Gun Control?

Status
Not open for further replies.

audio file

Est. Contributor
Messages
203
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
I personally own three guns 1 .22 pistol 1 20 gauge shotgun (for hunting and my only sport) 1 .410 bore shotgun also for hunting and sport so I say everyone but people that are mentally unstable (homisidle or suisidle) or cold blooded serial killers
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
Enjoyable discussion this. Kudos.

The existence of every country is at danger at every second of every day. A foolish country is the country that lets down its guard, and though that may seem paranoid, we are not beyond our natural human desire to seize empires, land-grab, rush for power, and kill indiscriminately to expand our borders.
From the second the Manhattan Project was completed that has been technically true, I suppose, but in terms of this argument, it is really hyperbolic. There is no threat to the US that civilians possessing firearms will stave off and the notion that outlawing guns would make the nation less secure is a fantasy. Economic and military might secure your country not Grandpa's shotgun in the shed.

Assuring that people had the right to bear arms and defend themselves and the best interest of their country completely denied any ability of tyrannical rule. Revolution was just as potential inside our borders as it was against powers outside of them. Hell, there were plenty of people during the American Revolution (which, unbeknownst to many, did not end until after the turn of the century -- it continued far beyond the end of the war) that took up arms against their government. The most popular was Shays' Rebellion, and if you want more information, look it up.
I'm aware of this and the right to bear arms was perfectly true, proper and valid in response at the time.

Shay's Rebellion was in an entirely different period of cultural and technological history and no civil militia could stand up to a Government army these days – taking up handguns against an enemy that commands an air force that could carpet bomb the country clean should it wish would be rather futile. And that is why the right to bear arms has been overtaken and obsoleted by time.

Also, the army and the police inherently and invariably have greater physical authority that you, of course they do. They have tanks and fighter planes and submarines and spend half a trillion dollars a year. You cannot counter that. Make no mistake, in the extraordinary scenario of a military coup in the US there could be no opposition from your civilians, the combined military might of all the armies of the United Nations would probably struggle to overcome the entrenched US armed forces, people digging out their pistols from a shoebox in the attic would make no difference no matter how attractive retaining the right to do so may be.

The thing is, if such a right actually represented the things you talk then it would be a different matter and when it did two hundred years or so years ago I would have fully supported it but it just doesn't any more. What it does do, in pragmatic terms, is to make violent crime easier and more prevalent and puts thousands (millions?) of deadly objects in households throughout the country – remember, the most likely victim of a gun you keep is you or a member of your family. The only argument for legalised gun ownership is rooted in libertarian philosophy . I can respect that but it is not a case with practical foundation.

Despite all this, as I said, I wouldn't actually argue for a gun ban in the US at this time because it would be impractical. Just that having such a ban is a better state than not if it can be properly managed. I'm also speaking having lived all my life in a nation that doesn't make gun ownership sacrosanct through it's constitution of course, which is also part of my point about context.

Also, an aside: I think you spread your credit rather thinly by naming just Madison and Hamilton. What about Randolph? The Virginia Plan was key in the drawing-up of your system of government and you have to include both sides because it was the Great Compromise between the two that resulted in Checks and Balances. Paterson? Morris also? It's the idea of the whole not the parts that's key after all.
 

PuddleFopsKit

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,127
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little, Incontinent
Kip said:
It is a Savage and I am pretty sure it is a Mark 2. I bought it used, so I don't have any of the original paperwork.
I thought so.. but I notice that yours doesn't have any stubs for a sling like mine does. Or maybe I just can't see the studs due to the camera angle..


Kip said:
As for the Saiga, I recommend you check GunBroker for it. They have tons of rifles.
Yeah, I go there as well as gunsamerica.com a lot. Sometimes they have them, but I'm looking for a local dealer, due to high fraud risk. A lot of people are ripping that gun off.. I want to get one directly from Tromix.. but man, $2200 for the set-up I want.. *sigh* I guess I could sell a few coins...
 

Dawes

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,805
Role
Diaper Lover
Enjoyable discussion this. Kudos.
Also, the army and the police inherently and invariably have greater physical authority that you, of course they do. They have tanks and fighter planes and submarines and spend half a trillion dollars a year. You cannot counter that.
I can't necessarily say that I agree with that (although, happily admitted, the fun of the discussion is that we don't agree), as at the time of the Revolution, it was entirely unexpected that the Americans would have come out "victorious" against such an experienced and funded military as that of the British. It has been true in many accounts that a more primitive force has certainly been able to overcome the strength of a modern force. It's how the opposition is organized that makes the difference.

All of that aside, I do also believe that the problem does not lie within the objects to which our people have access (being the guns), but the mentality of our people as a whole. Make no mistake -- Americans are pointlessly angry folk! In working where I do, as an intake specialist for a state-funded defense firm, I talk to upwards of twenty people every day and retrieve statements of their crimes from them. Do you want to know how often handguns, or even guns are involved in any number of crimes? Without quoting direct numbers, I will get maybe two or three gun-related crimes in a week out of the literal hundred-some people that I see on a weekly basis. The crimes that we cover are high-profile ones, as well -- assaults, robberies, what-have you. Broken bottles, box-cutters, and butterfly knives are the most common objects that assaults, robberies, thefts, and violent exchanges are carried out with in the northern Batlimore area

The misguided American youth are a bunch of arrogant, warlike fools -- take away the guns with which some of them commit their crimes, and I can guarantee that they'll resort to far more barbaric means.

Gun-crimes are high-profile, I believe, because of the conflicting political interests regarding guns. You read articles about "Baltimore has had 250 gun-related murders / robberies / what-have-you" so far this year, but outside of its original context, it holds false weight. What isn't publicized are the amount of crimes committed without the assistance of a handgun. What isn't publicized is the percentage of those handguns that were not registered, illegally traded, and illegally obtained. The majority of them are. Unfortunately, no matter how much you crack down on handguns, the unlawful *will* always find a way to obtain them. If they can get ahold of automatic weapons, which are almost entirely outlawed, even now ... then getting other weapons in the event of a strnoger ban would be no issue.

The Xbox 360, when it came out, was made in such a way that both soft and hard modding would be difficult, if not supposedly impossible. Look how fast kids, hardware gurus, and hobbyists managed to throw that right down the shitter! Heavier prevention is just another way to say, "Hey guys, here's a new challenge to overcome!"

And as for Madison and Hamilton, they've always been my mind's poster-boys for the checks-and-balances system. I totally understand that there were other minds and thoughts at work, though -- these standards that govern this country were not fathered from a few minds alone.
 

Dakota13

Est. Contributor
Messages
358
Role
Diaper Lover
I currently own two guns, a .22 semi automatic, and a remington 870 for hunting. I will say that i believe guns should be allowed to the people that deserve them
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
All of that aside, I do also believe that the problem does not lie within the objects to which our people have access (being the guns), but the mentality of our people as a whole. Make no mistake -- Americans are pointlessly angry folk! In working where I do, as an intake specialist for a state-funded defense firm, I talk to upwards of twenty people every day and retrieve statements of their crimes from them. Do you want to know how often handguns, or even guns are involved in any number of crimes? Without quoting direct numbers, I will get maybe two or three gun-related crimes in a week out of the literal hundred-some people that I see on a weekly basis. The crimes that we cover are high-profile ones, as well -- assaults, robberies, what-have you. Broken bottles, box-cutters, and butterfly knives are the most common objects that assaults, robberies, thefts, and violent exchanges are carried out with in the northern Batlimore area
Wouldn't disagree with any of that. Guns are enablers rather than causers of a lot of crime. I just think that taking them away would have more positives than keeping them (as I feel they're not necessary or useful in modern society) even if only a handful of the thousands of instances of gun crime every year are prevented. I wouldn't presume to know enough about American society to suggest exactly how making guns less accessible would go about but if it could be done it would be a good thing.

Anyway, I think I would be repeating myself to go on much more and we've both got our main points across so, agree to disagree and all that. Been fun though.
 

d4l

Est. Contributor
Messages
955
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Other
Wouldn't disagree with any of that. Guns are enablers rather than causers of a lot of crime. I just think that taking them away would have more positives than keeping them (as I feel they're not necessary or useful in modern society) even if only a handful of the thousands of instances of gun crime every year are prevented. I wouldn't presume to know enough about American society to suggest exactly how making guns less accessible would go about but if it could be done it would be a good thing.

Anyway, I think I would be repeating myself to go on much more and we've both got our main points across so, agree to disagree and all that. Been fun though.
I am a hunter. By taking away my guns you take away one of my families main source of meat. We do not eat beef.(we rarely eat pork for that matter)(interesting story behind that). Now you could say we could buy venison but honestly its is outragesly overpriced form people that do sell it, and the way me and my family clean and process meat is close to surgery as you are ever going to get.(i would never touch the processed stuff from around here its disgusting)

Now tell me what good taking away my families legally owned and safely kept guns? I challenge to come up with one positives to the negatives i stated.
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
Heh, as a vegetarian that's not an argument that I have a great deal of personal sympathy for and one slightly facetious negative I could go into would be the morality and extraordinary environmental cost of meat eating. I do respect your right to live as you chose though and there are obviously some occupations and authorities that do justify gun ownership so I wouldn't say a total, blanket gun ban is plausible or proper, rather that an unqualified right to ownership is unnecessary and more harmful than beneficial. For why I think that, read my other posts in this thread. I don't wish to go over the same ground again.
 

d4l

Est. Contributor
Messages
955
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Other
Heh, as a vegetarian that's not an argument that I have a great deal of personal sympathy for and one slightly facetious negative I could go into would be the morality and extraordinary environmental cost of meat eating. I do respect your right to live as you chose though and there are obviously some occupations and authorities that do justify gun ownership so I wouldn't say a total, blanket gun ban is plausible or proper, rather that an unqualified right to ownership is unnecessary and more harmful than beneficial. For why I think that, read my other posts in this thread. I don't wish to go over the same ground again.
How is there an extreme environmental cost? We hunt family farm land with an overpopulation of deer. We help the farmers(and you all that eat corn and other farm products)and we bring down the population to standards.

Since your from england you can't really say what would be good or bad for america. Can you now?

Also to whoever keeps saying what the founding fathers meant by the second amendment. We will never know exactly what they meant when they wrote it. It's all specualtion because obviously we will never(in the foreseeable feature) be able to ask them.
 

Jeremiah

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,133
Role
Diaper Lover
I own several firearms. They vary from 22 LR recreational weapons to full hunting rifles. Along with those is a pump action shotgun and a 44 magnum revolver. I have yet to see a decent argument why I should not have these.

My revolver is always ready to defend my home. During 6 years of owning it, it has been un-holstered once due to someone walking around within my home while I slept. Growing up, I watch my father draw his revolver in response to someone entering the motel room were my family was sleeping. Both of these instances did not include any shots fired. The mere presence of a firearm rapidly ended the situation. Neither of these examples made it to the news, because nothing shocking occurred.

I firmly believe that, in the interest of public safety, privately owned firearms are necessary. Baltimore is an excellent example of the effectiveness of gun control. Criminals do not have to fear getting shot by a law abiding citizen because law abiding citizens do not pack firearms there. Police departments cannot be depended upon for help with hostile situations. Their response time is measured in minutes. Violent crimes are finished in seconds.

Richmond, Virginia, had a problem with violent crimes. Instead of stricter gun laws, they started a campaign to institute tougher sentencing laws for gun crimes (Project Exile, or Exile Virginia). Now, their violent crime rate is down. Even the number of criminals found carrying guns is down. This is how to reduce violence. Remove the violent people from society. Guns do not kill people; criminals kill people!

Weapons bans are a twisted invention of the anti-gun crowd. Make one gun appear more dangerous and ban it. Then, proceed to the next gun. Those who seek to ban .50 caliber weapons either do not know the balistics involved, or do not care. Most .50 caliber weapons were designed just to have a larger bullet. Most times, these cartridges use a slightly heavier bullet traveling much slower.

The Desert Eagle chambered in .50 AE (Action Express) is no more dangerous than the 44 Magnum version. At point blank range, both will travel over a foot through ballistic gel. Rough translation: complete penetration of a human torso. At longer ranges, the 44 Magnum round retains more energy due to it lower frontal area and wind drag.

The Smith and Wesson (S&W) .500 cartridge is quite impressive at short range. This handgun cartridge was designed from the ground up to be the most powerful handgun cartridge in the world. This has better ballistics than the .50 AE. This cartridge was designed for hunting. It has sufficient power to consider using to defend against even the most dangerous animals in North America. Then again, some people have injured their wrists by firing one of these handguns. Is this gun bad because it is a .50? No, it is just mean because it is the largest handgun cartridge available at this time. The revolver made for this round is huge and only holds 5 rounds max. Shortly after making the .500 S&W cartridge, they tried again to produce something that people would purchase. Their next version is equally impressive: the .460 S&W. This round has almost as much lead travelling much faster. This is the fastest handgun cartridge currently produced. I want one of these. Then again, it would be cheaper to purchase a revolver chambered for a rifle cartridge. BFR makes a revolver chambered in .45 government (old military rifle cartridge from the late 1800's).

The most spectacular .50 is the .50 BMG round fired from a semi-automatic rifle. This gun is nice, but rare. It's price tag is $10,000 new, and not commonly found used. Even the single shot rifles for this cartridge are over $2,000 dollars. The round itself cost $3-$6 dollars each as of a few years ago. This rifle weighs over 20 pounds and is not portable. The semi-automatic version is almost 40 pounds. I dare you to find a news article claiming a "Barrett" rifle being used in a crime. It is too expensive and unwieldy to use for most criminals. Yes, I want one.

The above mentioned cartridges should not be banned simply because they are .50 cal. None of those weapons are common or cheap. If someone wants the ultimate in close range killing power, they get a shotgun. Last time I checked, Wal-Mart sold these and the ammunition fairly cheap. A 12 gauge pump action shotgun can be found for under $300. With a slug, the owner gets an ounce of solid lead traveling up to or beyond 1500 FPS. Slugs vary in diameter, but normally are .50 or larger. With normal shotgun shells, the owner can choose how much lead (3/4, 7/8, or 1), what velocity, and what size pellets. Pellets range from #12 shot (0.05" or 1.27 mm) all the way to OOO Buck (0.36" or 9.14 mm in diameter). There are 6 pellets per ounce with OOO Buck, compared to 2,300 per ounce with #12 shot. I keep a box of 3.5 inch magnum 12 gauge rounds on hand just in case they are needed. The current box is loaded with 18 pellets of OO Buck (0.33", 8.38mm, 8 pellets per ounce). How is that for power?

In my opinion, since the 12 gauge shotgun is commonly available, banning anything less lethal is a waste of time. Then again, my shotgun will never be taken from me as long as I live.
 

TOAccountant

Est. Contributor
Messages
83
Role
Diaper Lover
I personally believe in a reasonable level of gun control. Licensing, Ballistics Registration and I do not see a justifiable need for most assault rifles and pistols because they are not used for hunting. I believe that most control legislations go too far. For example, many friends of mine are airsofters and up coming legislation will ban their clubs from meeting and their bb and pellet guns are already illegal which is ridiculous.
 
Messages
1,858
Role
Diaper Lover, Carer
I agree with pretty much everything Lukie said. Except I do enjoy guns and have shot a .22 rifle before. Nothing special but it was fun, and I was shooting at a Black Bear with it at one point haha.

I think there should be more gun control in America, because of not just the people in the hood shooting someone everyday in America, but also because of the increasing shooting rampages and school shootings. Obviously it is not hard to get a gun in America. I have been offered to buy an illegal gun two time in my life time already, and I do not even like in the city, of course I refused both times. So that just shows how easy it is to obtain one if you got the money, or know someone to steal it from.

I am not too sure how it should be done, but there needs to be a better new system. Like I think the no criminals and mentally disturbed people is a good idea, but there need to be more restrictions and requirements added to make it safer for Americans.
 

Jeremiah

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,133
Role
Diaper Lover
I personally believe in a reasonable level of gun control. Licensing, Ballistics Registration and I do not see a justifiable need for most assault rifles and pistols because they are not used for hunting. I believe that most control legislations go too far. For example, many friends of mine are airsofters and up coming legislation will ban their clubs from meeting and their bb and pellet guns are already illegal which is ridiculous.
I see your point of view, but cannot totally agree. As for "assault rifles", these are commonly used for varmint hunting because of their cheap ammunition. As for "assault pistols", how are these different from any other pistol? For that matter, what does the term "assault weapon" mean? How are these different from what I currently use for hunting?

Ballistic registration is a waste of government money and time in my opinion. As a weapon is used, the chamber and barrel will wear. Over time, the imprint will change. My .22 LR rifle and pistol both have over 2000 rounds fired through them. My revolver only has about 800 rounds fired. Most likely, it will be difficult to trace these weapons using this method. My .22 caliber weapons can have the bolt and firing pin easily replaced. The rifle only requires an Allen wrench to remove and replace the barrel. For most semi-automatic pistols, the barrel and slide are easily removed and replaced. By taking such actions, the ballistic registration data is ruined.



I agree with pretty much everything Lukie said. Except I do enjoy guns and have shot a .22 rifle before. Nothing special but it was fun, and I was shooting at a Black Bear with it at one point haha.
Why were you shooting at a black bear with a .22?

I think there should be more gun control in America, because of not just the people in the hood shooting someone everyday in America, but also because of the increasing shooting rampages and school shootings. Obviously it is not hard to get a gun in America. I have been offered to buy an illegal gun two time in my life time already, and I do not even like in the city, of course I refused both times. So that just shows how easy it is to obtain one if you got the money, or know someone to steal it from.
Is this because of more guns or gun control in America?

I am not too sure how it should be done, but there needs to be a better new system. Like I think the no criminals and mentally disturbed people is a good idea, but there need to be more restrictions and requirements added to make it safer for Americans.
Oh, I have an idea. Return to past laws that allowed guns at school! Every student should be given a basic firearm safety course to prevent accidental shootings. To stop school shootings, every teacher should be armed with a small revolver. Revolvers are a good choice because of how little training is required to safely operate one. That type is point and click. No safety or slide to fumble. The Principle and select other administrators should have access to a weapons safe containing rifles and shotguns. These precautions will make anyone think twice about attempting violence at school.
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
Since your from england you can't really say what would be good or bad for america. Can you now?
Ugh, nothing personal, mate and I apologise if what I'm about to say seems a bit strong but I'm so tired of seeing people troop out this this ridiculous, asinine point.

Firstly, do you not have opinions about things that don't immediately affect you and should I not be allowed to concern myself about things that happen outside my backyard? I'm not Burmese; can I not say that the military dictatorship of Burma is bad? Do you not think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-il are bad for their countries, do you not think that Nelson Mandela was good for his? Crucially, is the weight of your opinion on those people invalidated because you are not Iranian, Zimbabwean, North Korean or South African? Of course it isn't, it is the quality and depth of your considerations that is relevant, not your damn nationality. Above all, different perspectives are a good thing.

Secondly, I didn't say what America should or shouldn't do or what specifically would be good or bad for her, in fact I said more than once that all I was basically arguing was that a society that criminalises gun ownership is better for it but that I understood that isn't necessarily something that can be practically achieved in the US. We were having, more than anything, a discussion of ideas and a very amicable one.

Thirdly, that has absolutely nothing to the do with the issue. It's a very common and very cheap tactic to use in a discussion – if you're not sure how to argue a case, try and discredit or proclaim unqualified the person you are arguing against and hope their point is invalidated by association. Engage on the level of the merits of an argument or it's just noise.

Fourthly, and this one is a little glib, Thomas Paine was from England.

Anyway, sorry about that but that point has been used many a time before and, as you can probably tell, it riles me.

How is there an extreme environmental cost? We hunt family farm land with an overpopulation of deer. We help the farmers(and you all that eat corn and other farm products)and we bring down the population to standards.
Well I did say I was being a bit facetious with that; the implication being not to take it terribly seriously. In fairness to you, I don't know anything about the specifics of your practices and I didn't mean to judge you or them specifically. The meat industry as a whole has tremendous and unparalleled environmental consequences in terms of energy required to put food on the table, that's all, but it's not especially relevant to this. I did also acknowledge that certain professions - farmers included if that wasn't clear - can justify gun ownership because, while I don't much like the killing of animals for food myself, others do and guns can be necessary for the protection of livestock from predators. Licensed possession of a suitable firearm for those who work in professions that make it a reasonable requirement, I have no great problem with.

Also to whoever keeps saying what the founding fathers meant by the second amendment. We will never know exactly what they meant when they wrote it. It's all specualtion because obviously we will never(in the foreseeable feature) be able to ask them.
How then, may I ask, does one enforce an amendment without interpreting it? A branch of your government - the Supreme Court - exists for practically no other purpose than interpreting the Constitution and you say that to do so is somehow futile or unachievable?

That aside, the Constitution is quite clear. I don't think anyone was disputing what the implications of the Second Amendment are, the debate was over their provenance and applicability in the present day.

And, since I've allowed myself to get hoicked back into this anyway:
Jerimiah said:
I firmly believe that, in the interest of public safety, privately owned firearms are necessary.
Why is it then that so many comparable industrialised nations in Europe have such lower rates of crime, particularly violent crime, and thereby greater public safety? That isn't to somewhat spuriously say that a gun ban equals low crime rates, you understand, but it does illustrate that legalising guns doesn't seem necessary in achieving good public safety.

To stop school shootings, every teacher should be armed with a small revolver. Revolvers are a good choice because of how little training is required to safely operate one. That type is point and click. No safety or slide to fumble. The Principle and select other administrators should have access to a weapons safe containing rifles and shotguns. These precautions will make anyone think twice about attempting violence at school.
That wouldn't stop school shootings it would just make them very short; most of these shootings are essentially dramatic and grotesque suicides so the risk of resistance wouldn't be preventative . The answer to gun crime surely isn't more guns but a combination of addressing the issues that lead to it and making it less easy. Honestly, if it has come to the point of arming every teacher in the land you have a serious problem.
 
Messages
1,858
Role
Diaper Lover, Carer
Why were you shooting at a black bear with a .22?
:rofl: Good qeustion, I was wondering if someone would ask that. Well I was only 13 at the time and by myself in the middle of bum-f*** so I did not know any better, that it would have just made the bear mad (unless I hit the eart or head of course), I was just so excited to see a bear, and did not know any better. Plus it is a good thing I did not hit it, cause it was not even bear season, can you say GIANT fine!? lol I just would have claimed self defense, cause it was EXTREMELY close to me, only 20-25 yards away when I first noticed it. Then I started running and then stopped and was like oh yeah! I have a gun! Then turn around and fired haha! I came super close to hitting it in the leg, hit the ground right in front of hits paw and made the leaves fly up in front of its face, which just scared it off, which was the best case scenario, just thank God I did not hit it! haha!

Is this because of more guns or gun control in America?
Control in my opinion.

Oh, I have an idea. Return to past laws that allowed guns at school! Every student should be given a basic firearm safety course to prevent accidental shootings. To stop school shootings, every teacher should be armed with a small revolver. Revolvers are a good choice because of how little training is required to safely operate one. That type is point and click. No safety or slide to fumble. The Principle and select other administrators should have access to a weapons safe containing rifles and shotguns. These precautions will make anyone think twice about attempting violence at school.
Hmmm, it is a good idea, but I do not think it would fly over very good. You would defiantly have parents complaining about that. Plus I am sure some teachers would freak out the moment they needed it, and end up getting shot themselfs from hesitating.
 

Charlie

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,449
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Carer, Other
Arming every teacher!

That's just scary.

With things like school shootings (and I think I said this ages ago in a thread about school shootings), guns have nothing to do with it anyway. People who do these things are a bit mental anyway. And to solve the problem of school shootings, it's going to take more than just "oh, arm every teacher so they can shoot anyone who goes on a rampage". It's a ridiculous suggestion!
What you need is to actually address the problem, and that's identifying people who might end up shooting everybody and helping psychologically.

With arming every teacher, people would still want to shoot-up at school, but would just be put off doing it (and might end doing it elsewhere instead). Ideally nobody would want to do any killing!

Arming every teacher would just be the easy, lazy option. A short term fix. But then what happens when people take violence elsewhere? Fill all public places with armed guards? Eventually you'd just end up with a society where everybody is armed, fearing everybody else. And that's kind of sick.

Really people need to feel the right way about killing other people, and that is not wanting to! Guns are fine in a society where people don't want to kill, or where people aren't suicidal.
Guns shouldn't be legal in Britain because if they were, suicide rates would rise (because you have less chance of messing up when you use a gun!), and violent crime rates would rise because the less hardcore chavs would steal their parent's legally owned guns.
Whereas in a country that is doing well (Norway, say, since it's been cited as being awesome), guns can probably be legal without much trouble.
 

Dawes

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,805
Role
Diaper Lover
Ballistic registration is a waste of government money and time in my opinion. As a weapon is used, the chamber and barrel will wear. Over time, the imprint will change. My .22 LR rifle and pistol both have over 2000 rounds fired through them. My revolver only has about 800 rounds fired. Most likely, it will be difficult to trace these weapons using this method. My .22 caliber weapons can have the bolt and firing pin easily replaced. The rifle only requires an Allen wrench to remove and replace the barrel. For most semi-automatic pistols, the barrel and slide are easily removed and replaced. By taking such actions, the ballistic registration data is ruined.
I'm glad you brought this up, Jeremiah, because I was going to mention the same thing. Not only does what Jeremiah say entirely apply, but some weapons can also fire different sized loads and cartridges, and if you're changing any variable in the ammunition -- the size of the cartridge, the weight of the load in it, the interaction between the firing pin and the primer -- then the ballistics information is going to surely be different. Most weapons can have their most integral workings replaced within seconds, completely throwing off any logged ballistics information that the database might have.

When you purchase a gun, only the casings for the preferred bullet-size are submitted. As an example, I purchased a .38 about a year-and-a-half ago, and two .38 casings were submitted to the BIS (Ballistics Information System). They did not submit any .357 casings, though, which work perfectly well in a .38, and the ballistic imprints on a load with a different magnitude are bound to be different.

Take into account, too, the Taurus Judge. This is a pistol entirely accessible to any gun-purchaser, and not only does it shoot .357 rounds ... but it's also marketed to shoot 20/20 shotgun shells! Being that shotgun shells are half-plastic and the loads are untraceable, recognizing the origin-weapon of someone killed with a Taurus Judge loaded with 20/20 shotgun shells would be likely impossible.

People against gun control think the BIS is a waste of cash-money. Hell, people who think that gun control is a totally viable option think that the BIS is a bunch of crap and completely ineffective. I don't have any direct sources, but I did the research for a persuasive presentation based on this very subject awhile.

Good thing to point out, Jeremiah!
 
Last edited:

Henry

Est. Contributor
Messages
33
Role
Diaper Lover
I believe that gun control is not an option as of now, but if we had gun control earlier, the United States would be a better place. I take an example from the United Kingdom, where the chances of getting murdered are 1 in 300000 (whereas in the United States the chances are 1 in 20000)
 

Kip

Banned
Messages
400
Role
Diaper Lover
I believe that gun control is not an option as of now, but if we had gun control earlier, the United States would be a better place. I take an example from the United Kingdom, where the chances of getting murdered are 1 in 300000 (whereas in the United States the chances are 1 in 20000)
Would you mind explaining your position in more detail, especially your first sentance.
 

Klokwork

Est. Contributor
Messages
511
Role
Diaper Lover, Carer


People shouldn't fear their government, the government should fear the people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top