I'm pretty sure chain mail was not designed to stop arrows(anything pointy in general). Also how is this "ignore everything anyone knows about archery"? Seems to me he is actually taking into account the history of archery and mimicking long lost military/fighting/hunting styles (way different then modern target shooting).

-edit-
I see newtboy just made my point

Most cops, Bob, carry 9mm semiautos so a standard magazine carries 15 rounds with one in the chamber.

10 rounds over 10 seconds would sound like target shooting and would be highly suspicious

that audio has not been verified

I see how the left loves diversity as long as you agree with them.
If you don't, you're a racist troll or a fuckface.

@harlequinn, you do realise that NZ actually has quite sensible gun laws? You can own semi-auto rifles and so on but to do so you need a firearms licence. This includes not only a police check, but the cops will actually come to your house and check that you have adequate storage provisions for your guns. On top of that

You will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:

- a history of violence
- repeated involvement with drugs
- been irresponsible with alcohol
- a personal or social relationship with people deemed to be unsuitable to be given access to firearms
- indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

To me those are perfectly reasonable and sensible restrictions.

@scheherazade, ah yes, the libertarian argument. I want a gun and fuck everyone else.

Kids getting shot at school? Fuck 'em, not my problem.
Random nutjob mows down a bunch of people in California? Fuck 'em, not my problem.

The fact is that guns do cause harm. The "people kill people" argument is beyond infantile. Of course, people kill people.... with a gun. It's a lot harder to go on a mass killing spree armed with a stick.

Here are the indisputable facts:
- There are some sick people out there. Some are just fucked up, some are in need of help.
- Sometimes these people snap.
- Sometimes when they do, they get a gun and kill a bunch of other people.
- If they didn't have a gun, the harm would be less.
I'm assuming no-one disputes those facts.

Now there are two solutions to this:
- Pro-gun advocates take the position that citizens need guns to defend themselves from this kind of situation. They often argue that instead of taking guns away from everyone, we should focus on either helping the mentally unbalanced or stopping them by shooting them.
- Gun control advocates take the position that if the shooter didn't have access to a gun in the first place, then maybe the whole mess would be avoided or at the very least minimised.

To me, it's a simple matter of practicalities. Option 1 is simply not working. We're decades (possibly centuries) away from completely understanding mental illness, that's if we achieve that at all. Meanwhile, crazy/insane/evil people are still going on shooting rampages.
And stopping them after the fact? That's pretty cold comfort to the people that have already been killed.

I am genuinely perplexed as to how people don't understand this.
Gun control works. In every other developed country in the world, there are reasonable and sensible laws restricting firearm ownership, and there is nothing like the kind of insane shootings we see on a regular basis in the US.

No-one is arguing that all guns should be taken away. No-one is saying you can't hunt or target shoot or even defend your home if necessary (although again, in the civilised world, most of us have no need for that).

But jesus, maybe you don't need an AR-15 with a massive clip. And is it that unreasonable to check to see if someone is mental or criminal before selling them a gun?

Apparently, in the US, it is.

Meh, I'm just glad I live in a sane country.

A country where you can have a gun if you want, within reasonable limits and provided you're not a criminal or a lunatic. Where you can go hunting or target shooting, but no-one in their right mind thinks you need your little pistol or hell, even assault rifle to overthrow the government, because we have fucking elections.

And fuck yes, if I saw some nutjob walking around my neighbourhood with a pistol, I'd call the cops. Luckily, no-one in my neighbourhood would be such a fucking inconsiderate asshole.

I was telling a coworker today that here in Canada we can own A .50 Cal BMG for about $10,000. We don't need to register it at all with anyone, only need a basic non restricted lic. to own. and can shoot it wherever legal shooting is allowed in the countryside.

Same time, a gun that shoots .22 long rifle, one of the (if not the) smallest cal. used, usually for target shooting or squirls, small bullet. If the .22 LOOKS like...yes LOOKS like an AK47 it's Prohibeted to own. If it LOOKS like an AR15 .223 (smallish bullet still) it's treated like a handgun, special lic. register it only the range not in country, no hunting with it etc.

so ya I can own a gun that'd shoot through an engine block and not have anyone know about it but can't have a .22lr tin can plinker if it LOOKS like a scary AK.....serious logic fail.

I have never seen a gun as big as this one, wow.

I'm not sure you really understand the concept of a trend.

The figure were increasing before the gun laws. They increased AT THE SAME RATE after.

And @Jerykk, no-one is talking about banning guns. We're just suggesting that maybe there should be some reasonable controls on who should own them and how you should buy them.

And did you mean Boston? Can't find anything on google about Seattle bombings?

Seriously what is the issue here? Why are people so desperate to hang onto all kinds of firearms?

No-one is even vaguely suggesting that if you want to hunt or target shoot you shouldn't be able to.

There has never been and almost certainly never will be a dictatorship prevented by gun owning citizens in the modern age. Hell, you could argue that you've already failed in that regard in the US (not your government, the banks).

So that leaves what? Self defence? That just doesn't wash. This is not hollywood. You're not Clint or Arnold. There's ample evidence to suggest that gun owners are 4 times more likely to die by firearm (often with their own gun).

Meanwhile, the rest of the civilised world has reasonable gun legislation, and we just don't worry about it. I honestly do no understand what is so fucked up about american society that you feel you need guns.

@kymbos The point should be obvious, the gun ban effected more than gun crime, and not in a good way. It may have stopped mass shootings (see below), but at what cost? The murder rate actually increased after the ban, and didn't fall below the pre-ban rate until 7 years later. The murder rate before the ban was already on a steady decline, and Australia now has more violent crime post gun ban.

Did the gun ban even stop mass shootings? Mass Shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A Descriptive Study of Incidence (PDF) concludes:

"The hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported. Rather, it can be seen that both Australia and New Zealand, a country where the firearms banned in Australia (self-loading longarms and pump action shotguns) are still available for the purposes of target shooting and hunting, have now experienced very similar periods of time without the occurrence of a mass shooting event. At the time of writing, this period exceeds 13 years, for both countries. This is not consistent with the expectation that, if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.

This finding cannot be readily explained by differences in population size or pre-existing differences in the occurrence of mass shootings between the two countries – both of which were controlled for during the analyses. It is also important to note that in New Zealand, there have been no major changes to firearms legislation since 1992, when the requirement of photographic licences and ‘safe storage’ of firearms was implemented (in this regard, Australian and New Zealand legislation is similar). Prior to 1992, the last major change to firearms legislation in New Zealand occurred in 1983, when the requirement for mandatory registration of hunting and sporting longarms was removed. Thus, the absence of mass shootings in New Zealand over the past 13 years cannot be readily explained by any legislative changes implemented around the period 1996/1997."

Yes, but they restricted the types of firearms for all of those groups in nonsensical ways.

Example: IPSC shooters can only own up to a .38 caliber handgun. Anything larger is not allowed - even though larger calibers are what most IPSC shooters world-wide use (it has to do its scoring system). But if you do Steel Target Shooting or Western Re-enactments you can have up to a .45 caliber.

If you buy a .22 rimfire rifle it is classed as a Category A rifle, but if you buy a .17 rimfire it jumps into the more dangerous Category B category (because they forgot to specify other rimfire calibers in the legislation).

They made .22lr semi-automatic rifles Category C and D firearms (very restricted dangerous firearms), effectively banning them - even though a .22lr high velocity round only has as much energy as a fast ball in cricket.

You can have a .308 pump action rifle with a 30 round magazine, but you can't own over a 10 round magazine for your much, much less powerful handgun.

Interestingly, firearm owners in Australia are the most law abiding group of people in the nation. Everyone with a serious criminal offence is automatically barred from owning firearms and other criminal offences are considered on a case by case basis (e.g. you did have an assault charge from when you were 18 years old - you'll be waiting 5 to 10 years before they let you own a firearm - if ever). If you commit a serious offence while owning a firearm, expect a knock on the door to take them away.

I'm pretty pro-gun. I grew up in Kansas in a home with a .22 rifle, and had many friends that had a much more extensive arsenal in their homes. One "gun nut" friend had somewhere around 10 high-powered rifles, roughly the same number of shotguns, 3-4 pistols, and even an AR-15 (civilian version of M-16) with extensive clips, flash suppressors, etc. purchased before the "assault weapons ban". That family was very responsible with their guns -- all locked in gun cabinets, fully unloaded, separate from ammo whenever not in use, sons all trained to use them responsibly, etc. I think a family/individual should have the right to do all that stuff. For defense, for hunting, as a farm "tool" (a firearm can be invaluable for protecting livestock, eliminating varmints and pests, etc.), for "home defense" (the least practical/intelligent use of firearms by a civilian IMHO), or even just for entertainment / target shooting -- whatever your reasons I think you should be able to legally purchase just about any kind of firearm.

That being said, the NRA goes completely off the deep end with some of the things it opposes. The Brady Bill, waiting periods, background checks, etc.? I'm fine with those "limitations", and I think that the NRA loses legitimacy putting up a fight against very reasonable measures like those. I understand the threat of slippery-slope issues, but waiting periods and background checks aren't going to bring the whole system down and definitely would do more good than harm.

All that being said, while I somewhat disagree with Jim Carrey's message in the "Cold Dead Hands" video, I liked it and could appreciate it as a good piece of satire expressing his point of view. The Fox News blowhards need to "Lighten up, Francis".

First off you're the third person on here that I've gotten into a discussion about guns. All 3 have called me names while I continue to be polite.

Second your bigoted comment is very offensive not just to me who works with special needs adults but anyone with down syndrom, says a lot about you.

Third, while I used to light up a joint at the end of the day and chill out and have nothing against it, I like to take my guns to the range to "take the edge off, to relax after a hard day." What I do with my guns is legal and fun. Legal gun owners are not the villians that bigots and others try to potray them as.

Guns are used in so many sporting ways I can't even list them all but the olympics is a big one.

You've already been called out on your knowledge of history so I won't bother.

I live in Canada and have been raised by a very "left wing" family. I have a close hippy aunt and uncle who live in a community of american draft dogers. My parents always vote for the left. I grew up with those ideals and choose to work with people with autism. Doesn't pay much but it's satisfying and giving back, so your comment about me being "right wing" is pretty far off.

Legal gun owners are not evil. They want the same things as most people including the best tool for self defense (which we're not allowed to use in Canada). We in Canada like to hunt and target shoot at paper. Nothing about that is evil. Learn some facts instead of making bigioted sweeping comments.

Good day.

I'm not a gun nut and don't think schools need rifles on hand... but these people have no idea what they are talking about:

"High Caliber"? Nope, it's only .223

Used by "US special ops"? No, why would they limit themselves to semi-auto?

Designed for "targeted shooting"? What other kind of shooting do you do with a rifle?

Which is what I have where I live - strict regulations. If you were to accidentally harm someone, break someone's property, intentionally or recklessly scare someone with a firearm then you will be charged and you will lose you firearms license and firearms.

A firearm is not designed to kill. It is designed to accelerate a projectile out the barrel. It is used most often (by an order of magnitude) for paper target shooting. It is also used to kill animals. There is an obvious difference between design and use.

Let's address those, shall we?

So first you're going to stab, choke or bludgeon me?

You're welcome to try, son.

You have to get close to me. You have to over power me. You have to do this in a way that stops others from stopping you. I don't for a second believe you're capable of that.

You want to poison or bomb me?

This takes dedication, planning and materials. None of which the average unstable individual usually has. Are there a few dyed in the wool nutjobs with resources? Sure but there's a lot less of them, and having to procure the materials for the acts makes it a lot easier to catch them.
It's almost as if controlling bomb and poison making materials worked...

The US attitude to guns is what scares me the most. There are plenty of people in other countries with guns, but almost all of them have guns for a specific reason, like hunting or target shooting.

Only in the US have I met people who own guns for "home defence". As such, you get people who really don't have a clue how to safely operate a gun and who believe it's a magic talisman that keeps them safe. It's bullshit, and frankly, it's time you grew the fuck up and realised you're not in an action movie.

@GeeSussFreeK

I didn't say GDP, I said GDP per capita. Both Finland and the US have roughly the same GDP per capita.

My assertion is that crimes are more likely to be committed by criminals who are empowered by guns. Suicide has nothing to do with this and that's why I didn't address it.

Murder rates are the only universally comparable measure when you consider various violent offenses are classified differently and with varying degrees of tolerance in difference countries.

I think it would hardly be a stretch to assert that guns allow criminals and delinquents to dish out far more death per violent incident - being a reason why crime is average/above average, but murder (especially by firearms) is astronomical.

Either way, I want to address murder singlehandedly as I think it's certainly still an important (and far less finnicky) topic to argue in and of itself, not crime generally.

Crimes again are classified and reported to varying degrees in different countries.

Again, I want to point out that my argument isn't about gun legislation but about gun ownership rates. I have no doubt that if you were to ban guns immediately in one state, there'll not be a chasm of a decline in gun murder rates. Arguments that look at gun laws ignore the blatant fact that US borders are very porous as far as I understand, and that even then, gun laws take years, decades perhaps to have meaningful effects on ownership rates and as a result, general availability at above minimal cost to criminals. Looking at the wikipedia page for California's gun laws, the only meaningful law I see is a 2005 ban in San Fransisco on all firearms and ammunition. Something like this would take at least a decade to have any meaningful effect though, I'm sure I would agree with you here when I say that smuggling guns into simply a city of all places (not a country with customs, or even a state) and selling them on the black market would hardly be difficult - where surrounding areas have no such ban.

I agree that no legislation will prevent a determined terrorist or capable individual from inflicting massive damage if nuclear weapons were readily available and manufactured in large amounts in one area of the world. A concerted and enforced gun ban on the other hand (with restrictions for hunting in some areas, target shooting, and potentially eased laws for protection in remote areas with low police presence) would do a great deal to reduce availability and reduce the incidence of gun murder by petty criminals which makes up the majority of gun deaths in the US.

Take for example our legislation in Australia. There's nothing exceptional about it, I'm just most familiar with it:

"State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g. Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a licence, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.[2]

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

There is a very good reason why this has led to a 5.2% ownership rate among citizens and a murder rate by guns of between 29% and 19% that of the US per capita depending on which numbers you use from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

If you want to come back to saying that people simply murder in different ways, then look at purely the murder rate - the number goes up just slightly to 35% (the rate of murder per capita in Australia of that in the US).

Gun laws aren't punishment. Just like nuclear weapon bans aren't punishment. Or Sarin Gas bans. They're good policy.

Just like making everyone buy basic health insurance to reduce risk among consumers and lower prices, where the poorest are subsidised. If you insist on using analogies, I think this compares incredibly well to a gun ban which makes allowance for recreation and hunting (and at least in my view, allowances of 'for protection' licenses in remote areas with limited quantity and strict restriction to avoid smuggling).

Just like the compulsory third party car insurance we have here, that ensures that if you are at fault and damage another car, the innocent party is guaranteed to have their car repaired.

What I hope you understand coming from a libertarian position (and this is repeating the first thing I said in this whole discussion to blankfist) is that libertarianism is not a flat and universal position on individual rights. You, just like anyone I would imagine, have limits to how far you go with individual rights. You recognize the validity of a system of laws to limit the impact of one's individual's actions on another, and the retribution they should receive for violating it. You simply draw the metaphorical line on rights further right on the ideological spectrum than I do.

Therefore you can't simply justify gun ownership by claiming individual rights and the notion that everyone's entitled to them as they are not presumed guilty. You have to consider whether it does harm in society or not, just like the rest of us.

I hope I've laid out a pretty convincing arguments based on the statistics (speculative of course, I have neither the time nor resources to do a rigorous analysis controlling for a multitude of variables) that gun ownership does lead to more (gun) murders. If we were taking about a 10-20% difference, sure it would be debatable, but we're talking about a 2 to 3 fold increase. Let's not kid around about what causes this.

If you think that individual rights are so incredibly important that they trump this palpably gargantuan increase in death (and suffering) then that is certainly a position you can take, but let's be honest about this if that's the position you want to take.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think they are. I think the opportunities for self defense, the willingness to use a gun of most people, the willingness of normal and ration people to risk death for losing their property are small. The sheer empowerment and impetus a gun (easily available from a nearby store at a price anyone can pay) can give a criminal on the other hand is huge.

---

Just a quick recap on things I didn't cover.

If you want to demonstrate guns are less devastating than drugs then kindly provide data to support this. If you are referencing the drug war or even if you are not, this is totally irrelevant to the question I posed to you.

Comparing guns to drugs and referencing the opium war is just not a good analogy. Colonialism. Colonialism. Colonialism.

Yes cars kill people, so do airplanes. So do pretzels. In fact, just about everything kills people (although yes car accidents are far more significant than pretzels). We do have a plethora of legislation that increases car safety. Guns are of course unique in that supposedly (if you would believe people in the US), more guns and LESS gun legislation protects you from the more guns you now have and so on. Let's look at this objectionably just as I compared the benefits to defenders versus aggressors for gun ownership. Cars provide an obvious benefit and are fundamental to commerce and modern life (unlike guns 99.9% of the time for private defenders of civil liberty). More legislation and safety requirements can obviously reduce death rates. To me it seems pretty obvious how to proceed here.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
A firearm is a tool used by trained individuals to stop a situation getting worse. It is not a tool meant to be used for personal power or material gain. Nothing is gained in the slaughter of anyone, even if they are a criminal. Regardless of what people say the idea is to save lives, even the criminal's.
I've upvoted your comment, and I'd like to agree with this sentiment, but I can't.


In any conflict (and I'm talking on the large scale here), the objective is to eliminate your opponent's ability or will to fight. It is arguably more advantageous for all parties involved to do this through diplomatic or psychological means, or the use of non-lethal force. However, it's also possible to eliminate your opponent's ability to fight by killing him, and unfortunately history has taught us this method is more efficient, or at least simpler (though not necessarily easier) to pursue. The irony is that history also continues to teach us the folly of this approach.

On the small scale, a defensive firearm is designed to save the life of the carrier (and those he chooses to defend) by killing an aggressor. While it's possible to use a firearm for deterrence, I believe it's a dangerous proposition. If someone has threatened you to the point where you feel the use of lethal force is warranted, pulling a firearm to threaten (or discharging it with the intent to wound rather than kill) may only incite them to more desperate acts - as their life is now in direct peril. The use of a defensive firearm is an absolute last resort, when all other practical avenues of resolution (escape, barricade, etc) have been exhausted and there is no remaining option.

Usually, I'd respond to "Guns are for killing people" with "but what about target shooting," but we all know that's more of a technicality. Cars are for transporting people and goods, and the fact that they can also be used (and some specifically designed) for racing doesn't change the core intent of the device.
Guns, by their nature, are simply an evolution of thrown stones. They are designed to maim or kill, regardless of the fact that the vast majority will never be used for that purpose.

That said, and this is an important distinction, an appreciation for firearms does not necessarily celebrate that aspect. I am a firearms enthusiast and target shooter. I'm not a hunter, and I do not harbor fantasies of vigilantism, but I enjoy the act of shooting. I enjoy the processes of firearm maintenance and modification.
I enjoy shooting and maintaining the defensive pistol at by bedside, but I do not relish the thought of having to use it on a person, and chances are I will thankfully never have to make that decision.