:clap: :clap: @Banno. It's time to #BoycottNRA and #BoycottNRAsponsors.

I've personally come to think that the US has an unnatural obsession with guns. In standard civilian life there should be absolutely no need ever to own assault rifles, automatic war weaponry, etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise has fallen prey to propaganda & conspiracy theories or is a financial beneficiary from the selling of guns. It is pathetic to think that an assault rifle is a means of defence for a civilian. That's like saying that owning an atomic bomb is a means of defence for a civilian.

It is a total disrespect actually of the military and of law enforcement to think that you need the kind of weaponry the military uses in order to defend yourself. That's basically saying that your military and law enforcement suck and you don't trust them.

Though I will admit that America, since many people already own assault weaponry, has a big logistical problem in removing all those guns, since a large number of those people may not willingly surrender it.

I've personally come to think that the US has an unnatural obsession with guns. — Agustino

:gasp:

?

How does it compare with various Nations possessing fatal weapons?

In standard civilian life there should be absolutely no need ever to own assault rifles, automatic war weaponry, etc. — Agustino

They can't. It's illegal to own such weapons.

It is a total disrespect actually of the military and of law enforcement to think that you need the kind of weaponry the military uses in order to defend yourself. — Agustino

Civilians don't own the kind of weaponry the military uses.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has fallen prey to propaganda & conspiracy theories — Agustino

Are you sure you haven't, in light of the two falsehoods you peddled above?

C'mon Thorongil, you're deliberately misreading Augustino! Why would you do that? What are you selling?

in standard civilian life there should be absolutely no need ever to own assault rifles.., — Agustino

They can't. It's illegal to own such weapons. — Thorongil

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted in 1994 expired in 2004. Attempts to renew this ban have failed, as have attempts to pass a new ban, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 ."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States#Proposed_Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2015



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/16/americans-age-to-buy-ar15-assault-rifle-mass-shootings

"While it was still legal for gun dealers to sell automatic weapons until the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, which banned new automatic weapons, these first Colt AR-15s were semi-automatic weapons.
...

...automatic war weaponry, etc — Agustino

However, to this day, civilians can still own automatic weapons that were grandfathered in before 1986. "

http://www.businessinsider.com/ar-15-semi-automatic-history-why-used-mass-shootings-2018-2#they-can-also-be-customized-in-a-number-of-ways-including-scopes-large-capacity-magazines-bump-stocks-and-more-all-of-which-adds-to-the-guns-popularity-8



"In a 10-4 decision, the federal court upheld Maryland’s 2013 assault weapons ban, finding that guns like the AR-15 are weapons of war, and thus American civilians don’t have an unfettered right to buy and own them under the Second Amendment."

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/02/assault-rifles-ban-ar-15-weapon-of-war/

"Our father, Eugene Stoner,designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,”

"He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356

Are you sure you haven't, in light of the two falsehoods you peddled above? — Thorongil

They are not falsehoods. If you're going to play with how weapons are classified, and what counts as assault rifles, etc. I'm not interested in that game. The fact is that there are guns that the public owns that the public has no business in owning.

Unless there are special circumstances - for example, someone works in the judicial system, or in law enforcement, and due to their job they are likely to be a target of the mafia, etc. - someone should not have a right to hold such weapons.

If the public loves shooting such guns for sport, they should all have to go to the shooting range, where they can shoot such weapons under supervision.

Again, there is absolutely NO REASON that your average person would ever need to have access to such a weapon. If someone is generally worried (or paranoid) because of the business they are engaged in, etc. they should apply and seek to buy regular handguns.

If America really is in such a terrible state that your citizens need war weaponry to defend themselves, then you really need to do something about your law enforcement and the military.

This debate is getting old. If one bans all forms of guns, then no progress is made other than decent, non-violent people will not have a means of defense. Saying that the general public has no business owning certain types weapons will result in a nanny state type of government that the officials always know better than the individual.
All in all, if one is for a generalized gun- control, s/he is against freedom for an individual to make his/her own choices.

If America really is in such a terrible state that your citizens need war weaponry to defend themselves, then you really need to do something about your law enforcement and the military. — Agustino

What needs to happen is to get the nose of the government out of the civilians personal lives, and get the politicians out of military and police work. Anyone can tell you that police can't be everywhere at once, and they obviously can't protect everyone at once.

non-violent people will not have a means of defense. — Lone Wolf

Oh yeaaaaah, the hamster mafia is after me, I certainly need a bazooka to defend myself, I'm sure they'll be coming with tanks too :snicker: I'm prepared:


Non-violent people within a country that has laws generally do not have the mafia chasing after them. I'm not sure what kind of banana republic the US is that you need such weapons for self-defence.

Regular people do not need assault rifles to defend themselves for fear of being attacked on the street. A regular handgun suffices for that (if even that).

All in all, if one is for a generalized gun- control, s/he is against freedom for an individual to make his/her own choices. — Lone Wolf

Yes, I am against the freedom of an individual to own atomic weapons, regardless of whether he is Bill Gates and could afford to buy a few.

What needs to happen is to get the nose of the government out of the civilians personal lives, and get the politicians out of military and police work. — Lone Wolf

The police and the military are structures through which the government acts. The government cannot get "out of the military and police work", since the military and the police are created by the government to ensure that laws get followed.

there is absolutely NO REASON that your average person would ever need to have access to such a weapon — Agustino

How do you know? This sort of assumption is at the heart of the anti-gun rhetoric, it seems to me, and it's never demonstrated. There are lots of defensive gun uses every year, with people using guns of the kind you find so terrible to protect themselves, their families, and property.

they should apply and seek to buy regular handguns. — Agustino

There are handguns more powerful than the "assault weapons" you've created as your boogeyman.

As I've already pointed out, and this is for @Baden too, there are guns more powerful and deadly than the AR-15. Mass shooters use it because they're copy cats. The civilian model looks more terrifying than it really is. So you're fear mongering once again over a gun skin.

Stop replying to me. You've amply demonstrated your inability to address what I've actually said, so your nasty little insinuations do not affect my argument or position. You might heed Einstein's definition of insanity.

Oh yeaaaaah, the hamster mafia is after me, I certainly need a bazooka to defend myself, I'm sure they'll be coming with tanks too — Agustino

Strawman.

Regular people do not need assault rifles to defend themselves for fear of being attacked on the street. — Agustino

Here you're defining the terms of what counts as a situation of defensive gun use: "being attacked on the street." A handgun might suffice for that scenario. But that's obviously not the only one.

Stop replying to me. You've amply demonstrated your inability to address what I've actually said, so your nasty little insinuations do not affect my argument or position. You might heed Einstein's definition of insanity. — Thorongil

I thought you'd noticed that I don't really reply to you. Clearly you've already decided what to think. It's too bad that you've decided wrong, but oh well, it can't be helped. What I have been doing is calling out your nonsense, and I need neither your consent nor advice to do that. And what happened? I seem to remember Thorongil on PF as someone whose thoughts and views were worth looking at. Am I confusing you with that person?

Typical.

The gun control debate is interesting to me and I am genuinely open minded to either side of the debate -- I am still on the fence regarding gun policy.

One fact seems blatantly obvious -- and has been addressed by Steven Pinker in his book regarding violence -- guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is an empirical fact.

Also, this debate is not a left wing vs right wing discussion. Many libertarian socialists (anarchists) and communists vehemently defend the right to own arms for the very same reasons right wingers defend gun ownership, and share the vision by the founding fathers -- namely to fight off tyranny.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

The statistics seem to be showing that there is a problem with those laws application as well. — Sir2u

If you want to be taken seriously don't quote the Daily Fail. They are top of the list for reporting inaccuracies in the UK.

If you want to be taken seriously don't quote the Daily Fail. They are top of the list for reporting inaccuracies in the UK. — charleton

Whatever.

As I've mentioned, I'm a gun owner (shotguns). I feel no impulse to applaud myself for owning them, nor do I think I must justify owning them.

But I'm inclined to think that anyone buying a firearm like an AR-15 doesn't do so for hunting or sport. I personally am not over-concerned about what gun sellers like to call "home defense" but if I was, I don't think it reasonable to believe that requires use of a firearm which has the capacity to fire 45 to 60 rounds a minute depending on level of skill.

So, I think it's likely that AR-15s are acquired mostly by people who have other reasons for buying them; perhaps other uses for them.

Spot on, I think :up:

Regular people do not need assault rifles to defend themselves for fear of being attacked on the street. A regular handgun suffices for that (if even that). — Agustino

So then, there any reason to ban such weapons if it is only of opinion that they "don't need it"? What harm does it do if such weapons are in the hands of a law-abiding citizen?

Yes, I am against the freedom of an individual to own atomic weapons, regardless of whether he is Bill Gates and could afford to buy a few. — Agustino

As no one suggested that anyone ought to have atomic weapons, it seems irrelevant to this discussion. I said generalized gun-control.

The police and the military are structures through which the government acts. The government cannot get "out of the military and police work", since the military and the police are created by the government to ensure that laws get followed. — Agustino

Politicians can get out of the business, as in most cases, they have no experience in actual police work. They should leave it to people who know proper responses. And as I said before, it is impossible for an officer to be in a place instantly, so the police force cannot protect everyone at all times.

How do you know? This sort of assumption is at the heart of the anti-gun rhetoric, it seems to me, and it's never demonstrated. There are lots of defensive gun uses every year, with people using guns of the kind you find so terrible to protect themselves, their families, and property. — Thorongil

:up:

But the evidence is that guns do more harm than good. That is, the gun in the home is a hazard. Also, the gun in the hands of a non-competent user is a hazard. (And don't even try to tell me that a few rounds at the range constitute effective training to any point of competency.) In short, for everyone except maybe Heller, their home is safer if there is no gun present, and their person is safer if they're not carrying. Belief to the contrary is merely a compound of ignorance and testosterone. If you're thinking of contesting here, research the facts first.

One fact seems blatantly obvious -- and has been addressed by Steven Pinker in his book regarding violence -- guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is an empirical fact. — Youseeff

People kill people with guns.

guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is an empirical fact — Youseeff

No. It's a metaphysical interpretation. Metaphysical interpretations are untestable and unfalsifiable, and hence of no relevance to discussion of public policy.