Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

The mistake you kids are making is in thinking that Seals are the 'special snowflake' of the military.

They are not. Just because they are spec ops, doesn't mean they have access to anything that other branches of the military do not.

That's the logical fallacy.

You aren't helping your argument by saying "kids." Sounds like you're more interested in having a pissing match between branches than a real discussion.

You're free to believe and think whatever you want, but, I'm going to go with the countless books and accounts of members of the community over a random poster on the internet.

[Eroginous]

You aren't helping your argument by saying "kids." Sounds like you're more interested in having a pissing match between branches than a real discussion.

You're free to believe and think whatever you want, but, I'm going to go with the countless books and accounts of members of the community over a random poster on the internet.

It's not my problem that your argument seems to be based on the portrayal of the military in video games and movies. Seals aren't the only Spec Ops group of the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rations_forces

You don't think any of those groups have access to the same tools as Seals?

Furthermore, F-35s are one of the most expensive pieces of military hardware, and you don't see SEALs rolling around in those, do you?

Kind of takes your 'rich kids of the military' argument, kicks it straight in the balls.

[Tinykong]

It's not my problem that your argument seems to be based on the portrayal of the military in video games and movies. Seals aren't the only Spec Ops group of the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rations_forces

You don't think any of those groups have access to the same tools as Seals?

Furthermore, F-35s are one of the most expensive pieces of military hardware, and you don't see SEALs rolling around in those, do you?

Kind of takes your 'rich kids of the military' argument, kicks it straight in the balls.

Sure, if we want to expand the scope of the discussion to include everything, all of a sudden a few hundred billion dollars spent on war ships and aircraft just made the budget of the SEALs pretty much equivalent to the change you find in a sofa cushion compared to your yearly salary.

Unless I'm mistaken, this entire argument started over pistol grips (or other attachments) and why/how special forces justify their use. How does the price of an F-35 fit into the scope of that argument? It doesn't.

What does fit into the scope of that argument, is that SEAL teams are not constrained by money. Especially not DEVGRU (or Team 6 whatever people are calling them the shadow government denial stuff gets real old.) Obviously they aren't going to be using some $90 billion prototype weapon, so leave those strawmen out of the discussion. The intent behind bringing them up was: if money is no object (relatively speaking) then someone who uses weapons in a kill or be killed situation will buy and use whatever they think gives them the best chance of success. If SEALs (or another unit, dick measuring aside) are using something, one can presume that it's because it has a purpose/benefit in the execution of their work. They aren't putting pistol grips on their weapons because Call of Duty or Medal of Honor says they should.

Since we have no information about the budget or official programs of Tier 1 Special Forces groups, and I don't believe anything I read on the internet that isn't cited, I'm going to stick with the information I've read from first hand accounts. Maybe it's braggart bullshit, but if so, at least it's published bullshit.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The intent behind bringing them up was: if money is no object (relatively speaking) then someone who uses weapons in a kill or be killed situation will buy and use whatever they think gives them the best chance of success. If SEALs (or another unit, dick measuring aside) are using something, one can presume that it's because it has a purpose/benefit in the execution of their work.

He knows exactly what the intent of the original argument was, he's just choosing to ignore it because he figured out he's wrong.

The entire point is this: If a Navy SEAL wanted a wooden straight stock on his rifle, he'd have it, regardless of its extra cost. Fact is, he chooses a pistol grip, because it's better for combat.

That doesn't mean the rifle is somehow more lethal than it was before, it just means that pistol grips perform better than straight stocks in combat situations, as evidenced by their use in elite military combat units.

[lockedout]

The entire point is this: If a Navy SEAL wanted a wooden straight stock on his rifle, he'd have it, regardless of its extra cost.

If he didn't want a pistol grip then he'd take it off also.
Some people actually like not having a pistol grip.

[Eroginous]

Unless I'm mistaken, this entire argument started over pistol grips (or other attachments) and why/how special forces justify their use. How does the price of an F-35 fit into the scope of that argument? It doesn't.

F-35s and other big items (like cruisers and tanks) make up the bulk of the costs the military pays out each year. They literally represent the 'rich kid' mentality of having excessive expenses not otherwise afforded. Deadvolcanos and a few others have directly stated that the SEALS are the rich kids of the military, which is fallacious at best, for obvious reasons.

That's why I brought up F-35s.

Navy Seals aren't some special snowflake group of rich kids, sitting in front of fancy fireplaces with their Heffner robes and bunny slippers, talking in snobby accents while sipping tea, snapping their fingers and getting whatever they want. Is their gear more specialized than what a jughead gets? Sure. But that can be said for any special forces branch of the military.

That doesn't support the idea that seals use pistol grips because they are better than standard wooden stocks. If you haven't noticed, the type of grip being used has more to do with the model of firearm than with the person using it. IE, police officers use shotguns with pistol grips and AR variants with pistol grips. Bringing up the Navy Seals was a desperate attempt at finding a reason why pistol grips are being used.

Nothing more.

[soulzek]

Better background and mental health checks should be implemented, getting a doctor's note saying that someone has a clean bill of health and no mental issues that would indicate a person is suicidal or homicidal would reduce incidents, and show that responsible owners of firearms shouldn't be worried about one nut job ruining it for everyone else. Even adding licenses to buy semi automatic weapons should be implemented in my opinion. The basic arms that should be allowed constitutionally should be bolt action rifles, shotguns, and handguns, and this is coming from someone who owns an AR-15 that hasn't seen the light of day in the last 6 months with the firing pin and bolt removed rendering it useless currently.

[Porcell]

... this is coming from someone who owns an AR-15 that hasn't seen the light of day in the last 6 months with the firing pin and bolt removed rendering it useless currently.

I'll give you $750 for it.

[Deleted]

Better background and mental health checks should be implemented, getting a doctor's note saying that someone has a clean bill of health and no mental issues that would indicate a person is suicidal or homicidal would reduce incidents, and show that responsible owners of firearms shouldn't be worried about one nut job ruining it for everyone else. Even adding licenses to buy semi automatic weapons should be implemented in my opinion. The basic arms that should be allowed constitutionally should be bolt action rifles, shotguns, and handguns, and this is coming from someone who owns an AR-15 that hasn't seen the light of day in the last 6 months with the firing pin and bolt removed rendering it useless currently.

The last part would do jack shit at best. Rifles (ALL rifles, bolt action, lever action, ar-15, what have you) account for a tiny fraction of killings (something like 2 or 3%). The most used firearms in crime are handguns.

[ugotownd]

I'll give you $751. I have a spare failzero BCG sitting here itching to be used.

[Eroginous]

The basic arms that should be allowed constitutionally should be bolt action rifles, shotguns, and handguns,

So what happens when technology advances to laser/plasma guns, and those become common use with the police/military? The constitution is written in such a way that guarantees the right of civilians to have effective weapons for the use of defensive of their freedom. Whether we are talking about fighting off burglars, wild animals, foreign invaders, or our own government, it's all covered under the second amendment. Supreme court rulings have specified that the second amendment refers to any firearm that is in common use, so it's not limited to bolt action rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

To your larger point about better mental health screening: I can't help but wonder if that would even be necessary if we didn't live in a society that fosters bad mental health.

[Cthulhu 2020]

John Stewart gets paid to be funny. He doesn't get paid to be politically accurate or relevant. While he's incredibly good at being funny, he's not a politician. Having something funny to say about the NRA doesn't make his opinion regarding politics any more valid.

While I can completely agree with his anti NRA remarks, the NRA isn't the be-all, end-all of gun ownership.

When the NRA politicians filibuster a bill that got 55 votes in the senate and has a 90% popularity among Americans (84% if you go with the absolute lowest poll) who then call it "tyranny" when their 52 senate vote bill gets filibustered... they're a pretty huge factor in gun ownership I'd say.

[Porcell]

When the NRA politicians filibuster a bill that got 55 votes in the senate and has a 90% popularity among Americans (84% if you go with the absolute lowest poll) who then call it "tyranny" when their 52 senate vote bill gets filibustered... they're a pretty huge factor in gun ownership I'd say.

The bill didn't have 90% popularity among Americans. The very generic statement of "I like background checks" has a supposed 90% polling approval rate. There's a difference.

[Roxinius]

When the NRA politicians filibuster a bill that got 55 votes in the senate and has a 90% popularity among Americans (84% if you go with the absolute lowest poll) who then call it "tyranny" when their 52 senate vote bill gets filibustered... they're a pretty huge factor in gun ownership I'd say.

the bill did not have 90% popularity how many times does this need to be said

[ugotownd]

the bill did not have 90% popularity how many times does this need to be said

They get hooked on a number and suddenly nothing else matters. Just like the 40% of gun purchases don't have background checks BULLSHIT.

They complain that we had over 50% of Americans that supported it so it should have passed. They fail to use the same logic that Obamacare has a 58% disapproval yet were stuck with that.

[Maleficus]

the bill did not have 90% popularity how many times does this need to be said

Infinity +1, and it still won't matter. Ideological ear muffs are the accompanying accoutrements to ideological blinders.

Moving on to something fun... the poster gun for "gun control":

http://tracking-point.com/precision-guided-firearms

Yes, technically speaking it is bullet control, but that's really what it's all about anyway. I think there should be a gubmint program to subsidize purchases...

[lockedout]

The District of Columbia is moving to force firearms owners to purchase prohibitively expensive liability insurance.
California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania have also proposed forcing gun owners to buy liability insurance.
Democrat City Council member Mary Cheh proposed the law. It requires residents purchase at least $250,000 in insurance coverage before city government would consider applications to register a firearm.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Bringing up the Navy Seals was a desperate attempt at finding a reason why pistol grips are being used.

I brought up Navy SEALs because they are an elite military unit that actively engages in combat. What better example to support my position that pistol grips are better than straight stocks for combat than to examine individuals or groups that are actively engaged in the combat. Sorry that the conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

Navy Seals aren't some special snowflake group of rich kids, sitting in front of fancy fireplaces with their Heffner robes and bunny slippers, talking in snobby accents while sipping tea, snapping their fingers and getting whatever they want.

SEAL's are a special snow flake, actually. Along with PJ's, Rangers, Delta, pretty much any elite military unit. They're all special snowflakes, whether you like it or not. They've trained longer and harder than other military units, and they are absolutely more valuable. It's not debatable.

If they ask for specialized equipment for a mission, they're much more likely to get it than a Marine. Most of the time they don't even need to ask, because they are already supplied with the best PPE available.

[lockedout]

I brought up Navy SEALs because they are an elite military unit that actively engages in combat. What better example to support my position that pistol grips are better than straight stocks for combat than to examine individuals or groups that are actively engaged in the combat. Sorry that the conclusion doesn't follow your premise.



SEAL's are a special snow flake, actually. Along with PJ's, Rangers, Delta, pretty much any elite military unit. They're all special snowflakes, whether you like it or not. They've trained longer and harder than other military units, and they are absolutely more valuable. It's not debatable.

If they ask for specialized equipment for a mission, they're much more likely to get it than a Marine. Most of the time they don't even need to ask, because they are already supplied with the best PPE available.

Sometimes you need pistol grips and sometimes you don't want them. It depends the mission type and personal preference.

[Tinykong]

The District of Columbia is moving to force firearms owners to purchase prohibitively expensive liability insurance.
California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania have also proposed forcing gun owners to buy liability insurance.
Democrat City Council member Mary Cheh proposed the law. It requires residents purchase at least $250,000 in insurance coverage before city government would consider applications to register a firearm.

Hey, more de facto bans on firearms in Maryland.

I really think this State would just like to make it illegal for anyone to own a gun who isn't a government employee.