Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Spectral]

If you want to abridge a constitutional right, provide compelling evidence.

This is exactly the relevant tone to strike, in my opinion. I don't think anyone's under the impression that Constitutional rights are absolute, but we need legally and pragmatically compelling reasons to do so. I cannot see a compelling government interest to arbitrarily select weapons to ban, particularly given the incongruity in which weapons are actually used in crimes.

[Laize]

This is exactly the relevant tone to strike, in my opinion. I don't think anyone's under the impression that Constitutional rights are absolute, but we need legally and pragmatically compelling reasons to do so. I cannot see a compelling government interest to arbitrarily select weapons to ban, particularly given the incongruity in which weapons are actually used in crimes.

Huh... I'm not used to you agreeing with me.

Anyhoo... as much as I despise abridgment of freedom I recognize that some things are not absolute. The ability to yell "bomb" on a plane puts people at risk of panic and threatening to kill the President is so over-the-top stupid and dangerous (imagine being the guy who happens to be a little TOO drunk at an Obama rally after the secret service has been placed on high alert...) that I absolutely see why that's illegal.

So yes, there ARE certain very specific circumstances in which abridgment of even constitutional rights is acceptable. But you REALLY have to provide compelling evidence to do so. A dozen deaths a year compared to the outrageously large number of people who actually own the weapons in question is not even close to compelling.

[FusedMass]

Huh... I'm not used to you agreeing with me.

Anyhoo... as much as I despise abridgment of freedom I recognize that some things are not absolute. The ability to yell "bomb" on a plane puts people at risk of panic and threatening to kill the President is so over-the-top stupid and dangerous (imagine being the guy who happens to be a little TOO drunk at an Obama rally after the secret service has been placed on high alert...) that I absolutely see why that's illegal.

So yes, there ARE certain very specific circumstances in which abridgment of even constitutional rights is acceptable. But you REALLY have to provide compelling evidence to do so. A dozen deaths a year compared to the outrageously large number of people who actually own the weapons in question is not even close to compelling.

In your humble point of view you mean. There are dozens of law generated for less then this. Remember that whole Voter ID where Republicans freaked out that a total of 72 people were committing Voter Fraud that several states before the election made it a requirement at the polls for you to show photo ID. They did not show ..compelling evidence.

In fact it showed just the other way around. Just pointing out the logical fact a pattern of events in stone is not a national requirement for laws to be passed. The truth of the matter these weapons were banned in 1994 it had a majority of American Support and dropping crime rate. These weapons can be modified to become fully automatic and the proof that these are Military Style weapons that have no place in hands of society or outside of war.

Just don't take my word for it. These words are echoed by our current President Obama and have been repeated since Ronald Reagan. While it's true that you need proof in order to take something away. The simple proof can be the dipping crime rate with these weapons banned now the surge in violence. While one act alone doesn't cause for a change.

It's a long pattern of events that goes even past the NewTown shooter.

[Spectral]

Huh... I'm not used to you agreeing with me.

All you need to do is be right more often! There's actually a fair number of your posts that I read over and nod at, but just have nothing to add. The Mike Rowe post over the in Wal-Mart thread, for example - I see the same thing all the time, but just didn't think posting, "yeah, me too!" was all that useful.

But you REALLY have to provide compelling evidence to do so. A dozen deaths a year compared to the outrageously large number of people who actually own the weapons in question is not even close to compelling.

Indeed. I don't think people are very good at putting things in perspective when it comes to evaluating relative risks. I saw a bunch of people on Facebook after the Newtown shooting saying, "I'm scared to send my kids to school now" and I had to bite my tongue to avoid telling them that the part they should be scared of is driving them to school - they're far more likely to die from their parents driving than an insane shooter. Despite the awfulness of the tragedy at Newtown, this really is just a freak occurrence that's too rare to really merit any sort of policy approach at all in my opinion, but if there is something to be done, it's surely not about an arbitrary group of weapons. Throw in the relevant costs of policies, and the Constitutional imperative, and I can't see how this is really even all that debatable.

So, yeah, this isn't a "Second Amendment so STFU!" argument, it's that a really strong justification would be needed, and it doesn't exist.

---------- Post added 2013-01-28 at 10:15 PM ----------

In your humble point of view you mean. There are dozens of law generated for less then this. Remember that whole Voter ID where Republicans freaked out that a total of 72 people were committing Voter Fraud that several states before the election made it a requirement at the polls for you to show photo ID. They did not show ..compelling evidence.

If you recall, we all agreed that the approach taken was plainly unconstitutional and not merited. It's not a great argument to say, "hey remember that time when we all agreed something was unconstitutional? Let's do something that's unconstitutional".

[FusedMass]

If you recall, we all agreed that the approach taken was plainly unconstitutional and not merited. It's not a great argument to say, "hey remember that time when we all agreed something was unconstitutional? Let's do something that's unconstitutional".

Without a doubt. It was an obvious see through attempt to corrupt the voter turn out by removing the people that did not have ID and it was corrupted to the core. Motivated by a lust to get Mitt Romney into the White House. I'm simply stating that they did place those laws into place even though it was unconstitutional. I'm not saying two wrong's make a right just that law's have been created for less then this.

[alturic]

Even if a Gun Jams 8 out of 10 times while firing that weapon. 100 Rounds is a ton of bullets to fire in one setting under any situation. I don't know anyone personally that's been in a situation where you needed even ten rounds.

You're right, but the big problem is what's the difference if I have this big drum of 100 bullets or 10-10 round magazines? If I'm crazy enough to want to shootup some people, surely I would think about bringing extra magazines. Once again, it serves no purpose to ban these things.

I seriously don't think you people realize just because I carry 1 100 round drum compared to 10-10 round magazines my gun is going to shoot faster. It's not, sure it causes me to spend ~5 seconds to swap magazines, but the gun doesn't shoot any faster. Once again, serving no purpose to ban these scary (see: pretty damn cool) looking guns. Just because they look like a military gun doesn't mean they fire at all like a fully-automatic gun.

I really do believe the majority of people who "blindly" agree with these weapons bans can't comprehend semi-automatic vs fully-automatic.

[Garnier Fructis]

You're right, but the big problem is what's the difference if I have this big drum of 100 bullets or 10-10 round magazines? If I'm crazy enough to want to shootup some people, surely I would think about bringing extra magazines. Once again, it serves no purpose to ban these things.

Reload time gives people an opportunity to tackle or restrain you. "But it's only a few seconds." A few seconds is a lot of time in a situation like that. And honestly, if you need a big drum of 100 bullets to defend yourself I think you need to practice at the range some more.

[GreatOak]

Fused, still waiting on my answer.

Why do you want to see these banned and out of the hands of trained people like me?

[alturic]

Small price to pay for what? I'm trying to rationalize an advantage to having law abiding citizens having magazines that hold only 10 rounds vs. 20 or 25 rounds.

I'm curious (since people said it takes less than 5 seconds in most cases) why it's a "pain" to swap mags?

---------- Post added 2013-01-28 at 10:31 PM ----------

Fused, still waiting on my answer.

Why do you want to see these banned and out of the hands of trained people like me?

Well, I'm definitely not defending this Fused guy, but quite honestly there is no true definition of being "trained" with a gun, to me anyway. There's only law abiding gun users, and all other gun users.

So, please don't take this the wrong way, but if I went to the range every week, and unloaded a few magazines into the center of some targets does that make me "trained"? See what I'm saying.

[WeaponXAnimosity]

Understand enthusiasts who may adopt it as a hobby and there is a constitutional right...but I don't understand why it's suddenly the end of the world because people can't live without their firearms. Losing the only thing that overcompensates for something?

[Tasttey]

I'm curious (since people said it takes less than 5 seconds in most cases) why it's a "pain" to swap mags?

Not a pain to swap mags, hell I can do it in under 3 sec with most of my weapons. What is a pain is charging or reloading said magazines after you've discharged all the rounds within them. Typically I go to the range with a set amount of ammo I plan on using for the day, averages close to 800-1k rounds between all the weapons. Unfortunately, I only have enough magazines to accommodate half to two-thirds at one time, and this is with loading multiple 17, 30, 20, 25, and 10 round magazines across multiple weapons.

[FusedMass]

You're right, but the big problem is what's the difference if I have this big drum of 100 bullets or 10-10 round magazines? If I'm crazy enough to want to shootup some people, surely I would think about bringing extra magazines. Once again, it serves no purpose to ban these things.

I seriously don't think you people realize just because I carry 1 100 round drum compared to 10-10 round magazines my gun is going to shoot faster. It's not, sure it causes me to spend ~5 seconds to swap magazines, but the gun doesn't shoot any faster. Once again, serving no purpose to ban these scary (see: pretty damn cool) looking guns. Just because they look like a military gun doesn't mean they fire at all like a fully-automatic gun.

I really do believe the majority of people who "blindly" agree with these weapons bans can't comprehend semi-automatic vs fully-automatic.

I wanted to copy and paste something to you. Your point of view is noted as invalid as it made be. To respond to GreatOak. Not everyone is as trained as you are. Not everyone equally have taken the required training classes on owning a firearm. If everyone equally was a responsible gun owner then these law's would not be processed. It is because everyone is not in the trained hands of you that the problem exists.

Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms, and is a term that has differing meanings and usages.

In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapons are rifles, but some are pistols or shotguns. The exact definition of the term in this context varies among each of the various jurisdictions that limit or prohibit assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession, and legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

[Spectral]

Understand enthusiasts who may adopt it as a hobby and there is a constitutional right...but I don't understand why it's suddenly the end of the world because people can't live without their firearms. Losing the only thing that overcompensates for something?

I'd be pretty fucking pissed if someone wanted to take away a chunk of one of my hobbies (I'm not a gun owner). I'm a big beer nerd - if someone said, "we're just going to ban beers over 8% ABV, we just don't think that's safe, since people don't realize how much they've drank, and wind up driving DUI", I'd throw an absolute shit fit. I don't drink and drive at all, but I get punished for other people's bad behavior? Another example would be if someone decided that bicycles should be banned from city streets.

[GreatOak]

I'm curious (since people said it takes less than 5 seconds in most cases) why it's a "pain" to swap mags?

---------- Post added 2013-01-28 at 10:31 PM ----------



Well, I'm definitely not defending this Fused guy, but quite honestly there is no true definition of being "trained" with a gun, to me anyway. There's only law abiding gun users, and all other gun users.

So, please don't take this the wrong way, but if I went to the range every week, and unloaded a few magazines into the center of some targets does that make me "trained"? See what I'm saying.

I guess there are various levels of "trained". I'd consider myself an expert in relation to the general population, but I'm by no means at the level of a professional shooter.

[gpherder]

Reload time gives people an opportunity to tackle or restrain you. "But it's only a few seconds." A few seconds is a lot of time in a situation like that. And honestly, if you need a big drum of 100 bullets to defend yourself I think you need to practice at the range some more.

A few seconds? If it takes you "a few seconds" to change out a clip, you're doing it entirely wrong. I do, by the way, speak from experience. I spent 7 years serving in the US Army, 4 of those years was spent in a training brigade in Germany.

Amateurs might spend "a few seconds" to change out a clip. Anyone who has practiced at all can drop the clip and reload in far less time than it would take a frightened audience to tackle him.

[Rocko9]

A few seconds? If it takes you "a few seconds" to change out a clip, you're doing it entirely wrong. I do, by the way, speak from experience. I spent 7 years serving in the US Army, 4 of those years was spent in a training brigade in Germany.

Amateurs might spend "a few seconds" to change out a clip. Anyone who has practiced at all can drop the clip and reload in far less time than it would take a frightened audience to tackle him.

Or change to a sidearm. Reloads for me take just a couple of seconds.

[tiporispit]

Here's an opinion of someone outside of US: if ALL guns are banned, it's almost impossible for the criminals who don't follow laws to get them.

"In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America’s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008."

Taking into account that the population of the US is 6 times bigger then the one of UK and Wales there were still over 51 TIMES more fatalities in the US.

To me as an european the whole gun debate in the US is bizzare. I come from a country where guns are strictly controled, you can't get one without applying for a permit, presenting a good reason to own it and undergoing psych exams.
I never felt the need to own a gun and I don't understand why anyone would want to have one, other than to use it as a tool to commit crimes.

Here's a good read on the subject from a non-american point of view:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...12/gun-control

Over half of murders in the United States are drug-related. Taking that into account, since it's a drug policy issue, not a gun issue, the United States firearm murder rate is 15 times that of Britain, not 51. It's cute you picked 2008, because last year there were twice that number in Britain. Nice try. You are a geographically small landmass, surrounded by water. The United States is the 4th largest country by landmass in the world, and it borders a lawless cesspool it is unwilling to do anything about. Half the gang members living in the United States are not even citizens. Does Britain have that problem? No. Honestly, only bed-wetting liberals even care what the rest of the world thinks. We can whip everyone's ass 10x over in a full scale mobilization. We have 7 times your GDP. Why would we ever want to do things your way?

[Findlyn]

Here's an opinion of someone outside of US: if ALL guns are banned, it's almost impossible for the criminals who don't follow laws to get them.

"In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America’s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008."

Taking into account that the population of the US is 6 times bigger then the one of UK and Wales there were still over 51 TIMES more fatalities in the US.

This is where a lot of people are arguing the case for gun control, with misrepresented information. No offense to Hidey0shi, most people dont even realize they are doing it. However, one thing you have to remember, just blindly listing statistics, without regard to they maybe coming from different sources, and thus different standards of what may or maynot be reported needs to be taken into consideration.

For instance, the FBI in those lists, list every homicide involving a firearm. That includes solved cases, unsolved cases, and even cases of justifiable homicide(such as those done by police or civilians in justified self defense). However, the report that comes out from the UK's equivalent of the FBI, only reports those of homicides that are committed with a firearm, and were prosecuted. They do not list any unsolved cases or cases of justifiable homicides in their statistics.

Just some food for thought. Yes, their per-capita of gun homicides is lower; however you need to realize they have a lot of cases not reported. Also, the UK's overall rate of violent crimes is MUCH higher then the US.

[Laize]

In your humble point of view you mean. There are dozens of law generated for less then this. Remember that whole Voter ID where Republicans freaked out that a total of 72 people were committing Voter Fraud that several states before the election made it a requirement at the polls for you to show photo ID. They did not show ..compelling evidence.

In fact it showed just the other way around. Just pointing out the logical fact a pattern of events in stone is not a national requirement for laws to be passed. The truth of the matter these weapons were banned in 1994 it had a majority of American Support and dropping crime rate. These weapons can be modified to become fully automatic and the proof that these are Military Style weapons that have no place in hands of society or outside of war.

Just don't take my word for it. These words are echoed by our current President Obama and have been repeated since Ronald Reagan. While it's true that you need proof in order to take something away. The simple proof can be the dipping crime rate with these weapons banned now the surge in violence. While one act alone doesn't cause for a change.

It's a long pattern of events that goes even past the NewTown shooter.

There has been no surge in violence. Just a surge in violent criminals with a flair for the dramatic.

And the crime rate was going down LONG before the AWB in the 90s and continued to go down after its sunset.

There is no causation between the AWB and crime rate.

[noobstar]

You're right, but the big problem is what's the difference if I have this big drum of 100 bullets or 10-10 round magazines? If I'm crazy enough to want to shootup some people, surely I would think about bringing extra magazines. Once again, it serves no purpose to ban these things.

I seriously don't think you people realize just because I carry 1 100 round drum compared to 10-10 round magazines my gun is going to shoot faster. It's not, sure it causes me to spend ~5 seconds to swap magazines, but the gun doesn't shoot any faster. Once again, serving no purpose to ban these scary (see: pretty damn cool) looking guns. Just because they look like a military gun doesn't mean they fire at all like a fully-automatic gun.

I really do believe the majority of people who "blindly" agree with these weapons bans can't comprehend semi-automatic vs fully-automatic.

I agree completely. And my thoughts on this whole ridiculous ban assault rifles thing...Go buy a ruger Mini-14 with a nice wood stock and zero Mods it's NOT considered an assault rifle ... shoots the SAME rounds as the dreaded AR-15 and its as fast as your finger can pull.... or buy a semi- auto shotgun load it up with triple-aught buck and throw 6-9.1MM pellets all at once at a fast pace.... This whole meeting of the minds is wasting our tax money when they need to just focus on mental health and the people behind the guns.