Looks like gun control is back on the menu, boyz!

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

What? You're not gonna stop violence by taking away everybody's guns.

Actually, that mostly did happen in Britain. Our gun deaths per year are miniscule. The fact is though that it WON'T WORK in America as we never had your gun culture. Banning guns in Britain worked because there weren't that many guns; banning guns in America would just create a free for all where only the criminals would be armed. Its too late for you to stop violence by taking away everyone's guns.

Not to mention that Britain's an island. But yes I'm also of the mind that restricting them in America is vastly more complicated for the absurd amount we have already. Honestly though, for as much as people like to chuckle about social media liberals, I don't ever see much in the way of gun rights activists online that really acknowledge the relative circumstance and correlation of guns to violence. The only arguments I really see are referring to the 2nd amendment which begs the question, and blaming it on social ills, as if mandating parents in a country of 300 million to raise their kids better is rational in the slightest.

[Madner Kami]

Well, on the plus side, it means if Putin gets his wish in starting a new Cold War that then turns hot, and tries to invade us, guns will be easy to come across for the average citizen, plus invading a country surrounded on both sides by sea and allies is a logistical nightmare. It's why that bastard floated the idea of buying back Alaska. He'd love to have a place parked close enough to us to restart the Cuban Missile Crisis ALL over again. Hate him.

Noone is ever going to invade the US of A. It's silly to even speculate about it. The country is far too large to ever have a hope of holding it with boots on the ground and the US civilians are, by their very nature, never going to accept an occupation willingly, which necessitates occupation forces everywhere and the amount of manpower you need for that, can't even be fielded by China.

It is an interesting discussion. I would say that Afghanistan and Vietnam proves that low-tech soldiers who know the terrain can fight and defend against the US government for years if need be. And the US actually has similar terrain to Afghanistan in that it has a lot of open desert where you could burrow in and hide.
My problem with the premise is that it won't happen. The average modern person raised on a diet of plentiful food, comfortable living, warm homes, the internet etc. isn't going to want to spend the next five years in a cave eating scraps and probably wouldn't know how. It would take something huge and extremely unlikely for it to happen, and I mean, ''the President bombing his own citizens'' huge.

Was just about to point out, how unlikely a US "mass-guerilla" like the Vietcong is. Have you seen what the Vietnamese build in terms of underground structures? 90% of all US-americans wouldn't even be able to fit their left leg into that kind of tunnel-network. *snickers*

[Admiral X]

@clearspira Also, most people won't give up their guns, even when it's for the greater good, as I have. Oh, some of them could cite practical reasons for it, hunting (which is useless in the modern era), or home defense (which you can accomplish via other, less lethal means like a baseball bat, tazer, mace, or what have you), but in truth, it's just that we're a nation of cowboys founded on the idea of glorifying our great revolt against the proper authorities, and so there's a strain of anarchism in our culture that when combined with gun worship and vigilantism, is a dangerous combination. People cling to their guns and their bibles, as President Obama said. Hell, some poor fools are so deluded enough to think that if you had enough guns and private citizen militias, you could overthrow the government. YES, REALLY. Going up against the full force of the military, and winning. Admiral X is one of them. That shows how deep our cowboy ideas and gun culture and worship of violence goes.

Never claimed that. No, you would never win in a straight-up fight, and that would never be the point of it. No, you hide behind stuff and shoot at them, and make their life a living hell, and take as many fascists (or commies) down as you can. Welcome to the rice fields, motherfucker!

[Yukaphile]

Okay, sorry, probably misremembered it. Probably. I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong, so... I'm sorry. I guess at least I'm not like SSJGodGoku in that regard, eh?

[Admiral X]

thumbup.gif (139 Bytes) Viewed 312 times

[Nealithi]

Degrading ammunition is not as serious a risk as having a gas supply, electricity, or a house full of flammable furnishings (like books).

That said I am pro-gun but probably left of the Admiral in that I'm fine with convicted felons no longer having a right to firearms, and a license/permit to own and carry is fine (if said license is easy to obtain for most people, say like a driver's license after education say at a range for example, further restriction on explosives) but people should be allowed to own pretty much any firearm IMO as the intent is a well armed populace.

My father was a farmer, he owned several rifles for hunting and pest control, they are useful tools as well as sport. Handguns are fun to target shoot and are useful for personal defense. But like a car, I don't want an unschooled and unlicensed idiot behind them.

I really have to disagree with your comparisons. I am in a house over a hundred years old with Seventy year old wood paneling and several old books. This house has not caught fire from any of this sitting about. The converted coal chute to oil furnace is still functional. And the gas stove has not simply detonated. But I know of one military incident of old ammunition failing, and know two people that had old explosives self detonate. So I do not think they are more risky. Just more prevalant.

[Admiral X]

Except that in the example you provide, such a grenade wouldn't simply detonate like that. Something would have to set it off, like say a fire, or something smacking the primer, just like with any other metal cartridged ammunition. You seem to have mistaken grenades for dynamite, which does degrade and can be set off very easily in such a condition.

[Riedquat]

Except that in the example you provide, such a grenade wouldn't simply detonate like that. Something would have to set it off, like say a fire, or something smacking the primer, just like with any other metal cartridged ammunition. You seem to have mistaken grenades for dynamite, which does degrade and can be set off very easily in such a condition.

Ah, dynamite. I used to do a bit of old mine exploration, it was something that you had to watch out for in one or two (fairly well known) places.

The green bits are detonators. After that time, in those conditions, the dynamite may have broken down further to nothing much, not that I indended to do anything more than take a photo with a zoom, but the detonators are still probably nasty.

Anyway, back on topic...

[Darth Wedgius]

I can see regulating private gun sales and agree with that. But I think if the government doesn't clear you for a purchase indefinitely and denies you that purchase because of it, you've effectively been deprived of purchase of a gun. At some point there has to be a reasonable limit on how long the gun check can take, after which the buyer must be allowed to buy the gun.

As far as actual banning of guns in the U.S. goes... With big changes in law and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, fair expense, and severe restrictions of people's right to effective self-defense, especially in rural areas, we can make guns as difficult to obtain as drugs.

[Admiral X]

So actually not all that hard.