Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Sicarus]

I think any reasonable person is fine with background checks. Anything involving making them illegal though will hurt more than help. Criminals are quite notorious for not following laws, and will get their hands on guns regardless, just like illegal drugs. Heavy gun control would literally do nothing except strip home defense away from people who do no harm with them, and banning assault weapons alone is a useless gesture. Violent people have been killing forever, so guns are clearly not the issue at all.

I also never said Background checks weren't unreasonable, they assumed that, when I was actually talking about bills like the Feinstein one.

[Reeve]

I know, but you were just referring to the actual text and not the court opinion. Most Americans agree with an individual right. It has been held that way traditionally in court as well. The Miller case also clarified things

Even if the court did agree with me that the amendment referred to militias only, it wouldn't suddenly make it illegal for citizens to carry weapons. They would still have to pass gun ban legislation, which simply isn't going to happen, nor is it a good idea.

[Skroe]

I think any reasonable person is fine with background checks. Anything involving making them illegal though will hurt more than help. Criminals are quite notorious for not following laws, and will get their hands on guns regardless, just like illegal drugs. Heavy gun control would literally do nothing except strip home defense away from people who do no harm with them, and banning assault weapons alone is a useless gesture. Violent people have been killing forever, so guns are clearly not the issue at all.

There are a lot of us who want to strip away what you laughably call "home defense" because it's a delusion. If you really think every man having a gun and defending their home is effective or in any way shape in form an alternative to aggressive policing, I suggest you talk to American Colonels and Generals who spent years in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Their problem was entirely (especially in Iraq), that every home had a gun, every block had a "protection group", which was really a gang by another game, and that as entirely predictable, men with guns in groups leads to crime. That's kind of the unsung part of the Iraq War: that for all the emphasis on fighting terrorists and insurgents, as much energy, money and manpower was spent fighting old fashioned gang land criminality, where money and power, not the Koran ruled.

The United States spent a decade and $150 Billion trying to build civil society, and especially a police force, not just to fight insurgents but to fight crime and make people feel safe in their homes so they would be less-inclined to resort to violence themselves. It barely got pulled off.

But if you believe your gun makes you safe in your home, we have a world class, recent counter example that empirically disproves it. Because Iraq wasn't made safer by every Iraqi Citizen being armed. It was made safer by ever more policing by US Soldiers and Marines (the Surge) and aggressively building up local law enforcement.

You want to feel safe? Pay more local taxes and get your town to hire more cops. Baghdad, New York, London, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris... it is proven to work.

The gun on the other hand? here is far more examples against them, rather than for them. They should be outright banned. All of them.

[Jaxi]

I see people arguing that killers can reload their gun in 2 seconds and that limiting magazine size won't really have any affect on the mass murder capacity of a gun, then I hear people saying that small clips aren't fun because reloading in a pain in the butt and takes time. I'd like to know which of these inconsistent arguments it is.

Big difference between at the range firing guns, and in a mass shooting. Here is the difference: at the range you can sit at a bench, open up a box of ammunition, and start feeding it into the magazine. Very doubtful you can do that at a mass shooting.

[Rukentuts]

Thats the fucking problem. The Assault Weapons ban merely covered those rifles along with any handgun with a detachable magazine .

Which is kinda cool because it fits my exact views that I was ranting to people about the other day.

[Koraak]

There are a lot of us who want to strip away what you laughably call "home defense" because it's a delusion. If you really think every man having a gun and defending their home is effective or in any way shape in form an alternative to aggressive policing, I suggest you talk to American Colonels and Generals who spent years in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Their problem was entirely (especially in Iraq), that every home had a gun, every block had a "protection group", which was really a gang by another game, and that as entirely predictable, men with guns in groups leads to crime. That's kind of the unsung part of the Iraq War: that for all the emphasis on fighting terrorists and insurgents, as much energy, money and manpower was spent fighting old fashioned gang land criminality, where money and power, not the Koran ruled.

The United States spent a decade and $150 Billion trying to build civil society, and especially a police force, not just to fight insurgents but to fight crime and make people feel safe in their homes so they would be less-inclined to resort to violence themselves. It barely got pulled off.

But if you believe your gun makes you safe in your home, we have a world class, recent counter example that empirically disproves it. Because Iraq wasn't made safer by every Iraqi Citizen being armed. It was made safer by ever more policing by US Soldiers and Marines (the Surge) and aggressively building up local law enforcement.

You want to feel safe? Pay more local taxes and get your town to hire more cops. Baghdad, New York, London, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris... it is proven to work.

The gun on the other hand? here is far more examples against them, rather than for them. They should be outright banned. All of them.

Wait, so the locals of a third world country we invaded are giving the troops a hard time? Who'd have thought. I guess that's the same my friend keeping his guns in a safe.

[Skroe]

Wait, so the locals of a third world country we invaded are giving the troops a hard time? Who'd have thought. I guess that's the same my friend keeping his guns in a safe.

It has nothing to do with locals versus us. It's locals versus locals. Iraqi on Iraqi crime. Iraqis with guns decided that they were going to take advantage of the lawlessness. Guns made the situation far worse, not better. Citizens with guns didn't keep the peace. They didn't solve the problem. They WERE the problem.

You knew that of course. Nice attempted deflection.

[vaeevictiss]

The court was clear, however, that the right to keep and bear arms did not apply to military grade weaponry:

every gun at one time or another was "military grade weaponry" even the single shot musket. Nearly every civilian owned firearm today has been used by some military force.

[FusedMass]

I'm not sure on other peoples positions. Personally I don't want take away peoples rights. In fact if it passed I'd rather support a ban on high capacity magazine then weapons since it's an easier time of passing. However when you read articles on this people being shot almost weekly. It's just not normal to accept that.

One of the People of the Victims of New Town parents even suggested their right to own a weapon to second to their child's right to life. Regardless here is another article on a shooting. I know..I know some people don't care unless it's directly happening to them. How easy it is to dismiss words on a screen unless you are there but regardless here it is.

Price Middle School Shooting: Multiple Injuries In Attack At Southeast Atlanta School

ATLANTA -- Atlanta Police said a 14-year-old student has been shot at Price Middle School, near the Lakewood Heights neighborhood south of downtown Atlanta on Thursday afternoon.

According to the Atlanta Fire Department, there was a 14-year-old shot in the head. Grady Memorial Hospital says they have received one under-aged gunshot victim.

A second person was reported to have received cuts and bruises, but it is not known if that person was shot.

Price Middle School has been placed on lockdown, and parents are being asked not to come to the school to avoid any additional confusion in the area.

According to 11Alive's Julie Wolfe on the scene, the assistant principal of Price Middle School came out to tell assembled parents that their children are okay.

Televised helicopter images show emergency vehicles at the school building on the south side of Atlanta.

The neighborhood where the school is located is in what was once the Carver Homes Housing Project. The projects were razed and replaced with homes and apartments. Price Middle School and Carver High School were both built in recent years in the same area.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/...ool-?hpt=hp_t2

[Deleted]

I'm not from the US, but I just don't understand the need for guns. What I've gathered is that if you ask an american why they have a gun, it's to protect themselves/their family. But if this is the case, then how come the rest of the world manages to survive without a firearm next to our bed?

[Reeve]

every gun at one time or another was "military grade weaponry" even the single shot musket. Nearly every civilian owned firearm today has been used by some military force.

Sure. Fortunately, the Supreme court who makes the decisions on the interpretation of the constitution state that the constitutional amendment bears that distinction. Unfortunately for me, they don't agree with my position that the amendment refers only to armaments in a well regulated militia.

[Grizzly Willy]

It has nothing to do with locals versus us. It's locals versus locals. Iraqi on Iraqi crime. Iraqis with guns decided that they were going to take advantage of the lawlessness. Guns made the situation far worse, not better. Citizens with guns didn't keep the peace. They didn't solve the problem. They WERE the problem.

You knew that of course. Nice attempted deflection.

I'm not sure there's a valid comparison to be had between the U.S. and Iraq.

[chadwix]

Our gov in action.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...puVezePd6trYoM

Just get a pair of scissors, no more mass shootings.

Its also not a good idea to show people how to use scissors as weapons, what the hell are they doing?

[Sicarus]

There are a lot of us who want to strip away what you laughably call "home defense" because it's a delusion. If you really think every man having a gun and defending their home is effective or in any way shape in form an alternative to aggressive policing, I suggest you talk to American Colonels and Generals who spent years in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Their problem was entirely (especially in Iraq), that every home had a gun, every block had a "protection group", which was really a gang by another game, and that as entirely predictable, men with guns in groups leads to crime. That's kind of the unsung part of the Iraq War: that for all the emphasis on fighting terrorists and insurgents, as much energy, money and manpower was spent fighting old fashioned gang land criminality, where money and power, not the Koran ruled.

The United States spent a decade and $150 Billion trying to build civil society, and especially a police force, not just to fight insurgents but to fight crime and make people feel safe in their homes so they would be less-inclined to resort to violence themselves. It barely got pulled off.

But if you believe your gun makes you safe in your home, we have a world class, recent counter example that empirically disproves it. Because Iraq wasn't made safer by every Iraqi Citizen being armed. It was made safer by ever more policing by US Soldiers and Marines (the Surge) and aggressively building up local law enforcement.

You want to feel safe? Pay more local taxes and get your town to hire more cops. Baghdad, New York, London, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris... it is proven to work.

The gun on the other hand? here is far more examples against them, rather than for them. They should be outright banned. All of them.

Wow. Just, wow.

We're in their country, trying to reform their idea of government, of course they're going to fight back, they don't want that, they're entirely justified in trying to defend themself.

I'm not saying I'm for them shooting our troops, but I'm saying, if it were them in our country, we'd do the same thing.

Also, hire more cops? Are you just ignoring the facts? Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York are all perfect examples of why gun control DOESN'T work.

There have been 40 murders this month alone in Chicago, and the month isn't even finished yet.

They crime in every place you listed, is also way higher than in places with less gun control, look at Kennesaw, Georgia's crime rate, every household there is mandated to own a gun, and their crime is soooo much lower.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 02:36 PM ----------

I'm not from the US, but I just don't understand the need for guns. What I've gathered is that if you ask an american why they have a gun, it's to protect themselves/their family. But if this is the case, then how come the rest of the world manages to survive without a firearm next to our bed?

Basically, crime here is lower than everywhere else. (Unless you're FusedMass and you try to say WELL JAPAN, they have a whole different culture there based on something the rest of the world no longer has, honor and shame.)

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 02:37 PM ----------

Our gov in action.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...puVezePd6trYoM

Just get a pair of scissors, no more mass shootings.

Its also not a good idea to show people how to use scissors as weapons, what the hell are they doing?

Get them quick before they ban 'em!

[Priestiality]

Yeah, they would surely want American civilians possessing military grade bombs.

Actually, they didn't want America to have a standing army. A majority of the 'Founding Fathers' opposed any sort of federal military force in peace time. Though, I've pointed out that it would be next to impossible to do that now given the whole "world police" thing.

[Maleficus]

There are a lot of us who want to strip away what you laughably call "home defense" because it's a delusion.

The gun on the other hand? here is far more examples against them, rather than for them.

Your post actually hurts my head...it really is that bad.

Anyway...friendo, come break into my home...or into one of the homes on that list of gun owners published by the paper. Then go back home and post how laughable the delusional "home defense" was.

Or, why not tell countless numbers of "un-raped" women how "useless" their guns were. (Of course, the media almost never covers any of these instances. But you knew that.)

Finally...you equating the US with Iraq is the proverbial icing on the "stupid cake." The cherry on top of it all is that you even cite Chicago as a model example. LOL man, really? Just stop.

No. Really. Stop.

[Rukentuts]

Actually, they didn't want America to have a standing army. A majority of the 'Founding Fathers' opposed any sort of federal military force in peace time. Though, I've pointed out that it would be next to impossible to do that now given the whole "world police" thing.

So I'm literally reading the Constitution, and it says no support for standing armies for more than two years...but no time limit on a navy?

[Bytch]

All you retards cant think critically or as in chess think that far ahead. Its a ploy. So, all you in favor of MORE gun control, are telling your ancestors to phuck off?

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.

In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.


http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html


PS..BTW. The 2nd Amendment gives me the RIGHT to match our military force or any other force weapon for weapon. No ..INFRINGEMENT!!!

[alturic]

Read a comment today, puts it all into perspective: "Back in the 1920's there were over 1.7 million Tommy Guns manufactured. Tommy Guns were machine guns that had up to a 100 round magazine. Yet, no one was killing children."

[Reeve]

All you retards cant think critically or as in chess think that far ahead. Its a ploy. So, all you in favor of MORE gun control, are telling your ancestors to phuck off?

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.

In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.


http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html


PS..BTW. The 2nd Amendment gives me the RIGHT to match our military force or any other force weapon for weapon. No ..INFRINGEMENT!!!

I'm not sure what you're going for with your elementary school playground insults, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't let you match our military weapon for weapon. The Supreme Court, the final arbiters of the meaning of the constitution have specifically said the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean you have a right to military grade weaponry.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 09:15 PM ----------

Read a comment today, puts it all into perspective: "Back in the 1920's there were over 1.7 million Tommy Guns manufactured. Tommy Guns were machine guns that had up to a 100 round magazine. Yet, no one was killing children."

The use of those weapons in organized crime is part of the reason the National Firearms Act was put together in 1934.