I respect your opinion and experiences immensely, but of course I'm going to argue my point, and of course you are singling out PTSD here! You said it yourself that if someone is diagnosed with PTSD, then they shouldn't own a firearm.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
Yep it was relevant when everyone had muskets. I am one of the tiny minority gun owners that have multiple firearms. I have everything from a .22 pistol to 308 rifle I can hit a dinner plate with at 1,000 yards. I must have well over ten thousand rounds of ammo in total because I have multiple calibers and buy in bulk.
Guess what i wouldn't last a day in an armed uprising.
Its an AMENDMENT , def ~ addition to a legal or statutory document. It was added and it can be AMENDED again. It was written in a completely different time and is simply not relevant today.
Yeah, cause you mentioned specifically PTSD.
Anything can be changed, but the US Constitution was designed in such a way as to give the US a strong backbone and give "We the people" rights. Not just celebrities and politicans (this was my orginal argument).
Irrelevant to the discussion
Give yourself more credit
As I've stated above, of course it can be amended, but just not easily. Otherwise every amendment would flip flop with every political change of the wind. That wouldn't be a very steady foundation to build a country.
Would you say that anyone that has depression or had suffered from depression in the past shouldn't own a firearm? My original argument was that if you think that Politicians and Celebrities have the right to an armed security force, then I would argue that the average, ordinary citizen should also be afforded this right, and since most people can't afford a security detail, then they should be able to defend themselves.
I think they should be assessed yes, I just had a look at suicide rates in America... and 51% is by firearm, that is a massive proportion. Suicide is often something that is planed for a while, most are afraid of the pain they will suffer, having a gun to do it makes it a hello of a lot easier.
Can I ask who are you all arming yourself against? Have you ever been under threat?
I doubt we will ever agree on the 2nd amendment argument. So are you opposed to all gun control?
Answer Yes or No to the things below:
Answer Yes or No to the things below:
- A national gun registry to track all gun ownership?
- Ballistic finger printing of guns so that they can easily be tracked to crimes?
- Restrict sales and change of ownership to through a firearms dealer so the registry is always accurate?
- Magazine restrictions?
- Assault style rifle ban?
- Enforce safe gun storage and require a safe for guns and ammo?
- Allow law enforcement access to you home to check you are storing guns safely?
Last edited:
Good luck using your water pistol to defend yourself against he tyraannical government who will just drone strike the feck out of your eyesockets and hellfire missile what is left of you.
The argument that people need to be armed to defend themselves from the government is preposterous. It was written when people had muskets that took an hour to load and it was entirely possible to rise up against tyranny. This is not then.
Also, if responsible gun owners stored their weapons properly in a safe then by the time they got to it and loaded it the burglar would probably be gone. Home invasions are mainly for theft, It's extremely rare they escalate to armed confrontation because of the extra felony charges involved. This has been discussed ad nauseam in here by many with law enforcement experience to back the stats up.
On top of this all we have the countless children killed or injured each year with firearms and the majority in their own homes. But that's ok, just like Sandy Hook or Vegas or Columnine just so people can own exceptionally dangerous weapons and the NRA and gun manufacturers can keep spreading fear and propaganda and make billions of dollars.
Handguns and sports hunting rifles are all that any civilised society should ever allow to be legal. It's really that simple. Although personally I think handguns are too far too unless used for sports shooting but that's just me.
Interesting statistic: A gun in your home is 27 times more likely to kill someone as a result of suicide, accident or domestic violence than being used legally to stop a crime.
*I think that number is accurate off the top of my head
I agree that suicide and firearms are a massive problem. Believe it or not, doctors here, when diagnosing a patient, has the ability (whether Baker act, or filing through the mental health department) to flag certain individuals that they deem a risk to themselves or others. At that point, the individual wouldn’t be able to purchase a firearm, and in these cases, can have their firearms already purchased confiscated.
Nobody at the moment. But if you don’t learn from history, you’re doomed to repeat it
Just ban anything other than a bolt action hunting rifle and i suppose handguns for those that are worried about Ze Germans coming for them.
Many people hunt with semi-auto rifles and a five round magazine these days. What about shotguns, and large caliber handguns which are essential to protect from beasties that will eat you in some parts of the country.
I think the big problem with the gun debate, especially on a forum like this, is we have some that resist any type of discussion on the subject using the 2nd Amendment as a defense and others that don't want guns at all.
The gun issue is like everything else you can swing too much in one direction in one swoop. If you attempt to go down that path the debate gets shut down and nothing happens.
The gun issue is like everything else you can swing too much in one direction in one swoop. If you attempt to go down that path the debate gets shut down and nothing happens.
Why wouldn't you want a gun register or a law that makes a proper gun locker or box a requirement?
I agree. My original point was just to point out that even the most anti-gun position still believes that Politicians and Celebrities should be able to use an "armed" security force for protection. If that's the case, then my argument would say that the average citizen deserves the same protections. You @Mike Schatner were the only one to discuss this point, and I understand your argument.
I look forward to continuing the civil dialogue
Then I'd change my answer to "yes", although I'm not crazy about someone coming into your house to check this. If officials are already at your house for something else, then by all means, check to see if the firearms are stored safely! There's no excuse for unsafe storage.
I've seen you use the "Ze Germans" line before. I think you have a Snatch obsession!
Yeah, my Mrs says the same thing.
Personally I would ban anything except bolt action rifles and shotguns for sport shooting and farmers. Military grade repeating pump action shotguns would be gone as would any semi auto rifle. A maximum 5 round clip for sighted hunting rifles would be adequate too.
However I understand how deeply ingrained guns are to US culture so handguns would have to remain legal for those who want the percieved security of protecting themselves and family at home.
Open carry would go straight away and hidden carry would be gone to anyone except law enforcement or Secret Service types. Personal bodyguards would have to be heavily restricted too.
I can't for the life of me fathom why after seeing so many people die on a daily basis and after tragedies like Sandy Hook where small children were executed at school, that anyone could moan about gun control or how anyone could be as ignorant, deluded and selfish to argue that their rights to own ridiculously powerful weapons supersedes the rights of the rest of us and our children to walk around safely without the fear of being shot by anyone.
The UK had two mass shootings and we banned guns. Shock horror we haven't had one since. Australia, had one, banned guns, everyone kicked off but they haven't had one since.
The 2nd amendment argument is bullshit. There is only ONE reason why guns are not banned in the USA and It's exactly the same reason why they don't have universal free healthcare. Selfish people with too much interest in MONEY!
As with everything, it's all about the Benjamins and I just feel pity for the pawns who believe It's their rights that matter. However I feel far more sorry for the families who have to deal with the needless death of loved ones every single day.
The same reason I want checks and balances on my government. A national gun register could be easily used again law-abiding individuals. A few years ago, a large newspaper in New York printed a map of neighbourhoods in the state and noted each house that had firearms! Think about that. Now everyone, including criminals, know exactly which houses are armed, and just as dangerous, which houses are unarmed!
Here is a way out there question:
- If the 2nd amendment was changed and all gun ownership was banned. Would you willing hand your guns in if the government paid fair market value for them?
That is one argument I guess. Not a particularly strong one though. Its a registry of people and guns not addresses. What if you have recently moved or have visitors in the house with CWP?
Absolutely not! That would only guarantee that the govt. and criminals have firearms! Look up firearm fatalities (not suicides) and see how many firearms used in the homocides were "legal".
I think you are missing Langster point. The lobbyist and people pulling the strings are only interested in the money. The rest of us are pawns.
You really think that a registry of people wouldn't have Last Known Address on the registry? You've got to think like a criminal
I am literally sat here with my hands in my head. If the supply of legal guns is reduced the supply of illegal guns also goes down. If the aws are changed and even owning an illegal gun carries a very harsh sentence things will change over time. Also if there are no legal guns there is no mass distribution of ammo.
Oh, I got his point. @langster is someone jokingly telling me to watch out for Ze Germans and asking me what I'm afraid of, then telling me that we're all just pawns for the government and the Big Money Lobby groups. Guess what the pro-gun lobby listens to? The consumer.
Lets get this very straight. The average house breaking criminal is a dumb-ass street thug with zero sophistication. Most of them can barely even handle a firearm because they live in inner cities with limited access to ranges.
There's already very "harsh" laws on the books to penalize armed criminals.
You really think that illegal guns wouldn't flood into the country? Ever heard of the war on drugs? If anything, the war on drugs made cocaine even more available and wanted.
You can put your head in you hands again, but it won't deny my argument.
Achilles, one thing I'm wondering from the last few pages is that you're ok with magazine restrictions over 30 rounds. I'm just wondering why 30 rounds would be your limit instead of say 5-10?
Genuine question by the way.
Genuine question by the way.
That makes them even more dangerous with an illegal firearm! You want your Nanna to just sit on the couch as these "street thugs" as you called them, break in to her house and steal her belongings? What if they decide that they don't want witnesses?
So why haven’t guns flooded other 1st countries with gun laws in place? How many guns in crimes in the US where smuggled over the border or made illegal? I don’t know the statistics but I would presume it’s very few. Seems like ‘illegal’ guns used in crimes were once legal guns, If they didn’t exist they couldn’t be turned into illegal guns.
Because you'd only be limiting the legal, law-abiding guns. A 5-10 round clip should be sufficient in most defensive situations, but not all.
Look up the govt. Fast and Furious program. Illegal guns are a HUGE business. What other countries are you talking about?