Fully auto is illegal for the average individual. How is that relevant to your stance (or mine) on gun control? I would be very skeptical of him legally owning a fully auto rifle (but I concede that it is possible).
As far as 5 footnotes, we may be out of sync here. Guns in the hands of someone with a license or a permit have saved many lives. I personally do not know, nor have I read of anyone who uses a concealed fully automatic AR 15 for self defense. For home defense, most folks I know, or reading I have done, shotgun or pistol are better suited. AR 15 (semi auto) is better suited for varmint hunting than home or personal defense in your average neighborhood.
Why are cars in this conversation? Why are we comparing Japanese to Americans?
Full auto can be owned by civilians if the firearm was manufactured before 1986 and said civilian has about $15-20k + a $200 stamp from the ATF. Other NFA items like SBRs and suppressors(aka silencers) can be had by civilians provided they form a trust or have a senior LEO sign off on it and also buy a $200 stamp.
I'm a gun advocate and I am a gun control advocate. We need more of it. It's when the word "ban" starts getting thrown around is when I start having a problem. There are people in this country right now that shouldn't own firearms that do, they are called idiots. But how to separate the idiots, (or the psychopathic murderers for that matter) from the rest who should have the right to own firearms?
Japan? Really? You chose a country with vending machines that sell girls' used panties to compare us to?
This will lose me a lot of TG e-peen but I'm gonna say it;
Why do we take the stance of;
"Gun Control!?!?!?! WHAT?! They can take my guns after I'm done unloading my clip."
Why is the right to shoot toilets or soda cans in ones back yard with a 100 round AR-15 more important than the security of our society?
Well, since you don't know what you're talking about, I will humor you here.
NRA Life Member.
Originally Posted by Ytman
Cite five footnotes please it'll be great to hear some good brought by a fully automatic assault weapon in the civilian sector. Don't count off duty police officers though.
Uh, you mean semi-automatic? You can own fully automatic weapons, but an automatic refers to the action/ejection, not the rate of fire. Maybe if you knew what the FOPA Hughes Amendment was you may have a leg to stand on, but since you seem to believe anyone can own a machine gun, you're off target severely. Very few Americans may purchase a Fully Automatic weapon, let alone own one. Sure, many may modify their weapons to fire fully-automatic, but what a law abiding person does with their legally purchased weapon is honestly not very much of my business.
Despite the allusion to anecdotal evidence Self-Defense is not my question and I'm not even saying you shouldn't be able to defend yourself.
So the entire 1 page section of American Riflemen about people defending themselves with firearms is just coincidence, right?
One interesting thing is that in Japan, where fire arm possession is illegal, how many of these terrible psychopaths resort to illegally obtained assault weapons as a weapon of choice?
Cool story. I don't care about Japan's internal policies, since I live in America and am protected by the Bill of Rights.
I digress, the OP says; when does control become a synonymy for ban?
Gun control is often misconstrued as bans. Many operate under the illusion that "anyone" can get a gun - that's simply not true. And that's the way it should be.
Why are cars more controlled than guns? Cars provide a function daily for all of societies inhabitants and guns provide a means to an end.
Cars are used by many, many more people. Statistically, you're more likely to die due to vehicular mishap than a firearm.
Many people still use firearms on a daily basis as part of their daily life. I know, you probably live in the suburbs, but they're very important tools for many in America.
If I'm making assumptions it's only because you feel the need to do so yourself.
Glad you guys like your bicycles so much in Holland, I think they should ban all the cars so you'd all be much safer. Point is, people have been killing each other since people existed. Madmen will find a way, firearms or no.
You keep thinking "I", and I'll keep thinking "shall not be infringed" doesn't have an asterisk at the end of it.
Ill bite, the man walked into a crowded theater and gunned down 50+ people, how many laws did he violate. The explosives in his apartment, how many more LAWS violated. Even if the AR15 he owned was banned can you say with any sort of authority that he wouldn't have violated that law and gotten one anyway.
Nice to see Northern Ireland buck the trend there. I would argue though that there are more guns here than that graph would seem to show, just maybe not held legally......
I live in the UK and am VERY lucky to still have gun permits. We have no NRA or equivilant here, and all guns were more or less banned after the Dunblane school massacre. The government on an annual basis try to take my licenses but I annual tell them to bugger off. Luckily I get special dispensation to own what I own, and again that phrase "My cold dead hand" does come into my mind. But I think that phrase only makes sense to those of us who has ever had to fire a gun in anger and in self defence of myself and my family. Ask me this question before that incident and I may well have answered differently. Either way it makes no matter, Northern Ireland being the way it is there are numerious "unofficial" old British Army caches hidden away in places you only hear about in certain parties, but then there are terrorist ones too. That is what happens when no one trusts each other, both sides realise if it breaks down it will go back worse than ever.
Anyway, I think having guns made it safer. If you ever need to have it and don't you are in trouble, as you are trusting your life to an external, unpredictable person, motives unknown. I will finish with this phrase.
It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Well duh. Same as every other person in the world and you know what? The vast majority of the world prohibit gun sales and you very seldomnly see shootings of this magnitude.
I live in Holland and dont own a firearm, but I am safer because not every maniac on the street can go purchase a weapon to do a mass murder.
I'm glad you're generally safe where you live, but you seem to have missed a key point about the 2nd Amendment here in America...
In your country, you may be slightly safer from a mass shooting - maybe. But you're probably not much safer from average street crimes like mugging or assault. But see, you've completely ignored one of the key reasons we have our 2nd Amendment rights in America: The Government. Our forefathers didn't just put the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights because of national defense or practicality - No, it's part of our checks and balances. We have the right to overthrow unjust government in this country. Can you say the same for yours? If things ever get bad enough, we have the firepower to topple a dictator. We have the firepower to stop the federal government from doing whatever it pleases. We have the firepower to repel invaders - as the Japanese knew in World War II.
I'm glad you trust your government to always be there for you, protect you, and stop bad people from doing bad things - but America is a very different country. You fail to grasp why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place - to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We don't have the 2nd Amendment to shoot up malls, or schools, or school board meetings. We have it to protect ourselves. Not only from eachother, but from our own government if the time ever came. Tyranny is not something you just see on the news in some 3rd world country. Tyranny can be in a suit, waving a countries flag. We've seen this time and time again throughout history. We have insurance. Do you?
I will continue to think about MY INDIVIDUAL God given rights, and not the collective "we the people." We are united, sure, but collectivism is a foolish stance when it comes to individual rights, the law, the constitution, or otherwise. Whether or not you choose to believe in God is not the discussion, it is however important that you realize that self defense, against any threat, is a right that no government should ever take away without just cause. And as the image has shown, what one country has called just cause in the past has been excuse for genocide, religious persecution, political execution, and government control of the individual.
Banning things does not stop those wishing to do evil from carrying out their plans. I'm pretty sure a lot of the things Mr. Holmes purchased to make bombs and boobytraps were not exactly legal either, but you seem to think all criminals are stupid and simply can't get their hands on what they need. Bad people do bad things. Bad people will almost always do whatever is necessary to do those bad things.
OP was about regulation not restriction. Why does the talk about regulation equate to violent remarks like, "I'll unload my gun before they do."
You have your infographs and your nice little 'Gun control is SATAN' mantras but when good people die because you need to have an assault rifle in the back yard to shoot toilets... well thanks. You can say this and that about third world despots but this is the first world and the status quo is not the same.
I wont own a gun and I'll live a perfectly nice life until a gun owner decides to end it for me.
Last edited by Ytman; 07-22-2012 at 05:05 PM.
What regulations do you think there should be on firearms (above and beyond the current gun laws in the USA)? What regulations would, supposedly, make us safer? How will regulating firearms, keep them from the hands of those that wish to do evil deeds?
And the important question, for me at least: If your perfect firearm regulation was imposed, what's to stop the slide down that slippery slope? What would be next to be regulated? Knives? Chainsaws? Glass bottles? Human hands? When would it stop?