Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Fugus]

So they're not available to the civilian population at large. And you do know there is a difference between a comsat and a spysat right?

I know there is a difference, but still doesn't make a big difference in the case of this war.

And a bunch of gun nuts can totally just show up and get one themselves.

Seriously dude, lay of the CoD.

Quit playing videogames 2 years ago too. Haven't touched a first person shooter since Counter Strike Source either.

Edit: Correction, been toying around with Borderlands 2, but only put in maybe an hour every 2 weeks.

What would probably happen is one political ideology would gain complete dominance in the government and you'd see some kind of recession movement. It wouldn't be military against everyone else like Fugus seems to think. It would be the US government dominated by either a left wing or right wing government fighting against opposing ideology states, in otherwords, Civil War 2 Electric Bugaloo.

Fun fact, democracies go bad when their population goes bad. Even Hitler had to get elected into office.

We weren't talking about some left vs right war. We were talking about a us vs them war where we were fighting to overthrow the government as a whole, not just the current ruling party of it. They are two different types of war.

Doesn't really matter. If a civil war breaks out does anyone really think the military would just leave weapons factories sitting around?

Doesn't matter if they left them or not, we still have them out manned, out gunned and we are also the people who made the factories, we are the ones who provide their food we are the ones who provide them with much of their equipment.

Sorry but the US military could not win a US vs Them war which is what we are talking about. A left vs right war, yes they would be a major deciding factor cause the target isn't them or the government itself, it is a particular faction within the government.

We aren't talking about a few states saying I want out of the US and the rest trying to force them to stay, this is about the nation saying flat out, we are tired of the bullshit, we are removing the government from the US and making a new one.

Was fun, but I have to get ready for work. Will try and read this again another time.

[FusedMass]

I know there is a difference, but still doesn't make a big difference in the case of this war.



Quit playing videogames 2 years ago too. Haven't touched a first person shooter since Counter Strike Source either.

Edit: Correction, been toying around with Borderlands 2, but only put in maybe an hour every 2 weeks.



We weren't talking about some left vs right war. We were talking about a us vs them war where we were fighting to overthrow the government as a whole, not just the current ruling party of it. They are two different types of war.



Doesn't matter if they left them or not, we still have them out manned, out gunned and we are also the people who made the factories, we are the ones who provide their food we are the ones who provide them with much of their equipment.

Sorry but the US military could not win a US vs Them war which is what we are talking about. A left vs right war, yes they would be a major deciding factor cause the target isn't them or the government itself, it is a particular faction within the government.

We aren't talking about a few states saying I want out of the US and the rest trying to force them to stay, this is about the nation saying flat out, we are tired of the bullshit, we are removing the government from the US and making a new one.

Was fun, but I have to get ready for work. Will try and read this again another time.

Sometimes some people make the case just by the way they talk. Why less Guns would be a great thing. I think your fellow poster was trying to point to you earlier. When you go to extremes and give examples it further feeds into the stereotype narrative that some gun owners..are less ideal to own guns..you talk as if a war is coming against the United States and the hair on the trigger is because of a gun revolt.

Even some of the people who are Republican and support Gun Rights find your situation a little hard to absorb. I am just saying.

[Wells]

I know there is a difference, but still doesn't make a big difference in the case of this war.

Stop hand waving.

We weren't talking about some left vs right war. We were talking about a us vs them war where we were fighting to overthrow the government as a whole, not just the current ruling party of it. They are two different types of war.

And that's just a right wing wet dream. Democracies don't go bad out of nowhere.

I love that you have so little faith in the most powerful military in US history that you don't think they could deal with a bunch of disorganized gun nuts.

[Grizzly Willy]

It's kind of insulting to our soldiers, isn't it?

[Wells]

It's kind of insulting to our soldiers, isn't it?

I mean if the military is that weak why even worry about the government "going bad"? Apparently its no big thing to just overthrow a super power.

[Grizzly Willy]

Hell, if it's that weak, then how have we remained a super power managing multiple wars for so long?

[Wells]

Hell, if it's that weak, then how have we remained a super power managing multiple wars for so long?

The civilian spysat network clearly.

[Grizzly Willy]

I'm half expecting somebody to bring up PMC's.

[Extrazero8]

Edit: Looks like they made good on what they said. To those said they would never sign a bill like this. It appears at least its being brought in. Will it pass. I'm not sure but they are there.

With new Congress comes a new push for gun laws

On Day One, lawmakers in the House of Representatives introduced nearly a dozen bills related to gun violence.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-New York, a longtime gun control advocate, led the fight on the Democratic side of the aisle. She's sponsoring legislation that would require background checks for all gun sales -- including at gun shows -- and ban online sales of ammunition. McCarthy is also co-sponsoring a bill to ban high-capacity magazine clips with Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado. DeGette's district includes Columbine High School, where two gunmen killed 13 people in 1999, and is next to Aurora, where a gunman killed 12 people in a mass shooting at a movie theater in July.

Out of all the dumb crap this moron is trying to do this has to be dumbest.

What the hell is the point?


[Infracted]

[Laize]

Stop hand waving.

And that's just a right wing wet dream. Democracies don't go bad out of nowhere.

I love that you have so little faith in the most powerful military in US history that you don't think they could deal with a bunch of disorganized gun nuts.

You're right. Their resounding successes in Afghanistan and Iraq should serve as proof that the most powerful military in the world has an unerring ability to win guerilla-style conflict.

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 08:10 AM ----------

The civilian spysat network clearly.

Who needs a spysat network when Google probably has way more info? I wouldn't be surprised at all if their ability to collect intelligence is superior to that of the CIA.

[Deleted]

You're right. Their resounding successes in Afghanistan and Iraq should serve as proof that the most powerful military in the world has an unerring ability to win guerilla-style conflict.

They didn't exactly lose in Afghanistan and Iraq. They weren't able to eradicate the resistance movements, doesn't mean that said movements actually "won". The real losers are, as usual, the innocent people who just want to get on with their lives without having to be worried that they're going to die because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Laize]

They didn't exactly lose in Afghanistan and Iraq. They weren't able to eradicate the resistance movements, doesn't mean that said movements actually "won". The real losers are, as usual, the innocent people who just want to get on with their lives without having to be worried that they're going to die because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Oh of course. But the point is that in guerilla conflict, you can win 80% of the battles (or more) and still never win the war.

[Wells]

You're right. Their resounding successes in Afghanistan and Iraq should serve as proof that the most powerful military in the world has an unerring ability to win guerilla-style conflict.

Guerrilla warfare wins against overwhelming opponents because you can outlast their willingness to fight and eventually they just pack up and go home due to domestic pressure. That doesn't apply to the scenario of totalitarian government run amok.

Its not like we ever really lost any battles in those countries.

[Skalme]

I do not support this "assault weapon" ban because such a ban is reactionary nonsense.

The first one had almost no impact whatsoever, which is the reason that it was allowed to expire. There is a lot of misinformation and some downright stupidity in this debate.

"Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?" Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. "These weapons are not for hunting deer -- they’re for hunting people."

First off, there is no actual agreed upon definition of what an "assault weapon" is. The initial ban was laughable in its attempt to define them, since the function of the weapons with the features listed were not any different than the weapons without those features. It was basically a law against guns that look scary. Broadening the definition meant that any weapon with a clip was an assault weapon, which is equally foolish.

Second, magazines are already restricted to 30 bullets (or less depending on state). Hyperbole and high emotion are extremely poor ways to go about enacting laws.

"It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively," and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said. "The purpose of this bill is to get... weapons of war off the streets."

This portion of the law is the fumble-fingered idiot defense.

It presumes that these shooters have neither the manual dexterity to change clips nor the intelligence to carry more than one clip for their weapon.

Changing a clip requires a couple seconds if you have practiced at all, but definitely well under ten even without practice. These tragic happenings are not spur of the moment, which means the perpetrators are going to familiarize themselves with their weapons unless they are stupid. Further, since these mass shootings tend to take place in gun free zones, there is no one shooting back at the perpetrator which means they have time to change the clip.

For anyone who is going to suggest that you could tackle/disarm them while they are changing the clip, I put to you the following: Unless the shooter is an idiot, they will not be standing next to anyone while shooting. Therefore you need to first realize that they have stopped shooting and that they are indeed changing the clip. Then you would have to break cover and close the intervening distance between you and the shooter prior to them reloading. Which means that the shooter has had time to reload and you have chosen their next target for them. Even if you are cool headed enough react to any break in the shooting, unless you are an idiot you would spend some time verifying a reload rather than a pause in firing, which also means they have already had time to reload. Similarly, you are also assuming that the shooter only has a single weapon.

Further, since clips cannot be grandfathered out of existence; 30 round clips already exist and will be available to any shooter that puts any kind of planning into their madness.

Clips are also fairly simple to make, so any enterprising person with access to a small shop could produce them illegally for whoever wants them.

This provision will have zero effect.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-New York, a longtime gun control advocate, led the fight on the Democratic side of the aisle. She's sponsoring legislation that would require background checks for all gun sales -- including at gun shows -- and ban online sales of ammunition.

Background checks on guns sales should already be in place, even at gun shows. This is the only sensible thing that I've seen proposed. However, this also does not prevent guns from getting into the hands of those with criminal intent.

The NY shooter that laid the trap for the firemen acquired his weapons through someone else who could purchase them legally. As long as greed and stupidity exist in the world, there will be ways to circumvent the law. Background checks will have a limited effect.

A ban on online ammunition sales will have no effect.

Ammunition is far easier to acquire than the guns since most places do not require ID to purchase bullets, unless you look young. All you need to do is be over 18 or 21, so if you can buy cigarettes or beer, you can buy bullets. If the law required background checks for bullet purchases, then you might have a small impact.

Why small? Because there are lots of bullets already in existence. Combine this with home reloading kits, even with new restrictions in place, and criminals will have access to easily manufactured bullets for a long time to come.

And, as usual in these conversations, I suggest that people look up the term zip gun.

[Porcell]

The constant use of "clips" and "bullets" had me cringing. Otherwise I pretty much agree.

On the gun-show thing. FFLs at gun shows follow the same rules that they always do; they run the telephone background check. What the "gunshow loophole" actually describes is person-to-person sales, which are legal and do not require a background check. I'm generally leaning against it because it's more damn paperwork and registration as a whole is a bad thing for gun rights.

[Deleted]

On the gun-show thing. FFLs at gun shows follow the same rules that they always do; they run the telephone background check. What the "gunshow loophole" actually describes is person-to-person sales, which are legal and do not require a background check. I'm generally leaning against it because it's more damn paperwork and registration as a whole is a bad thing for gun rights.

Don't you need a license to sell alcohol or tobacco in America ?

[Stuffs]

And that's just a right wing wet dream. Democracies don't go bad out of nowhere.

I love that you have so little faith in the most powerful military in US history that you don't think they could deal with a bunch of disorganized gun nuts.

I don't think anyone is thinking a mom with an M-16 driving a minivan like a bad flash movie stands any chance.

But a tank can't patrol the streets. A jet can't knock down the door to do a raid.
No, men with guns will. Probably with better guns, but the playing field levels a bit in a populated city for instance.

I don't really go hoping the govt will give me a reason to fight back. But the chance to become a police state, among other things, is very real.
This is of course assuming we do make that turn, and you're right. They don't go bad overnight. Instead its gradual.

Enforcement of curfews. Higher importance on the "public good", and "safety". Possibly infringing on our civil liberties to "protect us". The whole premise of the second amendment is supposed to be mostly superfluous until, and if, it's needed.

While I don't think we're going to be headed into a (complete) police state any time soon despite what some people aim for, I do think we should still keep them around.


Our violence issue is mostly cultural anyways. Look at Sweden, both at our gun crime rates, and the number of guns per person on average.

[Fugus]

Hell, if it's that weak, then how have we remained a super power managing multiple wars for so long?

Name one war we fought in were the civilian population was actively fighting against as us as well instead of sitting there and just trying to stay out of the way. Name one war we fought in were the level of enemy combatants was even 3% of the US population. You can't cause there has been no such war.

The wars we have fought have been small scale compared to what we would face in a civil war where the US population fought actively against the US military.

It isn't insulting to our troops at all, it is flat out numbers. Sure they could take out a mass of civilians equal or even quadruple their size on an open battlefield. But they can't take out a force literally a hundred times their size in gorilla style combat where their home bases are surrounded at all sides. Even if the US people went and did a full on raid of them, hundreds of millions would die in the process but the US army would still lose due to the numbers stacked against them alone.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Name one war we fought in were the civilian population was actively fighting against as us as well instead of sitting there and just trying to stay out of the way. Name one war we fought in were the level of enemy combatants was even 3% of the US population. You can't cause there has been no such war.

The wars we have fought have been small scale compared to what we would face in a civil war where the US population fought actively against the US military.

It isn't insulting to our troops at all, it is flat out numbers. Sure they could take out a mass of civilians equal or even quadruple their size on an open battlefield. But they can't take out a force literally a hundred times their size in gorilla style combat where their home bases are surrounded at all sides. Even if the US people went and did a full on raid of them, hundreds of millions would die in the process but the US army would still lose due to the numbers stacked against them alone.

Remember the civil war, when the south tried to rebel against the laws of the federal government and secede? How'd that work out? Oh yeah, not too good.

[FusedMass]

Some more great news.

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1