Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Laize]

There is no tyranny as possibility and I even doubt any american understands the term "communism" or "tyranny". But keep playing that part, im sure the regular gun owners are the ones making tyranny not possible, not the consitution, the laws, the politicians and the rest of the systems (economy as an example, markets...).

I'm not sure where people get the idea that tyranny is simply not a possibility.

It's incredible to think that there are people who believe that America is immune from tyranny... I wonder why.

Is it because our government is a Constitutional Representative Democracy? Because it's, frankly, hilarious if you think a Constitution can save you from a dictator.

So what is it that makes America so immune from tyranny? Neither a Constitution, Parliament or democratic elections saved Germany... so why are they so different for us?

[Deleted]

I'm not sure where people get the idea that tyranny is simply not a possibility.

It's incredible to think that there are people who believe that America is immune from tyranny... I wonder why.

Is it because our government is a Constitutional Representative Democracy? Because it's, frankly, hilarious if you think a Constitution can save you from a dictator.

So what is it that makes America so immune from tyranny? Neither a Constitution, Parliament or democratic elections saved Germany... so why are they so different for us?

Comparing a 21th century long time democracy to a facist regime under world war conditions is beyong retarded. Same goes to your statement that "owning a gun saves US from tyranny". Would suggest to go get yourself checked, your 2nd amendment no longer viable and the more you fail to understand that the more you will shift the problem on "gun control" dabate it as much as you can and accomplish nothing.

But was a nice try and yes America is immune from tyranny, because of the system in place, it does not function and could not function under one ruler, one party and oppress manner.

Rights are in place according to the human condition and needs to live and add on top of that democratic values as freedom of speech or religion but the "right to bear arms" is so far from any of this that still begs the question "how the fuck can you still have it there?"

[Deadvolcanoes]

As long as tyranny is a possibility, the 2nd Amendment has a purpose.

The rule of law and our system of checks and balances protect us from tyranny. You know, like how the Supreme Court just overruled Obamas recess appointments.

If a tyranny successfully developed by tearing down those laws and removing those checks and balances, then we're already fucked.

[PhaelixWW]

However if they deem a weapon to be both dangerous and unusual. They can legally ban it and it would be upheld. It also would fall outside the scope of the right to bear arms. That means the assault weapons would be banned in all states. Just like that.

I don't think you understand (what a shocker) what the Supreme Court (and in fact the whole judiciary branch) does. The SCOTUS doesn't pass laws; they merely interpret existing laws.

As such, they can't ban any firearm. They can unban firearms, by showing that the ban is unconstitutional, or they can set a precedent that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply in some way, leaving room for the legislative branch (Congress) to pass some kind of ban, but the simple act of setting that precedent wouldn't suddenly mean that those firearms were banned.

In latest string of attacks not one had an AK-47 in it at least the articles I remember. Yes almost all of them had semi automatic assault weapons. One weapon had heavy regulation while the other does not.

Dead horse, here. Most mass shootings involve handguns, not assault weapons. Stop ignoring this fact.

So you are proving my argument..make something difficult to obtain..you won't have as many..hint assault weapons could work ..regulation on assault weapons..not as many..less killings. I think you effectively proved my point.

Having fewer assault weapons would mean fewer assault weapon killings, sure. But it doesn't necessarily mean any fewer total killings, because semi-automatic handguns are, you know, just as lethal.

However AR-15 are in almost every single one of the situations and it's not regulated at all.

One sentence, two fails. AR-15 are used very, very uncommonly. You're just ignoring the scores of handgun shootings and focusing on the few, more widely publicized, AR-15 shootings.

And "not regulated at all"? Puh-leeze. Less regulated than automatic weapons does not mean "not regulated at all".

6-10 seconds is not insignificant in a real world situation.

You press a button and then slide a new magazine into place.

I could show anybody how to do it and I'd wager that at least 90% of them would be able to do it the very first time in about 5 seconds.

I mean, seriously. It's about as difficult as pulling your phone out of your pocket and turning on the screen.

Even in a gun controlled state such as California. After the initial sale you don't need a legal transfer.

Not accurate as far as California is concerned. In California, all firearm transactions are required to go through an FFL for the same paperwork, CA DOJ background check, and 10-day waiting period, just as if it were a dealer sale. Even selling a gun to your neighbor.

The only exceptions are for giving a firearm to your spouse, child/grandchild, or parent/grandparent, or for transferring a curio/relic firearm manufactured at least 50 years ago.

I swear to god I lose brain cells every time I read this shit.

yes let's only pass laws that criminals will obey.

That makes sense.

Since you didn't feel the need to respond to my rebuttal, let me post it again for you:

So we should only pass laws criminals would abide by?

This talking point has never made any sense.

As a statement by itself, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But taken in the particular context of this proposed ban, it does. The main difference is that most laws only punish the guilty, so even if criminals wouldn't abide by them, they're still worth passing.

This proposed ban, on the other hand, would punish the innocent along with the guilty, all in the guise of prevention. I mean, there are already plenty of laws about killing people, waving guns around, taking them into schools, etc. This ban wouldn't make it more easy to prosecute those criminals, so its only purpose is prevention.

In that kind of context, then yeah, the fact that only the law-abiding would comply with the law makes it rather pointless, don't you think?

Care to comment on that argument, Wells?

No dealer signs guns out to himself, goes to a gunshow and sells them privately as a general practice, or ATF would shut them down in a heart beat.

You are hilariously overestimating the ATF's reach.

You are hilariously underestimating the ATF's reach. The ATF may choose to let the little fish go, but that doesn't mean that they don't have the scope, or even the manpower, to do what's necessary if they wanted to. They simply don't care because it's such a small problem.

And if you think so little of the ATF's reach, how could you even begin to argue for more gun control and think that it would be effective? Wouldn't people just then defy the ATF with impunity?

The ATF has a presence at about 2% of all shows.

They need more power.

Reading comprehension. "Presence" is not the same thing as "undercover operations". There's a much, much higher percentage of gun shows with ATF presence; those 2% were just the ones with specifically targeted surveillance and investigation.

Oh it's easy. You just repeal the second Amendment with a new Amendment. Could take years, but you gotta start somewhere. And before then you can take legislative action.

I love that you characterize passing a Constitutional Amendment or punitive Congressional legislation as "easy". Sure gives people a look at how limited your capacity for logical reasoning is.

I'd ban all guns. Every last blah blah blah...

You seem to think lawmakers can pass any law they choose. And that there's not a significant percentage of lawmakers who would oppose these kinds of bills in the first place. And that the remaining ones wouldn't be swayed by lobbying, simple constituency response, a desire to get re-elected, or even common sense. Or even that, should laws like this get passed, that they'd somehow not run afoul of the judiciary. Or that law enforcement officers would even bother enforcing such ridiculous unwarranted punitive actions.

Then sure, I guess "it's easy".

Let me put it this way: if you have an ultra liberal government who legislated that guns will cost a hundred billion dollars each, it would be perfectly legal, because there is no law saying "guns can be affordable", just that ownership is permitted.

And the judiciary would find such a law unconstitutional by placing an unreasonable bar between the average citizen and their 2nd Amendment right.

I'll once again refer to my "Catholic Church Argument" I've made a few times in this thread.

Lets say the Catholic Church has a million priests in the world, and 99% of them are honest good people and 1% of them are pedophiles. That is 10,000 pedophile priests... 10,000 communities betrayed and millions of people whose faith has been harmed by the most vile of betrayals. The Catholic Church faces an immense problem of scale. 10,000 communities is about twice the number of "major" communities in the United States... its a big number world wide too.

Let's apply that to gun owners. I think someone said that there are 50 million gun owning households in the US. If 1% of those are in irresponsible gun owners and potential dangers to the community, that's still 500,000 families who shouldn't own guns, or 100 per major American community. That's unacceptable... that by the numbers, every major town or City in the US has 100 houses whose guns could cause tomorrow's Sandy Hook.

So in reality, the "99% of gun owners" argument is in fact, the BEST Argument for an outright ban possible. Because it is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. 99% of gun owners are responsible. It's the 1% that leads to 22 kids getting killed a week before christmas, and the ONLY way to possibly control that 1%, those 500,000 households, is an complete ban.

So... I guess we should ban the Catholic Church, too, eh? And postal workers. I hear they can get violent. Oh, and all African-Americans, 'cuz I heard there are gangs and shit. Oh, and white people. Shit, don't get me started on white people. The KKK, Nazis, slavery... white people are definitely the worst! Let's ban them all, because only a complete ban will stop the violence and oppression!

Stupid arguments are stupid.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 05:17 AM ----------

Oh, nice, 10000th post in this thread.

[GreatOak]

Oh, you are so hilariously mistaken. Time is not on your side. Not in the slightest.

Have you ever wondered why diverse cultures from Japan to the United Kingdom to France to Spain have all arrived at the same conclusion and nearly banned gun ownership? How do such diverse democracies arrive at the same conclusion?

It's because their populations live far more in cities than ours. In Many parts of Europe, the wealthy and powerful, the educated live in cities while working class folks live in the rural areas. In the US, its the other way around.

When you have more people in a concentrated area, public safety becomes a priority. People don't want to get shot walking home at night. So gun control goes up the importance queue.

And this is where you lose: the US is getting more urban, very very quickly. Urban sprawl has accelerated in the last twenty years. What was once "the suburbus" are now vital parts of major metropolitan areas. In another 20 years, todays suburbs will be tomorrow's college-sections of cities. With our growing American population, all of it in urban areas and suburbs becoming the refuge of the old, you will see a lot of young people, with families, who place their safety in these crowded areas as their highest priority.

And that is how guns are defeated once and for all in this country. Because the day will come when a highly urban future America places saftey of living in cities so high, these laws are passed easily, because people living in apartments in the city won't own guns, or be too far from the open spaces to go hunting or too a range.

That is how you lose: so long as Americans keep having kids, and Americans keep moving to cities, your hobby dies.

Let me ask a speculative question: what proportion of Americans owned a gun in the 1980s, when we were predominantly rural, compared to today? I bet you it's vastly lower. Because people in urban areas... Americans, Japanese, British... do not buy guns.

Time is in no way shape or form on your side. And it could take a century to win, as you say, but you still lose. And people like you will be looked at a century hence like how modern Americans look back at those who defended slavery 150 years ago.

So grats on being on the losing side. But at least you have your hobby.

People in urban areas don't buy guns? Fucking what? That's the most wacky and convicted logic I've heard. You make Fused look like a modern day Descartes.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 02:26 PM ----------

He's being a self-righteous prick, but that is pretty much the definition of a liberal these days.

Seems more like a Facist than a liberal, but that's just me.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 02:30 PM ----------

The rule of law and our system of checks and balances protect us from tyranny. You know, like how the Supreme Court just overruled Obamas recess appointments.

If a tyranny successfully developed by tearing down those laws and removing those checks and balances, then we're already fucked.

This is true, but I'd say its better to be armed with a rock against Goliath than nothing.

[Templar 331]

Umm you are aware that the AK-47 is also available in semi-auto. Just most people prefer the better AR. As a matter of fact the AK has a much larger ammo round. But you knew that right fused.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 08:30 AM ----------



Oh i don't know maybe the female that is home alone and someone kicks in her door with a glock in his hand with 20 rds since he isn't paying any attention to the laws. She is stuck with 11 rds because she is following the law. No matter how much you train under distress your alot worse shot so those extra 10 rds in magazine could be the difference of life or death.

Like I said before, if you need more the 10 bullets to kill someone, your in trouble. Especially if they're in your house or in the door way. Think about it, door ways and hall ways are choke points. Makes it easier to hit someone coming in your house. And I would hope the mother has been to a shooting range and learned how to shoot too.

[GreatOak]

Like I said before, if you need more the 10 bullets to kill someone, your in trouble. Especially if they're in your house or in the door way. Think about it, door ways and hall ways are choke points. Makes it easier to hit someone coming in your house. And I would hope the mother has been to a shooting range and learned how to shoot too.

What about more than one person? It isn't uncommon, especially in the inner city, for multiple people to break in a home.

[Templar 331]

What about more than one person? It isn't uncommon, especially in the inner city, for multiple people to break in a home.

Yeah, you'd be screwed if a whole gang came to your house. But lets say that 10 guys each with a gun holding 10 bullets came to your home to kill you. Would a larger clip save you? Not likely. Unless you get a head shot with each one of your bullets, XD.

But you could do like many have argued and reload faster.

[GreatOak]

Yeah, you'd be screwed if a whole gang came to your house.

I'm talking about 2 or 3 people, which is relatively common in relation to other break ins.

But lets say that 10 guys each with a gun holding 10 bullets came to your home to kill you. Would a larger clip save you? Not likely. Unless you get a head shot with each one of your bullets, XD.

Unless you're a professional, no. I'm not talking about that though

But you could do like many have argued and reload faster.

A magazine ban would not hinder criminals from using them simply because of how many are in circulation and the ease of duplication. Most people also don't have multiple loaded magazines next to their guns while in the home. A ban would literally make it harder for good people to defend themselves. Bullets often dont hurt people like they do in movies.

[Templar 331]

I'm talking about 2 or 3 people, which is relatively common in relation to other break ins.



Unless you're a professional, no. I'm not talking about that though



A magazine ban would not hinder criminals from using them simply because of how many are in circulation and the ease of duplication. Most people also don't have multiple loaded magazines next to their guns while in the home. A ban would literally make it harder for good people to defend themselves. Bullets often dont hurt people like they do in movies.

If 2-3 people came to your house, one mag would be enough to stop them if the person using it knew how to shoot it. I understand that people don't die from just one shot. But if shot in the right place, you can. You'd have to bleed out first, but you would still die. The point I'm making is you don't need a bigger mag to defend your home, you need more skill. Someone who is scared and empties a whole clip and hits nothing is screwed no matter how big that clip is. Someone with one clip and hits with every bullet isn't.

[GreatOak]

If 2-3 people came to your house, one mag would be enough to stop them if the person using it knew how to shoot it.

It's possible, but when confronted with such a situation you sink to your level of training. I would not gamble my life on such an arbitrary number, be it 10 or 7 bullets.

I understand that people don't die from just one shot. But if shot in the right place, you can.

If 2-3 people are rushing you in close quarters, you aren't getting good shots off.

You'd have to bleed out first, but you would still die. The point I'm making is you don't need a bigger mag to defend your home, you need more skill.

That isn't my choice to make. I'm not going to deprive a small woman or disabled person from having a higher ability to defend themselves because 10 bullets sounded better than 17.

Someone who is scared and empties a whole clip and hits nothing is screwed no matter how big that clip is. Someone with one clip and hits with every bullet isn't.

Once again, your skill level drops dramatically from whatever fantasy you have built up in your head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQiVBvy0m0

[Templar 331]

It's possible, but when confronted with such a situation you sink to your level of training. I would not gamble my life on such an arbitrary number, be it 10 or 7 bullets.

Like I said, go to a shooting range and learn how to shoot. If you don't know how to use your weapon then your going to miss no matter how many bullets you have.

If 2-3 people are rushing you in close quarters, you aren't getting good shots off.
That isn't my choice to make. I'm not going to deprive a small woman or disabled person from having a higher ability to defend themselves because 10 bullets sounded better than 17.

So your shooting from the hip? If you know anything about guns it's that you ALWAYS AIM before you shoot. You don't just pop off rounds until you hit something. And using small woman and disabled people as a shield in your argument is weak. And I think you underestimate thier chances with a gun. If they have learned how to shoot they won't need a large mag.

Once again, your skill level drops dramatically from whatever fantasy you have built up in your head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQiVBvy0m0

Glad to see where you get your opinion from. Someone whining about how impared they are because they can't carry more bullets. If your EVER in a situation where you need more than a clip, your in some SERIOUS trouble. Why would you go around carrying more than one mag? You are living in the US. Not some third world country.

And it's not some fantasy world I live in, it's reality. Your the one coming up with senarios about women and disabled people needing more bullets instead of coming out and saying YOU want them.

[Catta]

I just came back from a weekend of heavy drinking and no access to the outside world. Has anyone been shot while i was gone?

[Deadvolcanoes]

I just came back from a weekend of heavy drinking and no access to the outside world. Has anyone been shot while i was gone?

A school bus driver was shot while protecting a student from a crazed gun man. The gun man has taken the child hostage in an underground bunker and has been negotiating with police for six days.

The most deadly sniper in US history has also been shot to death.

I think that's it.

[Catta]

A school bus driver was shot while protecting a student from a crazed gun man. The gun man has taken the child hostage in an underground bunker and has been negotiating with police for six days.

The most deadly sniper in US history has also been shot to death.

I think that's it.

The child is still held hostage? Wow...

[alturic]

A school bus driver was shot while protecting a student from a crazed gun man. The gun man has taken the child hostage in an underground bunker and has been negotiating with police for six days.

The most deadly sniper in US history has also been shot to death.

I think that's it.

I don't remember what day it was, but a student in atlanta was also shot outside of the school.

I can't find (nor care) the weapon that was used to kill the ex-SEAL (the sniper) who was killed at the range as well as his friend.

Those are just the MSM reporting of killings though, I'm sure there was probably 10+ shootings that didn't make good enough headlines though.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The child is still held hostage? Wow...

Yeah...pretty fucked up situation. I feel like it should have ended by now.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...our-child?lite

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 11:10 AM ----------

I don't remember what day it was, but a student in atlanta was also shot outside of the school.

I can't find (nor care) the weapon that was used to kill the ex-SEAL (the sniper) who was killed at the range as well as his friend.

Those are just the MSM reporting of killings though, I'm sure there was probably 10+ shootings that didn't make good enough headlines though.

Of course. I was kidding. I'm sure there were a lot of people killed by firearms over the weekend. Including a 70 year old man who shot two attackers on self defense.

[alturic]

Yeah...pretty fucked up situation. I feel like it should have ended by now.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...our-child?lite

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 11:10 AM ----------



Of course. I was kidding. I'm sure there were a lot of people killed by firearms over the weekend. Including a 70 year old man who shot two attackers on self defense.

Oh I'm not saying you were being serious, I am saying that if something doesn't have a headline kinda buzz to it, it doesn't make the rounds. I would LOVE, just LOVE to see a MSM company put up a headline about someone defending themselves and killing would-be attackers.

Being in the webhosting/design business I been toying with the idea of setting up a site with a crawler of news agencies/police reports of shootings, listing them by day, and on the off chance one involved an "assault weapon" coloring the headline with a special color. It would be interesting to see how non-colorful the site would be. If only I had the time.

[Catta]

Oh I'm not saying you were being serious, I am saying that if something doesn't have a headline kinda buzz to it, it doesn't make the rounds. I would LOVE, just LOVE to see a MSM company put up a headline about someone defending themselves and killing would-be attackers.

Being in the webhosting/design business I been toying with the idea of setting up a site with a crawler of news agencies/police reports of shootings, listing them by day, and on the off chance one involved an "assault weapon" coloring the headline with a special color. It would be interesting to see how non-colorful the site would be. If only I had the time.

In my country its pretty much always headline if shots are fired.

[GreatOak]

In my country its pretty much always headline if shots are fired.

Your country is much more homogenous, established, cohesive, and has the population of 1 large American city. It's a lot easier to manage.

That is to be expected.