Gun control question....

[Vagabond]

They do tennis balls? *shock*
I only knew them from Hot Wheels TM. And other various toys.

No cookie 4 me.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Then again, there's a big difference between owning a patent (which, with Armalites doesn't mean much anymore, everyone makes them) and actually making and selling the product. Magpul owns the Masada even though Bushmaster is the only company making it (as the ACR)

And I seem to remember that HK (premiere German small arms manufacturer) was, for a long time, owned by an American conglomerate or somesuch.

No cookie 4 me either, I'm at a loss
Though I will give a cookie to whoever can tell me what the K in MP5K and G36K stands for

[Nyoibo]

Though I will give a cookie to whoever can tell me what the K in MP5K and G36K stands for

Kurz.

(darn 10 character minimum)

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Kurz.

(darn 10 character minimum)

Here, have 8 cookies and 23 internets

On topic though, I still don't get it when the NRA is treated as the root of all evil. They're the most sensible gun rights group there is and have many important as well as qualitative programs... *shrug*

[Vagabond]

I like their bumper stickers "Gun Control means using both hands".

[Slytovhand]

Only if there's a damn good reason should the government prevent you. I don't have to prove to you why I should be allowed to play videogames, use the internet, or purchase a gun simply to have it, YOU need to prove why I SHOULDN'T. Since there is no reason to prevent me, WHY?

I have a reason, although I doubt you'll see it as a 'damn good' one. Theft.

Sure, you legally owning a fully automatic weapon might be ok. But, if it gets stolen, then there is a problem (presuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the thief wants it for more nefarious purposes). Your desire for such a weapon does not, in the eyes of society in general (it would appear at this stage) does not override your inability to guarantee that the weapon will not fall into the 'wrong' hands. (legally owned guns don't get used too often in crimes, it's the stolen ones that keep showing up!) Think of a really bad place in the USA. Give almost everyone the right to own a gun. Find a supportive (well, money-greedy and immoral) gun-store owner. Kids walks in, shows ID, gets papers, gets guns. ID was stolen?? Damn! Oh well... next thing, you have a mini-civil war going on in the area..(sort of like what happened in the OP link!). Won't happen, you say? Enough blind eyes are already being turned as it is (after all, do you think all those stolen guns don't go through a 'legitimate' gun dealer? Under the counter happens a lot)

Secondly, not all nutjobs are going to show up with a red-flag when they apply for such a weapon. Given the current legal thought of 'prefer guilty go free than have the innocent imprisoned', the same would apply - 'rather restrict the rights of a few to protect the many'. You can't bring back the dead once they've been shot, and that weighs more heavily than your personal freedom and desire to own such weapons - and the burden of 'proof' now lays on you.

Thirdly, there are groups in the USA (and Australia) that would like to overthrow the current government (well, system of government). If they had the means (ie, the weapons) they would try to. Even just the threat of such a thing is not something that should be considered. What does it do to society's morale to hear people in the NRA to say something like they'd prefer to have a civil war than to give up their guns?? That's scary shit to be saying! It says "we don't care what our democratically elected officials say, nor the approved legal and constitutional officials and processes do, we are willing to overthrow the democratic process to fulfill our desires".

And, lastly - and for me the biggest - current licensing requirements for weapons, both buying and selling (of almost any type) are ridiculously inadequate. You have a criminal record, you can't have a gun. Your brother hasn't been caught yet, yeah, he's ok! You've been on psychiatric medication for the last 10 years for delusions and paranoia, but haven't caused any real harm to anyone - yeah, you fly under the radar, you can have one too!

In Australia, to own a small firearm (eg, pistol), you have to fill out the required paperwork (in Victoria, it was only a couple of pages), and do a firearms safety course, show that you can have the weapons stored safely, and be a member of a registered shooting organisation. Once approved for your weapons license, there are requirements for long-term and short term storage of your weapons - either leave them on the shooting club's premises in their safe, or show that you have a safe place in your home, and in your vehicle for transport to and fro. Police have the power to check this at any time. Why is this a bad thing? (well, for display weapons, yeah, that's a bit crap Means, in theory, I can't have any LOTR swords hanging up on display! That nice daisho set... nope, gotta be locked away out of sight!) But, anyway, there are those in the Gun Lobby who would resist such requirements in the USA, because it "gives too much power to the gubmint, and ah don't wan them ta kno wha guns ah gut!". Isn't this part of the symptomology of paranoia that I referred to earlier???

So, from a government and legal point of view - a social point of view, your freedom to own does not outweigh the above arguments.

Kittercat, your 'examples' leave a lot of room to be desired. All of your examples completely ignored the social situations at the time! Pre-revolution France, people were starving to death, heavily taxed, and walked all over - that's why they revolted against a corrupt regime - it wasn't a democracy (which the USA keeps trying to tell the rest of the world is so fantastic, they'll even invade other nations and impose it on them!). Pre-WWII, most of the world was in a depression, and the German people suffered the brunt of it. That, and other limitations placed upon them by the Allied forces post-WWI. So, are you going to try to draw analogies between those situations and circumstances, and the current (or near future) government and governmental system in the USA?


Africa... I'm pretty sure we'll see a 'unified' Africa within our lifetimes, within a certain definition. There is already an African Union. The majority of the people want peace, and all want prosperity. Pretty soon, a few of the better equipped nations will start laying down the law on those countries constantly in civil war, and yes, soon, a lot of people are going to be disarmed! It is a scenario that has happened many many times across this planet, and not all that far back in history, either.


Mexico? Needs a better infrastructure and economy. People want a better life. IF they can see a better life through nefarious actions, then that's what (at least some) will take. When it's a better life otherwise, without compromising morals (or killing people), they'll head that way instead.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Here we go, something substantial. Have to say I've been waiting for this

One thing at a time, by paragraph:

First of all, no registered automatic weapon has ever been used in a crime by anyone be it the original owner or otherwise. The only automatic weapons used in crime were either before any weapon legislation existed (Bad) OR ILLEGALLY IMPORTED. A legally registered automatic weapon poses no risk, especially since only a fool would drop thousands if not tens of thousands on one and NOT secure it combined with the fact that most jurisdictions require that anyway. 'Under the counter' is widely believed to be true, but in actuality rare. Unless it's taken to be synonymous with black market, which it isn't. You make it sound as if gun store owners are by definition shady car salesmen bent on turning a profit and damn the consequences. The reality is that most if not all are devoted enthusiasts who'd by and large rather get shot repeatedly then break the law like that.

Secondly, sure. Nutjobs are by definition undetectable. Mental health cases can't under law buy weapons in many if not most places, but the background checks often fail to pick it up because (bureaucracy to the rescue) they aren't linked properly (a state/federal run system and thus a state/federal level problem that needs solved) There is nothing anyone can do to stop psychopaths, even the most stringently regulated nations still experience the odd 'massacre' because deranged lunatics will always find a way to kill people to say nothing of getting what they want to do it with. We could outright ban all weapons in the US and I doubt mass killings would even falter. The chances of one occurring and taking lives is already astronomical and, as I have said, the most effective way to deal with them is to be ready.

Thirdly, I know there are. And in many cases they already have what they need or access to it in every area but manpower. A few pounds of improvised explosives, a marginally decent weapon apiece and some ingenuity is all anyone really needs to engage police officers, a SWAT team or even national guard. They'd lose, and that's what's really stopping them. Most are just big on talk as much as they are big on crazy. As for those who'd rather fight then lose their weapons, what they actually say is that they'd rather fight than have their weapons taken from them. Should the day arise that the government busts into my home so that they can take my weapons from me, to hell with them. We're talking about people who value the right to have weapons and defend their lives with them. It would be similar to the situation in which the government is breaking into my home to prevent me from printing leaflets supporting their opposition. It's a government overstepping their bounds that we're talking about. I would fight to protect any and all of my core rights in the moment they're taken by force. Why should my second amendment rights be excluded? Remember, at least that the majority of gun rights groups, especially the NRA are doing everything they can to work with the system to protect what they value. Rule of the majority, rights of the minority. If at any point the minority is quelled at the hands of the majority, the system has failed. Gun owners at the hands of anti-gunners, gays at the hands of straights, you tell me what the difference is.

Lastly, the big catch, licensing. There really is no reason to deny that brother the purchase of a weapon. Where's it written down that a relation is also a criminal? Besides, it's far easier for a criminal with even the most rudimentary connections to just buy a gun from them illegally. 'Proxy' purchases do happen, yes, but they're still only a fraction of the problem.

There are areas where licensing can be improved. Making sure mental health cases can't buy guns is a big one on the list. Background checks (which, by the way, tend to include such things as suspected crime and whether or not you live with a felon) and waiting periods (up to a point) all stem the purchase of weapons by dangerous people. The licensing for automatics and other title 3 weapons was highly effective what with all the paperwork, checks and taxes (oh boy the TAXES they put on those!) which proves that screening can and does work. What we need to do is identify specific gaps and fill them without dithering around on stupid stuff. Adding a 20$ FBI check is not what I'm fighting against, it's the stupid unilateral and arbitrary bans that piss me off. They don't help and they trample all over my rights while they're at it. If politicians and political groups could concentrate on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and less on fits of childish petulance (does anybody give a crap whether there's a flashlight on my pistol? no, they just like to ban gun-related stuff dangerous or not) we'd be in the right place.

And as I said before, the situation in which the government is seizing weapons, or any of a number of things is way over the line. Similarly over the line as the governments were then, perhaps not on the same scale of absolute bullcrap, but bullcrap nonetheless. You really see the army rampaging about, arresting any and all gun owners and seizing the guns at gun point and DON'T see a problem? I do.

Ha ha ha! no. I don't think so. 'Westernized' areas of Africa have been coming around for a while now. But even they have shown a capacity for going down the shitter for basically no reason other than "those people belong to tribe X and we belong to tribe Y" The UN has failed horribly in all it's attempts to keep peace to date (at least partially due to their own suckage) and even comparatively gung-ho US military actions only improve things as long as we're allowed to shoot people (after which the whole thing just falls down, as is to be expected)

Mexico is a different story. Alot of their violence is crime and not mini-genocide / for the hell of it related. When they have the means, I'm confident they'll improve quite well. They're like one gigantic south-central DC, drugs and gangs, and we already know that both of those can be dealt with.

[Boozy]

Everything is still pretty much run like it has been since they gained their independence from France.

Uh, Mexico was actually under Spanish control

I'm not sure, but he might have been referring to the French intervention (sometime during the mid 1800's, I think).

Although I don't know if one can say that Mexico gained "independence" from the French so much, since it was more of an occupation than established rule. But maybe that's just splitting hairs.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I'm not sure, but he might have been referring to the French intervention (sometime during the mid 1800's, I think).

Although I don't know if one can say that Mexico gained "independence" from the French so much, since it was more of an occupation than established rule. But maybe that's just splitting hairs.

I think it kinda is (splitting hairs) but whatever, same basic point.

In other news, I recently realized that my habitual Airsoft shop is literally three doors down from a surprisingly well-stocked Guns and Ammo. The guy behind the counter was making small talk and mentioned that just the day before some moron had walked into their thinking it was the other store and I can now say with 100% confidence that my Airsoft double stack 1911 weighs the same as a real double stack 1911

They've also got a hefty chunk of newly-available stock now that that rubbish assault weapons ban is gone. I hadn't realized until now just how little that law did to change anything. Side by side, the restricted and unrestricted weapons were virtually identical, cosmetic differences indeed. Only the lawmakers insisted that the manufacturers were at fault for making the changes when it's their own stupid asses that spent all that time and money to ban cosmetic crap. Glad that's over...