The Gamespot Gun Control Debate

I've been in situations where the pistol I was carrying would have been ineffective against the threat, but my rifle (not an AK in this case, and not even full auto) did the job much better.thegerg

[QUOTE="thegerg"] I've been in situations where the pistol I was carrying would have been ineffective against the threat, but my rifle (not an AK in this case, and not even full auto) did the job much better.C_Rule

Your country of origin must not have Grizzly Bears.

The Yanks say they should have guns to defend themselves, well you don't need a fully automatic weapon do defend yourself. If you're in a situation where a pistol isn't enough to defend yourself, then an AK-47 isn't going to do sh*t (though I'm sure some of the rambo cowboys in this thread would love to tell you differently).C_Rule

Of the gun deaths in the US every year, less than a third are from long guns (that's all rifles and shotguns). Proponents of guns laws really shouldn't be going after tactical rifles if their motives are based on data and not emotion.

[QUOTE="The Guardian"]

"The often-touted notion that American citizens need to hoard military arsenals to overthrow a corrupt government is absurd and paranoid. In any case, America spends more than the next 26 countries combined on military expenditure. If the US Army comes for you, you won't even know about it, the battle will be over before you get your pants on. Your pistol will do nothing against a M1 Abrams tank, and you may as well flick pretzels at the drones patrolling your town.

Palantas

Right, because the US Army has proven extremely effective in fighting an insurgencies in recent decades, Abrams tanks being a key component of counter-insurgency warfare. All the freedom fighters just line up in an open field against the 1st Armored Division, like it's the Battle of Gettysburg. Small arms however, play little to no role in a revolution, as evidenced by their non-presence in Libya and Syria. Clearly the author of this paragraph is not only a military historian and strategist, but also a deep thinker.

Given the appalling levels of obesity in the USA, we can rule out the idea of gun owners marching on Washington to overthrow a corrupt government. Most of these so-called "survivalists" couldn't make it to the garden gate without an oxygen tank.

The Guardian

(Sarcasm terminated) I think the point of this article is more just to b!tch about and insult Americans than it is to make a sound point. Perhaps people who have zero experience in warfighting should shut the f*ck up, and go run their mouths about medicine or chemistry or underwater welding, or some other field they know nothing about.

I've never understood what scenario people are imagining when they think of fighting a corrupt government. If it ever happens you will not be fighting a war against a government but fellow citizens who take the opposite side. It will be a case of civil war and not fighting oppression by a faceless enemy. Everyone arming themselves will only achieve a larger death toll.

Has anyone noticed that in the last 20 years, every mass shooting that has occured, has happened in a "Gun Free Zone"? Maybe someone should look into that. Outlaws don't care about the law, they have guns anyway. You take away people's guns, automatic sitting ducks.

JasonGriffee

Other than Virginia Tech, you're right.

Well, people seem to forget that the US Constitution was made in the late 1700's. The right to bear arms obviously meant blackpowder weapons.

I propose all guns execpt Muskets are banned.

*Starts making Muskets*

..To the poster who said no gun owner came to the rescue for those children....

My hat off to you. A great mention in defense of pro gun owners. CreasianDevaili

Also, if you want to go down this road of why do people need guns or you don't need an assualt rifle. This is a hobby folks, you may not think so, you may think its not right, but people have hobbys and this one of them. With that being said, why should we have cigerettes, or alcohol, or knives or martial arts(I mean you can kill someone by punching or kicking them in the right spot afterall, oh did you know that if you have a black belt and are wearing boots at the time of a fight that is considered a deadly weapon?) I could go on and on, why do have fireworks? They are dangerous, and someone can create a bomb with the powder inside. Its everyone wanting answers for something that you will never get an answer to. If everyone stopped trying to find something or someone to blame, maybe we could prevent this in the future instead of just looking to take away. It gets old. We mine as well get rid of violent video games because that is also a contributer. Why must we have blood and guts on television, why must we have violent video games in which you kill someone? All I see are hypocrites in here and both sides going from one extreme to another.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

Well I like the required gun insurance idea for that example but it's not going to be popular.

I would model it in pretty much the exact same way where people considered high risk for firearms incidents get higher premiums. Risk calculated based on type of weapon, location of the individual, history, job title, marital status, age, firearms experience etc.

You can even insentivise responsible behaviour with increased discount after each term without incident. It's a fleeting, idealistic idea but...

The policy would be that to be refused insurance is to be refused a licence by me. It isn't perfect but what is? It's got to be better than the current system.

Palantas

Here are a couple issue I have with that:

1. Anytime you create expensive supplementaries to an item, you create a tax on poorer people. So now only wealthy to middle income persons can enjoy a Constitutional right. (Driving a car isn't guaranteed by the Constitution; bearing arms is.)
2. This would create a new market, which benefits the rich, and would be subject to manipulation.

I might be able to go along with this, given the following conditions:

1. There are price caps on insurance premiums.
2. Training certifications significantly lower premiums from the default rate.

Even then, this makes me nervous in that it gives the Left an additional tool to disarm people. They don't need to restrict firearms or ammunition; they just need to (legally or through the market) push insurance premiums so high as to make firearms unaffordable to the general public.

Not to generalise, but I can imagine being poor makes people a higher risk than people of middle incomes and above for all kinds of reasons so it depends how you look at that.

I mean any other way I can think of to make gun control stricter would be political suicide.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="thegerg"]

"But wouldn't you trust the cop with a gun licence over somebody with no proven history at all?"

Probably, but I can think of a number of civilians that I'd trust over a cop. Cops aren't the only ones wtih training, you know?

To say that all civilians are too irresponsible and shouldn't have guns is just as foolish as saying all civials are responsible enough and should.

thegerg

Me?

I never said no guns for civilians. I may not have been clear so the case in point I had in mind is that that hypothetically and in general, a random cop I don't know is more likely to know about firearms and safe conduct around them than a random civilian I don't know who has a gun licence. In other words I'm not saying you need to be ex armed service or a cop or something to have "proven history", but it is a very valid proof of history imo.

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]..To the poster who said no gun owner came to the rescue for those children....

My hat off to you. A great mention in defense of pro gun owners.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"] "Stricter gun laws doesn't have to mean no guns at all." I know that. However "no guns at all" for civilians is the argument that the poster I quoted made that I was responding to. Try keeping up there. "If you're in a situation where a pistol isn't enough to defend yourself, then an AK-47 isn't going to do sh*t" Not true at all. I've been in situations where the pistol I was carrying would have been ineffective against the threat, but my rifle (not an AK in this case, and not even full auto) did the job much better.thegerg

Me?

I never said no guns for civilians. I may not have been clear so the case in point I had in mind is that that hypothetically and in general, a random cop I don't know is more likely to know about firearms and safe conduct around them than a random civilian I don't know who has a gun licence. In other words I'm not saying you need to be ex armed service or a cop or something to have "proven history", but it is a very valid proof of history imo.

true... not all people are that bad. they should have to prove it in some way though.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="thegerg"] I've been in situations where the pistol I was carrying would have been ineffective against the threat, but my rifle (not an AK in this case, and not even full auto) did the job much better.DJ419

Your country of origin must not have Grizzly Bears.

NYC already makes it absurdly difficult to gain a gun license so stricter gun laws wouldn't make a difference here.

All I really want is a pistol so that if someone decides to break into my apartment I can make sure that they won't be a threat.

Shotguns and rifles would be excessive and too cumbersome to use in an apartment.

Wait, wait, these people are actually serious about trying to out-arm the military? Wow... Buy two guns and get a free roll of tin foil!C_Rule

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Wait, wait, these people are actually serious about trying to out-arm the military? Wow... Buy two guns and get a free roll of tin foil!hartsickdiscipl

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Wait, wait, these people are actually serious about trying to out-arm the military? Wow... Buy two guns and get a free roll of tin foil!hartsickdiscipl

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

Well, people seem to forget that the US Constitution was made in the late 1700's. The right to bear arms obviously meant blackpowder weapons.

I propose all guns execpt Muskets are banned.

*Starts making Muskets*

lordreaven

Wow... just wow. The right to bear arms included the weapons of that time period. Of course that included blackpowder weapons.. that's all they had. Obviously the 2nd amendment now means that we can arm with modern weapons.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

thegerg

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Wait, wait, these people are actually serious about trying to out-arm the military? Wow... Buy two guns and get a free roll of tin foil!Yusuke420

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

Aren't you scared of guns and stuff? Isn't violence bad? That's big talk from a guy who can't be in the same room as an AK-47 without pissing himself.

Wait, wait, these people are actually serious about trying to out-arm the military? Wow... Buy two guns and get a free roll of tin foil!C_Rule

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Wait, wait, these people are actually serious about trying to out-arm the military? Wow... Buy two guns and get a free roll of tin foil!DroidPhysX

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

Nonsense. The armed populous would know their respective areas better than the military.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Wait, wait, these people are actually serious about trying to out-arm the military? Wow... Buy two guns and get a free roll of tin foil!hartsickdiscipl

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Wait, wait, these people are actually serious about trying to out-arm the military? Wow... Buy two guns and get a free roll of tin foil!Yusuke420

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

Has anyone noticed that in the last 20 years, every mass shooting that has occured, has happened in a "Gun Free Zone"? Maybe someone should look into that. Outlaws don't care about the law, they have guns anyway. You take away people's guns, automatic sitting ducks.

JasonGriffee

This is an outstanding point. There is a school in North Texas where the faculty are allowed to carry guns. If someone tried to shoot up that school, they wouldn't get very far. Not only that, but they wouldn't even try if they knew that the staff was armed.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

thegerg

I say we let kids have guns. That way they would have stopped this man before anything happened.

Also Hart is stupid. He believes in bigfoot and the 9/11 conspiracy. Why are you bothering with him?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

hartsickdiscipl

Nonsense. The armed populous would know their respective areas better than the military.

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

hartsickdiscipl

Aren't you scared of guns and stuff? Isn't violence bad? That's big talk from a guy who can't be in the same room as an AK-47 without pissing himself.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]Wait, wait, these people are actually serious about trying to out-arm the military? Wow... Buy two guns and get a free roll of tin foil!C_Rule

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

You implied that the American people couldn't beat their military in an armed conflict on their home soil. First of all, the military would be traitors for attacking American civilians. Second, they would lose unless they resorted to scorched earth tactics and/or WMD's.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] That's because they're not fighting in their own backyard where as they already know everything here.Ace6301

Nonsense. The armed populous would know their respective areas better than the military.

Most of the fighting wouldn't be in the suburbs. Drive through Texas, Montana, Arizona, etc.. It would be a long, drawn-out, bloody conflict over various types of terrain.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Given the fact that our military can't even beat a bunch of insurgents packing AK-47's and stolen stinger missiles hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan in a 10+ year war, I think you're wrong.

hartsickdiscipl

You implied that the American people couldn't beat their military in an armed conflict on their home soil. First of all, the military would be traitors for attacking American civilians. Second, they would lose unless they resorted to scorched earth tactics and/or WMD's.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="thegerg"] You seem to be very confused. They do not know everything here. They know a hell of a lot about what is going on here and in Afghanistan, but not nearly everything. thegerg

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Wrong about what? I did not express any opinions on that post.Ace6301

You implied that the American people couldn't beat their military in an armed conflict on their home soil. First of all, the military would be traitors for attacking American civilians. Second, they would lose unless they resorted to scorched earth tactics and/or WMD's.

They should take the hint and not try to fight their own people.

That's because they're not fighting in their own backyard where as they already know everything here.DroidPhysX

Nonsense. The armed populous would know their respective areas better than the military.

Also Hart is stupid. He believes in bigfoot and the 9/11 conspiracy. Why are you bothering with him?

MakeMeaSammitch

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

Also Hart is stupid. He believes in bigfoot and the 9/11 conspiracy. Why are you bothering with him?

C_Rule

Check back with me in a year and tell me that I'm irrational and paranoid.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

Also Hart is stupid. He believes in bigfoot and the 9/11 conspiracy. Why are you bothering with him?

hartsickdiscipl

Check back with me in a year and tell me that I'm irrational and paranoid.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You implied that the American people couldn't beat their military in an armed conflict on their home soil. First of all, the military would be traitors for attacking American civilians. Second, they would lose unless they resorted to scorched earth tactics and/or WMD's.

hartsickdiscipl

They should take the hint and not try to fight their own people.

Nonsense. The armed populous would know their respective areas better than the military.