Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Wells]

Who's talking about the range?

I've said this many times and you seem to keep ignoring it.

You cannot just abridge a civil right for a minor gain (Something you said it was yourself). There needs to be a provable, obvious and major gain to be had for any restriction of a right.

You seem to think that the second amendment gives you the right to guns devoid of regulation unless overwhelming need for said regulation is shown. It doesn't. All it does it give you the right to own a gun with regulation low enough that you're not impeded from using said right for the things the court views as legitimate.

[alturic]

I can understand that. It would be smart to practice with it. And having fun at the same time is a good thing. But it isn't a necessity. I've seen many pro gun people argue that having fun with guns is thier right. I just don't agree with that.

Well, having "fun with my gun" isn't a right. Owning a gun is a "right" though. The slippery slope equation is that when the whole "right to bear arms" was penned they didn't have semi-automatic weapons. They didn't have (sorry, I just love using it) "assault weapons". They weren't even a thought in a wet dream of someone in those days.

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 11:58 PM ----------

Do you take into consideration the law against murder?

Considering someone is breaking the law when they actually do murder someone...

[Mwat1676]

I'm not sure who is missing the point more, you, or Mwat

well explain your point a little more.

[Svifnymr]

Very few mass shooting last more than 30 kills. In the least it's 3-5 seconds and at the most I would hope it would be 15 total seconds of both reloads.

Yea, 3-5 seconds is enough to POTENTIALLY run for cover, but in the real world 3-5 seconds in a traumatic and sudden situation is hardly a lot of time. Hell I can guarantee very, very few people wouldn't "freeze" after the initial scattering.

Senator McCarthy (NY) is sort of a case in point for that. Her husband died in a subway shooting. The shooter emptied two (15rd) magazines in the crowded subway car, fumbling the third and giving them enough time to rush him. We can't obviously tell if anyone else would have survived by round count (did the 6 deaths occur in the first 10 rounds or 15 rounds or after reloading or...), but he did reload at least once without interuption. His second reload they rushed him when he couldn't get the magazine out since it got stuck in his jacket.

Sandyhook, shooter reloaded often, but uh... who the fuck was going to rush him? He was killing elementary school students. One teacher tried to stand in front of her kids, but from the pictures she couldn't have stopped anybody, physically. Not a slight on her by any means, just trying to be realistic.

Some people in a stressful situation can react. Some might take 5 seconds to realize the guy is reloading, let alone move to action. Some just can't get motivated no matter the impetus. Some folks are physically capable of doing something. Mostly it seems to come down to the shooter screwing something up, since very rarely are these shootings ended by outsiders arriving on the scene and stopping things.

[Wells]

well explain your point a little more.

Let's take the claim that "a gun ban does nothing because it doesn't stop criminals"

The obvious implication here is that that means that any law that a criminal won't obey is a bad law.

Or in other words all laws are bad laws because a criminal somewhere won't obey them.

Its a hilariously bad statement under even the smallest level of scrutiny.

[alturic]

That's part of what I was talking about earlier, anonymous gun buy-backs that "get guns off the street", how many guns that were evidence in a crime end up there? Or some gun that X bought on the street, sells to Guy Y, who unknowingly now has a gun used in a shooting at a 7-11...

Let alone just reporting the gun stolen. "I went to the gunshow and they stole it out of my car!" "That's the third time this month!"

I'm fine with a city doing gun buy-backs, but I'm pretty sure $16.5 trillion dollars says a national buy-back isn't feasible. Sadly the only people who would turn in guns are law-abiding citizens to begin with, and that is primarily due to the shitty economy.

[Laize]

I sincerely hope you aren't one of the pro-gun people who think tyranny is something that's realistic? I don't think you are implying that, but ugh. :P

I would certainly hope no one believes governmental tyranny is realistically going to happen... at least in our lifetimes.

The fact is, however, that no matter how remote the possibility or how many decades/centuries down the line you look... it could happen.

And in that 1-in-a-trillion chance it does happen? There's really only one country (Well... maybe two) prepared to actually deal with such a government.

[alturic]

Who's talking about the range?

I've said this many times and you seem to keep ignoring it.

You cannot just abridge a civil right for a minor gain (Something you said it was yourself). There needs to be a provable, obvious and major gain to be had for any restriction of a right. It is not our job to prove we need 30-round magazines or collapsible stocks or certain caliber ammunition etc etc etc.

It's your job to unequivocally prove why it's more beneficial to society if we don't have such things.

You'll have a hard time arguing that 100 million people's rights should be treated so lackadaisically because it "could save 6-10 seconds over the course of one of the single-digit numbers of mass killings we have some years."

I didn't know it was your civil right to have a gun (or magazine in this case) that can shoot more even more than 1 bullet (or 2 in terms of double-barrel shotguns or 6 in terms of a revolver) per reload?

I thought it was your civil right to own a gun, period. It's not my "right" to be able to buy a 100 round drum load it with bullets and let it sit on my shelf since I don't own a gun to use it with.

[Grizzly Willy]

well explain your point a little more.

Because only murderers disregard the law against murder, we shouldn't outlaw murder. I could list other crimes if you don't like this one.

[Wells]

I would certainly hope no one believes governmental tyranny is realistically going to happen... at least in our lifetimes.

The fact is, however, that no matter how remote the possibility or how many decades/centuries down the line you look... it could happen.

And in that 1-in-a-trillion chance it does happen? There's really only one country (Well... maybe two) prepared to actually deal with such a government.

One in a trillion chance of bad things! MUST BE PREPARED!


Small chance of gunman with an assault rifle! NOT WORTH BEING TAKING INTO ACCOUNT FOR GUN LAWS!

[alturic]

You seem to be stuck on facebook. :P If facebook had the potential to kill someone, then maybe. But it doesn't. The people using it to upset someone is the issue with cyber bullying. Not the internet or facebook. Guns are designed to kill people. They are the thing that need limiting. And to be honest, I'm not moved by people that kill themselves by what they see on facebook. I'm moved by someone going to a school and killing kids. If that person killed themself instead of anyone else, I wouldn't have a problem. It's there choice. It's a poor one, but it's thiers. If that person had reached out for help, then I'd feel sorry that no one was there to help. But instead they didn't.

Temp, cmon man. I liked you, but guns were'nt designed for the sole purpose of killing PEOPLE. I tread lightly with how I say this to people, but guns were design to kill what you shoot with it. Someone using it to kill someone is a by-product of the weapon.

[Laize]

Well, having "fun with my gun" isn't a right. Owning a gun is a "right" though. The slippery slope equation is that when the whole "right to bear arms" was penned they didn't have semi-automatic weapons. They didn't have (sorry, I just love using it) "assault weapons". They weren't even a thought in a wet dream of someone in those days.

That's why the Amendment doesn't read "People have a right to bear muskets" or "guns" or "swords"... nor does it name any weapon.

It says the people have the right to bear arms as in "We are allowed to be armed".

This right very obviously exists because of the way our country was founded. The goal was to ensure that the only time the second amendment would ever be truly needed was if the government tried to take our rights away.

[alturic]

Let's take the claim that "a gun ban does nothing because it doesn't stop criminals"

The obvious implication here is that that means that any law that a criminal won't obey is a bad law.

Or in other words all laws are bad laws because a criminal somewhere won't obey them.

Its a hilariously bad statement under even the smallest level of scrutiny.

Technically speaking, any law is there to keep law-abiding citizens in order. I don't mean oppression, I mean without laws there would be chaos, everywhere. It doesn't excuse the fact someone who inherently breaks the law by killing someone is going to not break another law in the process.

[Templar 331]

Temp, cmon man. I liked you, but guns were'nt designed for the sole purpose of killing PEOPLE. I tread lightly with how I say this to people, but guns were design to kill what you shoot with it. Someone using it to kill someone is a by-product of the weapon.

Lol, your right. It's just that's all you hear now a days.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I'm not sure who is missing the point more, you, or Mwat

I'm not missing the point at all =]. Would you murder if it weren't illegal?

[Landin55]

That's why the Amendment doesn't read "People have a right to bear muskets" or "guns" or "swords"... nor does it name any weapon.

It says the people have the right to bear arms as in "We are allowed to be armed".

This right very obviously exists because of the way our country was founded. The goal was to ensure that the only time the second amendment would ever be truly needed was if the government tried to take our rights away.

Or if a invasion force lands near Boston and the townspeople are prepared with muskets and trained as a militia. The right to bear arms was written when there was no real American army, there wasn't a true police force, where you could take a boat land a invasion force and just waltz right in. But guess what? Shit happens and them times are changing.

[Svifnymr]

The ATF has a presence at about 2% of all shows.

They need more power.

That is part of a specific series, not the overall presence/ knowledge of the ATF.

"Seventy nine of the 121 ATF operation plans were known suspects previously under investigation"

That means they already KNEW what was going on for most of that series of investigations. The 2% isn't even stated as the only operations at gunshows, merely the ones that were part of the investigation into their operation, though I assume that was the majority of the actual "operations" in that time frame. (As in, where they dedicated actual agents to an investigation, rather than casual screening visits.)

The cited report does highlight my earlier mention of how ATF likes to get "big busts" and will ignore small stuff until it's big enough.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You seem to be stuck on facebook. :P If facebook had the potential to kill someone, then maybe. But it doesn't. The people using it to upset someone is the issue with cyber bullying. Not the internet or facebook. Guns are designed to kill people. They are the thing that need limiting. And to be honest, I'm not moved by people that kill themselves by what they see on facebook. I'm moved by someone going to a school and killing kids. If that person killed themself instead of anyone else, I wouldn't have a problem. It's there choice. It's a poor one, but it's thiers. If that person had reached out for help, then I'd feel sorry that no one was there to help. But instead they didn't.

The main question is again, how far are you willing to go to save that one life?

[Wells]

That is part of a specific series, not the overall presence/ knowledge of the ATF.

"Seventy nine of the 121 ATF operation plans were known suspects previously under investigation"

That means they already KNEW what was going on for most of that series of investigations. The 2% isn't even stated as the only operations at gunshows, merely the ones that were part of the investigation into their operation, though I assume that was the majority of the actual "operations" in that time frame. (As in, where they dedicated actual agents to an investigation, rather than casual screening visits.)

The cited report does highlight my earlier mention of how ATF likes to get "big busts" and will ignore small stuff until it's big enough.

So despite direct factual evidence that your claims are incorrect you're sticking with them.

[Laize]

One in a trillion chance of bad things! MUST BE PREPARED!


Small chance of gunman with an assault rifle! NOT WORTH BEING TAKING INTO ACCOUNT FOR GUN LAWS!

A) At what point have I said I was against gun control? I just think limitations on the guns themselves is an asinine way to go about it.

B) You sound incredibly ignorant when you talk like that. The entire purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that the government can't become oppressive even if all the other circumstances were right. If that means a few people die at the hands of lunatics then that's the price we pay.

You cannot restrict our rights simply because you see no need for us to have 30 round magazines available. You have no evidence that such a magazine restriction (or almost any restriction on the weapons themselves, really) would save any lives. It's pure conjecture.

So why should I support such a stupid proposal?