Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

I can't recall the specifics, but I seem to remember some British soldiers that actually used bayonets during Iraq.

They used them in Afghanistan as well, the unit that used them was my very own regiment. Sadly I was not involved.

[Roelath]

Absolutely not. It's interesting that's where your mind jumped. I said "fight back" and you assumed violence. I do want them to fight and to lose a political battle. Laws, elections produce winners and losers. If we're going to disarm America, it needs to be clear: there was a side who won and a side who lost. Why do I want that? Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade did a tremendously right, fair, important thing by legalizing abortion, but it did it the absolute worst way possible. By contentious things like that, being resolved by the court, it let politicians / elected officials off the hook. It allowed them to demagogue and blame someone else for Roe v Wade. Would Abortion have been legalized in the 1970s were not it for Roe v Wade? Probably not. But I bet it would have happened in the 80s or 90s via a vote. A prohibition on it was becoming increasing indefensible. But the Supreme Court deciding this for the country robbed pro and anti abortion camps of the big fight and the big vote such a contentious issue deserved.

There will be violence... Do you honestly believe that taking away the rights of the individual will only remain in the realm of political battles? This will cause incidents of people resisting and at the same time create black market for weapons... Another tool for gangs/cartels to push in their markets to acquire more money and more influence. Comparing the loss of a right to recognition of one is completely different.

If we're going to take guns away from people, or do anything big and contentious like this, we need to have it our via our democratic process that produces a winner and a loser.

Democratic decisions don't always bring a okay or great decision... which is why this country was founded as a Republic to avoid the hostilities from the majority upon the minority. As centuries have gone by we've moved further towards previous systems of Governments that have failed.

No, we aren't there. But we should work on getting there, and having a gun in every home drags us back closer to the days of old where every peasant's hut in middle ages England had a crappy sword just in case highway bandits decided to rob you in the night. It's backwards. Like I mean that. Backwards. Primitive. I see gun owners as people pretty much one step up from worshiping a bearskull in a cave to ward off evil spirits. Humans created society to fulfill needs and promote safety through numbers. And to that end they created laws. We should reinforce the law as our shield to protect us from danger, principly by empowering the executors of the law - distract attorneys, judges, and police officers. All of that is more constructive to society as a whole then going down to Dick's Sporting Goods and buying a gun.

Those "days of old" haven't changed much because there are people still outside your home hungry, without a home and/or not satisfied with what they have. They're willing to cause harm to acquire what they want... Even if it's a simple mugging with a guy using his finger as a gun through a coat there is still violence and violence is the easiest way for such people to acquire what they need/want. Men, women and children are just as equally brutalized just as though ancient times you mentioned as they are in our own era... Hell you could say it's worse with the technology in hand. Humans haven't changed so the need for protection is still necessary to ward off the threat of an attack or defend against it.

Waiting for the law to show up to defend you is a ridiculous concept. Also the police are not obligated to protect the citizens of this country... Waiting for someone to save you who isn't obligated to do so is simply asking to be violated.

Guns also don't protect the weak. Often it is the weak who a victimized by guns. Ask people in West Africa living in fear of when the Lords Resistance Army will show up on their door step about it. Marauding men with guns.

Guns protect the weak because the weak are incapable of ever winning in a fight when it comes to hand to hand combat. Have you ever wrestled with a woman before? Just for fun. With my weight and muscle I was able to lift her, use one arm to hold her down and at the same time take continuous hits from her. We all don't have time for martial training nor will a taser/pepper spray ward off multiple attackers because the possibility of death is close to zero. You add in a gun... The fear of being killed quickly changes the entire scenario.

Also your example of marauding men with guns... yeah it happens. What do the villagers have to protect themselves with? Probably some shitty weapons with barely any ammo... Ripe for raiding and rape.

My idea of a civilized world drags the United States kicking and screaming closer to Japan and Australia when it comes to gun laws. Not you, know... tribal Pakistan. Because when it comes to gun rights, never forget that your position is "let's have one more thing in Common with tribal Pakistan". Mine is "lets' have one more thing in common with Japan and Australia".

Blah blah my ideal world is this blah blah blah... I'm glad you're so satisfied with Australia and Japan.... keep it in your State and stop trying to force a Federal ban because it conflicts with your ideal world. I'll keep my AR-15 within my New Hampshire town and you can keep the garbage your people typically toss on the ground in your own state.

Exactly how do you see yourself on the right side of this? My theory: you just like your guns like any hobbyist and will do anything, say anything to justify their ownership. That's the thing about people no-days, they make exceptions for themselves so damn easily.

You're just as willing to use the deaths of others and use the Government as a vehicle to push your own ideals. How are you not a terrible person?

[Skroe]

Where did you get any of this from? It's been M4 & M9 for a long time, no change in sight and knives are standard.

Here:
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-rum...ining-1.137356

U.S. Army units have not issued soldiers bayonets for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, said Matt Larsen, the former director of the Army’s combatives program.

“The reason they don’t is because the training had nothing to do with the realities of the battlefield,” Larsen told The Rumor Doctor.

Worse yet, soldiers were bringing their own knives to the combat zone, and that proved to be dangerous they didn’t know how to fight with knives, Larsen said. Mostly, he said, soldiers used the knives as tools.

“And [when] they’re confronted with an enemy in hand-to-hand struggle, they have forgotten about it being a weapon, but the bad guy sees it on them and grabs and pulls it out and stabs them with it,” he said.

[Svifnymr]

I'm going to buy a criminal a gun and call it a gift. I've just circumvented the law with zero effort. The whole system leaks like a sieve

You've just transferred a gun to a convict, you and he are both in violation of the law.

If he didn't know or pay for the gun and it's an honest gift, then you have not straw purchased the gun, you have still broken the law.

To prosecute, the police would need to become aware of the situation, obviously. If they pull over Criminal and find the gun, or find it in his house, he goes to jail for it, they trace it, they see who bought it, they come to the buyer and ask him what was going on. At best, he can claim that his buddy stole the gun, so the buddy gets charged with theft also, theoretically.

Now lets imagine the same scenario where there is a gun registration system and all transfers must be authorized via background check and registration. The buyer still knows his buddy is a criminal, so when he buys the gun and gives it to his buddy, he reports that he lost the gun. The police must still become aware of the situation and otherwise it will proceed exactly as the first example.

[Wells]

You've just transferred a gun to a convict, you and he are both in violation of the law.

Prove it. Oh wait you can't because the ATF is under staffed and records are never kept for long.

[Svifnymr]

Here:
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-rum...ining-1.137356

Interesting read, but you still seem to have expanded on it quite a bit.

[Skroe]

Right, because, you know, we're a destabilized war torn society.

Intellectual dishonesty looks bad on you.

You do realize how absolutely insane being about to buy a gun at a Walmart, or that we're seriously having a debate about limiting clip sizes, mandatory gun registration and inspection, makes us look to our peers in the developed world?

That these things are controversial in this country, on top of our political crisis, makes us look absolutely ridiculous. Frankly. The fact the pro-gun side won't even go along with applying what we do with cars for what we do with guns makes us look that bad. Our gun laws are an international embarrassment.

[Roelath]

US Soldiers and Marines are given hand to hand training but are no longer trained to use knives or bayonetts.

During the early phase of the Iraq War, Soldiers and Marines were trained with those, to the point hand to hand combat became mandatory for the first time. But it became, over the years, one of those things that was more a theory than effective in practice. In the last couple of years hand to hand combat became de-emphasized and training time cut down, and bayonets were not longer issued. Why? Because in close quarters, US service members found themselves reaching for their sidearm, rather than their knives. Because the stopping power of a bullet is greater than the stopping power of a knife. So to make training more efficient, knives were eliminated.

It turns out, despite what people expected, they weren't all that useful in Iraq. And going forward considering the US is resetting itself for "superpower warfare" as opposed to urban counterinsurgency, it's going to be de-emphasized even more. Small arms with range and rate of fire are again taking priority over more compact guns with higher precision and stopping power.

But effectively knives and bayonets have been phased out of the US Military in favor of smaller sidearms that service members in Iraq reported they actually used instead of their knives while in close quarters. The British Army did use them in Iraq though.

The blade is the fall back once you have no other options and to declare it obsolete would be foolish. Considering they still wield them it still allows my suggestion of hand to hand weapons being equally as potent as a firearm in the right usage of them.

[Svifnymr]

Prove it. Oh wait you can't because the ATF is under staffed and records are never kept for long.

So then, you agree with me that when you said "under-regulated" you meant "under-enforced"?

The laws are there but not being enforced.

Besides the fact I had specific examples within the post that showed how the crime would be detected and prosecuted. It's like you're saying speeding isn't against the law because you don't get a ticket.

[Wells]

So then, you agree with me that when you said "under-regulated" you meant "under-enforced"?

The laws are there but not being enforced.

Besides the fact I had specific examples within the post that showed how the crime would be detected and prosecuted. It's like you're saying speeding isn't against the law because you don't get a ticket.

A legal system that prevents the ATF from doing its job creates a situation of under regulation.

[Skroe]

Interesting read, but you still seem to have expanded on it quite a bit.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10...raw-man/190858

More.

[Rocko9]

You do realize how absolutely insane being about to buy a gun at a Walmart, or that we're seriously having a debate about limiting clip sizes, mandatory gun registration and inspection, makes us look to our peers in the developed world?

That these things are controversial in this country, on top of our political crisis, makes us look absolutely ridiculous. Frankly. The fact the pro-gun side won't even go along with applying what we do with cars for what we do with guns makes us look that bad. Our gun laws are an international embarrassment.

Personally, I don't care what Europe or anyone else thinks of us. So long as the don't mess with us, I've got no reason to mess with them.

Guns are a right, cars are not.

[Skroe]

The blade is the fall back once you have no other options and to declare it obsolete would be foolish. Considering they still wield them it still allows my suggestion of hand to hand weapons being equally as potent as a firearm in the right usage of them.

I'm not the one declaring it obsolete. It is the US Military that did that Years ago.. And as I posted in the above link, the US Military doesn't even issue them. Or train with them.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/...-use-bayonets/
So your suggestion was in fact, wrong.

[Rocko9]

I'm not the one declaring it obsolete. It is the US Military that did that Years ago.. And as I posted in the above link, the US Military doesn't even issue them. Or train with them.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/...-use-bayonets/
So your suggestion was in fact, wrong.

Marines still train all recruits (Privates, aka E1) in bayonet and knife combat.

[Skroe]

Personally, I don't care what Europe or anyone else thinks of us. So long as the don't mess with us, I've got no reason to mess with them.

Guns are a right, cars are not.

You should care, because our ability to be an influential force around the world has a direct impact upon your saftey and security, and over time, your quality of life. Our actions and laws at home have a direct impact upon our ability to conduct foreign affairs. Just the same we don't want to soil ourselves by having good relations with countries that engage in certain behaviors, that reflects back upon us.

An America that is largely disregarded because it looks like a country of crazy hermits is an America that is going to get less of what it wants. We are not an island, and you should go back to the 18th century if you think we are.

And you, personally, will be poorer for it.

---------- Post added 2013-03-02 at 03:18 AM ----------

Marines still train all recruits (Privates, aka E1) in bayonet and knife combat.

So Stars and Stripes is lying?

[Grizzly Willy]

You do realize how absolutely insane being about to buy a gun at a Walmart, or that we're seriously having a debate about limiting clip sizes, mandatory gun registration and inspection, makes us look to our peers in the developed world?

That these things are controversial in this country, on top of our political crisis, makes us look absolutely ridiculous. Frankly. The fact the pro-gun side won't even go along with applying what we do with cars for what we do with guns makes us look that bad. Our gun laws are an international embarrassment.

You haven't actually addressed what I or the person you responded to in the first place said. We're not talking about giving guns to kids. Stop making straw men.

[Roelath]

I'm not the one declaring it obsolete. It is the US Military that did that Years ago.. And as I posted in the above link, the US Military doesn't even issue them. Or train with them.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/...-use-bayonets/
So your suggestion was in fact, wrong.

Why do they carry them still? Also that only mentions bayonets.

[Deleted]

Where did you get any of this from? It's been M4 & M9 for a long time, no change in sight and knives are standard.

Who the fuck has used an M9 in combat? The only time I used my sidearm was to put down a wounded donkey that got hit by our arty.

[Extrazero8]

You do realize how absolutely insane being about to buy a gun at a Walmart, or that we're seriously having a debate about limiting magazine sizes, mandatory gun registration and inspection, makes us look to our peers in the developed world?

I don't care about that and I don't know why anyone else would either.

That these things are controversial in this country, on top of our political crisis, makes us look absolutely ridiculous. Frankly. The fact the pro-gun side won't even go along with applying what we do with cars for what we do with guns makes us look that bad. Our gun laws are an international embarrassment.

You seem to be very hung up on this image thing.

[Svifnymr]

A legal system that prevents the ATF from doing its job creates a situation of under regulation.

I think I already replied to this part above, ATF focuses where they want to, they're not worried about the boring job of making the place safer. They only want big busts for the press.

And no, regulations dictate regulations, enforcement is enforcement.