US Weapon laws

i'm assuming that by saying that you're ready to see a 10yrs old walking down the street carrying an AK.

edit:
and a looser gun laws means that just about everybody can own guns.
(a possible scenario)
that means:your neighbor can own a gun
means:potential neighbor shoot-out
means:some random thugs by your doorstep.
means:to defend yourself,you shoot that guy.
means:you're a killer.

want to be a killer?
why dont you shave your head bald,
tattoo a barcode on your back of the neck,
change your name to a number,
and become a hitmen.
why don't

Why not?

It used to be a common sight to see them with swords or daggers. Why not modernize the concept?

Wait...

Where the fuck are 10 year olds going to get Ak-47s?

I'd understand a .357, or a 9mm, but an AK?

gotta watch nbc
a lot of 10yrs olds are carrying AKs in the warring 3rd world countries like somalia.

palestine,iraq.....even my country once.
a lot of countries.
and this trend is spreading.fast.

Uh....did I miss something? No one is suggesting loosening gun laws. We're stating we are opposed to disarming the general public. No one has said anything about making guns easier to obtain, from my experience guns are easy enough to get hold of. If I wanted to I could get any firearm I choose within three days. However, I choose not to.

I'd make a joke, but that example doesn't even deserve a response.

Tell me, allmighty moralist: For us pragmatists, where is the gain in risking our lives to go and shoot our neighbor?

How does your entire neighborhood being armed invite armed thugs?

How does me taking a life, in self defense, to protect me and my own, carry ANY sort of moral weight?

I don't understand. Everyone being armed would discourage crimes. After all, most criminals are cowards at heart anyway. Gun Laws are simply a way to prevent anarchy, and a fairly self-destructive way at that.

We're America. Not Somalia or Darfur. America isn't a 3rd world nation caught in a civil war. I don't mind common sense gun control such as registration of weapons, minor waiting times (a day or a week) but, complete disarming of the general populace or strong restrictions of ownership. Such as making guns extremely expensive so that nobody can afford them. When I get my own apartment I will own a hand gun or two possibly a shot gun as well. The main difference is that Americans aren't savage enough to give a kid a ak-47 and expect him to kill. Hell, You can't even buy a paintball gun if your under the age of 18 in some states.

I agree,as it is possible to legaly get a .50 caliber rifle in california(which tends to be more strict on gun laws then the other states)

While I agree with you. I wouldn't call the people in those countries "savages". In most of those countries these children carry guns as a neccessity. The children are in just as much danger of getting shot as the adults. Hell, I'd feel a lit safer with an AK in any one of those countries, regardless of my age.

I was directly calling them savages but, comparing countries. American crime and violence is timid compared to a war zone. I'd call a war zone "savage".

@arizth
i gotta admit that i'm not good with words.
some of my words didn't make any sense.sorry for that.

swap the thugs with neighbor.

one thing for sure:everone being armed is a BAD idea.
there would be chaos everywhere.

or are you saying that you could hold your urges once you carry a gun?
i don't think so.
you could say things like that because you never even hold a loaded gun.

ok,maybe at first.
(scenario)
once the circle is going,there's no stopping.
you kill someone to defend yourself with a gun.
that someone's relative kill you.
your relatives exact revenge.

i'm telling you,things like this happens in some faraway village in some country which name (maybe) you never heard.

and it's spreading,fast.

like i said,nothing good will happen if humans is given power(in this case,gun)because it's their instict to be power-hungry.

and killing is still killing.human life is human life.
even the biggest jerk still got a value to their life.
they still got the potential to make their life valuable.

and for us humans,if we're(just in case)hungry,and can't find any food or money,we try to take/ask other's rights with softer means.
failed?we try to use force.
still failed?we kill.
or do anything,really.
even if it'd cost our lives.
instincts.

and some criminals was a good person,not a coward.
circumstances(and power)push them to do crime.

What you say would make sense if we lived in a logic world. The problem is we don't. Humans have the problem factor of "emotions" and "survival instinct". The problem about the survival instinct / emotions is that as soon as they kick in, we are little more than animals and just try to act based on our instincts.

As an example, I remember there being a large commotion, when a person shot a desperate thief that threatened him with a gun imitation. In a normal situation where he wouldn't have had the gun he might have lost his purse, but not his life, neither would the thief. In the end, humans lose themselves to that point again and again. Be it in times of war or peace, it doesn't matter.

Now you say "How does the neighborhood being armed invite thugs?" Ever thought about what the other side would do? They would just try to get a gun aswell. What did you gain? Nothing, because the chances that you end up dead are even higher than incase you would defend yourself the normal way.

You say your police is corrupt and thus you need to defend yourself with guns. Now that is actually (excuse me) ridiculous. You blame yourself for your own system and try to fight it with violence. There are many lawful ways you can take to change that problem, instead of resorting yourself to the use of guns and lowering yourself to their level.

You say that criminals are cowards? That might be correct. But many more are simply desperate aswell. And as I have been trying to tell you, a desperate person on the edge doesn't deal with the logic "He has a gun, he might be dangerous" too much anymore, but rather think "I have to get a gun aswell, than I have a chance." You might imagine it like two snakes starting at eating the tails of each other. In the end you are so intertwined that there is no way for you to leave that "bond" anymore and you are limited to the own problems you build to yourself.

And now for the largest point. How do you define self defense? Is it self defense to shoot a none armed thief? He did take something of value from you but didn't threaten your life. Now he is dead and you overreacted standing there and having to explain why you killed him. Congratulations you just dropped on the lowest moral level possible.

In my opinion you have to blame yourself in the end incase you think that being in possession of a gun will allow you to defend yourself, for all the useless deaths resulting from the use of guns that could have been avoided as you just went with the mass and didn't use your head to think before acting.

fixed.
anything could happen if you're desperate.
don't you know that palestine and iraq are a prosperous country(like america today)although it's way back in the past?
you don't know what future holds.
even america could turn into a savage,3rd world country.(i hope not)

and you guys are close enough.
i know that(from TV)teens are carrying guns and using it in some kind of gang war.given time,that'd escalate to 10yrs carrying AK.

Q: Will I be able to restrain myself from using a gun outside of life or death? Yes, I am certain of it. I have been in situations that I could have used a weapon to kill someone. My last job a co-worker threw some punches at me (I carried a knife for work related purposes) while not a gun it still is a weapon that I could have easily pull from my pocket. Instead I choose to back step and dodge until some co-workers were able to restrain him. Would I have pulled out a gun if I had it? Hardly, my life wasn't in immediate danger.

Q: Have I ever held a loaded gun? Yes, several actually. Pistols, rifles and a 12 gauge shot gun.

To answer your "scenario" will that person attack you knowing that are armed? Criminals don't attack people they don't see as "easy targets". A guy the perceive to be unarmed will be attacked before the guy who clearly armed. i have already mentioned that statistics are one my side. People who have training and education of their firearms are less likely to use them than someone who just bought it at wal-mart, pawn shop or a guy off the street.



The main difference as well is the mentality of the countries and the state of their countries. We aren't in a civil war. Normal street gangs only carry pistols. The ones who are in league with Drug Cartels are the ones who have access to assault rifles and such. That is not because of our gun laws. Those people would have guns if there was a total ban or not.

The point is this. Banning guns would only remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. Thus making them vulnerable to criminals. Our police have proven to be incompetent. Criminals will get a hold of those guns despite bans and millions of laws. You can't take guns out of the hands of criminals. There is absolute no way to do that and to think otherwise is just nonsense.

Even now they sometimes give 10 year olds guns in gangs. Look, we're not saying everyone should own a gun, al we're saying is that people should have a choice. Whether or not someone wants to own a gun should be their choice. Should they choose to own a gun they should have to go through training to use it, otherwise you do get chaos. Generally speaking most people who own a gun keep it inside their house for home security. I'm not saying killing anyone is right. Personally, I think using a gun is a really chicken shit way of killing someone. If you have to take a life you should have to deal with the tactile sensation of the blood on your hands, and the psychological impact it has.

precisely why they should tighten the gun control and not arming lot of civilians with gun.
imagine that they'd loosen the gun control to the point where i could buy guns at 7/11

ok,you're saying that you could hold it.good for you.
but could the others?not all of them.most of them can't.

and somehow i think i'm close to a conclusion.................
OH!!!!allow everybody to own guns,but make the qualifications and training for owning guns REALLY HARD.
so that only the qualified civilians owns a gun.

and i get your points now,guys.

An easy break down of the thoughts of this thread.

1. We don't want to completely loosen gun control. That means no guns at a 7-11 and no colt .45 with your McDonalds Hamburger

2. I am not against "common sense" gun control. Most of the "gun control" laws that are passed are ridiculous.

An example is: In one state here. The gun must be completely disassembled, with a trigger or barrel lock in place. The gun and the clip can't be kept within twenty feet of one another and there must be an immediate danger to your life or the life of your family and the intruder must be inside your home. Not your garage, your home. If someone is in your yard killing your dog. You can't do anything about it other than call the cops. So lets say they get into your home and you have a wife and a daughter. Under those rules, if an intruder is in your home. You can't do anything about it either. You can do something about it if they are stabbing or raping your wife or daughter, ONLY THEN! can you begin to put the gun together. What if the intruder is attacking you personally? Think they will wait while you put your gun together (all the springs and such) go find the clip then lock and load the gun? I doubt they would be that nice.

That is hardly "common sense"

3. Logical gun control such as background checks on people buying weapons. Permits for assault rifles or other "high powered" guns. Waiting periods of a day or a week. Age restrictions on the purchase or ownership of certain firearms. These are fine. Other restrictions are just plain stupid.

4. We are against the total banning or the unfair restrictions (i.e. keeping them out of the hands of the low to middle income classes) Since there people have a right granted by the constitution of our country and the fact that these people should be allowed to protect themselves as well.

4. Criminals don't go through legal means of acquiring guns. If you ban guns in the United States. Criminals will smuggle them into the country just like they do with drugs and people. So while the citizens are defenseless (cops are incompetent here) then a criminal could walk into your house and kill you to take your things. Why? Because your only defense is a bunch of obese cops that are ten minutes away. At least with a pistol I have the ability to defend myself against armed intruders.

5. With a complete gun ban. Criminals don't even need guns, they will just use bats, knives and swords like the Yakuza in Japan. So stripping people of a means of defense isn't a great idea. Though like I already mentioned. They will still get the guns that people can't get a hold of. You put the criminal at a huge advantage.

6. After a complete gun ban when the police and military are the only ones with firearms. Who is to stop them from abusing their power? Corrupt cops can start extortion on people. Who is going to believe you that the cops are "shaking you down"? If you try to resist the corrupt cops, they can just kill you and say you were resisting arrest.

7. Common street gangs (not the Big Boys like Crips, Bloods, Mexican Mafia,etc) only have access to common hand guns and other weapons. The "Big Boys" have access to assault rifles, sub machine guns, uzi's etc because of cartel connections. These guys don't walk into Guns-R-us and buy these things. Bullets are traceable and if they leave the gun behind the serial number on the weapon traces back to them. They prefer to buy it from a dealer connected to the cartel. They get their drugs they will sell and they also buy guns from them. Again banning "legal" guns only gives the criminals guns.

^ Exactly. Like I've said, I know exactly how easy it is to get guns, because most of my old drug connections sold guns as well. I'm not bragging about any of this, but it adds to the point penguin and I are making. Not only does this make for an easy way to obtain guns, laws have no effect on this method. And if that wasn't enough guns purchased through this method tend to be cheaper (depending on what kind of gun you're buying ie. 9mm or AK). Basically, I agree with penguins common sense gun control laws.

hmmmm.i gotta say that i fail to grasp the situation in the states.

i'm half-agree with you.
still,i advocate the usage of non-lethal,but paralyzing/disarming/stunning kind of weapon(the most logical choice:taser)

answer 1
and maybe because of my lack of comm. skill,you get the impression that i'm advocating total gun-ban.no.
i am saying that they should STRICKEN the gun control.
be it a more complete background check,psychotest,training,loads of using-circumstances law.whatever.as long as the ones who got the gun is the ones who deserve and need it,without the chance/thought of mis-using it for crimes

ans.2
agree

ans.3
STRICKEN IT

ans.4
agree,totally

ans.4.2
can't do anything about it.

ans.5
idem

ans.6
someone from somewhere.
when saddam are abusing his power,american came.
when hitler try to do it,the us and brits and canada and co. military unify.
the problem is,when american gov't abuse their power,who's going to stop them?it gonna take an effort in the caliber of ww2.

ans.7
ok,get it.
but still.more people with guns,more chance of people join the gangs,although more guns could prevent gang crimes.
this one is up to the persons themselves.
this is why strict gun control is needed to some extent.

I don't know any better way to explain it to you. Normally, people see my side of the argument after I break it fact by fact. You seem to think that someone with a gun will go out and do crimes when the majority of Americans are law abiding citizens.

Stricter gun control..if it gets much stricter then people won't be able to afford or even acquire them. People who live in the inner city are basically forced to go without a gun because they live too close to certain "areas" like schools, businesses.

The example in number 2. That an actual law. People who want "gun control" here want that kind of restriction to be the standard. The gun control fanatics here are serious about severe restrictions and outright banning. Hence the hatred people have towards them.

yeah,i'm thinking that given the power(ie. gun),civilians would likely to go out and bang.(that's the case with a lot of countries)

maybe that's not the case with the american.
i believe your words that americans wouldn't do it.

i get it.but i still couldn't stand the thought of lots of civilians carrying a potentially lethal weapon.
how about this:equip every civilians who need self protection it with taser or some kind of gun that isn't lethal(rubber bullet could kill).
and i heard that they're actually developing a pistol that can gauge its stopping force according to the distance between the shooter and the target.
so there won't be any blood spilled.no casualties.

them criminals might try to kill us,but it doesn't mean that we must kill to stop them.

sorry,i'm not even american and i talked too much.i just want the condition where casualties could be the lowest possible.

consider my posts is a foreigner's point of view.