Great Great Great Grandson of Gun Control...

[Penguin king]

I suppose, theoretically, if 1/2 of the us population changed their minds about guns, then elected people nationwide specifically on that issue, keeping their minds changed that whole time, then this politicians kept their promises, and peoples minds stayed changed for the years all that would take, that it is technically possible. I think we'll have manned missions to Ganymede first, but you keep dreaming.

You act like American attitudes to social issues have never changed before. 60 years ago sodomy was a felony in every state and racial segregation was sanctioned by the government. 100 years ago, women couldn't vote and cocaine and heroin were both legal and unregulated. 150 years ago it was possible for a white person to own a black person as property.

Do you reallty think American attitudes towards firearms will remain static forever?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, I'm not giving up my guns no matter how much other peoples' attitudes may chance.

[thecryptile]

Do you reallty think American attitudes towards firearms will remain static forever?

No, attitudes are changing, but they are changing for the good. Thanks to the NRA more Americans are carrying guns than at any time in the past. We aren't going to morph into some carbon copy of England or the Netherlands where self defense is always murder and house breakers, rapists and murderers are coddled and perceived as victims.

[Free Northman]

No offense Seli but you just got owned by Flow in that argument. You have still not given a straight answer on whether killing to prevent rape should be legal.

Your last word seemed to be something along the lines of it should be illegal but not punishable,which frankly makes no sense and basically implies that a rape victim should somehow face moral blame for killing her attacker to try and prevent being raped.

Bizzare argument.

[Penguin king]

Well, I'm not giving up my guns no matter how much other peoples' attitudes may chance.

Didn't the confederates say that about slaves? How did that work out for them? I'm sure people said the same about cocaine and heroin too.

No, attitudes are changing, but they are changing for the good. Thanks to the NRA more Americans are carrying guns than at any time in the past. We aren't going to morph into some carbon copy of England or the Netherlands where self defense is always murder and house breakers, rapists and murderers are coddled and perceived as victims.

And yet the United states has far higher rates of rapes and homocides than either of those countries... guess you all need more guns.

Edit: Actually i'm not sure I trust the statistics i saw on rapes by country so i'll take that back. Reporting has a large influence on those figures. The Homocide rates are pretty acurate tho. Its hard to under report corpses.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

You act like American attitudes to social issues have never changed before. 60 years ago sodomy was a felony in every state and racial segregation was sanctioned by the government. 100 years ago, women couldn't vote and cocaine and heroin were both legal and unregulated. 150 years ago it was possible for a white person to own a black person as property.

With the exception of the drugs, all those decision have trended towards more freedom, not less. On the drug issue, everyone who wants to still does cocaine and heroin, regardless of the law. So this doesn't really underscore your point like you seem to think it does.

But I suppose I will concede that in 60 or 70 years America may have changed to the point that they are willing to ban guns. In the unlikely event that I am alive to see that, I will not be giving mine up and I will make sure they fall into the hands of someone who will likewise not give them up.

Didn't the confederates say that about slaves? How did that work out for them? I'm sure people said the same about cocaine and heroin too.

Are you advocating a second civil war in order to ban guns?

1. That's evil

2. That's pretty counter-productive

[Seli]

No offense Seli but you just got owned by Flow in that argument. You have still not given a straight answer on whether killing to prevent rape should be legal.

Your last word seemed to be something along the lines of it should be illegal but not punishable,which frankly makes no sense and basically implies that a rape victim should somehow face moral blame for killing her attacker to try and prevent being raped.

Bizzare argument.

If that is what you got I might really need to go back to the basics and re-learn English. Because that has little to do with the arguments I think I was making.

[thecryptile]

I'm sure people said the same about cocaine and heroin too.

Coke and heroin are more popular now than when they were legal. They were banned, but the ban didn't work... and unlike guns, coke and heroin are perishable products that the buyer consumes as soon as they are able.

And yet the United states has far higher rates of rapes and homocides than either of those countries... guess you all need more guns.

Damn straight, and if all the guns were to magically disappear tomorrow, there would still be more murders here than over there. People would just be getting stabbed and beaten to death. For a large man like myself, it wouldn't make much of a difference, but for a petite woman fighting for her life- well, those violent criminals would make short work of her.

If that is what you got I might really need to go back to the basics and re-learn English. Because that has little to do with the arguments I think I was making.

You might need to, if you think that you presented a clear argument. You were just talking in circles without saying anything.

[Seli]

...

You might need to, if you think that you presented a clear argument. You were just talking in circles without saying anything.

Arguments, that was not a single clear argumentation over a series of posts. Mostly because the framework kept shifting.

[Free Northman]

Arguments, that was not a single clear argumentation over a series of posts. Mostly because the framework kept shifting.

Fair enough, I know how that happens, and I usually hate it, as it draws one away from the point you originally intended to make, and you end up arguing over something that is at best peripheral to your main point.

That said, on the rape issue, if someone is trying to rape someone I know, and I am in a position to act in her defense, I am pulling the trigger, and not just once.

[Penguin king]

Are you advocating a second civil war in order to ban guns?

1. That's evil

2. That's pretty counter-productive

If the government pass legislation restricting firearms and the people rise up then that's not the government's fault. No more than if some nut job blows up a family planing clinic because he doesn't much care for abortion, or if a homophobe decides to take out his resentment to gay marriage legislation by "bashing some queers". No part of the democratic process states that you can start shooting people if a law you don't like comes into force.

I only mentioned the civil war as an example of how rarely that sort of rebellion works anyway.

Damn straight, and if all the guns were to magically disappear tomorrow, there would still be more murders here than over there. People would just be getting stabbed and beaten to death. For a large man like myself, it wouldn't make much of a difference, but for a petite woman fighting for her life- well, those violent criminals would make short work of her.

And you know that how? Firearms are the weapons used in aproximately 70-80% of US homocides. Are you claiming that in the majority of those cases a gun could be replaced with a knife or a big stick and the outcome would still be the same? Aren't guns, quicker and deadleir than knives? Don't they have the advantage of range? Don't they act as a force equalizer allowing the small and weak to defeat the large and strong? Do you think those attributes only apply if you buy your gun legally and only use it in self defence?

[Penguin king]

Fair enough, I know how that happens, and I usually hate it, as it draws one away from the point you originally intended to make, and you end up arguing over something that is at best peripheral to your main point.

That said, on the rape issue, if someone is trying to rape someone I know, and I am in a position to act in her defense, I am pulling the trigger, and not just once.

It's that "and not just once" that i have a problem with. You're basically saying, that if it takes one shot to bring him down you'll keep on shooting. You're not just trying to stop the rape, you're actively trying to murder the rapist.

[Free Northman]

It's that "and not just once" that i have a problem with. You're basically saying, that if it takes one shot to bring him down you'll keep on shooting. You're not just trying to stop the rape, you're actively trying to murder the rapist.

Every tactical firearms course teaches you to keep firing until the threat is neutralized. That's the basis for the whole double-tap expression. It has been demonstrated that an assailant with a knife can cover 7 yards and inflict a lethal stab wound in less time than someone can draw, aim and fire a weapon.

Altercations happen in a few seconds and then its over. There is no time to think and evaluate different courses of action. Mostly, muscle memory and trained routines should take over.

It is not prudent, and is in fact foolish, to fire once and then wait and see what happens. Firearms training teaches you that you must never pull the trigger unless you mean to kill, and once you make that decision, you keep firing until that objective is achieved.

Warning shots, "shooting someone in the leg" or to "incapacitate without lethal harm" is as ridiculous as gunfighters in the movies shooting the gun out of an opponent's hand.

Firearms are lethal devices, and should only be used as a last resort, and then only to destroy what is being aimed at.

[BarmyAlex118]

no attitudes are changing, but they are changing for the good. Thanks to the NRA more Americans are carrying guns than at any time in the past. We aren't going to morph into some carbon copy of England or the Netherlands where self defense is always murder and house breakers, rapists and murderers are coddled and perceived as victims.

I have to agree with you on the England one to be honest, there is currently a guy contesting that life imprisonment for the crimes he did goes against his human rights, so he is taking his case to the european court for it, i personally believe that he should hang for it.

As for rape i think you get several years for it, and for burglary it depends on how survive it was, ie armed robbery results in a longer sentence.

I don't know much on the length of sentences to be honest so if anyone know more then correct me please. :)

As for self defense in the us and the 2nd amendment, shouldn't the 2nd amendment be not used for this type of context because at the time it was written it was meant in case of the threat on invasion. Shouldn't the us government bring in a legal right/ bill / change to the amendment to allow self defense to a certain level as ultimately if it went to court you would have to defend your actions. Look at what happened at the Zimmerman trial, that was classed as self defense when most say it was murder.

Ammunition shortages are a reality in the US already, between the massive purchases by Homeland security and private hoarders, it is very difficult find many common calibers such as .223 and 9mm. The price has greatly increased as well. Many of my friends are getting into reloading because of shortages and price hikes.

But limiting ammunition harms the law abiding more than the criminal class, criminals fire fewer shots than law abiding citizens- the criminal doesn't go to the range or go hunting, he saves his ammo for his criminal activity. When I go to the range, I go through several boxes of ammo. A gang member might nurse his half a box of shells for years, never firing more than once or twice to murder or intimidate.

Yes limiting ammunition does harm those who are law abiding citizens, but only certain "petty" crooks would save ammo, the more hardcore criminals could get there hands large amounts though. If its a better solution to having to hand over certain guns then it might be the best for both sides of the gun control issue.

you must be a pretty bad shot to get through several boxes :P

Would you say stricter licensing and mental health background checks be the answer as opposed to having less ammo and handing over firearms ?

:dunno:

Could be the best solution, more paperwork though.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If the government pass legislation restricting firearms and the people rise up then that's not the government's fault.

Shitty reasoning. If the government bans Christianity and the people rise up, that's not the governments fault. If the government bans motorized transportation and the people rise up that's not the government's fault. blah blah blah.

I only mentioned the civil war as an example of how rarely that sort of rebellion works anyway.

It's worked 50% of the time when it's been tried by Americans.

Firearms are the weapons used in aproximately 70-80% of US homocides.

68%

As for self defense in the us and the 2nd amendment, shouldn't the 2nd amendment be not used for this type of context because at the time it was written it was meant in case of the threat on invasion. Shouldn't the us government bring in a legal right/ bill / change to the amendment to allow self defense to a certain level as ultimately if it went to court you would have to defend your actions. Look at what happened at the Zimmerman trial, that was classed as self defense when most say it was murder.

Heller v Washington DC

The US Supreme Court upheld that the 2nd Amendment confirmed a personal right to bear firearms for self-defense.

[paddington]

No, attitudes are changing, but they are changing for the good. Thanks to the NRA more Americans are carrying guns than at any time in the past. We aren't going to morph into some carbon copy of England or the Netherlands where self defense is always murder and house breakers, rapists and murderers are coddled and perceived as victims.

We have the right to defend ourselves in the UK

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

We have the right to defend ourselves in the UK

• 
  
  

I wish someone would have told the Metro PD officers who arrested me for carrying a pocketknife.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

In general ATF stupidity news, this apparently is a "pistol". If Obama wants to do something productive, he should clean house in the ATF.

http://i.imgur.com/UkktTRJ.jpg

[Free Northman]

I wish someone would have told the Metro PD officers who arrested me for carrying a pocketknife.

Clearly, in the UK, a tai-kwon-do black belt master has a greater right to self defense than a petite teenage girl. Because by taking law abiding citizen's weapons away, all you're left with to defend yourself in an emergency is your bare handed fighting skills. Whereas firearms are an equalizer that gives a little old lady as much of a capability to defend herself as a 7 foot mixed martial arts figther on steriods.

Sorry, little old lady, guess you're out of luck.

[thecryptile]

And you know that how? Firearms are the weapons used in aproximately 70-80% of US homocides.

If there were no guns, then 100% of homicides would be committed with other means. Murder rates were pretty high in tribal societies that predate firearms.

Are you claiming that in the majority of those cases a gun could be replaced with a knife or a big stick and the outcome would still be the same?

If you need to kill someone, you will find a way. In prisons, the toothbrush is used for murder.

Aren't guns, quicker and deadleir than knives?

No, they require less training to use effectively, but knives are very lethal in competent hands.

Don't they have the advantage of range?

Most gunfights happen at conversational distances. Well within the range of a knife attack. A knife wielder can defeat a gunman if they are within 20 ft.

Don't they act as a force equalizer allowing the small and weak to defeat the large and strong?

Yes, but most murders are committed by young men, so banning guns would leave the small, the weak, the elderly and women at the mercy of young criminals who can easily dispatch them.

Do you think those attributes only apply if you buy your gun legally and only use it in self defence?

No, but as I've said before, law abiding gun owners can practice more.

As for self defense in the us and the 2nd amendment, shouldn't the 2nd amendment be not used for this type of context because at the time it was written it was meant in case of the threat on invasion.

It was intended to afford the community protection from criminals and Native Americans as well.

Shouldn't the us government bring in a legal right/ bill / change to the amendment to allow self defense to a certain level as ultimately if it went to court you would have to defend your actions.

Not realistically.

Yes limiting ammunition does harm those who are law abiding citizens, but only certain "petty" crooks would save ammo, the more hardcore criminals could get there hands large amounts though.

Those with connections would be less thrifty than those without, but criminals in general don't fire their weapons nearly as often as law abiding gun owners.

If its a better solution to having to hand over certain guns then it might be the best for both sides of the gun control issue.

Confiscation isn't feasible in the US, thank God.

Would you say stricter licensing and mental health background checks be the answer as opposed to having less ammo and handing over firearms ?

:dunno:

What we need to do is enforce existing gun laws, but for some reason the Feds have been loathe to prosecute those who lie on their NFA paperwork.

We have the right to defend ourselves in the UK

Not like I do. I see too many sad tales of Britons jailed for defending their homes from robbers. The Guardian ran an article about how an Englishman's home is his dungeon, grabbing a bat or knife to defend your home from a burglar can be seen as premeditation to murder, and homeowners have received stiffer sentences for resisting criminal aggression than the criminals who started the altercation in the first place by invading someone else's home.