|
Post by Darin on Jun 15, 2016 19:28:30 GMT -5
Give me one logical reason why a civilian needs an AR-15 in his home, when a handgun is more than sufficient for self-defense. Self defense goes beyond just your home, and in extreme circumstances, more then a handgun will be required: articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police-carI'd highly reccomended looking into the "Defense" of Koreatown during the LA Riots.
|
|
|
Post by Varangian on Jun 15, 2016 19:32:17 GMT -5
That's a massive outlier with no real significance, moreover it happened over 20 years ago. I just recommend that you read the article I posted; it makes more balanced sense on this topic than anything else written here, in my opinion. Mostly what I've said is misremembered stuff from there.
|
|
|
Post by Darin on Jun 15, 2016 19:39:53 GMT -5
Bingo. Different people have different opinions. This is why I'm not really interested in spending a lot of time discussing this. Each side is coming from very different points of view and many of the arguments each side makes don't really make sense to the other side (because they're coming from a very different position). Best of luck to everyone who keeps in on this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by William on Jun 15, 2016 20:53:58 GMT -5
But, you guys do realize that an assault rifle ban works, right? It's been shown in other countries to work tremendously. The biggest argument I have seen is "it won't do anything, criminals will find a way." Are you kidding? You know how expensive it would be to buy something off the black market that is illegal/banned? If you don't believe that bans work, I'd like to see you buy a Cuban Cigar a couple years ago. Point is, bans do have an effect. It will dramatically raise the price of the item to the point where Joe Schmo from across the street can't get one. Think about it. If I am selling illegal firearms, why would I go through so much risk to get caught and tried for a felony for the normal price. I wouldn't. The reward isn't there for the risk. And if someone was even able to afford such a weapon, if they are caught, there goes their gun. If you try to argue that these shootings would've occurred anyway, I doubt many of them would've found the a) connections and b) money to get an assault rifle. I'm saying this as a person who has fired several guns and who owns guns. But I also realize that there are fucked up people in the world that take too many lives because they are used incorrectly. Contrary to belief, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right, and unfortunately several people have ruined that privilege. If not a ban, which isn't the only solution, then there should be more regulation. Period. I have to get a license, go through training, take several tests, practice for a year, be healthy enough, go for yearly checkups, among other things for another deadly item: a car. Why not assault rifles, or any gun for that matter? Regulation works for pretty well for cars, food, and other items. Whats the excuse for guns? You're really equating getting a gun to hoping on a plane and suicide bombing a building? Do you realize the huge difference between the two? Firstly, you have to be 100% you want to die. People who commit shootings, it seems, decide AFTER that they want to die. Secondly, plane tickets are expensive as crap. Not to mention that after this event airlines became more regulated and it seemed to work, so what's the excuse for guns again? Thirdly, it took SO much planning and effort to do that, years I think. Shootings are planned in a matter of weeks and the availability of guns let that happen. For the second comparison, how many people you know, know how to make a fertilizer-based bomb? Now, how many people you know can get a gun and some ammo? See the difference? Oh, and if you say Google/Internet can tell you how, well, good luck explaining your search history to the FBI. For the third comparison, same thing. How many people you know have access to bombs, bomb making materials and the knowledge to use them? Now how many people do you know can get a gun and some ammo? Yes, those where devastating. But tell me, how many bombings occur a year? Now how many gun deaths occur a year? Big difference there. Which is a very similar model to the AR-15. It fires the same projectile, has a similar body style, and is an assault rifle. I don't think saying that changes much. *another quote I'm too lazy to get* You don't need an assault rifle for self defense. The chances of you going against an aggressive person that is armed with a gun, has sufficient skills and armor that you need an assault rifle to best him is slim to none. It will be even more rare if, you know, assault rifles are banned.
|
|
john7
Forum Guest
Posts: 5
|
Post by john7 on Jun 15, 2016 20:55:35 GMT -5
Really it comes down to trust
Some people trust their government enough to turn in all of their rifles, ak's, ar's etc, and some don't. Like I said, the amendment is there to keep the government in check and ultimately give people more power than the government. Somewhere down the line, EVENTUALLY, someone will abuse the power they have over us (the people), whether its outside forces like ISIS or a government too big and powerful for its own good.
If you want to defend yourself against a crazed ISIS physco with a AK-47 VS You, armed with a citizen level handgun, that's your choice
|
|
|
Post by William on Jun 15, 2016 21:03:10 GMT -5
Really it comes down to trust Some people trust their government enough to turn in all of their rifles, ak's, ar's etc, and some don't. Like I said, the amendment is there to keep the government in check and ultimately give people more power than the government. Somewhere down the line, EVENTUALLY, someone will abuse the power they have over us (the people), whether its outside forces like ISIS or a government too big and powerful for its own good. If you want to defend yourself against a crazed ISIS physco with a AK-47 vs you, armed with a citizen level handgun, that's your choice Your stating fear of ISIS for keeping guns? With regulation, for example with cars, they do extensive background checks, not the crap they do now with guns. I can go get an AK-47 in a couple hours if I wanted to. If I was an ISIS fanatic, I could acquire a gun in a matter of hours. Think about that. With regulation, I have to wait days. If I was an ISIS fanatic, with regulation, I would have to wait days. Days vs Hours. Days is time where background checks could be carried out against the individual, see Facebook posts, etc. Find out who they are. Days is time for the person not to carry out the attack. Days is time to possibly halt them from getting the weapon. Days is time that could otherwise be taken away from the potential victims. At the very least, the potential victims would live that much longer. We owe them that.
|
|
john7
Forum Guest
Posts: 5
|
Post by john7 on Jun 15, 2016 21:18:10 GMT -5
I agree with you that we should have better background checks. Even a time period before you can walk out with your newly purchased assault rifle. What I am mostly talking about is our law makers trying to pass laws that outlaw rifles for citizens altogether.
There is a fine balance of having laws, checks, balances and the necessary processes to purchase guns. Rather than making laws to make them illegal for everyone except government.
|
|
|
Post by Chev on Jun 15, 2016 23:11:32 GMT -5
At least they are attempting to do something certain people in D.C. are blocking any attempts to curb gun control.
|
|
|
Post by William on Jun 15, 2016 23:19:36 GMT -5
I agree with you that we should have better background checks. Even a time period before you can walk out with your newly purchased assault rifle. What I am mostly talking about is our law makers trying to pass laws that outlaw rifles for citizens altogether. There is a fine balance of having laws, checks, balances and the necessary processes to purchase guns. Rather than making laws to make them illegal for everyone except government. I don't think anyone is trying to get ALL guns to be banned, just assault rifles. After all, assault rifles do the most damage in the least amount of time. Handguns, Shotguns, and Manual Action Rifles will still be allowed, and hopefully regulated like we both like. However, assault rifles are just not necessary for civilians to easily obtain. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have one. But I know that, like I said earlier, other people have screwed it up for me and I am ok with increasing safety by forfeiting my privilege of owning an assault rifle. It's like in elementary school. A kid brings candy to the class, students are distracted by the candy, candy gets banned from the classroom. A person (in this case, multiple people) purchases an assault rifle, uses the assault rifle to deal mass harm, assault rifles get banned. And yes, I know that there are not exactly similar and there are discrepancies, but it is a very similar concept that is also applied in daily life. Such as smoking in public. Also, why would it be bad if only the government had assault rifles? Before anyone uses the argument that "in case we need to rebel against a corrupt government." The government is already corrupt and if a war does break out, no amount of assault rifles are going to help us. The government has unmanned DRONES capable of doing a lot more than any assault rifle without even being seen for Christ sake. You can't shoot at it accurately from their effective distance, and I imagine even if you hit it, it wouldn't do much damage. You might as well just shoot yourself and save you the trouble of living through hell, if that ever happens.
|
|
|
Post by Darin on Jun 16, 2016 0:22:13 GMT -5
Also, why would it be bad if only the government had assault rifles? Before anyone uses the argument that "in case we need to rebel against a corrupt government." The government is already corrupt and if a war does break out, no amount of assault rifles are going to help us. The government has unmanned DRONES capable of doing a lot more than any assault rifle without even being seen for Christ sake. You can't shoot at it accurately from their effective distance, and I imagine even if you hit it, it wouldn't do much damage. You might as well just shoot yourself and save you the trouble of living through hell, if that ever happens. I used to think this as well, but I think rebellions/insurgencies in the last 5-ish years have shown that a sizable group of people can sustain a guerrilla war against a far superior force, even one that has drones, and air superiority. Drones, while quite terrifying, aren't an all powerful force. They cant be stopped as you pointed out, but they can be avoided. Just ask ISIS. Edit: Just to clarify slightly, I don't think an armed rebellion would win in an extended fight against the government. However, the knowledge that an armed populace could put up at least enough resistance to gain some international attention would most likely act as a pretty good deterrent for a lot of out right tyrannical stuff. Just check quotes from Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. All of them said stuff along the lines of "an unarmed populace is a lot easier to take over/rule". Edit Edit: I realized that the reference to the quotes doesn't really go along with what I was saying... xD
|
|
john7
Forum Guest
Posts: 5
|
Post by john7 on Jun 16, 2016 0:36:33 GMT -5
I agree with you that we should have better background checks. Even a time period before you can walk out with your newly purchased assault rifle. What I am mostly talking about is our law makers trying to pass laws that outlaw rifles for citizens altogether. There is a fine balance of having laws, checks, balances and the necessary processes to purchase guns. Rather than making laws to make them illegal for everyone except government. I don't think anyone is trying to get ALL guns to be banned, just assault rifles. After all, assault rifles do the most damage in the least amount of time. Handguns, Shotguns, and Manual Action Rifles will still be allowed, and hopefully regulated like we both like. However, assault rifles are just not necessary for civilians to easily obtain. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have one. But I know that, like I said earlier, other people have screwed it up for me and I am ok with increasing safety by forfeiting my privilege of owning an assault rifle. It's like in elementary school. A kid brings candy to the class, students are distracted by the candy, candy gets banned from the classroom. A person (in this case, multiple people) purchases an assault rifle, uses the assault rifle to deal mass harm, assault rifles get banned. And yes, I know that there are not exactly similar and there are discrepancies, but it is a very similar concept that is also applied in daily life. Such as smoking in public. Also, why would it be bad if only the government had assault rifles? Before anyone uses the argument that "in case we need to rebel against a corrupt government." The government is already corrupt and if a war does break out, no amount of assault rifles are going to help us. The government has unmanned DRONES capable of doing a lot more than any assault rifle without even being seen for Christ sake. You can't shoot at it accurately from their effective distance, and I imagine even if you hit it, it wouldn't do much damage. You might as well just shoot yourself and save you the trouble of living through hell, if that ever happens. If you want to defend yourself against a crazed ISIS physco with a AK-47 VS You, armed with a citizen level handgun, that's your choice Im not willing to give up my privileges because someone else abused theirs, I think that might be where we differ. I respect that choice, I just don't agree with it for myself
|
|
|
Post by Kohath on Jun 16, 2016 5:22:08 GMT -5
Imo, you should stop blaming the tool that was used, and blame the reason he got that tool. There should be more extensive background checks and easier communication between agencies, so that if a person is investigated by say, the FBI, that would show when you check a background. I am all for leaving the people tools to be able to defend themselves, and I do believe that people in general should be allowed assault rifles if that is what they feel they need. But as I said, it needs more extensive checks and time for one to get this weapon. I know it`s poor comparisons, but if a man killed 50 people with a hammer, you would not go and ban everything but plastic hammers. If a man killed with a pair of scissors, you would not call for a ban of everything but dull scissor knives. As I said in my first line, you should blame the reason he got the tool, i.e. poor background checks and miscommunications instead of the tool itself. That`s my two cents on this, and as a European, I am probably in the minority here
|
|
|
Post by Varangian on Jun 16, 2016 5:38:31 GMT -5
I'm just going to say that the Riddle of the Gun www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun addresses most if not all of these points. Third time posting it here because it really just makes those points better than I ever could. And is a great read for anyone interested on the subject because the points are well thought-out, backed up with logic and evidence and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Darin on Jun 16, 2016 9:22:48 GMT -5
I just have to say, it was nice that everyone got to express their views and opinions here civilly, and I quite enjoyed the discussion back and forth.
|
|
|
Post by CreamPie on Jun 16, 2016 10:59:19 GMT -5
Sensitive topics debated DoF-style : )
|
|