The Bravohood

Ok I want to have a civilized discussion about "Gun Control".

Gun Control is a VERY fucking general term. Gun control can be as little as just checking your ID to make sure you're 21 before buying a firearm, or can be as much as outright banning all firearms, or anywhere in between.

So with that said, I hope we can all agree that SOME TYPE of gun control makes sense (at least I fucking HOPE we can all agree to that!!). You probably don't want a 9 year old with a diagnosed personality disorder to be able to walk into a store and buy an MP5 with a sliencer attached. So, the question is: how much gun control is appropriate?

I am very pro-gun. I have several firearms, and i'm now looking at purchasing an AR 15, so clearly I'm pro gun. That said: in my opinion, SOME kinds of gun control DO in fact make a lot of sense. Some don't.

In my opinion, restricting access to guns DO, in the long run, make it much more difficult for criminals to get. Lets look at class 3 firearms as an example: silencers, machine guns, etc. Yes, high level criminals can still get them. BUT: how many murders a year do you see that use class 3 firearms? VERY LITTLE. Why? Because they are a fucking pain in the ass to get. Yes, even you and me can own MP5s with silencers in most states as long as we do the proper application process. But since they are a pain to get, you just don't see them used much in crimes, because there's just not that accessible and there aren't that many of them around because of the limited demand (due to restrictions).

Do you think silencers would be used a lot more often in murders if you could just walk into your local sporting goods store and buy one? Of fucking course they would.

That said, making it impossible for law abiding citizens to get pistols would be fucking retarded. So, how much gun control is appropriate? Should there be laws where people who may have legally acquired firearms but have people with mental disorders living in their household have appropriate measures to lock away those firearms to prevent access? Etc. etc. I'd love to hear all your thoughts.

IMO the US already does a good job with control, too strict if you ask me. I agree with Stealth that there should be some limitations on getting silencers and other perks that may be in favor of the attacker. Most guns used in crimes are stolen. Most criminals have enough brains to realize that they can't go on a shooting spree with a gun registered to their name.

The article below sums up my take on gun control. Interesting to learn that MOST shootings take place in areas that have "strict gun control." It's unfortunate that MOST people who favor stricter gun control really don't know the facts.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... -john-fund

Stealth, I'm in the market for an AR15 as well. What mfg are you looking at?

all you have to do is look at states where gun control works better, these are usually hunting and southern states, where people grow up around guns and learn to appreciate them. New Hampshire has an open carry law, anywhere but a court house, there are people in town parks with rifles on their backs and pistols strapped to their legs, no problems with them. I think that's the best way to go.

I mean after all, Saddam was a "tyrannt" with "weapons of mass destruction" who abused his people...HAVE YOU SEEN NORTH KOREA, talk about a tyrannt with nukes who has come out and said they hate us and is starving their own people! The only reason we don't fuck with them is because of MAD. Mutually assured destruction. In other words an armed society is a polite society. Violence is less likely to occur where there is a giant threat to ones own safety. You hear of a massacre at a gun show? Me either.

mlags26: I just got a Colt M4 carbine and am about to make another thread about it.

Guys, I agree with pretty much everything you said. But you're not directly answering the question.

How much gun control do you think is appropriate? Should anyone be able to go out and buy full-auto M4s and AK47s and MP5s? What kind of background checks if anything should there be?

I hate that this tragedy has sparked a political debate. So many politicians are using it to solidify their base rather than look at the real issues.

I think the laws we have in place now are appropriate. I'm speaking from just a Georgia stand point. We can carry a gun anywhere we want unless it's a state building or they serve alcohol.

Let's look at the drug laws for a second. Drugs are completely banned, yet most criminals can get them. If we totally banned guns then law abiding people wouldn't be able to get them, and criminals would. That is my main argument for keeping things the way they are.

The only increase in gun control laws that I think would be appropriate is requiring an MIB check (Medical insurance board) to make sure there were no mental issues. But that would require a change to our healthcare laws and HIPPA. Hippa is the act that says only certain people can have access to your medical records. Besides how many people are out there with undiagnosed issues anyway?

I'm not really progun or antigun, but I am Pro-Constitution. And that little piece of paper says we can have guns if we want to. I believe that the reason we haven't actually been invaded is because of how well Americans are armed. Not just our military but the citizens as well. In fact, most of us are better armed than your standard soldier.
Growing up in the deep south, everyone i knew had guns, hell I got my first shotgun when I was 11. I've never known anyone who was shot though. So any more gun control than we have now isn't appropriate. Any less wouldn't be either.

I'm almost to the point of

no gun restrictions for those who aren't prohibited possessors


simple, and goes with the whole - law abiding citizens shouldn't have their rights taken away

I don't think you should restrict automatic weapons and silencers as much as they do, people already have Class 3 licenses they can get silencers and automatics, there are many books on how to make silencers, and changing your semi, to a full auto (DeltaPress.com).

Personally I think we should have access to a lot more, it is important to keep a well regulated militia, it's not well regulated if it doesn't keep up with technology, so I'm for the same equipment the military has, just like Switzerland. I'm also in huge support of mandatory firearms/EXTREMELY BASIC military training for men at the age of 18 like Switzerland

The problem isn't the control it's not enough people carry, there's not enough of a presence, hence why you don't hear of massecre's at a gunshow.

Medical screening won't really help, as a Veteran we are told to claim PTSD so we can get money from the VA in a week long class, even if we don't have it (because it's difficult to get them to pay for back problems and various other issues etc so it's best to get some money from them).

"If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite, and their minions."
— Stefan Molyneux

Bravo wrote:I'm almost to the point of

no gun restrictions for those who aren't prohibited possessors


simple, and goes with the whole - law abiding citizens shouldn't have their rights taken away

This