How about the United nations? If they are on any side of the debate, they are on the gun control side, aren’t they?
“After the 1996 atrocity, legislation was introduced to prohibit, with some extremely specialised exemptions, “Small firearms” i.e. those with a barrel length of less than 30 cm or an overall length of less than 60 cm. Whilst intentional firearm homicides did in fact eventually decline there is no doubt that homicides involving the class of firearms prohibited initially increased in the early years following the legislative change before commencing a downward trend from 2003 onwards” -United nations
There are licensing and registration requirements all over the country and people grumble but they comply. The AWB was a manufacturing and sale restriction. It had no impact on gun violence.
So the horses never got out of the barn in Japan. Unless you are going to do a house to house search, you are relying on voluntary compliance and criminals won’t comply.
I think you can defend a constitutional rights without implying that the right is absolute. I defend the first amendment but I still think that we can put significant and meaningful restrictions on speech and lobbying.
Perhaps it would be illuminating to compare the AR-15 to a semi-automatic hunting rifle like the Remington 750. It might make you rethink this obsession with tactical LOOKING guns.
Ultimately if you want to get rid of guns entirely then fine. Good luck with that. If you want to reduce gun violence, I think you’re going about it the wrong way. I THINK that if you were just a little bit better informed, you would realize that.
I don’t subscribe to that view entirely but I do believe that gun ownership in an area provides a type of herd immunity from crime. I don’t think everyone needs to take a gun class. I think anyone that owns a gun should take such a class.
Afghanistan had a GDP of about 2.5 billion before we invaded. We could have paid them off to give up the Taliban for less than we spend there in one year.
Aaand here We go again. Where have I said that I want a total ban?
This is like talking to religious people. It’s just black or white with You. If someone says everybody shouldn’t have a gun, Your brains translate this as total ban. You have decided that I want a total ban and nothing can change Your mind.
The way I see is, that if there’s people, there probably are some lunatics too. More You spread guns around, the bigger are the chances that some of those guns will end up with those lunatics. Simple as that and I can’t believe anyone could disagree. It still doesn’t mean wanting a total ban. ( And soon someone will claim that I want a total ban - it will happen, You’ll see. It may even be You. )
But I don’t understand why You want so badly that everyone should have machine guns ?
Like in the wild west?
So You support gun buybacks? I’m glad to see that.
That is the very problem here. Who is the lunatic? Too bad if people find it out only when he starts shooting at the crowd. But You have it backwards there. A person wouldn’t go to a psychiatrist in fear of losing his gun? How he had a gun before meeting one - where that evaluation was - who did it and was he qualified to do it ? So many questions that should’ve been done before he got that gun.
( Damn, why does this spell check always underline should’ve and suggests would’ve, is it really wrong? It’s annoying and it makes Me insecure of My English. :()
That is a good approach, but if it actually leads more people getting more guns then there’s a slippery slope to everybody having a gun - including lunatics and criminals that were fine kids while at school.
Also how many murders have been masked as accidents. This Pistorius thing have taken a quite interesting turn.
So DoL might work partially with people who don’t have TV’s and indoor plumbing. That’s not the U.S. though.
Sucks big time. That’s why We have cops and gun control here.
But here owning a gun is one of our rights. We have it unless we lose it by committing a felony for example. Not having a history of violent crime is a test about as good as any I can think of. In psychology the test for psychopathy is just a multiple choice test for which it is pretty easy to determine what the right and wrong answers are if you wish to avoid the diagnosis.
There is sure to be error one way or another. One error would deny a safe persons the ability to defend themselves, the other would give an unsafe persons the ability to do harm. However unsafe persons who want to do harm will jump through whatever hoops they need to do it. Like McVeigh or Breivik.
Most gun deaths (maybe 2/3 in the US and 6/7 in Switzerland) are from suicide, but you keep on focusing crime alone. I want to reduce both.
Switzerland has a lot of guns and a lot of gun deaths. The US has even more guns and even more gun deaths. This is consistent with the idea that gun and bullet ownership should be, in a moderate way, and without turning millions of people into felons, discouraged and reduced.
The different murder to suicide ratio in the US and Switzerland most likely has to do with average personality differences (whether people turn their discontents inward or outward). By ignoring the suicide side, you are missing the overall trend.
Well, then, because I think certain Americans should keep and bear some arms, I’m a defender of the second amendment rights. And so must every other American who isn’t a pacifist.
I wish I knew where the quoted author got this statistic, which contradicts a claim you made in an earlier post. In defense of my using it: The source, the Atlantic, is known for hiring fact-checkers.
Every home in which there was an able bodied male age 20-34 had a full automatic assault rifle. This one:
Pretty cool huh? And when you are done with your service you have the option to keep it and have it converted to semi-auto, just like an AR15.
That’s great. I’m in favor of assistive suicide. Assistive suicide is legal in Switzerland. I would think if you wanted to reduce suicide you should do it by making life better for people, not removing the socially responsible means to do so, and particularly not by eliminating fun things to do, like shoot guns.
But it isn’t more important than a right to be alive ( which, I believe, is also mentioned in Your constitution ). It’s always the innocent people who pay the price, when something goes wrong, armed or not.
I think that cold-blooded psychopaths aren’t the ones You should be worried about. They are too calculating and self-obsessed to die for having a fun of killing some random people. If they want to kill, they’d rather be serial killers. And there’s so much You can do to not being a prey for serial killer ( even unarmed ), with mass murderers not so much ( even armed ).
And with gun suicide. Isn’t the trend there that suicidal people want their TV time and their own Wiki page, so even if they were losers in life, they’re somebody in death.
A safe person could became unsafe in time. Everyone is a risk and perhaps should be tested on regular basis. Maybe even mandatory, go to the test or lose Your licence? Government have given a right to own a gun, so play with their rules or lose that right.
So there’s no need to make those hoops easy.
In the times of William Tell? That’s the last time they were fighting their own government that I’m aware of ( and they won ).
And for that ‘hate of long guns’, while it’s the short guns that do the murders and self defense.
Aren’t those long guns mostly for hunting and target practicing and other recreational purposes. I think that’s the reason why some are so against them. They don’t have that much ‘sensible’ use, they are just for fun. And people having fun with guns sounds pretty bad, especially for those who have lost a loved one.
I agree. So we have laws against murder in this country.
I think carrying a concealed weapon probably helps with both mass murderers and serial killers.
That does seem to be a trend. We could, and probably should put some blame on the media, but additional laws would infringe on our first amendment rights.
Sounds needlessly expensive and I’m sure inaccurate. Psychology is far from an exact science.
And not much benefit of making them hard.
I don’t distinguish defense of liberty between fighting or deterring your own government and fighting or deterring a foreign one. The Swiss have done exceptionally well at the latter.
But shooting guns really is fun. If I recall you really enjoyed shooting an air rifle. I like air rifles myself, but bigger guns do get funner to shoot. I don’t doubt that some who have lost loved ones to gun violence will have a visceral reaction against them. I think I have more of a visceral reaction for them since I used one to save myself and my girlfriend with one. I used a handgun then, and when I’m outside the home, but I my primary home defense gun is a long arm.
It was fun indeed when I was a kid. May still be, but I haven’t been shooting for years 'cause I live in a city now. And yes, there were some annoying people suspecting that I’ll shoot birds and squirrels ( OK, I shot one bird, but at the time I already had that gun for years - I shouldn’t have done that though ). Once I was accused of something so stupid than shooting laundry hanging out drying. That was pretty unbelievable accusation and made Me angry, 'cause I’m not an idiot. And I wouldn’t liked if the cops had taken My gun away, 'cause I did nothing wrong. But I’ve surely known guys who shouldn’t have even an air rifle. That idiot who shot Me in the back, almost pierced My throat once with a ski pole. Luckily the nail was gone, but I was in pain a long time. So yes, idiots find their way to hurt people, guns or no guns. But I’m sure glad he didn’t have that air rifle then.
I’ve been shooting with a bigger gun only once in My life and didn’t much like that. It was too massive, too loud, and I really felt heavy responsibility on My head while handling it. Way too heavy to actually enjoy shooting with it ( one might say I was scared of it ) and I don’t think getting used to it would’ve helped much. But truly, air guns are fun and not too lethal even in the wrong hands. I’m all in favor of down grading recreational guns to air guns. And I think that a well aimed lead pellet will stop a burglar effectively enough. I don’t see too much need for guns that could kill an elephant or a roomful of people. They are like supersonic cars or something, way too much power for their actual need, and it increases unwanted effects ( as fun it may be for the owner - until something happens, that is ).
Not sure, it was about 30 years ago, when I was a teenager. Not too big anyway, probably something as puny as a .22. But it was long and heavy, I couldn’t keep the barrel on level and it was going up and down. Our gang of three used to go to the city dump with Our air rifles and the oldest bought this gun when he reached the legal age, he also bought a shotgun and a ‘moose rifle’ ( or whatever that’s in English ), but never let Us try the latter two. I tried an old TV set about 50 meters away downhill, of course I missed all and the owner finished the job with one bullet ( TV’s really don’t explode like in the movies… ). He was also the only one of Us who shot crows and seagulls, We others shot inanimate objects or sometimes rats. No ear protection, but the owner later made a silencer out of a beer can and it worked amazingly well. He also used to mix all kind of explosives that We blew up in the woods ( today he’s a respected doctor ). Great times.
I am NOt talking about those plastic guns that shoot plastic pellets to a adhesive paper targets. All My air guns have easily broken normal glass bottles from hundred meters. And that WILL stop a guy from few meters if aimed well.
All this spreading guns around is just a short sighted remedy and can’t go on forever. It’s like having painkillers for a broken leg, the longer it goes on, the uglier the results will be.
Also I’m not making any laws or saying that I’m qualified to do so. Are You?
I know what you are talking about. I own a high quality high power air rifle. It will NOT stop a person. I can’t believe that yours would either. What is the make and model of your rifle? I want to see some ballistics.
They’re talking about banning the sale of some models of semi-automatic rifle, which largely because of cosmetic features are called “assault weapons”.
AFAIK, it is still completely legal to buy one of THESE, which shoots THESE (the smaller of the two is a “mere” .50 BMG round), provided you go through all the NFA requirements (registration, stamp tax, etc.)
Not sure, it was over 30 years ago, I think one of them might have been BSA Meteor ( one was maybe Russian, somewhere East Europe anyway). But some of them were pretty powerful back then and I think there have later been some restrictions to their strength. ( The one I was shot to the back was a new one - and truth to be told, who knows, it might have even been a ricochet ).
However, this air gun hijack is meaningless. It would be stupid to say that let’s get rid of all fire arms and replace them with equally powerful air guns. No-one is saying that. So even if I got some details wrong it would change nothing ( maybe it was less than 100 meters, maybe beer bottles back then were rubbish, whatever… ).
( And then there’s this Girandoni air rifle that was powerful enough for military to use it for 35 years, also Lewis and Clark had one too. )
I had just wanted to point out that your idea to use air guns for self defense is not rooted in reality. And that is often the level of knowledge that anti-gun folks have.
