Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Stormdash]

So you go from "intended use" (to inflict damage) to feelings about usage. Yeah ok.

That's just it, it's "intended use" in any legal context doesn't mean "to inflict damage". And my broader point was that any attribution of intent to the object comes entirely from people, nothing is inherent to the object itself. The second you say otherwise, you're basically a cave-dweller afraid of the sun or fearing cursed objects, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, how about.... you all need to be part of a "militia" in order to own firearms. That way you have a purpose for their ownership, and you have some human contact to spot the crazy ones.

Well, we already have settled the question that the 2nd Amendment as written requires no such thing, since the militia to which it referred at all was always the citizenry. So again, you're back to needing a plan to constitutionally repeal the 2nd Amendment or to delegitimize the government.

[Mayhem]

That's just it, it's "intended use" in any legal context doesn't mean "to inflict damage". And my broader point was that any attribution of intent to the object comes entirely from people, nothing is inherent to the object itself.

Do you know of a gun that´s intended use is to not shoot rounds? You´re having troubles distinguishing between intended use and actual usage.

The second you say otherwise, you're basically a cave-dweller afraid of the sun or fearing cursed objects, etc.

lol ok bud, if one disagrees with you he´s a cave-dweller afraid of the sun, great argument you have there.

[Zoranon]

Yeah second amendment should go was a mistake. The much revered militias of the revolutionary war were actually terribly inefficient and a byproduct of the states' unwillingness to give up sovereignty (which itself was related to Jefferson's desire to continue owning and raping slaves). The idea of decentralization is always a bad one.

I was taking your seriously until now. I was wrong. Oh well, we all make mistakes.

[Stormdash]

Do you know of a gun that´s intended use is to not shoot rounds? You´re having troubles distinguishing between intended use and actual usage.

Amazingly you can fire rounds and not do damage -- you can fire into sand or earth barriers, you can fire snapcaps for training. All the gun is "for" is to contain the explosive reaction and directs the force of that reaction down the barrel and expel whatever object you've put there. Why you tell it to do that, or to what end, the gun doesn't know or care, because... guns don't know things or care about things.

lol ok bud, if one disagrees with you he´s a cave-dweller afraid of the sun, great argument you have there.

No... if someone thinks inanimate objects have a will of their own, they are a cave-dweller afraid of the sun. That's the sort of asinine "guns are for killing" gibberish trying to dispel here. Guns for whatever their master wills them to be for.

Yeah second amendment should go was a mistake. The much revered militias of the revolutionary war were actually terribly inefficient and a byproduct of the states' unwillingness to give up sovereignty (which itself was related to Jefferson's desire to continue owning and raping slaves). The idea of decentralization is always a bad one.

Then you should have an easy time getting it lawfully repealed. Try to repeal it other than by constitutional process and that might not go so easy.

And lmao at the idea of decentralization always being bad -- spoken like someone who has never been in charge of anything larger than a study group.

[Annoying]

Hmm, how about.... you all need to be part of a "militia" in order to own firearms. That way you have a purpose for their ownership, and you have some human contact to spot the crazy ones.

Then, in addition to being in part of a militia, we should make it be "well-regulated", so we can slap some laws on that shit about what actually constitutes a militia - it can't just be one dude by his lonesome, and he has to do militia-things with his guns, he can't just stroke them in his basement until he's ready to die for some goofy reason in a movie theatre or a church or club.

Oh and hey - given that's already the requirement in the 2nd amendment - we don't have to change anything!

...Except, you know, the part about getting you guys to do what the constitution requires

It's already been ruled on, and reading the text makes it quite simple, though.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," -- note that this doesn't say anything about being in one, just that it's necessary
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- note that this doesn't have anything to do with the first half.

The first half is clarifying why the second half is a constitutional right. Everyone has the right to bear arms because a well regulated militia is necessary. Nothing about requiring you to be in one to have this right.

At least that's how SCOTUS ruled on it.

[Zoranon]

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c...-constitution/

Your point being? You linked a blog...

[Mayhem]

Wrong direction, bub. You're trying to compare populations based on exports, not imports.

How about Nevada imports 6.8 crime guns per 100k population from California, while California imports 1.4 crime guns per 100k population from Nevada.

You're implying that the motivation for these guns crossing borders is the need to have them on the ending side, not a need to get rid of them on the starting side (that would be ridiculous), so you have to compare imports based on population, not exports based on population.

All of this is based on recovered and traced crime guns. But adjusted for population nevada has 79,3 recovered and traced guns per 100k while california only has 48,8 recovered and traced guns per 100k.

- - - Updated - - -

Amazingly you can fire rounds and not do damage -- you can fire into sand or earth barriers, you can fire snapcaps for training. All the gun is "for" is to contain the explosive reaction and directs the force of that reaction down the barrel and expel whatever object you've put there. Why you tell it to do that, or to what end, the gun doesn't know or care, because... guns don't know things or care about things.

Amazingly that doesn´t change that they´re deisgned and intended to fire rounds. What you´re targetting at doesn´t change the intended use. Now of course some can be designed for specific usage or hold rounds for specific targets.

No... if someone thinks inanimate objects have a will of their own, they are a cave-dweller afraid of the sun. That's the sort of asinine "guns are for killing" gibberish trying to dispel here. Guns for whatever their master wills them to be for.

Who here said guns have a will of their own? "guns are for killing" isn´t even implying that guns have a will of their own.

[dekiion]

I would say that "it´s only designed to kill" isn´t about functionality. The difference obviously is, despite being functionally the same as a nail gun, it´s designed to shoot rounds (not some kind of projectile) and it should do that very effectively. So therefore it has a designed purpose. Now of course you can use a gun for shooting at paper targets. You can also use a nail gun for shooting at paper targets. Their intended designs and usage despite being functionally the same are entirely different though.

Well, I never actually brought up nail guns, I was thinking of like the old Remington power hammer that actually used a small load to "drive" or "propel" the nail into concrete (I believe), but you're still mixing the straight up design and mechanics of how the tool functions, and it's intent. And you're purposefully attributing "bad" intent to a gun ('its purpose is to kill') while blatantly disregarding the many other uses for a gun that have little to do with killing. Or twisting the fact that it CAN be used to kill something into some kind of evil thing. I'd say it's a pretty useful thing if you're a smaller entity trying to use it to defend yourself from a larger entity. Or a person trying to defend yourself or your property from an aggressive, large predatory animal. Or a person trying to hunt up food for yourself or you family. Or any other number of possible uses which are entirely legitimate, and have nothing to do with murdering people.

I CAN use a car to kill people, too. It's design is QUITE good if one were to use it as a weapon, but that would be confusing the intent of someone who CHOOSES to use it that way, with the functional design of simply being a vehicle to move "stuff" from point A to point B faster and easier than walking.

I CAN use a knife to kill people, too. Again, it's design and function are QUITE good for slicing, stabbing and cutting, and generally doing LOTS of damage to a living being if one so choose. Does that mean that knives are designed to kill, or are they simply designed to cut better than you can rip something wiht your bare hands, and the whole "use to kill" part again comes down to an INTENTIONAL ACTION on the part of a person using the tool? The tool just cuts, or allows faster transportation, or expels a projectile at high velocity. How the USER uses it... that makes all the difference.

[TITAN308]

That many Americans hold the constitution and founding fathers in too high a regard. And that it is badly in need of an update but it's too hard to change.

We should change all the other amendments while we are at it. Lets start with the fourth amendment. After all if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. Shit needs to be abolished. A government agent should be able to enter your home at any time on any day to make sure you are not up to no good. After all its for our safety and for the children.

[Stormdash]

That many Americans hold the constitution and founding fathers in too high a regard. And that it is badly in need of an update but it's too hard to change.

It's been changed 17 times since the original bill of rights that came packaged with it. It's not "too hard" to change, it's "too hard" to change it to accomplish things that only a small minority across the breadth of the nation want to have accomplished. That is not a bug, that's a feature.

[Zoranon]

That many Americans hold the constitution and founding fathers in too high a regard. And that it is badly in need of an update but it's too hard to change.

No its not. It is hard enough to change for a reason. This is the only reason that US still has real freedom of speech for example.

[dekiion]

When I got here it was mostly gun nuts discussing what kind of scope to use. Thought I'd bring it back on point and remind everyone that there are a lot of people (including myself) who view promoting guns as promoting murder. Anyway, carry on!

Please, show us an image or report or ANYTHING where someone is actually promoting murder. I'll eat my hat this instant if you can find a legitimate ad or other piece that ACTUALLY 'promotes murder' as you claim.

You know what would be promoting murder? Actually, ya know... promoting murder. Telling people to go out and kill someone for some reason. I highly, HIGHLY doubt there are any ads or anything in any way associated with guns that promote murder.

Know what else? There are a lot of people who view those who promote stripping rights from their fellow citizens as traitorous actions with a definite authoritarian, illiberal bent. Tell ya what - we'll go back to limiting guns to just the muskets that were all the rage when the Constitution was drafted. Just as long as we also eliminate ALL federal agencies that didn't exist back then as well. And you only get free speech in the town square where you live, or if you write something with a quill and ink. Mmmmkay?

The so-called "liberal Progressives" are just as bad as the "religious Right" here - they each care SO very deeply about rights, but only the rights they like or want or use - and are quite happy to destroy, strip, abolish, ignore or otherwise show themselves to be completely intolerant, authoritarian, illiberal wankers at the drop of a hat when it comes to supporting a "right" that they don't agree with for whatever reason (generally some kind of "feelz").

Anyway, carry on!

[SmokesTooMuch]

We should change all the other amendments while we are at it. Lets start with the fourth amendment. After all if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. Shit needs to be abolished. A government agent should be able to enter your home at any time on any day to make sure you are not up to no good. After all its for our safety and for the children.

I like you...

[Zoranon]

We should change all the other amendments while we are at it. Lets start with the fourth amendment. After all if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. Shit needs to be abolished. A government agent should be able to enter your home at any time on any day to make sure you are not up to no good. After all its for our safety and for the children.

Indeed. We should abolish all of bill of rights. If it saves even a single life it will be worth it. Will nobody think of the children??!

[Daelak]

What proof do you have of this?

And have you ever actually met an American gun owner? I bet you don't realize that a good chunk of people that you'd walk by here in the states are carrying and you'd never know it. Yet they are normal every day people.

Quit sensationalizing this or I'll just debate with people who are open to an honest debate.

The pareto principle and the debilitating and sickest affects of OCD and hoarding. They become predisposed to propaganda and an ever-increasing threshold for more extreme scenarios (delusions) that would require the salvation of a firearm, like doomsday, overthrowing the big bad federal gubmint, and protecting a damsel in distress from the feral black thugs.

I am not talking about the minority of guns in circulation and the people carrying concealed when they only have 1-3 firearms, I am talking about the demographic of gun owners who have been made obsessed with gun fantasy.

[Zoranon]

The pareto principle and the debilitating and sickest affects of OCD and hoarding. They become predisposed to propaganda and an ever-increasing threshold for more extreme scenarios (delusions) that would require the salvation of a firearm, like doomsday, overthrowing the big bad federal gubmint, and protecting a damsel in distress from the feral black thugs.

I am not talking about the minority of guns in circulation and the people carrying concealed when they only have 1-3 firearms, I am talking about the demographic of gun owners who have been made obsessed with gun fantasy.

Do you have any proof of your claims, or are you lying as usual Daelak?

[Daelak]

I think you're confusing "vast majority" with "vocal radical minority".

Either that or you can't be bothered to care about the difference.

20% of firearm owners own and consume 80% of the firearm manufacturer's products. These are a cohort of people obsessed with my aforementioned things and also are actively participating in right wing militias and online propagation of falsehoods intended to get more of the same OCD, hoarding debilitating types to fall into this horrible feedback loop.

- - - Updated - - -

Making up stats simply so that you can strawman the argument with ad hominems thrown in on the side...

Don't ever change, Daelak.

It's not a made up stat, pareto's principle adheres to both business and psychology. It's ironic because you actively defend the outright refusal of government agencies like the CDC and ATF to actually have objective empirical information regarding firearm ownership and firearm use and purchases and yet for this reason attack me because what you think I say is outlandish, but it is completely true.

- - - Updated - - -

No you won't. You keep forgetting about the 250-300 million weapons in circulation. And out of all the gun deaths last year or the year before only a handful were used with an AR. The vast majority were with pistols. You know this right?

And a cop is prepared with the know how. But these situations are fast and evolve quickly. I doubt he had his pistol out pointing it at everyone just waiting for one to be a crazy Muslim extremist who wanted to shoot the place up.

Who cares about the one's in circulation, just restrict new sales. So what, the AR and the variant that the shooter used last saturday were designed and lauded as exceptional in the battlefield in ensuring mass human casualty from one individual.

He had his pistol holstered and saw the shooter first. It doesn't get much better than that, for both law enforcement or regular joe gun toting six pack.

[dekiion]

20% of firearm owners own and consume 80% of the firearm manufacturer's products. These are a cohort of people obsessed with my aforementioned things and also are actively participating in right wing militias and online propagation of falsehoods intended to get more of the same OCD, hoarding debilitating types to fall into this horrible feedback loop.

- - - Updated - - -
It's not a made up stat, pareto's principle adheres to both business and psychology. It's ironic because you actively defend the outright refusal of government agencies like the CDC and ATF to actually have objective empirical information regarding firearm ownership and firearm use and purchases and yet for this reason attack me because what you think I say is outlandish, but it is completely true.

Again I ask, source? Or can we just safely ignore you as a troll and straight up liar, deliberately fabricating "facts" to further your own straw man argument? and your previous claim was that this was EIGHTY percent of gun owners... now it's 20% of the owners consuming 80% of the product. Did you realize too late that your BS "it's the pareto principle" line was in stark contrast to what you just stated in black and white here not even 12 hours ago?

[Daelak]

Then I guess the liberals in the 1960's US military determining what the next best rifle to use for US and Southern Vietnamese troops to use against the VC were just all on acid and drawing flowers in their logs regarding the exceptional efficiency the AR-15 was in blowing up heads and torsos at close and mid range.

- - - Updated - - -

I know this is about gun-control, and many folks here are. "what if" or "making up stats" , but as a former marine , shooting at someone that you KNOW wont/cant shoot back is 100% different than trying to shoot at someone thats shooting back.

Since everyone is guessing and speculating wonder how many lives would have been saved, if one or more in the bar had a conceal carry permit, and fired back at this idiot.. I would wager, his desire to continue to shoot would have been greatly reduced. .. . Just something to think about, while so many are trying so hard to take guns away from folks. pretty easy to shoot at un-armed people, .... you may run across someone thats going to shoot back. its not 100% cause u still have the crazed "i want to die" idiots.. still even those guys dont like pain. ... something to think about.

There was an armed off duty police officer there, and he failed to neutralize the target.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, that's a bold claim. Citation to back it up, or is this just simply more anti-gun rhetoric based in someone else's bout of paranoia about people who own guns?

It's based off of the pareto principle, analogous to the operating revenues of both fast food and cigarette companies. They cater to the heavy users with surefire mental issues who are dependent on their product in a very visceral way.

- - - Updated - - -

What possible bearing does that have on one being able to participate in a calm, reasoned, fact-based discussion on the topic? Are you also going to submit yourself to an exhaustive testing of your knowledge of firearms to vette your ability to rationally and factually discuss the nuances, or are you going to persist in things like your unsourced claim that 80% of the 300+ million guns currently legally owned in the US are owned by paranoid fanatics suffering from some kind of psychosis or mental instability?

Because normal, well adjusted human beings in society don't have to rationalize or hide the fact that they have an unhealthy obsession with firearms and apocalyptic fantasies that are in the minds of firearm fanatics.

- - - Updated - - -

Those are pretty easy answers, but telling you how many isn't really relevant. Why is perfectly fine, and covers what you're looking for in terms of information anyway. I could easily tell you that I have one for home defense and the rest are for target shooting or hunting (if I ever win a tag... sigh), and that perfectly conveys anything you could want to know about it. Yeah, sure, you can infer that I have two or more, but you don't need to know the exact number.

I know you don't have a debilitating mental issue because 1) you have been vetted as a moderator, and 2) you don't have an overbearing nature of impending doom and destruction whenever you write on the internet. You are a well adjusted human being, not one who has a dependency on firearms and internet dumpster fire forums.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have any source for this claim of yours, or is it business as usuall with you Daelak (lying and trolling)?

PS: Do you know what almost all mass shootings have in common? The type of locations - a gun free zone...

Yea, the pareto principle, the same principle large companies like the firearms industry (tobacco, fast food, pharmaceuticals) inadvertently or deliberately target to ensure high revenue streams and dedicated consumers for generations.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, you'd have to define "variants". An AR-15 is functionally equivalent to basically every single other semi-automatic rifle.

So why aren't the M1 garand's not selling like hot cakes?

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, so that is what it looks like when you pull numbers straight from your ass and present them as hard facts.
Impressive !

80% ? Bullshit and you know it....just utter and complete Bullshit.

But I think you are just trying to argue for the sake of it after demonstrating a complete ....willingness to use made up lies as ...a factual basis for you argument.
Enjoy your post count going up I guess.

It's the pareto principle, and it applies to firearm consumers as well. The firearm industry, like fast food, tobacco, pharmaceuticals notably thrive off of the heavy users with moderate to severe dependencies with their products.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have any proof of your claims, or are you lying as usual Daelak?

It's not lying. Heavy users of any product, including firearms, have a debilitating dependency to the consumption of the product, which leads to negative mental health outcomes like hoarding and anti-social behaviors.

- - - Updated - - -

Again I ask, source? Or can we just safely ignore you as a troll and straight up liar, deliberately fabricating "facts" to further your own straw man argument? and your previous claim was that this was EIGHTY percent of gun owners... now it's 20% of the owners consuming 80% of the product. Did you realize too late that your BS "it's the pareto principle" line was in stark contrast to what you just stated in black and white here not even 12 hours ago?

No, it always was 80% of guns in circulation, sorry if I typed it out wrong.

[Annoying]

I know you don't have a debilitating mental issue because 1) you have been vetted as a moderator, and 2) you don't have an overbearing nature of impending doom and destruction whenever you write on the internet. You are a well adjusted human being, not one who has a dependency on firearms and internet dumpster fire forums.

True, but at the same time, I'd say (at least with a reasonable definition) that I'm a gun nut. I've spent thousands on guns. I have a safe bolted to the floor of my garage. I spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars on ammo (need to start reloading, shit's expensive). Sure, I'm not one of those "oh god stock the basement so when they come I can fight back" types, but still definitely a gun nut.

So why aren't the M1 garand's not selling like hot cakes?

That's a bad example, seeing as to how I've put ~$4500 into mine. Solidly one of my favorite guns. Oh and probably because of that dollar sign and what follows it -- They're >2x the cost of an AR-15. Oh and the ammo costs a whole lot more, too.
I mean, I see what you're saying, but finding a semi-auto rifle that's cheaper than an AR-15 style rifle is pretty tough these days due to the saturation of the design. Parts are mass produced so they end up cheap. You could probably score a savage 22lr type F (don't remember the model, but it's semi-auto) for pretty cheap, but it's in a caliber that's worthless for anything beyond shooting cans out back.