Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #323 - RKOViper (02/21/2013) [-]
Cool, now what do you have to say about or right to bear arms, Obama? Oh, that's right, you get to pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights you obey and disregard. ******** .
User avatar #346 to #323 - herecomesjohnny (02/22/2013) [-]
i'm waiting on your reply to xheavymetalx by the way.
User avatar #365 to #346 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
there you are
#327 to #323 - xheavymetalx (02/21/2013) [-]
There's a difference between basic human civil liberties and allowing everyone to run around with deadly weapons.

Also, no, he doesn't want to disarm the entire ******* population. He's just pushing for reforms that will make sure gun distributors have records of inventory/stolen weapons, as well as magazine size adjustments.
User avatar #361 to #327 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
He is pushing for a ban on any rifle that looks similar to an assault rifle, even if it doesn't function the same way. A ban would include the removal of our ability to own firearms. He is trying to limit our ability to own firearms at all, not just edit what we can/cannot own as accessories for them and he has repeatedly emphasized his support on bans of any semi-automatic guns that resemble assault rifles. Basically saying if it looks like something you've seen a soldier carry, even if it isn't full-auto, he wants it gone, end of story. If you don't believe me and you think I'm the only one who thinks that's what he's doing, walk into your nearest armory and see how much of the stock is gone because people want to load up before he succeeds in passing it.
User avatar #397 to #361 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
Just jumping in here with a quick question, why do you need semi-autos or assault rifles? What need is there for them?
User avatar #407 to #397 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
A semi-auto is simply a gun that shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger as opposed to a bolt-action with which you have to pull a lever back to empty the chamber after every shot. I'm not an expert marksman, so it's not very likely I'm going to hit someone with one shot, especially if I'm in a panic or my life is in danger, so I'd like to be able to get 3-5 shots off in rapid succession. A full-auto fires at a fixed rate repeatedly as long as you hold the trigger down, which I don't think is necessary for a civilian to own, but if you're ex-military and have a permit you have the right to own one.
User avatar #425 to #407 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
Fair enough, you may need a few shots at someone who is attacking you (i'm completely ignoring all the bits about if you should have guns in the first place, I can't be bothered with all of that bit now, we'll just focus on having them) but if someone is attacking you, surely just something like a pistol would be good enough, I can't really think of a situation where you're defending yourself unprepared and need for example, a semi auto rifle to take out someone at range, if they're far enough away for you to take them out with something that big its probably not that much self defense.

I'm glad you agree its silly for a civilian to have an auto, but even if you're an ex-military, again, why would you need one. If anything, you'd be better than most with a small pistol or something as you'd have been trained to use it properly. You wouldn't need an assault rifle.
User avatar #448 to #425 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
Sorry for adding another comment, but I have a .38 special for instance. It's extremely powerful, but once you get to a certain range it's woefully inaccurate because it only has a 2-inch barrell. Now my handgun of choice would be a Colt M1911, but it costs about $3000. An AR-15 however only costs $500 and has more stopping power. While the extra power may not be necessary, it can be of use.
User avatar #454 to #448 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
No problem. So what ranges are we talking about here, somewhere around 30ft or what?
User avatar #436 to #425 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
Sometimes it's just good to be prepared. Pistols are sufficient to stop someone at close range yes, but there is such thing as a long range threat. Even if they're just running at you through your back yard, would you rather wait for them to get in range of pistol use or take them out as soon as possible. AR's are handy, it's as simple as that, if you know how to use one without hurting those around you who aren't trying to hurt you, why shouldn't you have one? It's a self-defense mechanism.
User avatar #449 to #436 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
Well if they're in your garden running at you, why not run away/go inside and lock them out, or at least delay them. If they have to stop to smash through a door, you've got an easy target with a pistol.

The point is you don't need one. I can't really think of a reasonable situation where a few shots wouldn't stop whatever was happening. Its unlikely you're going to be zerged by 10 robbers trying to get at you when you're near your assault rifle and you have to gun them down one after another.

Even if there was a few, if you kill one of them the others are likely to stop for a second and probably run away. (unless you're being hunted by professionals or something, in which case you'd probably have a **** load of guns no matter if they were against the law or not. You know, I think i'm getting a bit carried away with these scenarios now. Oh well, always good to add a bit of humor)
User avatar #465 to #449 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
It's a matter of protecting your castle. You shouldn't be forced to let someone bust into your house so you can get a closer shot. It's also much easier to make an accurate shot with a rifle as opposed to a pistol because you have a rifle pressed up against your shoulder. And in response to your other comment, the .38 starts to lose accuracy around 25 feet. I'm not sure about the 1911, going on experience all I know is I've had no problems with it at about 100 feet. But an AR15 is accurate at 1500 feet. Granted I wouldn't ever be shooting someone at that range but Say they're 200 feet away. My .38 isn't going to hit them, and I can't afford a reliable handgun that's accuracy is any better. I can afford an AR. And multiple burglars isn't an unheard-of scenario, say there are 5 of them, my revolver holds 5 rounds, the AR can hold up to 31 including the one in the chamber. I'm not going to hit every shot regardless of which one I'm using, so if I shoot one and the rest don't run, I'm screwed with the .38. But if I shot one with the AR and they kept coming I'd be able to get enough shots off to finish them all off.
User avatar #509 to #465 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
Fair enough, you may not be able to kill them all, but if theres multiple people and lets say you know how to use your gun, you've bought it and practiced with it, so you kill say 2 or 3 of them. If the rest keep coming, lets face it, you probably don't have a chance, if they're so determined to get into your house they ignore there comrades dying or at least being seriously injured, they're not there to just rob you, they're probably a lot more serious and in all likelihood, professional, so you probably don't have much of a chance even with an assault rifle.

I though it'd probably be somewhere around that range. And if someone is 200 feet away, can you really class that as self defense unless they're shooting at you, how much damage can someone that far away really do unless they're trying to kill you?
And 25 feet is still a reasonable distance, you're going to be able to get a couple of shots at them before they're close enough to really do anything to you, so if they're still coming at you after you've been pointing a gun at them, probably fired a warning shot and probably hit them somewhere when they're closer, that person is again, probably coming at you for a reason, not just say trying to rob you.

So is that really self defense? Shooting someone who is either too far to hurt you (shooting them with a rifle) or if they're specifically trying to get you, you've probably done something to make them try and get you specifically, thats not self defense, its starting a fight. Its kind of like throwing a rock at someone, then punching them when they run at you and saying it was self defense.

I know there are other scenarios where this is probably not the case, but the majority are probably like this
User avatar #529 to #509 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
Yes, the majority of cases are npt actually self-defense, but as you said, he could be shooting at you from 200 feet away, too, in which case, it is self-defense. My only point is, there are rare cases in which an assault rifle is necessary. I like to say I'm not afraid of people who know how to use rifles, I'm afraid of people who don't. I do, so I should be able to have one. I see your point and it's valid, but I'd like to be as well-prepared for anything as I can be. That's it. I don't need a machine gun, I don't even need an assault rifle, but I'd like to have one. I'm well-equipped to use one, I'm a good shot, and seeing as I'm not a criminal or legally insane, it's my constitutional right to own one. So I believe I should be allowed to own one. If you disagree, fine, that's your opinion and I respect it, mine is just different. Also seeing as I don't know you or what your upbringing was, I can't know where you're coming from with yours, but I come from a long line of veterans and men who have owned guns their whole lives. I was raised by a man who had guns, I've been learning how to shoot since I was four, I come from a gun-loving family, that's probably why I like guns.
User avatar #589 to #529 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
A direct quote from you here:
"I'm well-equipped to use one, I'm a good shot, and seeing as I'm not a criminal or legally insane"
I'm not saying you shouldn't have a gun, hell, even though I most of the time its probably not needed, I agree you should be able to have a rifle, but as you said in the quote above, you are well suited to have a gun, so why not impose some checks on those who want a gun.

Just basic ones, i.e. mental health, reason for having one, i.e. a pistol is well suited for defense, but is a high powered hunting rifle, no not really, so why would you need one unless you were going to go hunting? You wouldn't really, so as I said, maybe just some restrictions on guns, including safety and training.

I'll give you some background on me, I live in England, and we have fairly strict gun laws, but my Dad has a shotgun license and used to do some shooting, my Girlfriend regularly goes game shooting and my Uncle has a shoot for game including birds, deer and also does pest control, like rats etc, so i'm used to guns.

And even though there are a surprising amount of guns in Britain (off the top of my head I can think of at least 20 people I know who have guns) we have very, very little gun crime, maybe one case in the news a year.

Why? Because we have gun regulations and control. Not everyone can get a gun, you have to go through a fair bit to get one.

I'm not saying America should have the same regulations, but all the sensible, average Americans who have legitimate reasons for wanting guns would have nothing to fear from stricter regulations, the only people who would worry about it would be people who would be denied a gun under stricter regulations, who to be honest are probably the people you don't want to have the guns in the first place.

As an American (I assume) you probably have a better view on this, what is your opinion on gun control/regulation?
User avatar #792 to #589 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
I absolutely agree, there are regulations in place that you mentioned, mentally unstable people can't legally purchase guns nor can anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony. As far as ability to use one goes we have limitations to a certain extent. For instance, to get a hunting license you have to take classes and training and tests before you get one. Now when it comes to purchasing semi-automatic guns there are no regulations beyond the ones I just listed. I think there should be but our president doesn't seem to realize there are alternatives to banning weapons completely.
#813 to #792 - eddymolly (02/22/2013) [-]
Now you see, thats a sensible answer. I'm actually seriously glad i've finally got a sensible response from an internet post. Whats wrong with more gun control? Nothing. So why not introduce it?   
And whilst we may disagree on specifics (e.g. what guns should have what checks, how easy it should be to have specific guns etc) i'm happy we both agree that there is definitely ways to handle this, and it could be done a lot better than it is.    
Than you for a good discussion, i'm now going to thumb a load of your comments.  Have a funny gif of a dog
Now you see, thats a sensible answer. I'm actually seriously glad i've finally got a sensible response from an internet post. Whats wrong with more gun control? Nothing. So why not introduce it?

And whilst we may disagree on specifics (e.g. what guns should have what checks, how easy it should be to have specific guns etc) i'm happy we both agree that there is definitely ways to handle this, and it could be done a lot better than it is.

Than you for a good discussion, i'm now going to thumb a load of your comments. Have a funny gif of a dog
User avatar #824 to #813 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, I am too. Later.
#368 to #361 - xheavymetalx (02/22/2013) [-]
First of all, he wouldn't be able to successfully make that kind of reform without the support of congress. Who the PEOPLE elect. Therefore, it's fair.

Also, ever think that it may just be for the common good? I mean, look at this:
http://www.slate. com/articles/newsandpolitics/crime/2012/12/gundeathtallyeveryamericangun deathsincenewtownsandyhook_shooting.html
User avatar #374 to #368 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
People elected Obama as well, the fact of the matter is the majority of the country can vote, regardless of how dumb they are and how little they know about what they're voting for. So no, it's not "fair" just because other people who were voted for, like Obama, get a say. No I don't think it's for the best just because one guy went crazy and shot a bunch of children. Drugs are illegal, but people who want to sell and use drugs even though it's illegal still get them. I choose not to break the law, so I don't have any drugs. The same can be assumed for guns. If the law says we can't have them, I won't have any because I am a law-abiding citizen. However, gang bangers and whoever else may want to commit a murder will be able to get them ILLEGALLY. The only difference is that now that it's illegal, if they break into my house and have their illegal guns, I no longer have any way to protect myself. On a side note I love how everyone refers to guns as deadly weapons but nothing else. Tell me, people are stabbed every day, should we also regulate knife laws and ban knives that resemble machetes or bayonets? Or how about blunt instruments?
#451 to #374 - xheavymetalx (02/22/2013) [-]
Again, no one said Obama was going to get officials to physically take away your weapons. You don't need advanced weaponry to defend your house, nor should gun distributors keep no record of their inventory, nor should just ANYONE be able to get guns at a local store. Sure, law abiding citizens should have guns. But even the constitution says "well regulated". There has to be a system to make sure that the people who do own guns are the ones that won't kill innocent people with them.
User avatar #458 to #451 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
And all of that I agree with, yes there should be records, yes there should be regulations, but he shouldn't be able to completely ban assault rifles which is what he's trying to do.
User avatar #394 to #374 - zexionn **User deleted account** (02/22/2013) [-]
You're a lot less likely to kill somebody from across the room with a knife. If you're so incredibly paranoid that somebody is going to break into your house and try to kill you then move to another country, because unless you sleep with your gun at night it wont likely stop somebody who breaks into your house.
User avatar #400 to #394 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
It's still a deadly weapon, unless you're a good shot you aren't likely to kill someone with a gun either. And there's a difference between paranoia and realization of a real threat.
User avatar #410 to #400 - zexionn **User deleted account** (02/22/2013) [-]
That's not exactly realization of a threat, you just make it sound like you're paranoid about it. It's only a real threat if something like that keeps happening around where you live, THEN I can understand the need for keeping a weapon nearby.
User avatar #412 to #410 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
I live in the bad part of St. Louis, Missouri. It happens repeatedly in my neighborhood and neighborhoods surrounding my house. So yes, maybe I am paranoid, but it's a healthy paranoia.
User avatar #418 to #412 - zexionn **User deleted account** (02/22/2013) [-]
Paranoia is never healthy...but I can see having a weapon at hand if you live in a bad area.
User avatar #424 to #418 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
Exactly, so you see my point. To some people they're necessary, and I'm one of them. I was raised learning how to use them and now I fear that I may need to use them, therefor I'd like to have them at hand.
User avatar #441 to #424 - zexionn **User deleted account** (02/22/2013) [-]
I really don't care if somebody wants to own a gun, my only pet peeve is people who think they need to own like an automatic assault rifle or a mini gun or something crazy like that.
User avatar #447 to #441 - RKOViper (02/22/2013) [-]
I understand that completely, no one needs a machine gun or an SMG or whatever kind of automatic gun they may think is absolutely necessary. Now say you're ex-military, you're trained to use an automatic assault rifle, do you NEED one? No. Should you be ALLOWED to own one? Why not? But an ex-marine isn't an ordinary civilian. He's a trained weapon himself. So it seems to me that you and I have similar views on this issue.
 Friends (0)