Gun Control Myth

[Mihalik]

http://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/0...apid-fire-gun/

Tell me more.

Really cupcake? Really?

The Puckle Gun was never used EVER because it took centuries to reload and it wasn't a handgun or rifle, it was a mounted naval artillery piece.

Ribauldequin is a Volley "gun" using the term gun loosely. It's a fucking cannon. Artillery.

If you want to carry around either of those. By my guest, you are welcome. Actually YOU ARE WELCOME TO even in Europe. You know why? Because they are museum pieces, that are utterly impractical or outright don't work.

- - - Updated - - -

We can test conclusively for blindness, we can't actually test to find out who's going to be a mass-murderer, so I think that's where your problem is.

No. Can't. But can pretty fucking consistently test of things like schizophrenia, violent personality disorders and such. You know, how about we reduce the MOTHERFUCKING CHANCES. I can't believe you are seriously arguing we should arm people who score as dangerous on mental health tests.

[Daerio]

Really cupcake? Really?

The Puckle Gun was never used EVER because it took centuries to reload and it wasn't a handgun or rifle, it was a mounted naval artillery piece.

What does that have to do with the technology existing, as I said it did? Founding fathers probably didn't know anything about it, right?

Your argument that the 2nd amendment only protects muskets couldn't convert an elementary school child.

[Mihalik]

Yeah I'm saying that one of the most infamous and important inventors of all time was siting on a panel and despite his philosophical belief (WHICH WAS COMMON AMONG THE FUCKING WORLD) his intelligence for science and discovery to be reduced to "Oh nope, never going to progress yall" is beyond fucking ignorant.

Okay...still irrelevant. We didn't know what a nuclear bomb would look like until we built one. There have been predictions of such weapons going back to the late 1880's, but nobody wrote Nuclear Non-proliferation treaties until they fucking built one. Again, it's irrelevant what Ben Franklin or any other writers of the Constitutions specifically though about firearms. The 2nd was written at a specific time and place in history. We moved on from that time and place. That's why the Constitution was amended so many times.

The problem is the 2nd is out of date. But even if it is not, how we interpret it, should change with the times. Just as the interpretation of many other amendments have changed over time, you know... to include women. Black people. Poor people (early suffrage was very restricted) etc.

- - - Updated - - -

What does that have to do with the technology existing, as I said it did? Founding fathers probably didn't know anything about it, right?

Your argument that the 2nd amendment only protects muskets couldn't convert an elementary school child.

Rapid fire guns didn't exist at time. Even volley artillery pieces where phased out by then because they were impractical. You pulled 2 extremely obscure historical references to something that never worked and most likely was unknown in the Americas as only or two prototypes were ever built, and another example of something has been out of use for about 300 years by time the Constitution was written.

But again, you are going on irrelevant tangents.

[Daerio]

The 2nd was written at a specific time and place in history. We moved on from that time and place. That's why the Constitution was amended so many times.

The problem is the 2nd is out of date. But even if it is not, how we interpret it, should change with the times. Just as the interpretation of many other amendments have changed over time, you know... to include women. Black people. Poor people (early suffrage was very restricted) etc.

We amended the constitution to adjust to how the majority of the population felt at the time.

So, with that said, maybe you can see why there won't be any changes to the 2nd.

Trying to end-run around the constitutional amendment required (and the votes required for such) does not garner more support from the middle ground for your "we're just taking an inch right now" cause.

Rapid fire guns didn't exist at time.

They did, but I guess that won't stop you from lying about it to support your point even after you're proved wrong.

[Vyxn]

You are deciding what Benjamin Franklin or the Founders would have written if XYZ. That is not the point. The point is that the Amendment is OUTDATED. It is outdated for the same reason why we don't burn witches on stakes anymore, or own brown people as property. Jefferson was slave owner. So by your logic we might as well toss the 13th as it was OBVIOUSLY against the intent of the original framers. Amirite?



None of what you said is relevant or makes sense. The science around the issue of mental health is in a constant state of evolution. Science does that. Many things might not be treatable now as they weren't in the past, but could be in the future, that is irrelevant to the current debate. We know how to test for signs of possible violent behavior caused by mental imbalances. If you are a threat you are unfit to own a firearm, until you become fit in the future if ever.

Just as we can test for blindness, so don't give drivers licenses to blind people. There are also mental health conditions that prevent you from driving or even operating heavy machinery.

hence for the reason the authors and signers of the constitution implemented a mechanism to change the constitution for reason like becoming out dated it is called the amendment process

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures

[hakujinbakasama]

Okay...still irrelevant. We didn't know what a nuclear bomb would look like until we built one. There have been predictions of such weapons going back to the late 1880's, but nobody wrote Nuclear Non-proliferation treaties until they fucking built one. Again, it's irrelevant what Ben Franklin or any other writers of the Constitutions specifically though about firearms. The 2nd was written at a specific time and place in history. We moved on from that time and place. That's why the Constitution was amended so many times.

Ok, you're right. We have moved on from that time in many Phiolosophical ways.

That being said, I suppose equally they also didn't consider man putting floating objects in space which could transport your image and voice across the world in mere seconds.

So, by you're logic, they didn't foresee the evolution of communication and thus what they meant by FREEDOM OF SPEECH was not the same. Thus, we need to ban internet usage and television, and several other forms because they couldn't see how things like FOX News or CNN could affect a mass populace of dumbface.

[Mihalik]

We amended the constitution to adjust to how the majority of the population felt at the time.

So, with that said, maybe you can see why there won't be any changes to the 2nd.

Reaaaaaaaaaaaally? Shame Congress don't give less of a fuck what majority thinks.

They did, but I guess that won't stop you from lying about it to support your point even after you're proved wrong.

No they still didn't. Your argument is basically almost as idiotic as saying Helicopters existed because DaVinci was trying to design one.

[hakujinbakasama]

Reaaaaaaaaaaaally? Shame Congress don't give less of a fuck what majority thinks.



No they still didn't. Your argument is basically almost as idiotic as saying Helicopters existed because DaVinci was trying to design one.

I love the near "schizophrenic" stance people take.

"The Government doesn't care about you! We should hand everything over to the government! You don't need a gun, we have police! The police shouldn't have guns they keep shooting innocent people!"

[Mihalik]

Ok, you're right. We have moved on from that time in many Phiolosophical ways.

That being said, I suppose equally they also didn't consider man putting floating objects in space which could transport your image and voice across the world in mere seconds.

So, by you're logic, they didn't foresee the evolution of communication and thus what they meant by FREEDOM OF SPEECH was not the same. Thus, we need to ban internet usage and television, and several other forms because they couldn't see how things like FOX News or CNN could affect a mass populace of dumbface.

Huh? What? Jesus fucking Christ man. I'm pretty sure even you could come up with a better false comparison than that. We all tend to agree what Freedom of Speech is (if anything the Gubmint has been restricting that savagely, but hey..Snowden is a traitor). It changed in a sense that most of us tend to agree that it is too curtailed by the government and we should further extend it.

Well there's that 30% of Millenials who want to ban "hate speech" but that's a different discussion to be had.

[Ghostpanther]

Reaaaaaaaaaaaally? Shame Congress don't give less of a fuck what majority thinks.

It is not a process where just the majority of the citizens decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_Constitution Of the over 11,000 attempts to amend the Constitution, only 27 have been successful. That is a very low % chance of any amendment getting passed. The effort to amend a part of the Constitution is very hard by intent. The 2nd is not going to be amended any time soon.

Meanwhile, more realistic efforts need to be done to help reduce the number of mass shootings and firearm deaths. This can be done without infringing on the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

[Mihalik]

I love the near "schizophrenic" stance people take.

"The Government doesn't care about you! We should hand everything over to the government! You don't need a gun, we have police! The police shouldn't have guns they keep shooting innocent people!"

Well. Practically speaking, the Police guns to stop carrying guns. So...logically, if nobody has a gun, cops don't need to shoot people either. And if they are armed, and if they do need to shoot someone, it will be a lot less likely to shoot people for fucking good reason, because the cops wouldn't paranoid all the fucking time that every jerky movement could mean someone will pull a gun.

[hakujinbakasama]

Huh? What? Jesus fucking Christ man. I'm pretty sure even you could come up with a better false comparison than that. We all tend to agree what Freedom of Speech is (if anything the Gubmint has been restricting that savagely, but hey..Snowden is a traitor). It changed in a sense that most of us tend to agree that it is too curtailed by the government and we should further extend it.

Well there's that 30% of Millenials who want to ban "hate speech" but that's a different discussion to be had.

Why? I mean, seriously why?

The amount of people you could rationally effect with your "Stupidness" was astronomically different than it is now. When people can basically go in front of the entire world all Alex Jones like and cause irrational behavior and effects, that is a problem.

The two options you had in those days was a book... which... good fucking luck and public speaking. Upon which, doing anything too stupid could get you shot in the face or taken out back and lynched or burned for being a witch.

SO yeah, let's strip down internet forums and all non print (ie book) or in person communication. It's all they intended right? They were too stupid to think things would ever change. Castle living amirte?

[Miow]

I don't see what good guns do you, besides making you think you've "freedom".
Most people that own a gun, do little to no practice with it and therefor can't aim.
A person (a criminal) with a gun that intend you harm, will most likely get you, before you get him(No, you're not Lucky Luke). If you mean "Well, I want guns on my property incase someone breaks in", I can see that being a point.. Except a gun should be stored responsible, so that any idiot can't get to it and try to use it without said practice.
So, again, the guy that breaks in (And has intensions of harming you), will get you, before you access your gun in the cabinet, under the bed or whatever.

If you absolutely need to have guns, your laws should be A LOT more strict. Why can any idiot get a gun, small or big? What the hell do you need to own a shotgun for? What the hell do you need to own a machine gun for?
If your intensions of guns is truly to protect yourself, a simple pistol could do that.
Shotguns and machine guns shouldn't even be possible to be bought.

[hakujinbakasama]

It is not a process where just the majority of the citizens decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_Constitution Of the over 11,000 attempts to amend the Constitution, only 27 have been successful. That is a very low % chance of any amendment getting passed. The effort to amend a part of the Constitution is very hard by intent. The 2nd is not going to be amended any time soon.

Meanwhile, more realistic efforts need to be done to help reduce the number of mass shootings and firearm deaths. This can be done without infringing on the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

This is basically like me saying "I don't want kids so you shouldn't have them because they could bother me." That's sort of how the left argument always circles back around to being. "I want to live in a bubble and deny all personal responsibility and live in a place of delusion."

I honestly wish more of these people were stabbed in muggings. "Should have kept up with your ninja skills asshole."

[Acidbaron]

It works everywhere else in the world but it takes a long period of time, like most political choices made they are best done when its followed up on after multiple elections.

However the main argument seems to be "it won't work here cause we are special!". At the end of the day there's an ocean between us and the unwillingness to do anything about it on the political level what at the end of the day reflects the publics opinion makes it hard to bring up sympathy for such situations.

When watching an interview of spike lee and his new movie, the name chi-raq was explained apparently more people get killed in the south side of chicago by gun violence than the number of americans died together in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Mihalik]

It is not a process where just the majority of the citizens decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_Constitution Of the over 11,000 attempts to amend the Constitution, only 27 have been successful. That is a very low % chance of any amendment getting passed. The effort to amend a part of the Constitution is very hard by intent. The 2nd is not going to be amended any time soon.

Meanwhile, more realistic efforts need to be done to help reduce the number of mass shootings and firearm deaths. This can be done without infringing on the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, the point is that the majority agrees on gun control. He said they don't.

And yes we can reduce all that and lalala. By implementing reasonable measures. Like federal registries. And mental health checks, and a licensing process.

Although a good start would be ending the moratorium on gun violence research and implementing a program to conduct that research and have them come up with a recommendation.

Right now, we are treating Gun Violence like "He Who Must Not Be Named" in fucking Harry Potter. We are all aware of the massive glaring huge issue, but we can't have any serious discussion about it, 'cuz reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? I mean, seriously why?

The amount of people you could rationally effect with your "Stupidness" was astronomically different than it is now. When people can basically go in front of the entire world all Alex Jones like and cause irrational behavior and effects, that is a problem.

The two options you had in those days was a book... which... good fucking luck and public speaking. Upon which, doing anything too stupid could get you shot in the face or taken out back and lynched or burned for being a witch.

SO yeah, let's strip down internet forums and all non print (ie book) or in person communication. It's all they intended right? They were too stupid to think things would ever change. Castle living amirte?

Because YOU choose the media you consume. You don't choose to get shot. See the difference?

[hakujinbakasama]

I don't see what good guns do you, besides making you think you've "freedom".
Most people that own a gun, do little to no practice with it and therefor can't aim.
A person (a criminal) with a gun that intend you harm, will most likely get you, before you get him(No, you're not Lucky Luke). If you mean "Well, I want guns on my property incase someone breaks in", I can see that being a point.. Except a gun should be stored responsible, so that any idiot can't get to it and try to use it without said practice.
So, again, the guy that breaks in (And has intensions of harming you), will get you, before you access your gun in the cabinet, under the bed or whatever.

If you absolutely need to have guns, your laws should be A LOT more strict. Why can any idiot get a gun, small or big? What the hell do you need to own a shotgun for? What the hell do you need to own a machine gun for?
If your intensions of guns is truly to protect yourself, a simple pistol could do that.
Shotguns and machine guns shouldn't even be possible to be bought.

AT WHAT?

Seriously, I'll join in on the bandwagon that if you're going to CCW you should have more target time requirements. Illinois has it and it's basically the same as the Police and it's a fucking joke. T H A T being said, I'm also not expecting people who do CCW are going to be pistol picking off someone with a rifle going to town in their own live action terrorism wet dream all the way to the virgin promise.

However, since most home invasions or situations in which you'd need a firearm come in at under 25 feet, it's "not hard" to hit the person or at least put enough shots down their direction to get them to take off running. The only argument of "capacity" comes from this ill conceived notion that "if they only have 10 rounds we can jump them when they reload." Which, speaking from history, has only happened some stupidly low number that it's not comical considering how fucking strong that claim still trends.

- - - Updated - - -

Because YOU choose the media you consume. You don't choose to get shot. See the difference?

you choose to be disarmed... I don't. Why are you trying to force me to subscribe to your "Jesus take the wheel" approach.

You see, I also choose not to be stabbed. I also choose for my wife to not be stabbed, raped, or a string of other options. But seeing as I am also not expecting everyone to be a god damn ninja, I'll take the fighting chance vs bending over and taking it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/22/us/washington-mansion-fire-slayings/

as a prime example

[Ghostpanther]

Yeah, the point is that the majority agrees on gun control. He said they don't.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on what you mean by gun control and to what extent. The latest poll shows less then half of the nation wants more gun control, while most rather have stricter enforcement of the existing laws. This one was taken in March of 2015 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...sting_gun_laws

Actually the % of US citizens support for stricter gun controls has dropped since 1990.

[hakujinbakasama]

Depends on what you mean by gun control and to what extent. The latest poll shows less then half of the nation wants more gun control, while most rather have stricter enforcement of the existing laws. This one was taken in March of 2015 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...sting_gun_laws

Actually the % of US citizens support for stricter gun controls has dropped since 1990.

I blame the internet.

Unfortuneatley for the "spin machine" some people do look things up. So when they do and the look at the source stories for all these "mass shootings" via
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...tings-in-2015/
they walk away with more information, a stronger sense of what's really going on, and that tends to have an effect.

Equally, the people who take a stand and become informed tend to be better at conversing with other people who they were personally acquainted with and that share of information starts.


ADDITIONALLY...
I had to take all of 3 seconds to go back and find this from 2 years ago...

http://chicagoreporter.com/thousands...iminal-courts/

You know, to really drive home that fucking point.

[jellmoo]

As a random Canadian that doesn't quite understand the intricacies of American Gun Culture and how strongly people feel about this issue, I'm wondering if those opposed to stronger gun control/gun advocates could answer a few questions for me (and these are honest questions, not an attempt at trickery or trapping you somehow):

1. Do you agree that the United States has an issue with gun violence?
2. Why is it that the United States seems to be much worse in this regard than other Western countries?
3. What do you think is the ideal solution to curb gun violence?
4. ​Why do you view the 2nd Amendment as an important piece of legislation to protect?​