The gun debate Thread

The topic of guns is a highly debated issue, with people in both extremes and everywhere in between. Myself, I am pro guns, though I never really put much thought into it until recently. That is because I am in the military and only started collecting guns during the past two years in which I have been stationed in MT which does not have strict gun laws. Eventually I am going to get orders to another base most likely overseas. My plan was always to have my parents hold on to them until I reclaim them. Then I found out about NJ gun laws and really started thinking about the issue.

In NJ they have an "Assault Weapons" Ban. The question is what is an "Assault Weapon" Well the truth is "Assault Weapons" is a made up term used by certain groups of people that dislike guns. The reason the term is used is because when you use the term assault weapon people who don't know much about guns think either assault rifle or automatic weapon. That idea is further reinforced by politicians and other people that are for assault weapons ban, when talking about assault weapons will use images and videos of assault rifles and automatic weapons. So what are assault weapons actually, basically there is no strict definition and what qualifies as one varies from place to place. In general they are semi-automatic weapons that look like military weapons. The truth is just because something looks like a military weapon does not make it any more deadly, then a weapon that has similar specs but does not look like a military weapon. In fact your typical hunting rifle is more powerful, more accurate, and has a longer range then the typical military look alike.

Of course there are plenty of people that will disagree with my views, and since this is a serious topic I figured that cosmos was to discuss and debate different gun laws and there merits.

Edited by: STRATCOM

I am pro weapons myself. Its pretty hard to be collector in Canada, but there are quite a few good weapons not under the Restricted category (eg, M1 Garand, as I am a big WWII buff.)

I love weapons... from a young age i have been into cops, swat and the military. I was in the Air Force for a little bit and i noticed how many people in the world are inexperienced or afraid of weapons. Those typically are the people that are anti-civilian weapons and such. I was recently talking to a friend who doesn't like guns about one of the local Gander Mt. and the SIG522 and all the AR-15 variations and she couldn't believe that we could even purchase weapons like that.

From that, i noticed that most miss-informed think that anything looking anything from the normal rifle (like a m40a1) is automatic or military grade. Basically, i think more information needs to be learned my the general public.

And you are definitely correct... most hunter weapons are much more accurate and deadly than the "assault weapons"/military-esc style.

I actually recently saw a youtube video talking about how we can buy .50 cal rifles and shoot down 747s n shit... Wrong or lack of information is the real killer. haha.

I JUST had a conversation with my girlfriend about those weapons also (at Gander) and how "you can buy weapons from them not meant for hunting". Though, all weapons at Gander are meant for hunting... A m4 isnt too bad of a hunting rifle. just, as you said, isnt as accurate as some hunting rifles.

I think background searches should be performed on anyone buying a weapons and then have it registered to that person on some sort of database. so if it were to be involved in a crime, its traceable.

www.calmdown.com

[RnL wrote: Ryan_C]I am pro weapons myself. Its pretty hard to be collector in Canada, but there are quite a few good weapons not under the Restricted category (eg, M1 Garand, as I am a big WWII buff.)

I still need two more rifles to complete my collection of primary rifles from the major players of WW2 (the Italian carcano and the Japanese type 99) There are of course other WW2 weapons I want to get. The M1 carbine for example but that gun while completely legal to purchase here in MT is on the list of banned weapons in NJ.

Edited by: STRATCOM

@STRATCOM - what hides behind the term "assault firearm" in NJ legislation is explained at the most obvious place - NRA website (scroll down to restricted firearms - almost at the bottom of the page). I pretty much agree with SaxonSwine - there is absolutely no need for a civilian to own any kind of semi-auto (let alone full-auto) firearm, for sports shotguns and bolt action rifles more than suffice. If you want to have weapon because of it's visual characteristics you should remove the firing pin and imo the only (if any at all) semi/full auto firearms allowed should be kept at firing ranges, you really should have no business having them at home.

i completely disagree with banning semi auto weapons. Semi auto weapons are very nice for sport shooting or even if you are hunting, if you miss the first shot. Plus, if you are a collector, there are only a few bolt action weapons i think are worth buying. At most, id have 3. Semi auto, there are plenty that i plan on owning.

SaxonSwine wrote: TBH Civilians definitely don't need automatic/semi automatic weaponry of any kind. There simply isn't any need for it - if you want to go hunting, use a bolt action rifle. A semi-auto/full auto weapon is unsporting.
We've had a huge reduction in gun related crime here in the UK since we banned semi-auto/auto weaponry. Bolt action rifles / single action shotguns are more than adequate for a civilian's needs.

Perhaps more than anything, I would say there is absolutely no need for pistols or machine-pistols (which are commonly used by criminals). If you're an American worried about home protection, a rifle or shotgun would suffice.
As far as I can tell, most of the weapons in America are fired at ranges. Why not restrict access to most weaponry to these gun ranges?

A rifle is not a good weapon for home defense, but if you are going to use one for that purpose you want a semi automatic. The reason is if you miss the first shot of if there is more than one person. A shotgun is a better weapon for home defense along as it is at least a pump action. A rifle is generally to large to use effectively in confined spaces. A shot gun is a bit better in that area but a pistol is the best weapon for home defense. Its small size makes it easier to use in confined spaces.
As to restricting most weapons to just the ranges, that defeats the purpose of owning them. Its like saying sports cars can only kept at drag strip/race track because that’s mainly where you see them used (at least like they were intended for) You mind as well not own the weapon in the first place because someone else is holding onto, protecting, and taking care of weapon. You have no control over it, and someone else can easily damage said weapon. I actually know of similar situations. Because being in the military you can be sent to bases overseas. When that happens since most countries frown on you owning weapons they get stored in the base armory. I have heard plenty of horror stories about people getting their weapons and they were rusty, damaged from being dropped, and even having the locks cut off and obviously been used.

Edited by: STRATCOM

I'm pro-weapon myself, though I don't think I'm very qualified to say anything about it since I've only fired a BB-gun before. I used to live in shady neighborhoods in dearborn Michigan where there was a lot of crime. We (my bothers, sister and myself) where never aloud out after dark. In a situation like that a hand gun can be very handy tool in case your getting mugged, and if a gang is after you a semi-automatic weapon could save your life. Now I live in the countryside so i don't have to worry about that anymore, but civilian semi-automatic weapon are a good idea IMO.

SaxonSwine wrote: TBH Civilians definitely don't need automatic/semi automatic weaponry of any kind. There simply isn't any need for it - if you want to go hunting, use a bolt action rifle. A semi-auto/full auto weapon is unsporting.

So, the rights of others end where your feelings begin? Awesome.

SaxonSwine wrote: We've had a huge reduction in gun related crime here in the UK since we banned semi-auto/auto weaponry. Bolt action rifles / single action shotguns are more than adequate for a civilian's needs.

Dailymail.co.uk

SaxonSwine wrote: Perhaps more than anything, I would say there is absolutely no need for pistols or machine-pistols (which are commonly used by criminals). If you're an American worried about home protection, a rifle or shotgun would suffice.
As far as I can tell, most of the weapons in America are fired at ranges. Why not restrict access to most weaponry to these gun ranges?

Like STRATCOM said, should we restrict sports cars to race tracks only as well? Well, seeing as you brits, in some horribly twisted way, are proud of your nanny state actions you'd probably welcome the idea.

SaxonSwine wrote: The Daily Mail is not a reputable source for information... >_>

Then show me a reputable source which proves there has been a huge decline in firearms-related violence in Britain. One would think Parliament figures would be reputable enough.

SaxonSwine wrote: Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that a skilled gunman needs only 1 shot - if you need to take more than one shot to hit your target, you're a bloody amateur and probably shouldn't be firing a weapon in the first place!

You really have no idea what you're talking about, right?

SaxonSwine wrote: Besides if you fired one shot near someone breaking into your house, that would probably be enough to see them off. It's not like you want to actually kill them... right?

But then I wouldn't be a "skilled gunman", now would I?

SaxonSwine wrote: Oh and these "Nanny State" reactions you speak of were a reaction to public shootings. For some unfathomable reason you Americans seem more worried about protecting your guns than the lives of your fellow citizens after similar shootings happen in America.

I'm not American, but I think this quote is appropriate: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

SaxonSwine wrote: @ Stratcom. Weapons kept at a range would be well maintained if they were owned by the gunrange - I know that you guys already have plenty of gunranges that do this already.

Are you implying that people who own firearms cannot maintain them? If so, prove it.

SaxonSwine wrote: Sounds like you have no idea whats being talked about
My point is pretty clear: that a skilled gunman would be able to hit their intended target with one shot. Only a total idiot would need to fire off a lot of rounds. Civilians never need to fire shots in rapid succession.

Moving target, multiple targets, target taking cover, target returning fire etc.
Lots of variables here, your point is shit.

SaxonSwine wrote: This applies to both hunting and the rare scenario of personal defence. In the case of personal defence, you would be best not to fire at all but to keep the criminal at bay until police arrive.

Again, there are alot of variables you just can't throw away.

SaxonSwine wrote: Ha! Thats an entirely ambiguous statement. What exactly can be defined as "liberty"? The right for anyone (including criminals) to own a gun? How exactly is that liberty? Firearms have nothing to do with liberty, if anything they are the biggest threat to it.

Did I state that criminals should have the same right regarding firearms as a law-abiding citizen? No, I did not. Firearms in themselves are not a threat to liberty, I don't remember the last time I saw a pile of guns overthrow a democratic government.

SaxonSwine wrote: Have fun reading this: Parliament.uk
The general trend is one of decline, and one which is likely to continue given how changes in law make it much harder for criminals to obtain weapons.

No, since the 1997 Firearms Act the firearms-related crime has increased, peaking around 2004/2005. The slight decline since then is still higher than the pre-1997 figures. Firearms-related crime has increased in Britain during the 2000s, something your reputable source proves.

Let's think of two scenarios now. In first everybody is allowed to own a firearm, even full-auto and stingers and rpgs and tanks and nukes and daisy cutters and shit like that. In second case: only police and military are allowed to have firearms. In which case do you think people would be safer? The only solution would be to enforce far stricter laws on possession of (unregistered) firearms and to make it a lot harder for anyone to purchase weapons (except those for hunters) and completely ban carrying weapons around for no good reason that's it - we have this kind of law and even though I live in a small country (2 million people) there were far less than 10 victims of shootings in last decade ( and a few of those were organized crime related hits anyway).

Edited by: MrTambourineMan

SaxonSwine wrote: Are you trying to make yourself look incredibly stupid? When on earth would a Civilian ever even face that sort of situation?

You never know when a mugging could go wrong, a burglar has further intentions than stealing your tv or when the girl scouts start rolling with machine guns. So unless you've got a device that can look into the future and determine the outcome of every potential situation, you're not capable of saying what situation a civilian may or may not find themselves in, as that's incredibly stupid.

Not to mention the fact the target may not go down after one shot.

SaxonSwine wrote: Yet the freedom for any tom dick or harry to own a firearm gives criminals free access to guns, the point being that criminals will use those weapons to carry out offences against other civilians.
I wasn't specifically talking about the use of firearms to overthrow a government, though it has been done at various times in the past (democratic or otherwise).

Clearly you're not familiar with the fact that not everyone can purchase a firearm legally. But what you're saying is that every legally purchased firearm will end up in the hands of a criminal, so I reckon reason isn't your strong side.
I know you weren't talking about that, it was just an example, my point was that firearms in themselves are not a threat to liberty.

SaxonSwine wrote: You need to read those figures carefully to see exactly what increased and how. Most of those increased offences were carried out with air rifles / airsoft. Use of proper firearm weaponry for crime decreased.

Yes, there was a dramatic increase in the use of air weapons, however the post-1997 figures (Appended tables - table 2 - Total excluding air weapons), we can still see that the figures for handguns, shotguns and other weapons have increased. From 4,904 offences in 1997 to 9,306 in 2008, peaking at 11,088 in 2005/2006. It has not decreased since 1997.

Edited by: Sebbeman

semi auto is the way to go...

it isnt the weapon that causes a crime, its the person behind it...

if every weapons was destroyed except ones used by the military, there's 2 things;
1. wed find a new way to commit the same crime we would have used a gun for in the first place
2. wed find a way to steal the military ones and sell those

thats like saying jews are a problem so we just gatta get rid of them all. come on..

xethanxskates wrote: thats like saying jews are a problem so we just gatta get rid of them all. come on..

That's a pretty blatant straw man.

MrTambourineMan wrote: Let's think of two scenarios now. In first everybody is allowed to own a firearm, even full-auto and stingers and rpgs and tanks and nukes and daisy cutters and shit like that. In second case: only police and military are allowed to have firearms. In which case do you think people would be safer? The only solution would be to enforce far stricter laws on possession of (unregistered) firearms and to make it a lot harder for anyone to purchase weapons (except those for hunters) and completely ban carrying weapons around for no good reason that's it - we have this kind of law and even though I live in a small country (2 million people) there were far less than 10 victims of shootings in last decade ( and a few of those were organized crime related hits anyway).

I am going to ignore those scenarios that you thought up because no one is arguing that any one should be able to buy any weapon, and focus on the Carrying weapons around "for no good reason." Besides the fact that self defense is always a good reason, 38 states have passes right to carry legislation. In those states violent crimes have not increased, in fact not only has it decreased but has decreased faster than those states which have not passed such legislation.

As to the arguments over why someone would need a semi automatic, The three biggest reasons are you miss the first shot (which isn't that hard to imagine especially if they can shoot back), Multiple threats (not all crime is committed by a signal person) or the person keeps coming after you after they have been shot (which can happen if the person is high on drugs or they have become psychotic.)

SaxonSwine wrote: Dumbass, if someone mugs you, they would probably take your own weapon and shoot you with that. That is one of the biggest problems faced by gun owners and policemen in America!!!

Don't call me a dumbass just because you're having trouble arguing my point. Prove to me that's one of the biggest problems.

SaxonSwine wrote: I'll leave you to your paranoid delusions, you seem to think everyone could be out to get you.

Ah, yes, here we go.

SaxonSwine wrote: *Sigh* thats why firearm legislation is a good thing. But even when there is legislation against ownership, most firearms used for criminal activity are stolen from legal owners. This is the case in America - whats more, the most commonly stolen weapon is a handgun! So much for using weapons as deterrent for burglars.

So, we punish the law-abiding for the actions of criminals? Well fuck me this is some great reasoning.

SaxonSwine wrote: What about the liberty of being able to walk down a street and not getting shot by some gun wielding maniac?

What about the liberty of being able to walk down a street and not getting run over by some ferrari-driving maniac? Stop it with these ridicolous emotional arguments.

SaxonSwine wrote: Wait what? Look at the figures for shotguns. They've halved over the last twenty years.
Handgun figures have also decreased, though yes, they appear to be higher in use than 1997.

Are you fucking drunk? Yes, shotgun figures have gone down, but what we were looking at was the TOTAL NUMBER OF OFFENCES COMMITTED WITH A FIREARM, perhaps I was unclear on this. Goddamn, it looks like someone can't handle the unconvenient truth here. Handgun figures have not decreased at all (unless you count the slight decrease in 1997-1999) and firearm-related crime has gone up in Britain since the ban was introduced.

SaxonSwine wrote: Guns make commiting a crime considerably easier. Take away that easy method, and crime is less likely to take place.

I'm pretty sure I can still rape someone without using a firearm.

SaxonSwine wrote: Umm... please tell me what this method would be for "stealing military weapons". Camp guards make access to a base impossible; and any theft of arms by corrupt soldiers would be investigated by the military police, ending that soldiers career and deterring others from even doing the same thing, and the ensuing investigation would likely hand down lengthy prison sentences to the people recieving the weapons.

Here in Sweden we had a gang of robbers in the 90's that STOLE their weapons from the military (124 SMGs, 92 assault rifles, 5 machine guns).
A base is never impossible to access and again, even though things should be running as smooth as you typed, do they always?

SaxonSwine wrote: But there would be no need to carry guns for self defence if criminals couldn't gain access to guns either D:

Yes, because gun legislation has worked wonders in preventing criminals from accessing guns in the pas- oh wait.

SaxonSwine wrote: Again we come to "missing a shot". If a person is so wildly inaccurate with a weapon they should not be allowed to own one. Imagine if someone gets their gun out for "self defence" when other people are around, innocent bystanders could get hit :/

I like how you think missing a moving target implies that someone is "wildly inaccurate" and shouldn't allowed to own a firearm. Are you really this stupid or are you trolling us? Innocent bystanders can get hit from cop bullets as well, should we strip the law enforcement of their weapons?

Human laws concerning such things, as guns (or e.g. drugs, alcohol) can be highly subjective, i.e. you can't say objectively that this or that should be allowed or banned.

People have different tastes, and different addictions, and also make different decisions - some men can turn guns into tools of murderers, others can use them to protect and prevent dangerous results (if used properly, e.g. criminal's leg/hand is shot, instead of blowing his head off right away).

it is SO easy to get on a base... i was in the USAF and believing me, there was civilians on the base all the time. and if you know the right people, its not a matter of getting on a base, just having someone inside to take them out.

there was a recent problem that was taken care of with someone one the cage that was taking weapons part by part... by the time he was caught, hes had over 13 in his possession, and most likely over 200 sold.

it is SO easy to get on a base... i was in the USAF and believing me, there was civilians on the base all the time.

I'm a civ, and spent the last 18months working on one of Canada's largest bases. It's not like bases seen in videogames or anything, no towers/barbwire fences and I've never seen the gate down. The guns are still locked away and kept track of however (and there's plenty of MP), so I think it would really be about getting someone inside to smuggle (I really can't see anyone taking them by force). Sure the MP will investigate if they find out, but every government seems to have problems keeping track of things it seems, it happens.

agreed cryrid... military bases are nothign like what people think.. barraks and fortifications everywere. theres more of laundrymatts, stores, and things like that... its basically a mini city, with part of it offlimits to the public.

In a properly organized army stealing weapons should be impossible, when we still lived in a former Yugoslavia (people's republic not federal republic) every single empty cartridge had to be accounted for - if not the whole military barracks would be on their knees searching firing-range and military base inch-by-inch until they found it. If you lost a single bullet you'd face a court-martial.

Edited by: MrTambourineMan

MrTambourineMan wrote: In a properly organized army stealing weapons should be impossible, when we still lived in a former Yugoslavia (people's republic not federal republic) every single empty cartridge had to be accounted for - if not the whole military barracks would be on their knees searching firing-range and military base inch-by-inch until they found it. If you lost a single bullet you'd face a court-martial.

That's pretty... extreme. But sometimes it's better than bases open to a robbery, and not caring for an investigation if something is missing.

This is a touchy subject in which i could see either way ...

I'll just see what the majority opinion is and pick the opposite for arguement's sake