The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[brandbll]

So why have it if it doesn't do anything? Here, we can clearly see that the murder rate in the UK was on a substantial decline from 1973 and that the gun ban did nothing to it. In fact, there is a clear spike in gun related homicides just 6 years later;

Stop cherry picking your arguments. The UK is nothing like the US. We are too unique too be compared to any other country. We need to stop looking at others and figure out our problems and solutions ourselves. Both sides need to stop with this stupid UK comparison stuff. That's some ing Piers Morgan pawn game BS you are playing into. Stop it...

[tarvu]

Stop cherry picking your arguments. The UK is nothing like the US. We are too unique too be compared to any other country. We need to stop looking at others and figure out our problems and solutions ourselves. Both sides need to stop with this stupid UK comparison stuff. That's some ing Piers Morgan pawn game BS you are playing into. Stop it...

There is no need to use the UK you can look at gun control in nearly all developed nations, unfortunately we cannot look at an alternative universe United States with no guns because this is not possible with our current technology.

There are many factors that contribute to crime and access to guns is not necessary in order for a crime to take place (obviously). When we are talking about gun crime, and deaths related to guns then obviously guns and the perpetrators access to them are a part of it whether some want to admit that obvious fact or not.

[mrmouth]

EWWWWWWWWW why'd he do the rail that goes past the front site?! It's like.. a woman who doesn't shave or something.

EDIT: and what the hell's with the harris bipod and the super holo sight?! he should've atleast gotten a chrome free floating barrel and one of those new angled grips if he's gonna put so much money into add ons

OMG check out the v neck!

[Whukid]

Stop cherry picking your arguments. The UK is nothing like the US. We are too unique too be compared to any other country. We need to stop looking at others and figure out our problems and solutions ourselves. Both sides need to stop with this stupid UK comparison stuff. That's some ing Piers Morgan pawn game BS you are playing into. Stop it...

I wasn't comparing the UK to anybody. I was simply showing that there was no effect whatsoever from the gun ban. Had I been comparing them, I would've brought up the size of their violent crime rate compared to ours or the knife-legislation they've created as of late.

There are many factors that contribute to crime and access to guns is not necessary in order for a crime to take place (obviously). When we are talking about gun crime, and deaths related to guns then obviously guns and the perpetrators access to them are a part of it whether some want to admit that obvious fact or not.

The gun crime in the US is minuscule at an unbelievable level. I already posted the math, but basically it comes down to .00000612% of all firearms in the US being used in homicides, .000000212% if you only look at long arms (of which Assault weapons are a subcategory of).

There is literally more sense in arguing to increase the Federal regulation on privately owned swimming pools.

[The spartan]

In the US? You mean speed tracks?

How about private land...

The Thompson didn't arrive in time for trench warfare. For all the doom and gloom people like to stir up about full auto, it seems the general consensus is that it's a waste of ammo. Also I daresay fighting through trenches is different from shooting at a bunch of people in a theater.

Not in mass production, no. The thompson was designed as a response to trench warfare where an assault trooper could "sweep out" a trench on a full auto. In what trial it got, it was damn good at it too. Full auto has its effective use, and a bunch of people crowded together is one of them.

[motiv-8]

How about private land...

Oh yeah, SOOOO many people have the amount of private land with suitable enough roads to tear around at 100mph. Come on.

[Holger Danske]

OMG check out the v neck!

Look at the ridiculous pose. That's not how a badass holds his rifle. Looks more like a CoD-kid

[I WUB PUGS]

Look at the ridiculous pose. That's not how a badass holds his rifle. Looks more like a CoD-kid

You would be correct, but more importantly, everyone under the age of 35 has at one time been a COD kid.

We're all douchetastic fags now.

Fitty got guns too!


OMG I love all my AKs!!!

[MathiasOfAthens]

Except using a non-lethal weapon in a robbery is a felony, using an unloaded firearm is not.

An unloaded firearm is in most cases non-lethal. But if it is a rifle you could prob use the but end to beat in someones head so it then becomes lethal. So that makes using an unloaded firearm (non-lethal) in a robbery a felony.

None of these reasons is really worth.. anything. If "being a douche" is the only reason you should be kept from owning a brand new M1A, then we should ban Lil Wayne and the use of the term "swag" while we're at it. And bluetooths.

Or draft their ing asses and make them serve.

[Whukid]

An unloaded firearm is in most cases non-lethal. But if it is a rifle you could prob use the but end to beat in someones head so it then becomes lethal. So that makes using an unloaded firearm (non-lethal) in a robbery a felony.

The Aggravated Assault includes "the threat of a deadly weapon", of which an unloaded firearm is not. It's a misdemeanor. Using a nonlethal weapon in assaulting someone is Aggravated Assault, and therefore a felony, which was the point of my statement. Using an unloaded rifle falls under the misdemeanor, not a felony

Or draft their ing asses and make them serve.

Why should you have to be an expendable nobody to the government in order to have access to your rights? Maybe we should require a draft for the first amendment too. Maybe people will think before they say the stupid like "our rights are outdated"

Not in mass production, no. The thompson was designed as a response to trench warfare where an assault trooper could "sweep out" a trench on a full auto. In what trial it got, it was damn good at it too. Full auto has its effective use, and a bunch of people crowded together is one of them.

...Except it was developed by John Thompson in 1919, a year after the war ended. There was no "trial", it was first used by the IRA against the British in the 20's and adopted by the Feds in 1933. In fact, the Irish hated it because they found it to be useless in combat.

July 1921, the IRA imported more Thompsons and they were used in the subsequent Irish Civil War (1922–23). They were not found to be very effective in Ireland. In only 32% of actions where it was used did the Thompson cause serious casualties (death or serious injury) to those attacked.[20]

[Surgeon]

Not in mass production, no. The thompson was designed as a response to trench warfare where an assault trooper could "sweep out" a trench on a full auto. In what trial it got, it was damn good at it too. Full auto has its effective use, and a bunch of people crowded together is one of them.

"Sweeping out a trench" is not exactly the same as shooting a crowd of people though. A gun being good at close quarters combat, where the main point is to kill an armed soldier before he kills you as you come around a corner (and you probably wouldn't be facing more than a few opponents at a time given the narrowness of the trench and soldiers using tactics rather than bunching up to get shot), doesn't necessarily make it good at killing groups of people in absolutely any scenario. If full autos were that much more effective than semis in general I'd imagine every soldier would be equipped with a machine gun instead of rifles.

[IlluminatiRex]

TT we discover bdd458 doesn't understand the difference between having fun and treating other people like . PUGS at least isn't making the insinuation that if you've never played DayZ you're totally ignorant of anything related to guns and shouldn't be allowed to participate in discussion. Totally a mystery as to how knowing or not knowing what "AR" stands for in AR-15 makes any difference at all. Oh wait, it doesn't, and your attitude is best described as petty and immature in that regard.

To me, for you to have a truly relevant place in the discussion you need to have some sort of experience with what you're discussing. The fact is, I've heard people actually say that the AR in AR-15 means Assault Rifle, guess what platform they stood upon? Why should I bother listening to what they have to say on Gun Control if they really don't know what they're talking about. That's like taking a History course in college and your professor has a PhD in a subject other than what he is teaching. If you know nothing of weapons, why post anything meaningful. That's why I've limited myself to not posting crime statistics, or real specifics of weapons and such because there are others in this debate that already have, and they have more experience in the field than me. Instead I've tried lightening the mood, posting Frances laws (kinda got fed up with hearing about the UK vs US), worst case scenarios, and an "Argument" involving a statistically irrelevant event (the gun control side does that as well, meaning using the statistically irrelevant mass shootings as a platform for their cause. It was to point out a flaw in logic).

And don't get me started on me being the mean one here.

You're right it is silly when someone uses the term the worst case scenario

What I said related, what does DayZ have to do with Gun Control, absolutely nothing. He's not the only guilty one here, but he deserved it more than anyone else for his gem of a quote "What a meaningful post".

Don't forget something to do with bears and Alaska too....

Oh man, the joke of my Alaska "argument" went over some peoples heads. Guess what's statistically irrelevant in my Alaska "argument"? It would be the fact that Bears coming into homes is very rare. Sounds similar to mass shootings...

[tarvu]

The Aggravated Assault includes "the threat of a deadly weapon", of which an unloaded firearm is not. It's a misdemeanor. Using a nonlethal weapon in assaulting someone is Aggravated Assault, and therefore a felony, which was the point of my statement. Using an unloaded rifle falls under the misdemeanor, not a felony



Why should you have to be an expendable nobody to the government in order to have access to your rights? Maybe we should require a draft for the first amendment too. Maybe people will think before they say the stupid like "our rights are outdated"
...Except it was developed by John Thompson in 1919, a year after the war ended. There was no "trial", it was first used by the IRA against the British in the 20's and adopted by the Feds in 1933. In fact, the Irish hated it because they found it to be useless in combat.

But your "rights are outdated" you can't own any arms you want. You cannot legally possess a RPG or surface to air missile system. You can't own most military grade arms already. So I don't know why you are like this is some new attempt to take away your "rights".

To me, for you to have a truly relevant place in the discussion you need to have some sort of experience with what you're discussing. The fact is, I've heard people actually say that the AR in AR-15 means Assault Rifle, guess what platform they stood upon? Why should I bother listening to what they have to say on Gun Control if they really don't know what they're talking about. That's like taking a History course in college and your professor has a PhD in a subject other than what he is teaching. If you know nothing of weapons, why post anything meaningful. That's why I've limited myself to not posting crime statistics, or real specifics of weapons and such because there are others in this debate that already have, and they have more experience in the field than me. Instead I've tried lightening the mood, posting Frances laws (kinda got fed up with hearing about the UK vs US), worst case scenarios, and an "Argument" involving a statistically irrelevant event (the gun control side does that as well, meaning using the statistically irrelevant mass shootings as a platform for their cause).

Statistically irrelevant is not very accurate as it is hardly inevitable so even one incident a year in a nation like China would be relevant to anyone looking at the issue. Besides it is politically and socially very relevant which is why you don't (yet) have the NRA launching a platform of "who gives a about dead school children anyways, you are more likely to be struck by lightning LOL!".

[I WUB PUGS]

What I said related, what does DayZ have to do with Gun Control, absolutely nothing. He's not the only guilty one here, but he deserved it more than anyone else for his gem of a quote "What a meaningful post".

At least I was responding to another poster who brought up another video game, not just randomly and unreasonably insinuating that anyone that keeps bringing up "AR-15" thinks it means auto-rifle 15.

[The spartan]

Oh yeah, SOOOO many people have the amount of private land with suitable enough roads to tear around at 100mph. Come on.

Yeah, I mean, you cant go to someone else's private land and go as fast as you want. You know, like a private track? Also, aren't we talking about people who have really expensive cars and junk? The main point here is he said "why don't we get rid of cars that can go 150 mph+ since there is no place to legally do it" and I pointed out; yes, there are legal places to do it.

[Gelgoog]

Doesn't end crime, but maybe people should get more tazers or mace. Mace still works, like a charm actually. I think it would be funny seeing some criminal try to run up on me with a friggin hunting rifle while I have a tazer.

Mace is not that effective. Beats using your fists, but you build a resistance to it. I have seen guys who eat that stuff for breakfast. I did not particularly enjoy getting a full 2 second exposure of Sabre Red at the police academy. I rather get tasered every day for a week then get OC'd again, but it is still a less lethal and not a very good defense against a determined attacker.

Also I think a smart criminal that wants to rob you should just get a tazer. "You're on the ground, I got your wallet and your gun and I'm running away". Assault with a non-lethal weapon sounds preferable to me.

Then you know very little about them. Your going to attack someone with a gun when you only have a taser? Are you insane? Do you know how unreliable tasers are? Police officers carry OC spray, Taser and firearms...when someone presents a lethal threat to them they do not use less lethals in response.

Taser vs Knife....I am going to bet on knife every time.

The main point here is he said "why don't we get rid of cars that can go 150 mph+ since there is no place to legally do it" and I pointed out; yes, there are legal places to do it.

We should restrict those people to not driving such dangerous machines outside of race tracks, since they do not belong on our streets. Think of all the children killed in accidents every year because some idiot gets a sports car and decides to go 120 in a 50 mph zone.

But your "rights are outdated" you can't own any arms you want. You cannot legally possess a RPG or surface to air missile system. You can't own most military grade arms already. So I don't know why you are like this is some new attempt to take away your "rights".

RPGs and surface to air missiles are not arms they are crew served weapons and what the founders would have called "artillery", just as hand grenades were.

[Davius]

Why do we need to own Bushmasters? Because the people trying to take our rights away have them.

[I WUB PUGS]

Why do we need to own Bushmasters? Because the people trying to take our rights away have them.

Expand on this please.

Also Gelgoog, I think you missed the point. If I'm going to mug you with a tazer, I'm not going to let you know I'm doing it until you're already on the ground and I'm picking you over. Sounds smarter. Hell, could possibly pull it off so well that your victim is so stunned they can't even describe you to the police. Or you know, I could just play into white fear and shoot you while you're not looking and rape your girlfriend. But then I run the risk of getting caught and getting the chair/chamber.

FYI, RPGs are not crew served. Most rocket systems can be handled by one person easily. The founders also didn't express what they meant at all in the 2nd Amendment. You're applying your own interpretation just as I can say you don't get anything more powerful than a muzzle loader.

[Gelgoog]

Expand on this please.

Also Gelgoog, I think you missed the point. If I'm going to mug you with a tazer, I'm not going to let you know I'm doing it until you're already on the ground and I'm picking you over. Sounds smarter. Hell, could possibly pull it off so well that your victim is so stunned they can't even describe you to the police. Or you know, I could just play into white fear and shoot you while you're not looking and rape your girlfriend. But then I run the risk of getting caught and getting the chair/chamber.

Yea sorry I read that too fast. I thought you were implying someone use less lethals for defense against criminals. Yes less lethals could be used quite effectively by criminals, I have often wondered why a bank robber for instance does not use OC spray on their victims to prevent them from identifying their get away vehicle.

FYI, RPGs are not crew served. Most rocket systems can be handled by one person easily. The founders also didn't express what they meant at all in the 2nd Amendment. You're applying your own interpretation just as I can say you don't get anything more powerful than a muzzle loader.

It is still classified as a crew served weapon. Most machineguns can be carried and used by one man but they does not make them any less of a crew served weapon.

Also no it is not my own interpretation. Simply by using the context of what the word "arms" meant back when the document was wrote we can see there is a clear distinction between arms- swords, muskets (infantry weapons). Where as hand grenades and cannons were considered artillery, which is why they were used differently. Guess what, they also had rifled grenades "hand mortars".

[I WUB PUGS]

No, we had independent artillery companies that fell under the militia for quite some time after the Constitution and the militias were regulated only by the states. The debacle of the Spanish-American War caused the demand for a national standard and thus we got the Militia Act of 1903.

The founding fathers didn't bother to imply what an arm was at all. It's completely vague and up to interpretation. At a minimum in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment (that can be overruled anyway by a new amendment) has to be met in some form. The government could tell you that in order to own any sort of firearm you have to do 30 years military service and you can only own one and you only get one bullet, actually arms doesn't even include ammo but I guess it didn't matter back then since everyone made their own. Or you could say everyone gets a nuclear bomb.

The constitution doesn't support it either way, only that we get to be armed, with what is entirely debatable. But don't try and apply your definition of "arms" by saying we didn't get to have artillery. That's a myth as our personally/locally funded militias more than illustrate.

This is how we have a gradual increase in restrictions. Again, less than a century ago anyone could own a machine gun. It was only a captivating crime wave that forced the crack down on these weapons. The Constitution does not guarantee your right to any specific form of weapon at all.