to proudly upload pics of his firearms to Facebook, or to upload a video like this to the net? https://vine.co/v/b2b20xgBQMe

This is one of the guys that killed the jogging man. That a 15 years old kid easily accesses a firearm and plasy with it like that, uploading videos and pictures on internet of it, is just a synonym of a rotten society. Like Somalia, Zimbabwe, the USA and so on.

That's what I'm thinking about. Those who own guns, own a huge pride baggage that comes with it. Yoi just cannot let it sit quietly in your locker/holster. You will need to take it out for  occasion, to show it to your friends, or clean it a bit too often, just to look at it, or to feel it. And in some countries it is completely ok.

[RodeoX]

... Those who own guns, own a huge pride baggage that comes with it. Yoi just cannot let it sit quietly in your locker/holster. You will need to take it out for  occasion, to show it to your friends, or clean it a bit too often, just to look at it, or to feel it. And in some countries it is completely ok.

I have never removed my gun from my holster outside of my home/range. Where I live it is illegal to un-holster in public. I have shown it to a few friends in private. But most people who know me have no idea at all that I carry. You seem to be describing what YOU would do if you had a gun. People who know guns do not do theses things in my experience.

[J603]

... Those who own guns, own a huge pride baggage that comes with it. Yoi just cannot let it sit quietly in your locker/holster. You will need to take it out for  occasion, to show it to your friends, or clean it a bit too often, just to look at it, or to feel it. And in some countries it is completely ok.

I have never removed my gun from my holster outside of my home/range. Where I live it is illegal to un-holster in public. I have shown it to a few friends in private. But most people who know me have no idea at all that I carry. You seem to be describing what YOU would do if you had a gun. People who know guns do not do theses things in my experience.

I think it can go either way. I have friends who certainly tote their weapons. However, I also live in NH where open carry is allowed.

[RodeoX]

... Those who own guns, own a huge pride baggage that comes with it. Yoi just cannot let it sit quietly in your locker/holster. You will need to take it out for  occasion, to show it to your friends, or clean it a bit too often, just to look at it, or to feel it. And in some countries it is completely ok.

I have never removed my gun from my holster outside of my home/range. Where I live it is illegal to un-holster in public. I have shown it to a few friends in private. But most people who know me have no idea at all that I carry. You seem to be describing what YOU would do if you had a gun. People who know guns do not do theses things in my experience.

I think it can go either way. I have friends who certainly tote their weapons. However, I also live in NH where open carry is allowed.

Good point. And I can't speak for everyone, undoubtedly some fool out there can't keep it in his pants. That is very bad form IMO.
I think of it like rock climbing. I only climb with seriously safe climbers, and most climbers do take it seriously. But when I meet someone who is "self taught" or otherwise learned to climb outside of climbing culture they may do lots of stupid things. It is like that in gun culture also. You can tell if someone is trained in firearms from the moment they handle a gun.

[Rassah]

There is an undeniable hard cold fact, which is that in countries with more guns per inhabitant, there are more violent death per inhabitant.

This may be one of those Correlation <> Causation things. More guns could just be a symptom of more violence. I mean, look at wars. In war areas, the number of guns per inhabitant is highest, and the amount of violent deaths is highest. Does that mean that guns cause wars?

[J603]

There is an undeniable hard cold fact, which is that in countries with more guns per inhabitant, there are more violent death per inhabitant.

Cite your source?

Because the facts say otherwise..

Top 5 guns per capita countries and violent deaths per inhabitant:

1. US: 94.3 guns per 100, 4.8 violent deaths per 100,000
2. Serbia: 58.2 guns per 100, 1.2 violent deaths per 100,000 (although keep in mind that they just murdered 100,000+ people in the 90s)
3. Yemen: 54.8 guns per 100, 4.2 violent deaths per 100,000
4. Switzerland: 45.7 guns per 100, .7 violent deaths per 100,000
5. Finland: 45.3 guns per 100, 2.2 violent deaths per 100,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#United_States

[Spendulus]

......
That's what I'm thinking about. Those who own guns, own a huge pride baggage that comes with it. Yoi just cannot let it sit quietly in your locker/holster. You will need to take it out for  occasion, to show it to your friends, or clean it a bit too often, just to look at it, or to feel it. And in some countries it is completely ok.

I think that might be true at times.  On the internet it's called (slang) "gun porn".  Kind of like, here, I'll post pictures of mine and you post pictures of yours.  And some people do have some pretty amazing collections.  Those are no different than collectors of stamps, antiques, old cars.  They are proud of their "stuff".

Mine, I have almost zero of the characteristics you describe with a couple of exceptions.  The fully functioning replica of the Texas Ranger 1848 six shooter, I certainly will pull it out of the closet, show it to people and talk about it.  I also have an exact replica (weight, function, size, operation) of Glock 23 that shoots airsoft 6mm pellets, and that is something I will pull out and show people stuff with, let them handle it or shoot it in the backyard.

But normally, with the typical firearm and the typical owner, there is no "huge pride baggage" as you describe.