Firearms

[Zanarkin]

I think it would make guns more accessible, tbh. I dunno about the cost, are guns taxed?

I'm not sure if I'd be able to compare guns to weed, so I'm gonna wait here.

I'm not entirely sure where i was going with that forget i said anything .

[Lord Raven]

I think it would make guns more accessible, tbh.

how

they'd be expensive as hell to manufacture and it would increase prices. There is almost no supply and a decent amount of demand if there are really enough criminals out there that want guns- it's definitely a winner in terms of price.

[Phoenix Wright]

If somebody really wants to go on a killing spree, why would the legality of their weapon matter? It's not extremely difficult to get contraband stuff. Take marijuana, for example. It would even eliminate the pseudo-safety of a license/psychological evaluation.

I suppose the counter-argument to this is that those willing to kill innocents will probably try to get their hands on assault rifles anyway, but to that I'd argue that even if that were the case, certainly some wouldn't want to go through the hassle. So it'd prevent something.

[Aere]

When I said accessible, I meant easier to acquire. Any lunatic with the necessary funds could buy one. The funds could be an issue, but I doubt people going on a killing spree would worry about their retirement plan.

[1st Mate Bob]

So are fireworks weapons?

Though I think it's silly to disagree with the statement that guns are weapons, his point is that people can solely buy them for use recreationally rather than for fighting. Which is true.

Based on my argument and the definition of a weapon, fireworks as they are, are not weapons, as their purpose isn't that of a weapon's. However...

in what way is my statement inaccurate? an inanimate object is incapable of harming or killing a person, a person has to use the object in an irresponsible or malicious manner for it to actually do harm. an object can be used properly or improperly for different results, it all depends on the person using the object.

sorry I didn't mean to sound rude, hearing a firearm referred to as a weapon is just a pet peeve of mine.

You kind of said it here, a more accurate statement would be "something can be used as a weapon" as opposed to "a weapon is only a weapon if you make it one." This applies to both your baseball bat as well as fireworks mentioned above, and anything else for that matter.

On the same note, a weapon can be used as a non-weapon, such as using firearms for sport. However, because of firearms' main intended use, they are to be considered weapons, in my opinion.

[Brendor]

Based on my argument and the definition of a weapon, fireworks as they are, are not weapons, as their purpose isn't that of a weapon's. However...

You kind of said it here, a more accurate statement would be "something can be used as a weapon" as opposed to "a weapon is only a weapon if you make it one." This applies to both your baseball bat as well as fireworks mentioned above, and anything else for that matter.

On the same note, a weapon can be used as a non-weapon, such as using firearms for sport. However, because of firearms' main intended use, they are to be considered weapons, in my opinion.

If by main you mean popular than yes it is the main purpose. It is not however the intended purpose. Why would legitimate manufacturers create things they knew beforehand that they'd be used for malice and crime. A civilian owned firearm's intended purpose is as I've said is defense and sport. Nothing beyond that. When you purchase a firearm they actually ASK the buyer the purpose of the purchase and if the person's answer isn't one of the two, the person won't get a firearm. If a firearm's sole purpose of manufacture and use was for crime it wouldn't be a legitimate business.

[Esau of Isaac]

No need to put words into my mouth. I simply stated that news of gun crime in the US doesn't surprise me any more. Key word: Gun.

I am sure there were no underlying motives or suggestions from your post, of course.

Yes, but not everything can be quite as destructive so quickly. Holmes would have had a much harder time killing 14 and injuring 50 with a fork, or a paper towel

But either way he would have killed people. The point of my entry is not to debate about the pure capability of harm but the pointlessness of trying to stop it by banning weaponry. Taking guns away from the equation would not have made Holmes a sane man. He would have killed people with bombs and a semi-automatic rifle then.

And I'd agree with you to an extent--it really is only insane people that follow through with these shootings, but why make them more dangerous by allowing them to handle assault weapons?

Because you're punishing people that aren't crazy by abridging their abilities in an attempt to stop said crazy person(s). It's a foolhardy endeavor that won't stop killers, but will just make them find a different way to kill.

We can't, and shouldn't, try to stop people from acquiring most guns, but to me, assault rifles serve absolutely no purpose and should be banned from the public.

What purpose does a semi-automatic rifle serve? Is it valid for someone to own it?

How do these things disappear when it gains fully-automatic capabilities?

Assault rifles are built for usage by the military. My word choice was poor, I'll admit, but it's generally regarded that these weapons are meant to 'defend.'

How does being built for usage by the military imply that they aren't valid to own by everyone? They're ultimately similar to several rifles I can buy right now.

If you were to intend for the person to live, it's probably smarter to go with the conventional handgun anyway.

If you shoot anyone at any time intending them to live then you should not be owning a gun. Or any defensive weapon for that matter.

Based on my argument and the definition of a weapon, fireworks as they are, are not weapons, as their purpose isn't that of a weapon's. However...

So if I built an assault rifle from scratch intending it as a piece to hang on my wall, even though it has the exact same capabilities of one produced in a factory for war, is it a weapon?

[Rehab]

But either way he would have killed people. The point of my entry is not to debate about the pure capability of harm but the pointlessness of trying to stop it by banning weaponry. Taking guns away from the equation would not have made Holmes a sane man. He would have killed people with bombs and a semi-automatic rifle then.

He used a Smith & Wesson M&P15, which is basically a semi-automatic version of the M-16. It's semi-auto, but an assault rifle nonetheless.

They sell them at Big5 sporting goods.

arrrr *lightly bonks Esau*

More seriously, I hope you'll forgive me for finding what I think is your point to be a little disingenuous. A ban on certain heavy duty firearms and/or magazines, I might theoretically hope, could limit the amount of those weapons which would end up in the hands of lost souls who might want to use them irresponsibly, which in turn could limit the amount of casualties they're able to cause should they go on a rampage, but there's really no point because said lost souls would just find some other way to kill people, even if did less damage ended up being caused overall as a result?

Edited August 28, 2012 by Rehab

[1st Mate Bob]

If by main you mean popular than yes it is the main purpose. It is not however the intended purpose. Why would legitimate manufacturers create things they knew beforehand that they'd be used for malice and crime. A civilian owned firearm's intended purpose is as I've said is defense and sport. Nothing beyond that. When you purchase a firearm they actually ASK the buyer the purpose of the purchase and if the person's answer isn't one of the two, the person won't get a firearm. If a firearm's sole purpose of manufacture and use was for crime it wouldn't be a legitimate business.

Sorry, but firearms' main intended purpose is for war. Nowhere did I say their purpose was for crime. In civilian hands, the weapon can be used for defense, can be used for sport, and even can be used for crime. But in the end, aren't they just weapons used as defense/sport/crime?

Like I said, they don't HAVE to be used primarily AS weapons, but they're still weapons in the end. Just the same as a wrench can be used AS a weapon, but it's still a tool at its root. See what I'm getting at?

[Phoenix Wright]

But either way he would have killed people. The point of my entry is not to debate about the pure capability of harm but the pointlessness of trying to stop it by banning weaponry. Taking guns away from the equation would not have made Holmes a sane man. He would have killed people with bombs and a semi-automatic rifle then.

Agreed.

Reading my posts over, I can see that I have been quite narrow-minded. I suppose my opinion of guns, when really thinking about it, is that I am simply afraid of them, and the bigger they are, the more afraid --or rather, paranoid?-- I am of the person handling it, leading to my opinion of having guns, specifically assault rifles, completely banned.

If I were in charge, I'd be willing to undergo the experiment of permitting guns nationwide, and seeing how it worked after a decade or so. Then, of course, base my opinion off of that.

Although, even that study obviously wouldn't be the end-all-be-all. Culture plays a large factor from nation to nation.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Phoenix Wright

[Esau of Isaac]

arrrr *lightly bonks Esau*

More seriously, I hope you'll forgive me for finding what I think is your point to be a little disingenuous. A ban on certain heavy duty firearms and/or magazines, I might theoretically hope, could limit the amount of those weapons which would end up in the hands of lost souls who might want to use them irresponsibly, which in turn could limit the amount of casualties they're able to cause should they go on a rampage, but there's really no point because said lost souls would just find some other way to kill people, even if did less damage ended up being caused overall as a result?

I am saying that forcing people who are not killers to lose their right to effective defense in an effort to stop those people who already have no regard for the law is a misguided endeavor. Can you save more people by banning them from everyone? Possibly. Maybe even probably.

It still doesn't make murderers disappear, and now people that could have used these responsibly to help themselves and others never will.

Also I never knew exactly what weapons Holmes had. My bad. >_____>

Agreed.

Reading my posts over, I can see that I have been quite narrow-minded. I suppose my opinion of guns, when really thinking about it, is that I am simply afraid of them, and the bigger they are, the more afraid --or rather, paranoid?-- I am of the person handling it, leading to my opinion of having guns, specifically assault rifles, completely banned.

I understand the reaction. It's reasonable, but I think heads in the wrong direction compared to cutting the problem off at the root.

[1st Mate Bob]

I am saying that forcing people who are not killers to lose their right to effective defense in an effort to stop those people who already have no regard for the law is a misguided endeavor. Can you save more people by banning them from everyone? Possibly. Maybe even probably.

It still doesn't make murderers disappear, and now people that could have used these responsibly to help themselves and others never will.

Yeah but, aren't assault rifles a bit overkill for defensive purposes?

It's not about getting rid of murderers, you can't really do that, it's about preventing the amount of casualties and fatalities they'll be creating. Even if banning is out of the question, reform for how readily available guns are for purchase could definitely be made.

[Brendor]

Sorry, but firearms' main intended purpose is for war. Nowhere did I say their purpose was for crime. In civilian hands, the weapon can be used for defense, can be used for sport, and even can be used for crime. But in the end, aren't they just weapons used as defense/sport/crime?

Like I said, they don't HAVE to be used primarily AS weapons, but they're still weapons in the end. Just the same as a wrench can be used AS a weapon, but it's still a tool at its root. See what I'm getting at?

I see what you're saying but I still have to disagree. Only military grade firearms' purpose is murder whereas civilian owned firearms are more toned-down and designed for different tasks. there's a difference between an M3 and a 22 caliber rifle right?

[Esau of Isaac]

Yeah but, aren't assault rifles a bit overkill for defensive purposes?

Does it matter? Even if we're actually only narrowing this to defensive purposes, there's no real overkill when it comes to protecting yourself.

It's not about getting rid of murderers, you can't really do that, it's about preventing the amount of casualties and fatalities they'll be creating. Even if banning is out of the question, reform for how readily available guns are for purchase could definitely be made.

I haven't said anything on legislation regarding gun control to that effect, but it's my personal belief that if you're going to be owning any form of weaponry you should be properly trained in its use. Ideally, I would like the entire populace of gun owners to be professionals, who are not apt to harm themselves or others through ignorant mistakes or behaviors.

I am not sure how that would be applied, but there it is.

[Aere]

If anybody has the book Freakonomics, read pages 130-133. It pretty much explains my point. Only 1/5 imprisoned felons bought their guns from a licensed dealer.

Also, there are so many in the USA alone, even if they were made illegal, every single adult could buy multiple firearms. Switzerland has a higher gun owner:people ratio, and has much less crime.

[Zanarkin]

If anybody has the book Freakonomics, read pages 130-133. It pretty much explains my point. Only 1/5 imprisoned felons bought their guns from a licensed dealer.

Also, there are so many in the USA alone, even if they were made illegal, every single adult could buy multiple firearms. Switzerland has a higher gun owner:people ratio, and has much less crime.

In the documentary bowling for Columbine, it was suggested that one of the reasons crime is so big(?) in the US is because the media spreads too much fear into the people. They compared it to Canada who are gun lovers and yet have less crime (and showed a clip of Canadian news, can't remember what it was).

Edited August 30, 2012 by SlayerX

[Rewjeo]

So, as has been said in this thread before, the issue is the people, not the guns. American culture, in some way, promotes violence, at least relative to certain other cultures. Mind you, there is then the whole Honor Killings topic where other cultures openly promote violence, but I digress.

[Aere]

Exactly, so there isn't any point in tighter gun laws. Or looser, tbh.

[1st Mate Bob]

I see what you're saying but I still have to disagree. Only military grade firearms' purpose is murder whereas civilian owned firearms are more toned-down and designed for different tasks. there's a difference between an M3 and a 22 caliber rifle right?

Of course, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying they're still weapons no matter how tame your use for them are. If you just let your handgun sit in your dresser, it's still a weapon just sitting in the dresser. But I understand your point, as well.

Does it matter? Even if we're actually only narrowing this to defensive purposes, there's no real overkill when it comes to protecting yourself.

I haven't said anything on legislation regarding gun control to that effect, but it's my personal belief that if you're going to be owning any form of weaponry you should be properly trained in its use. Ideally, I would like the entire populace of gun owners to be professionals, who are not apt to harm themselves or others through ignorant mistakes or behaviors.

I am not sure how that would be applied, but there it is.

But if something less powerful can do the job just as well, then there's no point in keeping the overpowered stuff out there for the bad apples to abuse them.

I agree with everything else, though.

Exactly, so there isn't any point in tighter gun laws. Or looser, tbh.

I disagree. Places like the UK have extremely tight laws and almost no gun crime, as Raven has pointed out many times already.

[Anouleth]

Just because even if something is illegal, some people can do it is a terrible argument. Why not legalise everything then, because people will always be committing crimes? The law isn't perfect, and some people will find a way around it, but that doesn't mean that the law is useless or shouldn't exist.

If anybody has the book Freakonomics, read pages 130-133. It pretty much explains my point. Only 1/5 imprisoned felons bought their guns from a licensed dealer.

And of the other 80%, how many of them stole their guns from someone who legally bought it? How many of those guns were made to satisfy the legal demand for guns in America and ended up in the hands of criminals?

Edited August 30, 2012 by Anouleth

[Zanarkin]

Exactly, so there isn't any point in tighter gun laws. Or looser, tbh.

Not exactly, you would still benefit from a better screening to weed out those that are or might be too mentally unstable to use one, and a longer waiting period.

[Brendor]

Of course, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying they're still weapons no matter how tame your use for them are. If you just let your handgun sit in your dresser, it's still a weapon just sitting in the dresser. But I understand your point, as well.

Webster defines a weapon as: "something used to injure, defeat, or destroy". If the handgun just lays on the dresser never used, it cannot be considered a weapon because it wasn't used to harm someone. Although some objects are more potent if used as weapons, they cannot be weapons if they don't fit the criteria.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Brendor the Brave

[Aere]

I disagree. Places like the UK have extremely tight laws and almost no gun crime, as Raven has pointed out many times already.

Places like Canada and Switzerland have EXTREMELY loose gun laws (In Switzerland, adults can be given like a military grade assault rifle) and have very low crime rates.

Sure, Slayer, but the lunatics who really want to go kill somebody can easily buy one off the black market.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Aere

[Brendor]

And of the other 80%, how many of them stole their guns from someone who legally bought it? How many of those guns were made to satisfy the legal demand for guns in America and ended up in the hands of criminals?

Do any of you guys remember Prohibition in the 1920's? If you outlawed guns it'd be the same situation but on a bigger scale. You don't think if people could make alcohol in their bathtubs then they can't figure out how to make guns in their basements? Then you end up with wide spread shoddy firearms and people could make a extraordinarily lucrative illegal business crafting quality firearms for top clients; Al Capone #2 so to speak. Not to mention (again) that the only people who wouldn't be able to obtain them are the people who respect firearms and handle them responsibly.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Brendor the Brave

[Anouleth]

Do any of you guys remember Prohibition in the 1920's?

No, I was not born in 1905 like you seem to think.

If you outlawed guns it'd be the same situation but on a bigger scale.

I really, really doubt that.

You don't think if people could make alcohol in their bathtubs then they can't figure out how to make guns in their basements?

Making alcohol is very easy and requires no specialist knowledge, equipment, or chemicals. It is impossible to mass-produce guns in someone's basement: hell, I would be surprised if anyone but a few specialists could make even one! Whereas I know numerous people who have made beer in their own houses, with no specialist knowledge.

Then you end up with wide spread shoddy firearms

Shoddy firearms tend to kill fewer people. If you look at the earliest firearms, they were really quite poor weapons, being rather inaccurate and large. Imagine trying to conceal a musket: or for that matter, trying to kill someone with it!

and people could make a extraordinarily lucrative illegal business crafting quality firearms for top clients; Al Capone #2 so to speak. Not to mention (again) that the only people who wouldn't be able to obtain them are the people who respect firearms and handle them responsibly.

The only reason why it's even possible for you to equate the two in your mind is because America has an irrational culture built around guns.

Do you really really REALLY think that the fact that guns are legal in the US doesn't make it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns? Are you saying that every gun that is manufactured in the US with the intent of being legally sold NEVER ends up being used for criminal purposes? If you do, then you are stupid.

Places like Canada and Switzerland have EXTREMELY loose gun laws (In Switzerland, adults can be given like a military grade assault rifle) and have very low crime rates.

Sure, Slayer, but the lunatics who really want to go kill somebody can easily buy one off the black market.

James Holmes bought his firearms legally. Anders Breivik bought his firearms legally. Martin Bryant bought his firearms legally. And from what I gather, they didn't exactly have amazing black market contacts.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Anouleth