Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

US Soldiers are no longer given knives and nor are they given hand to hand combat training? Wow I must have missed that.

I can't recall the specifics, but I seem to remember some British soldiers that actually used bayonets during Iraq.

[Rocko9]

I can't recall the specifics, but I seem to remember some British soldiers that actually used bayonets during Iraq.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-honoured.html

[Roelath]

I can't recall the specifics, but I seem to remember some British soldiers that actually used bayonets during Iraq.

But that's impossible! Only bullets and explosions allowed in War!!

[Svifnymr]

We are awash in handguns though and that's not helping Mexico. Just because we're not the only source of guns in Mexico doesn't mean we're not a major one.

We have a lot of handguns, so I'm sure some make their way down there, certainly. That is different than a "massively underregulated gun industry" though. Stolen guns or straw purchased, both are against the law and already fall under many different regulations. A lot of guns do head down there via US government to Mexican government to cartels though and I'd not take long odds on the regulations Brazil or Venezuela follow. (That aside from the fact H&K or FN will happily ship to any government that they're allowed to via international law.)

[Skroe]

Your opinion completely for nearly the entire post but, I'll go to the areas where you're not calling someone insane for their personal choice(s).

You want to ban firearms and just as important it is for you... you want them to fight back. So you want people to die so they can understand that you're right and they're wrong. Do you have any idea how sick that sounds? You're not the future. You're the past. You're the conforming mass of people willing discarding their rights because THEY feel no need for them. Throughout history the populace has been typically disarmed and the Government (or whatever party involved that has had weapons) has typically enslaved the masses in one form or another. To cry "Insanity! Insanity!" goes to show your absolute ignorance of history itself.

Absolutely not. It's interesting that's where your mind jumped. I said "fight back" and you assumed violence. I do want them to fight and to lose a political battle. Laws, elections produce winners and losers. If we're going to disarm America, it needs to be clear: there was a side who won and a side who lost. Why do I want that? Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade did a tremendously right, fair, important thing by legalizing abortion, but it did it the absolute worst way possible. By contentious things like that, being resolved by the court, it let politicians / elected officials off the hook. It allowed them to demagogue and blame someone else for Roe v Wade. Would Abortion have been legalized in the 1970s were not it for Roe v Wade? Probably not. But I bet it would have happened in the 80s or 90s via a vote. A prohibition on it was becoming increasing indefensible. But the Supreme Court deciding this for the country robbed pro and anti abortion camps of the big fight and the big vote such a contentious issue deserved.

Look at Obamacare. Republicans went nuts about it for three years. Until they lost the 2012 election. Because not only did Obamacare pass, but Obama got reelected - his mandated confirmed. And now the daily rant and regular actions against it are subsiding because the battle was fought, and a side lost.

If we're going to take guns away from people, or do anything big and contentious like this, we need to have it our via our democratic process that produces a winner and a loser.

Don't forget. You share "a house" with me, so to speak and I share "a house" with you. Neither of us will get 100% of what we want. May the most well organized, financed and motivated win.

Do you believe we're living in a Star Trek world where we can suddenly start holding hands and make our onto the stars with our matter replicators? With everyone's desires in check? That time hasn't come... So why do you wish to ban the defense of the weak? A man or woman defending themselves from multiple attackers (Yes women still get gang raped in this world) will have a better chance with a pistol than they would with pepper spray or a taser.

No, we aren't there. But we should work on getting there, and having a gun in every home drags us back closer to the days of old where every peasant's hut in middle ages England had a crappy sword just in case highway bandits decided to rob you in the night. It's backwards. Like I mean that. Backwards. Primitive. I see gun owners as people pretty much one step up from worshiping a bearskull in a cave to ward off evil spirits. Humans created society to fulfill needs and promote safety through numbers. And to that end they created laws. We should reinforce the law as our shield to protect us from danger, principly by empowering the executors of the law - distract attorneys, judges, and police officers. All of that is more constructive to society as a whole then going down to Dick's Sporting Goods and buying a gun.

Guns also don't protect the weak. Often it is the weak who a victimized by guns. Ask people in West Africa living in fear of when the Lords Resistance Army will show up on their door step about it. Marauding men with guns.

Your idea of a "civilized" world is nothing more than just a fantasy because you don't even equate human interactions with one another. People are willing to commit violence against one another and just from your own post you're willing to send others to commit such violence when they've hurt no one else. By definition you're a Statist... a sick one at that.

My idea of a civilized world drags the United States kicking and screaming closer to Japan and Australia when it comes to gun laws. Not you, know... tribal Pakistan. Because when it comes to gun rights, never forget that your position is "let's have one more thing in Common with tribal Pakistan". Mine is "lets' have one more thing in common with Japan and Australia".

Exactly how do you see yourself on the right side of this? My theory: you just like your guns like any hobbyist and will do anything, say anything to justify their ownership. That's the thing about people no-days, they make exceptions for themselves so damn easily.

[Latetomyownfuneral]

Guns make killing easy. Point and pull. Adam Lanza was an untrained shooter. But he killed 28 people with ease because he expended next to no physical energy doing what he was doing. A bullet will kill more efficiently than a knife or a stab or a slash.

The "Guns are in the same class as hammers and knives" argument is such a laughably horrible one (that you should be embarrassed for even mentioning) for just that reason. How many more people would have died if Lanza didn't kill himself? How many more people would have died trying to take him down? If he chose a knife as his weapon instead, perhaps no one would have died. He could have been stopped by individuals wielding hockey sticks for pity's sake. But a high powered assault rifle? No teacher, no child stood a chance.

He didnt use an assault rifle. He used handguns. Second, assault rifles have been illegal for many years now.

But you are right, not child or teacher stood a chance. Not because guns make it easy to kill, but because there were no other guns to stop him. Why else do you think they mass shooters usually turn the gun on themselves when resistance shows up.

They want a free kill, not a shoot out.

[starlord]

So rather than scientifically and statistically estimating the variables, you'd rather ignore them completely? Sounds like a really good way to make a comparison.

Or have you jumped conversational tracks, yet again, and stopped talking about statistical comparisons?

i tried to, then you said statistical comparisons were completely irrelevant because "you cant know the variables that cause violence!!"

They amount of manpower required isn't huge. A reduction won't be needed. Passing a UBC law wouldn't result in more traces, merely a more accurate end result of a trace.

it would require more traces, since guns wont be anonymously traded in back alleys and drop off the face off the earth without any record.

[Wells]

Stolen guns or straw purchased, both are against the law and already fall under many different regulations.

What is against the law and what the ATF is actually capable of enforcing with the toothless bite they've been given are two different things.

And straw purchases aren't always illegal, such as with used guns.

[starlord]

Exactly how do you see yourself on the right side of this? My theory: you just like your guns like any hobbyist and will do anything, say anything to justify their ownership. That's the thing about people no-days, they make exceptions for themselves so damn easily.

thats what seems to be the case. they just fling whatever straws they can grasp at any suggestion of increasing accountability for guns.

[Skroe]

US Soldiers are no longer given knives and nor are they given hand to hand combat training? Wow I must have missed that.

US Soldiers and Marines are given hand to hand training but are no longer trained to use knives or bayonetts.

During the early phase of the Iraq War, Soldiers and Marines were trained with those, to the point hand to hand combat became mandatory for the first time. But it became, over the years, one of those things that was more a theory than effective in practice. In the last couple of years hand to hand combat became de-emphasized and training time cut down, and bayonets were not longer issued. Why? Because in close quarters, US service members found themselves reaching for their sidearm, rather than their knives. Because the stopping power of a bullet is greater than the stopping power of a knife. So to make training more efficient, knives were eliminated.

It turns out, despite what people expected, they weren't all that useful in Iraq. And going forward considering the US is resetting itself for "superpower warfare" as opposed to urban counterinsurgency, it's going to be de-emphasized even more. Small arms with range and rate of fire are again taking priority over more compact guns with higher precision and stopping power.

But effectively knives and bayonets have been phased out of the US Military in favor of smaller sidearms that service members in Iraq reported they actually used instead of their knives while in close quarters. The British Army did use them in Iraq though.

[Svifnymr]

What is against the law and what the ATF is actually capable of enforcing with the toothless bite they've been given are two different things.

And straw purchases aren't always illegal, such as with used guns.

ATF has operated the same since Clinton, through Bush, and into Obama. They are not toothless, they are simply glory hounds that let infer-bureaua politics and the desire to be in the press lead them. Look at Sandyhook. ATFE agents with full vests, M4's in hand, goggles and everything. For... what? It's hours after the shooting, they're supposed to be helping with an investigation...

And Straw Purchases are always illegal. Even a used gun sold through a dealer is still a gunsale. I assume you meant private sales though. Different discussion, which again comes down to enforcement and investigation.

But either way, that's a new goal post, we went from "under-regulated" to "under-enforced". No biggie, most folks would agree that enforcement is an issue and that at the least the agencies involved need to be more efficient with resources.

[Skroe]

He didnt use an assault rifle. He used handguns. Second, assault rifles have been illegal for many years now.

But you are right, not child or teacher stood a chance. Not because guns make it easy to kill, but because there were no other guns to stop him. Why else do you think they mass shooters usually turn the gun on themselves when resistance shows up.

They want a free kill, not a shoot out.

How delightfully conflict zone of you.



This is really want you want for America? To protect ourselves from guns... we should have more guns?

That's a solution your average Iraqi can get behind! And look how it worked out for them!

[Svifnymr]

US Soldiers and Marines are given hand to hand training but are no longer trained to use knives or bayonetts.

During the early phase of the Iraq War, Soldiers and Marines were trained with those, to the point hand to hand combat became mandatory for the first time. But it became, over the years, one of those things that was more a theory than effective in practice. In the last couple of years hand to hand combat became de-emphasized and training time cut down, and bayonets were not longer issued. Why? Because in close quarters, US service members found themselves reaching for their sidearm, rather than their knives. Because the stopping power of a bullet is greater than the stopping power of a knife. So to make training more efficient, knives were eliminated.

It turns out, despite what people expected, they weren't all that useful in Iraq. And going forward considering the US is resetting itself for "superpower warfare" as opposed to urban counterinsurgency, it's going to be de-emphasized even more. Small arms with range and rate of fire are again taking priority over more compact guns with higher precision and stopping power.

But effectively knives and bayonets have been phased out of the US Military in favor of smaller sidearms that service members in Iraq reported they actually used instead of their knives while in close quarters. The British Army did use them in Iraq though.

Where did you get any of this from? It's been M4 & M9 for a long time, no change in sight and knives are standard.

[Wells]

And Straw Purchases are always illegal.

Wrong.
Page 165. All you have to do is say its a gift. That's a hole you can drive a truck through.

[Eroginous]

No. If a personal has a dangerous mental disorder, the local community should know. Heck, chances are they already do. I mean, you're presuming from a kind of absurd position... that this stuff doesn't happen ALREADY. Growing up there was a kid down the street who was dangerously unstable... threatened the family with physical harm. He eventually had to be institutionalized. But it was known to the community that he was a danger.

Nope, this example and your earlier example of communicable diseases are protected by doctor/patient privilege. The only person who's qualified to discuss a person's medical status is a doctor and his/her patient, and neither one of them are obligated by law to disclose any of that information with the general public under any circumstances, even a court order. In the event of an outbreak, the CDC is only required to report that there is an outbreak and release information regarding the disease, treatment, and quarantine. They are NOT required to release personal information related to individual cases, as it is once again protected by doctor/patient privilege.

Someone said that such a registry would treat gun owners like sex offenders. I fully, 100%, embrace that. A child being inside a home with a gun in it is every bit as dangerous as being near a home with a sex offender in it. They are dangerous items and the community has a right to know who owns, them and how many.

Two things:

1. People don't have the right to know who has a gun or any other private possession. People have the right to protect themselves, that's it. That right stops just short of invading another person's privacy, especially within the confines of one's own home.

2. We register sex offenders because they have been found guilty and convicted of a sexual crime against another person, and thus forfeited their right to remain private and anonymous amongst the general public. These people have proven to pose a reasonable threat to the public, so we require these people to inform their community of their status because the community has the right to protect themselves.

A responsible gun owner and law abiding citizen does not pose a threat and has not been convicted of a gun related crime, therefore the community does not have a right to know his private information. No law enforcement or government official is required to disclose gun related information about an individual to the general public, and no private citizen is required to either.

We have car registration and driver licensing because driving a car is a privilege... not a right. There's no amendment to the constitution guaranteeing citizens the right to drive. Each citizen must participate in training and testing to prove they are competent to legally operate a vehicle because the consequences of improperly operating a car (even unintentional improper operation) can result in the loss of life, limb, and property to both the operator and other people. We require liability insurance by law because of this. By nature cars are used primarily in the public space, and all drivers share equal responsibility in making sure they are functionally capable of driving a motor vehicle without incident.

Guns are entirely different. Not everyone who owns a gun carries it outside of their home. Not everyone who carries a gun uses it in a way that could result in the loss of life, limb, or property. Just because someone owns a gun, doesn't mean they present a danger to themselves or anyone else, even in the most common of circumstances. If your neighbor has a gun, it's up to you and him to discuss those types of things before you send your children over there. If you don't feel comfortable allowing your child into that sort of situation, then don't let them go over there. Under no circumstances do you get to decide what your neighbor does or doesn't do in the privacy of his own home.

If you're bothered by that, you don't have to live near other people who might have firearms in their home. You can live wherever you want to, but so can everyone else.

Well the house has a gun. I thought it was protected?!?!

Are you saying that *gasp* anonymity and blending in an otherwise unarmed community offers greater protection than your hobbyist rifle?

Guns don't protect houses. People with guns protect themselves. Having a gun does not mean you want to invite every thug and criminal to a shootout in your home. Any responsible gun owner would want to avoid those types of situations whenever possible - hence the reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to gun ownership. I really don't know why you would even bring up such an argument, it's patently absurd.

it would require more traces, since guns wont be anonymously traded in back alleys and drop off the face off the earth without any record.

Once a firearm is in the hands of someone who isn't the registered owner, it can't be traced until it's recovered at the scene of a crime. That's the part you don't seem to understand. Even if every single illegal firearm was registered to a legal owner somewhere at some point in time, that means nothing to the criminal who has it. A gun registry won't allow the police to look up a stolen gun and pinpoint exactly who has it and where it's at.

That's the nature of an illegal gun - the person in possession of it and their name, location, ect, is unknown. There's no possible way for a gun registry to change that, which is why I keep telling you that it's impossible to determine the effects a gun registry would have on crime.

Wrong.
Page 165. All you have to do is say its a gift. That's a hole you can drive a truck through.

If you say it's a gift, you have to indicate who it's for, and that person is also subject to a background check.

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

[Rocko9]

US Soldiers and Marines are given hand to hand training but are no longer trained to use knives or bayonetts.

During the early phase of the Iraq War, Soldiers and Marines were trained with those, to the point hand to hand combat became mandatory for the first time. But it became, over the years, one of those things that was more a theory than effective in practice. In the last couple of years hand to hand combat became de-emphasized and training time cut down, and bayonets were not longer issued. Why? Because in close quarters, US service members found themselves reaching for their sidearm, rather than their knives. Because the stopping power of a bullet is greater than the stopping power of a knife. So to make training more efficient, knives were eliminated.

It turns out, despite what people expected, they weren't all that useful in Iraq. And going forward considering the US is resetting itself for "superpower warfare" as opposed to urban counterinsurgency, it's going to be de-emphasized even more. Small arms with range and rate of fire are again taking priority over more compact guns with higher precision and stopping power.

But effectively knives and bayonets have been phased out of the US Military in favor of smaller sidearms that service members in Iraq reported they actually used instead of their knives while in close quarters. The British Army did use them in Iraq though.

Marines are still trained to use bayonets and knives, don't know about the Army.

[Svifnymr]

Wrong.
Page 165. All you have to do is say its a gift. That's a hole you can drive a truck through.

Straw purchases are always illegal, gifts are a different matter, and lying either way does not mean it's not a violation of the law. You can buy a gift for someone so long as you're paying for it and they're not aware of the purchase, that's not a straw purchase since you are the actual purchaser. In addition, the end-recipient of course must legally be allowed to possess a firearm.

Edit to add, from your page:
" Where a person purchases a firearm
with the intent of making a gift of the
firearm to another person, the person
making the purchase is indeed the true
purchaser. There is no straw purchaser
in these instances. "

[Laize]

I wonder what gun ban advocates are going to do when 3D printers become affordable and usable by the layman?

[Grizzly Willy]

How delightfully conflict zone of you.


This is really want you want for America? To protect ourselves from guns... we should have more guns?

That's a solution your average Iraqi can get behind! And look how it worked out for them!

Right, because, you know, we're a destabilized war torn society.

Intellectual dishonesty looks bad on you.

[Wells]

Straw purchases are always illegal, gifts are a different matter, and lying either way does not mean it's not a violation of the law. You can buy a gift for someone so long as you're paying for it and they're not aware of the purchase, that's not a straw purchase since you are the actual purchaser. In addition, the end-recipient of course must legally be allowed to possess a firearm.

I'm going to buy a criminal a gun and call it a gift. I've just circumvented the law with zero effort. The whole system leaks like a sieve