The 2013 Fakku SD Gun Control thread.

Greetings :)

As many can probably guess, here in America we face eminent legislation attempting to ban 'assault weapons' and 'high capacity magazines'. I would like to open a thread to discuss gun control/gun rights among the Fakkuza mob. Intelligent discussions only please, no hyperbole from either side.

To start off, I was made aware of an interesting video regarding crime statistics.


And in regards to the drive to ban assault weapons, here is a link to the FBI data breaking down homicides in 2007-2011 by weapon used.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
According to the FBI, bare hands kill twice as many people as all rifles, inclusive of 'assault weapons'.

In my opinion, we as Americans have to trend this topic very carefully in our policy decision making. Yes, if people want to kill they will sadly kill. But it's also true that guns are some of the most powerful weapons that you can purchase on the market. Generally, I'm pro-second amendment but there has to be a balance.

For example: Some of what the NRA suggested makes sense: More armed, trained persons at vulnerable places. Ideally, concealed carry. I don't want to live in a future where we believe the only way to ensure our domestic security is to arm every citizen.

But at the same time, limiting access to firearms, especially to the most violent and dangerous People(IE: Mental health defects) is crucially important. Rather than target all citizens with a blank brush(Which is what Ms.Feinstein's failed legislation does) Its important to understand the factors and players here.

Health privacy advocates have long been the burden to such a balanced approach, but now we must ask them: If these patients are so mentally ill that they can cause massive damage and violence, then isn't it important at least for the federal government to have access to that information. If not, at least state government and local officials?

We should be keeping violent weapons out of the hands of those who are actually violent, in other words.

I thought that's what allowed Ho Seung Cho to get his guns, and after the VT shootings they fixed that.

Responding to the photo, yeah. there's another image that has a thought bubble over that brunette in the background, the one staring at the rifle. "Damn, why didn't I get one of those Knasser imports back when they were available?"

My grandpa was a cop and he always said,"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The gun was just the instrument used in the crime. A gun sitting on a table is just a piece of metal and it's never going to do harm, who picks it up is deciding wether it's for hunting, sport shooting, home defence or murder. It all depends on the person who picks it up.

Yeah, I know there are alot of anti-gun [Americans] on this forum and thought we'd be at at least on the second page by now. Come on guys! I want to hear your side too! I wanted a debate!

And AlterEgo, I think that it might actually be better to call our reps and sens rather than email. Or both. Ideally one could arrange a meeting with one.

Might also be a good time to join the NRA.


...Maybe I should change my avi pic...

A big problem with an immediate ban on weapons is that it will leave many people defenseless. Not just from the government but from the people with unlicensed guns who have bad intentions. When they look to break in a house and the father doesn't have "just in case" gun, then they're going to be in trouble.

I say it's a mistake. This doesn't help specially on a country of hopes and dreams (for both sides of it). You can't expect to guard all the shores with a coast guard/air marshal/w/e guard who has a heart of gold. Some of them get paid and that's a factor those people should think about. Guns will get in the country and who'll use it the most?

Guns to me are just a blame for an overall society evaluation that will never occur. You look at England, where we saw on OP's post and see that crime is is a problem over there. They have banned from civilians, even knives are restricted, and there are cameras in many metro areas. They have taken a very progressive view in how to handle crime.

America is a different beast, as much as I could compare Japan and their crime rate. Each country has a cultural aspect over murder, assaults, and robbery, and the gun is only a tool for crime. Remove the tool, and the criminal will still have a great deal of other tools to do what is needed to be done, or get the tools illegally.

So, I wonder when FPoD will be in this thread.

I believe in gun control, but I don't believe in taking guns away. Most Americans have no sense of the word control especially when it comes to guns. I feel background checks are in order before selling, also required gun safety and psychoanalysis (kinda overkill to some it's just how I feel). Also certain caliber and rate of fire weapons are unnecessary.

What calibers and rates of fire?

Honestly is there an necessity for a weapon owned by the average american to be more than 60 rpm? Hell even 60 rpm is a lot (that's just me).

As for caliber well I guess the highest necessary for any civilian would be at most .357 (for pistol protection),


For hunting, I guess it depends on what you are going to be going after.

Well, first off, there are no fully-automatic firearms that I know of that fire at such a slow rate. Do you mean a fully automatic firearm (pulling the trigger causes the firearm to load and fire automatically until the trigger is released) or a semi-automatic firearm (where when the trigger is pulled the firearm fires, then reloads the chamber, but the trigger must be released and pulled again to fire another shot)

And in regards to caliber, are you going off of muzzle energy or bore diameter? Because for example, the 357 has far higher energy in the bullet than a 45ACP. And almost all rifles use smaller/lighter bullets than handguns.

My position on gun control has loosened a bit,due to reading a couple of stories of gun owners defending themselves/others. I actually think no gun zones are backfired, and should be eliminated.

With that said, there are still some gun control legislation that i believe in. One is background checks for anybody purchasing a gun, and similarly i don't believe in gun shows where anybody can purchase any gun they want without going through one. If you are a law abiding gun owner, i don't see how this would affect you in any way.

Also, on the topic of the assault gun ban. In the stories i mentioned of gun owners defending themselves or others, from what i can read none of them needed a assault rifle to do it. So i'm not sure why gun owners are so against a ban of them.

"Speak of the devil and he doth appear".



This is a question that comes to the heart of a gun owners philosophy. The gun owners that I have spoken to believe that the citizens should have comparable weapons to that of the government that is supposed to protect them. The reason for this is, the founding fathers at the time of the Constitution's ratification had to deal with the real threat of government confiscating weapons from the population as a means to make them easier to control. I believe we both can agree that an unarmed population is easier to push around than an armed one. There have been several accounts throughout history where the governing body has used violence against unarmed civilians and even armed civilians that were on the "wrong side" of an issue.

PDF

Now, I won't go so far as to say that an unarmed population is asking for a genocide. However, the threat of an armed population is supposed to exist as a countermeasure to government abuses. People want weapons to protect themselves from more than common burglars they want to protect themselves from an abusive or tyrannical government. Since it's happened repeatedly in other countries, there is naive to say "it can't happen here"

To view it another way, the state keeps you in line by having threats of force against you. If you break a law, the state will fine or imprison you. If you resist, then the guns come out. An armed population is a similar measure towards the government. If local representatives, police, congress or the president goes against the will of the people then we vote them out. If they refuse to cooperate with the legal system, then the guns come out and we force them to cooperate with our laws.