Gun Control

as a hunter i think it is a right to own guns for recreational purposes but, i think that owning a .50 rifle is over doing it. weapons for self defense are also questionable because if we loosen those laws then i think more people could have guns to attack people. please post what you think. 

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Our founding fathers put it in there because they want you to use it in case the US government if it ever became tyrannical.

>>1
hunt with your hands and sharpened sticks ya pansy-faggot. oh look. i'm a fuckin legend because i can shoot this bear/deer/rabbit from 200yards away...

hunting means stalking, waiting and delivering 1 blow kills.

not shooting shit in a forest...

>>82

but guns are more effective for keeping populations of animals down.

>>84
so are high explosives but u dont use them

>>85
That's for fishing.

>>86
true dat

>>85
fuck you, you want to ban high explosives now? What happenned to the days when you could buy 6 sticks of dynamite with a pound of sugar at the corner store?

>>88
Explosives aren't banned, fyi, you just need to go through a bit of paperwork to get them. 

ok so I shuld get the EVGA 8800 GTX 768MB PCIe vid card right coz it has better gun control?

a coupla sticks of geliganite and an old alarum clock.

>>78
Hello, friend, sorry for the delay.

"Your stance doesn't affect this? What? The topic is gun control, you give your stance on the issue and respond to others, that's how it works. How doesn't your stance affect this? If you have no answers and can only criticize mine, well that's pretty stupid if you ask me. How is the tyranny argument alien to you? Are you familiar with American history? Well, it all started with some tyrannical mercantilist Brits exploiting their American colony through taxation etc. This pissed the Americans off and they rebelled. They beat the vastly superior British Army because of... guns! Yes, they gave everyone and their kid a musket and even though they lacked military experience, they won because guns leveled the playing field. Their are lots of other examples of this in history. Guns are the key to revolution, whether you can 'relate to it' or not."

No, I don't have to take a stand on gun control in order to debate it. That's not "how it works". You go on about tyranny and rebellion and I chose not to respond to that out of politeness and respect for our cultural differences. I understand that "defense from tyranny" is a valid argument in America but it isn't in the rest of the civilized world. My only alternative to silence would be to mock you, and that wouldn't be nice. Let's just rejoice in our diversity.

I actually have answers, my answer is: restrict gun ownership. You will enjoy less crime in general and more importantly a lower murder rate. Criminals won't be able to get hold of guns as evidenced by the fact that in no country with restricted gun ownership is gun crime rampant. There is of course the issue of transition, I'll give you that.

"A hypothetical system in which the access to firearms is very limited? What the hell is that supposed to mean? That is too vague to mean anything and I suspect you don't actually have any idea how to reduce crime through gun control."

It is vague because I was previously accused of repeating myself. The hypothetical system is the system used in the rest of the world - one in which gun ownership is limited to that for the purpose of hunting and competitive shooting. In such a system there would not be a ready access to firearms and in the risk assessment stage any individual considering murder would have to factor in a more taxing (both physically and mentally) and risky "modus operandi". Since you responded to this by saying that a three day waiting period is hardly enough to deter anyone you are obviously not familiar with this argument, in fact one might even say that you inadvertently support it.

"Okay... so how do you prevent a person with no criminal record who wants to murder someone from obtaining a gun? You can ban all guns, which punishes law abiding gun owners, as well as the tyranny problem, as well as the whole violation of the constitution. So, what do you propose? If you have no answers and can only raise hypothetical situations, then your ideology doesn't make much sense."

When there are no guns on the market obtaining one is a hassle. This is not only obvious prima facie but supported by the fact that murders in countries with few or no guns on the market are committed with other means - again, usually knives or blunt objects. Not only is your claim that criminals always will have access to guns false (by the same rationale criminals will always have access to plutonium), but a system without guns would also deter from impulse murders - for example a non-habitual criminal acting in a fit of rage.

cum control?

>>92

Hope you two don't mind if I jump into the discussion.  While I'm at it, here's a few fact sheets and documents to consider: 
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.1/GunFacts4-1-Print.pdf
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209

"You go on about tyranny and rebellion and I chose not to respond to that out of politeness and respect for our cultural differences. I understand that "defense from tyranny" is a valid argument in America but it isn't in the rest of the civilized world."

Why is defense against tyranny an invalid argument in 'the rest of the civilized world'?

"I actually have answers, my answer is: restrict gun ownership. You will enjoy less crime in general and more importantly a lower murder rate."

States with lax gun control laws, such as Vermont, New Hampshire, and Alaska have some of the lowest crime rates in Alaska.  Vermont is one of the few states in America that lets you carry concealed firearms without a permit, and they have been nominated as the safest state in the nation for years on end.  Conversely, the areas of the United States that have high crime and murder rates, such as Washington D.C., have stringent gun control laws enacted.  States that have enacted right to carry laws have enjoyed massive reductions of crime following the enactment of such laws.  Kennesaw GA enacted a law MANDATING that the head of household maintain a firearm and some ammunition.  Subsequently, the residential burglary rate fell by 89%.  The rate for the state of Georgia as a whole dropped by around 10%.  Ten years after the passing of the law, the crime rate was still 72% lower than it was before the area had passed the mandatory gun ownership law.  Following the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban that was enacted back in the 90's, the crime rate actually fell 3.6 percent.  So to all appearances, what we need is to encourage responsible gun ownership.

"Criminals won't be able to get hold of guns as evidenced by the fact that in no country with restricted gun ownership is gun crime rampant."

In England, a handgun ban was emplaced.  Subsequently, the use of handguns to commit crimes went up 40%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
Crimes with guns have soared in numerous UK cities.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/712807/posts

Crimes with guns have increased dramatically in Australia as well following the enactment of their own gun control measures:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
http://www.sightm1911.com/docs/guncrimesoars.htm

Also, with the banning of many of these firearms, as you will see in the articles, this creates a black market wherein criminals can then get their guns.  Criminals don't obey gun control laws.  If you pass a law disarming everyone, the lawful will obey and the criminals will not.  The result is that the law-abiding are disarmed, and the criminals are free to run rampant without the fear of getting shot when they break into someone's house at night, thanks to the fact that they know that the person is legally disarmed.  Gun control = victim disarmament.

"When there are no guns on the market obtaining one is a hassle."

Washington D.C. has had stringent gun control laws, and they have a burgeoning black market for firearms.  The United Kingdom has banned guns, and even though they are an island nation, they now have a burgeoning black market for firearms.  Australia has banned guns, and they too have a burgeoning black market for firearms.  Criminals don't care what gun control laws you pass since they don't obtain their guns legally to begin with. 

>>94


lol @ sources.

>>95
lol@retards

As formerly highly competitive shooter during my high school years, Gun control laws would be... bad. 

It was a pain enough as it was that a kid accidentally shot the kid next to him while getting out of position in the last year of my shooting.  Because of that, new rules were made to make it harder to kill your neighbour (weed-wacker string all the way through the barrel, goggles (THEY DO NOTHING. And they were a pain, too), etc, etc).  They might not have seemed bad to a non-shooter, but when you're shooting, you're supposed to be in a mood without any, or many distractions.  Having to take care of safety controls just a few seconds before you shoot is a huge pain.

As much as I hated the rules, they were better than banning guns all around.  The problem with those rules, is that they're meant for controlled environments such as ranges, and can't be extended into the real world, where there are no range officers.

Banning guns altogether is just plain retarded.  I do, however agree with a bit of gun control, knowing the power of the guns and mishandlement that so many god damn people do with their guns.

>>94
>>96
You know, you're really not going to convince ANYBODY by linking to the NRA, regardless of accuracy contain therein.

99 GET

ban bullets

Just don't let blacks or mexicans have guns and problem solved.

>>98
I already have, and will likely continue to do so.  The fact that a source is biased does not mean it is incorrect. 

halliburton is please

d

>>102
the Dan Rather news group. ABC is negotitiating with Rosie O'Donnell to anchor their evening news.

Gun control is just another way for the government to demean the masses.