Just to clarify since there is a common misconception about the definition of a semi-automatic weapon: This is different from an automatic weapon (i.e. machine gun) where you hold down the trigger...
Just to clarify since there is a common misconception about the definition of a semi-automatic weapon:
A semiautomatic weapon is any gun that fires one shot with a pull of the trigger and automatically reloads the gun's chamber with another round from a cartridge or magazine so that the gun can immediately be fired again.
This is different from an automatic weapon (i.e. machine gun) where you hold down the trigger and the gun continually fires. Your standard pistol would be semi-automatic. Fully automatic weapons are very heavily regulated (in the U.S. at least).
It's interesting that you're wording this like it's hypocricy, when in my experience anyone who opposes semi-automatic weapons very much opposes handguns and concealed carry, specifically because...
It's interesting that you're wording this like it's hypocricy, when in my experience anyone who opposes semi-automatic weapons very much opposes handguns and concealed carry, specifically because they are easy to hide on a person. A bolt-action rifle isn't.
The gun-sense people generally don't oppose semi-auto weapons, they oppose weapons that can be easily modified to become fully-automatic, be it with something like a bump stock or just a simple modification to the firing mechanism. They also tend to oppose deep magazines. Revolvers would be fine to them, as they're slow to reload and have very shallow capacities.
That's a bit presumptuous - especially considering you have no actual powers to enforce your wishes. No. There is no good reason for civilians to own semi-automatic guns. Guns are a tool to kill...
I'll act as an arbiter in this debate to keep things clean and on track.
That's a bit presumptuous - especially considering you have no actual powers to enforce your wishes.
Should people be allowed to own semi-automatic guns?
No. There is no good reason for civilians to own semi-automatic guns. Guns are a tool to kill people. Some guns are used to kill animals, but you don't need a semi-automatic weapon to do that. The only purpose for semi-automatic weapons is to kill a lot of people in a short period of time - and there's not really much call for that in civilian life.
I saw a quote the other day... "The guns we are allowed for purposes of putting down a corrupt and tyrannical government are largely in possession by the people supporting a corrupt and tyrannical...
I saw a quote the other day...
"The guns we are allowed for purposes of putting down a corrupt and tyrannical government are largely in possession by the people supporting a corrupt and tyrannical government."
Sensationalism aside this IS an interesting statement.
Interesting maybe, if not entirely factual, but we shouldn't really make decisions on what rights all Americans do or do not have based on the current political climate.
Interesting maybe, if not entirely factual, but we shouldn't really make decisions on what rights all Americans do or do not have based on the current political climate.
But what I've always wondered, let's say the US government goes full on fascist and tries going after its citizens. Do you think most people who own a gun or multiple are going to be able to use...
But what I've always wondered, let's say the US government goes full on fascist and tries going after its citizens. Do you think most people who own a gun or multiple are going to be able to use them (not just physically but morally) against that government and its forces? Or would that increase unnecessary bloodshed?
I mean, the US lost Vietnam to a bunch of rice farmers with AKs. It's not unprecedented. The US has big bombs and tanks, sure, but I doubt they'd be keen on using them against their own...
I mean, the US lost Vietnam to a bunch of rice farmers with AKs. It's not unprecedented. The US has big bombs and tanks, sure, but I doubt they'd be keen on using them against their own infrastructure. Plus, if there ever is a full-scale rebellion in the US, I'm sure at least some of the military would be on the side of the rebels.
Vietnam wasn't the US's back garden. And they ended up having to retreat due to mounting operational cost and the difficulties of justifying their intervention at the global stage. In a civil war...
Vietnam wasn't the US's back garden. And they ended up having to retreat due to mounting operational cost and the difficulties of justifying their intervention at the global stage. In a civil war scenario those parameters change completely, where would the US government retreat to if it were fighting it's own people?
And what outside influences would be involved in a US civil war. Many "interested parties" would be looking to influence the outcome, whether that be an end to the United States of America or...
And what outside influences would be involved in a US civil war. Many "interested parties" would be looking to influence the outcome, whether that be an end to the United States of America or whatever result was in their interests. No one would stand by and forego the opportunity to meddle. A split resulting in, say, the eastern seaboard under Russian influence and the western coast under Chinese influence wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility.
Well, if the time ever did come that US citizens decided to fight the government you'd be looking at civil war. Infrastructure concerns would go out the window if the situation wasn't resolved...
Well, if the time ever did come that US citizens decided to fight the government you'd be looking at civil war.
Infrastructure concerns would go out the window if the situation wasn't resolved very very quickly. Just look at present day images of Damascus versus images from 2010 to see how willingly infrastructure was destroyed. Or the havoc wrought in Yemeni cities. Or the devestation that occured in Angola or Moçambique during their decades of civil war.
I have a hard time with this argument as I can't really imagine a scenario where guns end up saving the day or really doing anything but being a minor annoyance. I've also argued before that the...
I have a hard time with this argument as I can't really imagine a scenario where guns end up saving the day or really doing anything but being a minor annoyance. I've also argued before that the second amendment actually leaves america much more vulnerable to being taken over by an oppressive government. People end up having a false sense of security because they have guns and don't take the government as seriously as they should.
I've struggled with this too. But no one thought farmers with muskets could repel the Red Coats. A more modern example is the inability of the modern US military to subdue the people of North...
I've struggled with this too. But no one thought farmers with muskets could repel the Red Coats. A more modern example is the inability of the modern US military to subdue the people of North Vietnam. Also, I'm not sure if lack of efficacy is valid enough reason to take away a major right of Americans. You could just as easily say that protests don't produce enough results in Washington, so why have that right anyways?
In both the revolutionary war and Vietnam, the aggressor was an ocean away and largely out of touch with the wishes of the population (the South Vietnamese government was extremely corrupt and...
In both the revolutionary war and Vietnam, the aggressor was an ocean away and largely out of touch with the wishes of the population (the South Vietnamese government was extremely corrupt and seen as subservient to the US government because they couldn't recruit anyone to fight for them and depended on the US).
I think that a civil war today would be very different because there are so many military bases here, and unlike the civil war, our military is well trained and equipped, far better than any militia groups you might find preparing for the apocalypse.
This belief reminds me of a great quote from Jim Jefferies: "See, the one thing that I do really agree with with the right to bear arms, I really agree with… That the real reason it was written...
This belief reminds me of a great quote from Jim Jefferies:
"See, the one thing that I do really agree with with the right to bear arms, I really agree with… That the real reason it was written was so that you could form a militia to fight against a tyrannical government. In case the government became a bunch of cunts, you could all get your guns and fight back, and that’s why it was written. – [Audience cheering] – Yeah! And that made a hell of a lot of sense when it was just muskets. But you do know the government has drones, right? You get that? You’re bringing guns to a drone fight! If we went back to muskets, I’m all for it! Keep the Second Amendment. If we all have muskets… Muskets are awesome! Every cunt should be carrying a musket with him at all times. You know what’s good about the musket? It gives you a lot of time to calm down. Someone calls your wife fat, and you’re like, “Fuck you, buddy! Ah, you’re not a bad guy. You’re all right.”
There isn't. I was going to say that our police in Australia don't own semi-automatic weapons, but I double-checked and it seems some police here do carry these weapons (it changed about a decade...
What good reason is there for the government to own them?
There isn't. I was going to say that our police in Australia don't own semi-automatic weapons, but I double-checked and it seems some police here do carry these weapons (it changed about a decade ago). I believe that is wrong as well.
You strike me as someone who would generally agree with the platitude that government is us, so why the distinction?
I'm not making any distinction. My rabid pacifism applies to everyone. Noone should need weapons at all.
Sadly, some people take it upon themselves to be violent and use weapons, so there is unfortunately a need for some representatives of us, the people, to have and use weapons on our behalf - but I strongly believe that should be very limited and definitely not widespread. Putting machine-guns in every home is not the way to reduce violence.
Good luck hog hunting:
Even if we were to extend the privilege of owning semi-automatic weapons to people who need to kill hogs... how many places are there where wild hogs roam? It's not like every suburban household needs to shoot the packs of wild hogs roaming the streets.
Counterpoint on there’s no good reason for citizens to own semi automatic guns: My dad used to own some land out in West Texas. There were wild hogs on it that would rip you to shreads. One bullet...
Counterpoint on there’s no good reason for citizens to own semi automatic guns:
My dad used to own some land out in West Texas. There were wild hogs on it that would rip you to shreads. One bullet wouldn’t stop them. Or two. If we did not have semi automatic handguns, you could die or be seriously injured if attacked.
This is not a good reason for citizens to own them, but rather, a very specific and strange set of people who live in a land inhabited by dangerous wild animals.
This is not a good reason for citizens to own them, but rather, a very specific and strange set of people who live in a land inhabited by dangerous wild animals.
Another Aussie here. Gun laws are a red herring that will completely prevent any real progress - they worked here because we don't have the same issues as you. Look at how we react to a slight...
Another Aussie here. Gun laws are a red herring that will completely prevent any real progress - they worked here because we don't have the same issues as you. Look at how we react to a slight surge of biker gang violence - the place goes nuts, we ANNIHILATE them with new laws and massive arrest sweeps, and they have such a small impact that whether they have guns or not is irrelevant.
The issues you are actually facing are gangs (and associated war on drugs), poor social nets, and mental health. Fix those three things, and you could put an assault rifle in the hands of every free person in the country and not see much uptick of violence at all.
Counterpoint: that video of the dancing FBI agent I simply do not trust your average american to treat a gun with the respect it should be treated, let alone another person's life.
Fix those three things, and you could put an assault rifle in the hands of every free person in the country and not see much uptick of violence at all.
Counterpoint: that video of the dancing FBI agent
I simply do not trust your average american to treat a gun with the respect it should be treated, let alone another person's life.
Any amount over zero is unacceptable, when you consider what the benefits of people having access to these weapons is - at the very least we can restrict down which weapons are necessary for...
Any amount over zero is unacceptable, when you consider what the benefits of people having access to these weapons is - at the very least we can restrict down which weapons are necessary for ranchers and the like.
I think that there are huge benefits to giving the people the necessary tools to resist an oppressive government. Yes, the US military is far more advanced, but one only has to look as far as the...
I think that there are huge benefits to giving the people the necessary tools to resist an oppressive government. Yes, the US military is far more advanced, but one only has to look as far as the US's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam to see how difficult it is to win a guerrilla war with a conventional military. The idea may seem incredible now that the US could transition to a dictatorship, but think about the next 100, or even 200 years. I'd rather the people have some way to resist tyranny than nothing at all.
The thing about a tyrannical government is that it would be fighting it's civilians on it's home turf. It has an entire military industrial complex set up here, it can roll tanks off the...
The thing about a tyrannical government is that it would be fighting it's civilians on it's home turf.
It has an entire military industrial complex set up here, it can roll tanks off the production line straight onto the battle field.
It doesn't have to set up quartering for soldiers in a foreign land, there's pre-existing quartering set up here.
It doesn't have to set up new supply chains for food and supplies, it can use pre-existing supply chains at the worst it has to re-purpose them.
Not only that but if it's fighting it's own people it doesn't have to worry about how much it's spending or on favorability ratings for the war, it's win or cease to exist.
Comparing a civil war to a relatively small invading force in a land across the ocean is disingenuous, they're really just not the same.
If the US Government tries to wage war against it's own people it doesn't matter if the people have AKs or baseball bats; what is going to decide the outcome is:
a. With whom does the military stand with, the government of the people
b. Do any of our international neighbors take sides/lend a hand and if they do, who do they help the government or the people.
Those two factors will be far far more influential than if civilians have guns.
But look at Afghanistan. The US military has been there for years. It has: Pre-existing quarters Pre-existing supply chains The strong support of the standing government And yet there are still...
But look at Afghanistan. The US military has been there for years. It has:
Pre-existing quarters
Pre-existing supply chains
The strong support of the standing government
And yet there are still wide swaths of the country the US can't touch. Also, your point here:
Not only that but if it's fighting it's own people it doesn't have to worry about how much it's spending or on favorability ratings for the war, it's win or cease to exist.
Misses one important consideration, the morale of the military. In the case of an unpopular government imposing itself on the people, the military only stands with that government if it thinks winning with the government is easier than standing against the government. Take the case of the 2nd French Empire.
Unpopular in Paris, Emperor Napoleon III left a large garrison there to keep order while he went off to fight the Franco-Prussian war. However, once he was captured, the people of Paris rose up and demanded a Republic be reinstated. The armed forces there relented, and Adolphe Tiers, a monarchist, was elected president of the new republic. Why did Tiers and the garrison relent to the people? After all, they had the weapons, money, and privilege, all of which they could lose as the government was reorganized. It was because they wanted to avoid a costly battle. Though they probably would have won, it would have meant bloody battles street by street, and an incredibly unpopular government.
That's the point of giving the people a means of defense. It's not to guarantee the ability to overthrow the government, it's to make the government think twice about exerting its control by force. As long as it's easier to work within the current democratic system than attempt a coup or conquest, then the democratic government will remain.
I bet you'd find it exceedingly difficult to find military personnel willing to shoot and kill it's own citizens in a civil war. In nearly every civil war in history you'll find that people in the...
I bet you'd find it exceedingly difficult to find military personnel willing to shoot and kill it's own citizens in a civil war.
In nearly every civil war in history you'll find that people in the military and in service are unwilling to shoot their own family and friends. Often times there's a military coup when things get out of hand.
Of course, this completely ignores the fact that even if you had robots in the military willing to do this, civilians would never win because we don't have access to missiles, tanks, flame throwers, chemical warfare, fighter jets, or any other number of banned weapons.
There are ROI in the military that stop them from a full-frontal takeover in other countries. If it ever came down to a modern civil war, military vs civilians, you think they would say "Don't...
There are ROI in the military that stop them from a full-frontal takeover in other countries. If it ever came down to a modern civil war, military vs civilians, you think they would say "Don't shoot until you've been shot at?" I think it's far more likely they would bomb the people into submission right away. If the government became corrupt enough that the people had to fight back with guns, you think this same corrupt government would refrain from using massive bombs and drone strikes? And what is the average citizen going to do with a semi automatic weapon? This isn't when America was first formed, people don't know their neighbors and where to meet and prepare in case they have to fight an army. It's just going to be single people holed up in their houses with a handgun looking out the window.
FBI agent had a lot more safety training than your average individual and still managed to be a dumbass. Training is not enough to stop stupidity. It will reduce it, sure, but it will not stop it.
FBI agent had a lot more safety training than your average individual and still managed to be a dumbass.
Training is not enough to stop stupidity. It will reduce it, sure, but it will not stop it.
Agreed, See Canada. We have a love of guns, not close to America but in the top 10 per capita, many of them are semi-auto. We don't have the scale of gun violence the US has, that's not to say...
Agreed, See Canada. We have a love of guns, not close to America but in the top 10 per capita, many of them are semi-auto. We don't have the scale of gun violence the US has, that's not to say none, but that vast majority of the gun violence that happens is gang related.
I'm a firm advocate of the american 2nd amendment. I have heard quite often from gun owners and advocates that you should not point a gun at anything you aren't prepared to kill. It is a solemn...
I'm a firm advocate of the american 2nd amendment. I have heard quite often from gun owners and advocates that you should not point a gun at anything you aren't prepared to kill. It is a solemn responsibility to own and carry a firearm.
I'm not exactly pro-gun either but you can't pretend like subduing is the only way when it comes to self defense. Especially because you probably don't really have the time to think about the...
I'm not exactly pro-gun either but you can't pretend like subduing is the only way when it comes to self defense. Especially because you probably don't really have the time to think about the moral implications of your actions when in a situation of self-defense.
With that being said I also think this is why people shouldn't own a gun, I don't trust people enough to stay calm in this kind of situation and worry they'll shoot the bad guy, miss and blast someone else through the wall of their house.
Of course not. There are lots of ways to prevent an attack on yourself: Run away Hide Put a barrier between you and the attacker Talk the attacker down (I've done this twice) Disarm the attacker...
you can't pretend like subduing is the only way when it comes to self defense.
Of course not. There are lots of ways to prevent an attack on yourself:
Run away
Hide
Put a barrier between you and the attacker
Talk the attacker down (I've done this twice)
Disarm the attacker
Hurting the attacker is only one way of preventing them from attacking you. I prefer to call this approach "counter-attack" rather than "self-defence" to highlight that attacking someone else is not the same as defending yourself.
Unless you've been trained to react to this sort of situation talking and disarming are almost entirely out of option. You can't expect normal people with no kind of training to start busting...
Unless you've been trained to react to this sort of situation talking and disarming are almost entirely out of option. You can't expect normal people with no kind of training to start busting karate moves to disarm an assailant. Most people will either panic or freeze and some will probably fight but even then we know that it doesn't always happen (a real problem for rape victims for example who blame themselves for freezing).
I am a normal person with no kind of training - and I talked my way out of one direct attack on me, as well as intervening in an attack by a group of teenagers on a security guard with nothing but...
I am a normal person with no kind of training - and I talked my way out of one direct attack on me, as well as intervening in an attack by a group of teenagers on a security guard with nothing but my words. I think we underestimate the power of confidence. I have seen the confusion on attackers' faces when you refuse to engage them by either running ("The chase is afoot!") or fighting back ("It's on, bro!"). Simply standing your ground with confidence, without running or fighting, confuses the fuck out of them.
As you say, most people panic or freeze or fight - all of which either allow the violence to continue, or escalate the violence directly.
I was merely trying to agree with you, and expand on your point that subduing someone is not the only way to defend yourself.
While a gun can be a tool to kill someone, it's also a very useful tool for people who are hunting, or for farmers who want to protect their animals. My dad has a rifle. When I was a kid, there...
While a gun can be a tool to kill someone, it's also a very useful tool for people who are hunting, or for farmers who want to protect their animals.
My dad has a rifle. When I was a kid, there was a bear reported around our area; my dad was ready for that bear if worse came to worst.
I would agree that handguns are tools that are entirely designed for killing people, and that there is no other reason to have one.
Counter point: The Social Contract necessitates compromising some freedoms to maximize others. I'm guessing you're okay with the government saying civilians can't own nukes, which sets the...
Counter point: The Social Contract necessitates compromising some freedoms to maximize others.
I'm guessing you're okay with the government saying civilians can't own nukes, which sets the precedent that The State can dictate what you can and cannot own for the betterment of society as a whole. The question becomes, at what point does The State restricting ownership of certain objects remove more freedoms than it preserves?
I personally don't think semi-automatic weapons (practically every modern day firearm is semi-auto) should be illegal to own, but I do think The State has the right to restrict ownership of certain objects. Fully automatic weapons for instance are heavily regulated and I have no problem with that.
Is there anything that people should not own? Should the general population be allowed to own nuclear weapons? What about other weapons of mass destruction - biological or chemical? Isn't there a...
Is there anything that people should not own? Should the general population be allowed to own nuclear weapons? What about other weapons of mass destruction - biological or chemical? Isn't there a tipping point where such weapons are in enough hands that one person will be stupid or malicious enough to hurt people with them? Laws restricting access to them are preventative.
I'm not trying to say that no one should own guns, I'm really just playing off of your statement that "the state should not be able to dictate what you can and cannot own."
Were there no government would you be opposed to other non-citizens in your non-state owning weapons of mass destruction? Would you actively remove them from their possession? Many already exist...
Were there no government would you be opposed to other non-citizens in your non-state owning weapons of mass destruction? Would you actively remove them from their possession? Many already exist and people have the knowledge to re-create them were that not the case.
I'm an advocate for the american 2nd amendment, for gun ownership and proper training. The firearm is one of the most wonderful tools for enforcing democracy and the principle of liberty in all of...
I'm an advocate for the american 2nd amendment, for gun ownership and proper training. The firearm is one of the most wonderful tools for enforcing democracy and the principle of liberty in all of human history. If it were swords and knives, the biggest and strongest could wipe the floor with anyone weaker than them. But you can put a handgun in the grip of a woman in her 60s, a mother of three in her 30s, an 18 year old, and with basic shooting training any one of them can fend off a would-be attacker. It levels the playing field, so to speak.
In america, gun ownership is intrinsic to our way of life. It is second only to the ability to speak your mind freely in our Bill of Rights, which all citizens are assured of by government. It is basically the threat which coerces government to remain within the confines of the contract we have established with it.
You have to understand the origins of this country if you want to understand the 2nd amendment people. The United States of America was originally populated mostly by people fleeing persecution by an authoritarian government for having the "wrong" religious beliefs. Then we actually founded our country as a response to perceived injustice from an authoritarian government trying to enforce its will on us without any sort of democratic representation. Our leaders were rebels in spirit and in deed, and they wrote our constitution with the thought of "how can we prevent this from becoming that which we are trying to escape?". It's why federalism is a thing, why the tenth amendment is a thing, and why we yanks seem to love our freedom more than anyone else on the planet - because our ancestors fought and died for it, and we'd be fools to throw it away.
In my opinion, a semi-automatic gun is a sane and reasonable thing for a citizen to own. I think even regular automatic guns are probably fine too - though they aren't needed for most use cases, nor absolutely necessary as a deterrent to a tyrannical government (at least not with the government's current capacity for killing - if some of the nightmarish science fiction weaponry comes into existence, it is possible that simple semi-automatic guns in the hands of the citizenry might not be sufficient, but we aren't at that point yet).
It's also nice that because so many people in my country are armed, we pose a legitimate deterrent to any invasion by formal army.
You also pose a legitimate deterrent to each other: highest per capita gun ownership in the world, highest per capita gun violence rate in the world, highest rate of gun murder in the developed...
It's also nice that because so many people in my country are armed, we pose a legitimate deterrent to any invasion by formal army.
You also pose a legitimate deterrent to each other: highest per capita gun ownership in the world, highest per capita gun violence rate in the world, highest rate of gun murder in the developed world, highest number of mass shootings in the world. It's not like your widespread ownership of guns is healthy for you.
I guess some would say my view is on the extreme side but I don't think it's ethical to infringe on the life, liberty, or property of anyone. You should be free to do whatever you want as long as...
I guess some would say my view is on the extreme side but I don't think it's ethical to infringe on the life, liberty, or property of anyone. You should be free to do whatever you want as long as you don't violate that.
So merely owning something should never be restricted. I don't care what the item is. Drugs? Weapons? Books? If you're just possessing something but not victimizing anyone with it, I couldn't care less. It's none of my business. Personally I'm not into "gun culture" and don't have any firearms of my own, but I'm not interested in forcibly disarming anyone else.
Actually using a weapon to threaten or hurt someone is a different story. I'd much rather see justice meted out for real crimes with victims, than potential ones with no victims. I'm not interested in punishing "pre-crime" or "thoughtcrime."
As a sidenote, it's governments with their monopolies on violence that pose the greatest threat to human life, liberty, and property. I don't see a situation where disarming the populace does anything but further empower the government's predation. Finally, as we've seen from countless other examples of prohibitions, it would create a dangerous new black market under the purview of unaccountable criminals instead of legitimate businesses.
Can I ask what your upper limit is on this, assuming you have an upper limit? Is it OK for someone to own a tank for example? What about 50 tanks and a fleet of attack helicopters? What about a...
So merely owning something should never be restricted. I don't care what the item is.
Can I ask what your upper limit is on this, assuming you have an upper limit?
Is it OK for someone to own a tank for example? What about 50 tanks and a fleet of attack helicopters? What about a corporation owning a private army?
I don't care what people own, as long as they're not using the stuff they own to hurt people. What's concerning to you about that: The army part? Or the private part? I object to the army part......
Is it OK for someone to own a tank for example? What about 50 tanks and a fleet of attack helicopters?
I don't care what people own, as long as they're not using the stuff they own to hurt people.
What about a corporation owning a private army?
What's concerning to you about that: The army part? Or the private part?
I object to the army part... I'm a pacifist! But as long as humans are around they're going to fear and mistrust each other. Violence and defense aren't going anywhere. And it's not like weapons are going to un-invent themselves; the genie is out of the bottle. So I concede armies as a fact of life.
Now if your objection is that an army could be private, why? What makes a public one inherently better? I don't condone the actions of the U.S. military in any of the places it's actively engaged. I don't under Trump, and I didn't under Obama or Bush. If I look back further into American history, it doesn't get any better — all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion, I guess. I don't see any point in continuing to give them legitimacy, but to deny it to organizations that are actually subject to market forces makes even less sense.
I'm from Canada, and by no means anti gun as I technically own one (although it's more a historical piece). But would like to know why you feel they are a necessary part of your life? My uncle is...
I'm from Canada, and by no means anti gun as I technically own one (although it's more a historical piece). But would like to know why you feel they are a necessary part of your life? My uncle is from Florida and has probably close to 15-20 different rifles/pistols, what makes you you want that amount? Is it hobby at that point, and can you understand from an outside perspective as to why that seems odd or concerning?
This is something I've wondered about. Guns can be viewed as a hobby. I've never used a gun but I find the different designs and mechanisms interesting. I can understand why someone would want to...
Is it a hobby at that point
This is something I've wondered about. Guns can be viewed as a hobby. I've never used a gun but I find the different designs and mechanisms interesting. I can understand why someone would want to collect them.
On the other hand, most other hobbies don't give someone the ability to slaughter 10+ people. This definitely concerns me.
I think that until we're better at psychological profiling, hobbyist gun owners should have to use and store their guns at a range. I'm not American though so I don't know how viable that would be.
A large number, probably the majority, of firearms used in crimes are illegally owned/stolen. Storing them in one central location, in a building that most of the time isn't occupied, introduces a...
hobbyist gun owners should have to use and store their guns at a range
A large number, probably the majority, of firearms used in crimes are illegally owned/stolen. Storing them in one central location, in a building that most of the time isn't occupied, introduces a single point of failure which gives criminals the opportunity to loot a comparatively large amount of firearms in a single heist.
I'm all for gun owners being legally required to keep their firearms locked in a adequate safe, though.
See that's an interesting point, I understand the issues with it as not many people will trust the ranges or they want them in their homes. But I think that brings in a fair argument for the...
See that's an interesting point, I understand the issues with it as not many people will trust the ranges or they want them in their homes. But I think that brings in a fair argument for the collectors/range enthusiasts.
If someone owns 15-20 guns and they aren't a quartermaster in a semi-formal militia, then I'd guess they probably own that many for hobby purposes, yes. Sort of like how a wealthy person might...
If someone owns 15-20 guns and they aren't a quartermaster in a semi-formal militia, then I'd guess they probably own that many for hobby purposes, yes. Sort of like how a wealthy person might have a garage full of cool cars. It is possible though that they are stocked up as a 'just in case' where they do see themselves as the 'guy with the guns' in an event where unarmed people need them.
It also might be that the guns are not all stored together - i don't know your uncle but my grandpa had many guns and kept them at various locations. He had a cabin on some land where he would hunt, and there were guns there. He had a house in town not too far from that land, and there were guns there. And he had a house in the city a much longer drive away, and there were guns there. I'm not sure how many he had in total, but it was enough that he and his friends could use them to hunt or be armed when out in the middle of nowhere where legitimate dangers were present, and enough that if he really needed one for any given emergency one wouldn't be too far away.
If it were swords and knives, the biggest and strongest could wipe the floor with anyone weaker than them. But you can put a handgun in the grip of a woman in her 60s, a mother of three in her 30s, an 18 year old, and with basic shooting training any one of them can fend off a would-be attacker. It levels the playing field, so to speak.
These countries are all vastly different to one another in many ways. It's impossible to say "regular country". My opinion is no, people do not need to own firearms. They are for killing and...
These countries are all vastly different to one another in many ways. It's impossible to say "regular country".
My opinion is no, people do not need to own firearms. They are for killing and oppressing.
Exactly. I'll be fine with not owning firearms when the government doesn't have them, either (and everyone else, along with the suppression of the capability to manufacture them). The threat of...
They are for killing and oppressing.
Exactly. I'll be fine with not owning firearms when the government doesn't have them, either (and everyone else, along with the suppression of the capability to manufacture them). The threat of force, though not necessarily the execution of it, is necessary for the long-term maintenance of mutual agreements in a reciprocal manner.
With two Australian posting here, I thought of the popular bits from Jim Jefferies on guns: part 1, part 2, and later on Conan. Although he trivializes the topic a bit in regards to self-defense...
With two Australian posting here, I thought of the popular bits from Jim Jefferies on guns: part 1, part 2, and later on Conan.
Although he trivializes the topic a bit in regards to self-defense in the US, he's mostly on point.
Most of the developed nations treat weapons like weapons; that is, deadly tools which require reason, training and approval to own. Even the US shared the perspective gun ownership should not affect public life for most of its time.
That is, until 1968 when the GCA was passed in response to the Black Panthers taking advantage of the 2A, and partly JFK's assassination. As a result a group of opposing hard-liners in the NRA grew over the next years, and eventually elected Neal Knox as the head of the NRA in the mid-late 70s, who consequently politicized the organization's future role.
Especially if you compare the statistics on guns per capita per country to those of gun violence, you'd notice not the prevalence of guns matters but the cultural and legislative approach. And that becomes even more evident when populism is affecting a country's political rationale.
Being an Australian, US gun culture is something I don't think I'll ever completely understand, but I do appreciate its complex and I certainly don't have the solution. My opinion is that the...
Being an Australian, US gun culture is something I don't think I'll ever completely understand, but I do appreciate its complex and I certainly don't have the solution.
My opinion is that the general population doesn't need to hold guns.
I think about the potential maximum amount of damage in a period of time. Worst case for a pistol with 6 rounds is 6 deaths in a span of, let's say 30 seconds. To do the same thing with a knife would take far longer, not even considering the range difference.
I don't have a solution for the process of removing guns, and solving the countless problems that immediate rise because of that, but I think everyone would be better off if access to firearms was extremely limited.
I also live in a country with heavy gun regulation. But I feel like I might be in the minority when I say I don't object to the principle of gun ownership, but rather to unrestricted and...
I also live in a country with heavy gun regulation. But I feel like I might be in the minority when I say I don't object to the principle of gun ownership, but rather to unrestricted and unqualified gun ownership.
I'm not an advocate for an equal right for everyone to bear arms, as far as my own country is on concerned. I think if you'd want a gun, it should be for recreational purposes (hunting, target shooting, engineering) and you should not be allowed to posses ammunition outside of shooting ranges or other areas of use. You should be licensed and be required to follow a course to be allowed to operate one and securely store it at your property such that nobody could use it without your consent. You should subject to regular checks, mental, physical, and perhaps even at home/place of storage, to be allowed continued possession. Default in any of those areas and your firearm can be repossessed. Fail to comply and you'd be a criminal.
A gun is not a simple tool, we wouldn't train our soldiers for months on their use if they were. Any object intended as a lethal weapon carries with it a huge risk and therefore a huge responsibility. If ever we'd seriously talk about legalizing possession of semi-automatic firearms, this would be the as liberal as I'd agree to be with it.
Guns still have a long of history of design, craft, and general engineering feats to them. I think videos like the Iconic Arms series by Ahoy show fairly well that guns can be studied as examples...
Guns still have a long of history of design, craft, and general engineering feats to them. I think videos like the Iconic Arms series by Ahoy show fairly well that guns can be studied as examples of fine-tuned engineering, and the historical context which lead to it. I certainly wouldn't begrudge people tinker with them or study them, or collect them because they are particularly partial to it's design.
So here's a perspective that I don't see much in this thread. This is pretty US focused but as someone from a part of the US that has significant gun ownership I think it may explain some of the...
So here's a perspective that I don't see much in this thread. This is pretty US focused but as someone from a part of the US that has significant gun ownership I think it may explain some of the feelings of very pro-gun citizens.
In many parts of the US, gun ownership is primarily a means of protection. There are many places where the police take a minimum of 15-20 minutes to arrive, and that's if you're lucky. I know a lot of people who feel that it is wrong to NOT own a gun and train with it simply for protection. Imagine someone who is physically weak, disabled, or otherwise unable to defend themselves though bodily strength alone. In their mind a gun is the great equalizer. Maybe that 53 year old disabled man can't stop someone from harming his family with strength, but you better believe he has a firearm and the training to protect himself and his family.
A common sentiment I hear is 'It's better to have a gun in the house and never fire it (excluding training) than be at the mercy of someone who would do you harm'. Remember that parts of the US are VERY individualistic, some of these people don't believe in relying on governmental or police protection. They feel it is their duty to be armed and protect their families from harm. These people don't view guns the same way people who live in dense cities or safe suburban areas do. They are the ones who are outraged by gun control movements because they feel it impacts their ability to remain self sufficient, and honestly, it does. I don't believe it is everyone's duty to protect themselves with a gun or that relying on the police is a bad thing but then again I live in a safe, secure place and am physically capable.
In my opinion this great gun debate in the US is a massive distraction from the real issue: healthcare. The people who are committing mass murders and shootings are clearly not the same as those who keep a pistol in a safe in their closet for protection. The US has abysmal mental health services and the symptom we're seeing is these mass shootings. While I do believe that background checks are sensible for the purchase of a firearm, I don't know how much it really helps. What the US needs is sweeping healthcare reform, not sweeping gun reform.
I think a line need to be drawn somewhere, otherwise the people who are allowed to own semi-automatic start arguing why then not full automatic guns When they get used to owing automatic, why not...
I think a line need to be drawn somewhere, otherwise the people who are allowed to own semi-automatic start arguing why then not full automatic guns When they get used to owing automatic, why not own mustard gas grenades...
If we don't have a line, eventually people will argue about being allowed to build and sell their own weapons, grenades, combat vehicles and we now have a militarized society
And the only way to justify all the weapons being made is to use them, right? So, find a villain society need to be saved from and say only violence can destroy it
Why not at full auto? Pretty much every modern rifle/handgun is semiautomatic , all that means is that you don't have to re-cock the hammer every time. People are allowed to build their own guns,...
I think a line need to be drawn somewhere
Why not at full auto?
Pretty much every modern rifle/handgun is semiautomatic , all that means is that you don't have to re-cock the hammer every time.
eventually people will argue about being allowed to build and sell their own weapons
People are allowed to build their own guns, and they are allowed to sell them if they jump through the right hoops and get licensing to do so.
For me, I think people shouldn't have any guns at all unless they have a good reason for it (hunting for food or maybe self-defense in secluded areas) I'm not from the US and I don't think regular...
For me, I think people shouldn't have any guns at all unless they have a good reason for it (hunting for food or maybe self-defense in secluded areas)
People are allowed to build their own guns, and they are allowed to sell them if they jump through the right hoops and get licensing to do so.
I'm not from the US and I don't think regular people are allowed to make their own weapons here
That's pretty much the "common sense" gun laws we keep trying to have a discussion about here in the states, but if you talk about trying to create laws limiting guns in urban and high density...
a good reason for it (hunting for food or maybe self-defense in secluded areas)
That's pretty much the "common sense" gun laws we keep trying to have a discussion about here in the states, but if you talk about trying to create laws limiting guns in urban and high density areas you get hit in the face with a brick wall of "BUT MUH GUNS!!!1!!1!!".
The self proclaimed "2nd amendment people" don't even want to hear that your also a 2nd amendment person and don't want to take their guns, you just want to have a discussion about what can be done to reduce gun violence.
Certain segments of the right wing media have done a really good job of convincing gun advocates that any gun regulation is part of a deep state globalism plot to remove everyones guns and instate a world dictator.
This debate has been going on unchecked for more than 10 hours now. Where art thou, O Mighty Arbiter? If you're going to arbitrate a debate, you need to be present.
I'll act as an arbiter in this debate to keep things clean and on track.
This debate has been going on unchecked for more than 10 hours now. Where art thou, O Mighty Arbiter?
If you're going to arbitrate a debate, you need to be present.
I am in the middle of this debate. I have lived in a major city and I have also lived in an isolated rural mountain town. I believe that people should have the right to bear arms, but I also...
I am in the middle of this debate. I have lived in a major city and I have also lived in an isolated rural mountain town. I believe that people should have the right to bear arms, but I also believe that semi-automatic weapons are doing more harm than good and need to be heavily restricted.
There really is no reason why you would need anything other than a:
Pump action shotgun
Bolt action / lever action rifle
Revolver
These are the three types that make complete sense in accommodating people from every background and in any scenario.
At least with these three tools/weapons people that don't carry have a better fighting chance to survive mass shootings. A revolver should suffice for personal defense and carry while a 12 gauge with bird shot has enough stopping power in case of a home invasion without fear of it penetrating a wall and killing a loved one or a neighbor. Those that rely on hunting/sport can easily do so with a bolt/lever action rifle. Frankly from experience there is far greater sport in that than seeing someone trying to use an Ar-15 which looks downright foolish.
Just to clarify since there is a common misconception about the definition of a semi-automatic weapon:
This is different from an automatic weapon (i.e. machine gun) where you hold down the trigger and the gun continually fires. Your standard pistol would be semi-automatic. Fully automatic weapons are very heavily regulated (in the U.S. at least).
It's interesting that you're wording this like it's hypocricy, when in my experience anyone who opposes semi-automatic weapons very much opposes handguns and concealed carry, specifically because they are easy to hide on a person. A bolt-action rifle isn't.
The gun-sense people generally don't oppose semi-auto weapons, they oppose weapons that can be easily modified to become fully-automatic, be it with something like a bump stock or just a simple modification to the firing mechanism. They also tend to oppose deep magazines. Revolvers would be fine to them, as they're slow to reload and have very shallow capacities.
All guns are heavily regulated here in Australia. Even the ones that aren't banned are difficult to get.
That's a bit presumptuous - especially considering you have no actual powers to enforce your wishes.
No. There is no good reason for civilians to own semi-automatic guns. Guns are a tool to kill people. Some guns are used to kill animals, but you don't need a semi-automatic weapon to do that. The only purpose for semi-automatic weapons is to kill a lot of people in a short period of time - and there's not really much call for that in civilian life.
EDIT: presumptive => presumptuous
Oppressive government.
I saw a quote the other day...
"The guns we are allowed for purposes of putting down a corrupt and tyrannical government are largely in possession by the people supporting a corrupt and tyrannical government."
Sensationalism aside this IS an interesting statement.
I know quite a few far left anarchist types who own guns. Obviously just an anecdote but still
As do I. Why I labeled it Sensationalism.
Whether you consider your government oppressive and/or corrupt may depend on where you're standing yourself.
Agree. Hence the Sensationalism comment.
Interesting maybe, if not entirely factual, but we shouldn't really make decisions on what rights all Americans do or do not have based on the current political climate.
This rationale hasn't worked out very well for the people of Yemen, has it?
Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam. There are plenty of other examples.
But what I've always wondered, let's say the US government goes full on fascist and tries going after its citizens. Do you think most people who own a gun or multiple are going to be able to use them (not just physically but morally) against that government and its forces? Or would that increase unnecessary bloodshed?
I mean, the US lost Vietnam to a bunch of rice farmers with AKs. It's not unprecedented. The US has big bombs and tanks, sure, but I doubt they'd be keen on using them against their own infrastructure. Plus, if there ever is a full-scale rebellion in the US, I'm sure at least some of the military would be on the side of the rebels.
Vietnam wasn't the US's back garden. And they ended up having to retreat due to mounting operational cost and the difficulties of justifying their intervention at the global stage. In a civil war scenario those parameters change completely, where would the US government retreat to if it were fighting it's own people?
And what outside influences would be involved in a US civil war. Many "interested parties" would be looking to influence the outcome, whether that be an end to the United States of America or whatever result was in their interests. No one would stand by and forego the opportunity to meddle. A split resulting in, say, the eastern seaboard under Russian influence and the western coast under Chinese influence wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility.
Civil wars are not fought in isolation.
Well, if the time ever did come that US citizens decided to fight the government you'd be looking at civil war.
Infrastructure concerns would go out the window if the situation wasn't resolved very very quickly. Just look at present day images of Damascus versus images from 2010 to see how willingly infrastructure was destroyed. Or the havoc wrought in Yemeni cities. Or the devestation that occured in Angola or Moçambique during their decades of civil war.
I have a hard time with this argument as I can't really imagine a scenario where guns end up saving the day or really doing anything but being a minor annoyance. I've also argued before that the second amendment actually leaves america much more vulnerable to being taken over by an oppressive government. People end up having a false sense of security because they have guns and don't take the government as seriously as they should.
I've struggled with this too. But no one thought farmers with muskets could repel the Red Coats. A more modern example is the inability of the modern US military to subdue the people of North Vietnam. Also, I'm not sure if lack of efficacy is valid enough reason to take away a major right of Americans. You could just as easily say that protests don't produce enough results in Washington, so why have that right anyways?
In both the revolutionary war and Vietnam, the aggressor was an ocean away and largely out of touch with the wishes of the population (the South Vietnamese government was extremely corrupt and seen as subservient to the US government because they couldn't recruit anyone to fight for them and depended on the US).
I think that a civil war today would be very different because there are so many military bases here, and unlike the civil war, our military is well trained and equipped, far better than any militia groups you might find preparing for the apocalypse.
Surely whichever side the military is on is the side that would prevail.
This belief reminds me of a great quote from Jim Jefferies:
"See, the one thing that I do really agree with with the right to bear arms, I really agree with… That the real reason it was written was so that you could form a militia to fight against a tyrannical government. In case the government became a bunch of cunts, you could all get your guns and fight back, and that’s why it was written. – [Audience cheering] – Yeah! And that made a hell of a lot of sense when it was just muskets. But you do know the government has drones, right? You get that? You’re bringing guns to a drone fight! If we went back to muskets, I’m all for it! Keep the Second Amendment. If we all have muskets… Muskets are awesome! Every cunt should be carrying a musket with him at all times. You know what’s good about the musket? It gives you a lot of time to calm down. Someone calls your wife fat, and you’re like, “Fuck you, buddy! Ah, you’re not a bad guy. You’re all right.”
That was my initial reaction as well.
There isn't. I was going to say that our police in Australia don't own semi-automatic weapons, but I double-checked and it seems some police here do carry these weapons (it changed about a decade ago). I believe that is wrong as well.
I'm not making any distinction. My rabid pacifism applies to everyone. Noone should need weapons at all.
Sadly, some people take it upon themselves to be violent and use weapons, so there is unfortunately a need for some representatives of us, the people, to have and use weapons on our behalf - but I strongly believe that should be very limited and definitely not widespread. Putting machine-guns in every home is not the way to reduce violence.
Even if we were to extend the privilege of owning semi-automatic weapons to people who need to kill hogs... how many places are there where wild hogs roam? It's not like every suburban household needs to shoot the packs of wild hogs roaming the streets.
Counterpoint on there’s no good reason for citizens to own semi automatic guns:
My dad used to own some land out in West Texas. There were wild hogs on it that would rip you to shreads. One bullet wouldn’t stop them. Or two. If we did not have semi automatic handguns, you could die or be seriously injured if attacked.
This is not a good reason for citizens to own them, but rather, a very specific and strange set of people who live in a land inhabited by dangerous wild animals.
Another Aussie here. Gun laws are a red herring that will completely prevent any real progress - they worked here because we don't have the same issues as you. Look at how we react to a slight surge of biker gang violence - the place goes nuts, we ANNIHILATE them with new laws and massive arrest sweeps, and they have such a small impact that whether they have guns or not is irrelevant.
The issues you are actually facing are gangs (and associated war on drugs), poor social nets, and mental health. Fix those three things, and you could put an assault rifle in the hands of every free person in the country and not see much uptick of violence at all.
Counterpoint: that video of the dancing FBI agent
I simply do not trust your average american to treat a gun with the respect it should be treated, let alone another person's life.
He's not saying there wouldn't be any uptick, just that the uptick would be smaller, probably mostly due to accidents such as the dancing FBI agent.
Any amount over zero is unacceptable, when you consider what the benefits of people having access to these weapons is - at the very least we can restrict down which weapons are necessary for ranchers and the like.
I think that there are huge benefits to giving the people the necessary tools to resist an oppressive government. Yes, the US military is far more advanced, but one only has to look as far as the US's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam to see how difficult it is to win a guerrilla war with a conventional military. The idea may seem incredible now that the US could transition to a dictatorship, but think about the next 100, or even 200 years. I'd rather the people have some way to resist tyranny than nothing at all.
The thing about a tyrannical government is that it would be fighting it's civilians on it's home turf.
It has an entire military industrial complex set up here, it can roll tanks off the production line straight onto the battle field.
It doesn't have to set up quartering for soldiers in a foreign land, there's pre-existing quartering set up here.
It doesn't have to set up new supply chains for food and supplies, it can use pre-existing supply chains at the worst it has to re-purpose them.
Not only that but if it's fighting it's own people it doesn't have to worry about how much it's spending or on favorability ratings for the war, it's win or cease to exist.
Comparing a civil war to a relatively small invading force in a land across the ocean is disingenuous, they're really just not the same.
If the US Government tries to wage war against it's own people it doesn't matter if the people have AKs or baseball bats; what is going to decide the outcome is:
a. With whom does the military stand with, the government of the people
b. Do any of our international neighbors take sides/lend a hand and if they do, who do they help the government or the people.
Those two factors will be far far more influential than if civilians have guns.
But look at Afghanistan. The US military has been there for years. It has:
And yet there are still wide swaths of the country the US can't touch. Also, your point here:
Misses one important consideration, the morale of the military. In the case of an unpopular government imposing itself on the people, the military only stands with that government if it thinks winning with the government is easier than standing against the government. Take the case of the 2nd French Empire.
Unpopular in Paris, Emperor Napoleon III left a large garrison there to keep order while he went off to fight the Franco-Prussian war. However, once he was captured, the people of Paris rose up and demanded a Republic be reinstated. The armed forces there relented, and Adolphe Tiers, a monarchist, was elected president of the new republic. Why did Tiers and the garrison relent to the people? After all, they had the weapons, money, and privilege, all of which they could lose as the government was reorganized. It was because they wanted to avoid a costly battle. Though they probably would have won, it would have meant bloody battles street by street, and an incredibly unpopular government.
That's the point of giving the people a means of defense. It's not to guarantee the ability to overthrow the government, it's to make the government think twice about exerting its control by force. As long as it's easier to work within the current democratic system than attempt a coup or conquest, then the democratic government will remain.
I bet you'd find it exceedingly difficult to find military personnel willing to shoot and kill it's own citizens in a civil war.
In nearly every civil war in history you'll find that people in the military and in service are unwilling to shoot their own family and friends. Often times there's a military coup when things get out of hand.
Of course, this completely ignores the fact that even if you had robots in the military willing to do this, civilians would never win because we don't have access to missiles, tanks, flame throwers, chemical warfare, fighter jets, or any other number of banned weapons.
There are ROI in the military that stop them from a full-frontal takeover in other countries. If it ever came down to a modern civil war, military vs civilians, you think they would say "Don't shoot until you've been shot at?" I think it's far more likely they would bomb the people into submission right away. If the government became corrupt enough that the people had to fight back with guns, you think this same corrupt government would refrain from using massive bombs and drone strikes? And what is the average citizen going to do with a semi automatic weapon? This isn't when America was first formed, people don't know their neighbors and where to meet and prepare in case they have to fight an army. It's just going to be single people holed up in their houses with a handgun looking out the window.
While I wouldn't count that as violence, just rank stupidity, you raise a good point. Add mandatory weapons safety training in schools to that list.
FBI agent had a lot more safety training than your average individual and still managed to be a dumbass.
Training is not enough to stop stupidity. It will reduce it, sure, but it will not stop it.
I think there's an argument to be made regarding quantity over quantity in that case.
Agreed, See Canada. We have a love of guns, not close to America but in the top 10 per capita, many of them are semi-auto. We don't have the scale of gun violence the US has, that's not to say none, but that vast majority of the gun violence that happens is gang related.
I'm a firm advocate of the american 2nd amendment. I have heard quite often from gun owners and advocates that you should not point a gun at anything you aren't prepared to kill. It is a solemn responsibility to own and carry a firearm.
I'm not exactly pro-gun either but you can't pretend like subduing is the only way when it comes to self defense. Especially because you probably don't really have the time to think about the moral implications of your actions when in a situation of self-defense.
With that being said I also think this is why people shouldn't own a gun, I don't trust people enough to stay calm in this kind of situation and worry they'll shoot the bad guy, miss and blast someone else through the wall of their house.
Of course not. There are lots of ways to prevent an attack on yourself:
Run away
Hide
Put a barrier between you and the attacker
Talk the attacker down (I've done this twice)
Disarm the attacker
Hurting the attacker is only one way of preventing them from attacking you. I prefer to call this approach "counter-attack" rather than "self-defence" to highlight that attacking someone else is not the same as defending yourself.
Unless you've been trained to react to this sort of situation talking and disarming are almost entirely out of option. You can't expect normal people with no kind of training to start busting karate moves to disarm an assailant. Most people will either panic or freeze and some will probably fight but even then we know that it doesn't always happen (a real problem for rape victims for example who blame themselves for freezing).
I am a normal person with no kind of training - and I talked my way out of one direct attack on me, as well as intervening in an attack by a group of teenagers on a security guard with nothing but my words. I think we underestimate the power of confidence. I have seen the confusion on attackers' faces when you refuse to engage them by either running ("The chase is afoot!") or fighting back ("It's on, bro!"). Simply standing your ground with confidence, without running or fighting, confuses the fuck out of them.
As you say, most people panic or freeze or fight - all of which either allow the violence to continue, or escalate the violence directly.
I was merely trying to agree with you, and expand on your point that subduing someone is not the only way to defend yourself.
I imagine tasers and other non-lethal equipment could help with this.
While a gun can be a tool to kill someone, it's also a very useful tool for people who are hunting, or for farmers who want to protect their animals.
My dad has a rifle. When I was a kid, there was a bear reported around our area; my dad was ready for that bear if worse came to worst.
I would agree that handguns are tools that are entirely designed for killing people, and that there is no other reason to have one.
Counter point: The Social Contract necessitates compromising some freedoms to maximize others.
I'm guessing you're okay with the government saying civilians can't own nukes, which sets the precedent that The State can dictate what you can and cannot own for the betterment of society as a whole. The question becomes, at what point does The State restricting ownership of certain objects remove more freedoms than it preserves?
I personally don't think semi-automatic weapons (practically every modern day firearm is semi-auto) should be illegal to own, but I do think The State has the right to restrict ownership of certain objects. Fully automatic weapons for instance are heavily regulated and I have no problem with that.
Is there anything that people should not own? Should the general population be allowed to own nuclear weapons? What about other weapons of mass destruction - biological or chemical? Isn't there a tipping point where such weapons are in enough hands that one person will be stupid or malicious enough to hurt people with them? Laws restricting access to them are preventative.
I'm not trying to say that no one should own guns, I'm really just playing off of your statement that "the state should not be able to dictate what you can and cannot own."
Were there no government would you be opposed to other non-citizens in your non-state owning weapons of mass destruction? Would you actively remove them from their possession? Many already exist and people have the knowledge to re-create them were that not the case.
I'm an advocate for the american 2nd amendment, for gun ownership and proper training. The firearm is one of the most wonderful tools for enforcing democracy and the principle of liberty in all of human history. If it were swords and knives, the biggest and strongest could wipe the floor with anyone weaker than them. But you can put a handgun in the grip of a woman in her 60s, a mother of three in her 30s, an 18 year old, and with basic shooting training any one of them can fend off a would-be attacker. It levels the playing field, so to speak.
In america, gun ownership is intrinsic to our way of life. It is second only to the ability to speak your mind freely in our Bill of Rights, which all citizens are assured of by government. It is basically the threat which coerces government to remain within the confines of the contract we have established with it.
You have to understand the origins of this country if you want to understand the 2nd amendment people. The United States of America was originally populated mostly by people fleeing persecution by an authoritarian government for having the "wrong" religious beliefs. Then we actually founded our country as a response to perceived injustice from an authoritarian government trying to enforce its will on us without any sort of democratic representation. Our leaders were rebels in spirit and in deed, and they wrote our constitution with the thought of "how can we prevent this from becoming that which we are trying to escape?". It's why federalism is a thing, why the tenth amendment is a thing, and why we yanks seem to love our freedom more than anyone else on the planet - because our ancestors fought and died for it, and we'd be fools to throw it away.
In my opinion, a semi-automatic gun is a sane and reasonable thing for a citizen to own. I think even regular automatic guns are probably fine too - though they aren't needed for most use cases, nor absolutely necessary as a deterrent to a tyrannical government (at least not with the government's current capacity for killing - if some of the nightmarish science fiction weaponry comes into existence, it is possible that simple semi-automatic guns in the hands of the citizenry might not be sufficient, but we aren't at that point yet).
It's also nice that because so many people in my country are armed, we pose a legitimate deterrent to any invasion by formal army.
You also pose a legitimate deterrent to each other: highest per capita gun ownership in the world, highest per capita gun violence rate in the world, highest rate of gun murder in the developed world, highest number of mass shootings in the world. It's not like your widespread ownership of guns is healthy for you.
I guess some would say my view is on the extreme side but I don't think it's ethical to infringe on the life, liberty, or property of anyone. You should be free to do whatever you want as long as you don't violate that.
So merely owning something should never be restricted. I don't care what the item is. Drugs? Weapons? Books? If you're just possessing something but not victimizing anyone with it, I couldn't care less. It's none of my business. Personally I'm not into "gun culture" and don't have any firearms of my own, but I'm not interested in forcibly disarming anyone else.
Actually using a weapon to threaten or hurt someone is a different story. I'd much rather see justice meted out for real crimes with victims, than potential ones with no victims. I'm not interested in punishing "pre-crime" or "thoughtcrime."
As a sidenote, it's governments with their monopolies on violence that pose the greatest threat to human life, liberty, and property. I don't see a situation where disarming the populace does anything but further empower the government's predation. Finally, as we've seen from countless other examples of prohibitions, it would create a dangerous new black market under the purview of unaccountable criminals instead of legitimate businesses.
Can I ask what your upper limit is on this, assuming you have an upper limit?
Is it OK for someone to own a tank for example? What about 50 tanks and a fleet of attack helicopters? What about a corporation owning a private army?
Sure, why not? :) (Not agreeing with the guy above though.)
I don't care what people own, as long as they're not using the stuff they own to hurt people.
What's concerning to you about that: The army part? Or the private part?
I object to the army part... I'm a pacifist! But as long as humans are around they're going to fear and mistrust each other. Violence and defense aren't going anywhere. And it's not like weapons are going to un-invent themselves; the genie is out of the bottle. So I concede armies as a fact of life.
Now if your objection is that an army could be private, why? What makes a public one inherently better? I don't condone the actions of the U.S. military in any of the places it's actively engaged. I don't under Trump, and I didn't under Obama or Bush. If I look back further into American history, it doesn't get any better — all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion, I guess. I don't see any point in continuing to give them legitimacy, but to deny it to organizations that are actually subject to market forces makes even less sense.
I'm from Canada, and by no means anti gun as I technically own one (although it's more a historical piece). But would like to know why you feel they are a necessary part of your life? My uncle is from Florida and has probably close to 15-20 different rifles/pistols, what makes you you want that amount? Is it hobby at that point, and can you understand from an outside perspective as to why that seems odd or concerning?
This is something I've wondered about. Guns can be viewed as a hobby. I've never used a gun but I find the different designs and mechanisms interesting. I can understand why someone would want to collect them.
On the other hand, most other hobbies don't give someone the ability to slaughter 10+ people. This definitely concerns me.
I think that until we're better at psychological profiling, hobbyist gun owners should have to use and store their guns at a range. I'm not American though so I don't know how viable that would be.
A large number, probably the majority, of firearms used in crimes are illegally owned/stolen. Storing them in one central location, in a building that most of the time isn't occupied, introduces a single point of failure which gives criminals the opportunity to loot a comparatively large amount of firearms in a single heist.
I'm all for gun owners being legally required to keep their firearms locked in a adequate safe, though.
See that's an interesting point, I understand the issues with it as not many people will trust the ranges or they want them in their homes. But I think that brings in a fair argument for the collectors/range enthusiasts.
If someone owns 15-20 guns and they aren't a quartermaster in a semi-formal militia, then I'd guess they probably own that many for hobby purposes, yes. Sort of like how a wealthy person might have a garage full of cool cars. It is possible though that they are stocked up as a 'just in case' where they do see themselves as the 'guy with the guns' in an event where unarmed people need them.
It also might be that the guns are not all stored together - i don't know your uncle but my grandpa had many guns and kept them at various locations. He had a cabin on some land where he would hunt, and there were guns there. He had a house in town not too far from that land, and there were guns there. And he had a house in the city a much longer drive away, and there were guns there. I'm not sure how many he had in total, but it was enough that he and his friends could use them to hunt or be armed when out in the middle of nowhere where legitimate dangers were present, and enough that if he really needed one for any given emergency one wouldn't be too far away.
God created men and Sam Colt made them equal.
A bit more context would helpful, I think. We need to know if you mean all people anywhere in the world, or a specific country.
These countries are all vastly different to one another in many ways. It's impossible to say "regular country".
My opinion is no, people do not need to own firearms. They are for killing and oppressing.
Exactly. I'll be fine with not owning firearms when the government doesn't have them, either (and everyone else, along with the suppression of the capability to manufacture them). The threat of force, though not necessarily the execution of it, is necessary for the long-term maintenance of mutual agreements in a reciprocal manner.
With two Australian posting here, I thought of the popular bits from Jim Jefferies on guns: part 1, part 2, and later on Conan.
Although he trivializes the topic a bit in regards to self-defense in the US, he's mostly on point.
Most of the developed nations treat weapons like weapons; that is, deadly tools which require reason, training and approval to own. Even the US shared the perspective gun ownership should not affect public life for most of its time.
That is, until 1968 when the GCA was passed in response to the Black Panthers taking advantage of the 2A, and partly JFK's assassination. As a result a group of opposing hard-liners in the NRA grew over the next years, and eventually elected Neal Knox as the head of the NRA in the mid-late 70s, who consequently politicized the organization's future role.
Especially if you compare the statistics on guns per capita per country to those of gun violence, you'd notice not the prevalence of guns matters but the cultural and legislative approach. And that becomes even more evident when populism is affecting a country's political rationale.
Being an Australian, US gun culture is something I don't think I'll ever completely understand, but I do appreciate its complex and I certainly don't have the solution.
My opinion is that the general population doesn't need to hold guns.
I think about the potential maximum amount of damage in a period of time. Worst case for a pistol with 6 rounds is 6 deaths in a span of, let's say 30 seconds. To do the same thing with a knife would take far longer, not even considering the range difference.
I don't have a solution for the process of removing guns, and solving the countless problems that immediate rise because of that, but I think everyone would be better off if access to firearms was extremely limited.
While I generally agree with you in that a gun makes an easy tool to inflict a lot of damage in short period of time, don't underestimate knives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%9312)
The deranged will always find a way to inflict harm. If it's not guns, then it might be knives, hand tools, cars or home made explosives.
Thanks for the link, that's a good call.
Totally agree that crazies are going to crazy. May as well limit the more likely scenarios where possible.
I also live in a country with heavy gun regulation. But I feel like I might be in the minority when I say I don't object to the principle of gun ownership, but rather to unrestricted and unqualified gun ownership.
I'm not an advocate for an equal right for everyone to bear arms, as far as my own country is on concerned. I think if you'd want a gun, it should be for recreational purposes (hunting, target shooting, engineering) and you should not be allowed to posses ammunition outside of shooting ranges or other areas of use. You should be licensed and be required to follow a course to be allowed to operate one and securely store it at your property such that nobody could use it without your consent. You should subject to regular checks, mental, physical, and perhaps even at home/place of storage, to be allowed continued possession. Default in any of those areas and your firearm can be repossessed. Fail to comply and you'd be a criminal.
A gun is not a simple tool, we wouldn't train our soldiers for months on their use if they were. Any object intended as a lethal weapon carries with it a huge risk and therefore a huge responsibility. If ever we'd seriously talk about legalizing possession of semi-automatic firearms, this would be the as liberal as I'd agree to be with it.
Pardon my ignorance, but could you elaborate?
Guns still have a long of history of design, craft, and general engineering feats to them. I think videos like the Iconic Arms series by Ahoy show fairly well that guns can be studied as examples of fine-tuned engineering, and the historical context which lead to it. I certainly wouldn't begrudge people tinker with them or study them, or collect them because they are particularly partial to it's design.
So here's a perspective that I don't see much in this thread. This is pretty US focused but as someone from a part of the US that has significant gun ownership I think it may explain some of the feelings of very pro-gun citizens.
In many parts of the US, gun ownership is primarily a means of protection. There are many places where the police take a minimum of 15-20 minutes to arrive, and that's if you're lucky. I know a lot of people who feel that it is wrong to NOT own a gun and train with it simply for protection. Imagine someone who is physically weak, disabled, or otherwise unable to defend themselves though bodily strength alone. In their mind a gun is the great equalizer. Maybe that 53 year old disabled man can't stop someone from harming his family with strength, but you better believe he has a firearm and the training to protect himself and his family.
A common sentiment I hear is 'It's better to have a gun in the house and never fire it (excluding training) than be at the mercy of someone who would do you harm'. Remember that parts of the US are VERY individualistic, some of these people don't believe in relying on governmental or police protection. They feel it is their duty to be armed and protect their families from harm. These people don't view guns the same way people who live in dense cities or safe suburban areas do. They are the ones who are outraged by gun control movements because they feel it impacts their ability to remain self sufficient, and honestly, it does. I don't believe it is everyone's duty to protect themselves with a gun or that relying on the police is a bad thing but then again I live in a safe, secure place and am physically capable.
In my opinion this great gun debate in the US is a massive distraction from the real issue: healthcare. The people who are committing mass murders and shootings are clearly not the same as those who keep a pistol in a safe in their closet for protection. The US has abysmal mental health services and the symptom we're seeing is these mass shootings. While I do believe that background checks are sensible for the purchase of a firearm, I don't know how much it really helps. What the US needs is sweeping healthcare reform, not sweeping gun reform.
I think a line need to be drawn somewhere, otherwise the people who are allowed to own semi-automatic start arguing why then not full automatic guns When they get used to owing automatic, why not own mustard gas grenades...
If we don't have a line, eventually people will argue about being allowed to build and sell their own weapons, grenades, combat vehicles and we now have a militarized society
And the only way to justify all the weapons being made is to use them, right? So, find a villain society need to be saved from and say only violence can destroy it
Why not at full auto?
Pretty much every modern rifle/handgun is semiautomatic , all that means is that you don't have to re-cock the hammer every time.
People are allowed to build their own guns, and they are allowed to sell them if they jump through the right hoops and get licensing to do so.
For me, I think people shouldn't have any guns at all unless they have a good reason for it (hunting for food or maybe self-defense in secluded areas)
I'm not from the US and I don't think regular people are allowed to make their own weapons here
That's pretty much the "common sense" gun laws we keep trying to have a discussion about here in the states, but if you talk about trying to create laws limiting guns in urban and high density areas you get hit in the face with a brick wall of "BUT MUH GUNS!!!1!!1!!".
The self proclaimed "2nd amendment people" don't even want to hear that your also a 2nd amendment person and don't want to take their guns, you just want to have a discussion about what can be done to reduce gun violence.
Certain segments of the right wing media have done a really good job of convincing gun advocates that any gun regulation is part of a deep state globalism plot to remove everyones guns and instate a world dictator.
This debate has been going on unchecked for more than 10 hours now. Where art thou, O Mighty Arbiter?
If you're going to arbitrate a debate, you need to be present.
Of course. (Semi-automatic is just a normal gun FYI.)
I am in the middle of this debate. I have lived in a major city and I have also lived in an isolated rural mountain town. I believe that people should have the right to bear arms, but I also believe that semi-automatic weapons are doing more harm than good and need to be heavily restricted.
There really is no reason why you would need anything other than a:
Pump action shotgun
Bolt action / lever action rifle
Revolver
These are the three types that make complete sense in accommodating people from every background and in any scenario.
At least with these three tools/weapons people that don't carry have a better fighting chance to survive mass shootings. A revolver should suffice for personal defense and carry while a 12 gauge with bird shot has enough stopping power in case of a home invasion without fear of it penetrating a wall and killing a loved one or a neighbor. Those that rely on hunting/sport can easily do so with a bolt/lever action rifle. Frankly from experience there is far greater sport in that than seeing someone trying to use an Ar-15 which looks downright foolish.
"Were it so easy!"