Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PizzaSHARK]

Pardon I miss spoke the ownership of weapons that are fully automatic is extremly difficult and requires more permits than most will ever have. The registration and control is extreme. The ownership of Assult Rifles (Defined as firearms with selective fire capabilities (can change from full to semi or single shot)) are illegal.

Again, no. Plenty of people own AK-47's and other selective-fire weapons. It's not easy, and it's very expensive, but plenty of people own them.

[Moadar]

Military are not police and should not be used in policing actions. If the military 'turns in' all their weapons as you suggest, then the second amendment would once again be imperative for defense of the land, and so that would be a foolish move on your part :P

Sounds like the start of a well regulated militia.

[PizzaSHARK]

Hunting rifles are the same as "assault weapons" in most cases

Any decent, semi-automatic hunting rifle is pretty much no different from the AR-15 people are whining about, except they come with wood furniture so people think they're different.

A Ruger Mini 14 looks a lot different from an AR-15 but functionally they're just about identical.

[obdigore]

Aside from needing the weapon for defense against government, you could use them to defend yourself against mobs or rioters. Besides, magazines take seconds to replace and they are easy to make at home

Hunting rifles are the same as "assault weapons" in most cases

I don't like the term 'assault weapons', because it has different definitions for different people. It makes it hard to know just what people are talking about. Where does all this paranoia about rioters, mobs, and big government becoming fascist come from? Why do people live in such fear?

[Moadar]

Heh, and then get bent over by all the gangs that no longer have to worry about homeowners or police being armed ;P

But I've been told here that banning guns prevents crime, takes them out of the bad guys hands and if criminals know that home owners arent armed then they wont use guns either.

[obdigore]

Sounds like the start of a well regulated militia.

Indeed it does, which would be needed in the US for defense if we did not have a standing military. However, we do have that standing military and so have no need for militias at this time.

[PizzaSHARK]

I don't like the term 'assault weapons', because it has different definitions for different people. It makes it hard to know just what people are talking about. Where does all this paranoia about rioters, mobs, and big government becoming fascist come from? Why do people live in such fear?

I don't get why people use "fear" so much. It's not about being afraid, it's about having that option if it's needed.

[obdigore]

But I've been told here that banning guns prevents crime, takes them out of the bad guys hands and if criminals know that home owners arent armed then they wont use guns either.

You've been told wrong. Banning guns doesn't prevent crime, firearms are a force multiplier. They make the crime more deadly.

And, before Pizza jumps on my case AGAIN, I will once again state we need to be open about studies into gun violence in the states and what causes it, instead of just effectively banning it, like the NRA did to the CDC.

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 01:56 AM ----------

I don't get why people use "fear" so much. It's not about being afraid, it's about having that option if it's needed.

To lay down plans and secure supplies for a hypothetical situation requires you to actually have a reasonable idea that situation could come to pass. People who say they want guns to protect themselves from mobs or rioters must have a realistic fear of mobs and rioters.

[Moadar]

Indeed it does, which would be needed in the US for defense if we did not have a standing military. However, we do have that standing military and so have no need for militias at this time.

Well since we have that standing military we will need something to keep the balance of power somewhat equal. Like an amendment to arm citizens.

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 06:57 AM ----------

You've been told wrong. Banning guns doesn't prevent crime, firearms are a force multiplier. They make the crime more deadly.

And, before Pizza jumps on my case AGAIN, I will once again state we need to be open about studies into gun violence in the states and what causes it, instead of just effectively banning it, like the NRA did to the CDC.[COLOR="red"]

Understand that the NRA was forced on us by rabid anti gun folk.

[Extrazero8]

If you can show me why you need a semi-automatic rifle or handgun with more than ~ 12 rounds in the chamber for anything but target shooting, I may rethink my stance?

I would go to the "how the hell do you get 12 rounds into one chamber" comment but I think we have had enough of that BS in here already.

The point of the question was to show you the other uses for the weapons you demonize.

Either way, I'll play the game, why not. I'll go with self/home defense where there is no telling how many rounds you will need to protect yourself and loved ones from an attack that may be coming from more than one person. In these cases limiting magazine size biased on an arbitrary number does nothing more than impede a persons ability to defend themselves.

Can you give just one reason why I don't need them?

[obdigore]

Well since we have that standing military we will need something to keep the balance of power somewhat equal. Like an amendment to arm citizens.

Any and all weapons that private citizens in the US have cannot stand up to the might of hte US military were the soldiers to side with the government.

Understand that the NRA was forced on us by rabid anti gun folk.

An association attempting to protect the rights of gun owners is fine. An association that squashes any kind of scientific research into the high rates of gun violence in the US is not.

[PizzaSHARK]

Any and all weapons that private citizens in the US have cannot stand up to the might of hte US military were the soldiers to side with the government.

Obviously, but if it reached a point where the government is ordering the military to crack down on the citizens on a large scale (large enough to involve something more than just the National Guard), I think you'd be seeing desertions when soldiers refuse to march on their hometowns and friends and families.

Not really a realistic scenario regardless, IMO.

[Moadar]

Any and all weapons that private citizens in the US have cannot stand up to the might of hte US military were the soldiers to side with the government.

An association attempting to protect the rights of gun owners is fine. An association that squashes any kind of scientific research into the high rates of gun violence in the US is not.

The US government wouldn't win a guerrilla war here.

That politics in this country. One side trys to put a spin on everything, the other stops them however they can.

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 07:03 AM ----------

Obviously, but if it reached a point where the government is ordering the military to crack down on the citizens on a large scale (large enough to involve something more than just the National Guard), I think you'd be seeing desertions when soldiers refuse to march on their hometowns and friends and families.

Not really a realistic scenario regardless, IMO.

Soldiers can't fight effectively when the opposition can carry out retribution on their families either.

[obdigore]

I would go to the "how the hell do you get 12 rounds into one chamber" comment but I think we have had enough of that BS in here already.

Sorry, I meant magazine. I misspoke.

The point of the question was to show you the other uses for the weapons you demonize.

There are quite a few other uses for weapons. Hunting is a fun one that I enjoyed. Firing fully automatic weapons at a range is a very entertaining experience.

Either way, I'll play the game, why not. I'll go with self/home defense where there is no telling how many rounds you will need to protect yourself and loved ones from an attack that may be coming from more than one person. In these cases limiting magazine size biased on an arbitrary number does nothing more than impede a persons ability to defend themselves.

Can you give just one reason why I don't need them?

Despite the fact that having a handgun in your house gives you three times the rates to be murdered and five times the rate to commit suicide?

Force Multiplication for crazies isn't a good thing. We need to address the crazies, but again, 'home defense' isn't a good reason (in my eyes, clearly) to have a 100 round drum.

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 02:05 AM ----------

Obviously, but if it reached a point where the government is ordering the military to crack down on the citizens on a large scale (large enough to involve something more than just the National Guard), I think you'd be seeing desertions when soldiers refuse to march on their hometowns and friends and families.

Not really a realistic scenario regardless, IMO.

I agree, which is I don't think 'I need my guns for defense from big government' is in any way a valid argument.

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 02:09 AM ----------

The US government wouldn't win a guerrilla war here.

That politics in this country. One side trys to put a spin on everything, the other stops them however they can.[COLOR="red"]

The CDC found the rates of gun violence are higher if you own a firearm. They were then going to start researching where firearms are located and see if perhaps more violence around you causes you to buy a firearm, and were going to start researching into the base reasons for gun violence. But somehow, they have added a clause to the CDC mandate that they cannot use any funding to study the effects of firearms, and had a bunch of their funding removed.

CDC has studied how to lower traffic deaths, disease deaths, cancer, and when they attempt to study how to lower firearm deaths they get smashed. That isn't good for anyone but gun manufacturers.

An interesting op-ed piece by the guy who was Director at the CDC section doing the gun violence investigation, as well as the NRA member and House Rep who got the funding cut to the CDC and the caveat added that they aren't allowed to pursue gun research.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...nEX_story.html

[slimj091]

Last time I checked criminals don't follow laws or bans.

last time i checked the recent school, mall, and theater shootings weren't done by career criminals. they were done by previously law abiding citizens with easy legal access to assault weapons. I'm not afraid of criminals. i'm afraid of these gun nuts that snap, and go on killing spree's.

[Nakura Chambers]

So you disagree with the supreme court of the early 1900's and 4 of the current sitting members, and somehow you think that is correct? Congrats?

You should have kept reading, you would have seen this:

Interpretation of the Second Amendment has always been that of recognizing it as an individual right. In fact, it was most commonly interpretted as a right that cannot under any circumstances be restricted or limited. Even foreigners held this view, including William Blackstone, who wrote about it in his Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Second Amendment uses the term "shall not be infringed," which not only states that the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing natural right, but also that it shall not be infringed upon. In fact, the only real criticism levied against the Second Amendment, was by those who thought it didn't provide enough protection to the right to bear arms. St. George Tucker and William Rawle, two lawyers and abolitionists (and in the case of Tucker, a Virginia Supreme Court justice) were among those who criticized the Second Amendment for not protecting the rights of gun owners enough. Tucker and Rawle argued that the Second Amendment needed to have provisions in order to help the poor be able to exercise their right to bear arms; they viewed this as difficult under the current laws, seeing as how many poor people couldn't afford firearms. Joseph Story, an early federal Supreme Court justice wrote in his work, Commentaries on the Constitution, that: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Story also wrote that the right to bear arms is a natural right. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that all restrictions placed on the federal government also apply to state and local governments. One of the main reasons this amendment was added to the Constitution was because former slave states would often times refuse to allow freed slaves to bear arms, which violated their rights as protected under the Second Amendment.

It wasn't until the late 20th and early 19th century that socialists and so-called "progressives" tried to re-interpret the Second Amendment to mean a collective right to form state militias. Dred Scott v. Sandford ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, however it also ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to slaves. United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, however, it also ruled that the First and Second Amendments only limit the federal government. United States v. Miller ruled that that: "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," which is to say that the people consist of the militia. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez ruled that the Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights in general) was an individual right that also applied to non-citizen aliens. United States v. Lopez ruled that the so-called "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990" violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. United States v. Emerson, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago reaffirmed that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right that applies to state and local governments, as well as the federal government. Moore v. Madigan ruled that the ban on concealed carry in Illinois violated the Second Amendment and was thus unconstitutional, requiring Illinois to adopt concealed carry.

[Extrazero8]

Despite the fact that having a handgun in your house gives you three times the rates to be murdered and five times the rate to commit suicide?

I would like to see the numbers on the murdered part. As for suicide, owning my handguns doesn't make me sad so I wont worry about it.

Force Multiplication for crazies isn't a good thing. We need to address the crazies, but again, 'home defense' isn't a good reason (in my eyes, clearly) to have a 100 round drum.

Why not? Other than most 100 round magazines for the AR15 suck in terms of reliability.

If the problem is people with mental issues then that's what we should be working on. If something doesn't cause something to happen then removing it wont stop that something from happening. A person doesn't go shoot up a school because they found their mom's AR15. They shoot up the school because they have untreated mental health problems.

[obdigore]

You should have kept reading, you would have seen this:

Ironically that is wrong too.

United States v Cruikshank actually states that the Second Amendment only guarantees the states the rights to have militias, not an individual right to bear arms. Presser V Illinois affirmed the US v Cruikshank ruling. Miller v Texas wasn't even ruled on by the Supreme Court because Miller failed to bring up Federal Issues only when appealing instead of in the first case.

The rest of these cases are all much later, aka end of the 20th century, after decades of political buyouts by the NRA.

[Phader]

If the problem is people with mental issues then that's what we should be working on. If something doesn't cause something to happen then removing it wont stop that something from happening. A person doesn't go shoot up a school because they found their mom's AR15. They shoot up the school because they have untreated mental health problems.

This right here is what the conversation should be about

[obdigore]

I would like to see the numbers on the murdered part. As for suicide, owning my handguns doesn't make me sad so I wont worry about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...X_story_1.html

From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide.

2.7-fold Homicide link is -> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99310073291506
4.7-fold Suicide link is -> http://www.nejm.org/toc/nejm/327/7/