[Impotent Rage]

Originally Posted by AmericanIllusions ↗

Its not even up for discussion gotdammit.

So say all the gun nuts. Your response is simply exhibiting another form of "nananana booboo, I can't hear you."

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Impotent Rage ↗

Why shouldn't you compare? There are loads of instances of countries implementing new laws, having seen the legislation's positive effects in another nation. TBH I'm really not a fan of argumentum ad populum but you've got to take a look around when you're in an appalling situation compared with everyone else. Whether your country decides that approach is suitable or not, they might learn something that helps by comparing.


You are completely missing the point. Guns are designed, manufactured and sold for the purpose of firing a projectile into the body of another person or animal. They serve no other practical purpose.

Some guns are clearly intended for hunting animals; fine, no problem there. Allow RESPONSIBLE people to own those weapons.

The other guns [auto, semi-auto, assault rifles, hand guns etc...] are designed for killing humans and when you've got them firmly present in households and your nation's psyche then it changes everything. Such weapons are so normal to Americans that not only will they be the weapon of choice; they bring the gun-slinging fantasy right out of the history books and Hollywood and place it in your streets, homes and public spaces. But then I wonder, how will you ever know it's a fantastical, dated situation if you're the ones living it?

And before you say there will be misuse from hunting weapons, OF COURSE there will!!! If someone really wants to kill another then they'll find a way to do it.

Gun control is not about eradicating guns, that is not possible. The theory behind gun control is that when people can easily obtain a hand-held, purpose-designed, murder contraption WHAT THE HECK do you expect them to do with it???

just a quick note....im not wanting to argue with you about this...

i have been firing firearms since i was a kid. i love target shooting. i've never once took an animal's life with a firearm. it never crosses my mind. i dont care for hunting....i dont have the desire to kill large game.

i have killed a ton of animals with a fishing pole though.

so to say a firearm has no other practical purpose other then to kill is not exactly true. every biathlete in the world would likely disagree with you as well on that point.

[Impotent Rage]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

so to say a firearm has no other practical purpose other then to kill is not exactly true. every biathlete in the world would likely disagree with you as well on that point.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I've done target shooting myself and I enjoy it (I've hunted too). I don't think target shooting is justified as a practical use though and soon I will have to forego my air-gun collection due to impending legislation.

I'll miss shooting but I accept that air guns having an unlicensed status in my country has caused many unnecessary injuries to children. I may license my guns but it depends how expensive or convoluted the process turns out to be.

I appreciate what you're saying, besides; bi-athletes do use bolt action rifles similar to hunting weapons and not the assault type weapons that I see as completely unjustified in private possession.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Impotent Rage ↗

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I've done target shooting myself and I enjoy it (I've hunted too). I don't think target shooting is justified as a practical use though and soon I will have to forego my air-gun collection due to impending legislation.

I'll miss shooting but I accept that air guns having an unlicensed status in my country has caused many unnecessary injuries to children. I may license my guns but it depends how expensive or convoluted the process turns out to be.

I appreciate what you're saying, besides; bi-athletes do use bolt action rifles similar to hunting weapons and not the assault type weapons that I see as completely unjustified in private possession.

i understand what you're saying and you're right...that agreeing to disagree is probably the best solution.

The assault type rifle is an issue im conflicted about, personally.... here's why: it is the same basic function as any semi-auto rifle (like a ruger 10-22), the only different is it's ergonomics and it's ability to be accessorized. i would rather take a lighter, polymer framed gun hunting (if i were to go hunting) then lug around a heavy wood stocked bolt action, personally... but i understand the public's opinion about their looks.

one thing i think they should make illegal are bump-fire stocks. there is no reason for that except to cause destruction, even if you're just shooting targets. i have a hard time with banning other accessories though, like AR style stocks... i threw one on my 12ga and it made the recoil much more manageable for my wife...but now it looks like an assault weapon, so it's likely to be part of any coming ban.

i love my air rifle.... i feel it's the parent's responsibility to teach a child how to use them responsibly and see no reason why a child should be using one without supervision, personally. i think accidents with firearms and weapons in general can be avoided if they are used safely. the issue is making sure they fall only into safe hands....which, i have no ideas on how to make that happen.

thanks for being respectful, btw.... i know this is a touchy subject for most, as of late.

[Impotent Rage]

You're not wrong - it's a seriously touchy subject. Merry Christmas to you and your family Kanda444

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Impotent Rage ↗

You're not wrong - it's a seriously touchy subject. Merry Christmas to you and your family Kanda444

to you and yours as well!! :-D

[mengala]

[hambone]

Originally Posted by Impotent Rage ↗

Why shouldn't you compare? There are loads of instances of countries implementing new laws, having seen the legislation's positive effects in another nation. TBH I'm really not a fan of argumentum ad populum but you've got to take a look around when you're in an appalling situation compared with everyone else. Whether your country decides that approach is suitable or not, they might learn something that helps by comparing.


You are completely missing the point. Guns are designed, manufactured and sold for the purpose of firing a projectile into the body of another person or animal. They serve no other practical purpose.

Some guns are clearly intended for hunting animals; fine, no problem there. Allow RESPONSIBLE people to own those weapons.

The other guns [auto, semi-auto, assault rifles, hand guns etc...] are designed for killing humans and when you've got them firmly present in households and your nation's psyche then it changes everything. Such weapons are so normal to Americans that not only will they be the weapon of choice; they bring the gun-slinging fantasy right out of the history books and Hollywood and place it in your streets, homes and public spaces. But then I wonder, how will you ever know it's a fantastical, dated situation if you're the ones living it?

And before you say there will be misuse from hunting weapons, OF COURSE there will!!! If someone really wants to kill another then they'll find a way to do it.

Gun control is not about eradicating guns, that is not possible. The theory behind gun control is that when people can easily obtain a hand-held, purpose-designed, murder contraption WHAT THE HECK do you expect them to do with it???

I agree with that. I wouldn't say an AK47 or M16 is the appropriate weapon for home defense, unless you were being threatened with attack from one. There's the whole problem, people who attack don't follow laws so they will have one regardless of legislation, so not allowing people to match that threat wouldn't be right. The second amendment was created to allow Americans to defend themselves from whatever threat another individual/individuals can pose, and meet it with equal or greater force. Where do we draw the line? I definitely think that something needs to be done...I doubt we as a country will find the proper solution.

[hambone]

We should all be able to apply for licenses for ICBM's. That's my solution. And with the license should include a prescription for Fuckitol.

[Impotent Rage]

Originally Posted by kottnmouthalien ↗

The second amendment was created to allow Americans to defend themselves from whatever threat another individual/individuals can pose, and meet it with equal or greater force. Where do we draw the line?

There are a considerable number of people who believe the 2nd amendment is purely about the military (read: militia), personally I'm not sure because I can see both interpretations.

I suppose it all comes down to what militia actually means or rather what it meant over 200 years ago. I'm doubtful that it should apply to the general population even if it did back then. I hold my hands up and admit, however, that your constitution is not something I feel I have a strong, well-formed opinion on.

You guys have an endemic arms problem and being able to match the firepower of the criminals is a good argument especially given that there are so many weapons already present in the territory. If guns were to be outlawed then it's going to be a long-haul process not like Britain where it happened effectively overnight.

It would be good too see a sensible, considered discussion without the lobby groups weighing in. It's a real shame that so many Americans are so fervently pro-gun that the seriously want Piers Morgan deported for exercising his 1st amendment right and denouncing the Pratt guy.