Talk:Gun control
Didn't CP somewhere promote non-regulation of guns as a positive health factor? — Unsigned, by: SusanG / talk / contribs 21:13, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
The Bible states as a commandment: Thou shalt not kill.
The anti-gun-control lobby tend to be Bible bashers.
Therefore they should disappear up their own inherent contradiction. — Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk / contribs 15:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The UK has far more stringent gun controls than the US.
Total number of gun-related assassination attempts in the UK since 1776 - Spencer Percival by a deranged chap, looking for the Minister of Agriculture; several attempts to shoot Queen Victoria; a number of deaths related to terrorism (of various persuasions), and several incidents involving knives and Samuri swords. Also the occasional 'nutter on the rampage with guns', which makes headline news.
In the US: dozens of gun-related assassinations and attempted killings of politicians, and (seemingly) regular 'persons on the rampage with guns.'
What arguments against gun control of some sort? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The difference is largely in attitude rather than law. In the UK, guns are taken extremely seriously rather than just accepted as part of culture. You won't have your usual beat coppers responding to an incident where guns are involved, SO19 will be involved and they're trained almost to SAS levels of marksmanship. It's basically because it was nipped in the bud as an issue early, rather than it developing into this culture where it's your "right" to own and use a gun, making them far more widely available and less easy to track.
pathetic 17:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Leaving aside 'seriously mentally disturbed persons on the rampage' (who will occur regardless of legislation), it is not the weapons but the attitude towards 'the having and the using' that is the issue. The huntin', shootin' and fishin' brigade, and organised target shooting etc are not issues; and there is a difference between 'the right to own a gun' and 'the right to shoot at politicians you dislike and kill innocent bystanders in the process.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not the guns/weapons in general that are the problem.
It is not those who use weapons in 'a responsible fashion' who are a problem.
It is the people who think they have a God-given right to use a gun on people they dislike (and who do not care who else suffers in the process) who are a problem. 82.198.250.70 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Rowan Atkinson
In his police comedy - 'Those who apply for guns are usually those who are least suited to having them.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Thin Blue Line I think is the one you're talking about. Can't remember it talking about guns at any point, though.
pathetic 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] This is hilariously biased
Painting every single gun owner as a complete nutjob who wants to massacre people does not fit the intllectual (do note that I said "intellectual", not "rational", to avoid the "I thought this was RATIONALWiki argument) viewpoint we are supposed to have. Heaven forbid I want to own a pistol I'll never use because I think it looks nice. — Unsigned, by: 12.91.193.250 / talk / contribs
- Can you point to where specifically you're perceiving this "every single gun owner as a complete nutjob who wants to massacre people" thing? I just read the whole article & didn't spot it. Thanks. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- The comic pretty much implies it ("It's YOOOOOOOOOOUR fault that these school shootings happened, and obviously not the fault of completely insane teenagers!"). — Unsigned, by: 12.91.193.250 / talk / contribs
- The comic wasn't written by anybody at this site. & I don't think it says quite what you think it does. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The comic wasn't written by anybody at this site. & I don't think it says quite what you think it does. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- The comic pretty much implies it ("It's YOOOOOOOOOOUR fault that these school shootings happened, and obviously not the fault of completely insane teenagers!"). — Unsigned, by: 12.91.193.250 / talk / contribs
- As some one who is 100% pro gun-rights, I don't see it at all. Its mostly more about how gun control is a boogieman in the US, and how little of it is an issue in other countries (That's not 100% take it from a Canadian.) --Revolverman (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- What's really funny is that the article makes fun of gun control activists as over reacting... but we are "biased". heh.--
GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 00:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- What's really funny is that the article makes fun of gun control activists as over reacting... but we are "biased". heh.--
- As some one who is 100% pro gun-rights, I don't see it at all. Its mostly more about how gun control is a boogieman in the US, and how little of it is an issue in other countries (That's not 100% take it from a Canadian.) --Revolverman (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Gun control refutations
Something that we do a lot of (as is part of our mission) on other topics of dubious assertion, such as ID or anti-choice crankery, is refutation. This article seems to have very little refutation of the dozen-or-so most common arguments that gun nuts use to argue against any form of gun control (such as "guns don't kill people, people do", "if someone else had been armed, they could have taken the shooter down and saved the day", or "what happens when the government becomes tyrannical?"), even the least costly of restrictions. I think, especially given the conversation in the USA right now, it would be beneficial to all to have such a page, or an inclusion here. Anyone on board? Name suggestions? --Seth Peck (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wanna see studies. Competing studies, with analysis. AD should quit his job, heal his broken arm, and apply his time to this article. Brx demands it--"Shut up, Brx." 23:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
[edit] 1930s
The thing about the 1930s isn't really true; while the popular image of a gangster has him carrying a tommy gun, in reality they were only used in a few high-profile mass shootings (most obviously the St Valentine's Day Massacre) and not as a matter of course. The Thompson was expensive, too big to conceal, too heavy to carry around easily, and the drum mag would rattle and give away that you were carrying it. The average mobster rather unglamorously carried a pistol or sawed-off shotgun, and the NFA rule on the latter was the one that really mattered; the first was just addressing the idea of gangsters rather than the reality.
The first proper Federal regulation that did anything to ban firearms was in 1968 with the "sporting purpose" test, which was actually a rather obvious attempt by the US gun industry to get some protectionist laws going against a flood of cheap Eastern European and Soviet bloc imports under the flimsy claim that they were being used to arm Marxist militants. Any of their competitors who wanted to trade had to set up US subsidiaries and lose the cheap labour that gave them such a huge price advantage. Of course it turned and bit them on the ass in the end when the gun control groups asked the obvious question of why the same test wasn't applied domestically, and its "evil features" list was what led to the AWB.
Should probably also point out that "machine gun" in legal terms also created an entirely new category of weapon, or at least one very much not the same as the military definition; in military use, a machine gun is a crew-served support weapon designed for protracted automatic fire. In law, it's any weapon that can fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull, or any part of a weapon which allows same. A drop-in sear (which is a bent piece of metal) is a machine gun in legal terms. In fact at one point the BATFE claimed a 14-inch shoelace was a machine gun (seriously!) which would potentially mean possessing one would count as constructive intent if you owned that particular weapon. (It's sometimes legal to own a banned combination of parts if you don't put them together; for example, a Mauser C96 has a wooden holster that can be attached for use as a stock, but this use magically transforms it from a pistol into an NFA restricted "short barrelled rifle." If they think you own the holster / stock for that purpose, bam, constructive intent. US gun law is silly). King Skeleton (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)