Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

Then why did they give congress the power to create an army and navy?

Technically, the Constitution was a compromise document, really. Some felt we had to have an army, others felt a peacetime army was evil waiting to happen. That's why the military funding rules were as given, for instance.

[belfpala]

Technically, the Constitution was a compromise document, really. Some felt we had to have an army, others felt a peacetime army was evil waiting to happen. That's why the military funding rules were as given, for instance.

Heh.

I really don't have 6 more characters.

Edit before infraction: "heh" is expressing a complex point of view, in response to that comment.

[Nadev]

He's the vice president, doesn't matter how you feel about him, he represents your cause.

So shit coming out of LaPierre's mouth about gun control is open season, but shit coming out of Gore's mouth about climate change is off limits?

[Todgruppe]

So shit coming out of LaPierre's mouth about gun control is open season, but shit coming out of Gore's mouth about climate change is off limits?

You opened it sir!!!

[Grizzly Willy]

So shit coming out of LaPierre's mouth about gun control is open season, but shit coming out of Gore's mouth about climate change is off limits?

Eh, depends on how gun owners view LaPierre.

[belfpala]

You opened it sir!!!

I'd take MythBusters as slightly more, even though they aren't at all, more scientifically reputable. Good job!

Err... what were we talking about? Oh, right, guns. This thread is about guns. They clearly contribute to the problem in the video linked above. BAN GUNS BASED ON CLIMATE CHANGE!

... oh. um.

oh, right, the constitution thing.

tl;dr: this is the serious part.

The 1st isn't phrased like, "Speaking your mind, assembling, writing what you will, and worshiping whom you will, being necessary to the liberty of a free state, the right to speech, assembly, and worship shall not be infringed."

There's a rule of construction in law that when things are worded differently, you assume there's a reason for that difference. When there is a difference, it should be assumed that the difference is meaningful.

[Todgruppe]

Err... what were we talking about? Oh, right, guns. This thread is about guns. They clearly contribute to the problem in the video linked above. BAN GUNS BASED ON CLIMATE CHANGE!

But sir, it's true. "Summer time is da killing season. It's hot in dis bitch dats a good nuff reason." - Curtis Jackson.


But seriously, there normally is a significant increase in violent crime in the summer. I blame the sun!

[Eroginous]

The 1st isn't phrased like, "Speaking your mind, assembling, writing what you will, and worshiping whom you will, being necessary to the liberty of a free state, the right to speech, assembly, and worship shall not be infringed."

There's a rule of construction in law that when things are worded differently, you assume there's a reason for that difference. When there is a difference, it should be assumed that the difference is meaningful.

No, you don't assume anything. Laws and the amendments to the constitution are worded differently based on who wrote them, the context in which they were written, and the subject matter at hand. Instead, you interpret them according to the language used at the time of writing within the context it was written.

The first amendment is intended to provide mutual freedom to both practice religion and be free from practicing religion, in a time where speech could get you locked up and/or executed if it didn't align with a particular person's religious views.

The second amendment is intended to provide every citizen with the ability to organize and defend themselves from various threats, including but not limited to, criminal activity, foreign invasions, and domestic government tyranny.

Whether or not you agree with either of these interpretations is largely irrelevant (as I pointed out earlier).

[Nadev]

Eh, depends on how gun owners view LaPierre.

As I've said before, I'm a gun enthusiast who isn't part of the NRA and had never heard of LaPierre until the gun control crowd made him Most Wanted.

I'm going to assume no one buys a gun because Wayne LaPierre said so.

[Sicarus]

Uh oh, liberal science is at it again! States with more gun control laws show less gun related crimes and injuries. Who would of thunk it...

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...icleid=1661390

Yet more crime. Report on that pls.

Ban doughnuts in a state, less people will eat doughnuts.

---------- Post added 2013-05-23 at 11:53 AM ----------

He's the vice president, doesn't matter how you feel about him, he represents your cause.

So out of all the mouth pieces of the pro-gun side, you immediately choose to blanket us with Wayne LaPierre? Ok.

If you get to choose our representative for whatever reason you may come up with, then we get to choose yours, and I say, Piers Morgan is a pretty good idiot to have as a representative.

[tombstoner139]

Actually it makes perfect sense. The vast majority of firearm death occur with semi-auto handguns. There's only a very small minority of firearm deaths that occur from semi-auto assault weapons.

Therefore, it makes much more sense to want to ban semi-autos than it does just semi-auto assault weapons.

I don't think you're giving the people enough credit. Saying "people taking the poll are stupid" isn't a valid rebuttal of the poll.

I wouldn't say they are stupid. i do think the poll is seriously flawed and was deliberately slanted to a desired outcome.

I dont think the people polled are representative of the people of the united states. The answers alone makes me think no one from Texas was questioned.

Also in order to make a valid assumption between your sample group and the larger group(USA). the number of people needs to be a function of the population of the United states: 314,000,000

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Using that link with a 95% confidence level and +/-1% confidence interval you need 9604 people in your poll. thus its not representative of the USA unless you increase the confidence interval making the poll less precise and useful or decrease the population.

Secondly challenging the poll with comments like the use of land lines. is valid. also the time of day the calls where placed. The day of the week.... lots of people are not available during work hours. That can slant the people in the poll to be women at home with children or the elderly.

The people who answered the poll had the time and desire to answer the poll.... that alone makes it invalid in my view... BTW I'm a scientist.. i have a clue how polls work and what kind of games can be plaid to control the outcome.

---------- Post added 2013-05-23 at 05:14 PM ----------

Technically, the Constitution was a compromise document, really. Some felt we had to have an army, others felt a peacetime army was evil waiting to happen. That's why the military funding rules were as given, for instance.

I particularly like the part where congress can only provide funding for a period of time to be no longer then 2 years. loophole .... they providing funding every year.
thus we have perpetual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. i think the 2 year funding limit was intended to prevent that from happening and to rely on the state militias for more substantial military force. as it is the amendment was gutted/circumvented with the creation / federalization of the states militia into the national guard. sure each state can have what is now call the state defense force. but its not funded and is basically a joke of what a well regulated militia was meant to be - regulated being trained and equipt, not leashed by legislation.

[Verksus]

I live in the south.. and though I won't exactly voice my particular opinion? I do say good luck to whoever wants to roll up in here and try to take guns from some of the... lets say.... "Deep South Cultured" that live in shacks in the woods around here.

[Tinykong]

Then why did they give congress the power to create an army and navy?

A militia is not an army. You need an army to engage in warfare against other nations, and you need a militia to prevent a democratic government from become usurpers.

Pretty clear to me.

[Grizzly Willy]

As I've said before, I'm a gun enthusiast who isn't part of the NRA and had never heard of LaPierre until the gun control crowd made him Most Wanted.

I'm going to assume no one buys a gun because Wayne LaPierre said so.

I'm not sure if these forums, or the people in the thread specifically, are an accurate representation, though. You might not, but others could. It's why I don't apply the blanket either way, because I don't know.

[Gemini Sunrise]

I'm not sure if these forums, or the people in the thread specifically, are an accurate representation, though. You might not, but others could. It's why I don't apply the blanket either way, because I don't know.

There are undoubtedly some people that agree with him. Just as there are others that don't (God knows I don't care what he says either way). I suppose the reason he's well known and people care about what he says is because he has the mic, so to speak.

As for me, if I buy a weapon, it's because I have a want for a particular piece (for instance, I've been in the market for a slightly less ancient K98 for a while now). Not because some loon tells me "They gonna be taking yer guns!", even though the cry for that on these forums is... amusing.

[Poodles]

Right, so your "well regulated militia" cannot be restricted. Let me know when you have one.

As I already said pages and pages ago, "regulated" at the time meant "well trained." The militia at that time meant all able bodied males.

And that right is predicated upon there being a well regulated militia. I don't think I'm terrible at English.

But in this case you are bad at English because the meaning of the verbage changes.

Show me your "well maintained militia" then.

Anyone 18+ that owns a gun (you're an idiot if you don't do some training with the use of your firearm).

[Svifnymr]

I'm not sure if these forums, or the people in the thread specifically, are an accurate representation, though. You might not, but others could. It's why I don't apply the blanket either way, because I don't know.

Wayne LaPierre really hasn't ever impressed me as much of a speaker. I'd still take him over Feinstein of course, but that's a different thing.

Heston was a good speaker, he was a figurehead for the most part, but did fine.

David Keene is a good, intelligent speaker, and I think a better representative for the NRA's views (even if I don't agree with everything he says);
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ03s...layer_embedded

[Deadvolcanoes]

I wouldn't say they are stupid. i do think the poll is seriously flawed and was deliberately slanted to a desired outcome.

I dont think the people polled are representative of the people of the united states. The answers alone makes me think no one from Texas was questioned.

Also in order to make a valid assumption between your sample group and the larger group(USA). the number of people needs to be a function of the population of the United states: 314,000,000

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Using that link with a 95% confidence level and +/-1% confidence interval you need 9604 people in your poll. thus its not representative of the USA unless you increase the confidence interval making the poll less precise and useful or decrease the population.

Secondly challenging the poll with comments like the use of land lines. is valid. also the time of day the calls where placed. The day of the week.... lots of people are not available during work hours. That can slant the people in the poll to be women at home with children or the elderly.

Pew Research Center is an independent organization. They have absolutely nothing to gain by injecting an agenda into their opinion polls. That would, in fact, only serve to hurt their credibility, and reputation as a research organization.

Since it seems as though you didn't examine their methods for that particular poll, let me help:

The following table shows the sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey

BTW I'm a scientist.. i have a clue how polls work and what kind of games can be plaid (????) to control the outcome.

If you have to tell people you're a scientist, then you clearly haven't shown them.

[Dave131]

London is a disarmed country, including the police, so they have to wait for their Army to show up...


It took the military twenty minutes to get to the scene. Twenty. Minutes.

[Deleted]

London is a disarmed country, including the police, so they have to wait for their Army to show up...


It took the military twenty minutes to get to the scene. Twenty. Minutes.

Not the military, the armed police.