Some new toys...

[Kilkenne]

additionally, shooting guns recreationally can be a fun hobby

[Briar]

Quite a few people still go hunting for food (with a variety of weapon) and rely on it. Wild game, for the most part, is healthier than the meat you would buy at the shop. No hormones.

I work with the Warm Springs tribe and many of them still rely on the meat from hunting and they definitely don't use bows and arrows anymore.

Plus, like Kilk said, shooting can be a lot of fun.

[Firetooth]

Actually, since my only alternative centerfire weapon for hunting is an old 1942 Russian rifle, it's pretty much needed. But this is honestly just a preference. It doesn't really matter if you think I need it or not, as I've pointed out earlier. Because I believe I do. And still no one is being harmed, you're just too completely biased against guns to realize that they're tools and nothing more.

If the government has it, so should I. They are not benevolent. As for defense against criminals, I will not become the victim because of the whims of others that believe they know what's best for me. I will not become the victim because liberals care more about the criminals. If some druggie is raiding homes and burning them down with children inside, I'd much rather blow their brains all over the wall then sit down and have a talk to find out they're a repeat offender that has a criminal record a mile long. I will not allow these people to run rampant and harm my family, friends, property or myself.

It is my duty to rise up against my leaders should they ever deviate from the constitution, and it would be dangerous to be unprepared to take such measures. If you honestly believe such things would never be necessary, you're delusional to the point of hilarity. Our government is so corrupt now that I cannot trust a word they say. I took an oath when I joined the military to uphold the constitution, as did many others. And I can tell you that should the government continue on the path it is currently set on, they will not have the support of the soldiers. Because the soldiers are ordinary people too.

How the hell is the idea of defending my home with a gun dangerous? How brainwashed do you have to get to believe that? Is it not more dangerous be unprepared for malicious criminals (with guns)? I've had to call the police before, and it took them 45 minutes to respond. That's not their fault either, I simply live in a very rural area. A lot can happen in 45 minutes. There's also a meth problem here, and pretty much any other rural area in the country I'd say. I don't have to tell you how volatile a situation can become when meth becomes a factor.

To not be adequately armed puts your life in the hands of some other individual, most often a criminal. I shall not be told when, how, or if I can defend myself. It won't happen. And I'll say right now that no amount of laws will ever change that. And from what I've heard from the people I hang around with, that's a pretty common mindset. The government should fear the people, and criminals should fear walking the streets at night. This is how a truly just society works. We are not children to be told that we are not responsible enough to own firearms. That's a laughable concept anyhow, given the grievous atrocities committed by government, police, and military entities. Do you want those people to have free reign? I'd hope not. I don't, that's why I'm armed. They have no accountability anymore. They have failed to accommodate the people they were meant to serve, and now they are making repeated attempts to disarm us. A very sad state of affairs.

Written from a hotel room on my phone. Wow.

Yes, guns are tools. Assault rifles are a tool intended to kill people. Fundamentally, such a weapon should not be in the hand of a civilian. I'm pretty sure I'd not be allowed to keep a nuclear bomb in my garage just because I thought "I needed it" and because "it wasn't harming anybody." The potential is there. All it takes is one lunatic with an automatic weapon to kill dozens, as we have seen so many times this last year. Yeah, you can still kill people with hunting guns, or even with knives and other melee weapons, but the evidence is that the higher kill counts always involve automatic weapons. That they a tool designed to cause a maximum body count correlates with the highest body counts is no surprise.

Your safety is not more important than the safety of your nation, Unga. As I have already pointed out, giving untrained civilians who think they're Rambo assault rifles is a terrible idea. Just as the paranoid may kill those who are innocent, opening fire on those who are actual criminals endangers your own life. So yes, defending your home with a gun IS dangerous, to yourself as much as any intruder. What happens if you fire at and mass an intruder armed with a gun? Whilst  I agree that people should absolutely have the right to defend themselves if that is necessary, you're generally advised to not engage criminals in such situations. Also, just because somebody is a criminal does not mean it is acceptable for you to appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner. If you're life is at a legitimate risk, opening fire is justified, however I doubt one thinks rationally when being robbed. Pre-emptive shooting is a distinct possibility in such cases.

As I said, many people here in the U.K do keep makeshift melee weapons around in case of being robbed. Golf clubs, cricket bats etc. I still think attacking an intruder who is a total unknown factor is usually a bad idea, but at least these weapons are likely to incapacitate without killing.

Also, the abundance of crimes of passions is the most obvious argument as to why the presence of guns for defence is a poor idea. Plenty may have a gun because they fear a gun-totting psycho shooting up their neighbourhood, but having that weapon gives you the ability to do terrible damage in a heated moment.

As for whole "government's should fear their people," you don't need a gun to force social change. Non-violent movements have had significant success in the past. Have your guns deterred the NSA? I will also (rightly) say that having the civilian populace of the USA armed with guns would change nothing but the body count if the USA decides to democide you all. Unless a significant proportion of the military defect in such a situation (which you anticipate anyway), you're screwed. An untrained mobs with no conception of war versus the best military in the world...I think we both know the outcome there. History has shown this time and time again. "A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house."

Your idea of a just society is also silly. Criminals should fear the police, not mob justice. Parents shouldn't have to worry that their a crazed madman with an AK will murder their children at school. Society is built upon regulations, upon the idea the government MUST have powers and abilities that the public do not. Should we dissolve the legal system in favour of mob justice? Most countries without firearms work pretty well and thus far have not had their population slaughtered in a military coup so an authoritarian regime can be set up.

additionally, shooting guns recreationally can be a fun hobby

Keep the guns at the shooting ranges, then.

Quite a few people still go hunting for food (with a variety of weapon) and rely on it. Wild game, for the most part, is healthier than the meat you would buy at the shop. No hormones.

I work with the Warm Springs tribe and many of them still rely on the meat from hunting and they definitely don't use bows and arrows anymore.

Plus, like Kilk said, shooting can be a lot of fun.

I'm not opposed to hunting for food, though there need to be strict regulations (such as tests on mental health) on those who own these weapons, and on the weapons themselves. Hunting rifles are fine, automatic rifles are not.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

You are aware than none of the guns I own are automatic, right?

[Ian2424]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

[Briar]

You are aware than none of the guns I own are automatic, right?

He does not. This is his knowledge of guns:

[Firetooth]

You are aware than none of the guns I own are automatic, right?

The bushmaster is an assault rifle. I usually lump semi-autos with autos in these discussions, so the confusion is my fault.

A handgun with a laser site and a semi-auto are not hunting weapons. They key is in the name: AR. They are weapons designed to kill people with. You may use them for other things, but that it is not what they are designed for.

You are aware than none of the guns I own are automatic, right?

He does not. This is his knowledge of guns:

-snip-

Funny picture, but irrelevant.

Also note how nobody has challenged the idea of keeping guns at a shooting range if you like shooting so much. Guess it's not as rational as having an armed guard for every school...

[Holby]

Actually, since my only alternative centerfire weapon for hunting is an old 1942 Russian rifle, it's pretty much needed. But this is honestly just a preference. It doesn't really matter if you think I need it or not, as I've pointed out earlier. Because I believe I do. And still no one is being harmed, you're just too completely biased against guns to realize that they're tools and nothing more.

If the government has it, so should I. They are not benevolent. As for defense against criminals, I will not become the victim because of the whims of others that believe they know what's best for me. I will not become the victim because liberals care more about the criminals. If some druggie is raiding homes and burning them down with children inside, I'd much rather blow their brains all over the wall then sit down and have a talk to find out they're a repeat offender that has a criminal record a mile long. I will not allow these people to run rampant and harm my family, friends, property or myself.

It is my duty to rise up against my leaders should they ever deviate from the constitution, and it would be dangerous to be unprepared to take such measures. If you honestly believe such things would never be necessary, you're delusional to the point of hilarity. Our government is so corrupt now that I cannot trust a word they say. I took an oath when I joined the military to uphold the constitution, as did many others. And I can tell you that should the government continue on the path it is currently set on, they will not have the support of the soldiers. Because the soldiers are ordinary people too.

How the hell is the idea of defending my home with a gun dangerous? How brainwashed do you have to get to believe that? Is it not more dangerous be unprepared for malicious criminals (with guns)? I've had to call the police before, and it took them 45 minutes to respond. That's not their fault either, I simply live in a very rural area. A lot can happen in 45 minutes. There's also a meth problem here, and pretty much any other rural area in the country I'd say. I don't have to tell you how volatile a situation can become when meth becomes a factor.

To not be adequately armed puts your life in the hands of some other individual, most often a criminal. I shall not be told when, how, or if I can defend myself. It won't happen. And I'll say right now that no amount of laws will ever change that. And from what I've heard from the people I hang around with, that's a pretty common mindset. The government should fear the people, and criminals should fear walking the streets at night. This is how a truly just society works. We are not children to be told that we are not responsible enough to own firearms. That's a laughable concept anyhow, given the grievous atrocities committed by government, police, and military entities. Do you want those people to have free reign? I'd hope not. I don't, that's why I'm armed. They have no accountability anymore. They have failed to accommodate the people they were meant to serve, and now they are making repeated attempts to disarm us. A very sad state of affairs.

Written from a hotel room on my phone. Wow.

Yes, guns are tools. Assault rifles are a tool intended to kill people. Fundamentally, such a weapon should not be in the hand of a civilian. I'm pretty sure I'd not be allowed to keep a nuclear bomb in my garage just because I thought "I needed it" and because "it wasn't harming anybody." The potential is there. All it takes is one lunatic with an automatic weapon to kill dozens, as we have seen so many times this last year. Yeah, you can still kill people with hunting guns, or even with knives and other melee weapons, but the evidence is that the higher kill counts always involve automatic weapons. That they a tool designed to cause a maximum body count correlates with the highest body counts is no surprise.

Your safety is not more important than the safety of your nation, Unga. As I have already pointed out, giving untrained civilians who think they're Rambo assault rifles is a terrible idea. Just as the paranoid may kill those who are innocent, opening fire on those who are actual criminals endangers your own life. So yes, defending your home with a gun IS dangerous, to yourself as much as any intruder. What happens if you fire at and mass an intruder armed with a gun? Whilst  I agree that people should absolutely have the right to defend themselves if that is necessary, you're generally advised to not engage criminals in such situations. Also, just because somebody is a criminal does not mean it is acceptable for you to appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner. If you're life is at a legitimate risk, opening fire is justified, however I doubt one thinks rationally when being robbed. Pre-emptive shooting is a distinct possibility in such cases.

As I said, many people here in the U.K do keep makeshift melee weapons around in case of being robbed. Golf clubs, cricket bats etc. I still think attacking an intruder who is a total unknown factor is usually a bad idea, but at least these weapons are likely to incapacitate without killing.

Also, the abundance of crimes of passions is the most obvious argument as to why the presence of guns for defence is a poor idea. Plenty may have a gun because they fear a gun-totting psycho shooting up their neighbourhood, but having that weapon gives you the ability to do terrible damage in a heated moment.

As for whole "government's should fear their people," you don't need a gun to force social change. Non-violent movements have had significant success in the past. Have your guns deterred the NSA? I will also (rightly) say that having the civilian populace of the USA armed with guns would change nothing but the body count if the USA decides to democide you all. Unless a significant proportion of the military defect in such a situation (which you anticipate anyway), you're screwed. An untrained mobs with no conception of war versus the best military in the world...I think we both know the outcome there. History has shown this time and time again. "A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house."

Your idea of a just society is also silly. Criminals should fear the police, not mob justice. Parents shouldn't have to worry that their a crazed madman with an AK will murder their children at school. Society is built upon regulations, upon the idea the government MUST have powers and abilities that the public do not. Should we dissolve the legal system in favour of mob justice? Most countries without firearms work pretty well and thus far have not had their population slaughtered in a military coup so an authoritarian regime can be set up.

additionally, shooting guns recreationally can be a fun hobby

Keep the guns at the shooting ranges, then.

Quite a few people still go hunting for food (with a variety of weapon) and rely on it. Wild game, for the most part, is healthier than the meat you would buy at the shop. No hormones.

I work with the Warm Springs tribe and many of them still rely on the meat from hunting and they definitely don't use bows and arrows anymore.

Plus, like Kilk said, shooting can be a lot of fun.

I'm not opposed to hunting for food, though there need to be strict regulations (such as tests on mental health) on those who own these weapons, and on the weapons themselves. Hunting rifles are fine, automatic rifles are not.

Excellent response.

[Firetooth]

Lol, look at this article I literally just came across.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/washington-navy-yard-shooting--ar-15---the-gun-that-is-killing-america-152035049.html#sugmM5O

No comment on the article itself.

[Shadow]

What Ungatt and most gun advocates are missing is the distinction between anecdotal evidence and data. While Ungatt himself will probably go his entire life being a safe gun owner, it does not follow that therefore guns don't increase gun deaths. The opposite conclusion is so trivial and obvious as to be uninteresting for anyone who understands basic statistics. When this understanding is achieved, perhaps he will be able to understand the problem with the statement "I am a safe gun owner, therefore gun ownership is safe". Until then, you're probably wasting your time.

[windhound]

That's all well and good.
Academically speaking, if guns had never been invented it'd be much much harder for a single guy to kill dozens of people.

But, and here's the biggest problem as I see it, they were invented.
Not only invented, but in the US they were embraced on an extraordinarily large scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Cue the "we're number one" chant.

Now what?
There's +/- 300 million guns in the US.  Some of them unregistered and/or not currently residing with their registered owner.  The number of crimes committed with a legally possessed weapon is rather small.

This means that all those background checks, all the regulations mostly affect those legally possessing their guns.  Those who steal or illicitly acquire their gun aren't going to see those processes.

I haven't yet seen a proposal that would reduce gun crime in the US.  Smaller magazines is just sorta idiotic because of how many have been produced in the past that work just fine.
The biggest problem law-wise is that the people most qualified to write laws concerning guns don't want laws concerning guns.  So you get idiotic laws by people who are completely ignorant and based on how scary a gun looks.  Swap a body kit and suddenly its perfectly legal.
Dumb and doesn't do anyone any good.

btw, its worth mentioning that the full auto weapons as used by the military are already extraordinarily limited as far as civilian ownership.  Bit of a moot point comparing military and civilian gear.
Basically, if it was made before 1986 you can legally own it if you go through an FBI criminal background check, submit fingerprints and photos to the BATFE, pay a special tax, etc.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/16/news/la-pn-romney-illegal-automatic-weapons-20121016
Semi-auto guns are still dangerous, but there are semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns.  Here the lines blur so much that you get some really dumb laws trying to filter out "legitimate" and "illegitimate" guns.

We've done a Gun Control thing in the UMD  (and seriously, Spa isn't really the place). 
I made this point there, and I don't believe I ever got a good response.
Saying guns are bad, fine.  I'll agree, mass murderers would have a lot harder time without guns.  Now what?  You've got 300 million guns to round up, a population that overall likes their guns, and add to that the fact that the government completely failed in the war on drugs.

Now what makes you think a war on guns is workable?

[Shadow]

Please note that I wasn't actually arguing against any of that. Ungatt has taken the position that "more guns != more gun violence because I have lots and haven't killed anybody", which is absurd. My comment was directed at that, and wasn't intended to comment on the feasibility of actually reducing their numbers or the usefulness of any laws to that effect.

[windhound]

Ish.
Comment was more directed towards Firefight and the topic in general.

But there isn't any real distinction between number of guns and gun violence.
Past a certain saturation point I don't think there's any conclusions to draw
ie, if there's no guns obviously there will be limited gun crime, but if there are guns all bets are off.  Numbers don't appear to matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The US has a gun saturation of almost twice of number two, Serbia, but its down quite a bit on that list.  Serbia as well.  Finland and Switzerland also have high gun ownership but low firearm related deaths.

[Shadow]

Sure, it's not the only factor. But Ungatt seems to think it isn't a factor at all.

[Typhon]

You are aware than none of the guns I own are automatic, right?

He does not. This is his knowledge of gu

this made me laugh