UN global gun control

Pages: 1234
Would have been interesting if it wasn't clearly fear mongering. The treaty is meant to affect international gun trade, not our 2nd amendment rights.
Ah yea you're right. It was hard to find a relatively non over-the-top right wing article on this. Seems like most every site is playing this out like Obama is trying to take every gun you own.
It will effect people looking to buy guns from manufacturers in other countries, but it's not the apocalypse the news article cries for. I'm not huge into guns, but I'm pretty sure we manufacture most of our own right here in the U.S. anyways.
I haven't responded to any of the political threads for fear of offending our more liberal members, but I will reply to this.

ModShop wrote:
but it's not the apocalypse the news article cries for


Give them an inch and they will eventually take a mile...

I found it hilarious during the presidential debate, all that I seemed to hear was "AK-47's!"... "AK-47's!". What percentage of shootings take place with (registered, expensive) weapons as opposed to hand-guns? Where were all of the voices crying out "What about hand-gun control in gang-infested cities?" During the past 3 weeks, prices of semi-automatic assault rifles rose by almost 300% resulting from the election. Soon enough, there won't be any buying / selling of these relics between collectors, such as myself.

P.S. Here's a quote from that article.



"Last week, the Obama Administration took its first major step in a long-range plan to ban firearms in the United States.


It's a pity though...the only thing that banning firearms will accomplish is taking them away from law-abiding citizens. Criminals have always, and will always have access to them; and there is absolutely nothing that the government can do about that.
Last edited on

"Last week, the Obama Administration took its first major step in a long-range plan to ban firearms in the United States.


I'd like some sauce on that plan. Cause I'm pretty sure it's among the endless crap that falls out of the mouths of those on fox news.
if i lived in america i would want to carry a gun but i dont want them over here, you can still get stabbed over here if you really want (i dont recommend it im sure its an overrated experience) but if i had a gun to defend myself, they would have guns to ambush me, its all very pointless.

even the police over here turned down the offer to be allowed to carry guns.

but my overall point is, taking away guns has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, your still oppressed or not oppressed without them.

I would have thought the response to peaceful protest by the police in america would have been a bigger more realistic issue for people worried about the disappearance of freedoms and rights.

but that kind of demonstrating is down to the left these days the right just dont want to lose their guns.

how about a new treaty, americans can vote to be british colonists again.
@devon: Criminals already break laws, what do they lose by breaking a few more to get guns? If criminals have guns, police will need them too. The right to have guns is guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, the government must abide by these otherwise it is no better than the oppressive government our ancestors fought to be free of (i.e. yours, no offense :p). I imagine banning guns will resemble the Prohibition. A new black market will be created where guns are smuggled in and distributed, getting them into the hands of criminals while the government works so hard to disarm the good, law abiding citizens so they cannot defend themselves.
Last edited on
what like over here you mean?we have very low gun crime compared to america but we do have it,we also have very well trained armed police but we dont shoot unarmed burglars in the back either.

i also think the oppression by the king of england thing is a bit fruity, thats just what the founding fathers said so they could dodge a bit of tax and enslave the americans themselves, what is 'free' anyway?
It wasn't oppression, in my opinion at least. It just that for the many years before the French and Indian war, Britain pretty much let the colonies do whatever they wanted, and they were allowed to govern themselves. They got accustomed to democracy and having a say in government, so when Britain tightened the reigns in order to levy taxes to repay war debts, we pulled back. Then there were essentially a series of unfortunate events, with radicals (The Sons of Liberty, which we would probably call terrorists today) on our side at the heart of it all, which caused relations with Britain to spoil. You know the rest (I assume), but there was surely no oppression truly going on, just the British government actually exerting its ruling power for once.

devonrevenge wrote:
we have very low gun crime compared to america but we do have it,we also have very well trained armed police but we dont shoot unarmed burglars in the back either.


We also have a MUCH higher population, which explains the crime rate (not your ban on guns). With higher crime rate also comes higher mistake rates. People aren't perfect, they screw up sometimes.
ModShop wrote:
We also have a MUCH higher population, which explains the crime rate

No, it doesn't. In the US there are 2.97 incidences of gun crime per 100,000 people (0.0000297 per capita) and in the UK there are 0.07 (0.0000007 per capita). Per capita measures aren't affected by population size, and even if they were, the US has a population 4.97 times that of the UK, but its gun crime rate per capita is 42.4 times higher. That can't be accounted for by difference in population alone.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Last edited on
Never mind then, I though he was talking about raw numbers of crimes.
Many of the values that the republican party holds are outdated now..

Gun control is one of them. Before it was a very good idea to allow people to have guns because it promoted self-served order among the population. However, now that we live in the age of computers, radios and CSI crime lab allowing the public to have guns is just going to facilitate things for criminals. I'm not too far left on this subject, however, I believe they should be regulated and tracked. some form of responsibility for a homocide when your weapon is involved should be felt. and criminals with a previous history of violence shouldn't be allowed guns.

Another example of their outdated thought processes is the notion that decentralized government is a good idea. The fact that state laws can be changed quite easily says that we need federal regulations especially when it comes to big business. The competition that used to balance small businesses is now almost gone. Chains and corporations rule the world and, if they are unchecked, will only grow in power. Stop being afraid of fascism from the government and worry about it coming from the people that pay you.

Finally, their positions on gay marriage, women's rights and other societal issues is repulsing.

I recognize that not all republicans share these views but I find it hard to support a party that would associate themselves with people that do.

So what about people that hunt, shoot skeet or other targets or collect guns? Sure you most likely won't need your gun for self defense, but there are other uses. Obviously requiring permits to get guns and denying permits to people with violent histories is a good idea, but completely banning guns s uncalled for and over kill.

Decentralized government? What are you talking about? The issue of state power over federal power was solved by the Civil War, everyone accepts that a strong central government is best now.

I think any party associating itself with social issues is kind of silly. Peoples beliefs in these issues are usually rooted in religion (or lack of), not political opinions. The Republicans are worse here (or rather, appear to be) because the party is run by radicals.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
ModShop wrote:
So what about people that hunt, shoot skeet or other targets or collect guns? Sure you most likely won't need your gun for self defense, but there are other uses.
Do you really need Assault Weapons for hunting? I think sensible citizens would see that some form of control[*] on the sale of weapons is a good thing.

As to the second amendment to the United States Constitution
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.

To me that just reads as, the State can have a National Guard (in modern terms), it does not read as giving rights to individuals but the state(the people).

[*] note, control not complete banning.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
grey wolf the key word in that is "The People" that means everyone that is a american citizen. Even if it did mean the state, the states would have no say in it because it would be on a federal level. The Constitution protects our right to carry arms you can't take that away. Once the government has the the power to change existing Constitutional rights they can change anything.

Sure a lot of people don't like guns and I get that. But once you give the government the right to change our 2nd amendment you give them the right to change our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion and so.

That is what on of the posters here meant when he "Give them a inch and you give them a mile". You might not care about if people are allowed to keep their guns but I'm sure you will care when they start saying you are no longer able to practice this religion, or you can no longer say your opinion.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Zereo wrote:
Once the government has the the power to change existing Constitutional rights they can change anything.

Aren't there a few ways that your Constitution can be changed? Congress proposes such changes, or the states call for a constitutional convention. And then there is the 'Unofficial' way of getting the court to decide what is constitutional. So it would seem that the Supreme Court has more influence over the erosion of your rights than your government does.

So is it not more important to worry about who is getting to positions that decide what is constitutional than the government that is trying to guild the country to a better future?

Yes your constitution should be protected but it should also be kept relevant and up to date.

"Give them a inch and you give them a mile", they have already had an inch, the 21st amendment repealed the 18th.
Grey Wolf wrote:
Aren't there a few ways that your Constitution can be changed?


Yes, and f people want it changed they must use those ways, not just nonchalantly pass laws that contradict the Constitution.

Grey Wolf wrote:
"Give them a inch and you give them a mile", they have already had an inch, the 21st amendment repealed the 18th.


That was because the 18th amendment infringed on freedom. If guns were 100% banned, then the equivalence of this example would be the law unbanning guns. People thought banning alcohol would lower crime, it had the opposite effect. I think the same could be said for banning guns.

Grey Wolf wrote:
Do you really need Assault Weapons for hunting?


Not for hunting, no. But what people who collect such weapons, but have no intent for using them? Besides, how often do you see gun crimes involving assault rifles or other high profile weapons? It's almost always hand guns and sometimes shotguns.
Do you really need Assault Weapons for hunting?


Why do people insist on this term? All an "assault weapon" is is a normal semi-automatic rifle with a modern look. I can buy a wood finish rifle that fires the exact same 5.56 NATO at the same rate, and it would be called a hunting rifle. Some people prefer to look of ARs as opposed to old style rifles. I am one of these. Not to mention you can customize these much more than you ever could an older style. Hell, I have a semi-auto .308 (7.62 NATO, what guns such as the AK fire) but it's a old style "hunting" rifle, even though it operates the same as an AK.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
ResidentBiscuit wrote:
Why do people insist on this term? All an "assault weapon" is is a normal semi-automatic rifle with a modern look.

That would not be my understanding of Assault weapon. one definition "firearms designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range", another could be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon

Edit:
Just to be clear, I would not be favor of a total ban on guns if I was a US citizen but I would be in favor of gun control. I used to do target shooting here in the UK until changes to the law put an end to it.
Last edited on
Pages: 1234