Guns

[INFERNO]

Did you not read the part where I said a prison inmate built a gun? If they can make one, then just imagine what 100 people and millions of dollars could make? Guns aren't going to go away. You ban them in America, they'll get smuggled in from Mexico and Canada. It's just not feasible.

Just because someone is in prison doesn't mean they're a blundering idiot. When you toss someone in prison, they will associate with other criminals and it's not a far stretch of the imagination to assume that those criminals know a thing or two about making a certain drug or gun. With that said, an inmate can build a gun but that doesn't mean they built an amazing high-powered sniper rifle with immense accuracy. A prisoner can build something to be a knife, doesn't mean the knife is of high quality.

Millions of dollars can allow guns to be made also, however, they're going to be of higher-quality and probably more accurate with more ammunition. It's like saying that two people can make a picture, one of them is a random person who sploshed paint randomly while the other one is better than Picasso. Your analogy is moot.

[The Batman]

I guess that depends on your definition of "good quality".
How about you provide us with facts and links that prove without a doubt that good quality guns can not be made at home or if you have experience in it why don't you tell us your stories of it because simply just saying that, "oh you can't make it" isn't proving anything.

[Rutherford The Brave]

How about you provide us with facts and links that prove without a doubt that good quality guns can not be made at home or if you have experience in it why don't you tell us your stories of it because simply just saying that, "oh you can't make it" isn't proving anything.

Exactly, how do you know that one person couldn't create a good quality weapon? What if a criminal had a masters in mechanics or something? He probably could create a gun, that not only has power, but accuracy as well if he desired.

[2D]

Just because someone is in prison doesn't mean they're a blundering idiot. When you toss someone in prison, they will associate with other criminals and it's not a far stretch of the imagination to assume that those criminals know a thing or two about making a certain drug or gun. With that said, an inmate can build a gun but that doesn't mean they built an amazing high-powered sniper rifle with immense accuracy. A prisoner can build something to be a knife, doesn't mean the knife is of high quality.

Millions of dollars can allow guns to be made also, however, they're going to be of higher-quality and probably more accurate with more ammunition. It's like saying that two people can make a picture, one of them is a random person who sploshed paint randomly while the other one is better than Picasso. Your analogy is moot.

I wasn't saying that everyone in prison is an idiot. I was saying that if a criminal in prison with limited supplies could make a rudimentary gun (not accurate or powerful by any real measure), imagine what hundreds of criminals with unlimited supplies could make. It's doable that they could make a well built, reliable gun that could be produced in large numbers.

[CaptainObvious]

Did you not read the part where I said a prison inmate built a gun? If they can make one, then just imagine what 100 people and millions of dollars could make?

Anybody can build "a gun". My friend can build a "potato" gun, for example. I'm not arguing guns can't be made, I'm arguing they can't be made to anything near the standard of lethality that a gun manufacturer can create.

Guns aren't going to go away. You ban them in America, they'll get smuggled in from Mexico and Canada. It's just not feasible.

I already rebutted this misconception above. The vast majority of guns on this continent are produced in America; if America banned most guns, they certainly wouldn't be flowing in from Canada and while they might possibly come in some numbers from Mexico, it would be in nowhere near the same quantities.

How about you provide us with facts and links that prove without a doubt that good quality guns can not be made at home or if you have experience in it why don't you tell us your stories of it because simply just saying that, "oh you can't make it" isn't proving anything.

Because you can't prove a negative, sweetheart.

Provide me an example of someone creating a homemade, reliable, quickly reloadable, compact semiautomatic weapon - standards met by all handguns - and I concede the point, but otherwise I've never seen any evidence that homemade weapons are anything other than crude.

[The Batman]

Because you can't prove a negative, sweetheart.

Provide me an example of someone creating a homemade, reliable, quickly reloadable, compact semiautomatic weapon - standards met by all handguns - and I concede the point, but otherwise I've never seen any evidence that homemade weapons are anything other than crude.
"Sweetheart" you can prove a negative by disproving the positives. I actually do have a link for a good quality firearm like I've said before but posting it here could get this site in some legal issues and i rather not post how to make a gun on a teen forum. However if you do a search yourself you'll most likely find it.

[CaptainObvious]

"Sweetheart" you can prove a negative by disproving the positives. I actually do have a link for a good quality firearm like I've said before but posting it here could get this site in some legal issues and i rather not post how to make a gun on a teen forum. However if you do a search yourself you'll most likely find it.

You can't disprove all the positives.... which is the whole point of the "impossible to prove a negative" thing.

My original contention was that homemade weapons are of such an inferior quality - and the higher quality ones will be rare and difficult enough to build - that their existence is a significantly less heightened risk to public safety than that represented by the availability of illegal guns aided by the availability of legal guns. I have seen no substantial challenge to that argument, yet.

[The Batman]

You can't disprove all the positives.... which is the whole point of the "impossible to prove a negative" thing.

My original contention was that homemade weapons are of such an inferior quality - and the higher quality ones will be rare and difficult enough to build - that their existence is a significantly less heightened risk to public safety than that represented by the availability of illegal guns aided by the availability of legal guns. I have seen no substantial challenge to that argument, yet.

And you have not presented any evidence to back up your claim either.

[Tiberius]

Hey Deschain, mind not ignoring the rather substantive and telling rebuttal of what you said that I posted?

I'm still waiting for someone from the "but criminals get guns regardless of laws!" camp to explain to me where all these guns are supposed to come from if there is no legal market on the continent from which to divert them.



Ironic, since this is precisely as powerful an argument when it comes to legalizing various drugs and yet you seem blind to its utility there...



Don't be more obtuse than strictly necessary. Obviously the argument about controlling guns reducing homicide is only true ceteris paribus. Whereas, the comparison between Switzerland and the UK is certainly not so.
Ah, and CaptainObvious is obviously wrong here....The homicide rates are higher now in England than they were before the gun control was put in place. Please, explain where the things weren't the same. They were the same group of statistics that were collected from an entire country with the independent variable being the presence/lack of guns. Talk about being obtuse, Captain:censored:....

[nnnm]

I feel that guns should be allowed to anyone 18+ on a one strike basis. Which means if you misuse it, have any type of arrest or criminal background, you may no longer have gun rights.

They should only be used for hunting, and self-defense, and if necessary. Self defense is walking a very fine line. Its hard to discern when it's OK and when it's not.

[Perseus]

I'd like to add that where I live, there used to be a law(I posted this on my first post in this thread, the law is out of place, now. I thought it was still in effect) that anyone in the ciy of Kennesaw had to own a gun. Break ins and the such went down; I learned this from my criminal justice teacher. Before anyone starts saying, "show me statistics" and that junk, I'll get to it later.

[nick]

I feel that guns should be allowed to anyone 18+ on a one strike basis. Which means if you misuse it, have any type of arrest or criminal background, you may no longer have gun rights.

They should only be used for hunting, and self-defense, and if necessary. Self defense is walking a very fine line. Its hard to discern when it's OK and when it's not.
That one strike idea seems pretty daft to me. By the time someone has misused their one strike its too late for whoever was on the receiving end.

Matt asked whether Americans are obsessed with guns, it seems to me that he has received a pretty conclusive answer.

[theOperaGhost]

Actually, I answered the question whether Americans were obsessed with guns or not. I said no, Americans are obsessed with possessions. Americans are some of the worst hoarders ever. We are extremely possessive people. If a gun is part of our possessions, we are going to be mad if people try to take it away. Same as our TVs, computers, cars, clothes, etc, etc, etc. Guns are just another possession to us. We are not gun obsessed, we are just extremely possessive.


EDIT: And that strike thing he was talking about...not a good idea. First of all, people who have committed a violent crime or a felony can't legally own a gun in the first place.

These people can't legally acquire a gun in the United States:

* Those convicted of crimes punishable by IMPRISONMENT for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less
* Fugitives from justice
* Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
* Those deemed legally as incompetent and those committed to mental institutions
* Illegal aliens
* Citizens who have renounced their citizenship
* Those persons dishonorably discharged from the armed services
* Persons less than eighteen years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle
* Persons less than twenty-one years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle
* Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, STALKING, or threatening an intimate partner
* Persons convicted in any court of a MISDEMEANOR crime of domestic violence

[Cloud]

Anybody can build "a gun". My friend can build a "potato" gun, for example. I'm not arguing guns can't be made, I'm arguing they can't be made to anything near the standard of lethality that a gun manufacturer can create.
If people want to make guns
then they will.
if gun manufacturers can do it
whats to stop criminals doing the same
all you need is the right design or a existing gun to copy and your ready to go

Paragraphs and punctuation are wonderful things. And if you're serioulsy purporting it to be likely that people could self-produce weapons anywhere near as effective as professionally-manufactured guns, then... yeah, to say I'd be surprised if that was true is an understatement.

Yes and so is making the post understandable
but hey i write how i want since it breaks up huge blocks of text and makes it easier to read
you can make a knife out of a plastic block some screws a thick metal piece and a grinder...
and im 15 and i know that
imagine what people can do if they have actually studied guns
ever hear anythings possible if you put your mind to it
same thing goes for this
so be surprised

[Perseus]

I'd like to add that where I live, there used to be a law(I posted this on my first post in this thread, the law is out of place, now. I thought it was still in effect) that anyone in the ciy of Kennesaw had to own a gun. Break ins and the such went down; I learned this from my criminal justice teacher. Before anyone starts saying, "show me statistics" and that junk, I'll get to it later.

Here is information backing up my claim..

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

'Tis my source (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm)
At one part in the website, the author sort of turns biased.
This artice thing was published, I guess, in the late 90s.

[CaptainObvious]

Ah, and CaptainObvious is obviously wrong here....The homicide rates are higher now in England than they were before the gun control was put in place. Please, explain where the things weren't the same. They were the same group of statistics that were collected from an entire country with the independent variable being the presence/lack of guns. Talk about being obtuse, Captain:censored:....

I can't decide whether to laugh or glue my face to my palm at this post. You're seriously asking me what could possibly be responsible for homicide rate changes in a country over 20 years?

Well hell, I don't know, just about anything?

This isn't a pretty and simple lab experiment kiddo, you can't just isolate an "independent variable" from homicide statistics compiled under constantly changing conditions over a number of years. It's a little bit embarrassing for you that you think that's a valid approach. Millions of different conditions that effect the crime rates of a country change over a period of time on the scale of a decade or two, it is astoundingly stupid of you to just assume that the change must be because of the banning of guns. An example of the kind of thing that can effect a year's homicide rate: in 2002, the Shipman inquiry attributed 218 identifiable deaths as homicides perpetrated by Harold Shipman. None of those involved weapons, yet they were all counted in homicide statistics for the year and constituted a significant proportion of those reported that year, despite having occurred over a period of many years prior to the fact.

Your contention is also currently flatly false: this year's homicide rate in the UK is the lowest in 20 years. So how do you explain that? What single independent variable is responsible for that change?

As a statistics major, this kind of misuse of statistics highly annoys me. You cannot validly ignore the many confounding factors, Tiber:censored:..

Also, though this is not as relevant any longer, it's spelled captain.

If people want to make guns
then they will.
if gun manufacturers can do it
whats to stop criminals doing the same
all you need is the right design or a existing gun to copy and your ready to go

What's to stop criminals doing the same thing as professional gun manufacturers? Well I don't know, what's to stop you from building a car with Ferrari-equivalent performance at home? Technical skills, materials, the right tools, and many other things.

Yes and so is making the post understandable
but hey i write how i want since it breaks up huge blocks of text and makes it easier to read

If you can't understand my posts I'm very sorry, but that's your problem; I write very properly and other than the big words I use there should be no problem with understanding. Ask if you need help.

you can make a knife out of a plastic block some screws a thick metal piece and a grinder...

A knife isn't a gun. So I don't see how this is relevant in any way.

imagine what people can do if they have actually studied guns
ever hear anythings possible if you put your mind to it
same thing goes for this
so be surprised

I've heard many people say things like "anything is possible if you put your mind to it"... and generally, they're wrong. Repeating random sayings is not really an argument.

And you have not presented any evidence to back up your claim either.

You're right. And I'd like to pretend there's evidence one way or another, but there probably isn't. The prevalence and aggregate workmanship of homemade improvised firearms is not exactly well-studied, and data is scarce.

But that doesn't really matter, because I don't see the existence of some level of homemade weapons as a valid counterargument. For it to be valid in countering my actual argument, you'd have to be telling me that the level of violence resulting from improvised weapons would be so large as to eradicate the reduction in violence due to a lack of legally available professionally-made weaponry. And that is just not a credible claim.

[Cloud]

What's to stop criminals doing the same thing as professional gun manufacturers? Well I don't know, what's to stop you from building a car with Ferrari-equivalent performance at home? Technical skills, materials, the right tools, and many other things.

your aware how many super cars are projects started in peoples sheds
i have built a race car from aluminium tubing
that can go at 40mph
and with an electric engine
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu259/calstephen94/DSC00912.jpg
and theres the proof
that people can do things if they actually take the time and focus on things
so just think what ill be able to do once ive studied engines long enough
please
dont be so naive
You say guns cant be produced without the correct tools
well how the fuck were they first created without specialised tools?


A knife isn't a gun. So I don't see how this is relevant in any way.
a knife is a weapon
and you said weapons

I've heard many people say things like "anything is possible if you put your mind to it"... and generally, they're wrong. Repeating random sayings is not really an argument.
and neither is general facts
which for you
seem to be wrong frequently

just google how to make a gun and you will see how easily aquired the instructions are

[2D]

Anybody can build "a gun". My friend can build a "potato" gun, for example. I'm not arguing guns can't be made, I'm arguing they can't be made to anything near the standard of lethality that a gun manufacturer can create.

Me and my brother made a potato gun that put a hole in a brick wall. You would not be in one piece after getting shot with it.

[CaptainObvious]

your aware how many super cars are projects started in peoples sheds
i have built a race car from aluminium tubing
that can go at 40mph
and with an electric engine
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu259/calstephen94/DSC00912.jpg
and theres the proof

Congratulations on that project, looks cool, but you're precisely demonstrating my point. You built a cage with wheels, an engine, steering, etc. Its performance and design is extremely deficient compared to the standard car. I never argued that people could not make guns, merely that they could not make guns to nearly the same standard of function and technical accuracy as professionals.

that people can do things if they actually take the time and focus on things
so just think what ill be able to do once ive studied engines long enough
please
dont be so naive
You say guns cant be produced without the correct tools
well how the fuck were they first created without specialised tools?

Did you not read what I was arguing or do I have to remind you every post? I have never argued guns cannot be created, I have merely argued that in the vast majority of cases homemade weapons will not be nearly as functional, dangerous, powerful, etc. as professionally-created weapons. The first guns were extremely primitive by comparison with today's weapons, and so that follows directly with my argument. Can you not see that?

a knife is a weapon
and you said weapons

While I did at one point say weapons, which was imprecise, your mentioning knives is still irrelevant sidebar since I said no one could self-produce "weapons anywhere near as effective a professionally-manufactured guns"... is a knife anywhere near as effective at killing as a professionally-manufactured gun? Obviously not. Moving on...

and neither is general facts
which for you
seem to be wrong frequently

That's just jumbled and meaningless.

just google how to make a gun and you will see how easily aquired the instructions are

Are you incapable of seeing how that's not a rebuttal to my argument? The presence of knowledge does not mean that knowledge can be easily or widely implemented. Instructions on the Internet exist to create a nuclear bomb... good luck with that.

[Cloud]

Congratulations on that project, looks cool, but you're precisely demonstrating my point. You built a cage with wheels, an engine, steering, etc. Its performance and design is extremely deficient compared to the standard car. I never argued that people could not make guns, merely that they could not make guns to nearly the same standard of function and technical accuracy as professionals.


so basicly
your taking the ferrari
top of the line
The 50 calibre of the car world
the completely overpowered thing

and saying that the ford standard
average thing
the 9mm of the car world
nothing to flash does its job like its supposed to
cant be achieved

no one needs a 50 calibre gun to commit crimes
they can easily be done with the simple things
thats performance can easily be matched if not exceeded when focused on


oh and the cage with wheels
take note that im 15
and i built a cage on wheels
5 more years maybe go to college get an engineering degree
i could be designing and manufacturing new cars
how
because ill have the knowledge to do it properly
things arent hard to learn
and skills are adaptable

[2D]

What's to stop criminals doing the same thing as professional gun manufacturers? Well I don't know, what's to stop you from building a car with Ferrari-equivalent performance at home? Technical skills, materials, the right tools, and many other things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEtszdRyJes

[Dreaming Cannibal]

guns don't kill people, people kill people, but hell guns sure help

[CaptainObvious]

so basicly
your taking the ferrari
top of the line
The 50 calibre of the car world
the completely overpowered thing

and saying that the ford standard
average thing
the 9mm of the car world
nothing to flash does its job like its supposed to
cant be achieved

The comparison is not valid. The difference between a Ford and a Ferrari is quality of worksmanship and materials. Most guns produced today use similar materials and levels of worksmanship, and differ mainly in the technical points of their designs. They are commoditized, so to speak. A 9mm semiautomatic handgun is not substantially easier to produce than a 50 cal gun.

no one needs a 50 calibre gun to commit crimes
they can easily be done with the simple things
thats performance can easily be matched if not exceeded when focused on

A semiautomatic weapon, the kind that is involved in most gun crime nowadays - in America at least - is no simple thing. That's my whole point! To produce such a weapon to be reliably deadly is no simple task,and it's not something the majority of people are able or will be able to do easily.

oh and the cage with wheels
take note that im 15
and i built a cage on wheels
5 more years maybe go to college get an engineering degree
i could be designing and manufacturing new cars
how
because ill have the knowledge to do it properly
things arent hard to learn
and skills are adaptable

You won't just have the knowledge, you'll also have the facilities, materials, tools, and support. Even with an engineering degree you would be hard-pressed to build a car of comparable quality to a current automobile in your shed. Which was my original point, remember...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEtszdRyJes

That's Top Gear, a TV show with a large budget, probably close to unlimited access to technical knowledge and parts, etc. etc. Not a valid comparison to the average home gunsmith. I've never argued that certain highly experienced people with significant industrial skills and access to materials, tools and knowledge wouldn't be able to produce a certain number of decent quality guns(in fact, I think I outright stated this would occur in an earlier post), but that the majority of improvised guns would not meet such a standard.

[2D]

That's Top Gear, a TV show with a large budget, probably close to unlimited access to technical knowledge and parts, etc. etc. Not a valid comparison to the average home gunsmith. I've never argued that certain highly experienced people with significant industrial skills and access to materials, tools and knowledge wouldn't be able to produce a certain number of decent quality guns(in fact, I think I outright stated this would occur in an earlier post), but that the majority of improvised guns would not meet such a standard.

You obviously didn't watch the video. Top Gear found a guy who built the car by himself in his garage. He made the valve springs, he made the throttle cable, ha made a working gearbox, a working drive shaft, a working car. A replica Ferrari. Now tell me an average guy can't build a car equal to a Ferrari.

[The Batman]

You won't just have the knowledge, you'll also have the facilities, materials, tools, and support. Even with an engineering degree you would be hard-pressed to build a car of comparable quality to a current automobile in your shed. Which was my original point, remember...


You mean this post?


I call bullshit on the notion that most people can build a quality gun on their own. Yes, you can make a shitty single-fire gun, but that's not nearly the same thing. Criminals aren't going to be manufacturing semiautomatic handguns at home.

Or this one?


My original contention was that homemade weapons are of such an inferior quality - and the higher quality ones will be rare and difficult enough to build - that their existence is a significantly less heightened risk to public safety than that represented by the availability of illegal guns aided by the availability of legal guns.

Because in other posts i've seen by other people talking about home made weapons they only mentioned that the person building them will probably have a substantial amount of knowledge about it or enough money to fund it. No one said that anyone could do it in fact the closes thing to it was me saying about how easy the information about making them is easy.

[Cloud]

The comparison is not valid. The difference between a Ford and a Ferrari is quality of worksmanship and materials. Most guns produced today use similar materials and levels of worksmanship, and differ mainly in the technical points of their designs. They are commoditized, so to speak. A 9mm semiautomatic handgun is not substantially easier to produce than a 50 cal gun.

erm
you brought in the ferrari comparison in the first place
dude if your gonna bring a point up you dont want to counteract it 10 minutes later


A semiautomatic weapon, the kind that is involved in most gun crime nowadays - in America at least - is no simple thing. That's my whole point! To produce such a weapon to be reliably deadly is no simple task,and it's not something the majority of people are able or will be able to do easily.
not easily done yes
but done all the same
if people want to have weapons
they
and they will make weapons no matter how hard it is




You won't just have the knowledge, you'll also have the facilities, materials, tools, and support. Even with an engineering degree you would be hard-pressed to build a car of comparable quality to a current automobile in your shed. Which was my original point, remember...
materials can be purchased easily
support can be found easily with criminals manufacturing guns to sell
kinda like the way people got around prohibition
tools are easily gained from shops
and if you need any specialist items then they can be ordered
its not like tools cant be used for multiple things
what facilities do you need for making a gun? it can b done in your bedroom if really necessary




That's Top Gear, a TV show with a large budget, probably close to unlimited access to technical knowledge and parts, etc. etc. Not a valid comparison to the average home gunsmith. I've never argued that certain highly experienced people with significant industrial skills and access to materials, tools and knowledge wouldn't be able to produce a certain number of decent quality guns(in fact, I think I outright stated this would occur in an earlier post), but that the majority of improvised guns would not meet such a standard.
Hi note the fact that im ENGLISH
this is an ENGLISH show
im aware of what top gear is
and no they dont have unlimited access
thy have a budget
set by the BBC thats limits there possibilities a great lot

Jeremy Clarkson cant even change a bulb so you bringing industrial skills and relating it to
Captain slow
the short guy who loathes caravans
and the guy who cant fix anything
was a bad choice


improvised guns might not meet the standards
but weaponry standards today are for war
and protection throughout the war

a gun thats home made doesnt need to meet the exact same specifications
aslong as it fulfils its function then its still a dangerous weapon

[2D]

Also, does that quality of a gun matter when it's being pointed at you from 10 feet away. Does the accuracy matter from that distance? All that matters is that if you get shot the projectile will hit you and depending on the projectile it could be worse than a gun of today's standards. For all you know it could be a gun that shoots nails at you, or one that shoot caltrops, or something worse. Take guns away and everyone will resort to more barbaric standards.

[theOperaGhost]

I can't decide whether to laugh or glue my face to my palm at this post. You're seriously asking me what could possibly be responsible for homicide rate changes in a country over 20 years?

Well hell, I don't know, just about anything?

This isn't a pretty and simple lab experiment kiddo, you can't just isolate an "independent variable" from homicide statistics compiled under constantly changing conditions over a number of years. It's a little bit embarrassing for you that you think that's a valid approach. Millions of different conditions that effect the crime rates of a country change over a period of time on the scale of a decade or two, it is astoundingly stupid of you to just assume that the change must be because of the banning of guns. An example of the kind of thing that can effect a year's homicide rate: in 2002, the Shipman inquiry attributed 218 identifiable deaths as homicides perpetrated by Harold Shipman. None of those involved weapons, yet they were all counted in homicide statistics for the year and constituted a significant proportion of those reported that year, despite having occurred over a period of many years prior to the fact.

Your contention is also currently flatly false: this year's homicide rate in the UK is the lowest in 20 years. So how do you explain that? What single independent variable is responsible for that change?

As a statistics major, this kind of misuse of statistics highly annoys me. You cannot validly ignore the many confounding factors.

Oh, and by the way, it's spelled captain. Not a difficult word. Clever modification of the name though.

First about statistics. You say Chris can't do the exact same thing Carole and you do so frequently. I know Carole attributes LOWER homicide rates (which aren't actually lower) to the banning of guns. I also think you've claimed the same thing.

The next part is completely irrelevant,


A semiautomatic weapon, the kind that is involved in most gun crime nowadays - in America at least - is no simple thing. That's my whole point! To produce such a weapon to be reliably deadly is no simple task,and it's not something the majority of people are able or will be able to do easily.


Provide proof that semiautomatic weapons are involved in most gun crimes in America and I'll believe you, but now, I don't believe you at all.

To produce a weapon (there you go with the WEAPON word again) that is reliably deadly is in fact NOT hard to do. I could easily make a gun capable of killing with the proper materials. Ever made a bomb? Those are incredibly simple to make. You don't need a top of the line semiautomatic gun to kill someone. You simply need something that can propel an object with enough force to either tear through the skin or cause enough internal and external damage to kill someone...NOT VERY HARD TO DO.

[The Batman]

This is a warning to EVERYONE in this thread the insults stop now or this will be locked and infractions given. Now let's keep on discussing the topic of the thread.

[CaptainObvious]

You mean this post?

Other than the 2nd sentence being stupid and wrong, yes, that post remains true.

You obviously didn't watch the video. Top Gear found a guy who built the car by himself in his garage. He made the valve springs, he made the throttle cable, ha made a working gearbox, a working drive shaft, a working car. A replica Ferrari. Now tell me an average guy can't build a car equal to a Ferrari.

Well it's "working" insofar as the enginge turns on, etc etc. It never seemed to be able to replicate scaled-down Ferrari performance in terms of speed, handling, or anything else important, so I don't really know how much we can say.

You think the average person could replicate this feat? 20,000 hours, perfectly scaled drawings produced from photographs, custom-scaled and designed parts... yeah, if that's average why is our world such a shithole full of idiots? :P

I've never argued that an exceptional person couldn't create a good gun. The key word is "exceptional"... the exception, not the average.

First about statistics. You say Chris can't do the exact same thing Carole and you do so frequently. I know Carole attributes LOWER homicide rates (which aren't actually lower) to the banning of guns. I also think you've claimed the same thing.

Having just searched every post I've ever made on VirtualTeen with the word "gun" or "guns" in it, I think you're wrong. I see no post where I have ever ignored confounding factors to the extent he did in his post. And if I did and somehow missed it, I sure as hell don't do it "so frequently", so... what are you talking about?

Provide proof that semiautomatic weapons are involved in most gun crimes in America and I'll believe you, but now, I don't believe you at all.

While primary evidence doesn't appear to be easily available online:

Assuming access to guns, the top ten types of guns involved in crime in the U.S. show a definite trend in favoring handguns over long guns. The top ten guns used in crime, as reported by the ATF in 1993, included the Smith & Wesson .38 Special and .357 revolvers; Raven Arms .25 caliber, Davis P-380 .380 caliber, Ruger .22 caliber, Lorcin L-380 .380 caliber, and Smith & Wesson semi-automatic handguns; Mossberg and Remington 12 gauge shotguns; and the Tec DC-9

Obviously that's a while ago, but I couldn't find anything more obviously complete or up to date (and the reference is offline or I would've directly linked to that). Of that list, 2 are revolvers, 2 are shotguns, and the rest are semiautomatic handguns. So... yeah, that seems to support what I said. Unless you think that shotguns or rifles or revolvers have become wildly more popular in the intervening years, which seems counterfactual to me considering the heightened effectiveness for criminals of a semiautomatic handgun.

To produce a weapon (there you go with the WEAPON word again) that is reliably deadly is in fact NOT hard to do. I could easily make a gun capable of killing with the proper materials. Ever made a bomb? Those are incredibly simple to make. You don't need a top of the line semiautomatic gun to kill someone. You simply need something that can propel an object with enough force to either tear through the skin or cause enough internal and external damage to kill someone...NOT VERY HARD TO DO.

If I'm a criminal wanting a gun, I want something that will kill reliably, repeatedly, has the ability to fire multiple shots, and is concealable. Thus why most criminals use revolvers and semiautomatic handguns.

Very few improvised weapons exist today that would meet those criteria. The ones that do all generally rely upon the availability of precisely and reliably produced ammunition to function. Such ammunition would not exist if guns were illegal, further adding to the technical barriers.

But really, this sidebar to the debate is beginning to bore me. It doesn't invalidate my argument against guns that some level of illegal improvised weapons would exist unless those weapons substantially approached the number of illegally-held weapons now in both numbers and effectiveness, which seems to me a very unlikely thing to claim. Even if someone wants to claim it to be the case, I don't think we can productively argue it out since no good evidence exists on the aggregate penetration of improvised firearms in a first-world country with strict gun laws.

[2D]

Well it's "working" insofar as the enginge turns on, etc etc. It never seemed to be able to replicate scaled-down Ferrari performance in terms of speed, handling, or anything else important, so I don't really know how much we can say.

You think the average person could replicate this feat? 20,000 hours, perfectly scaled drawings produced from photographs, custom-scaled and designed parts... yeah, if that's average why is our world such a shithole full of idiots? :P

I've never argued that an exceptional person couldn't create a good gun. The key word is "exceptional"... the exception, not the average.

It's working. It can't go anywhere because it needs a 1/6 scale human to drive it. Der. And in terms of speed it theoretically should do 1/6 of what the real 312 could do.

He is an average person. He had no money so he used time. (Time = Money) We have perfectly scaled photographs of guns and probably all the specifications of every part if you look hard enough. Our world is full of idiots that do nothing because people don't dare dream and then do. They dream and wish it would happen when "If they put their mind to it" they can do it.

Once again, he wasn't exceptional. He learned how to do it. If he had a masters degree in mechanical engineering then he could possibly be called exceptional.

Obviously that's a while ago, but I couldn't find anything more obviously complete or up to date (and the reference is offline or I would've directly linked to that). Of that list, 2 are revolvers, 2 are shotguns, and the rest are semiautomatic handguns. So... yeah, that seems to support what I said. Unless you think that shotguns or rifles or revolvers have become wildly more popular in the intervening years, which seems counterfactual to me considering the heightened effectiveness for criminals of a semiautomatic handgun.

You refute Chris' evidence that gun related homicides have increased when gun control was introduced because his statistics spanned over 20 years. Then you come in with statistics from 16 years ago? You, sir, are not doing so well.

[TheKingDavis]

side note
some guns (such as the SPAS 12) can be loaded with non lethal beanbag rounds
so in the instance of an intruder
why choose to fire lethal rounds
when you can just as easily fire a non lethal round designed for taking down someone

Hmm i thought the bean bag things were only police/military issue... mite have to check into that

[CaptainObvious]

It's working. It can't go anywhere because it needs a 1/6 scale human to drive it. Der. And in terms of speed it theoretically should do 1/6 of what the real 312 could do.

The video doesn't really demonstrate that, but I'll take your word for it since it's in no way truly important to the debate.

He is an average person. He had no money so he used time. (Time = Money) We have perfectly scaled photographs of guns and probably all the specifications of every part if you look hard enough. Our world is full of idiots that do nothing because people don't dare dream and then do. They dream and wish it would happen when "If they put their mind to it" they can do it.

Meh, guess we'll agree to disagree. I don't think the vast majority of the population is capable of that.

Once again, he wasn't exceptional. He learned how to do it. If he had a masters degree in mechanical engineering then he could possibly be called exceptional.

Uhhh, he's a telecom engineer. How do you know he doesn't have a master's in some kind of engineering? But again, this is all massively irrelevant sidebar.

You refute Chris' evidence that gun related homicides have increased when gun control was introduced because his statistics spanned over 20 years. Then you come in with statistics from 16 years ago? You, sir, are not doing so well.

No, you need to learn to read. I pointed out that to attribute a 20 year statistical trend - now reversed, for the record - to a single policy change is a gross misuse of statistics since such a causal relationship can only be established ceteris paribus, in an independent environment. A country, over 20 years, does not qualify.

The only similarity between that and my statistics is the number of years. And, if you read my post again, I outright said myself that the statistics were outdated:

"Obviously that's a while ago, but I couldn't find anything more obviously complete or up to date (and the reference is offline or I would've directly linked to that)."

I also outright stated that given their age, it was possible to argue that things had changed in the intervening years, although I thought and continue to think that to argue a reversal in popularity of revolvers and semiautomatic handguns is unlikely:

"Unless you think that shotguns or rifles or revolvers have become wildly more popular in the intervening years, which seems counterfactual to me considering the heightened effectiveness for criminals of a semiautomatic handgun."

There were limitations to the evidence, so I posted the best evidence available with obvious disclaimers as to its possible shortcomings. That is not in any way the same thing I criticized him for. So what the hell are you taking issue with?

[theOperaGhost]

A semi-automatic pistol is not a particularly complex piece of machinery.

Of that list you gave of the 10 most commonly used guns, the ruger and the tec-9 are the only ones that are a little bit more complex.

Do you realize that the nickname for the Raven Arms MP-25 and guns like it is "junk guns"? Like I said...not a complex piece of machinery.

The Davis P-380...tough to find any good information on this gun actually. It also falls into the category of "junk guns" and is designed very similar to the raven arms mp-25. Not complex.

The Lorcin .38..once again...a "junk gun." Approximately 30 parts. Not complex.

You're really making out a semi-automatic handgun much harder to make than they are. They really can't be compared to a car at all. Cars have THOUSANDS of parts. Guns have considerably less (like I said, about 30 for the Lorcin .38).

This is the basic design of the Lorcin. I could certainly make a crude form of that. Bullets would prove the most difficult part of the process, imo, however I'm certain that criminals would easily be able to smuggle them into the US.
http://www.armattweb.com/lorcin/380.jpgLink posted with permission from Steph.

[2D]

My apologies. I misread both of the articles. *facepalm* I'm still sticking to the point I made that you seem to have skipped over.

Also, does that quality of a gun matter when it's being pointed at you from 10 feet away. Does the accuracy matter from that distance? All that matters is that if you get shot the projectile will hit you and depending on the projectile it could be worse than a gun of today's standards. For all you know it could be a gun that shoots nails at you, or one that shoot caltrops, or something worse. Take guns away and everyone will resort to more barbaric standards.

[Perseus]

Here is information backing up my claim..


'Tis my source (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm)
At one part in the website, the author sort of turns biased.
This artice thing was published, I guess, in the late 90s.

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
Why has my post gone unnoticed?

[2D]

Because the anti-gun group does not want to acknowledge it. :rolleyes:

[CaptainObvious]

Because the anti-gun group does not want to acknowledge it. :rolleyes:

Well actually it's because I missed it, but to respond:

That town is small, demographically homogeneous (over 80% of the population is white), with almost no poverty (<5%, roughly a third of the federal poverty rate). That is incomparable to America as a whole, which is huge, has a highly heterogeneous population, lots of poverty, social unrest, etc. etc. etc. The statistical correlation doesn't continue to have predictive power when you so massively change the setting. It in no way surprises me that in such a small, rich, socially stable setting, guns would reduce violent crime.

However, the US is not small. It has lots of poverty, lots of social instability - and particular pockets of America are disastrous in this regard - and therefore the isolated evidence from this particular town is interesting, but provides predictive information only for small, homogeneous settings similar to it.

And for the record, though I won't take issue with the figures, I can't validate them. That article is reposted about a billion times, but I see no original and no reference to the statistics. That said, this doesn't really matter since I assume they're mostly accurate and it still doesn't significantly answer my problem with using Kennesaw as an example.

[meygan]

in my opinion guns just encourage crime. i know it doesn't just take a gun to kill someone but it makes it easier.

[Perseus]

Well actually it's because I missed it, but to respond:

That town is small, demographically homogeneous (over 80% of the population is white), with almost no poverty (<5%, roughly a third of the federal poverty rate). That is incomparable to America as a whole, which is huge, has a highly heterogeneous population, lots of poverty, social unrest, etc. etc. etc. The statistical correlation doesn't continue to have predictive power when you so massively change the setting. It in no way surprises me that in such a small, rich, socially stable setting, guns would reduce violent crime.

However, the US is not small. It has lots of poverty, lots of social instability - and particular pockets of America are disastrous in this regard - and therefore the isolated evidence from this particular town is interesting, but provides predictive information only for small, homogeneous settings similar to it.

And for the record, though I won't take issue with the figures, I can't validate them. That article is reposted about a billion times, but I see no original and no reference to the statistics. That said, this doesn't really matter since I assume they're mostly accurate and it still doesn't significantly answer my problem with using Kennesaw as an example.

But the thing is, crime dropped because criminals didn't know whether or not the owner of the house they were breaking into had a gun or not, because it was a law. Crime dropped because of the presence of guns.
It doesn't matter if we're "80% homogeneous" because crime will happen, anyway.

[2D]

Also, does that quality of a gun matter when it's being pointed at you from 10 feet away. Does the accuracy matter from that distance? All that matters is that if you get shot the projectile will hit you and depending on the projectile it could be worse than a gun of today's standards. For all you know it could be a gun that shoots nails at you, or one that shoot caltrops, or something worse. Take guns away and everyone will resort to more barbaric standards. Now answer me this. Is that necessarily better in any way? Take guns away and criminals will get scared. They will feel that they aren't in control of the situation and I believe they will be more "Trigger happy"/

I'm waiting. :rolleyes:

[theOperaGhost]

Well actually it's because I missed it, but to respond:

That town is small, demographically homogeneous (over 80% of the population is white), with almost no poverty (<5%, roughly a third of the federal poverty rate). That is incomparable to America as a whole, which is huge, has a highly heterogeneous population, lots of poverty, social unrest, etc. etc. etc. The statistical correlation doesn't continue to have predictive power when you so massively change the setting. It in no way surprises me that in such a small, rich, socially stable setting, guns would reduce violent crime.

However, the US is not small. It has lots of poverty, lots of social instability - and particular pockets of America are disastrous in this regard - and therefore the isolated evidence from this particular town is interesting, but provides predictive information only for small, homogeneous settings similar to it.

And for the record, though I won't take issue with the figures, I can't validate them. That article is reposted about a billion times, but I see no original and no reference to the statistics. That said, this doesn't really matter since I assume they're mostly accurate and it still doesn't significantly answer my problem with using Kennesaw as an example.

But the thing is, crime dropped because criminals didn't know whether or not the owner of the house they were breaking into had a gun or not, because it was a law. Crime dropped because of the presence of guns.
It doesn't matter if we're "80% homogeneous" because crime will happen, anyway.

Actually, I have to agree with captain obvious on this topic. There may be a correlation between requiring guns and lower crime rates, but correlation does not imply causation.

And, as a criminal justice major, the homogeneity of that particular community already establishes that the community will be less prone to crime. In a community like this, the crimes you will see more deal with family problems. One common thing that happens in this type of community is the role reversal of mother and daughter. This happens when the mother and father basically lose all interest in each other. The mother still lives there but moves out of the master bedroom. She quits caring for the kids. Often in this type of situation, the eldest daughter will start to take the roles of the mother...caring for the younger kids, cooking, cleaning, etc...Eventually, those roles may move to the bedroom and she will start sleeping with the father. I feel nearly safe to say that this type of child abuse is the most common type of crime in this type of community.

This community as a whole cannot represent America as a whole. It takes a city like Chicago, Milwaukee, Buffalo, or New York (along with others) to make a more accurate representation.

[Ripplemagne]

Kay. Well, I declare victory. *Departs from this thread.*

[2D]

Kay. Well, I declare victory. *Departs from this thread.*

Word.

And I would like to add that everyone should read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. That is all.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Kay. Well, I declare victory. *Departs from this thread.*

*Me follows ripp out.*

[theOperaGhost]

Kay. Well, I declare victory. *Departs from this thread.*

You really didn't contribute that much to the debate to be honest. In my opinion, Tim and I are almost the only people who truly declare victory here. Maybe I'm just full of myself...oh well...I'm a selfish bastard.

[nick]

I agree with the first part of what you've said, but not the second. I don't believe that you will have changed the opinion of a single person from the anti-gun lobby. I'm prepared to accept that same applies in reverse.

[Ripplemagne]

You really didn't contribute that much to the debate to be honest. In my opinion, Tim and I are almost the only people who truly declare victory here. Maybe I'm just full of myself...oh well...I'm a selfish bastard.

I contributed the only piece of information that has yet to be taken on.

Gun Control. (http://ripplemagne.weebly.com/1/post/2009/10/gun-control.html)

[theOperaGhost]

I contributed the only piece of information that has yet to be taken on.

Gun Control. (http://ripplemagne.weebly.com/1/post/2009/10/gun-control.html)

It probably hasn't been taken on because nobody read it...

[Ripplemagne]

Then I auto-win. <3

[Richthegamer99]

It would be better if no one was allowed to have them, they should be kept locked away in gun clubs. And to the obsessed question, yes I do think that.

NO one haveing guns now that is a calling for the black market to trive
and whay should no one have guns

Amendment II
Right to bear arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Cloud]

NO one haveing guns now that is a calling for the black market to trive
and whay should no one have guns

Amendment II
Right to bear arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Were English
its different here
a completely different opinion to weapons in general than america

[Rutherford The Brave]

NO one haveing guns now that is a calling for the black market to trive
and whay should no one have guns

Amendment II
Right to bear arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That the whole point though. The basis of the second amendment is that you can have a gun, IF you need to defend yourself from an invasion. To set up militias to protect the country.

[theOperaGhost]

Were English
its different here
a completely different opinion to weapons in general than america

Different cultures...exactly. English people can't expect us to get rid of our guns....Americans can't expect the English to have guns.

[Richthegamer99]

That the whole point though. The basis of the second amendment is that you can have a gun, IF you need to defend yourself from an invasion. To set up militias to protect the country.

I'm just saying if you make gun ilegal then you open an oppertunity for the black market,crime and cropption

[Rutherford The Brave]

I'm just saying if you make gun ilegal then you open an oppertunity for the black market,crime and cropption

We all know that, remember what happened with prohibition?

[Cloud]

I'm just saying if you make gun ilegal then you open an oppertunity for the black market,crime and cropption

havnt we already been through this in like
the last 10 pages of this thread?

[Richthegamer99]

yeah everything got worse

[Sage]

That the whole point though. The basis of the second amendment is that you can have a gun, IF you need to defend yourself from an invasion. To set up militias to protect the country.

Because giving guns to a population that's never handled guns is a genius idea. I suddenly feel all the safer.

[nightrider250R]

I support the Second Amendment 100%. And guns dont kill people. People with mustaches kill people. Joking aside guns dont kill people the idiot behind the trigger did.

[The Joker]

Than why give idiots guns?

[2D]

That's a real question Matt?

Everyone is an idiot on some level. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have their basic rights as a human. The more you give the more they take. Especially when you're giving to the government. More laws don't help. At all.

[The Joker]

How is having a lethal weapon a basic right for all humans, Jeff?

[nick]

I support the Second Amendment 100%. And guns dont kill people. People with mustaches kill people. Joking aside guns dont kill people the idiot behind the trigger did.
Does it not seem possible that the idiot behind the trigger would be less of a threat if some other idiot didnt let him have a gun?

[The Batman]

Does it not seem possible that the idiot behind the trigger would be less of a threat if some other idiot didnt let him have a gun?

But that is almost impossible to do. That's why I support more strict regulations instead of a ban because it makes it harder for the idiots to get the guns.

[The Joker]

^That's the smartest post so far.

[theOperaGhost]

Does it not seem possible that the idiot behind the trigger would be less of a threat if some other idiot didnt let him have a gun?

That idiot would not be less of a threat to someone else, because if that idiot wanted to kill someone, he would find other means to do so. Ever heard of knives, bombs, bats, golf clubs, pipes, hammers, wrenches, other heavy blunt objects, other sharp objects, etc, etc, etc. Guns are just one of the thousands of ways to kill someone. If we have to outlaw guns, we might as well outlaw every other possible weapon too...oh wait...that would be impossible, because nearly everything can be used as a weapon including your hands, feet, and head.

[The Joker]

How about we outlaw the things that are only used for violence then?

Knifes aren't always used for violence, neither are bombs, bats, golf clubs, pipes, hammers, wrenches, your feet, or your head.

[theOperaGhost]

How about we outlaw the things that are only used for violence then?

Knifes aren't always used for violence, neither are bombs, bats, golf clubs, pipes, hammers, wrenches, your feet, or your head.

Neither are guns...ever heard of collecting and target practice? They aren't violent.

[The Joker]

A lot of the "practice" is with animals.

[2D]

How is having a lethal weapon a basic right for all humans, Jeff?

It's not for most people. It is for the lucky ones. (Dont construe that as patriotism) Basically it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong to take guns away. (In America) It will not happen. (most likely) Ever read the contitution, bill of rights, and declaration of independence? In one way or another they support the right to bear arms. I don't see why we are debating this as it will never change more than tiny bit.

It doesn't matter what changes occur to the gun laws. People will still kill people. Without guns people will use more primitive and brutal weapons. It's a stalemate either way. Now I shall excuse myself from this thread. Oh it's also 1 in the morning here and I'm on my phone. So pardon any illiteriticy on my part.

[Sage]

A lot of the "practice" is with animals.

Last I checked, hunting is not illegal. Your point is moot.

[The Joker]

Last I checked, hunting is not illegal. Your point is moot.

My point is that it was violent, not on whether or not it was illegal.

[Sage]

My point is that it was violent, not on whether or not it was illegal.

Too bad this is a debate on legality, then.

[The Batman]

Too bad this is a debate on legality, then.

Too bad it isn't.

How old should you be to have them? What situation should you use them in? Do you think Americans are too obsessed with guns?

[Rutherford The Brave]

We should use guns as the second amendment states. In case someone invades American and we need to form militias to save our nation.

[Sage]

We should use guns as the second amendment states. In case someone invades American and we need to form militias to save our nation.

And the point I made is that militias will be futile if the people in them have never handled guns prior to that.

[theOperaGhost]

A lot of the "practice" is with animals.

No, a lot of practice is with targets at a shooting range. People generally go to a shooting range before they go hunting to increase their accuracy. However, as Jeff stated, hunting is for the lucky few. Hunting seasons are short and tags are limited. Only the few who buy their tags early enough are able to hunt legally. There is also very limited land you can legally hunt on. Unless you get permission from the owner, you are trespassing. You cannot say "a lot of the practice is with animals" since hunting laws limit hunting so much. Most of the practice is done with targets at shooting ranges, which is completely non-violent.

[The Joker]

Too bad this is a debate on legality, then.

Read my first post and tell me where I say it's a debate on it's legality.

[Rutherford The Brave]

And the point I made is that militias will be futile if the people in them have never handled guns prior to that.

I know that, but I mean thats what it was intended for. Militias are in nature untrained men, who are fighting for their country.

[theOperaGhost]

I know that, but I mean thats what it was intended for. Militias are in nature untrained men, who are fighting for their country.

Militias are untrained in military tactics, yes. But I don't feel they are necessarily untrained in the proper handling of firearms.

[Mental]

Ahh, what a lovely topic. Gunss.

But yeah, I actually have a different mindset to most of my fellow countrymen/women, and believe that guns should not be illegal.

I used to think USA was crazy for not illegalising (is that a word lol?) firearms, but when I read more into it, I kinda think they have rational reasons for not making them illegal. Whilst I don't think I'll wake up one morning to have a bunch of Government troops to take me away and lock me up or execute me (that is just paranoia at it's finest), I do think that honest and law-abiding people and their families should be allowed access to a handgun to keep for home defence to fend off burgalars and other threatening criminals. Not neccesarily to shoot them, but to threaten them.

The self-defence laws here are ridiculous. If someone was holding up and raping my wife and kids, I wouldn't want to have to punch in 9-9-9 and wait for the Police Armed Response Unit to arrive... those few minutes it takes them could mean the difference between life and death.

[L]

honestly? i don't think anyone should have them. they just don't seem necessary to me.

edit: unless your a farmer or something.

[Country-Cowgirl]

Ok so i'm not reading the whole thing but I saw some people say that the age minimum should be 21 well i see problems with that for several reasons. first is probably because its not a smart idea to try to teach someone how to "properly" handle a gun while they are going out and getting drunk off their rocker. the second is that I'm 18 and for my location and my job I HAVE to carry a gun or two long range rifle and/or a pistol and a rubber bullet gun for spring. Third (good measure) you can join the military and enter basic at 17 where you HAVE to handle guns and have weaponry training.

I think that it should be that only a certified registered pre-approved store should be allowed to carry/sell guns. However just like when moonshine became "illegal" people still made and sold them as will they with any laws that are made for/against guns.

you ask 'when should they be used?' well the simple answer is that law currently says that guns should be used for hunting and protection now yet people still use them for other things like killing each other. one argument i have heard is that the U.S. military should not be allowed to carry/use weapons. OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. So if we say "oh we are taking all guns out of our country" do people honestly think that other country's will fallow suit? third world countries will become nations. yes i do believe that guns are used improperly However I happen to be a military proficient marksman so I sound a little hypocritical.

Are Americans obsessed with guns? NO, simple as that. There are more guns in Mexico or Cuba or Russia for that matter then there are in the states and more deadly ones as well. Ones that can kill a number of people before they malfunction and kill their rifleman. Ones that can shoot someone from miles away.

Here is my question....Why ask about guns? archery is more effective and less trackable. With guns you can track shell numbers to a pack number to the person that bought them. your prints get left on the shells and then burned in when you fire. The hilt/butt of the gun has its own "print" a gun makes a sound...that sound travels people hear that sound so if you are going to miss use a weapon (kill someone) a gun is the least efficient weapon to use. Archery and knifes are more quiet and less trackable if you know what your doing (if you havent guessed I do know). they are made more generically then guns that have Rifling on the inside of the barrel (the corkscrew groves on the inside that makes the bullet spin) that leave marks on the bullet making it trackable. Knifes that have a nicks in them are more trackable then new ones. Arrows are less trackable even after being used. The tips arent trackable by any defining marks even with nicks. The most you can tell from an arrow is what type of tip was used. And they can have the force of a bullet but is silent.

So what about them? why guns? why do people feel the need to miss use them?


I say guns should be legal and that they should not be over priced as they are right now. my dad has a 30/30 and it is like $20 per round and that is seriously ridiculous and I cant afford that when I need it for work. I will build my own country if they make them 100% illegal/i have to.

[quartermaster]

haha A lot of usurpers in this thread!

Try this on for size; this last year, we have seen one of the largest growths in gun sells and gun ownerships in United States history. On that same token, crime has gone down significantly here within the United States. Make no mistake, I am not implying correlation denotes causation, because by all means, it absolutely does not mean an increase in gun ownership was a cause or even one of the several causes for a reduction in crime (there could be a myriad of reasons unrelated to gun ownership). What I am trying to emphasize, however, is that despite the increase in gun ownership, we have not seen the streets "bathed in blood" as I have heard many anti-gun people insist, but in fact, we have seen an opposite trend occur.

When you create intense gun laws and restrictions, on balance, you are not hurting the criminal, you are hurting the law-abiding citizen who wishes to obtain a firearm for protection and/or recreation. Criminals will be/are able to obtain weapons regardless of gun laws; if there is a demand for it, there will be a market for it, legally or illegally, someone will supply. At the very least, we should not make it more difficult for citizens to protect themselves (in public or at home) against anyone who would do them harm. Tough gun restrictions, again, usually hurt the ones who wish to actually follow the law, not criminals.

Even then, when we do see massive shootings, they occur most of the time at so-called "gun free zones," where citizens are not allowed to carry firearms. People somehow think that our cities will become the "Wild West" (as I have heard it attributed to) if we relax gun ownership laws, but data says otherwise; but even then, the "Wild West" is a misnomer, as it was really not all that “wild.” Even though many people owned guns, crime was actually quite low in most towns and cities on the frontier; in fact, in many western or frontier cities, we have far more crime per capita today, than we did in the so-called "wild west" era. Again, I am not making any implications in regards to guns in the hands of citizenry having a causal relationship with a reduction in crime, but I am saying that there are not only misconceptions regarding guns and gun laws, but that an armed citizenry, as shown throughout history and today, does not denote an increase in violence.

On the other hand, those who believe the right to bear arms extends to someone else's property, misunderstand the idea of rights themselves. You have the right to bear arms and protect yourself on your property and other locations, as is applicable, but when entering someone else's property, their property rights set the rules. The idea that because the Constitution allows for the right to bear arms, a person can bring their gun anywhere, is absurd, as property owners have the right to decide what can be allowed on their property.

[The Joker]

Bump to see if any new, interesting arguments have come up.

[Amnesiac]

I believe in the individual's right to own and carry a gun. I think 18 is a good age, it's pretty much the age for everything else (besides drinking and smoking).

People should be able to carry a gun that is able to defend them and the people around them in a dangerous situation, and nothing more. That means no assault rifles or snipers — completely unnecessary. Gun right advocates try and defend the "right" to own an assault rifle, but there's really no reason to have one unless you're using it for hunting (which is overkill anyway).

I don't think Americans are too obsessed with guns. Americans are just fierce defenders of their constitutional rights, it's a historical thing, and rightfully so.

[Jess]

if there is gun control then people are still going to just carry guns and abuse them (killing others)

but I believe one has the right to carry a gun for defense and all that

[Church]

Well law says you must be 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun, 21 to buy pistol, although people younger should be allowed to use them. While using guns thought always follow the safety tips, read your gun manual, be under supervision of a adult. and buy safety tips like dont keep guns loaded, never have finger on trigger until ready, never point at something you dont attend to shoot.

It should be used for hunting, protection and sports such as marksmanship.

And I dont think Americans are obsessed with guns, I believe only 20% of Americans own a gun, mostly for protection and hunting.

Remember guns dont kill people, careless people with guns do.