Motor cars and the roads they drive on are my least favourite things in the world. So I would happily ban those.

I would not ban knives in the kitchen.

A pocket knife with a retracted blade would not be high on my list of things to ban - but on the other hand why carry such a thing? I suppose once every third or fourth year you find a use for it. Does more harm wearing out your pocket than it is useful, so yes, maybe let's ban that too.

It is weapons I want to ban. I don't like nuclear weapons and would like there to be none of those. But as they exist I certainly don't want to make it easy for ill intentioned or psychotic people to have them. Same for high explosives, same for guns, same for knives.

This has gone beyond window licking. My eyes hurt.

Yes they did try banning alcohol... It didn't work. Instead of a complete ban or no rules on alcohol at all they decided to work on finding a balance point through regulation; no drinking and driving, no drinking under 21, public intoxication, etc...

You need a similar reform of law on you weapons to find a reasonable balance point between personal freedoms and public safety. Right now you have some law, but it's not as reasonable as it could be. It may be hard for you to see as you care very deeply for your weapons.

Guns aren't the only weapons true. But it is illegal to conceal or carry in public other weapons as well. Concealed weapon doesn't just mean concealed gun. Guns are just the most efficient weapon for a person to carry for the intent to kill.

Like not being able to purchase a long rifle until age 18 or handguns at 21 and pass a background check? Kinda similar to drinking ages i guess... Weapons are not beverages though. You dont ever have to be worried about drinking your gun and risk blindness or be poisoned to death.

^ nice lol........ But but there is the loop holes and such you can buy guns on the net with out background checks

That will never change no matter the legislation. You can buy anything on the internet. Dont get me wrong, im all for total gun registration and background checks.. a gun its should be traceable to the owner, just like a vehicle. The gov shouldnt tell you what u can and cant have or how many.
As far as military weapons on the street, there are none. Semi auto weapons are not military grade, they never will come close. If u have one full auto, its illegal or u have an ffl.

You have to have guns bought online shipped to an ffl where they do the background check when you pick it up ;)

Out here it was popular to buy a reciever slug ( 1911s and ARs) that was 80% milled and take it to a machine shop and have they machinist show you how to mill out the guts, the mill does the automatically you just set it up in a jig. Then you had an untracable frame. The rest of the components are available to my dog at any gunstore or website. Ie. Uppers, barrels, triggers ect. Californians didnt like this and made it illegal. What makes it legal is you cannot manufacture firearms for sale. You can however, make one for yourself.

what about bump fire? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6BFarrICWs



or just go to some site like silkroad ;)

wait what? hahaha You are calling him brainwashed and then ask him to look at the trends of the shootings?

The facts are, as much as you may not like them, mass shootings (those of 4 or more deaths) have steadily declined over the last 50 years in USA. The only spike that we saw was, ironically, during the years of the assault weapons ban in the 90's.

Furthermore, the USA, when compared to its major developed nations worldwide, ranks well below most of them in violent crime rate. USA is not a wild cowboys and Indians shootout like people around the world and the media paints it to be.

http://media.economist.com/...ize/20111008_WOM936_0.gif

Bump fire is not as reliable as the real deal. A semi auto gas system will never make it a reliable option no matter what you do to try and upgrade it. There is nothing in common with a what we can buy and what they military gets besides what the look like.

Making differences between one gun and another is silly. They are all deadly weapns.

Your kind of stupid is the worst kind of stupid.

That's a real convincing argument, right there.

Um ok...... the following is "silly"...



Why?

I can honestly say that in the 32 years (out of 43) that I have carried a pocket knife, I can remember damn few days I have not used it for something. Today I cut a piece of cord out of a trash pile to use as a improvised leash to catch and return my neighbors dog. Yesterday I picked a spring clip out of the retaining nut on my lawnmower axle.

That's notwithstanding all of the packages I've opened, splinters I've removed, and pencils I've sharpened with it. What kind of sad sad milk toast life do you live that you could not use a pocket knife more than once every 4 years?

Climb out of your aquarium Neo and quit being such a helpless fluffing sheep.

Oh, setting a trap for a burglar specifically so you can kill him is murder, I feel no sympathy for this guy.

pocket knives are infinitely more useful than guns!

WWI & II weren't won by pocket knives...

If those guns you speak of were so good, why did they feel compelled to stick knives on the end? hmmmmm?

Lol pang wins!

Not pocket knives, dawg.

http://i.imgur.com/TpGvHBL.jpg

#rekt




real men carry bayonets as pocket knifes. (source: jax teller)

archaic, your memory is poor.

I dislike roads because they are ugly and I must take my life in my hands to cross them.

Guns, bayonets and explosives have no place in ordinary life and should be banned.

Why these very simple things should stir anger I really don't know.

I suppose it is to do with insecurity.

Im not mad at you. I think you are hilarious. I do want someone to fight me for those things though. Thats what it will take to ban guns in the usa. Everything else is trolling bullfluff.

I don't even know how to respond to this....get educated?

I got it, go join the taliban, they still hangout in caves!

Well you could respond by looking for an insult or you could respond, yes roads ARE ugly and I don't want to have anything to do with guns, bayonets or explosives.

Insults are probably more your thing, though. See if you can sharpen them up a bit.

I've got over 2.2 million miles under my belt in this great nation, roads are the arteries where commerce being the blood that drives our economy, roads are a beautiful thing my friend 🍺

You suppose incorrectly.

Those simple things stir anger because you are attempting to force your values on others. Weapons and explosives do not serve a purpose *for you*, so you believe they should be banned.

For the 19 year old college coed, walking (since you've gotten rid of roads) back to her dorm from the library late at night, a gun or other self defense weapon certainly does serve a purpose.

For someone who enjoys the outdoors, a gun does serve a purpose. Whether s/he carries it for the purpose of hunting, or for defense from large predators.

For someone who simply enjoys target shooting, a gun does serve a purpose.

But since *you* don't like them, no one should be allowed to have them. That is why this topic stirs up anger.. A lot of law-abiding Americans are sick and tired of being told what they can and cannot do. More than that, we're tired of people who have no understanding of freedom, trying to tell us what our government should do to us.

It is it really a step too far to say that using lethal force has no place in society today outside of war?

Yes.

Self defense is an extension of the most basic of human rights; the right to exist. If lethal force becomes necessary to protect that most basic right, then the government should have no right to punish someone for using it.

I'm also curious why you phrase your question in such a way as to suggest that you wish to preserve the right of the State to commit murder. The State may defend its right to exist by any means necessary, but the individual may not? This seems completely backwards to me.

Add up the death toll for every single mass murder you can think of by individuals, and it won't even come CLOSE to the number of innocent (usually unarmed) people slaughtered by tyrannical states.

The question you're answering and the question I asked appear to be a little different.

You're saying that in the face of an attacker prepared to use lethal force, lethal force is an appropriate response. I'm saying that there should be no attacker.

I get that this is an aspirational statement that isn't going to be practical in all situations, but the better outcome here is to not put people in situations where they need to use force, lethal or otherwise, to defend themselves.

Its too bad people are assholes and need to die. Thats the way it is though.

These forums need up vote buttons yo

Yes, in the magical lamd of fairies rainbows and unicorns everyone lives happily together and nobody tries to hurt anyone.

If you live in a where crime prevention is viewed as less important than dealing with crimes in progress, I feel sorry for you.

why does it have to be one or the other? why cant someone value crime prevention AND the right to defend oneself against a criminal?

You can value both (and I'm not arguing against being able to defend yourself, just against using lethal force to do so), but prevention should always have the priority as crime not happening in the first place is the best outcome.

Shoot the criminals - problem solved for generations to come...

so even if someone is willing to use lethal force against you, you shouldnt be allowed to respond in kind? the value of human life is more than the value of your own life regardless of the circumstances?

get the fluff out. that is LITERALLY against core survival instincts of just about every species on this planet.


you are idealistic, i can respect that. it is your right. also know that i pity you because if it ever comes to a situation where you have to take your life into your own hands, you will be ill prepared solely based on your mindset. hopefully that never happens.


it is a no argument statement that crime shouldnt happen to start with, but it is a naive statement and viewpoint to thing that someone sholdnt be able to defend themselves simply because the crime shouldnt happen in the first place. maybe 100 years from now your utopian society will be here, but for now, i will dissagree with you 100%

why are all these threads the exact same thing?

are all americans like this with the whole "I can AND WILL use it to kill someone if I feel like I'm in danger"

In real life, I know.... 4 people who have told me they own guns. All Canadian. Not one discussion has ever been about using or even considering using it on a person or even the idea or right to use it on a person. It's a tool or a sporting item that has the obviously has the ability to be used as a personal defence weapon as a last resort.

That being said, there's been much talk about shooting bears.

gun laws in relation to self defense arnt a hot button issue in canada, so of course you wont talk about it as much. i dont walk around in real life telling people i can shoot them if i had to. i dont even carry in every day life. considering i have never had to use my weapons in anger they are all tools and hunting weapons as well. it is a hobby. im not sure i see your proof here.

i dont see a problem with wanting to protect the right to protect your house and family. i also dont see a problem with talking about defending that right. that isnt the same thing as actively looking for someone to shoot.

the gun nuts are the ones who eagerly await the chance to be judge jury and executioner all at once and kill someone for sneaking into their toolshed out back.

most responsible gun owners pray to whatever deity they believe in that they will never even have to unholster their weapon and will do anything they can do to reduce the possibility of never having to do so (security systems/retreating/conflict avoidance/situational awareness/deescalating situations/visual deterrence/avoiding bad areas)

sorry, mrford... i disagree with the premise that your gun rights/right to protect your family are AT ALL under assault and thus the rest of your post just looks like grandstanding on what is realistically a non-issue.

I would also offer that self defense/gun rights are only an issue in America because some politicians + super pro-gun folks keep pushing the extreme, claiming there is some sort of movement out to take everyone's guns so they're left helpless. that's what I don't get...

limiting some of the military-grade weapons, requiring background checks, and registering guns is all I really hear "anti-gun" people who have an impact on the political process preaching about. then you have super pro-gun politicians proposing even more legislation that keeps pushing the pro-gun extreme (i.e., stand your ground, limiting background checks esp. at gun shows, allowing military-grade weapons in the public's hands).

tougher gun laws (mainly focused on the acquisition and training to use such weapons) have the support of like 90% of Americans yet that doesn't seem to matter?

the comments in this very thread against gun ownership disprove your first paragraph but i sense you will dismiss them because they arnt in an actual situation to change laws despite having the right to vote. disregard the legislation being put into place in many states regulating things like magazine size and what not. you really think that limiting someone to 10 rounds per magazine is going to have any effect on gun crimes and mass shootings? what about banning "assault weapons" that are literally no different from similar models other than aesthetic modifications? if it starts there where does it end? it isnt so much as a fear ios imminent seizure of all guns, it is the fear of a slow revocation of rights that most wont notice until it is too late. weather or not you agree doesnt change that viewpoint.

the escalation of force and legality of shooting someone is constantly in debate. im not too sure how you can say it is a non issue. and once again you minimize it by assuming that the conflict is mainly perpetuated by the pro-gun crowd.

im all for more through background checks and national databases of people not allowed to purchase weapons due to past violations or red flags. i have said this many times. that isnt the debate here and you seem to keep shifting it towards that.

So mrford's rights are not "AT ALL under assault" unless he wishes to stand his ground instead of running and hiding.

Besides that, we're arguing with someone in this thread who absolutely is stating that all guns should be banned.... so um.... how would you propose we respond?

"Super-pro-gun folks" are not pushing the issue. Every time some asshole commits a crime with a gun, power-hungry politicians step up to the cameras to claim that something needs to be done. THOSE are the people who keep this issue front and center. Most of us pro-gun-freedom people don't spend much time talking about it unless we hear someone saying that our freedom should be curtailed.

Sam. I am not telling you, or anyone else, what to do. But that does not mean I have no opinion as to what is sensible and what is not.

A young woman who carries a gun for protection is doing something very foolish. She is a great deal more likely to do herself or others harm with the gun than to gain any advantage. If you could set out a couple of thousand cases where a young woman carrying a gun helped herself as a result then that proposition would come under attack. But I doubt you can. Moreover a society in which young women cannot safely walk home has problems which need to be addressed far more effectively than by asking citizens to resort to carrying guns.

The hunting arguement and defence against wild animals arguement are both naff. No one need (or does I suspect) hunt for meat and wild animals rarely if ever pose a threat if unprovoked. Naturalists and photographers have sought out wild animals in the toughest of environments with no need of guns and people have lived with gorillas. As in the case of the young woman, a person carrying a gun is just far more likely to hurt themselves or others with it than they are likely to fend off an angry bear.

Target shooting is fine. The gun is kept in a club under lock and key when not in sporting use and, while accidents still happen, if you are keen enough to attend target shooting clubs you can take your own risk with that. I would not allow children in such places though.