As most of you are probably aware, the gun control debate has started up again due to another mass shooting in the U.S. As someone who is a pretty strong 2nd amendment supporter, I'll be honest, I'm finding it harder and harder to defend, at least in its current state. People often talk about how Australia hasn't had the mass murder death-toll we've had after banning most of its firearms in the 90's. And looking at the numbers, it's actually a decent talking point.

So, that being said, can we please have a talk? I would love to know the opinions of people who are far more intelligent about guns than me. Thank you for your time.

6144062
Pretty simple.
If you don't like freedom, move to a place like Australia where you can live comfortably without it.

6144065

That doesn't really help, nor provide any kind of counter to those who advocate for stricter gun control laws. Any other insight you might have?

6144062
Guns are a right to own. Whether it be for defense, work, or just to have fun, it's a right to own a gun placed in the constitution for a reason; to have an immediate army should one be needed.

That and regardless, people will always find ways to kill people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and taking away guns will do nothing except make people upset. You can't imagine all of the things that people can kill other people with, especially in mass. Not too long ago there was a man who went on a rampage running over buildings in his home town with a bulldozer he converted into the equivalent of a tank. Image the kind of damage he could've done with actual people. I'd say easily well over what this guy in Vegas did.

All of that said, I recognize that there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns in the first place. Those are the ones we need to focus on, not the guns themselves... owning a gun is a privilege most of all. There are people who legitimately own and operate using weapons as part of their livelihood or just for defense, and they're respectable members of society. It's the nutcases like the guy with the Dark Knight Rises who need to have their guns taken away...

6144071
True, they are indeed a right, one that I respect and support, but is there really no kind of compromise? For example, I'm finding that the 10 round magazine limit is becoming more and more reasonable. Should there really be no infringement, or can there be alterations made that would make everyone happy?

Australia threw out the right to due process and innocent until proven guilty, punishing people for an act they had zero hand in just because they owned guns. Everyone there now lives by permission rather than by right.

That is not and cannot ever be a logical and moral solution.

6144078
In my opinion, the right to bear arms shouldn't be restricted on the type of weapon you own (save for a few like bull pups... yeah I know...), or the ammo capacity you should want. Though if there had to be one, I see nothing wrong with a cap of maybe 20 or so rounds... even at that I find it's a bit much.

As for an LMG and a big belt of 100 rounds? Yeah, that I agree should be illegal. That's just not even meant for personal defense or hunting, it's just overkill...

And there unfortunately is no way I can see where both sides will be happy with any change. If you cap the limit of rounds at 10 all around the nation, you'll make gun owners upset and liberals happy. If you don't cap it, you'll make gun owners happy and liberals upset. I really don't see a compromise with this that doesn't upset someone on either side of the political spectrum.

6144080

While the throwing out of due process is horrible, they haven't had a mass murder anywhere near the same numbers as the Port Arthur massacre, which was the incident that pushed their gun control laws into what they are now.

6144069
It's pretty damn simple.
The 2nd Amendment was put there to protect the rights of a citizen against the whining of bitches who want to disarm them.
Nothing has changed.
If you don't like America, get the fuck out and go live in Mexico where the strict gun laws will keep you safe.

6144100

If you don't like America, get the fuck out and go live in Mexico where the strict gun laws will keep you safe.

Ok, why are you so fucking hostile? I never even said I hated my homeland, or that I want my guns taken. Can you actually give me some facts or statistics that form a compelling argument, or are you just gonna pull the cliché "If you don't like it, leave!"

6144113
One does not need a "compelling argument" to say "stop trying to infringe upon my rights."
That is all the argument it deserves, telling the grabbers to fuck off.

Personally, I find a law where 99.9% of the people affected are innocent to be unjust, and that is exactly the case of banning firearms. Last time I did the calculations, with rounding the numbers in favour of anti-gun stances, bumping the gun homicide to 20,000 even instead of 11,200somthing, using the consensus that roughly 1/3rd the American population having access to firearms, and attributing every death to a single shooter, despite instances where a single shooter had multiple kills (thus meaning 20,000 shooters for 20,000 deaths), it still was over 99.9% of firearms owners whom did not commit any homicides. (I don't recall exactly what the population was at the time I did the calculation, but specifically I got 99.988%, with only .012% of the gun community committing homicide, after nearly doubling the gun homicide rate.)

Even if you used all gun related incidents, murder, accident, suicide, and non-fatal shootings or crimes such as armed robbery, which I think brings that number to around 250,000 incidents, and using a lowball outdated US population figure of 310million, thus having 103.3(repeating, of course)million people with access to firearms, you still only have 0.24% of the people with access to firearms committing any type of crime at all with them.

So in effect 99.76% of the people punished by gun illegalisation are innocent.

Now, this doesn't mean we should do nothing, however my stance is not to restrict firearms for everyone, but instead invest in better mental health infrastructure, and safe stowage laws (most general gun crime is committed by stolen weapons), and expansion of background checks.

It doesn't even have to be successful treating of mentally unstable people, but just identifying them in the first place. We can have all the background checks in the world, however they mean nothing if the person in question was never diagnosed as mentally unstable, as thus it will never be on any record no matter how much digging you do.

Further, this also gets at the root of the problem. Even if you have all guns banned, okay, you still have people whom want to massacre dozens out and about, you've restricted their access to a deadly weapon, but you did nothing to get these dangerous individuals off the streets, and all they have to do is find an alternative weapon.

Now sure, this wouldn't be as effective as banning guns outright, nothing would be. People would still get through, and there's odd ordinary person that has a mental snap despite prior having been fine, but it would do a lot to help the situation, and I find it far more just than something in which 99+% of the people punished are innocent.

Another statistic that may be interesting was the research done by the CDC that found non-fatal defensive use of firearms to be the same, or even greater, than the amount of crimes committed with firearms.

Ultimately they concluded that a further study was needed, but the initial study instantly greys the waters of the argument that guns don't save anyone. An argument which was formulated when comparing only fatal gun incidents, which is faulted because the overwhelming majority of the time a gun is used for self defence, it never needs to be fired. It is usually sufficient to just have out and pointed at your assailant to get them to subdued.

Here is that 100 page report.

However do keep in mind that these results are only of an initial study and that the conclusion was that further studies were needed to bring deviation in figures down, as while gun crime is very thoroughly documented, defensive use of guns when the gun is never discharged is much less thoroughly documented. Because of this the results for defensive use of firearms varied from just a wee bit under the total amount of criminal firearm usage, to over ten times higher than firearm crime. I think the average was in the twice as high range. But regardless, keep that in mind and don't portray it as solid fact.

Copy pasta from another thread.

6144116

If that's how you're going to act then we have nothing more to discuss. I want people who can put down my doubts about my guns with well thought out responses that deal in logic. The "It's that way just because!" argument is not one I find suitable.

6144118
Thank you for your response.

6144088

save for a few like bull pups... yeah I know...),

A bullpup is literally no different than any other rifle or carbine except being overall shorter because the mechanism is placed behind and not in front of the trigger assembly, making it part of the stock.

6144118
Dude, I think I love you. Imma suck yo dick!

6144131
Ghhhhheeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

6144116
There's a bit of a problem with keeping that attitude while someone is getting shot by abusing that right, don't you think? Is there really nothing you can think of that can stop one bored asshole from buying a bag full of guns and then walking into a school and shooting everyone?

6144125
You have "doubts" about your guns?
Maybe you shouldn't own them.

6144132
No, don't worry, I don't fly that way. I'm just as much of a conservative as you can get, especially on the subject of gun control in the US. Most people who own guns just aren't homicidal maniacs wanting to cause harm to others using their weapons.

As for the thing on Bullpup rifles, I only find them technically due to questioning since you can technically conceal them. Otherwise, I completely appreciate you trying to defend my favorite types firearms.

6144133
No, I don't.
The reason a "bored asshole" can walk into a school and shoot "everyone" is because the "gun free zone" makes him all-powerful.

6144138
Define conceal, because yes they are shorter, but they are still a full sized rifle.

Unless they're a carbine, even then they are still larger than a standard SMG.

6144138
You say you can conceal a rifle.
So what's the problem with that regardless?

6144139
Okay, you're legitimately starting to concern me sir... 😶

6144140
Since they are the size of a male's torso, or most are, and can be hidden behind a piece of large clothing, I can almost classify it in very case by case scenarios as being a concealed weapon.

6144155
That's what I'm getting at.

6144146
I've seen someone hide a full length shotgun by wearing really loose, baggy pants.

Also.

Not quite sure what you mean by torso sized, moving the mechanism from forward to behind the trigger assembly can only shrink a full size rifle so much, typically about 6" I think.

6144162
I'm usually referring to something like the P90 or similar in terms of size.

6144146
Your lack of logic should concern you, not my question.

6144155
Actually a gun concealed under a trench coat is a concealed weapon even if it's a rocket launcher, because it's hidden from sight.

6144165
The P90 is a PDW, you should specify, it is nowhere near that of a full size rifle.

6144171
I wasn't referring to your previous question. It's what's below that worries me...

The reason a "bored asshole" can walk into a school and shoot "everyone" is because the "gun free zone" makes him all-powerful.

Even you have to admit that's cause for concern...

6144180
It's cause for concern if you don't have people armed at the school to take care of his ass, yes.

6144179
I was referring... forget it. All of this started as a result of me trying to find some vague argument a person against Rifles or firearms could make... truth be told, I really don't care at this point. Sorry if that seems like a lazy way of saying, "you win", but I wasn't really trying to win this argument anyways...

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel in Nice, France. 90 people dead, no guns. A determined mass killer will find a way, guns or no guns.

6144184
Yah, but an easily-concealed firearm is not the same thing as a concealed weapon.

6144189
Last thing I heard the outcry to ban cargo trucks on public roads hasn't made the scene, either...

6144195
I would like one of those folding SMGs though.

6144062
I will start with one of the first question I ask all of my hunters ed students. I have a gun in a corner nice and secure, it will not fall.
...
Is... it... dangerous?
Yes or no?

6144216

6144221
Well that was a very comedic way to answer the question.

6144139
Ok, so please explain to me how the Las Vegas shooting is preventable, seeing as Nevada is an open carry state?

6144258
You said a school.
Are you changing that because you didn't like my answer?
And who was sent to stop the lunatic?
Oh that's right. More people with guns.

6144139
Yes, because someone else with a gun statically will stop the bored guy a whopping 3% of the time.
6144270
Who are distinctly the good guys (won't be mistaken for a mass shooter) with hundreds or thousands of hours of training, and still waited something like 40 minutes for SWAT to arrive.

6144270
I was changing the situation from a gun-free zone to an open carry zone, which you advocated. My point is that even if the school had guards with guns, someone with a scope from far away could hit a substantial number of people before anyone could figure out where the shots were coming from, especially if there's plenty of noise or large surfaces to distort and bounce the sound. Sure, he'll get found and taken down with guns eventually, but how fast can you find him before there's another pile of bodies to bury?

A knife forces someone into broad daylight and melee range if they want to hurt someone. A long bow gives a that same person a weapon at range. But only a gun allows someone to hit multiple people at a range, and quickly, especially something like an M-16/AR-15.

I agree that a gun ban shouldn't happen, nor is it reasonable. The cat is way out of the bag anyways, and I appreciate the engineering behind them. But maybe we should repeal the Dickey Amendment so we can conduct better research on what caused the increase in gun violence?

[Heck, even the guy who made the bill doesn't like how it was carried out]

6144306
"Gun violence?"
I believe the operative word is "violence", period.
How about doing research on what makes a crazy person into a serial killer? The chosen weapon does not matter.

6144304
How do you "get mistaken for a mass shooter"? Are you just shooting a few bystanders and get butthurt when someone assumes you're gonna shoot a lot and takes you out?
That's the most absurd thing I've heard all day.

Now, let's be clear: I'm not out to get your guns

Not counting the shitstorm that'd happen, there are far too many guns to be like England or Australia, and keep them out of criminal's hands.

However, something that I fail to grasp is how we treat these tragedies like natural disasters, and maybe figuring out how to best to build a metaphorical sea wall. Instead, we leave it the same or talk about tearing some of it down so people can more easily try and stop the storm since they have a bucket or pump.

Moving on, why the fuck do we need to make it cheap and easy to mod my cheap AKM/AK-47 into a fully automatic one? I haven't ever looked into buying a full auto gun, but my understanding is that it's expensive as hell and there a BUNCH of background checks and all that jazz. Way to follow the Letter of the law and not the spirt.

Why don't we have common militias and all that. Main reason for the Second Amendment.

How are the laws for storing your guns? Most gun crimes are from stolen guns, so if it's either under your pillow, on your hip, or in your gun safe, wouldn't that stop a lot of them?

What's so appealing about assault rifles, other than Hunting? They're not very good for home/self defense, the main reason you get guns.

Why do we have button drop mags or whatever they're called? If you have to do that crap manually it gives precious more seconds to shoot him, tackle him, whatever.

6144320
That would be great if our mental health sector isn't garbage.

And you still haven't told me how a open carry school would help if someone decided to shoot at range.

Oh, and the obligatory "improved background schecks" and "mental health" checks that seem like no a brainer.

Oh, and FYI the NRA gets a shit tonne of funding from weapons and munitions companies.

6144329
"Oh but what if they used a blimp and started dropping hand grenades?"
There's obviously no one-size-fits all solution. But making everyone into a defenseless target is no solution at all, and neither is running around trying to blame guns for the behavior of crazy people.