Guns

[Danoff]

That is quite a hypothetical. And I am not aware or could empathize with such a specific situation. Does it happen nowadays?

I think if I were in the situation (being black, in the rural south on a ranch), I'd probably want an AR-15.

Like I referenced it is much more efficient to not put yourself in that situation.

I appreciate that, but not everyone is willing to leave (for whatever reason).

But if so and I was significantly outnumbered, with nowhere to run, a shotgun with enough rounds and fleeing to the basement can be an effective way to funnel those enemies.

I think you really don't want to get that close to a mob. They might also have guns.

I think the idea behind a gun like an AR-15 (when it comes to self-defense) is that you have visibility to a mob that you know is up to no good and is trespassing on your property, and you have some range-like a field. I'll admit that it's not a situation that most people would find themselves in.

I think an exempt written as law, for only coloured people living in these area's to own semi-auto rifles and can prove their in a high risk area, would be a good deterrent.

It's just an example.

I assume that these clan members for the rest are lawabiding.

I don't know that I'd be relying on that if I were living in certain locations with a certain skin color.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think if I were in the situation (being black, in the rural south on a ranch), I'd probably want an AR-15.



I appreciate that, but not everyone is willing to leave (for whatever reason).



I think you really don't want to get that close to a mob. They might also have guns.

I think the idea behind a gun like an AR-15 (when it comes to self-defense) is that you have visibility to a mob that you know is up to no good and is trespassing on your property, and you have some range-like a field. I'll admit that it's not a situation that most people would find themselves in.



It's just an example.



I don't know that I'd be relying on that if I were living in certain locations with a certain skin color.

Humor me here. Ideally its better to prevent such a thing happening then to arm people with AR-15's. In the long run one should strive for a society were guns arent neccesary. Europe isnt perfect, but such situation like you described just dont happen here.

I gladly sacrifice the freedom to own a gun to have a society with very low violent guncrime.

 

[Danoff]

Humor me here. Ideally its better to prevent such a thing happening then to arm people with AR-15's. In the long run one should strive for a society were guns arent neccesary. Europe isnt perfect, but such situation like you described just dont happen here.

Yes ideally it's better to prevent the situation. But the situation isn't prevented to the degree where I'd be comfortable NOT having such a gun in certain circumstances.

I gladly sacrifice the freedom to own a gun to have a society with very low violent guncrime.

If you're not a criminal or murderer, you sacrificing freedom will not bring about a reduction in violent crime.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes ideally it's better to prevent the situation. But the situation isn't prevented to the degree where I'd be comfortable NOT having such a gun in certain circumstances.



If you're not a criminal or murderer, you sacrificing freedom will not bring about a reduction in violent crime.

Do you live in an area where violent crime is rampant?

Like we discussed before, it isnt conclusive from both points of view. I can only speak from my own surroundings. There still is violent crime, but to much a lesser degree. How much Gunlaws have influence is still unconclusive, but I think it does so in my country.

 

[Danoff]

Do you live in an area where violent crime is rampant?

Looks like Denver is fairly similar to London.

Like we discussed before, it isnt conclusive from both points of view. I can only speak from my own surroundings. There still is violent crime, but to much a lesser degree. How much Gunlaws have influence is still unconclusive, but I think it does so in my country.

No, if you specifically are not a murderer or criminal, then your specific sacrifice of freedom does not reduce violent crime. It's tautological.

 

[Famine]

1. You are advocating a ban on guns like the AR-15, because of the high rate of fire. You say that lower-rate firearms give people the chance to escape when guns are criminally used against them. You say that guns like the Lee Enfield bolt-action gun are fine because of the lower rate of fire. You've said these things. Nope reread and use the language I used. I didnt even mention Lee Enfield at all! You did! You are bordering on dilusional.

You deny advocating for a semi-auto weapon ban, saying that semi-auto guns have a higher rate of fire, and saying that lower rate of fire gives people a better chance to escape? Interesting tactic:

I still very much think that high powered semi-automatic rifles should not be in possession of ordinary citizens.

Between semi-auto and bolt action, rate of fire is considerably higher.

To put it in practical sense, a mass shooter can do a lot more damage by using a semi-auto military stylke rifle then a bolt action hunting rifle. Those seconds between reloading can save lives.

I also specifically asked you if that was part of your point:

By slowing down the number of bullets that can come out in a minute, criminals can't kill as many people as quickly. Have I got that right?

And, though your formatting makes it hard to tell, you seemed to agree that this was the point, yes:

Yes criminals can do less damage with less powerfull weapons, do you even need to argue that? Someone can be faster with a faster car. Someone can kill more in a short span with a 30 round magazine, instead of 10 etc.

And yes, I mentioned the Lee Enfield (and nowhere said that you did) as an example of a bolt-action rifle with a high rate of fire that you would not seek to take out of the hands of the public.

2.1 That means that, somewhere, you must have drawn a mental line of "number of rounds/minute" above which a gun is unacceptable and below which a gun is acceptable. You must have a point at which a gun is firing too many rounds too quickly. Nope never suggested it. I just explained the difference between bolt-action and semi-auto. I dont have a point at which a gun is firing too many rounds too quickly. Read my posts!
2.2 What I'm literally asking you is to verbalise what that point is, and why you have chosen that point. When does a gun fire too many rounds too quickly for you? What we can say is that one example of the AR-15 has an effective rate of fire of 45 rounds/minute according to its manufacturer. A gun like the Lee Enfield can, in pretty ideal conditions, fire 20 rounds/minute. This means that your number is likely above 20 but below 45.
I didnt choose anything! I was supporting a ban that was put in law by a government. I am not claiming I know all the language in that ban. You are assuming I decided somehow that a gun above a certain rate of fire should be banned, which I did not claim, post or written.

You have said that semi-auto weapons you want to ban fire at a faster rate than bolt-action rifles that you don't want to ban, and seemed to justify that by saying bolt-action rifles give people better chance to escape from criminals using them against them.

That means you are against guns that fire at a certain rate, but for guns that fire below that rate. All I want to know is what that rate is. Seems you're trying to dodge the question about why a 45rpm gun is bad and a 20rpm gun is fine and where you draw the line.

3. And again, all I want is for you to say, here, what a "military style" weapon is. I read the link, which is how I know what it is, but all that tells me is what New Zealand classifies as an illegal gun. If you really read it, you wouldnt have asked the question repeatedly. To quote: "in New Zealand are those semi-automatic firearms known in the United States as "assault weapons" Nothing more or less and I literally stated I got that that phrase from the NZ incident.

"Assault weapons" is just as nebulous a phrase as "military style", I'm afraid. In fact that was part of the problem with the assault weapon ban.

4 .I asked a bunch of follow-up questions but they were, of course, ignored. I am not answering question, you already know the answer to.

I don't ask questions I already know the answer to. I don't need to.

You very rarely answer any questions, at least without being asked the same one three times.

5. Oh Jesus... I dont believe in jesus, but if he did exist pretty sure he cant help you here.

No, but if you're going to refer to "coloured people" and start suggesting literal segregation laws, I think you might need some help from deities.

 

[PocketZeven]

You deny advocating for a semi-auto weapon ban, saying that semi-auto guns have a higher rate of fire, and saying that lower rate of fire gives people a better chance to escape? Interesting tactic:



And yes, I mentioned the Lee Enfield (and nowhere said that you did) as an example of a bolt-action rifle with a high rate of fire that you would not seek to take out of the hands of the public.

You have said that semi-auto weapons fire at a faster rate than bolt-action rifles, and bolt-action rifles give people better chance to escape from criminals using them against them.

That means you are against guns that fire at a certain rate, but for guns that fire below that rate. All I want to know is what that rate is. Seems you're trying to dodge the question about why a 45rpm gun is bad and a 20rpm gun is fine and where you draw the line.

"Assault weapons" is just as nebulous a phrase as "military style", I'm afraid. In fact that was part of the problem with the assault weapon ban.

I don't ask questions I already know the answer to. I don't need to.

You very rarely answer any questions, at least without being asked the same one three times.

No, but if you're going to refer to "coloured people" and start suggesting literal segregation laws, I think you might.

I clearly stated that if you want to quote or paraphrase me use the same language i did. Read again and you considerably misrepresenting what I am writing. I suspect you are doing this purposefully. What you claim I am saying, to what I am actually saying are different things. You can clearly see the diferences in what I wrote and what you claim I wrote. Those are different things.

Misrepresenting a point with the point are you now?

I never proposed a rate of fire, so why ask me? I am not dodging any question here. I clearly stated military style semi auto rifles, why are you now exclusively focusing on rate of fire as a classification? It is bewildering to me.

If you keep misquoting/misrepresenting what I am saying, it is best to leave this discussion as is. (like other meanless discussions before) Learn to interpet sentences and quote more accurately, instead of spinning every sentence to follow your intentions or narrative. Why not just use the language I am using?

Edit:
example:
First you say:
You say that guns like the Lee Enfield bolt-action gun
Then you say:
And yes, I mentioned the Lee Enfield (and nowhere said that you did) as an example

You inaccuracies are becoming Trumpian. You literally said I "say that guns like the Lee Enfield bolt-action gun" and then claim somehow "nowhere said that you did". I guess you are using alternative facts.

Looks like Denver is fairly similar to London.



No, if you specifically are not a murderer or criminal, then your specific sacrifice of freedom does not reduce violent crime. It's tautological.

It does depend on the belief that guns, can cause certain crimes or just a symptom. Over which we have disagreed before. (mass-shootings) From my point of view it is because we dont have this complete freedom, we dont have high violent crime. I guess its a chicken and egg thing.

 

[Famine]

I clearly stated that if you want to quote or paraphrase me use the same language i did.

Why not just use the language I am using?

I can't. Your use of words, spellings and sentence structure is pretty alien to me, which is why I keep asking you questions. I can't work out what you're saying without asking questions - you even mixed up "unavailable" and "available" earlier, and that's literally completely opposed concepts.

Read again and you considerably misrepresenting what I am writing. I suspect you are doing this purposefully.

I'm not even interpreting. I'm asking you questions.

I never proposed a rate of fire, so why ask me? I am not dodging any question here. I clearly stated military style semi auto rifles, why are you now exclusively focusing on rate of fire as a classification? It is bewildering to me.

You cited the rate of fire as a difference between semi-auto weapons and bolt-action, and then even went as far to say that a slower rate of fire gives people a better chance to escape...

... so either you've thought about what rate of fire is acceptable and you just won't tell me, or you haven't and the entire concept of rate of fire as a qualifier for weapons bans is built on emotion.

 

[Danoff]

It does depend on the belief that guns, can cause certain crimes or just a symptom. Over which we have disagreed before. (mass-shootings) From my point of view it is because we dont have this complete freedom, we dont have high violent crime. I guess its a chicken and egg thing.

How does you owning guns cause mass shootings? I don't mean... how does owernship of guns cause it. I mean how does you having them cause mass shootings. To take a specific example. I own guns. How do my guns contribute to mass shootings? None of mine have ever been used in a mass shooting or a crime of any time.

Edit:

I should say during my ownership. I own a couple of actual WWII rifles and it's possible that any soldier that might have carried those in WWII could have committed a crime with them.

 

[PocketZeven]

I can't. Your use of words, spellings and sentence structure is pretty alien to me, which is why I keep asking you questions. I can't work out what you're saying without asking questions - you even mixed up "unavailable" and "available" earlier, and that's literally completely opposed concepts.

I'm not even interpreting. I'm asking you questions.

You cited the rate of fire as a difference between semi-auto weapons and bolt-action, and then even went as far to say that a slower rate of fire gives people a better chance to escape...

... so either you've thought about what rate of fire is acceptable and you just won't tell me, or you haven't and the entire concept of rate of fire as a qualifier for weapons bans is built on emotion.

Thats why I corrected it.

You rephrasing my posts in a question. And when I point out the inaccuracy (and therefore cant answer), you claim that I did say the inaccuracy?!?

No I did not, others did the classification. I merely supported and applauded it and advocate that the US do something similair. Nowhere am I representing this ban as my own or from my own creation or from my emotion (another false suggestion/conclusion). If you want to ask what rate is acceptable ask the ones that initiated the ban. I told you this before, but you completely ignore the answer. You are asking question as if I am the one who created this ban. I support certain football clubs, but that doesnt mean I know of its inner workings?

How does you owning guns cause mass shootings? I don't mean... how does owernship of guns cause it. I mean how does you having them cause mass shootings. To take a specific example. I own guns. How do my guns contribute to mass shootings? None of mine have ever been used in a mass shooting or a crime of any time.

Edit:

I should say during my ownership. I own a couple of actual WWII rifles and it's possible that any soldier that might have carried those in WWII could have committed a crime with them.

I explained my opinion in another thread before. Perhaps I should use the example of drugs. The availability of drugs, cause crime, deaths and addiction. Now replace drugs with guns. It isnt nuanced, but in essence the same idea. Easy acces to guns increases the risk of misuse by people. To nuance I dont say guns are solely to blame at all. I am just stating it is an important factor.

 

[Famine]

Thats why I corrected it.

Several posts later... In the meantime I'd responded to the actual words you'd used as best I could.

You rephrasing my posts in a question. And when I point out the inaccuracy (and therefore cant answer), you claim that I did say the inaccuracy?!?

See, I can't respond to this, because I don't understand the words you're using in the way you're using them - and I certainly can't response using the same language, because it's alien to me.

All I can say is "I'm literally asking you questions to clarify what it is you're saying.". Then, once we've got that down, you claim you never actually said that and we're back at the start.

No I did not, others did the classification.

I don't even know what that's a response to, because it's in the middle of your post. Are you disagreeing with something you said or... what? It's impenetrable.

This will no doubt move us back into "English isn't my first language" territory, and I'm doing my best to make allowances for that... but when that's coming from someone who then accuses me repeatedly of not reading the incredible difficult to read things you're posting when I'm asking questions to find out what you mean only for you to then have a bulletpoint tantrum at me, my levels of patience wear out real quick.

I merely supported and applauded it and advocate that the US do something similair. Nowhere am I representing this ban as my own or from my own creation or from my emotion (another false suggestion/conclusion).

I can sort of deal with this bit though.

You said that semi-auto guns have a higher rate of fire than bolt-action ones - and I agree in principle. Nobody who banned some guns from somewhere ("this ban"? What ban?) did this, you did. You said that with a lower rate of fire, people have a better chance to escape - and I agree in principle. You said that you support the banning of these (HPMSSA, since I can't be bothered typing out all your qualifiers) guns.

That absolutely, 100% means that, at some point, you have considered the rate of fire of HPMSSA guns and figured it's too high, while excusing bolt-action guns and their lower rate of fire as acceptable. That absolutely, 100% means that either you have a figure in your head where you think "Whoah, that gun fires too many bullets too quickly for people to be allowed to own!" or you haven't and you just feel like 45 rounds a minute is too much.

There's no third option. You've either thought about it and rationally arrived at a number, or you haven't and it's all emotions and feelings.

I recall we also did this in the NZ thread over magazine capacities, and no number was forthcoming then either. That, and your protestations here, say it's something you've not considered and it's all emotional. That's a bad place to create law, and it's how we end up with the insane abortion laws discussed elsewhere - so perhaps now is the time to start evaluating it rationally.

But I suspect not.

If you want to ask what rate is acceptable ask the ones that initiated the ban. I told you this before, but you completely ignore the answer. You are asking question as if I am the one who created this ban.

No, I'm asking as if you advocate it. And you do. Or at least have said that you do, as close as I can work out.

 

[Danoff]

I explained my opinion in another thread before. Perhaps I should use the example of drugs. The availability of drugs, cause crime, deaths and addiction. Now replace drugs with guns. It isnt nuanced, but in essence the same idea. Easy acces to guns increases the risk of misuse by people. To nuance I dont say guns are solely to blame at all. I am just stating it is an important factor.

Me having guns doesn't make them available to others. The fact that I own guns literally does not make them any more accessible or available to anyone who would commit a crime. So, again, how does my freedom here affect mass killings or violent crime in general?

My guns are not for sale, or stealable, or otherwise available in any way to someone who would commit a crime with them.

 

[PocketZeven]

There is a third option. I did not have a figure in my head. Simply because I do now their respective rate of fire. the nearest in math I used to interpet military style semi auto rifles is: range+high capacity magazine+high power rounds+fire rate= too dangerous. I did not base any conclusion solely on rate of fire or any number, like you seem to suggest I did. Which is not accurate. If you think that reasoning is just emotion then that is your choice to make that conclusion.

Like if I claim Messi is the GOAT. I dont know how many goals exactly and how many games he played and how many assists, but my opinion is still he is the GOAT. You are suggesting I thought about how many goals per game a GOAT should score to be considered the GOAT.

I am not advocating it, as if it was my own. I advocate that the USA follow the example NZ made.

 

[Famine]

That absolutely, 100% means that either you have a figure in your head where you think "Whoah, that gun fires too many bullets too quickly for people to be allowed to own!" or you haven't and you just feel like 45 rounds a minute is too much.

There's no third option.

There is a third option. I did not have a figure in my head.

That's the second option.

Like if I claim Messi is the GOAT. I dont know how many goals exactly and how many games he played and how many assists, but my opinion is still he is the GOAT. You are suggesting I thought about how many goals per game a GOAT should score to be considered the GOAT.

And are you advocating for law establishing this Messi as a ruminant?

I recall we also did this in the NZ thread over magazine capacities, and no number was forthcoming then either. That, and your protestations here, say it's something you've not considered and it's all emotional. That's a bad place to create law, and it's how we end up with the insane abortion laws discussed elsewhere - so perhaps now is the time to start evaluating it rationally.

 

[PocketZeven]

Me having guns doesn't make them available to others. The fact that I own guns literally does not make them any more accessible or available to anyone who would commit a crime. So, again, how does my freedom here affect mass killings or violent crime in general?

My guns are not for sale, or stealable, or otherwise available in any way to someone who would commit a crime with them.

Others might. and thats where the sacrifice comes in. You giving up your right, so that idiots etc. wont own guns as well.

 

[Danoff]

Others might. and thats where the sacrifice comes in. You giving up your right, so that idiots etc. wont own guns as well.

I don't understand what I have to do with them. My right is not causing any problems, so what does that have to do with others?

I'm being intentionally dense here to make you do the linking, and I'm doing that to drive home a very intentional point.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You referenced I was being disingenuous to @Danoff . So i was just saying it isn’t my intent and hope he doesn’t think so either.

Sorry let me be more clear, I was meaning to say overall in this thread, not just with Danoff. I was simply using his post as jumping point to give insight on to why I think you're being disingenuous at times.

To summarize my opinion and make sure I am consistent and that your accusations are inaccurate:
(1)- Semi automatic military style rifles (AR-15 style) should be banned anywhere for civilian ownership. Except for use at a gun range. Where these rifles are not allowed to leave premises.
(2)- gun license requirement
(3)- Open carrying should not be legal. Except law inforcement.
(4)- registration of all guns sold
(5)- I have interest to collect guns from the American civil war, because I am a fan of westerns
(6)- guns for target shooting should be stored at gun range
(7)- when kept at home they are stored safely under lock and key
(8)- when transporting the gun one should use safety lockbox.
(9)- guns for hunting are only allowed in designated area’s and when hunting should be reported to an oversight Organisation.
(10)- Lever/bolt/pump guns have a lower rate of fire and smaller magazine.

Also realize that guns are not a right in the rest of the world and considered a privelege.

Okay so I've taken the liberty to number each of your points...

So before I get into them, you don't get to decided that a sovereign nation and group of people who express their right to vote and follow written constitution, don't have a inherent or human right to defend themselves. There are various laws in other nations that I don't see as a justifiable right, but it is their right and thus who am I to dictate it? Same goes for you. So if you're going to argue a view point I'd think trying to dictate from that point is counter productive for you.

As for your reasons. (1) Why should these guns again be banned?

(2) What are the requirements?

(3) Why should open carry not be legal?

(4) Should owners have to register each time they buy a gun? Or is it a single registration and track how many guns a person has, does that mean there should be a limit?

(5) There is so much wrong with this statement I really don't know where to begin...

(6) So what's to stop someone from taking guns off the range? Also any gun can be used for target shooting, my defensive carry weapon is something I take to the range and practice with, as much as the competition guns me and my dad practice with... Kind of the point

(7) Absolutely agree with you, though I think this should be primarily for those who have kids in that household.

(8) Why? That makes no sense in even owning the gun. You've basically relegated the ownership of these tools to defend oneself as sacred items that should only be locked up in singular locations and used in singular locations. That's quite the bubble you've set up and live in.

(9) How would such a group even monitor that? Even in nations that also have gun ownership and lower gun crime rates, they don't even do this.

(10) So you're okay with Semi Auto Shotguns, but not AR platforms...

You're okay with bolt action rifles that can hold 20 round magazines and be fired quickly with little practice, as well as lever action. There are also bolt actions that take AR magazines. With some practice a person could easily shoot relatively quick with a bolt, pump or lever action rifle/long gun. Larger Caliber guns have the ability to carry more energy (especially super sonic ammo) and thus create more damage even if they aren't at as high of a rate of fire as a semi-auto .223. Someone with 10 box magazines of 10 round 300 WM or .338 are going to do more damage to people especially if practiced than a guy with a .223.

What's more interesting is you claim to know about weapons and shooting, yet you say various things like that of what's been quoted here and by others that is contrary to it.

If we go by your idea of military style, then this is as much of a military rifle as what you want banned

 

[PocketZeven]

Sorry let me be more clear, I was meaning to say overall in this thread, not just with Danoff. I was simply using his post as jumping point to give insight on to why I think you're being disingenuous at times.



Okay so I've taken the liberty to number each of your points...

So before I get into them, you don't get to decided that a sovereign nation and group of people who express their right to vote and follow written constitution, don't have a inherent or human right to defend themselves. There are various laws in other nations that I don't see as a justifiable right, but it is their right and thus who am I to dictate it? Same goes for you. So if you're going to argue a view point I'd think trying to dictate from that point is counter productive for you.

As for your reasons. (1) Why should these guns again be banned?

(2) What are the requirements?

(3) Why should open carry not be legal?

(4) Should owners have to register each time they buy a gun? Or is it a single registration and track how many guns a person has, does that mean there should be a limit?

(5) There is so much wrong with this statement I really don't know where to begin...

(6) So what's to stop someone from taking guns off the range? Also any gun can be used for target shooting, my defensive carry weapon is something I take to the range and practice with, as much as the competition guns me and my dad practice with... Kind of the point

(7) Absolutely agree with you, though I think this should be primarily for those who have kids in that household.

(8) Why? That makes no sense in even owning the gun. You've basically relegated the ownership of these tools to defend oneself as sacred items that should only be locked up in singular locations and used in singular locations. That's quite the bubble you've set up and live in.

(9) How would such a group even monitor that? Even in nations that also have gun ownership and lower gun crime rates, they don't even do this.

(10) So you're okay with Semi Auto Shotguns, but not AR platforms...

You're okay with bolt action rifles that can hold 20 round magazines and be fired quickly with little practice, as well as lever action. There are also bolt actions that take AR magazines. With some practice a person could easily shoot relatively quick with a bolt, pump or lever action rifle/long gun. Larger Caliber guns have the ability to carry more energy (especially super sonic ammo) and thus create more damage even if they aren't at as high of a rate of fire as a semi-auto .223. Someone with 10 box magazines of 10 round 300 WM or .338 are going to do more damage to people especially if practiced than a guy with a .223.

What's more interesting is you claim to know about weapons and shooting, yet you say various things like that of what's been quoted here and by others that is contrary to it.

If we go by your idea of military style, then this is as much of a military rifle as what you want banned

These are opinions and just sharing my point of view. I understand you disagree. But I have already gone in-depth in your points in previous posts. And i really don’t want to sound like a broken record.

 

[Famine]

Anyway. We've established that when you're talking about supporting a ban on "military-style, high-powered, semi-auto rifles", "military-style" guns are whatever you think they are, whether ever used by the military or not (quick note, the civilian AR-15 lacks select-fire and full-auto, while the original military version and the M16 have both), and "semi-auto" means more than 20 rounds per minute but less than 45, but you haven't really thought about it.

So how does one measure "high-powered"? What defines a gun's "power"? Are we talking projectile weight and speed (and thus impact energy) or something else? Is effective range part of the power measurement?

(don't worry, we'll do the "rifle" part next)


I'm kinda invested in how you'll answer @Danoff's post too. Edit: Ah, by not answering it. Pity.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't understand what I have to do with them. My right is not causing any problems, so what does that have to do with others?

I'm being intentionally dense here to make you do the linking, and I'm doing that to drive home a very intentional point.

I understand the us have more an individualistic culture then Europe. I am just hoping someone could see it from my point of view.

 

[Danoff]

I understand the us have more an individualistic culture then Europe. I am just hoping someone could see it from my point of view.

It's not a matter of culture. I literally want to know the link between my guns and violent crime. I own guns. My guns have never participated in a violent crime (during my ownership at least). Please explain how my owning guns affects any US violent crime in a negative way. You seem to think there is a link, I'd like to know what it is.

To help you with your determination, I'm the first owner of one of my handguns, it has never been used in a crime. I'm the second owner of a different handgun, that one was presumably never used in a crime since its previous owner was never convicted or even accused of a violent crime. The rest are antiques.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

These are opinions and just sharing my point of view. I understand you disagree. But I have already gone in-depth in your points in previous posts. And i really don’t want to sound like a broken record.

Yes and just because they're your opinion doesn't meant they're not subject to scrutiny. Also saying you want to own certain guns from the civil war era, because you like Westerns, which are two different time frames of history in general but gun history...shows a disconnect, is not your opinion it's a statement of what you seem to believe factual.

Also your opinions like anyone else are formulated based on information. A true opinion would be you thinking Blue is a more likable color for you than Red, or Rocky Road Ice Cream tastes better than Mint Chip. Saying that Semi Auto weapons should be banned from civilian use and only be allowed at a gun range. Or when asked why not those of contemporary non semi auto, or long guns that don't meet your arbitrary military style design, you claim they serve no purpose to civilians or don't have high enough rate of fire... These two things are not simply opinions. Furthermore, I should say that stating "it's just my opinion" is not an excuse for lack of knowledge on a topic that you actively decided to participate in for whatever reason.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes and just because they're your opinion doesn't meant they're not subject to scrutiny. Also saying you want to own certain guns from the civil war era, because you like Westerns, which are two different time frames of history in general but gun history...shows a disconnect, is not your opinion it's a statement of what you seem to believe factual.

Also your opinions like anyone else are formulated based on information. A true opinion would be you thinking Blue is a more likable color for you than Red, or Rocky Road Ice Cream tastes better than Mint Chip. Saying that Semi Auto weapons should be banned from civilian use and only be allowed at a gun range. Or when asked why not those of contemporary non semi auto, or long guns that don't meet your arbitrary military style design, you claim they serve no purpose to civilians or don't have high enough rate of fire... These two things are not simply opinions. Furthermore, I should say that stating "it's just my opinion" is not an excuse for lack of knowledge on a topic that you actively decided to participate in for whatever reason.

You mean there are no westerns during the civil war? Dont try to portray me as ignorant. As an american you should now the periods overlap. Civil war westerns: Django, the good, the bad and the ugly, the hatefull eight etc..

You are arguing on the details? I have been quite clear, Semi auto rifles similair to AR-15 are more dangerous then bolt/lever/pump action rifles. It is in my opinion that civilians have no business owning these for the purpose of self-defense or hunting. The "military style" I was literally quoting from legislation in NZ. However you made conclusion even before actuallty reading my posts. I dont have to define the term, because I didnt decide to use it. I clearly stated why in my opinions civilians should not own certain weapons. You misquote me by claiming :

Or when asked why not those of contemporary non semi auto, or long guns that don't meet your arbitrary military style design, you claim they serve no purpose to civilians or don't have high enough rate of fire... These two things are not simply opinions.

Why do you say that I claim that certain weapons dont meet my arbritrary military style design?? That is not true. Also I did say they have a large magazine capacity and rate of fire that, in my opinion are not needed for self protection and hunting. However i did not say their rate of fire is not high enough! You are misrepresenting my posts.

edit:

It's not a matter of culture. I literally want to know the link between my guns and violent crime. I own guns. My guns have never participated in a violent crime (during my ownership at least). Please explain how my owning guns affects any US violent crime in a negative way. You seem to think there is a link, I'd like to know what it is.

To help you with your determination, I'm the first owner of one of my handguns, it has never been used in a crime. I'm the second owner of a different handgun, that one was presumably never used in a crime since its previous owner was never convicted or even accused of a violent crime. The rest are antiques.

I understand you are trying to engage this discussion from your personal point of view. My reasoning however is that although your personal weapons may never form any danger and may never see any action, for the greater good it could potentially make society safer.

Ill try again by using Cocaine as an example:

I hypothetically occasionally use cocaine and never misuse it. However there are many who do and therefore Cocaine is illegal. From my point of view it is in my rights to buy cocaine and use it. Perhaps I just want to own a large stash, without using it. Yet it is made illegal to protect people from addiction and misuse.

Because you have the availability and right to buy guns, that also means that potentially criminals also (who misuse) have the same right and availability. Because USA have so many guns, lack of strict registration and relatively easily obtainable there is higher probability of misuse. What I mean with misuse:
- 70% of illegal guns in mexico come from the USA
- Other latin countries vary around 50%
- USA have highest gun related mortality in the developed world
- USA have the highest number mass-shootings in the world. In absolute numbers and relative numbers.

Strict gunlaws like registration, could potentially decrease illegal guntrade with latin countries. Stricter gunlaws could potentially prevent or detect individuals that plan to misuse guns. If people want to own guns for homedefense, hunting or targetshooting isnt it a good idea to have rules for how you carry or store inbetween hunting, target shooting or homedefense. Like racecars are not allowed on a normal road for safety reasons. Not because you personally will misuse it, but others might potentially will. That is the reason why drugs, lawn darts, exotic animals etc. are illegal.

 

[Danoff]

I understand you are trying to engage this discussion from your personal point of view. My reasoning however is that although your personal weapons may never form any danger and may never see any action, for the greater good it could potentially make society safer.

Ill try again by using Cocaine as an example:

I hypothetically occasionally use cocaine and never misuse it. However there are many who do and therefore Cocaine is illegal. From my point of view it is in my rights to buy cocaine and use it. Perhaps I just want to own a large stash, without using it. Yet it is made illegal to protect people from addiction and misuse.

Because you have the availability and right to buy guns, that also means that potentially criminals also (who misuse) have the same right and availability. Because USA have so many guns, lack of strict registration and relatively easily obtainable there is higher probability of misuse. What I mean with misuse:
- 70% of illegal guns in mexico come from the USA
- Other latin countries vary around 50%
- USA have highest gun related mortality in the developed world
- USA have the highest number mass-shootings in the world. In absolute numbers and relative numbers.

Strict gunlaws like registration, could potentially decrease illegal guntrade with latin countries. Stricter gunlaws could potentially prevent or detect individuals that plan to misuse guns. If people want to own guns for homedefense, hunting or targetshooting isnt it a good idea to have rules for how you carry or store inbetween hunting, target shooting or homedefense. Like racecars are not allowed on a normal road for safety reasons. Not because you personally will misuse it, but others might potentially will. That is the reason why drugs, lawn darts, exotic animals etc. are illegal.

Yup, that's the link I wanted you to explicitly make. That even though I'm not causing a problem, I'm collateral damage. Now I want you to think about why I'm collateral damage. Why is it that in order to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them do they need to be kept out of my hands? In order to seize the weapons of would-be murderers, why is it necessary to seize weapons that I have which are causing no problems and pose no threat?

There's nothing universal or mathematical linking those things. There's nothing inherent that says that in order to remove dangerous guns you must also remove guns which pose no danger. You're making that assumption, and you're doing it for a very easily recognizable reason, because you have been, even if not explicitly, perhaps implicitly told that those are linked.

They're not.

A good solution, a thoughtful and careful solution, a moral solution, would not require a sacrifice of someone who was doing nothing wrong in order to catch people who are. If cars are crashing you don't ban cars. If banks are getting robbed you don't ban banks. You try to think about ways that enable people who are not causing problems to go about their lives while also catching the people that you do need to stop.

In short, it's lazy to say that I need to turn in my guns so that other people can be stopped. How do I know it's lazy? Because that plan can't tell the difference between me and them. And there's a big difference.


Edit:

I adopted a kid. You want to talk about trusting someone with dangerous power that has the ability to ruin lives, adoption has to be one of the highest. I was put through a very careful psychological evaluation to determine whether or not I could be entrusted with the life of a child who needed a home. I was questioned about everything from my parental upbringing to my sex life. And my wife was also questioned, separately, and our answers were compared against one another.

In total, the evaluation did not ultimately consume much of our lives, but it was thorough. In the end, I was authorized by the US government to have a far greater and more important power than owning a firearm.

Now if they can make that kind of determination, why do we think that it's impossible to know whether one can responsibly own a gun? Even an automatic weapon.

It really does come down to how much time and energy you're willing to put into getting it right.

Edit 2:

Oh and of course you know they had to evaluate the gun situation in the adoptive home.

 

[Famine]

I have been quite clear, Semi auto rifles similair to AR-15 are more dangerous then bolt/lever/pump action rifles.

How are you quantifying danger?

It is in my opinion that civilians have no business owning these for the purpose of self-defense or hunting.

Once you have quantified danger, how are you deciding where on the danger scale to draw the line between guns civilians may own and guns civilians may not own (and what on Earth makes you think you may sit in judgment over other people's business?)?

 

[PocketZeven]

Yup, that's the link I wanted you to explicitly make. That even though I'm not causing a problem, I'm collateral damage. Now I want you to think about why I'm collateral damage. Why is it that in order to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them do they need to be kept out of my hands? In order to seize the weapons of would-be murderers, why is it necessary to seize weapons that I have which are causing no problems and pose no threat?

There's nothing universal or mathematical linking those things. There's nothing inherent that says that in order to remove dangerous guns you must also remove guns which pose no danger. You're making that assumption, and you're doing it for a very easily recognizable reason, because you have been, even if not explicitly, perhaps implicitly told that those are linked.

They're not.

A good solution, a thoughtful and careful solution, a moral solution, would not require a sacrifice of someone who was doing nothing wrong in order to catch people who are. If cars are crashing you don't ban cars. If banks are getting robbed you don't ban banks. You try to think about ways that enable people who are not causing problems to go about their lives while also catching the people that you do need to stop.

In short, it's lazy to say that I need to turn in my guns so that other people can be stopped. How do I know it's lazy? Because that plan can't tell the difference between me and them. And there's a big difference.

Hold up. I wasnt claiming you need to turn in your guns you own. I dont remember you owning ar-15 style rifles. I thought I was clear, but I stated that ,within context of the USA, I was primarily for strict registration and gun licensing. That is less of a collateral damage for you retroactively. You are required to apply for a license, but apart from the costs, most law abiding citizens should have no problem obtaining them.

Even if we were talking about a ban of all guns (which I wasnt). Do you think cocaine should be illegal? There is also no 100% conclusive proof that banning cocaine reduces misuse, one could argue it increases crime.

Edit:

I adopted a kid. You want to talk about trusting someone with dangerous power that has the ability to ruin lives, adoption has to be one of the highest. I was put through a very careful psychological evaluation to determine whether or not I could be entrusted with the life of a child who needed a home. I was questioned about everything from my parental upbringing to my sex life. And my wife was also questioned, separately, and our answers were compared against one another.

In total, the evaluation did not ultimately consume much of our lives, but it was thorough. In the end, I was authorized by the US government to have a far greater and more important power than owning a firearm.

Now if they can make that kind of determination, why do we think that it's impossible to know whether one can responsibly own a gun? Even an automatic weapon.

It really does come down to how much time and energy you're willing to put into getting it right.

Edit 2:

Oh and of course you know they had to evaluate the gun situation in the adoptive home.

Do you think that proces was too much or actually justified? Because I am actually advocating that gunowners should also be evaluated exactly like you were for adoption.

How are you quantifying danger?

Once you have quantified danger, how are you deciding where on the danger scale to draw the line between guns civilians may own and guns civilians may not own (and what on Earth makes you think you may sit in judgment over other people's business?)?

You keep focusing on one specific thing I say, without nuance. There are other factors that also weigh in. I advocated for strict registration and gun licensing. You love to ask questions you already know the answer to. The danger is being shot, hence certain guns pose more danger and certain guns more. In this case less is better. It isnt for me to decide how less is best. That is for the people in the USA for to decide.

An opinion is an opinion, I am not judging peoples business and please dont portray me as such. If you want to go out and buy an AR-15, go ahead. My humble opinion is you shouldnt. And how do you think I am passing "judgement" over anyones business?

 

[Danoff]

Hold up. I wasnt claiming you need to turn in your guns you own.

What about my M1 Carbine? Semi-automatic with a 15 round magazine.

What about my M1 Garand? Semi-automatic with an 8-round clip.

We've already discussed how handguns are used in far more US homicides than semi-auto rifles. I suppose you're trying to say that because I don't live in New Zealand that I shouldn't have to turn mine in? Does that make a lot of sense to you?

Do you think cocaine should be illegal? There is also no 100% conclusive proof that banning cocaine reduces misuse, one could argue it increases crime.

No I do not. Banning cocaine suffers from a similar problem.

 

[PocketZeven]

What about my M1 Carbine? Semi-automatic with a 15 round magazine.

What about my M1 Garand? Semi-automatic with an 8-round clip.

We've already discussed how handguns are used in far more US homicides than semi-auto rifles. I suppose you're trying to say that because I don't live in New Zealand that I shouldn't have to turn mine in? Does that make a lot of sense to you?



No I do not. Banning cocaine suffers from a similar problem.

I am also a WW2 nut. I lived and breathed the history of operation market garden.

You are confusing 2 things. I do support the ban in NZ. I would support a similar ban in the USA, but I know isnt realistic. So in the context of the usa and the constitution I am for registration and licensing.

 

[Danoff]

I am also a WW2 nut. I lived and breathed the history of operation market garden.

You are confusing 2 things. I do support the ban in NZ. I would support a similar ban in the USA, but I know isnt realistic. So in the context of the usa and the constitution I am for registration and licensing.

Pretend for a second that I live in NZ, and apply all the same reasoning I just presented you with. Don't avoid the tough questions here, dig in.

 

[Famine]

You keep focusing on one specific thing I say, without nuance.

Details are important.

You'll notice that I have attempted to get you to very clearly explain every single component of the phrase "high-powered, military-style, semi-auto rifle" (except, to this point, "rifle"). Why have I done this? So we can very clearly see, in detail, what it is you're talking about rather than some nebulous buzzwords. You haven't done so, but that's really to be expected at this point.

You love to ask questions you already know the answer to.

Not really. I'm asking you questions about your opinion precisely because I don't know the answer to them - and because I suspect you don't either.

I suspect that because your answers have been wishy-washy at best. You seem to be having difficulty explaining exactly why semi-auto is bad and why military-style is bad, and you haven't even bothered with high-powered yet. When vague answers to pretty simple questions appear attached to someone who has extremely strongly held opinions, it's because they're beliefs that have never been analysed properly. My hope is that you critically analyse them and either craft answers that justify the opinion or change the opinion if they cannot be justified.

The danger is being shot, hence certain guns pose more danger and certain guns more.

I didn't ask what the danger was, I asked how you quantified it. That means how you can assign a number to how dangerous something is, in order to objectively measure it. I also asked how you decide how dangerous something is before you say the public "have no business" owning them.

When you say "certain guns pose more danger", how are you measuring the amount of danger the guns pose?

An opinion is an opinion, I am not judging peoples business and please dont portray me as such. If you want to go out and buy an AR-15, go ahead. My humble opinion is you shouldnt. And how do you think I am passing "judgement" over anyones business?

It is in my opinion that civilians have no business owning these for the purpose of self-defense or hunting.