Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TITAN308]

Why would regulation on guns used in less than 1% of guns crime be a good idea?

Because reasons.

[satimy]

The military dictatorships that have plagued Africa since the colonial era have never been able to exert their authority beyond the largest population centers in their country. For the vast majority of Africans living outside the population centers of Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, etc. it certainly is the most limited government of any kind. No codes, self-policing, and of course, the product of unlimited freedom, large roving bands of armies run by warlords fighting, enslaving, and killing one another and whoever is in their way for resources. What, do you honestly believe al shabaab and other Islamic extremist groups actually flourish in areas where there is "big gubmint"? No, these are areas in the world where there is hardly a semblance of governance.

America was never meant to be anarchist, and the average American in 1776 was probably more intelligent than the average Somalian today

[dekiion]

At least i would use them this way, and i probably will include the definition in brackets when talking about these issues here, to make it clear what i´m talking about. In my eyes gun regulation is a very different topic than gun control.

- - - Updated - - -

Uhm, your three points and the conclusion you come to "example of what can happen from too much government" don´t really add up.

Especially point 1 of the 3 you present.

I never said those 3 points were the sole proof. I said there were some of the issues facing Somalia that had nothing to do with "small government" and in fact existed because it DIDN'T have small government. It had quite a robust government - albeit one that was massively corrupt, crony in nature, and prone to do many, many things (like establishing secret police and state religions) that I've NEVER heard any proponent of "small government" state or ask for.

when they were still a colony, they had loads of government and control, but it prepared them poorly to govern themselves. What they DID have for government was corrupt, based around a cult of personality with strong men and warlords and "might makes right" and all the rest of which, contrary to the opinion of most progressives and mmo-c posters here, is NOT the default desire of most of the "small government" crowd.

I notice you conveniently focus on that, and leave out entire the next paragraph where I got into more detail about some of the "big government" things which are exactly examples of what I said. You don't see massive military spending programs, warlike posturing towards neighbor states, large "secret police" organizations, military dictators, etc - with "small governments". Those are all, as I stated, hallmarks of large, central, authoritarian governments.

Since you seem to not grasp the flow of what I said, here's the cliff notes: Somalia isn't due to "small government". I list 3 examples of OTHER issues causing them problems rather than simply saying "it's due to small government". I then state that they are in fact an example of what happens with "too much" government, and then list a number of things directly tied to that as examples of the kinds of things seen in Somalia.

[Daelak]

America was never meant to be anarchist, and the average American in 1776 was probably more intelligent than the average Somalian today

I don't agree with that. The literacy rates are probably similar. Regardless, the failed states of Africa are that for a reason, the government is so limited and small that it cannot exert its authority outside of the capitol city.

[Deletedaccount1]

I fully support the right to breastfeed your child while holstering a pistol.

[Tinykong]

I fully support the right to breastfeed your child while holstering a pistol.

Neither one of these things is illegal or dangerous.

[dekiion]

The military dictatorships that have plagued Africa since the colonial era have never been able to exert their authority beyond the largest population centers in their country. For the vast majority of Africans living outside the population centers of Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, etc. it certainly is the most limited government of any kind. No codes, self-policing, and of course, the product of unlimited freedom, large roving bands of armies run by warlords fighting, enslaving, and killing one another and whoever is in their way for resources. What, do you honestly believe al shabaab and other Islamic extremist groups actually flourish in areas where there is "big gubmint"? No, these are areas in the world where there is hardly a semblance of governance.

Ok, got it. So you're doing the old trick of calling a complete LACK of any government whatsoever, with "small government". Probably don't understand, or worse - willfully misrepresent - the difference between, say... libertarian and anarchy... as well.

Of course, what that ALSO does is make the case for anyone who argues FOR the necessity of tools to allow smaller, weaker individuals or group to gain a more equal footing against those bad men (warlords in this case) who would otherwise resort to a "law of the jungle, might makes absolute right" way of existence that is a fairly brutal one. Thanks for joining the pro-gun side, Daelak!

Trying to take you seriously for a moment tho - you DO understand that the complete LACK of a government is not in any way proof of your claims about "small government" and the need for larger government and more regulation, don't you? There was no "small government" phase in Somalia, it pretty much went from colony to dictatorship to chaos and anarchy. So BIG (corrupt) government to NO (might-makes-right) government. Big swing and a miss for ya, there.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, i´m not the one defining it, hence why it needs to be explained. Reasonable [insert term] can be defined, we do that all the time. Namely if the benefits of introducing it outweights the costs.



If you disregard rules you get punished when caught, that´s what i meant.

You're still not answering what I'm asking tho. Ok, so YOU don't define it... who does? And what is THAT person the one who says what is reasonable, rather than... Wayne LaPierre? Or Donald Trump? Or Hillary Clinton? Or Spongebob Squarepants? 300+ Million people in this country, I rather doubt that a person (or even a group) is going to be able to define ANYTHING as "reasonable" so that every single one of those people agrees 100%. That's the flawed conceit at the root of all the problems with collectivism to begin with, and centralizing ANYTHING on such a massive scale.

[Daelak]

Ok, got it. So you're doing the old trick of calling a complete LACK of any government whatsoever, with "small government". Probably don't understand, or worse - willfully misrepresent - the difference between, say... libertarian and anarchy... as well.

Of course, what that ALSO does is make the case for anyone who argues FOR the necessity of tools to allow smaller, weaker individuals or group to gain a more equal footing against those bad men (warlords in this case) who would otherwise resort to a "law of the jungle, might makes absolute right" way of existence that is a fairly brutal one. Thanks for joining the pro-gun side, Daelak!

Trying to take you seriously for a moment tho - you DO understand that the complete LACK of a government is not in any way proof of your claims about "small government" and the need for larger government and more regulation, don't you? There was no "small government" phase in Somalia, it pretty much went from colony to dictatorship to chaos and anarchy. So BIG (corrupt) government to NO (might-makes-right) government. Big swing and a miss for ya, there.

It is you who is dodging. You can't even tell me what "small government" entails, because if it doesn't exist in these countries, then it has never existed, and it is rightfully next to libertarian ideals in the shitter.

You will never find a country that will adhere to your fantastical threshold of what a small government is, because it cannot exist. Your entire premise, ideology, only exists because you live in one of the freest society in the world, all because of a strong, central government whose power and scope can be exerted anywhere in the country. Your poisonous ideology exists because of a large and strong government, not in spite of "big gubmint".

[Annoying]

Why won´t it happen? What´s the infringement for non crazy people?

Undue burden, as outlined in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

[Stormdash]

Calling strongmen, warlords -- pretty much the epitome of "big government", pure authoritarians who have the last word on all over which they claim authority, bound by no limits or law -- competing to be master-dictator, calling that a study and lesson in the failure of "small government", limited government bound by the consent of the governed...

... that takes an ignorance, an anti-intellectualism so total it becomes an affront to basic decency. An argument so wrong, it's obscene.

[Mayhem]

You're still not answering what I'm asking tho. Ok, so YOU don't define it... who does? And what is THAT person the one who says what is reasonable, rather than... Wayne LaPierre? Or Donald Trump? Or Hillary Clinton? Or Spongebob Squarepants? 300+ Million people in this country, I rather doubt that a person (or even a group) is going to be able to define ANYTHING as "reasonable" so that every single one of those people agrees 100%. That's the flawed conceit at the root of all the problems with collectivism to begin with, and centralizing ANYTHING on such a massive scale.

We use studies, we base it on accumulated knowledge, on the errors we made. How else can you come to know that the benefits outweight the costs?

- - - Updated - - -

Undue burden, as outlined in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

I don´t see how that is relevant.

[Hammerfest]

The AR-15 is one of the best rifles for small women and girls, including seven year olds like the one in the video below.

[TITAN308]

The AR-15 is one of the best rifles for small women and girls, including seven year olds like the one in the video below.

I saw this video this morning, it was shown in juxtaposition to another video where a grown adult man who shot an AR-15 for the first time basically cowered in fear of it. "Its big! Its loud! Oh my sensibilities!"

So someone in response put up a video showing a little girl shooting one and not acting like a giant baby.

Edit: Oh here it is, was an article:

"What is it like to fire an AR-15? It’s horrifying, menacing and very very loud"

It feels like a bazooka — and sounds like a cannon….

I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).

The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.2673201

The guy who wrote this article has got to be the biggest manbaby Ive seen in a while.

Bruising? Bazkookas? Temporary PTSD?

haha... wait... wait.... hahahaha

[Hammerfest]

I saw this video this morning, it was shown in juxtaposition to another video where a grown adult man who shot an AR-15 for the first time basically cowered in fear of it. "Its big! Its loud! Oh my sensibilities!"

So someone in response put up a video showing a little girl shooting one and not acting like a giant baby.

Yeah, there was an article recently in the leftist rag The New York Daily News in which a writer named Gersh Kuntzman claims to have fired an AR-15 (which he called a "machine gun") and said it "felt like a bazooka and sounded like a cannon." Either he's never fired a bazooka or he's never heard a cannon. I'm thinking both. He also claims that AR-15s are popular with mass murderers and that Omar Mateen used an AR-15 in his massacre (he later edited the article online to read "AR-15-type weapons"). He also claimed that he fired the AR-15 in "semi-automatic mode," hence stating that the AR-15 is a weapon with a selector switch... which it isn't. You pull the trigger and one round comes out. He also claimed that the recoil was so powerful that it gave him bruises (even though he's a grown man and seven year old girls can shoot AR-15s with no issues). The online article doesn't show him firing the weapon at all and it sounds to me like he hasn't fired one based on what he's written. He also initially claimed it gave him "temporary PTSD," which has also been stricken from the current version of the article. The article is filled with lies and misinformation and is designed for people who wouldn't know better to just pass it along in an attempt to affect popular opinion. The whole purpose of the article was an attempt to characterize owners of the weapon as crazy and deranged.

Here's a link to the stupidest thing on the internet right now...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.2673201

[Svifnymr]

Why won´t it happen? What´s the infringement for non crazy people?

You honestly don't see "you might eventually be able to get a gun from a small list if you have enough money/time/friends", as not an infringement? If you think it's a necessary thing to infringe on rights for public safety, say so, but don't pretend it's not an infringement.

- - - Updated - - -

It's good to see that NRA is, at least in a statement, making it clear that they support taking away the right to own a gun from people who might commit these atrocities, but in the same breath one has to wonder why the hell anyone cares about the NRA and what they think anyway, seeing as though of all the gun owners in the US, something like 5% are NRA members.

Ahh, but, see... Money in politics. The NRA may not have any members, but they've got a shitload of money to buy politicians with.

The main advantage the NRA has had through the years has always been motivated single issue voters. They don't toss money around like many of the high-dollar types do, but they get folks out to polls that are vocal about things.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not living in the us and only have a decent understanding of us gov. but is it not to congress to make law?

this looks like a giant pr stun for both trump and NRA,

Trump is only the candidate And the NRA is not supposed to be deciding what laws can be written and passed no ?

Why are they meeting with him to discuss gun laws that they have been so averse to in the past?

it really smell like shit

Presidents do have influence on laws, obviously, and the NRA is an "expert" group whose opinion can sway folks. You may have missed though, that the actual stuff being debated is/was put forth by a senator.

- - - Updated - - -

I saw this video this morning, it was shown in juxtaposition to another video where a grown adult man who shot an AR-15 for the first time basically cowered in fear of it. "Its big! Its loud! Oh my sensibilities!"

So someone in response put up a video showing a little girl shooting one and not acting like a giant baby.

The guy who wrote this article has got to be the biggest manbaby Ive seen in a while.

Bruising? Bazkookas? Temporary PTSD?

haha... wait... wait.... hahahaha

I've never liked the noise, hence why I silencer as much of my stuff as possible. Back when I worked at a gunshop, people would always ask me about heavy barrels or muzzle brakes. My sarcastic "What, you need to tame the savage recoil of the 223 round?" usually got the point across. I think an HK91 is really the only gun that left a mark on my shoulder, more due to the hard pattern of the stock than anything else.

OTOH, I fired my Colt New Agent today, so loud! Grip safety (old tang style) really focuses the recoil into one spot too. Still fun, no regrets!

[Annoying]

The guy who wrote this article has got to be the biggest manbaby Ive seen in a while.

Bruising? Bazkookas? Temporary PTSD?

haha... wait... wait.... hahahaha

Not to mention "I've shot pistols before" when an AR-15 has less recoil than a pistol does. I mean, unless by pistol he means .22 or something. I'd enjoy the reaction he'd vomit out from firing any rifle with a larger round. Or any pistol above a tiny one, really.

[Mayhem]

You honestly don't see "you might eventually be able to get a gun from a small list if you have enough money/time/friends", as not an infringement? If you think it's a necessary thing to infringe on rights for public safety, say so, but don't pretend it's not an infringement.

Wow, you are bad at quoting. That was not what he wrote, nice try though.

[Svifnymr]

Wow, you are bad at quoting. That was not what he wrote, nice try though.

" ownership licenses and then make it extremely arduous for anyone to apply for a license and eventually get it And, of course, simply make assault rifles and such weapons unavailable to the public, as they've been in the past. "
Make it hard to get, take a long time, only get what's approved...

Are you saying you agree that his presentation is filled with Infringments?

[Mayhem]

" ownership licenses and then make it extremely arduous for anyone to apply for a license and eventually get it And, of course, simply make assault rifles and such weapons unavailable to the public, as they've been in the past. "
Make it hard to get, take a long time, only get what's approved...

Are you saying you agree that his presentation is filled with Infringments?

No, for me to agree on this i would need to know what exactly he´s proposing. You can guess that he wants to infringe rights, but that´s nothing but a guess.

[Svifnymr]

No, for me to agree on this i would need to know what exactly he´s proposing. You can guess that he wants to infringe rights, but that´s nothing but a guess.

Did you read his original quote? I left out the parenthetical stuff, but you don't consider making a license required and then making that license very hard to get as infringement? I wonder what you Do consider an infringement?