Paper Guns

Pages: 1234... 6
What I am suggesting is that people who find guns "sexy" should be shunned.


People who intend to inflict harm on others should be shunned.
People who like guns should be allowed to like guns.
Cars kill people, guns kill people. While that may sound clever (if you're about 7), cars have other uses (like getting from point A to point B). Guns also have other uses (killing things other than humans).
Oh, and I agree that guns (rifles, shotguns, hunting guns essentially) should be legal, AND REGULATED. But the theory that ASSAULT weapons are great for self DEFENSE is a bit beyond stupid.
The above is my OPINION and nothing more than OPINION

EDIT: loving the paper gun thing btw!
Last edited on
People kill people and there's nothing you can do to stop it besides turn off some stupid survival instincts that we don't need anymore in society.

We as humans are currently dominated by instincts more than our own free will.
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
But the theory that ASSAULT weapons are great for self DEFENSE is a bit beyond stupid


How is that stupid?

What do you define as a "assault weapon"? Automatic firing? High capacity cartridge?

Now I'm going to take a guess and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you believe a "assault weapon" is something like the semi-automatic AR-15 that civilians can legally purchase in the US. If so why do you think it is a assault weapon, when in fact it is basically the same as a hunting rifle that has a extended clip? The only differences in the AR-15 and most hunting rifles is cosmetic differences (It is made to look like the military's AR-15's which are fully automatic), they fire the same caliber rounds, and both the hunting rifle and the AR-15 are semi automatic (Meaning you have to pull the trigger EVERY time you want to fire).

So I really don't understand why you agree that hunting rifles and shotguns (Which are have way more killing power then a AR-15 does) should be legal and semi-automatic "assault weapons" should not be.
But the theory that ASSAULT weapons are great for self DEFENSE is a bit beyond stupid.


The 2nd amendment (the one the gun crazies quote all the time) is about self defense... but not the same way most people think of it. It's not just about protecting yourself and your family from criminals... it's about being able to stand up against and fight off an overly oppressive government.

It makes sense when you look at the era in which the Bill of Rights was written.

Things are obviously very different now... and the 2nd amendment has lost that meaning for many people. I don't necessarily see that as a good thing... I'm neutral on the subject, really.

One thing is for sure, though: The US armed forces has a lot of advanced weaponry, and if it came to pass where there was an uprising that resulted in armed conflict with the general population... the possession of assault rifles and other "big guns" would level the playing field a bit. And that's exactly what the 2nd amendment was intended to do.


So if you adhere to the spirit of the 2nd amendment in the strictest sense... all guns should be legal, regardless of caliber, fire-rate, etc.

But many people think that times have changed and the original intent no longer matters, or is outweighed by other factors which are much more likely than a massive civil war.
Last edited on
I agree that there is a line at which civilians should be limited in terms of what they are allowed to own (in terms of guns, duh) but I think most current legislation is far from it. For example, in the new gun laws here in New York an assault weapon is classified as a semi/full-automatic gun with one or more "military style" attachments, including pistol grips. Believe it or not, this classifies ALL semi-automatic pistols as assault weapons. Not to mention all the other retarded things introduced by the new laws (such as allowing sheriffs to legally come and inspect your house unannounced once a year if you own a gun, WITHOUT a search warrant). I am, however, all for mental screening and background checks.
(such as allowing sheriffs to legally come and inspect your house unannounced once a year if you own a gun, WITHOUT a search warrant)


How did that get passed? That is extremely frightening.
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
When you hear things like 80% of US citizens own guns, or the local sheriff can search your house without a warrant--your bull alarm should go off.

And why is it that the gun freaks always want to limit the type of arms a militia can store? But nearly useless handguns they are willing to fight to the death for.

The handgun is a nearly useless weapon for defense. If the enemy has a rifle and you have a handgun you should hide.

Handguns cannot over-throw an oppressive government. Also the number of deaths in the US that are the result of assault weapons is very very very small. But the number of deaths caused by handguns is frightening. And it seems nobody wants to talk about regulating handguns.

And I repeat handguns are useless against an oppressive government.
I can see how this topic came from a cool paper guns movie to a much like lawyer debate about how guns killing people and the sheriff then coming down on you.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Here is somethings about the NY Safe Act that has just been passed.

Specified rifle magazines are banned: a) manufactured after 1994; and b) the magazine holds in excess of 10 rounds (handguns included). A 10 round magazine is permissible, but may only contain 7 rounds. Any rifle or shotgun with just one of these features are banned: 1) pistol grip; 2) bayonet lug; 3) telescoping or folding stock; 4) flash suppressor; 5) threaded barrel; or 6) grenade launcher. The SAFE Act expanded the ban to add the following features: 7) muzzle brake; 8) muzzle compensator; 9) thumbhole stock; and 10) foregrip

or the local sheriff can search your house without a warrant--your bull alarm should go off.


The SAFE Act also includes provisions allowing law enforcement to pre-emptively seize a person's firearms without a warrant or court order if they have probable cause that the person in question may be mentally unstable or intends to use the weapons to commit a crime.

And we all know how police can abuse probable cause.

When you hear things like 80% of US citizens own guns


I never said 80% of US citizens I said 80% of households, but you are right that is wrong and it is actually more around 50%.
Last edited on
The only reason that the UN is trying to restrict assault weaponry is so that they can have complete control over the common man. It's not about 'protecting the people', but rather 'having complete control'.

This should scare you.

Luc's guide to protecting the population:

1) Place mentally ill (nut-jobs) in sanitariums.
2) Remove violent criminals from every-day society on first offense -- no second chances.
3) Reform the food / pharmaceutical industries -- the crap that is allowed over the counter kills more people than anything else.
4) Reform the welfare system -- I personally know of 3 individuals that are abusing it and proud of themselves for it (and while they're not working, they're dealing in illegal narcotics). For the able-bodied: If you don't work, you don't eat. Actually, I think drug dealers should simply be executed. Here's who agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_drug_trafficking

** Oh wow, the US is on that list! Too bad most dealers get off with a few years of probation instead of getting the axe.
Last edited on
Disch wrote:
How did that get passed? That is extremely frightening.


Governor Cuomo allowed the Senate all of 15 minutes to read the bill before they had to vote on it. He did this "legally" by classifying the bill as "urgent" or whatever the term they use. Because of the recent tragedy, you really can't blame an elected official for not voting for it, even if they didn't get a chance to read the bill in its entirety and propose changes. It was just as much of a career move for him as it was for "public safety", or at least the false sense of it.
Because of the recent tragedy, you really can't blame an elected official for not voting for it, even if they didn't get a chance to read the bill in its entirety and propose changes.


I sure can blame them. It's their job. If they can't make rational decisions under pressure they shouldn't be in a position that demands they make rational decisions under pressure.

You shouldn't vote for any senator that voted for that bill. Get them out of office asap. Either they can't hack it... or they willingly voted in something that horrible, in which case you don't want them making decisions for you anyway.
Last edited on
Down here in Australia, we had 1 massacre in the 1996 where 35 people were shot. Now AFAIK one needs to be in a target shooting club where usage and type of weapon is strictly controlled, or be a licensed pest controller. The vast majority of the population don't have any guns. The criminals still do, but I imagine it quite tricky for them to acquire them. We have very few shops where one can purchase a weapon or ammo.

My main point is that whatever the policy settings are here in Australia, it seems to be working - we haven't had any massacres since.

Of course this is wildly different to the US (not that I have been there), where there are all kinds of influences operating, but US citizens could ask themselves: What do I need a weapon for? The answers might be: for target shooting; hunting;pest destruction of feral animals in rural areas.

The 2 main groups of problem people I can see are: mentally ill and criminals.

The problem with mentally ill people is, apart from the obvious already diagnosed ones, that it can be hard to predict who they are - especially for example given the way that excessive cannabis use can lead to psychosis. So anyone going hard on the cannabis might suddenly decide to shoot 20-30 people at a cinema, or much more sadly 5 year old children at school.

With criminals, the high prevalence of weapons throughout the population, makes for a good case on it's own to have severe restrictions.

Apart from that, there is the continuing bizarrely high level of shooting incidents, often for no reason. Like the arsonist who set a house on fire, called 911, then shot the firemen when they arrived. That is a shocking tale, and shows just how bad the situation is.

It also seems to me, to be a self propagating problem. The more weapons removed, the less the problems.

Then there is the NRA with it's powerful lobby group. Their suggestions seem bizarre - the ridiculous idea of having armed guards at every school. What about the street corners, shopping malls & cinemas? What happens when the armed guard is the first one shot? - a likely scenario because people know they are there.

By far the biggest problem IMO is the constitution, unless that changes government can't really do a lot.

Any way that is my view, hopefully everyone agrees something has to be done.
Because of the recent tragedy, you really can't blame an elected official for not voting for it, even if they didn't get a chance to read the bill in its entirety and propose changes.


Would you ever sign a contract with a party that wouldn't let you read it first?

Hell. No.

But it's just a law right? So who can blame them?
closed account (3qX21hU5)
By far the biggest problem IMO is the constitution, unless that changes government can't really do a lot.


People who say this really really scare me.

Of course this is wildly different to the US (not that I have been there), where there are all kinds of influences operating, but US citizens could ask themselves: What do I need a weapon for? The answers might be: for target shooting; hunting;pest destruction of feral animals in rural areas.


Another major thing people get a weapon for is self defense. That is why I bought a handgun and got my license. Lets say someone broke into my house and they are armed. Am I suppose to just call 911 and hope to god that they get there in time to stop the intruder from killing me and my girlfriend? Or should I go grab a ballpoint pen or something and try to take the intruder out with that?

Banning guns and getting rid of them won't stop anything, all it does is take guns away from law abiding citizens. Do you think the criminals will just go hand in their guns because the law says so? Well they won't. I don't have anything against Australia but the US has a way different culture then Australia does. I mean look at Chicago it has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation yet it has the higher murder rate.


Their suggestions seem bizarre - the ridiculous idea of having armed guards at every school. What about the street corners, shopping malls & cinemas? What happens when the armed guard is the first one shot? - a likely scenario because people know they are there.

I ask why is that so ridiculous? We have armed guards for our money, the president has armed guards, famous people have armed guards, politicians kids go to a school that has armed guards (Kind of hypocritical if you ask me), all government buildings have armed guards. So I ask you if all them people deserve armed guards to protect them and their kids why can't our kids have them? Yes the armed guard might get shot first, but he also stands a chance from stopping the massacre from ever happening. Or it just might deter the crazy person from that location and he will move on to another location that doesn't have a armed guard which is more likely. I just don't get what is so absurd with this idea that people reject it right away?


In the end this all scares me. If they take away the 2nd amendment (By going around the Constitution) kiss all your rights goodbye because that is a slippery slope. Next it will be freedom of religion, then it will be freedom of speech. All them are protected by the 2nd amendment (Which is there mainly to protect the populous against tyranny).
@cire, it is not a wild assumption to make that in a culture where guns are awesome people are more likely to use them. I wonder, if you are aware of the difference between murder rates in US and in other countries of similar wealth.

@Luc Lieber, is it not clear to you that what you're suggesting (the 4 steps of protection) is a lot more control than the government currently has (think of the tools you'd need to implement 1 3 and 4)?
As for UN, see http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/media/presskit/ATT_Myths_and_Facts.pdf
If you want to be taken seriously, try not to spout conspiracy theories.
it is not a wild assumption to make that in a culture where guns are awesome people are more likely to use them.

I wouldn't think of arguing otherwise.

I wonder, if you are aware of the difference between murder rates in US and in other countries of similar wealth.

Every freedom/privilege has its price.
@Zereo
I ask why is that so ridiculous?


Because you would need an armed guard every 20 paces for it to be effective. Even then, if the loony opens up with an automatic weapon, there are 30 dead people in about 2 seconds.

If they take away the 2nd amendment (By going around the Constitution) kiss all your rights goodbye because that is a slippery slope. Next it will be freedom of religion, then it will be freedom of speech. All them are protected by the 2nd amendment (Which is there mainly to protect the populous against tyranny).


I wasn't proposing removing the entire 2nd amendment - can't it be changed just to restrict gun ownership, but keep the other things?

I understand your point about taking guns away from law abiding citizens, but I can't help thinking it is a chicken vs egg situation - guns cause problems, but there are a lot of guns. I am just wondering what are the stats for armed burglaries / home invasions in the US? What is the reason for breaking in? Would they do that to steal your Plasma TV? Also, saying that various solutions aren't going to work, perhaps isn't the right approach. If the government were able to implement a range of policies, all of them together probably would make a difference. Again, isn't it time something was done?

I am sure the culture in the US is rather different than Australia. We don't seem to have very many armed robberies of any type at all, thieves seem to take things while people aren't at home. We do hear about the occasional convenience store hold up. People have home security, some people live in apartment buildings with security. We are getting more and more CCTV cameras in shops, pubs, streets & taxis.

It seems the big problem for the US is that there are so many guns in the first place. It was relatively easy for the Australian government to implement policy because there were few guns to start with.

The other thing is the elevated threat of terrorism in the US compared to other countries. Terrorists should not be aided by being allowed to legally own a firearm.

I am not sure, but I am guessing that drugs & mafia are worse in the US than here. An obvious strong relationship with guns going on there.

As chwsks was implying, if handguns could be regulated, that would help. Consider this: If someone wants to be a criminal, the first thing they do is acquire a pistol. If it was illegal to have one, that immediately makes it a lot harder & more risky. Sure, criminals will find a way of acquiring them regardless, but if they are illegal at least that it is better than just buying one. If the general population doesn't have them either then it is harder to steal one as well. It helps the police because it gives them 1 more reason to be able to arrest a known criminal, and the criminal has to be much more careful about carrying the weapon. As far as automatic weapons go, I heard recently (A speech by the President?) that the police were complaining about being "out gunned" by the criminals.

If there are very deaths from assault weapons, that is not a reason to regulate (or outlaw) against them.

Handguns are illegal in Australia & New Zealand. Hell, in NZ the police still don't carry handguns routinely, but there is the equivalent thing to a SWAT team.

The whole situation seems completely mad - something should be done.
@cire, you're missing the point entirely, I did not say that guns should be banned. Many countries allow gun ownership and still manage to keep their murder rates much lower than in US. Unless you were talking about your privilege/right to glorify war you have no excuse.
Pages: 1234... 6