Guns in the USA, Take a Stand

[Aaron]

I have a question.

Would a shooting rampage with an automatic weapon be more or less dangerous than if said rampage occurred with semi auto weapons? It seems like they would be firing more bullets at one person, so maybe the shooter would run out of ammo quicker?

Accuracy goes way down if your firing full-auto. We use it in the military (on service rifles) only for suppressing fire, trench clearing and FIBUA, really. Chances are that the bog standard criminal is just going to hit some bystander and blow through his ammo.

And if he's using anything heavier then 5.56 (or that Russian round whose calibre I forget) then he's just going to hit sky. SMG's are a little different, some of them are like firing a water pistol but he'll still blow through his ammo quickly.

[MKSheppard]

Even Nukey Nukey Shep himself has advocated restrictions on fully automatic weapons. He believes the current system should be loosened somewhat, but he still agrees that restrictions are necessary

Actually, I advocate removing all restrictions on Class IIIs to bring them in line with other weapons, e.g. handguns, rifles, shotguns; on the basis of the wording of the second amendment including 'a well armed milita'; and that means a milita equipped with the same weaponry as the standing army (absent WMDs of course).

But we're not going to get that unless I'm made supreme Dicktator by Q - so i'll settle for the compromise of keeping the status quo of Class III, but making new weapons purchaseable by the General public.

[Simon_Jester]

I disagree with Serafina about gun gifting and transfers- if we require a license to purchase we should require a license to own.

But I think I agree with Serafina on the automatic weapon issue: the existing permit system in the US works, empirically speaking, in that we don't have criminals running around and causing harm with legal automatic weapons. Illegal automatic weapons are another matter in some cases, but even if we outright ban all automatic weapons, it will be practically impossible to stop criminals from getting them on the black market and hiding them. If we can't control cocaine, I doubt we'll be able to control guns much more effectively.

Therefore, I think that no further controls on automatic weapons in the US are needed, even assuming there is no right to own an automatic weapon and if the government would be fully within its rights to ban them entirely. It might be a good idea to increase the penalties for owning illegal automatic weapons, but this would not affect the licensed owners.

If I'm wrong about this second part, it's probably because I am underestimating the effect of banning a type of weapon on the illegal ownership rate. I would expect the effect to be low, because if it's already illegal to own without a license, refusing to issue licenses doesn't actually make it more illegal, or much harder to conceal from law enforcement.

Accuracy goes way down if your firing full-auto. We use it in the military (on service rifles) only for suppressing fire, trench clearing and FIBUA, really. Chances are that the bog standard criminal is just going to hit some bystander and blow through his ammo.

FIBUA = "Fighting In Built Up Areas," yes?

[Aaron]

FIBUA = "Fighting In Built Up Areas," yes?

Yep. They call it something different now but I can't recall what.

[Alyeska]

That you believe an automatic rifle ban would be some kind of punishment is amusing, to say the least.

You are taking away the rights of people whom have committed no crimes. That is not amusing.

The problem is the weapon. Nobody needs a fucking automatic rifle, or even a semi-automatic rifle. No, bolt-actions are quite sufficient for your hunting 'needs', and a pump 18" shotgun loaded with rock salt or one of those safety slugs is more than sufficient for whatever imaginary home defense needs you may have.

Who the fuck hunts with a fully automatic weapon? People who own those weapons collect them and shoot them on the firing range, then lock them up under multiple locks and keys. Nobody needs a great deal of things. Do you need a book? Do you need a baseball bat? Do you need a bicycle. There are a lot of things people don't need but they want. So long as the system is setup to mitigate possible dangers, there is no problem. The current system has so few crimes committed with the weapons that it is statistically insignificant.

Your problem is that you are assuming that owning an automatic or semi-automatic weapon is some kind of right or necessity

OK fuck face. Quote me exactly where I said that automatic weapons are a right or necessity. I fucking dare you.

and not being allowed to own it is some kind of punishment, when in reality the power to kill with the pull of a trigger is just something that shouldn't be distributed unless its absolutely necessary for some bizarre reason.

And your the fucking retard who can't even comprehend the actual fucking issue. You are a fucking idiot who is so scared of guns you want them banned because they might be used in a crime. Your fucking idiotic reasoning could be used to take away guns from all police and to disarm the fucking military. And you think that taking away guns from law abiding citizens ISN'T punishment. Its the very definition of punishment dumbass.

Like in a warzone, which those sorts of things were invented for, by the way, as pure weapons with little other concievable use.

Half a million legally owned fully automatic weapons. Less then 10 crimes in the last 30 years. Oh yes, its a fucking warzone out there, Hoo-Rah.

[Bakustra]

That you believe an automatic rifle ban would be some kind of punishment is amusing, to say the least.

You are taking away the rights of people whom have committed no crimes. That is not amusing.

Your problem is that you are assuming that owning an automatic or semi-automatic weapon is some kind of right or necessity

OK fuck face. Quote me exactly where I said that automatic weapons are a right or necessity. I fucking dare you.

Not to defend Ryan, but you did right at the top of your post. Or am I misreading you?

[Alyeska]

Not to defend Ryan, but you did right at the top of your post. Or am I misreading you?

Punishment =! right or necessity

I am pointing out that taking away a right when there is no actual problem is punishment. I am not saying people have an inherent right, nor have I ever said they are entitled. Examine the Context of what is being said.

[Bakustra]

Not to defend Ryan, but you did right at the top of your post. Or am I misreading you?

Punishment =! right or necessity

I am pointing out that taking away a right when there is no actual problem is punishment. I am not saying people have an inherent right, nor have I ever said they are entitled. Examine the Context of what is being said.

Okay. I think I get what you mean. You're saying that being able to have automatic weapons is a right, but not an essential one. That makes a lot more sense.

[Alyeska]

Not to defend Ryan, but you did right at the top of your post. Or am I misreading you?

Punishment =! right or necessity

I am pointing out that taking away a right when there is no actual problem is punishment. I am not saying people have an inherent right, nor have I ever said they are entitled. Examine the Context of what is being said.

Okay. I think I get what you mean. You're saying that being able to have automatic weapons is a right, but not an essential one. That makes a lot more sense.

I am using it in a general sense of the word. Right now its a right, a privilege, whatever. Taking it away becomes punishment.

[Tellos]

Ok very well I stand corrected and am glad I was wrong there thank you for the correction. I did not say gun control is useless but I did say bans do not eliminate a problem. I pointed to the fatc that the war on drugs my country loves touting has been a epic waste of money and despite year over year increased funding we are no closer to solving it than we were in the 70s when it was started. The source countries keep making and smugglers keep bringing it and people keep buying it. Keep in mind the gun trade is the second largest black market trade just below drugs and just above stolen artifacts. No government can stop them entirely and banning them is like pretending if you say you cannot own a weapon that nobody will. Far as your statistics could I please see where you got them so I know where to look for such next time? Overall I am fine with gun control I beleive safety and basic knowledge classes should be required I know they are in my state if you wish to carry a concealed weapon. I am fine with blackgroudn checks and equaly fine with registration of each weapon. What I am against is deciding that any "type" of gun is more harmful than any other in the long run dead is dead if you die from 20 bullets or from 1 bullet the ressault is the same.


I am fine with strict automatic weapons restrictions and i am fine with tough handgun laws, but every year another law is proposed and they say it'll cure the problem but it never does. lets look at the "assault" weapons ban this defined an assault weapon as looking like a military weapon even if it wasint, so we started defining bans based on how scary they looked even if that 12 guage shotgun was more deadly it didint look as scary so it wasint the supposed problem.

[loomer]

I do hope Ryan, with his 'power to kill with the pull of as trigger' bit, is also advocating the removal of ALL firearms from civilian hands - even the lowliest .22 snub gun can kill a man if it hits right and they don't get prompt attention, afterall. Otherwise, he needs to reexamine that aspect of his argument.

[Teebs]

Ok very well I stand corrected and am glad I was wrong there thank you for the correction. I did not say gun control is useless but I did say bans do not eliminate a problem. I pointed to the fatc that the war on drugs my country loves touting has been a epic waste of money and despite year over year increased funding we are no closer to solving it than we were in the 70s when it was started. The source countries keep making and smugglers keep bringing it and people keep buying it. Keep in mind the gun trade is the second largest black market trade just below drugs and just above stolen artifacts. No government can stop them entirely and banning them is like pretending if you say you cannot own a weapon that nobody will.

Apart from as I demonstrated with the statistics that I posted, gun crime is virtually non-existent in the UK compared to the USA. I don't know how much money is spent on gun control here, but you are failing to demonstrate that is a waste of money. The war on drugs is a poor analogy because despite large amounts of money spent on it drug use remains high, unlike gun crime in the UK. You very much are saying that we shouldn't have gun bans because they're not perfect, just look at your last sentence in the passage quoted above.

Far as your statistics could I please see where you got them so I know where to look for such next time? Overall I am fine with gun control I beleive safety and basic knowledge classes should be required I know they are in my state if you wish to carry a concealed weapon. I am fine with blackgroudn checks and equaly fine with registration of each weapon. What I am against is deciding that any "type" of gun is more harmful than any other in the long run dead is dead if you die from 20 bullets or from 1 bullet the ressault is the same.

Numbers of gun-related deaths in the UK in 2008: Independent The Independent is a respectable national paper.

Numbers of serious/fatal injuries caused by guns in the UK: Home Office Government department.

Numbers of homicides from guns in the USA: DOJ US Department of Justice

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The UK isn't a good example because the US has extremely long borders which make gun smuggling easy (and if we banned guns, the narco rings would just add them to their product list, so to speak) whereas the UK is a tightly controlled island. I believe Russia has fairly stringent gun control laws at least nominally, and so a comparison of Russian and US statistics as always makes much more sense than comparing the US to any western European country.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I do hope Ryan, with his 'power to kill with the pull of as trigger' bit, is also advocating the removal of ALL firearms from civilian hands - even the lowliest .22 snub gun can kill a man if it hits right and they don't get prompt attention, afterall. Otherwise, he needs to reexamine that aspect of his argument.

Hey a BB gun in the eye can kill as well. Let's not forget someone could get a NERF dart lodged in their throat during a NERF gunfight. You could have your TV up too loud during a Modern Warfare 2 game and it could startle you into dropping your controller on your foot in such a way as to break it.

[Coyote]

If we wanted to start banning things because of what might happen if they are misused, we are going to have a very, very empty, dull and sterile world. Last I heard, heart disease, cancer, and accidents in the home are still the leading causes of death in the USA, so we really need to start with banning hamburgers, tanning booths, and showers.

[Coyote]

Tell me, why should citizens be allowed to own weapons of war for ANY reason?
"It's fun to use them" or "i want my shiny collectibles to be functional" are IMO not good reasons.

And i am not using a no-limits fallacy - rather, i am arguing that there should be a lower limit for weapons than there is right now - instead of employing the limit at tanks, they should be employed at automatic firearms.

But as statistically insignificant as legally-owned full-auto firearms have been in crime, the statistics on legal, privately-owned tanks used in crime actually is nonexistent. I cannot recall any time an armored vehicle owned by a collector was used in a crime at all. So your "cut-off" is very arbitrary and obviously done out of sheer choler. That is a very poor basis for which to make laws.

[Coyote]

The UK isn't a good example because the US has extremely long borders which make gun smuggling easy (and if we banned guns, the narco rings would just add them to their product list, so to speak) whereas the UK is a tightly controlled island.

The cultures, how we express our violent tendencies in both the US and UK, are also quite different. For example, post-game football violence is rare in the US, but in the UK (at least for awhile) it was a serious problem and British fans were monitored closely by police during World Cup plays, IIRC. If the conversation were about sports hooliganism, for example, the US would come off looking rather well in comparison, so cross-culture comparisons can be flawed.

[Serafine666]

"Weapon of War" is a defined legal term in Germany, i was referring to that.
Those include:
-NBC-weapons
-military vehicles
-missile and rocket weaponery
-automatic weapons
-flamers
-grenade launchers
-artillery and mines
-grenades
-and ammunition for the above weapons

Well, fair enough. I wouldn't have known that you were using a precise legal term, however, since "weapon of war" can be correctly used in a much more ambiguous way to include any weapon that is explicitly designed for use in war. Well, clearly the looser American treatment of automatic weapons would be inappropriate for Germany if automatic weapons are legally grouped with explosives, WMD, and war vehicles.

[Serafine666]

Neither of us is advocating making it illegal to give a gun as a gift. What we are advocating is making it illegal to transfer ownership of a weapon without performing satisfactory background/registration/licensing checks.

If the person who receives the gun then registers the gun in their name at the local "gun registration place" and has all the appropriate background checks done, then I have no problem with it, and I doubt Mike would either. However, Alyeska's example where people just bought the gun for someone else and the gun's ownership changed hands without any background checks on the receiver could quite easily result in someone who could not buy a gun legitimately themselves obtaining a gun, and is thus something that should be a crime - with the crime being "transferral of ownership of a weapon without performing satisfactory background checks".

And keep in mind, under a system where gun ownership has to be registered through an appropriate authority, the person who initially bought the gun would be legally the owner of the gun until it was registered in the other person's name.

So essentially, what you and others are talking about is no different than requiring that every owner of the gun be properly and legally registered. And here I was thinking you were talking about levying severe penalties on someone for the act of giving a gun as a gift, thus my impression that it could be taken to absurd extremes. Evidently, I was mistaken.

[Serafine666]

I disagree with Serafina about gun gifting and transfers- if we require a license to purchase we should require a license to own.

But I think I agree with Serafina on the automatic weapon issue: the existing permit system in the US works, empirically speaking, in that we don't have criminals running around and causing harm with legal automatic weapons. Illegal automatic weapons are another matter in some cases, but even if we outright ban all automatic weapons, it will be practically impossible to stop criminals from getting them on the black market and hiding them. If we can't control cocaine, I doubt we'll be able to control guns much more effectively.

I think by "Serafina" you must mean "Serafine666" since as of yet, I've not seen Serafina address gun gifting and transfers and she appears to be strongly oppose allowing someone to purchase an automatic weapon (where you seem to feel that they should be legal with the restrictions that are already in place). If I'm mistaken, feel free to correct me.

[Serafine666]

But as statistically insignificant as legally-owned full-auto firearms have been in crime, the statistics on legal, privately-owned tanks used in crime actually is nonexistent. I cannot recall any time an armored vehicle owned by a collector was used in a crime at all. So your "cut-off" is very arbitrary and obviously done out of sheer choler. That is a very poor basis for which to make laws.

In defense of Serafina, Coyote, it seems as if her cutoff isn't itself arbitrary. It seems that she is advocating a cutoff of ownership of all "weapons of war" where the term "weapon of war" is a legal term in Germany that encompasses tanks, automatic weapons, and other things. Germany's legal definition may be somewhat arbitrary but banning civilian ownership of "weapons of war" is, on the face of it, perfectly reasonable.

[Ryan Thunder]

That you believe an automatic rifle ban would be some kind of punishment is amusing, to say the least.

You are taking away the rights of people whom have committed no crimes. That is not amusing.

Let's remember this line.

The problem is the weapon. Nobody needs a fucking automatic rifle, or even a semi-automatic rifle. No, bolt-actions are quite sufficient for your hunting 'needs', and a pump 18" shotgun loaded with rock salt or one of those safety slugs is more than sufficient for whatever imaginary home defense needs you may have.

Who the fuck hunts with a fully automatic weapon?

Why the fuck would you hunt with a semi-automatic rifle, for that matter? You want to guarantee that kill--oh, wait...

People who own those weapons collect them and shoot them on the firing range, then lock them up under multiple locks and keys. Nobody needs a great deal of things. Do you need a book? Do you need a baseball bat? Do you need a bicycle. There are a lot of things people don't need but they want.

None of which are expressly designed for destructive purposes. But hey, don't let something like a fundamental difference stop you from making absurd comparisons.

Your problem is that you are assuming that owning an automatic or semi-automatic weapon is some kind of right or necessity

OK fuck face. Quote me exactly where I said that automatic weapons are a right or necessity. I fucking dare you.

About that line up at the top that I said we should remember...

and not being allowed to own it is some kind of punishment, when in reality the power to kill with the pull of a trigger is just something that shouldn't be distributed unless its absolutely necessary for some bizarre reason.

And your the fucking retard who can't even comprehend the actual fucking issue. You are a fucking idiot who is so scared of guns you want them banned because they might be used in a crime.

You're totally comfortable trusting people like, say, that idiot who cut you off on the highway the other day, or that moronic little shit who tailgated you all the way down a two lane road flashing his highbeams and generally hyperventilating because you didn't go 40 km/h over the limit, owning a purpose-built weapon that can blast fist-sized chunks of flesh out of you from half a block away, eh?

It's not like they have a legitimate use for it anyway.

Your fucking idiotic reasoning could be used to take away guns from all police and to disarm the fucking military. And you think that taking away guns from law abiding citizens ISN'T punishment. Its the very definition of punishment dumbass.

Err, no, it can't, and it isn't. Police and military are quite necessary. Civilian firearms are not.

It's no more of a punishment than taking a chainsaw away from a child would be.

Like in a warzone, which those sorts of things were invented for, by the way, as pure weapons with little other concievable use.

Half a million legally owned fully automatic weapons. Less then 10 crimes in the last 30 years. Oh yes, its a fucking warzone out there, Hoo-Rah.

Five hundred thousand? That's just beyond absurd. An Army Group composed entirely of fucking Infantry Brigades wouldn't have that many firearms, much less that many automatic rifles!

[Ryan Thunder]

Like in a warzone, which those sorts of things were invented for, by the way, as pure weapons with little other concievable use.

Alyska already provided the statistical evidence that your assertions of danger are bullshit, and this is the best you can do? Intended use =! actual use, moron. That's your whole problem right there. If you want to ban something show us its actually dangerous!

No, not dangerous at all.

So, anyway, something that is built from the ground up to give a man the power to blast fist-sized holes in you doesn't qualify as "dangerous"?

I see...

[Alyeska]

Let's remember this line.

Fine.

Why the fuck would you hunt with a semi-automatic rifle, for that matter? You want to guarantee that kill--oh, wait...

Red Herring statement. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. People do more then just hunt when using firearms.

None of which are expressly designed for destructive purposes. But hey, don't let something like a fundamental difference stop you from making absurd comparisons.

Fundamental difference? More people are killed by baseball bats in a year than fully automatic weapons in the United States. Thats a pretty big fucking distinction.

And on the issue of designed for the sole purpose of death and destruction. ALL guns are designed as such. Why the fuck aren't you advocating the banning of ALL guns? Swords are designed to kill. We should ban ALL swords. Collectors can get DULL swords. We can DAMAGE historical weapons to make them SAFE because they are WEAPONS and can clearly kill. They MIGHT kill something, so we should ban the fuck out of it.

About that line up at the top that I said we should remember...

Nice fucking job ignoring context you dishonest piece of shit. I am not advocating a blanket unrestricted right. I used the word in a very generic context while you have used it expressly in a strict context.

You're totally comfortable trusting people like, say, that idiot who cut you off on the highway the other day, or that moronic little shit who tailgated you all the way down a two lane road flashing his highbeams and generally hyperventilating because you didn't go 40 km/h over the limit, owning a purpose-built weapon that can blast fist-sized chunks of flesh out of you from half a block away, eh?

It's not like they have a legitimate use for it anyway.

Strawman argument.

Err, no, it can't, and it isn't. Police and military are quite necessary. Civilian firearms are not.

Prove it.

It's no more of a punishment than taking a chainsaw away from a child would be.

Seriously, thats the best example you can come up with? Adults with guns are best compared to children?

Five hundred thousand? That's just beyond absurd. An Army Group composed entirely of fucking Infantry Brigades wouldn't have that many firearms, much less that many automatic rifles!

Give me a fucking break. An Army Group is going to be around 30,000 men tops. We are talking about 500,000 weapons IN THE ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY. That is on average 1 gun for every 6 people.

[Alyeska]

No, not dangerous at all.

So, anyway, something that is built from the ground up to give a man the power to blast fist-sized holes in you doesn't qualify as "dangerous"?

I see...

Appeal to emotion. You have not made an argument against fully automatic weapons. You have made an argument against ALL weapons. You still ignore the fucking statistics you dishonest piece of shit.