Support NeoGAF

[Chumly]

LINK

To find out what kind of dangerous weapons we could buy, we went online and responded to gun ads in Phoenix, Ariz., one of the many states where such sales are legal. Within minutes we had meeting set up. Our gun buyers were two Arizona security experts we hired, posing as husband and wife.
We were watching from nearby vans as our buyers paid cash for a tactical assault rifle modified to use bullets for an AK-47, along with an easy-to-conceal pistol – no questions asked.

Straight from BATFE

Q: What record-keeping procedures should be followed when two private individuals want to engage in a firearms transaction?
When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State. It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same-State” residents. Of course, the transferor/seller may not knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who falls within any of the categories of prohibited persons contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and . However, as stated above, there are no GCA-required records to be completed by either party to the transfer.

There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact State Police units or the office of your State Attorney General for information on any such requirements.

Please note that if a private person wants to obtain a firearm from a private person who resides in another State, the firearm will have to be shipped to an FFL in the buyer’s State. The FFL will be responsible for record keeping. See also Question B3.

LINK

The notorious “gun show loophole” that gives criminals and maniacs easy access to firearms has gone online.

Undercover investigators for the city found thousands of guns - including one just like the 9mm Ruger that killed Officer Peter Figoski on Monday - being sold online by private peddlers who don’t have to perform background checks on buyers.

Not only did investigators

find it a breeze to buy pistols and assault rifles with no questions asked, but 77 of 125 sellers in 14 states agreed to complete the sale even after the buyer said he couldn’t pass a background check.

Few articles to show how easy it is to get guns.

 

[Delusibeta]

Assuming they are finally reporting them correctly.

This is the Telegraph we're talking about. Correct reporting is by no means guaranteed.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Criminals will use whatever they can get their hands on. That's all. And that fact doesn't justify erasing the 2nd Amendment.

That's actually exactly how other nations work. Including "gun nut" Switzerland. The government can show up at your door at anytime and demand you show your guns. Not clear what the "not serious" part is all about.

This isn't Europe. In the States the police don't have the right to enter your house "just to check and make sure you're following the law." Forget about the 2nd Amendment, what you're suggesting would shatter the 4th amendment and set a disgusting precedent.

Read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

You gun nuts are terrifying. When I'm in America next year, let me know where you are so I can avoid that city at all costs.

Translation: "I don't agree with you people so I will call you derogatory names and insinuate you're all to dangerous to be around!" Does that about some it up?

Don't worry, I live in NY with some of the strictest gun control laws on the books. And since I obey the laws regarding them to the letter you have nothing to worry about from me.

But that's a well thought out argument you've made!

Let's hope your dinosaur mentality is breeded out within a few generations.

Keep telling yourself that pacifist bullshit. The need for good people to defend themselves will never go out of style. And since hunting has been going on since oh, I dunno, about 20,000 b.c.....yea....good luck with that. Oh and that whole hobby thing, yea...not going anywhere.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

LINK

Straight from BATFE

So? I've sold an AK and M4 with a bill of sale at most. Nothing wrong with that. You do know you can't sell them to a prohibited person, right?

LINK

NY Daily News

Undercover investigators

Ah yes one of Bloombergs stupid and wasteful witchhunts at gun shows using NYC resources and police officers operating out of state.

I love the claim that somehow one can ship a gun interstate without a background check. Even if you have a C&R a handgun still it has to be shipped by and FFL.

So now that I've corrected your mistakes we can move on.

Few articles to show how easy it is to get guns.

Nope not really. If you want to repost anything else from the other thread I might as well ask you if you've ever bought a gun before, have you?

Also one is a legal FAQ from the BATFE not an article.

This is the Telegraph we're talking about. Correct reporting is by no means guaranteed.

I meant the police.

 

[Vilix]

Did you get a dealer, manufacturer or SOT licence?

The fingerprints and photo are nothing new, it's part of the app, same with the CLEO form...wait do you have a C&R too? That you can have inspections done, but they aren't random and done by appointment? There are also C&R machineguns too.

What did you get and which state? Something is amiss it.

Texas. I'm a licensed dealer and I have a C&R because most of my automatic weapons are from WWII (MP40, MG42, Thompson, PPSH41). Both inspections were random.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Texas. I'm a licensed dealer and I have a C&R because most of my automatic weapons are from WWII (MP40, MG42, Thompson, PPSH41). Both inspections were random.

Oh well that explains why! I meant for non-dealers. lol The C&R alone wouldn't have been enough for random searches.

Also I am very very jealous of your collection. Not STG-44 though?

 

[HyperionX]

Ignoring the fact that the police can't even serve a fucking warrant without kicking in a door and shooting a 90 year old woman in the head or a 8 year old girl or a marine that thought he was being robbed or a kid with a golf club....how do you suppose they logistically accomplish this in reality?

It is not a search. You just have to show proof that you own your guns.

The 2nd Amendment is a purely American thing. Regardless of the count, the vote was upheld. Obama's healthcare bill was "only" upheld by a 5-4 majority. Doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

It does mean it is not a strongly upheld law, and can easily change due to a shift in the court alignment. Obamacare actually does falls under the same category, although in the opposite way.

Once again, I'm *really* glad you're not in charge of this, LMAO. Do you have proof of this? Proof admissible in a court of law? No. Then I'm not guilty of shit. Hell, even posts in my history that I've admitted to things are admissible in any court in this land. Thankfully so, Christ. Criminal Records or not, once you pull the trigger on a target you're not allowed to you've crossed the line to being a criminal. Period.

Doesn't stop first time criminals. Everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until they're not.

So if they killed themselves by jumping out of buildings that'd be better? Stop focusing on the method and zero in on the reason.

That's just how it is in Switzerland. Gun suicide is the way of going it seems.

How's that knife crime in the UK going?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9024711/Knife-crime-rises-by-ten-per-cent.html

Criminals are going to criminal. The end. A gun, knife, gas and a match, some box cutters and a flight lesson in the hands of the wrong people can result in catastrophe.

9/11 notwithstanding, it is a lot hard to commit a murder with a knife as opposed to a gun. The murder rate in the UK attests to this. Not to mention, as others have alluded to, knives have much more of a legit use than guns.

Yea, you're probably right. We should contact the government and tell em to take this website down:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs

It's obviously based on incorrect data.

Actual number of gang murders are a small part of total murders. Ending the drug war might reduce it some, but expect no miracles.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf

No, I just think you should know what you're criticizing from all angles. Not just the "bad things are bad, ban all the bad things! The police should come in your home randomly to check that you're not lying about bad things!"

..and really? You're gonna straw-man this in the form of a pipe bomb? Because the two are completely analogous, right? Well, it's a good thing people don't use pipe bombs to hunt. Or use pipe bombs for home defense. Or use pimp bombs for target practice. Or collect pipe bombs because they like the history of them. I bet you'd say "But they could!" and my counter to that would be "But they DON'T." And until they do on such a scale then I'd go so far to say your comparison is intellectually dishonest and a pretty weak straw-man.

People aren't forced to own weapons in the US. And the people that don't own them and bitch they they have a right to not be around someone that does own them legally, doesn't. Period. Sure establishments can forbid open carry in their places of business (I think) but outside of that if you're at a gas station and someone with a legal carry is next to you and you don't like it: Tough. You can leave or get over it. You don't like your neighbor owning a gun? Tough. Unless he's threatening you he/she is breaking no laws.

People chose to own firearms legally do so because they have a right to and want to. I'm personally glad I have this right. It's very empowering to have the ability to defend myself if need be.

You also don't see 10,000 pipe bomb murders every year. I think you are missing the point here.

Before the civil rights act, you could order every black person out of your store, and as long as you never physically harmed some one, the law could do nothing to you. Suddenly we decide that wasn't allowable. Maybe someday will decide you can't really own a gun, even if never used it to harm someone either.

 

[Vilix]

Oh well that explains why! I meant for non-dealers. lol The C&R alone wouldn't have been enough for random searches.

Also I am very very jealous of your collection. Not STG-44 though?

Almost pulled the trigger on that one. Pun intended. It had all matching serial numbers and Waffenampts. But, the guy wanted $35k. Didn't want to spend that kinda money at the time. Maybe after the kids are out of college.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Almost pulled the trigger on that one. Pun intended. It had all matching serial numbers and Waffenampts. But, the guy wanted $35k. Didn't want to spend that kinda money at the time. Maybe after the kids are out of college.

I wish I had those dilemma's in life, still I know the feeling though on a much lesser scale.

It is not a search. You just have to show proof that you own your guns.

That is a search. They can ask to and you can consent,but otherwise they need to be able to get a warrant.

It does mean it is not a strongly upheld law, and can easily change due to a shift in the court alignment. Obamacare actually does falls under the same category, although in the opposite way.

You really don't understand how US Constitutional Law works do you?

Before the civil rights act, you could order every black person out of your store, and as long as you never physically harmed some one, the law could do nothing to you. Suddenly we decide that wasn't allowable. Maybe someday will decide you can't really own a gun, even if never used it to harm someone either.

That is a horrible and offensive analogy, especially consider how "gun control" was used to discriminate against blacks.

 

[Chumly]

LINK

So? I've sold an AK and M4 with a bill of sale at most. Nothing wrong with that. You do know you can't sell them to a prohibited person, right?

Yes we have gone over this a thousand times that you can't "knowing" sell to a prohibited person which amounts to nothing since as long as they tell you they are in the clear there is nothing more you have to do.

NY Daily News

Ah yes one of Bloombergs stupid and wasteful witchhunts at gun shows using NYC resources and police officers operating out of state.

I love the claim that somehow one can ship a gun interstate without a background check. Even if you have a C&R a handgun still it has to be shipped by and FFL.

So now that I've corrected your mistakes we can move on.

They never made that claim.

Nope not really. If you want to repost anything else from the other thread I might as well ask you if you've ever bought a gun before, have you?

Yes. Expanding gun laws isn't going to ruin my life and I would be more than happy to comply with them if it meant less guns in the hands of criminals.

Also one is a legal FAQ from the BATFE not an article.

Can't respond to it? Some people don't live in a bubble. Its pretty obvious with what we have now its not working. In addition ATF needs significant budget increases to enforce and investigate current laws.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yes we have gone over this a thousand times that you can't "knowing" sell to a prohibited person

Good I'm happy you're willing to admit that.

They never made that claim.

Yes they did.

Undercover investigators for the city found thousands of guns - including one just like the 9mm Ruger that killed Officer Peter Figoski on Monday - being sold online by private peddlers who don’t have to perform background checks on buyers.

Yes. Expanding gun laws isn't going to ruin my life and I would be more than happy to comply with them if it meant less guns in the hands of criminals.

Have you ever bought a gun or owned one? What type?

Can't respond to it? Some people don't live in a bubble. Its pretty obvious with what we have now its not working.

No, it's working fine now. The law itself is clear and easy to follow. It seems you can't respond to that.

In addition ATF needs significant budget increases to enforce and investigate current laws.

Maybe if it would speed up Form 4 Applications, otherwise they don't need anymore money for investigations at least till they prove they won't get a lot of Mexican's and Border Agent's killed in the process.

 

[Chumly]

Yes they did.

They never said they were talking about interstate sales. You made the assumption.

 

[HyperionX]

That is a search. They can ask to and you can consent,but otherwise they need to be able to get a warrant.

Depends on the circumstances. If we had a gun licensing system where approval requires you to forfeit the right to decline, they can indeed make it mandatory.

You really don't understand how US Constitutional Law works do you?

Do you? The Supreme Court makes the final say, regardless of what others think.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Depends on the circumstances. If we had a gun licensing system where approval requires you to forfeit that right, they can indeed make it mandatory.

Luckily non-criminals don't have to forfeit their basic and inalienable rights. So once again for you to suggest that as ab udea shows a basic lack of understanding of the facts.

Do you? The Supreme Court makes the final say, regardless of what others think.

There are also bound by precdent of previous decisions. I don't think you understand that.

They never said they were talking about interstate sales. You made the assumption.

They never said they weren't. Regardless you can't transfer a handgun in NYC without an FFL involved.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Before the civil rights act, you could order every black person out of your store, and as long as you never physically harmed some one, the law could do nothing to you. Suddenly we decide that wasn't allowable. Maybe someday will decide you can't really own a gun, even if never used it to harm someone either.

Ironically enough the very first gun control laws were because white people in the US didn't want armed freed slaves to have guns. Guns which they used to protect themselves and their families. See: Black Codes and seriously, take 20 minutes to watch "No Guns for Negroes"



Not to mention the modern gun control movement was propelled by a group of armed black men that legally obtained and legally carried their loaded firearms to the California State Capital. Legally. No one was harmed. But after that....gun control:

Seriously, read up.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Mussolini all proponents of strict firearm control. All disarmed their subjects before genocide:

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that tyrants throughout history—from Adolf Hitler to Joseph Stalin, from Mao Tse Tung to Benito Mussolini, from Ferdinand Marcos to Idi Amin, from Pol Pot to Fidel Castro—have monopolized the state’s control of weaponry while removing any obstacles to effective resistance by disarming their populace. The following quote by Adolf Hitler is a glaring reminder of this historical condition:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

The relentless fear-mongering and ‘tough-on-crime’ rhetoric that characterizes the push for greater gun control is reminiscent of the propaganda utilized to turn London into a pervasive Orwellian surveillance society with more CCTV cameras per capita compared to any other European nation. Yet, such video surveillance carried out under the putative banner of “public safety” has had no effect on crime as the United Kingdom still has a higher recorded rate of violent crime than any other European country.

 

[HyperionX]

Ironically enough the very first gun control laws were because white people in the US didn't want armed freed slaves to have guns. Guns which they used to protect themselves and their families. See: Black Codes and seriously, take 20 minutes to watch "No Guns for Negroes"



Not to mention the modern gun control movement was propelled by a group of armed black men that legally obtained and legally carried their loaded firearms to the California State Capital. Legally. No one was harmed. But after that....gun control:

Seriously, read up.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Mussolini all proponents of strict firearm control. All disarmed their subjects before genocide:

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that tyrants throughout history—from Adolf Hitler to Joseph Stalin, from Mao Tse Tung to Benito Mussolini, from Ferdinand Marcos to Idi Amin, from Pol Pot to Fidel Castro—have monopolized the state’s control of weaponry while removing any obstacles to effective resistance by disarming their populace. The following quote by Adolf Hitler is a glaring reminder of this historical condition:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

The relentless fear-mongering and ‘tough-on-crime’ rhetoric that characterizes the push for greater gun control is reminiscent of the propaganda utilized to turn London into a pervasive Orwellian surveillance society with more CCTV cameras per capita compared to any other European nation. Yet, such video surveillance carried out under the putative banner of “public safety” has had no effect on crime as the United Kingdom still has a higher recorded rate of violent crime than any other European country.

I see Godwin's Law has just been involved.

You'll have to excuse me if I've invoke Japan or Australia as countries with very strict gun control and haven't descended into tyranny.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I see Godwin's Law has just been involved.

You'll have to excuse me if I've invoke Japan or Australia as countries with very strict gun control and haven't descended into tyranny.

Japan actually has a very poor concept of due process or detention.

 

[HyperionX]

Luckily non-criminals don't have to forfeit their basic and inalienable rights. So once again for you to suggest that as ab udea shows a basic lack of understanding of the facts.

There are also bound by precdent of previous decisions. I don't think you understand that.

No they don't. They follow precedent as a principle for practical reasons, however they are not bound by it at all.

 

[HyperionX]

Japan actually has a very poor concept of due process or detention.

[Citation needed]

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

No they don't. They follow precedent as a principle for practical reasons, however they are not bound by it at all.

smh. What country are you even from?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

[Citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daiyo_kangoku
http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/library/en/document/data/daiyo_kangoku.pdf (Japanese Bar Association)

 

[HyperionX]

smh. What country are you even from?

USA. No seriously, why do you doubt the Supreme Court does not have to follow precedent? If they did, such cases like Brown vs. Board of Education would not have struck down the separate but equal clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daiyo_kangoku
http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/library/en/document/data/daiyo_kangoku.pdf (Japanese Bar Association)

Perhaps a black mark on Japan system, but that is not replacing a legal system with kangaroo courts. Doesn't have anything to do with gun control either.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

USA.

Really? Then why did you suggest police making unwarranted searches upon peoples homes?

Perhaps a black mark on Japan system, but that is not replacing a legal system with kangaroo courts.

When the cops can do this and the conviction rate is high then 99% it kind of is.

 

[Htown]

Only a 5-4 majority rule. It could change.

You actually think the Supreme Court can change the Constitution?

 

[HyperionX]

Really? Then why did you suggest police making unwarranted searches upon peoples homes?

Stop begging the question.

When the cops can do this and the conviction rate is high then 99% it kind of is.

The US has something like a 85-90% conviction rate, according to your source. It is an usual system the Japanese has, and it probably means a higher rate of innocent people being incarcerated. Knowing very little of it, I suggest reform. However the US has its legal problems too, especially related to the people that are put on death row, so it isn't as if this totally disqualifies the entire Japanese legal system. Anyways, this is entire off-topic now. The fact is, Japan does have a very low gun violence rate, showing that strict gun laws can be made to work.

 

[HyperionX]

You actually think the Supreme Court can change the Constitution?

They can rule the 2nd amendment isn't an individual right to bear arms.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Stop begging the question.

Why did you suggest warrant less searches of peoples homes then? I mean did you think that would somehow be legal?

The US has something like a 85-90% conviction rate, according to your source. It is an usual system the Japanese has, and it probably means a higher rate of innocent people being incarcerated.

Probably? Unusual? Usual is finding your wallet in your desk at work when you don't remember taking it out. A conviction rate higher than 99% is batshit crazy.

Knowing very little of it,/quote]
Indeed

, so it isn't as if this totally disqualifies the entire Japanese legal system.

When it exceeds 99% it does.

The fact is, Japan does have a very low gun violence rate, showing that strict gun laws can be made to work.

When enforced by a system that doesn't respect civil liberties and basic humans rights regarding due process.

They can rule the 2nd amendment isn't an individual right to bear arms.

Except they've ruled it one held both to the Federal Government (Heller) and the States (McDonald).

 

[HyperionX]

Why did you suggest warrant less searches of peoples homes then? I mean did you think that would somehow be legal?

I suggest no such thing. You can pass a law that requires people to give up the right to refuse showing your guns when asked. No different than asking for driver license at a police stop.

Probably? Unusual? Usual is finding your wallet in your desk at work when you don't remember taking it out. A conviction rate higher than 99% is batshit crazy.

Knowing very little of it,/quote]
Indeed


When it exceeds 99% it does.


When enforced by a system that doesn't respect civil liberties and basic humans rights regarding due process.

Great you think it's a terrible system. Doesn't influence the current debate unless you want to start another thread.

Except they've ruled it one held both to the Federal Government (Heller) and the States (McDonald).

That's the current Supreme Court. A future SCOTUS, with more liberals on it, can overturn both.

 

[Roland Garros]

Mammoth Jones, the fact you believe it vital to own guns for personal safety is the flaw in your makeup. The rest of the world seems to do fine without citizens owning guns. Your defence of such a culture is sickening.

If you want to be the face of irrelevant, wacky neanderthals clinging to 200 year old legislation, go stand in the corner with Manos.

 

[Panipal2009]

Mammoth Jones, the fact you believe it vital to own guns for personal safety is the flaw in your makeup. The rest of the world seems to do fine without citizens owning guns. Your defence of such a culture is sickening.

If you want to be the face of irrelevant, wacky neanderthals clinging to 200 year old legislation, go stand in the corner with Manos.

Yeah, what's most fascinating to me about the whole gun controversy is one side (yours) feels the need to resort to spouting jibes about 'neanderthals', 'paranoia', gun owners being 'cowards' or 'chickenshit' for not wanting to be subject to violence, etc, instead of presenting arguments that might actually be convincing. Basically trying to hector, shame, and bully people into going along with them.

These are traits we associate with abusive people. So I suppose what you're telling us with your behaviour is that abusive people don't like people having guns and wish they were more vulnerable to brute force. Which makes your crack about neanderthals quite ironic, after all, you seem more like the one who favours the law of the jungle.

 

[Panipal2009]

Who's ragging on who, again? Explain.

What's this, if it's not ragging?

Basically, don't be a chicken shit about possibilities...

Basically, what do people do to not 'be a chickenshit about possibilities'? Does it perhaps mean, that (A) they should be underprepared for these 'possibilities'? Or (B) if these possibilities do happen, that they should let them happen? How else would they prove that they weren't (to you) chickenshit?

There was some clown in the DQ sword robber thread who as good as said that the DQ clerks who shot that robber were cowards. Of course, when asked to clarify whether he meant they were cowards for not liking the idea of being maimed or killed with a sword, he um, 'chickened out'. Let's hope you don't do likewise!

 

[gcubed]

I'll throw my two cents in here that no one asked for. I don't think "control" is feasible, your only really controlling non criminal access to guns. As long as there are guns on the market the wrong people will always easily get them

 

[Delusibeta]

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Mussolini all proponents of strict firearm control.

Aside from the invoking of Godwin's law and therefore rendering your argument entirely moot, you also have to realise that the number of governments that don't advocate strict firearm control can be counted using two hands. The United States of America is an exception, not the rule.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

The United States of America is an exception, not the rule.

And thank goodness for that.

 

[Delusibeta]

And thank goodness for that.

Yeah. Imagine if guns was as freely available throughout the world as it is in America? There would probably be many, many more active terrorist groups then there are now. [disclaimer: not a serious post, but I would see an increase in the availability of guns resulting in an increase in gun crime]

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yeah. Imagine if guns was as freely available throughout the world as it is in America? There would probably be many, many more active terrorist groups then there are now.

Last I checked they already are. The Russians and Chinese provided enough AKs and variants and ammo have killed off any need for others. The Russians can't even sell new AKs to states as so many are floating around.

 

[BattleMonkey]

I'm as pro gun as anyone, got 8 guns myself and plan on many more probably as I really love the hobby, but I do think there needs to be more control over the guns. Taking the guns away or bans are ridiculous, but there should be more difficulty in obtaining guns. I've never agreed with the private transfers of weapons either which often goes without any documentation.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I'm as pro gun as anyone, got 8 guns myself and plan on many more probably as I really love the hobby, but I do think there needs to be more control over the guns. Taking the guns away or bans are ridiculous, but there should be more difficulty in obtaining guns. I've never agreed with the private transfers of weapons either which often goes without any documentation.

Personally if people could run a NIC check without needing an FFL and the exorbitant fees they charge I'd be fine with making people run it. The problem is that most "gun control" advocates just want piecemeal bans or the whole country to be like NYC or NJ.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Aside from the invoking of Godwin's law and therefore rendering your argument entirely moot, you also have to realise that the number of governments that don't advocate strict firearm control can be counted using two hands. The United States of America is an exception, not the rule.

'Other people are doing it' has never been a good reason to do anything, ever.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I see Godwin's Law has just been involved.

You'll have to excuse me if I've invoke Japan or Australia as countries with very strict gun control and haven't descended into tyranny.

It's not a Godwin because what I'm saying is a fact. And I didn't just mention Hitler. So spare me the "LOL, Godwin!" tripe. All those despots and maniacs listed implemented strict gun control very soon after taking power as a means of making their populace a non-threat to them. Now you can either claim that that is not factually accurate or you can concede that it is factually accurate. Pick one.....

Mammoth Jones, the fact you believe it vital to own guns for personal safety is the flaw in your makeup. The rest of the world seems to do fine without citizens owning guns. Your defence of such a culture is sickening.

If you want to be the face of irrelevant, wacky neanderthals clinging to 200 year old legislation, go stand in the corner with Manos.

It's sad you can't articulate a counter-argument without resorting to name-calling. The notion that I shouldn't be able to protect myself and my family in my own home boggles my mind. That I should just sit idly by while someone threatens harm to my family or myself and I should just call 911 and hope for the best is the ideology of a pacifist. I'm glad that's working out for you. But I am not a pacifist. Nor am I some guy itching for the chance to "shoot a bad guy". I pray that never ever happens because there is a FUCK TON of legal shit I'd have to slosh through even when it's a 100% legit self defense action. But that doesn't negate in my mind my responsibility to have the means to protect myself. If you disagree that's fine. Don't own a firearm. Problem solved.

Good for the rest of the world. But I live where I live. And where I live I have a right to defend myself, my home, my family and property with a firearm. Sorry, I'm not going to lay down and be a good little victim like you seem to want me to. I have a right to self defense and I chose to use it. You don't like that? That's perfectly fine. I learned a long time ago that you can't please everyone. But don't try to pad your arguments against what I'm saying with bullshit about "neanderthal" and "wacky" and "gun nut". HyperionX are doing just fine without resorting to that.

Aside from the invoking of Godwin's law and therefore rendering your argument entirely moot, you also have to realise that the number of governments that don't advocate strict firearm control can be counted using two hands. The United States of America is an exception, not the rule.

Is what I said factually incorrect? Don't pull the "Godwin" bullshit to sidestep the point I'm making. Is it factually incorrect? No? Alright. Glad we cleared that up.

For the third time...what happened to that magical cultural relativism that's so common on GAF? What other nations do or how they do it really has no meaning to me when it comes to enjoying the hobby of target practice or keeping a 12ga for home defense. Good for them, I wish those other nations peace and prosperity. I'm tolerant of them and how they do things regardless of when they stumble. Seems some people are only tolerant of things that vibe with their own worldview...

 

[Joni]

I read today that most victims in the New York shooting got shot by the police, while the attacker himself only shot his boss. Doesn't that already show a fundamental problem with guns in America? In defending their lives those trained police officers shot so many people, would regular people fare better?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I read today that most victims in the New York shooting got shot by the police, while the attacker himself only shot his boss. Doesn't that already show a fundamental problem with guns in America? In defending their lives those trained police officers shot so many people, would regular people fare better?

They tend to spend far more money and time on practicing than police officers so its entirely possible.

 

[Joni]

They tend to spend far more money and time on practicing than police officers so its entirely possible.

So any two random gun owners have more practice than two experienced police officers? So it might be a good idea to enforce a lot of training before you can own a gun, or take it outside of a shooting range, just to make sure everybody that owns a gun has so much experience.

 

[Future]

I read today that most victims in the New York shooting got shot by the police, while the attacker himself only shot his boss. Doesn't that already show a fundamental problem with guns in America? In defending their lives those trained police officers shot so many people, would regular people fare better?

The fundamental problem with guns is people.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

So any two random gun owners have more practice than two experienced police officers?

I'd say most do compared with big city departments. Did you look at the stats from the in the thread on the NYPD admitting they wounded everyone?

 

[ChanHuk]

SB 249 failed to make it to committee. Would've made me a criminal or forced me to turn in my AR-15. It made the "bullet-button" illegal. Which is stupid all together, along with 10 round mags.

If you really truly own an assault rifle (fully automatic), you give up you fully allow the government to come into your home (or wherever you keep your guns) whenever they feel like it.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

SB 249 failed to make it to committee. Would've made me a criminal or forced me to turn in my AR-15. It made the "bullet-button" illegal. Which is stupid all together, along with 10 round mags.

If you really truly own an assault rifle (fully automatic), you give up you fully allow the government to come into your home (or wherever you keep your guns) whenever they feel like it.

That's if you are a dealer or have a C&R and those are scheduled in advance.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

The fundamental problem with guns is people.

The fundamental problem with anything is people.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

SB 249 failed to make it to committee. Would've made me a criminal or forced me to turn in my AR-15. It made the "bullet-button" illegal. Which is stupid all together, along with 10 round mags.

If you really truly own an assault rifle (fully automatic), you give up you fully allow the government to come into your home (or wherever you keep your guns) whenever they feel like it.

I hate the 10 round limit in NY. As if someone on a murdering spree can't drop the mag and slap a new one in quick as hell. Just "feel good" legislation that doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[ChanHuk]

That's if you are a dealer or have a C&R and those are scheduled in advance.

If you're a dealer yeah they'll schedule you in advanced. If you have a fully automatic C&R I hate you (more like really jealous) because you're probably a full on baller. A fully automatic ATF stamped M16 cost around 16k I thinks.

10 round mag limits are idiotic because a perp isn't going to have a 10 round mag.