The general firearms thread!

[Bester]

Ugh. How I wish we could own/shoot guns in Europe. UGHHHHHHHHHHHH.

 

Americans have guns. We've got legal whores and weed. Eastern Europeans have everything of the above, but no civilization.

 

I guess nobody can have everything...

[Woldan]

secondly that weapon doesn't fit into any of the categories for weapons that are around here in Sweden, there are no clubs that compete with that type of gun, and you're not allowed to hunt with pistol caliber weapons, and it's not a "salongsgevär" (singleshot class 4 .22 rifle weighing less than 2.5 kilos)

Well, that its not a rifle caliber is highly debatable, its a blackpowder firearm that shoots round balls, there are thousands of muzzleloader rifles that shoot the same round ball. (.451 that is). If it had a cylinder for cartridges like say .45 colt (there are conversion cylinders for this gun) it would be clearly not a rifle caliber gun. 

Its pretty much a multi-shot muzzle loader rifle. Don't you guys have special laws for blackpowder firearms and clubs that shoot muzzleloaders?  

 

As for being a poor SOB....

 

Ugh. How I wish we could own/shoot guns in Europe. UGHHHHHHHHHHHH.

 

Americans have guns. We've got legal whores and weed. Eastern Europeans have everything of the above, but no civilization.

 

I guess nobody can have everything...

Don't be upset, sooner or later everyone will be in the same boat, a boat where guns of any kind are completely outlawed. Thats one of the main goals from certain delegates of the EU. (ms. Cecilia Malmström in particular). And looking how things are going here in the EU, and with the media doing great work at antagonizing gun owners 24/7 it will happen in the next 10 years. 

And the world will be beautiful again. Or thats what some people with fairly limited intelligence expect to happen. 

Edited September 16, 2014 by Woldan

[Gorgon]

The Lee Van Cleef gun is stupid, unless you are Lee Van Cleef.

[Woldan]

The Lee Van Cleef gun is stupid, unless you are Lee Van Cleef.

 

Stupid? This gun has an IQ of over 130. 

[Gorgon]

Pour powder, seal the chamber, mush the bullet into the grease or whatever that is, place percussion caps at the other end. It's like loading six muskets. Takes about that long too. 

 

If you had to travel back in time on a mission in je olde west it would be just the thing though. 

[Azdeus]

Well, that its not a rifle caliber is highly debatable, its a blackpowder firearm that shoots round balls, there are thousands of muzzleloader rifles that shoot the same round ball. (.451 that is). If it had a cylinder for cartridges like say .45 colt (there are conversion cylinders for this gun) it would be clearly not a rifle caliber gun. 

Its pretty much a multi-shot muzzle loader rifle. Don't you guys have special laws for blackpowder firearms and clubs that shoot muzzleloaders?  

 

As for being a poor SOB....

 

*Brohug*

 

I had to look this up, because it'd been more than ten years since I had any good recollection of these rules, and I found this;

 

9 §

Med kulgevär avses i dessa föreskrifter räfflade tvåhandsvapen som är avsedda att läggas an mot axeln, är konstruerade för kulpatroner och vars piplängd är minst 45 cm. Kulgevär av halvautomatisk eller pumprepeterande typ får inte ha vik- eller fällbara kolvar eller kolvar av teleskopisk typ. Med kulpatron avses här en patron laddad med röksvagt krut och där kula tillsammans med patronhylsa samt driv- och tändsats bildar en enhet. Här avses dock inte s.k. slug- eller brennekepatron och liknande patroner avsedda för hagelgevär.

---

Rough translation

9§ By firearms these rules apply to rifled twohanded weapons meant to be held against the shoulder, is designed for cartridges and has a barrel length of at least 45 cm. Firearms of semiautomatic och pumpaction may not have a folding or collapsing stock. With cartridge it is referred to a casing loaded with smokeless powder and where the bullet together with the casing, propellant and primer form an unified whole. This does not apply to so called slug or brennekecartridge or similar meant for shotguns.

 

So, nope. :/

 

I was only slightly surprised to see that you're not allowed to have folding stocks, but not much. Afterall you're not allowed to have a hunting rifle that looks "militaristic".

[Woldan]

Pour powder, seal the chamber, mush the bullet into the grease or whatever that is, place percussion caps at the other end. It's like loading six muskets. Takes about that long too. 

 

If you had to travel back in time on a mission in je olde west it would be just the thing though.

 

Shooting blackpowder guns is much more complicated and ten times more fun than modern rifles. I love modern rifles too, and have many and shoot them, but their advantages are also their disadvantages. They have little soul, are boringly efficient and ugly compared to the blackpowder smoke poles from the 18th and 19th centuries.

Today its all about saving money, so you'll find lots of plastic, aluminum cast, burrs and bad, cheap finishes on modern guns. Back in the day guns were a work of art and those who made them were proud of their designs. Also blackpowder smells so much better than modern nitro powders. 

 

Sure, if I have to defend myself I'm super happy with the efficiency of my scoped rifle which shoots pretty much hole-in-hole all day long at 110 yds, with my loads, but for fun, collecting and aesthetics black powder firearms are hard to beat.

 

So, nope. :/

 

I was only slightly surprised to see that you're not allowed to have folding stocks, but not much. Afterall you're not allowed to have a hunting rifle that looks "militaristic".

Well, I've only read about guns with cartridges, there might be completely different laws applying to guns that don't use cartridges like muzzle loaders and cap and ball revolvers. Also ''smokeless'' powder is mentioned in that text, thats modern nitro powder, but nothing about black powder.

 

I know in my country muzzle loaders are considered ''less effective weapons'', which can be bought by people 18 yrs or older. None of the standard firearms laws apply to muzzleloaders, except carrying them in public, which requires a special license.

A buddy of mine, an avid target shooter, lived in Sweden for a couple of years, I'll ask him.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Woldan

[Agiel]

Random funny convo I had with a female friend I thought you firearms enthusiasts might enjoy.

 

 

Girl is the girlfriend of a friend of mine and was describing having tried Skyrim and how she thought it was kinda dumb. I'd expressed my love for New Vegas before and she thought it sounded interesting. Her complaints about Skyrim though were mostly with the controls and just not knowing what to do (she's not a big gamer) so I said maybe she wouldn't like New Vegas either.

 

  She then expressed she thought she would cause she could probably understand it better. I asked what she meant and she said the funniest **** ever:

 

"Well Skyrim had magic and all that weird crap. I doubt New Vegas has that cause who needs magic when you have a gun?"

 

 

I laughed my butt off as I pictured a mighty wizard teleporting into our era ready to light everyone on fire with the sheer power of his mind before being mowed down by an AK-47.

 

I think that's an underlying theme for Arcanum, PoE, and to a lesser extent Dragon Age, where firearms and gunpowder are poised to alter the calculus of battle since death from afar is being brought to the masses, not just to a privileged few.

[Tsuga C]

Don't be upset, sooner or later everyone will be in the same boat, a boat where guns of any kind are completely outlawed. Thats one of the main goals from certain delegates of the EU. (ms. Cecilia Malmström in particular). And looking how things are going here in the EU, and with the media doing great work at antagonizing gun owners 24/7 it will happen in the next 10 years. 

And the world will be beautiful again. Or thats what some people with fairly limited intelligence expect to happen.

You Euros could do with your own NRA or GoA, but for them to have a fighting chance you'd also need a Bill of Rights that included an unambiguous right of the people to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, property, and state. Fight the good fight, Woldan!

[Woldan]

Tsuga, something should have been done here long ago to preserve freedom for future generation, unfortunately the previous generation was selfish, lazy and let a lot of bad things happen. Now its way too late, its a losing battle against a huge totalitarian army of inapt and hilariously corrupt but sadly untouchable bureaucrats that ruin our countries and lives step by step. 
One can only wait till this whole Moloch runs itself into the ground which -looking how things are going right now- should not take that long. The problem is, such things always end in a  bang. 

 

But the US isn't so much better off, with Obama completely off the leash and a possible election of Hillary Clinton afterwards things look grim overseas too.  

Edited September 22, 2014 by Woldan

[Monte Carlo]

Yes, 'Hilary Clinton' spent many aeons asleep in a vast undersea city not far from Pitcairn Island. Then a rotund Arkansan wandered (drunkenly) into a wood not far from Little Rock, to find a load of hooded cultists chanting. He joined in, as he'd heard about Black Masses and how they usually involve writhing naked chicks.

 

Anyhoo, instead of a dose of LA-style La Veyan Satanism, Bill Clinton (for it was he) helped awaken / summon Hthulu. Bill was drunk and thought the octopi-faced Eldritch horror was kinda hot by local standards. So he married her.

 

He took Hthulu to a plastic surgeon (he removed the tentacles and eye-clusters, replacing them with a pair of spectacles and a spare head he had lying around). Bill, eventually, persuaded her to join the Democrats (mainly to get her out of the house). Hthulu was shocked at the depravity of her new sect, but got used to it.

 

True story, bro. I read it in a newspaper in an American grocery store, the ones they keep at the checkout.

[Azdeus]

You Euros could do with your own NRA or GoA, but for them to have a fighting chance you'd also need a Bill of Rights that included an unambiguous right of the people to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, property, and state.

 

Eh. Pass, I'd rather have strict gunlaws than those kind of crazies having any say. And we don't need a 200 year old antiquated piece of paper telling us what should be done, instead of adapting with the times, we have enough dogmatic religious nutjobs around as is.

 

I don't mind there being harsh gunlaws, a gun is a privilige and I think it should be, not a right. That said, some of our laws are over the top, especially restricting the guns that you can own once you have a licence. I don't mind automatic weapons being outlawed, the public can have that as a comforter.

[Monte Carlo]

This is why Shaun of the Dead is the best zombie movie. In Yank zombie movies everyone has instant access to shotguns, large calibre revolvers and assault weapons. In Brit zombie movies you have to improvise with frisbees and cricket bats, thus upping the tension.

[Woldan]

Eh. Pass, I'd rather have strict gunlaws than those kind of crazies having any say. And we don't need a 200 year old antiquated piece of paper telling us what should be done, instead of adapting with the times, we have enough dogmatic religious nutjobs around as is.

I don't mind there being harsh gunlaws, a gun is a privilige and I think it should be, not a right. That said, some of our laws are over the top, especially restricting the guns that you can own once you have a licence. I don't mind automatic weapons being outlawed, the public can have that as a comforter.

The right to bear arms should be a privilege, not a right? Wow. So the right for self defence should be a generous gift from the rich upper class....I mean generous politicians rather than a right any human should have? One that can be easily taken away, like most gifts?

 

Oh boy, thats exactly the mindset that allows politicians to wreck the World with little to no resistance. The right to own weapons IS a privilege in the European Union and guess what? It gets slowly taken away right now, from the lower classes I might add.  

I tell you, I was born with the RIGHT to bear arms just as I was born with the right to human dignity, the right to choose my religion and the right to choose my own sexuality. Access to free water is a human right. Those are not privileges, unless your sorry ass happens to live in a very totalitarian hellhole. 

 

''That 200 year old paper'' was written by the most intelligent and idealistic politicians in the history of the US which actually cared about their people, right after defeating a tyrannic government.

 

It says: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Because history has shown numerous times that the defenseless will always be at the whim of those who have the force of arms, governments sooner or later tend to go apesh!t on the people who are not wealthy and they expect no resistance from. The first person to employ extremely restrictive gun laws was Adolf Hitler just before he started to get rid of certain sections of the population. 

Edited September 25, 2014 by Woldan

[JadedWolf]

I am all for the right to arm bears, where do I sign?

[Azdeus]

Woldan already has bear arms, does'nt he? I wonder if they are licenced. Hmm.. Best to amputate until we've cleared this up! :3

 

The right to bear arms should be a privilege, not a right? Wow. So the right for self defence should be a generous gift from the rich upper class....I mean generous politicians rather than a right any human should have? One that can be easily taken away, like most gifts?

Oh boy, thats exactly the mindset that allows politicians to wreck the World with little to no resistance. The right to own weapons IS a privilege in the European Union and guess what? It gets slowly taken away right now, from the lower classes I might add.  

I tell you, I was born with the RIGHT to bear arms just as I was born with the right to human dignity, the right to choose my religion and the right to choose my own sexuality. Access to free water is a human right. Those are not privileges, unless your sorry ass happens to live in a very totalitarian hellhole. 

''That 200 year old paper'' was written by the most intelligent and idealistic politicians in the history of the US which actually cared about their people, right after defeating a tyrannic government.

It says: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Because history has shown numerous times that the defenseless will always be at the whim of those who have the force of arms, governments sooner or later tend to go apesh!t on the people who are not wealthy and they expect no resistance from. The first person to employ extremely restrictive gun laws was Adolf Hitler just before he started to get rid of certain sections of the population. 

 

I never said it should be for only the rich, or are you suggesting that everyone should be outfitted with a weapon?

It needs to be a privilege, just as driving a car, flying an aeroplane or calling yourself a doctor. People need to be judged sane and knowledgable enough to own a weapon, even more so than other things.

And yes, the government should be able to take away anyones weapons should the person have, say, unstable mental health.

 

No, what is allowing wrecking the world is money, money from company lobbyists of all kinds. And ignorance, Cecilia Malmström is a good example of that.

Sadly, you were'nt born with the right to bear arms, you were born with the right to have protection by police and by law. You were born with the right to be treated like any other person wether you want firearms to be totally banned or totally free, and the right to say so.

 

The people that wrote that paper were truly intelligent and remarkably forward thinking for it's time. They were not however timetravellers and they could'nt forsee things like automatic weapons or semiautomatic anti-materiel rifles with an effective range of 1500 metres.

When they wrote that piece of paper their country could'nt afford a standing army and you know better than me the range and fire rate of a muzzleloader.

Not to mention that the fastest transportation at that time was by boat or horse, today we have cars and aeroplanes, and the police response times are, while not perfect, an order of magnitude faster than was possible back then.

It is possible that if the people that wrote the paper were alive and well today that they'd say it still stands, but I actually doubt it.

 

Breivik, James Holmes and Elliot Roger clearly all committed their heinous crimes because of too lax gunlaws!!!

There are always bad examples of what people can do when the abuse systems and tools. I'm not an expert on history, but I doubt that the result of the holocaust would have been much different even if the gunlaws were more lax.

 

Edit; Oh, and I'm not going to derail your thread more than this, I've had my say

Edited September 25, 2014 by Azdeus

[Woldan]

I never said it should be for only the rich, or are you suggesting that everyone should be outfitted with a weapon?

Laws are only for the lower classes. Also outfitted? What the hell? It should be everyones free choice. If you don't like guns, don't get any. Freedom of will.

 

Sadly, you were'nt born with the right to bear arms, you were born with the right to have protection by police and by law. You were born with the right to be treated like any other person wether you want firearms to be totally banned or totally free, and the right to say so.

The police is not responsible for your own safety, neither is the fire brigade responsible to protect your house from fire. You are responsible for those things, police and other emergency institution are for damage prevention and investigation, they usually arrive after something happened. 

I was born with the right to bear arms just as I was born with the other human rights I mentioned, but people who call themselves leaders dictate which right I may exercise because of fear and selfish reasons.

But this doesn't make it any less of a right. People in Russia are born with the right of choosing their sexuality, but they can't. But this doesn't make it any less of a right. Self defense with a modern and capable weapon is a right.  

 

The people that wrote that paper were truly intelligent and remarkably forward thinking for it's time. They were not however timetravellers and they could'nt forsee things like automatic weapons or semiautomatic anti-materiel rifles with an effective range of 1500 metres.

Read the text again, the law was designed that people could defend themselves against any threat, a totalitarian government that enslaves its people included. Now if the law only allowed people to own old and inefficient weaponry it would not make much sense, no?

 

 

and the police response times are, while not perfect, an order of magnitude faster than was possible back then.

What a joke. People get killed all the time before the police can arrive at the scene, thats why there are so my robberies with homicides. Read the news.

Where I live the police needs 15-20 minutes to arrive, robbers can kill me 10 times in that time, and this already happened here a couple of times. I'm sure they called the police. 

Breivik, James Holmes and Elliot Roger clearly all committed their heinous crimes because of too lax gunlaws!!!

What a load of crap. No, they committed those crimes because they were completely insane bloodthirsty numbnuts. The guns neither enabled nor told them to kill. Breivik killed people with a bomb before the massacre, so should we outlaw explosives now and everything that could be used to make a bomb like gasoline or fireworks? He also drove there by car, should we outlaw cars that could transport bombs? Actually that wouldn't be a bad idea, gun related deaths are hilariously minuscule compared to traffic deaths.

If you are afraid of being killed by a gun think again, the chances to die in a car crash are a thousand times higher.  

 

Bottom line is, insane people always find ways to hurt people, what needs to be banned is people that are insane. I'm very certain that Breivik would have found other ways for his massacre, or do you think he would have thought ''Oh no, I can't own guns, well, there goes my plan of killing dozens of Untermenschen.''. 

China has a zero-gun law, yet that hasn't stopped terrorists. They use edged weapons and, surprise, illegal weapons. 

I've heard a lot of criminals don't care about laws. 

 

There are always bad examples of what people can do when the abuse systems and tools. I'm not an expert on history, but I doubt that the result of the holocaust would have been much different even if the gunlaws were more lax.

Of course not, but it makes it easier and its a nice demonstration how politician think when banning things. Its always to their own best, they don't care about the people. Hitler raved about Germany being the first civilized country with strict gun control, selling it as a huge in crease in safety. Those who support gun bans don't give a flying f*ck about increasing the safety for the greater good, they have other more selfish reasons despite what they tell you.

 

From everything you wrote I agree with only one thing: a mandatory mental health check before anyone wants to own a weapon, its a good thing. The problem with this is you'd have to have mandatory mental health checks whenever anyone wants to buy something that might endanger the lives of other people.

 

Flammable or combustible materials, cars, knifes or edged tools, fireworks, chainsaws..... people get killed by those things all the time. 

 

It would quickly turn into a bureaucratic nightmare.

 

Edit; Oh, and I'm not going to derail your thread more than this, I've had my say

Azedus, please, don't hold back, its on-topic and I'm open for discussions like that. Just remember that my time is very limited at the moment and my response time might be long-ish.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Woldan

[Azdeus]

 

Azedus, please, don't hold back, its on-topic and I'm open for discussions like that. Just remember that my time is very limited at the moment and my response time might be long-ish.

 

 

Only because it's you, and you asked me so nicely! <3

 

Laws are only for the lower classes. Also outfitted? What the hell? It should be everyones free choice. If you don't like guns, don't get any. Freedom of will.

 

Laws are for everyone, even the rich - it just does'nt hurt them as much when it comes to monetary compensation. My point of outfitting everyone is that there will always be poor folk that can't afford such luxuries as firearms, if you want to remove that rich/poor divide you would have to distribute weapons to everyone. It was also meant to serve as a strawman example.

 

 

The police is not responsible for your own safety, neither is the fire brigade responsible to protect your house from fire. You are responsible for those things, police and other emergency institution are for damage prevention and investigation, they usually arrive after something happened. 

I was born with the right to bear arms just as I was born with the other human rights I mentioned, but people who call themselves leaders dictate which right I may exercise because of fear and selfish reasons.

But this doesn't make it any less of a right. People in Russia are born with the right of choosing their sexuality, but they can't. But this doesn't make it any less of a right. Self defense with a modern and capable weapon is a right.

 

 

The police are responsible with protecting you, you should ofcourse make efforts like using good locks and alarms to give police time to get there, just as firealarms are there to wake you up in the middle of the night before a fire becomes an inferno. Protect and serve.

 

I'm pretty certain you were born with bear arms, but I digress, if it is a right to bear arms, should criminals and mentally ill people not have them too then? It is afterall a right, and not a privilege. And that right shall not be infringed... People need to be licenced, deemed worthy and fit to own something as dangerous as a firearm, and doubly so if you want to use that weapon for self defence - people don't react well when surprised or stressed.

 

Comparing firearms ownership with sexuality is silly though, you'd have an arguement there if you were actually born with a pistol instead of a hand.

 

 

Read the text again, the law was designed that people could defend themselves against any threat, a totalitarian government that enslaves its people included. Now if the law only allowed people to own old and inefficient weaponry it would not make much sense, no?

 

 

Your sniper rifle would'nt help against drones, airstrikes and tanks that the military has, the only real protection you have against the military is a safe social environment where the military has nothing to gain from tanking over the country and where information is free and available to everyone so that soldiers and police can not be decieved.

 

Having an full auto capable rifle or machinegun won't help you, but it sure would make for interesting gang wars.

 

I'm not saying there are'nt some stupid laws around, especially here in Sweden, but people need to be licenced and guns checked to reasonable limits. I don't mind someone wanting to go hunting with an AR-15, could'nt care less, but there is no need for that person to have an M4/M16.

 

 

 

What a joke. People get killed all the time before the police can arrive at the scene, thats why there are so my robberies with homicides. Read the news.

Where I live the police needs 15-20 minutes to arrive, robbers can kill me 10 times in that time, and this already happened here a couple of times. I'm sure they called the police.

 

 

Yeah, I also live in a rural area, and a couple of years back some people were brutally murdered in my municipality. Brutally enough that the police that responded has PTSD. And he was a gunowner. It did'nt help him one bit.

 

That does'nt mean it's wise to allow people unrestricted access to weapons just incase they might be able to get to them before they are surprised in their sleep. And it'll more likely lead to an escalation of violence, where robbers need to get guns to defend themselves. It'll lead to more shootings instead, with the likelyhood of innocents being harmed having increased.

 

 

What a load of crap. No, they committed those crimes because they were completely insane bloodthirsty numbnuts. The guns neither enabled nor told them to kill. Breivik killed people with a bomb before the massacre, so should we outlaw explosives now and everything that could be used to make a bomb like gasoline or fireworks? He also drove there by car, should we outlaw cars that could transport bombs? Actually that wouldn't be a bad idea, gun related deaths are hilariously minuscule compared to traffic deaths.

If you are afraid of being killed by a gun think again, the chances to die in a car crash are a thousand times higher.  

 

Bottom line is, insane people always find ways to hurt people, what needs to be banned is people that are insane. I'm very certain that Breivik would have found other ways for his massacre, or do you think he would have thought ''Oh no, I can't own guns, well, there goes my plan of killing dozens of Untermenschen.''. 

China has a zero-gun law, yet that hasn't stopped terrorists. They use edged weapons and, surprise, illegal weapons. 

I've heard a lot of criminals don't care about laws.

 

 

I thought the three exclamation marks would indicate irony, but I guess I should've added smileys or something.

But, still, Breivik shot and killed 70 people on Utøya, with, if I recall correctly, a Ruger Mini-14 and a Glock. His legal firearms, that is. He was more deadly with his firearms than his bombs, they injured more, but his shootings brought the most victims by far.

I mainly pointed out these people because from what I remember they used legal firearms, wich in my opinion points to that people need to be reevaluated for their firearms licence more often and have psych evaluations, at heavilly subsidized prizes. And not to limit the magazine size or types of firearms, or similar silly ****.

 

Explosives are licenced wich is why he could'nt use 1000kg of TNT but used less efficient homebrew explosives wich kept the explosion smaller. The real kicker? Imagine the result of his shooting if he had to actually do the same with the firearms, build them from scrap parts.

 

Breivik wanted to get full auto weapons from the eastern bloc, but he did'nt succeed in that for some reason, so he went and bought legal firearms instead. He did'nt car-fu 70 people to death, because he had much more efficient was of ending their lives. Like headshots.

 

And yes, I'm a thosand more times likely to be involved in a car crash (infact, I have been in a few), but I also spend several orders of magnitude more time around cars.

 

And yes, criminals does'nt care about laws but they also are'nt stopped by guns, but accidental deaths in families and heat of the moment kills are lessened by gunlaws.

 

 

Of course not, but it makes it easier and its a nice demonstration how politician think when banning things. Its always to their own best, they don't care about the people. Hitler raved about Germany being the first civilized country with strict gun control, selling it as a huge in crease in safety. Those who support gun bans don't give a flying f*ck about increasing the safety for the greater good, they have other more selfish reasons despite what they tell you.

 

 

No, I know that many people do actually think they are doing it for the greater good, they have a different viewpoint on it than you - they don't trust people to handle firearms and they don't see the need for guns. To them it's just a weapon, a tool for destruction with no value to civilians whatsoever. All of my friends have this viewpoint, they don't see a need for their existence at all and that they are only dangerous to society, and while I may come across as strict to you - I'm nothing compared to them.

I can see and understand both sides though.

 

From everything you wrote I agree with only one thing: a mandatory mental health check before anyone wants to own a weapon, its a good thing. The problem with this is you'd have to have mandatory mental health checks whenever anyone wants to buy something that might endanger the lives of other people.

 

Flammable or combustible materials, cars, knifes or edged tools, fireworks, chainsaws..... people get killed by those things all the time. 

 

It would quickly turn into a bureaucratic nightmare.

 

 

I'm glad that we can agree on that atleast

 

I agree that it would, but when it comes to many of the examples you list they are nowhere near as potentially damaging as firearms. When it comes to big amounts of flammable or combustible materials, purchases of these do draw attention to themselves, knives and axes has more use as tools than as weapons, same with chainsaws.  I do agree that many drivers should be forced to redo their licence tests every now and then though, 'cuz damn...

 

Though as you say, it would turn into a bureaucratic nightmare, so I'll stick to guns for now, but without being a psychologist I don't think a subsidized psych evaluation every 5 years or so would be too much.

It needs to be at a tight enough interval that you catch most people before they loose it, but also not so tight that it'd be impossible to keep the system running.

 

Just for clarification, to avoid any confusion; I want guns and gunowners to be licenced, and evaluated, I don't want civilians to have access to fully automatic weapons or ordnance and I don't want it to be prohibitively expensive either.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

This thread went places.

[Woldan]

Laws are for everyone, even the rich - it just does'nt hurt them as much when it comes to monetary compensation. My point of outfitting everyone is that there will always be poor folk that can't afford such luxuries as firearms, if you want to remove that rich/poor divide you would have to distribute weapons to everyone. It was also meant to serve as a strawman example.

Sorry, but you are incredibly naive if you really think that law really applies on everyone equally. By rich/poor divide I meant the law, not the ability to by a firearm.

And really, firearms are not that expensive, you can buy a good rifle for 150 bucks. 

 

The police are responsible with protecting you, you should ofcourse make efforts like using good locks and alarms to give police time to get there, just as firealarms are there to wake you up in the middle of the night before a fire becomes an inferno. Protect and serve.

 

Police cannot protect you, the sheer amount of citizen they'd have to protect makes it impossible plus they're not psychic, they don't know when a or where crime happens to prevent it. If you wanted to prevent crime everyone would need his own policeman. If police could protect you there were no more rapes, burglaries and homicides. Same with the fire brigade, they come to prevent further damage when my house is burning, not when the actual fire starts. 

Thats why everyone in Austria has to have a fire extinguisher by law. 

 

Also fact is the police is not obligated to come when you call them, the official wording is: they owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack.

In other words, they're not there to protect you, they can if they feel like it and they cannot be blamed for your death if they screw up. 

In the US some chief of police even suggests to own a firearm to protect yourself.

 

For me my life is too important to rely on people I've never met before who might come when I call them, but most likely when its too late. Who are also not obligated to save my life. 

If I even have enough time to get to my phone. 

 

 

 

Comparing firearms ownership with sexuality is silly though, you'd have an arguement there if you were actually born with a pistol instead of a hand.

So you weren't born with freedom of speech either, so its not a human right? And I didn't say guns are a human right, self defense with state of the art weaponry is. But you're right, you weren't born with the right to defend your life either, according to your logic.

 

 

Your sniper rifle would'nt help against drones, airstrikes and tanks that the military has, the only real protection you have against the military is a safe social environment where the military has nothing to gain from tanking over the country and where information is free and available to everyone so that soldiers and police can not be decieved.

Wrong, knowing that people are armed and not willing to gets steamrolled easily is what makes aggressors reconsider, and thats the most important thing. Expecting no resistance means people can and will do with you whatever they want.

Once the military chimes in there is no environment that saves you because thats called a war. The government working against its people only results in civil war in a worst case scenario.

 

 

I'm not saying there are'nt some stupid laws around, especially here in Sweden, but people need to be licenced and guns checked to reasonable limits. I don't mind someone wanting to go hunting with an AR-15, could'nt care less, but there is no need for that person to have an M4/M16.

Need. I love it when anti-gunners break out their favorite argument, NEED.

 

Tell me, what do you need, Azedus?

Not much. Water, some place to live in, food, clothing. If we reduce everyone to what he needs living will be hell very quick and hobbies will be non-existent, unless working is your hobby. Do you need your personal computer? No. Do you need Obsidian games? No. Do you need a car? No.  Do you need free time? Absolutely not.

 

But, still, Breivik shot and killed 70 people on Utøya, with, if I recall correctly, a Ruger Mini-14 and a Glock. His legal firearms, that is. He was more deadly with his firearms than his bombs, they injured more, but his shootings brought the most victims by far.

If he killed more people with his bombs you wouldn't even mention him, right? The worst school massacre in history was committed with a single bomb, in 1927. The bath school massacre. 45 children were killed.

Why does nobody know anything about it or talk about it? Because guns weren't used so its boring and cannot be used to enforce anti-gun laws. 

 

Ask yourself, if guns wouldn't exist would there be less massacres? There was a time before guns, and it had plenty of massacres, I can tell you. 

 

Also if you're already speculating about the efficinecy bombs vs guns, let me speculate too. I speculate that if anyone on that island had a gun he could have shot Breivik before he killed a single person there. But he got them at the most dangerous zone to be, a gun free zone. The victims had no privilege to defend themselves, a gun.  They had no chance but to get slaughtered, that is the true crime here. 

 

No, I know that many people do actually think they are doing it for the greater good, they have a different viewpoint on it than you - they don't trust people to handle firearms and they don't see the need for guns.

Strange, they're always surrounded by people with sunglasses who carry guns to protect them, they also command hundreds of thousands of soldiers with all the weaponry you can imagine, yet they don't trust people with guns?

I tell you what, they're afraid of average citizen with guns because they know that they're running roughshod over the people and are corrupt like nobody else. Politicians are very, very afraid of revolting mobs with guns. Now more so than ever. 

I present to you the only reason why politicians want strict gun control or a complete ban:  an armed mob cannot be beaten to mush by police batons or washed away with their fancy 250k bucks water cannon cars.  Politicians only care about one thing, and that is control, and they're willing to do whatever is necessary to prevent it from slipping, this includes lying to the public and breaking the law. 

 

I agree that it would, but when it comes to many of the examples you list they are nowhere near as potentially damaging as firearms.

More people get killed by cars in a year then with legal firearms in 100 years, and most of them unintentionally. And now you tell me they're not as dangerous. The dead don't lie. 

Drunk driving is statistically a million times more dangerous than an average Joe with a gun. And it happens every single day. If as many people died from legal firearms as from car crashes guns would have been outlawed one hundred years ago. 

And don't even get me started with alcohol, far more people die from alcohol than from legal firearms, yet nobody gives a damn. Certainly not the politicians.  

Edited September 25, 2014 by Woldan

[Monte Carlo]

I think this argument has a whiff of Godwin's about it - any thread that tries to discuss firearms ownership and the legality thereof hits the sh1tt3r pretty quickly.

[Agiel]

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1187420/lee-enfield-rifle-phased-out-by-canadian-military-after-100-years-of-service/

[Walsingham]

I was about to reply to Woldan, but of course he's on sabbatical.

[Agiel]

 

In honour of Veteran's Day, a photo of Richard Overton, the oldest surviving American veteran at 108, with his M1928A1 Thompson submachine gun and reminding kids to stay off his lawn.

 

"Close and spray, the SMG way!"

Edited November 12, 2014 by Agiel

[Walsingham]

I had a really fun dream last night with a lot of Matrix style gunplay. The guns were awesome.