Controversial Topic: Gun Control in the US

Post Reply New Topic

Lets get the big question out of the way: I am pro-gun.

That said, I think I have an argument for it that's a little less rant-worthy. It seems the main arguments for guns are 'Guns don't kill, people do', '2nd Amendment', and 'Self-Defense', while the arguments against are violence, children, and Columbine. I have a third option to consider, for everyone involved.

I am not NRA, and I'm perfectly fine with banning certain modifications, provided the one doing the banning actually knows what those mods do. What I have to offer is the sociological impact of gun control.

Forget criminals ignoring established laws, forget insane individuals and violence. Guns are tightly intertwined with America. The flintlock helped win independence, the revolver was critical during the Frontier days, the 'Tommy Gun' was used to great effect in the 1920s, and the Springfield won WW2. Good and bad, these weapons are a part of our culture, and while some may find that barbaric, removing it would mean losing a part of our heritage.

Also, as a side note, a personal peeve of mine. I saw a picture with a crowbar, a hatchet, and an assault rifle. Someone wrote that they are two tools and a weapon, but people forget that, while the axe was initially invented as a tool, it HAS been used in many wars. History has a habit of making tools of war into tools of peace. (Not correlated to above, just a grievance )

Oh, and to be sure, I do know which modifications I believe are perfectly fine to ban.
-Suppressors (aka Silencers), for obvious reasons. Hunters probably will not need these, and if the US needed to fight a dictatorship, war generally makes these a moot point.
-Magazine modifications. This one I should explain. High-capacity, extended, and drum magazines are unnecessary. However, limiting standard magazines is kinda dumb. If a pistol can have 7 rounds, then that's fine. If a rifle has 30, that's fine too, so long as you don't modify it.
-Any kind of underslung attachment, such as a shotgun or grenade launcher
-Rocket launchers
-Fully-automatic shotguns
-Gatling guns, except for special licenses, such as a gun show or training range

Modifications that I think should be allowed are as follows:
-Scopes, because hunting would be very difficult without them
-Pistol grips and forward grips, because while they may look intimidating, they don't actually change the rifle at all beyond aesthetics
-Stock modifications, for the same reason
-Semi-automatic fire, because most handguns already functions this way, so a rifle should as well

And, of course, I wish more people had more knowledge about guns in general. Both for and against. An assault rifle is an assault weapon. A handgun is not. A tactical, pump-shotgun looks scary, but its just as safe as a hunting shotgun. 'Scary-looking' guns are not in any way indicative of ability to kill. And lastly, although 3D printing can print guns, you need a special polymer to craft them, and the metal inner-workings to fire them. And one can make a basic gun from PVC pipe and a shotgun shell much easier, so who would bother with it?

Moved from Random Discussion.

I don't know, for me some cultures are mature enough to have and own guns, others don't, and I think the USA is to immature right now for having such a right, for me the 2nd amendment should be suspended the time people grow up and become more mature. Sorry.
I take the example of Switzerland, over there it's mandatory by law that every citizen keeps at home an assault rifle with the ammunition (rifle issued by the state), that being a fully automatic M16 or M5 or whatever. And last time I check, per capita and proportionally the crime rate in Switzerland is very low, one of the lowest crime rates in the world, I've never head a Swiss entering a school and shooting everyone, a Swiss opening fire in a cinema, a Swiss going on a rampage in a shopping mall, or even a Swiss having an argument with his neighbor and pulling out his rifle to shoot him.
Many other countries people have the right to bare arms and their crime rates are very low, like Finland, Israel, Greece just to name a few.

Crime in Greece is low because there is nothing left to steal, everyone is broke now
The government will run out of money in a few weeks, let's see what happens then.

Then in the rest of this post and the next one you go on to demonstrate that you are anti-gun.

Your pro gun control, not pro gun. If you were pro gun you wouldn't discount the possibility of a war withing the US.

War and crime both are reasons suppressors, automatic guns, hi cap magazines, and short barrels are regulated without cause. The most famous crimes involving these weapons, such as those carried out during prohibition, were not that different from the crimes committed today, such as columbine. Throughout history, the US has had gun crimes, this makes one wonder why these crimes keep happening? Because they will, that's why, and there is nothing you can do to stop them, just stop the people committing them.
They just want to take guns away to enforce their power, and destroy yours.

I am in favor of a government policy of forcible confiscation of privately owned firearms. Not because I think this is the right thing to do, but because I think that the revolution / civil war which will ensue is necessary.

The idea of prohibiting firearm modifications (or technological advances) is an abandonment of U.S. laws and traditions. During our first war, the ability to own weapons equal to those used against us was undoubted. In fact, the accuracy of the Pennsylvania/Kentucky flintlock musket outpaced that of the British Brown Bess. So, in plain language, Americans were technologically better armed than their opponents even if the British outnumbered us.

A few years later, when they guaranteed the natural right of self defense in the new Constitution for the United States of America, they were obviously not intending to retreat from the idea that the right protected their ownership and possession of arms equal or superior to those of their opponents. They weren't about to give up that advantage even to their new nation.

Fast forward to today, and we see many Second Amendment advocates owning and possessing arms that are similarly equal or superior to those of our current government. Thankfully, nothing has changed (except that we now outnumber our opponents). Maintaining this status quo is what has kept our government (and its camp followers) from straying too far beyond their constitutional leashes.

It doesn't even matter what the constitution says. If there is a large amount of the population who wants something (guns, alcohol, whatever) it will always be there. Prohibition didn't work either, and confiscating all guns will not work either. Confiscating guns can only work in countries without a gun culture, confiscating alcohol only works in countries that have no drinking culture.

Don't these basically stop you from being deafened?

Why are non-standard magazines "unnecessary"? Even if they are, what good would banning them do?

I believe these are a) already strictly controlled, b) very rare, c) unwieldy and almost impractical to use. Consequently, they are d) almost never used in crime.


Are assault rifles used in more crimes than handguns then?

I find the "unneccessary" argument not really an argument. Lots of stuff we like is unneccessary. Sometimes people like to shoot with some outrageous gun with a drum mag, it's not really any of my business. Some people wear 2000 dollar suits, that's also "unneccessary" but it's also none of my business. Some cars can go over the speed limit, meeeh...

Are we in the middle of some sort of silenced assault gatling shotgun crime wave that I'm unaware of?

Guns do have minds of their own, we are told.

They cause suicide, too.

springfield was ww1, m1 garand was ww2



silences protect your hearing , they aren't really silent. they just decrease the sound level to near or below 90 decibels. so when you go hunting you don't come back death, or you go shooting and don't go death. also makes it quiter for people living near by who may not enjoy the shooting hobby sound.

if you take a 10 round mag weld it and make it hold 30 then you modified it, if you buy a 100 round drum made and designed for the gun its not modifying they gun. you don't have to take a welder to make a ak hold a drum. so the design of the gun isn't modified.

you just say full auto shotguns so are you ok with other machine guns/assault rifles being owned?

and assault rifle/assault weapon is not what the left and you claim it is. if i put extra body parts on my corolla so it looks like a porsche its still not a porsche. because it snot looks that make a sports care its all of it combined. to be an assault rifle it has to be able to fire full auto and be designed to. ar15 can't fire full auto. they have a different bolt and milled receivers.

assault weapon is any semi automatic gun that looks scary, so that to anti gunners covers pretty much all pistols.



true true, just like many pro gun politicians. "I'm pro gun I just think that 90% of them should be banned"
imagine if someone said they were pro black people then went on and on about all the stuff wrong with black people. oh it would be all over the news and people would complain all over.


yep, but its so silent we don't even know about it



yep its so sad, see it few times on fb and forums, poor young guns blowing themselves up. but who can blame them they called murders all the time for a small percentage of their population does in the hands of criminals.