Prestor Jon wrote:

In what way is " mass proliferation" of concealed carry paranoid? Mass proliferation is already the reality in Florida and every other shall issue state and reasonable may issue state. Every single Florida resident with a clean criminal record can get a concealed carry permit all they have to do is ask for one, that's it. If you want one you get one.

I want to retain my 2A rights and I'm a proponent of concealed carry so I have no problem with other law abiding citizens owning and carrying whether I know them or not. Crime is low, people are good, Liberty is awesome there's no paranoia needed. Is it paranoid to have a spare tire in your car, a fire extinguisher in your home, life preservers by a pool, etc? Anywhere you live in America the likelihood of you needing to shoot somebody in self defense is very low but that has nothing to do with your right to own guns and the respective ease in which you can concealed carry. Being prepared is a good thing.

The idea that everyone needs to carry guns to protect themselves is incredibly paranoid. Unless you live in a really bad area, it's not in any way nessisary. And the idea of arming the populous to stop mass shooters is laughable.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

In what way is " mass proliferation" of concealed carry paranoid? Mass proliferation is already the reality in Florida and every other shall issue state and reasonable may issue state. Every single Florida resident with a clean criminal record can get a concealed carry permit all they have to do is ask for one, that's it. If you want one you get one.

I want to retain my 2A rights and I'm a proponent of concealed carry so I have no problem with other law abiding citizens owning and carrying whether I know them or not. Crime is low, people are good, Liberty is awesome there's no paranoia needed. Is it paranoid to have a spare tire in your car, a fire extinguisher in your home, life preservers by a pool, etc? Anywhere you live in America the likelihood of you needing to shoot somebody in self defense is very low but that has nothing to do with your right to own guns and the respective ease in which you can concealed carry. Being prepared is a good thing.

The idea that everyone needs to carry guns to protect themselves is incredibly paranoid. Unless you live in a really bad area, it's not in any way nessisary. And the idea of arming the populous to stop mass shooters is laughable.

There's a difference between preparedness and paranoia. And again, you don't need a justification to exercise a right and in shall issue states you don't need a justification to carry concealed. If you want to exercise your right then you can, that's why it's a right.

Prestor Jon wrote:

. If you want to exercise your right then you can, that's why it's a right.

Unless exercising your right is endangering the others' own rights. Having a right doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it with no regards for others, especially when you become a threat for public order.

The question with concealed weapons is simple; how do you know if the people concealing weapons are bad guys or good guys? My answer would be you don't until it is too late.

Don't you agree that terrorists hiding weapons are a huge threat in themselves? How can you be sure the guy hiding weapons is not one? And how can you react to a surprise attack with your own gun if you can't see it coming?

I'm really astonished by some of the answers here. That someone is considering a 99% failure (and thus high risk of hurting innocent people with their own weapon) is an acceptable risk just to cover the single, rare case of reacting in time to an attack is beyond me.

But then, that's maybe because I'm not a gun owner myself and never had a situation when it would have helped me that much until now. Guess that's it's completely impossible in America.

 Sarouan wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

. If you want to exercise your right then you can, that's why it's a right.

Unless exercising your right is endangering the others' own rights. Having a right doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it with no regards for others, especially when you become a threat for public order.

The question with concealed weapons is simple; how do you know if the people concealing weapons are bag guys or good guys? My answer would be you don't until it is too late.

Don't you agree that terrorists hiding weapons are a huge threat in themselves? How can you be sure the guy hiding weapons is not one? And how can you react to a surprise attack with your own gun if you can't see it coming?

I'm really astonished by some of the answers here. That someone is considering a 99% failure (and thus high risk of hurting innocent people with their own weapon) is an acceptable risk just to cover the single, rare case of reacting in time to an attack is beyond me.

But then, that's maybe because I'm not a gun owner myself and never had a situation when it would have helped me that much until now. Guess that's it's completely impossible in America.

Nobody is saying that you can endanger or harm others. US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and they can exercise that right for whatever reason they want, no justification is needed. That's just a simple fact.

You can't lawfully carry a concealed weapon in the US without a permit, except in Vermont and Alaska. Vermont doesn't require a permit to do it, neither does Alaska but they will still issue permits to help residents get reciprocity from other states. People with concealed carry permits are good guys because it's impossible to get a concealed carry permit without having a clean criminal record and if you commit a crime that prevents you from keeping your concealed carry license it gets taken away.

The number of terrorists in the US is infinitesimal and the number of law abiding gun owners is in the tens of millions. I trust the law abiding gun owners because I trust myself and the other law abiding gun owners I know. I wouldn't want anyone to restrict my rights and I don't want to restrict others either. The vast majority of people are good people and there's no reason to be afraid of good people, regardless of if they're armed or what they're armed with.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A question for American dakka members:

Does becoming a crackshot or a very good shot, like any other skill, take hundreds of hours at the range, plus thousands of rounds expended in ammo? I'm willing to bet that it does...

It's whats know as "Perishable Skill":

Perishable skills are those skills that depreciate in effectiveness over time if they are not practiced

Like playing a musical instrument.

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A question for American dakka members:

Does becoming a crackshot or a very good shot, like any other skill, take hundreds of hours at the range, plus thousands of rounds expended in ammo? I'm willing to bet that it does...

It's whats know as "Perishable Skill":

Perishable skills are those skills that depreciate in effectiveness over time if they are not practiced

Like playing a musical instrument.

It also depends on what level of skill you want to maintain. I wish I had more time to practice and get better but staying proficient enough to hit a person sized target with all my shots from a distance of 30ft or less doesn't take that much practice time. If I wanted to be able to mozambique somebody at 25 yards that would take a lot more practice time than most gun owners ever do, be they civilian, LEO or .mil.

Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

And to be fair, nearly every gun owner on dakka makes this point, but the reaction in some quarters of the media has been if only there was somebody there with a gun to shoot the bad guy.

I'm not saying that good guys or gals haven't saved the day in the past, but your average citizen with a gun, shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic cure all.

You average citizen with a gun should also not be seen as as some kind of symptom...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

And to be fair, nearly every gun owner on dakka makes this point, but the reaction in some quarters of the media has been if only there was somebody there with a gun to shoot the bad guy.

I'm not saying that good guys or gals haven't saved the day in the past, but your average citizen with a gun, shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic cure all.

No doubt and concealed carry shouldn't be perceived as some magic cure all for anything. IF a patron of Pulse had been carrying maybe that person would have been standing near the shooter when he walked in and could have dropped him in the first few moments or maybe the armed patron would have been one of the first people shot down in the initial ambush or maybe the armed patron would have been standing by an exit and would have just helped by holding the door and directing others to escape. There's no way to know. And in point of fact nobody could have been armed at Pulse because Florida law prohibits carrying in establishments that derive 50% or more of their business from alcohol sales.

The fact remains that bad people who decide to go out and commit mass murder keep killing people until somebody makes them stop and the fastest, easiest and surest way to make them stop is to shoot them. The sooner somebody puts down rabid dogs the fewer people get bit and the faster an area becomes safe again.

Let me submit, as someone who has been shot at before, that I prefer the ability to shoot back, EVEN if I am just trying to break contact. There is something a bit unnerving about a bullet going closely past you that causes a bit of a flinch/makes you duck/otherwise tends to distract you. Even if just trying to help yourself and others un-ass a bad situation, causing that type of a distraction gains you seconds to minutes which may make a big darned difference.

 CptJake wrote:
You average citizen with a gun should also not be seen as as some kind of symptom...

I'm not trying to ridicule brave American men and women putting their lives on the line when they take on bad guys, but the usual suspects in the US media have been shouting that if somebody had a gun, The Orlando tragedy could have been prevented.

They said that same gak during the Paris attacks, as if having a gun automatically lets you see a bomb concealed underneath somebody's jacket.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

And to be fair, nearly every gun owner on dakka makes this point, but the reaction in some quarters of the media has been if only there was somebody there with a gun to shoot the bad guy.

I'm not saying that good guys or gals haven't saved the day in the past, but your average citizen with a gun, shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic cure all.

No doubt and concealed carry shouldn't be perceived as some magic cure all for anything. IF a patron of Pulse had been carrying maybe that person would have been standing near the shooter when he walked in and could have dropped him in the first few moments or maybe the armed patron would have been one of the first people shot down in the initial ambush or maybe the armed patron would have been standing by an exit and would have just helped by holding the door and directing others to escape. There's no way to know. And in point of fact nobody could have been armed at Pulse because Florida law prohibits carrying in establishments that derive 50% or more of their business from alcohol sales.

The fact remains that bad people who decide to go out and commit mass murder keep killing people until somebody makes them stop and the fastest, easiest and surest way to make them stop is to shoot them. The sooner somebody puts down rabid dogs the fewer people get bit and the faster an area becomes safe again.

I agree with this. Just saying there needs to be a balance between what is realistic and what is fantasy, when it comes to citizens defending themselves.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You average citizen with a gun should also not be seen as as some kind of symptom...

I'm not trying to ridicule brave American men and women putting their lives on the line when they take on bad guys, but the usual suspects in the US media have been shouting that if somebody had a gun, The Orlando tragedy could have been prevented.

They said that same gak during the Paris attacks, as if having a gun automatically lets you see a bomb concealed underneath somebody's jacket.

If people are saying that on the news they're disregarding the fact that Florida law prohibits anyone from carrying concealed in a business that derives 50% or more of their revenue from alcohol sales so none of the patrons were going to armed whether they had a concealed carry permit or not.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
curious where this is at, since the reports have no record of an officer trying to stop the gunman. in fact the police waited 3 hours before trying to take him out while they tried to negotiate with him. so i'm curious where this officer came from, there is mention of an officer being shot and his Kevlar helmet saving him, but nothing about an officer stopping or trying to stop him before the shooting.

You could try the story I linked a couple of posts ago or any other story that explains what happened, since they all mention it:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline/
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-pulse-shooting-tick-tock-20160613-story.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-omar-mateen-timeline/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/12/us/what-happened-at-the-orlando-nightclub-shooting.html
http://graphics.wsj.com/orlando-shooting/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/12/three-horrific-hours-orlando-nightclub-massacre/85788574/

ok lets go with your first link:

An officer working extra duty in full uniform at the club responds. He and two officers nearby open fire on the shooter, and a gunbattle ensues.

what was the officers responding too? also it does not mention he did anything before the other officers showed up, me thinks part of the story got cut there. also anyone notice how all those stories do not match? the first one says the shooter went into the club after the battle with the officers, the other one says he went to the bathrooms and so on and so on.


ok now we look at this:

Shortly after 2 a.m., Sunday, June 12

Omar Mateen enters Pulse nightclub armed with an assault rifle, a handgun and multiple rounds of ammunition and opens fire.

An off-duty officer working security for the club opens fire and is soon joined by two other responding officers, but Mateen gets past them and pushes back toward the bathrooms in the rear of the club.

which indicates the officers showed up after the initial shooting (mind you the initial shooting took place over several minutes (as some victims said about the length of a song), the officer was working security, so it begs one to wonder how the shooter even got in the place to begin with, with a rifle, we are not talking a pistol but a pretty decent sized rifle, you would have to be blind as a bat, once that is taken into consideration its no wonder the officer couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside the barn. as toi lighting the stage put off so much lighting the whole front was lit up, where the initial shooting took place.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

And to be fair, nearly every gun owner on dakka makes this point, but the reaction in some quarters of the media has been if only there was somebody there with a gun to shoot the bad guy.

I'm not saying that good guys or gals haven't saved the day in the past, but your average citizen with a gun, shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic cure all.

the shooting took place over several minutes, not seconds, but minutes, with the shooter walking around shooting people on the ground and such. this wasn't something that happened in a few seconds, this took minutes, in that time someone could have shot the shooter

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You average citizen with a gun should also not be seen as as some kind of symptom...

I'm not trying to ridicule brave American men and women putting their lives on the line when they take on bad guys, but the usual suspects in the US media have been shouting that if somebody had a gun, The Orlando tragedy could have been prevented.

They said that same gak during the Paris attacks, as if having a gun automatically lets you see a bomb concealed underneath somebody's jacket.

If people are saying that on the news they're disregarding the fact that Florida law prohibits anyone from carrying concealed in a business that derives 50% or more of their revenue from alcohol sales so none of the patrons were going to armed whether they

Actually an unarmed person took down a shooter in a Seattle school. so me thinks that is why the press is wondering why didn't somebody do something or did they?

So when our would be 'good guy' opens fire, what do other potential 'good guys' do?

Assume there's multiple bad guys? Magically know who's shooting people and who's shooting 'bad guys'.

If this get's drawn out, what do LEO's assume?

And when you've got armed 'good guys', what's to stop them having a bad day and becoming a 'bad guy'?

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So when our would be 'good guy' opens fire, what do other potential 'good guys' do?

Assume there's multiple bad guys? Magically know who's shooting people and who's shooting 'bad guys'.

If this get's drawn out, what do LEO's assume?

And when you've got armed 'good guys', what's to stop them having a bad day and becoming a 'bad guy'?

you mean like some Cops have done? this line you are going down has a way of backfiring on you if you continue down this path, right now this country is reeling from several riots still because of police shooting people.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So when our would be 'good guy' opens fire, what do other potential 'good guys' do?

Assume there's multiple bad guys? Magically know who's shooting people and who's shooting 'bad guys'.

If this get's drawn out, what do LEO's assume?

And when you've got armed 'good guys', what's to stop them having a bad day and becoming a 'bad guy'?

If there is only one attacker, that person is the one trying to murder everyone. The good guys are only targeting the attacker so if the attacker goes down the shooting stops. When the shooting stops none of the good guys keep shooting because they no longer have a target. If there are multiple attackers murdering people then the good guys are the ones shooting at the guys murdering people.

You can construct hypotheticial specifics of extremely rare occurences however you want. The fundamental fact remains that bad guys who start murder sprees keep murdering people until somebody stops them from doing so. More people in a position to stop a murder spree increases the odds of the murder spree stopping sooner rather than later. The sooner the murder spree stops the fewer people get hurt. That's a good thing. It doesn't matter who stops the murder spree, civilian, LEO, whomever, the important thing is that somebody has to stop it because otherwise the muderer keeps killing for as long as he/she wants.

Prestor Jon wrote:

You can't lawfully carry a concealed weapon in the US without a permit, except in Vermont and Alaska. Vermont doesn't require a permit to do it, neither does Alaska but they will still issue permits to help residents get reciprocity from other states. People with concealed carry permits are good guys because it's impossible to get a concealed carry permit without having a clean criminal record and if you commit a crime that prevents you from keeping your concealed carry license it gets taken away.

Sure, when committing a crime his license gets taken away, but his victims won't raise back from the dead. And of course, true criminals and terrorists don't really care about legality. Especially the ones who intend to die and just take as many people as possible with them.

I think you aren't naive to believe bad people can't get around the laws to easily gain a gun for their evil purposes, especially when so many are available nearly everywhere. There's always someone who will not be looking too much about the past of the guy who is willing to buy from them.

The number of terrorists in the US is infinitesimal and the number of law abiding gun owners is in the tens of millions. I trust the law abiding gun owners because I trust myself and the other law abiding gun owners I know. I wouldn't want anyone to restrict my rights and I don't want to restrict others either. The vast majority of people are good people and there's no reason to be afraid of good people, regardless of if they're armed or what they're armed with.

I see your point. But then, why having the need to carry any gun on you at all times if you genuinely think the vast majority are good people that you don't have to be afraid of? Just for the rare case you meet the bad guy and that you will absolutely need a gun to get out of that situation? And how are you sure the bad guy will give you enough time to use your gun at all?

Do you mean you need your gun to feel safe, even if the chances to a really bad encounter needing a gun to resolve are admittingly low?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm not saying that good guys or gals haven't saved the day in the past, but your average citizen with a gun, shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic cure all.

I agree. Guns don't solve everything. Owning one is a huge responsability, to me. Trouble is, when it becomes a casual thing, people tend to forget they are still dangerous. The fact there are so many tragedies in America in domestic accidents involving a gun not being handled carefully is not a hazard.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So when our would be 'good guy' opens fire, what do other potential 'good guys' do?

1. Assume there's multiple bad guys? Magically know who's shooting people and who's shooting 'bad guys'.

2. If this get's drawn out, what do LEO's assume?

3. And when you've got armed 'good guys', what's to stop them having a bad day and becoming a 'bad guy'?

1. Most conceal carried permit holders have some ( in some cases perhaps little) training. In my case, I would try to understand where the initial shooting was coming from and who they were targeting. In Orlando it would be clear Guy With Rifle is capping anyone he can. I would also see if others were shooting at anyone, or engaging Guy With Rifle, and base my decision on that. I assume most other folks who carry would go through a similar decision cycle. In my experience those who carry are pretty serious about not screwing up and getting into trouble.

2. Cops come into an active shooter situation YELLING who they are, often preceded by flash bangs. That would be my signal to lay flat hands visible and empty (dropping my pistol near me) and let the cops shoot it out/sort it out. Everyone there (armed or not) should expect to be zip stripped and pulled to safety/custody until each individual is cleared by the cops.

3. Stupid argument for limiting anyone's rights. Become a 'bad guy' and break the law, you pay for it. Use a weapon when you do it and the penalties are rightfully severe.

 Sarouan wrote:

I see your point. But then, why having the need to carry any gun on you at all times if you genuinely think the vast majority are good people that you don't have to be afraid of? Just for the rare case you meet the bad guy and that you will absolutely need a gun to get out of that situation? And how are you sure the bad guy will give you enough time to use your gun at all?

Do you mean you need your gun to feel safe, even if the chances to a really bad encounter needing a gun to resolve are admittingly low?

like me many probably think you don't really need something till you do and better you have it then to need it and not have it.

Asterios wrote:

like me many probably think you don't really need something till you do and better you have it then to need it and not have it.

That I can honestly understand. I know a colleague at work who has the permit to own one and she keeps it in her house because she feels safer that way. She's completely terrified at the idea of being robbed; even if it never happened to her, she hears so many stories in some media that she eventually gets scared. She isn't trained to use it, though. I suspect her case isn't uncommon in America as well - certainly even more, since it's easier to get and own a weapon there than here in Belgium, where it's strictly regulated.

 Sarouan wrote:

Asterios wrote:

like me many probably think you don't really need something till you do and better you have it then to need it and not have it.

That I can honestly understand. I know a colleague at work who has the permit to own one and she keeps it in her house because she feels safer that way. She's completely terrified at the idea of being robbed; even if it never happened to her, she hears so many stories in some media that she eventually gets scared. She isn't trained to use it, though. I suspect her case isn't uncommon in America as well - certainly even more, since it's easier to get and own a weapon there than here in Belgium, where it's strictly regulated.

when it comes to gun ownership I can never stress how much a person needs to be proficient with one let alone fire one, i've seen too many gun owners who never fired their weapon nor learned how to clean one let alone fire one, gun classes and gun ranges are there for a reason, so if you ever do need to use your gun you know what you are doing.

 Sarouan wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You can't lawfully carry a concealed weapon in the US without a permit, except in Vermont and Alaska. Vermont doesn't require a permit to do it, neither does Alaska but they will still issue permits to help residents get reciprocity from other states. People with concealed carry permits are good guys because it's impossible to get a concealed carry permit without having a clean criminal record and if you commit a crime that prevents you from keeping your concealed carry license it gets taken away.

Sure, when committing a crime his license gets taken away, but his victims won't raise back from the dead. And of course, true criminals and terrorists don't really care about legality. Especially the ones who intend to die and just take as many people as possible with them.

I think you aren't naive to believe bad people can't get around the laws to easily gain a gun for their evil purposes, especially when so many are available nearly everywhere. There's always someone who will not be looking too much about the past of the guy who is willing to buy from them.

The number of terrorists in the US is infinitesimal and the number of law abiding gun owners is in the tens of millions. I trust the law abiding gun owners because I trust myself and the other law abiding gun owners I know. I wouldn't want anyone to restrict my rights and I don't want to restrict others either. The vast majority of people are good people and there's no reason to be afraid of good people, regardless of if they're armed or what they're armed with.

I see your point. But then, why having the need to carry any gun on you at all times if you genuinely think the vast majority are good people that you don't have to be afraid of? Just for the rare case you meet the bad guy and that you will absolutely need a gun to get out of that situation? And how are you sure the bad guy will give you enough time to use your gun at all?

Do you mean you need your gun to feel safe, even if the chances to a really bad encounter needing a gun to resolve are admittingly low?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm not saying that good guys or gals haven't saved the day in the past, but your average citizen with a gun, shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic cure all.

I agree. Guns don't solve everything. Owning one is a huge responsability, to me. Trouble is, when it becomes a casual thing, people tend to forget they are still dangerous. The fact there are so many tragedies in America in domestic accidents involving a gun not being handled carefully is not a hazard.

You can't get a carry permit without a clean criminal record. If you haven't done anything wrong you get to exercise your right to own firearms. There's no reason to strip rights away from people that have done nothing wrong. Obviously criminals won't respect the law and if they really want to illegally obtain a gun they'll find a way to get one. That's true everywhere even in countries and places with very strict gun control. The fact that criminals can always find a way to illegally obtain guns is just another reason why law abiding citizens should retain the right to lawfully own guns.

You don't need to be afraid of anything to own a gun. Some of my guns are for self defense, some are for hunting, some are for target practice and some are for fun. You don't need a justification to exercise a right all you need is a desire to do so.

sure ban all guns and we will be seeing attacks like this in the US which happened in China a couple years ago (you know where guns are banned I believe?

http://news.sky.com/story/1219600/china-stabbing-33-killed-in-station-massacre

like I said if people want to kill people they will find a way.

How many times a year does China have mass satbbings on average, what's the average number of stabbed?

Assuming that the same number of mass shootings then translate into mass stabbings, would more or less people be injured/die?

How does China compare to other nations with gun bans? What is the rest of it's crime statistics like?

Etc etc, until you can reach a conclusion that isn't, this one time last year x country had a mass y.

Asterios wrote:
sure ban all guns and we will be seeing attacks like this in the US which happened in China a couple years ago (you know where guns are banned I believe?

http://news.sky.com/story/1219600/china-stabbing-33-killed-in-station-massacre

like I said if people want to kill people they will find a way.

And that would be an improvement as less people died in that attack. Progress!

Also, the fact that you had to go back a couple of years to find something even remotely similar in body count is kinda telling.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
How many times a year does China have mass satbbings on average, what's the average number of stabbed?

Assuming that the same number of mass shootings then translate into mass stabbings, would more or less people be injured/die?

How does China compare to other nations with gun bans?

well here is another one from the same year:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/at-least-50-reported-dead-in-september-attack-as-china-celebrates-xinjiang so that is 2 mass stabbings in one year.

as to gun laws private citizens are not allowed to own

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:
sure ban all guns and we will be seeing attacks like this in the US which happened in China a couple years ago (you know where guns are banned I believe?

http://news.sky.com/story/1219600/china-stabbing-33-killed-in-station-massacre

like I said if people want to kill people they will find a way.

And that would be an improvement as less people died in that attack. Progress!

Also, the fact that you had to go back a couple of years to find something even remotely similar in body count is kinda telling.

actually just looked up mass stabbings that was just one of them that popped up. and the other link had more dead and more injured then the recent nightclub shooting.

also from 2010 to 2012 China also experienced a lot of school stabbings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%9312)

anybody seeing a pattern here? replace knife with gun and what do all these attacks sound like?

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need to be afraid of anything to own a gun. Some of my guns are for self defense, some are for hunting, some are for target practice and some are for fun. You don't need a justification to exercise a right all you need is a desire to do so.

Of course you don't need to, but I think fear is a factor that shouldn't be ignored in the will of owning a gun. Otherwise, you wouldn't justify it for the cases of self defense.

I do understand that you are very attached to your rights and that you want to defend them. It's just that I feel weapons should be treated more carefully. When I read some reactions or articles, it looks like guns aren't thought like dangerous tools. They became such a casual part of people's life that it's like they're not paying much attention. It's like becoming an automatism, for example a woman taking a gun in her handbag like she would with her keys or cigarettes. And that's when they become really dangerous.

IMHO, that's why regulation is important. I don't think America will get rid of all its weapons, but having weapons as a casual thing you can buy in a Wallmart make it possible to lose sight of their nature. Only trained people who know what they are dealing with and take special care of them should be handling those, that's how I feel. I don't think it's the case everywhere right now in America.

 Sarouan wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need to be afraid of anything to own a gun. Some of my guns are for self defense, some are for hunting, some are for target practice and some are for fun. You don't need a justification to exercise a right all you need is a desire to do so.

Of course you don't need to, but I think fear is a factor that shouldn't be ignored in the will of owning a gun. Otherwise, you wouldn't justify it for the cases of self defense.

I do understand that you are very attached to your rights and that you want to defend them. It's just that I feel weapons should be treated more carefully. When I read some reactions or articles, it looks like guns aren't thought like dangerous tools. They became such a casual part of people's life that it's like they're not paying much attention. It's like becoming an automatism, like taking a woman taking a gun in her bag like she would with her keys or cigarettes. And that's when they become really dangerous.

IMHO, that's why regulation is important. I don't think America will get rid of all its weapons, but having weapons as a casual thing you can buy in a Wallmart make it possible to lose sight of their nature. Only trained people who know what they are dealing with and take special care of them should be handling those, to me.

no Walmarts by me sell guns, as to guns yes they are tools and you should respect and understand your tools, to have a CC permit in California you have to go to classes on use and such for your firearm, furthermore as shown in the above links I gave knives can be dangerous tools in the wrong hands too, anything can be used for wrong doing.

 Sarouan wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need to be afraid of anything to own a gun. Some of my guns are for self defense, some are for hunting, some are for target practice and some are for fun. You don't need a justification to exercise a right all you need is a desire to do so.

Of course you don't need to, but I think fear is a factor that shouldn't be ignored in the will of owning a gun. Otherwise, you wouldn't justify it for the cases of self defense.

I do understand that you are very attached to your rights and that you want to defend them. It's just that I feel weapons should be treated more carefully. When I read some reactions or articles, it looks like guns aren't thought like dangerous tools. They became such a casual part of people's life that it's like they're not paying much attention. It's like becoming an automatism, for example a woman taking a gun in her handbag like she would with her keys or cigarettes. And that's when they become really dangerous.

IMHO, that's why regulation is important. I don't think America will get rid of all its weapons, but having weapons as a casual thing you can buy in a Wallmart make it possible to lose sight of their nature. Only trained people who know what they are dealing with and take special care of them should be handling those, to me.

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings are rare already. Less would always be nice but there's no way to guarantee that and the govt is limited in the amount of regulation they can impose on a right.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings are rare already. Less would always be nice but there's no way to guarantee that and the govt is limited in the amount of regulation they can impose on a right.

well when I see kids who shoot themselves because their parents were idiots and stupid and ignorant of gun safety I do believe gun safety is an issue to be taught to both young and old. problem is video games these days have immunized kids to violence and such.

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings have been decreasing for a while, and frankly compared to other accidental injuries/deaths are pretty damned rare. Requiring a class to exercise a constitutional right ends up being an infringement on that right. It is too easy to make the classes expensive, rare, or excessively small, or use other tricks to make the requirement a de facto ban to ownership.

Really BAD idea if you actually think the 2nd Amendment is worth anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings are rare already. Less would always be nice but there's no way to guarantee that and the govt is limited in the amount of regulation they can impose on a right.

well when I see kids who shoot themselves because their parents were idiots and stupid and ignorant of gun safety I do believe gun safety is an issue to be taught to both young and old. problem is video games these days have immunized kids to violence and such.

And there are several videos on Youtube of LEOs accidentally shooting themselves or others. One in a pawn shop is pretty funny. And these guys have attended training.

 CptJake wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings have been decreasing for a while, and frankly compared to other accidental injuries/deaths are pretty damned rare. Requiring a class to exercise a constitutional right ends up being an infringement on that right. It is too easy to make the classes expensive, rare, or excessively small, or use other tricks to make the requirement a de facto ban to ownership.

Really BAD idea if you actually think the 2nd Amendment is worth anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings are rare already. Less would always be nice but there's no way to guarantee that and the govt is limited in the amount of regulation they can impose on a right.

well when I see kids who shoot themselves because their parents were idiots and stupid and ignorant of gun safety I do believe gun safety is an issue to be taught to both young and old. problem is video games these days have immunized kids to violence and such.

And there are several videos on Youtube of LEOs accidentally shooting themselves or others. One in a pawn shop is pretty funny. And these guys have attended training.

so true, its like some people just get stupid in a no stupid zone.

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings are rare already. Less would always be nice but there's no way to guarantee that and the govt is limited in the amount of regulation they can impose on a right.

well when I see kids who shoot themselves because their parents were idiots and stupid and ignorant of gun safety I do believe gun safety is an issue to be taught to both young and old. problem is video games these days have immunized kids to violence and such.

Those events are terribly tragic but we shouldn't let emotions overrule rationality and the preservation of Liberty. The government can't force people to be good parents it can only punish them when they're proven to be criminally awful parents.

 skyth wrote:
The thing is running away has a higher success rate than exchanging fire...

It does, which is why it's Plan A. When Plan A doesn't or can't work (you know, like I just fething said), there should be a Plan B. Your Plan B is "die." I find that unacceptable.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

Did you just not read the replies that were actually made to you or something? Your average cop is not particularly well-trained for this sort of thing, either. Or any sort of use of their firearm. It's why the NYPD hit what they were aiming at instead of an innocent bystander only .6% more often, and simply missed completely over 90% of the time. And those weren't club shootouts; most of the time we're talking about shooting at people who weren't shooting back.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Nobody is saying that you can endanger or harm others. US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and they can exercise that right for whatever reason they want, no justification is needed. That's just a simple fact.

Not in NJ you can't. As I've pointed out.

The bottom line for me is that I would be scared out of my mind in that situation, BUT if I was carrying, you're damn right I would return fire. I'd prefer not to be a fish in a barrel thank you very much, as all those poor people in the night club were on that tragic night.

Seaward wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The thing is running away has a higher success rate than exchanging fire...

It does, which is why it's Plan A. When Plan A doesn't or can't work (you know, like I just fething said), there should be a Plan B. Your Plan B is "die." I find that unacceptable.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

Did you just not read the replies that were actually made to you or something? Your average cop is not particularly well-trained for this sort of thing, either. Or any sort of use of their firearm. It's why the NYPD hit what they were aiming at instead of an innocent bystander only .6% more often, and simply missed completely over 90% of the time. And those weren't club shootouts; most of the time we're talking about shooting at people who weren't shooting back.

Many dakka gun owners have rightfully made the point that just because some gun owners have done bad things, it doesn't mean that every gun owner in the USA will do bad things.

So just because New York cops are bad shots, it doesn't mean that every American cop is no good with a gun.

The NYPD also has both notoriously low shooting qualifications and training, as well as pistols modified to have monstrously heavy trigger pulls to simulate the old double action revolvers they used decades ago (instead of retraining on the new equipment) which results in further accuracy issues.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The thing is running away has a higher success rate than exchanging fire...

It does, which is why it's Plan A. When Plan A doesn't or can't work (you know, like I just fething said), there should be a Plan B. Your Plan B is "die." I find that unacceptable.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

Did you just not read the replies that were actually made to you or something? Your average cop is not particularly well-trained for this sort of thing, either. Or any sort of use of their firearm. It's why the NYPD hit what they were aiming at instead of an innocent bystander only .6% more often, and simply missed completely over 90% of the time. And those weren't club shootouts; most of the time we're talking about shooting at people who weren't shooting back.

Many dakka gun owners have rightfully made the point that just because some gun owners have done bad things, it doesn't mean that every gun owner in the USA will do bad things.

So just because New York cops are bad shots, it doesn't mean that every American cop is no good with a gun.

Very true. However it does highlight the fact that it doesn't take much for civilian gun owners to have just as much or more training and practice than the average LEO.

well in Stockton the police hit what they are aiming for, it may take hundreds of thousands of bullets to do it, but they will turn a car into swiss cheese while killing a hostage.:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-stockton-bank-robbery-20150817-story.html

funny thing is I don't blame the cops for that, the bank robbers were driving up and down the streets of Stockton shooting at anything and everything, and even though pictures do not show it a block away from where that happened where the bank robbers were headed was a school, so while the loss of the hostage was tragic, it could have gotten a lot worse.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Very true. However it does highlight the fact that it doesn't take much for civilian gun owners to have just as much or more training and practice than the average LEO.

I know i'm a better shot then some of my friends on the force

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

Self-evident why? Because people REASONED and came to the conclusion that these rights were desirable.

Otherwise, prove that the right to free speech is inherent to man, and not a social construct. I'll wait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

No, but it's exceedingly silly to respond to a normative argument with "but it's a right!" as if that'd settle the question.

http://constitution.laws.com/who-wrote-the-constitution

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

Self-evident why? Because people REASONED and came to the conclusion that these rights were desirable.

Otherwise, prove that the right to free speech is inherent to man, and not a social construct. I'll wait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

No, but it's exceedingly silly to respond to a normative argument with "but it's a right!" as if that'd settle the question.

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms because it's right there in the constitution. It's been written right there in black in white for over 200 years. We've literally had it during the entire existence of our country. What are you arguing? You know the right exists, everyone does. You don't need to justify exercising a right that's always been true for all of our rights.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

Self-evident why? Because people REASONED and came to the conclusion that these rights were desirable.

Otherwise, prove that the right to free speech is inherent to man, and not a social construct. I'll wait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

No, but it's exceedingly silly to respond to a normative argument with "but it's a right!" as if that'd settle the question.

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms because it's right there in the constitution. It's been written right there in black in white for over 200 years. We've literally had it during the entire existence of our country. What are you arguing? You know the right exists, everyone does. You don't need to justify exercising a right that's always been true for all of our rights.

Do you not understand what a normative statement is? If someone is arguing how things ought to be (according to them), responding with what is essentially "well, that's not how it is right now" is pointless.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

Self-evident why? Because people REASONED and came to the conclusion that these rights were desirable.

Otherwise, prove that the right to free speech is inherent to man, and not a social construct. I'll wait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

No, but it's exceedingly silly to respond to a normative argument with "but it's a right!" as if that'd settle the question.

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms because it's right there in the constitution. It's been written right there in black in white for over 200 years. We've literally had it during the entire existence of our country. What are you arguing? You know the right exists, everyone does. You don't need to justify exercising a right that's always been true for all of our rights.

Do you not understand what a normative statement is? If someone is arguing how things ought to be (according to them), responding with what is essentially "well, that's not how it is right now" is pointless.

Normative statements are fine but it makes no practical sense to argue for legislative action based on normative statements that ignore reality. If somebody makes a normative statement and advocates for change to make that normative statement be true it's perfectly reasonable to point it that there are actual impediments to that action that need to accounted for.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

Self-evident why? Because people REASONED and came to the conclusion that these rights were desirable.

Otherwise, prove that the right to free speech is inherent to man, and not a social construct. I'll wait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

No, but it's exceedingly silly to respond to a normative argument with "but it's a right!" as if that'd settle the question.

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms because it's right there in the constitution. It's been written right there in black in white for over 200 years. We've literally had it during the entire existence of our country. What are you arguing? You know the right exists, everyone does. You don't need to justify exercising a right that's always been true for all of our rights.

Do you not understand what a normative statement is? If someone is arguing how things ought to be (according to them), responding with what is essentially "well, that's not how it is right now" is pointless.

Normative statements are fine but it makes no practical sense to argue for legislative action based on normative statements that ignore reality. If somebody makes a normative statement and advocates for change to make that normative statement be true it's perfectly reasonable to point it that there are actual impediments to that action that need to accounted for.

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

because if I need it I will have it. doesn't matter what I'll need it for, but if I have need of it to go hunting, or to defend myself or protect mine or overthrow a dictatorship I will have it and not be wishing I had it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

Ya see... that's what's great about living in this country.

... we don't have to give you a reason.

'Merica.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

Ya see... that's what's great about living in this country.

... we don't have to give you a reason.

'Merica.

Reason out the window then. Why are we arguing if that's the case? You're literally telling me that you don't need justification for the fundamental laws of your country.

Asterios wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings are rare already. Less would always be nice but there's no way to guarantee that and the govt is limited in the amount of regulation they can impose on a right.

well when I see kids who shoot themselves because their parents were idiots and stupid and ignorant of gun safety I do believe gun safety is an issue to be taught to both young and old. problem is video games these days have immunized kids to violence and such.

And there are several videos on Youtube of LEOs accidentally shooting themselves or others. One in a pawn shop is pretty funny. And these guys have attended training.

so true, its like some people just get stupid in a no stupid zone.

I'm not sure it's just a case of plain stupidity.

More like the society nowadays, by many means (television, video games, ...), shows plenty of weapons with barely no consequence for the user and/or looking like it's a very easy and casual thing. For example, the movies where you have some focus on the armed hero taking care of his gun cautiously aren't that many. Most of them show the action, the "fun thing" of using a gun.

Like I say, it's treated as a casual thing, so in some people's minds, it became just casual and think that's "it's no big deal". Until the day something bad happens.

It's quite understandable. Training takes time and following security procedures can be seen as boring and not that necessary (especially when you are in a hurry). When it becomes a pure automatism, that's when it becomes even more dangerous because you do it without being really aware. A mistake is fast to happen, but the bullet is faster - and there is no second chance if it hits the bad place.

That's why I think it's important to keep reminding people how dangerous weapons can be, all the time. And maybe showing less "fun things about guns", while more "be careful, guys, weapons can hurt and kill the user and/or his family as well".

That's not trying to remove the right for owning a gun, more like protecting people clearly not ready for having one from themselves...and also better inform the potential users.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

Self-evident why? Because people REASONED and came to the conclusion that these rights were desirable.

Otherwise, prove that the right to free speech is inherent to man, and not a social construct. I'll wait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

No, but it's exceedingly silly to respond to a normative argument with "but it's a right!" as if that'd settle the question.

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms because it's right there in the constitution. It's been written right there in black in white for over 200 years. We've literally had it during the entire existence of our country. What are you arguing? You know the right exists, everyone does. You don't need to justify exercising a right that's always been true for all of our rights.

Do you not understand what a normative statement is? If someone is arguing how things ought to be (according to them), responding with what is essentially "well, that's not how it is right now" is pointless.

Normative statements are fine but it makes no practical sense to argue for legislative action based on normative statements that ignore reality. If somebody makes a normative statement and advocates for change to make that normative statement be true it's perfectly reasonable to point it that there are actual impediments to that action that need to accounted for.

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

It's a irrelevant trick question. It's no different than saying why do you need free speech? Why do you need the ability to not incriminate yourself in court? Why do you need freedom of assembly? You don't need justification to speak freely or to assembly where you want or to plead the 5th in court. You don't need others approval to exercise your rights. Why do you think we do? We've never needed to justify exercising any of our constitutional rights.

Why I choose to own a gun has no bearing on my right to own one. I can offer any number of reasons or none at all because there are no right or wrong reasons to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

Ya see... that's what's great about living in this country.

... we don't have to give you a reason.

'Merica.

Reason out the window then. Why are we arguing if that's the case? You're literally telling me that you don't need justification for the fundamental laws of your country.

It was important enough to have been included in the federal constitution and seveal state constitutions. There has yet to be enough widespread sentiment agaisnt the right to get it removed from those constitutions. Since we already have it we get to exercise it for any reason we want. Why we got it in the first place is irrelevant to our ability to exercise it now.

To whom do you think we need to jusify our decision to exercise our right to keep and bear arms? The govenment? The government already allows us to do so, we already have their permission. Our fellow citizens? Our fellow citizens have the same rights we do and don't have any authority over us to forbid us from exercising our rights. I already have permission to all of the authorities who hold jurisdiction over me, there's nobody left to whom I need to justify my actions.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

Ya see... that's what's great about living in this country.

... we don't have to give you a reason.

'Merica.

Reason out the window then. Why are we arguing if that's the case? You're literally telling me that you don't need justification for the fundamental laws of your country.

I'm literally telling you that I don't need to give *you* or my government any justification to use a fundamental RIGHT in my country.

I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

if it ain't broken don't fix it, there is nothing wrong with the law, just some of the people in this country.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

if it ain't broken don't fix it, there is nothing wrong with the law, just some of the people in this country.

Appeal to tradition, that doesn't cut it.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

Ya see... that's what's great about living in this country.

... we don't have to give you a reason.

'Merica.

Reason out the window then. Why are we arguing if that's the case? You're literally telling me that you don't need justification for the fundamental laws of your country.

I'm literally telling you that I don't need to give *you* or my government any justification to use a fundamental RIGHT in my country.

I often find that when people ask me why I "need" to own a gun what they really mean is that they don't want to own one and don't understand why I "need" one so they want me to explain myself and try to convince them that they "need" to have one to. Which is a waste of time because of they don't want to own one then they don't have to get one. Nobody has to own a gun but if you're a US citizen who can lawfully own one you're allowed to get one, or two, or three or however many you want. I have no issue with anyone who can legally own a gun having one or choosing not to have one. It's a personal choice, I don't care why they make that choice because any reason is fine. I don't need to convince anyone else to own or not own a gun. We can all enjoy our freedom as we see fit.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

Ah... got ya.

Well... I'd posit that most people don't really think about *WHY* we need certain laws, and lived with since day one.

I think that it's incumbent on those who wants it repealed to justify Amending the Constitution.

I have my own reasons for wanting to keep it, but it's purely pragmatic. The bad guys will always be armed... no amount of laws/bans/restrictions will change that and I'm not waiting for some "government official" to bail my ass out if I'm still alive.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

I don't want to change it, I'm happy with it the way it is. I'd be more happy if we got rid of some of the excessive restrictions but I don't have a problem keeping things the way they are now. You really can't have a productive discussion about what changes to make to a law when only one side wants to change it. If both sides want to make different kinds of changes you can find a compromise change but if one side wants to change something and the other side wants to keep it as is there really isn't a compromise to be had because once side has to give up concessions to allow changes and the other side gives up nothing to force the changes. You want me to already agree with you that changes have to be made and just discuss what changes to make but I'm not conceding that changes are necessary at all.

 whembly wrote:

Well... I'd posit that most people don't really think about *WHY* we need certain laws, and lived with since day one.

And that's my point. There is zero point in trying to have a discussion if people refuse to think through the arguments for and against the concept being discussed.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

I don't want to change it, I'm happy with it the way it is. I'd be more happy if we got rid of some of the excessive restrictions but I don't have a problem keeping things the way they are now. You really can't have a productive discussion about what changes to make to a law when only one side wants to change it. If both sides want to make different kinds of changes you can find a compromise change but if one side wants to change something and the other side wants to keep it as is there really isn't a compromise to be had because once side has to give up concessions to allow changes and the other side gives up nothing to force the changes. You want me to already agree with you that changes have to be made and just discuss what changes to make but I'm not conceding that changes are necessary at all.

I'm perfectly fine with keeping the gun laws in the US as it is right now, actually. There's what, 300 million weapons in the US? Gun control would be a joke goal with such a number. There's simply no point. What I'm wanting you to concede is that responding to an argument about changing the constitution with "but that'd violate freedom X" is utter madness when the Constitution is the thing that lays out that freedom in the first place. It's circular argumentation.

This, of course, hinges on accepting the viewpoint that rights are a social construct, as opposed to something inherent in human beings. Hence why we as a society really ought to have justifications for our laws. Self-defence is a perfectly valid example of such, as is "as long as no one's hurt", but not "that'd violate my freedom!" when that's the entire point of the argument.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Well... I'd posit that most people don't really think about *WHY* we need certain laws, and lived with since day one.

And that's my point. There is zero point in trying to have a discussion if people refuse to think through the arguments for and against the concept being discussed.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

I don't want to change it, I'm happy with it the way it is. I'd be more happy if we got rid of some of the excessive restrictions but I don't have a problem keeping things the way they are now. You really can't have a productive discussion about what changes to make to a law when only one side wants to change it. If both sides want to make different kinds of changes you can find a compromise change but if one side wants to change something and the other side wants to keep it as is there really isn't a compromise to be had because once side has to give up concessions to allow changes and the other side gives up nothing to force the changes. You want me to already agree with you that changes have to be made and just discuss what changes to make but I'm not conceding that changes are necessary at all.

I'm perfectly fine with keeping the gun laws in the US as it is right now, actually. There's what, 300 million weapons in the US? Gun control would be a joke goal with such a number. There's simply no point. What I'm wanting you to concede is that responding to an argument about changing the constitution with "but that'd violate freedom X" is utter madness when the Constitution is the thing that lays out that freedom in the first place. It's circular argumentation.

This, of course, hinges on accepting the viewpoint that rights are a social construct, as opposed to something inherent in human beings. Hence why we as a society really ought to have justifications for our laws. Self-defence is a perfectly valid example of such, as is "as long as no one's hurt", but not "that'd violate my freedom!" when that's the entire point of the argument.

the point is its a freedom we fought long and hard for, many gave their lives so that we would have those freedoms, to remove even one of them is like saying they gave their lives for nothing but you say its a social freedom, ok what are human freedoms? the right to be free? some countries still have slaves, the right to breathe fresh air? don't tell that to China, the right to go where we want to go? then why do countries have borders? what are human rights to you? the Constitution is our Human rights for America, our rights do not exist outside of this country for us, but they do exist here for us, our inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yet that is not the case in the whole world so even those cannot be human rights.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Well... I'd posit that most people don't really think about *WHY* we need certain laws, and lived with since day one.

And that's my point. There is zero point in trying to have a discussion if people refuse to think through the arguments for and against the concept being discussed.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

I don't want to change it, I'm happy with it the way it is. I'd be more happy if we got rid of some of the excessive restrictions but I don't have a problem keeping things the way they are now. You really can't have a productive discussion about what changes to make to a law when only one side wants to change it. If both sides want to make different kinds of changes you can find a compromise change but if one side wants to change something and the other side wants to keep it as is there really isn't a compromise to be had because once side has to give up concessions to allow changes and the other side gives up nothing to force the changes. You want me to already agree with you that changes have to be made and just discuss what changes to make but I'm not conceding that changes are necessary at all.

I'm perfectly fine with keeping the gun laws in the US as it is right now, actually. There's what, 300 million weapons in the US? Gun control would be a joke goal with such a number. There's simply no point. What I'm wanting you to concede is that responding to an argument about changing the constitution with "but that'd violate freedom X" is utter madness when the Constitution is the thing that lays out that freedom in the first place. It's circular argumentation.

This, of course, hinges on accepting the viewpoint that rights are a social construct, as opposed to something inherent in human beings. Hence why we as a society really ought to have justifications for our laws. Self-defence is a perfectly valid example of such, as is "as long as no one's hurt", but not "that'd violate my freedom!" when that's the entire point of the argument.

We can argue about whether or not some rights are indeed inalienable but that would get us off on another tangent.

I freely admit that the constitution can be changed and amendments can be repealed. We've gone through that process 27 times already. It is extremely unlikely that the 2nd amendment could get repealed in the current politicial environment or in the near future but it's certainly possible. All of the numerous state constitutions that have gun ownership clauses in them could also be changed, each state has a process for that.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Well... I'd posit that most people don't really think about *WHY* we need certain laws, and lived with since day one.

And that's my point. There is zero point in trying to have a discussion if people refuse to think through the arguments for and against the concept being discussed.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

I don't want to change it, I'm happy with it the way it is. I'd be more happy if we got rid of some of the excessive restrictions but I don't have a problem keeping things the way they are now. You really can't have a productive discussion about what changes to make to a law when only one side wants to change it. If both sides want to make different kinds of changes you can find a compromise change but if one side wants to change something and the other side wants to keep it as is there really isn't a compromise to be had because once side has to give up concessions to allow changes and the other side gives up nothing to force the changes. You want me to already agree with you that changes have to be made and just discuss what changes to make but I'm not conceding that changes are necessary at all.

I'm perfectly fine with keeping the gun laws in the US as it is right now, actually. There's what, 300 million weapons in the US? Gun control would be a joke goal with such a number. There's simply no point. What I'm wanting you to concede is that responding to an argument about changing the constitution with "but that'd violate freedom X" is utter madness when the Constitution is the thing that lays out that freedom in the first place. It's circular argumentation.

This, of course, hinges on accepting the viewpoint that rights are a social construct, as opposed to something inherent in human beings. Hence why we as a society really ought to have justifications for our laws. Self-defence is a perfectly valid example of such, as is "as long as no one's hurt", but not "that'd violate my freedom!" when that's the entire point of the argument.

the point is its a freedom we fought long and hard for, many gave their lives so that we would have those freedoms, to remove even one of them is like saying they gave their lives for nothing but you say its a social freedom, ok what are human freedoms? the right to be free? some countries still have slaves, the right to breathe fresh air? don't tell that to China, the right to go where we want to go? then why do countries have borders? what are human rights to you? the Constitution is our Human rights for America, our rights do not exist outside of this country for us, but they do exist here for us, our inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yet that is not the case in the whole world so even those cannot be human rights.

Neither life nor liberty are inalienable in the US. Further, if having fought hard for a right means that we can't later change our minds, shouldn't the South still have the right to own slaves? After all, they fought really hard for that right, no?

There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Neither life nor liberty are inalienable in the US. Further, if having fought hard for a right means that we can't later change our minds, shouldn't the South still have the right to own slaves? After all, they fought really hard for that right, no?

There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

actually that is in the bill of rights, as to the south, yes they fought hard, but the north fought harder, he who wins makes the rules they say.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Neither life nor liberty are inalienable in the US. Further, if having fought hard for a right means that we can't later change our minds, shouldn't the South still have the right to own slaves? After all, they fought really hard for that right, no?

There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

actually that is in the bill of rights, as to the south, yes they fought hard, but the north fought harder, he who wins makes the rules they say.

Pretty sure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. Regardless, you have the death penalty and you put people in jail, so these rights are clearly not inalienable.

You're also now arguing that might makes right, which only makes sense if rights are, as I've been saying all along, a social construct. Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Neither life nor liberty are inalienable in the US. Further, if having fought hard for a right means that we can't later change our minds, shouldn't the South still have the right to own slaves? After all, they fought really hard for that right, no?

There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

actually that is in the bill of rights, as to the south, yes they fought hard, but the north fought harder, he who wins makes the rules they say.

Pretty sure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. Regardless, you have the death penalty and you put people in jail, so these rights are clearly not inalienable.

You're also now arguing that might makes right, which only makes sense if rights are, as I've been saying all along, a social construct. Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess.

yeah meant declaration, the bill of rights is the first 10 Amendments of the constitution, except those rights existed before, the south was not fighting for their right to have slaves, they were fighting for their right to make their own decisions (one of which was slaves), as far as the death penalty goes, you commit a crime you give up certain rights, like felons and such cannot vote, nor have the right to bare arms.

Still unsure how owning a man made invention thats about...700 ish years old is a "Basic Human Right". A basic human right that apparently trumps all over rights from the zeal that people have in defending that right.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

Governments and constitutions are social constructs. Those social constructs can guarantee rights. However, even in the absence of government every person still has basic human rights that can never be taken away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Still unsure how owning a man made invention thats about...700 ish years old is a "Basic Human Right". A basic human right that apparently trumps all over rights from the zeal that people have in defending that right.

It's a right because it's listed right there in the Bill of Rights and in several state constitutions. We're entitled to it because it's guaranteed by law that we have it. There are basic human rights, such as the right to self defense, for which gun ownership is well suited but no you don't have a basic human right to own a specific type of tool or object.

This'll be my final reply on the topic, I'll make a new thread so we stop filling this one with our constructivism vs. objectivism debate. It's a fascinating subject, but we might be going a bit off-topic.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

Governments and constitutions are social constructs. Those social constructs can guarantee rights. However, even in the absence of government every person still has basic human rights that can never be taken away.

Good luck proving that. Even if we were to accept that such was the case, those right become meaningless if they are not recognized, making the distinction rather moot anyway. We are afforded rights because we as a society have accepted that these rights are desirable and something that should be afforded everyone, universally. ISIS, on the other hand, do not agree that the right to life exists for anyone not following their crazy ideology, so in the territory held by ISIS, such rights are effectively non-existent.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Neither life nor liberty are inalienable in the US. Further, if having fought hard for a right means that we can't later change our minds, shouldn't the South still have the right to own slaves? After all, they fought really hard for that right, no?

There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

actually that is in the bill of rights, as to the south, yes they fought hard, but the north fought harder, he who wins makes the rules they say.

Pretty sure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. Regardless, you have the death penalty and you put people in jail, so these rights are clearly not inalienable.

You're also now arguing that might makes right, which only makes sense if rights are, as I've been saying all along, a social construct. Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess.

yeah meant declaration, the bill of rights is the first 10 Amendments of the constitution, except those rights existed before, the south was not fighting for their right to have slaves, they were fighting for their right to make their own decisions (one of which was slaves), as far as the death penalty goes, you commit a crime you give up certain rights, like felons and such cannot vote, nor have the right to bare arms.

...which means those rights aren't inalienable at all! What a shocker!

lloks like some are putting up a call to arms for the LGBT community to arm themselves to defend themselves.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/6612/west-hollywood-inundated-poster-rainbow-gadsen-hank-berrien

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This'll be my final reply on the topic, I'll make a new thread so we stop filling this one with our constructivism vs. objectivism debate. It's a fascinating subject, but we might be going a bit off-topic.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

Governments and constitutions are social constructs. Those social constructs can guarantee rights. However, even in the absence of government every person still has basic human rights that can never be taken away.

Good luck proving that. Even if we were to accept that such was the case, those right become meaningless if they are not recognized, making the distinction rather moot anyway. We are afforded rights because we as a society have accepted that these rights are desirable and something that should be afforded everyone, universally. ISIS, on the other hand, do not agree that the right to life exists for anyone not following their crazy ideology, so in the territory held by ISIS, such rights are effectively non-existent.

I would argue that the rights still exist they're simply not recognized by ISIS and are subsequently violated by them. For instance, everyone has the right to be secure in their own person, nobody has the right to murder or rape somebody else. ISIS might go around murdering and raping people because they're physically capable fo doing so but their ability to murder and rape doesn't mean that they have a right to murder and rape people. Because everyone has a right to be secure in their own person everyone also has the right to self defense so people can resist attempts by ISIS to murder or rape them and if people have to kill ISIS members to prevent those ISIS members from murdering and/or raping them those killings are justifiable and don't qualify as murder.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

Said bluntly:

It is not our job to defend exercising an existing right. It is the job of those wishing to restrict or take away that right to explain why they feel the need to do so, explain the process they intend to take, and the associated costs. Once we understand your intent/goal we can see if your process/means actually address the intent/goal (most proposed gun control measures do not) and then we can judge if they are worth the associated cost.

The spoilered video helps explain what is involved in banning guns in the US:

After seeing Obama's remarks during the Orlando memorial:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-visiting-families-victims-orlando/story?id=39885188

I can't fething wait till he's retired and I'm EVEN LOOKING forward to the HRC Administration.

Why is it that Obama calls for some reflection on our rights, whenever someone abuses our liberty, and yet nary says a word about Islamic extremisms?

 whembly wrote:
After seeing Obama's remarks during the Orlando memorial:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-visiting-families-victims-orlando/story?id=39885188

I can't fething wait till he's retired and I'm EVEN LOOKING forward to the HRC Administration.

Why is it that Obama calls for some reflection on our rights, whenever someone abuses our liberty, and yet nary says a word about Islamic extremisms?

you do realize HRC is following in his shoes? she has yet to mention the reason other then to push for gun control and so forth, even some democrats are saying Obama should say it is what it is, and if HRC does not get behind that too it will hurt her in the election.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Still unsure how owning a man made invention thats about...700 ish years old is a "Basic Human Right". A basic human right that apparently trumps all over rights from the zeal that people have in defending that right.

Swords, spears, bows and arrows, crossbows, maces, pikes, warhammers, etc.
Weapons have been around for a lot longer than 700 years and basic human rights slightly longer than that.

Throughout history most of those rights have been restricted to one extent or another.

Where do these rights come from? The mere fact that we exist means we have those rights.

Here is why:

The two things we see debated here are the freedom of speech and the right to self defense.

The right of speech comes from the fact that we have brains that are capable of cogent and critical thought and the ability to express those ideas and by so doing affect our communities. Suppression of that speech may be detrimental to the development and survival of that community.

Similarly the right to self-defense and ownership of the best available weapon comes from the fact that no one has the right to deprive you unjustly of your life.

Only by the due process of law may those rights be taken from us.

The US Constitution lists these rights as what government cannot take from you, and unlike other countries these are not privileges granted to us from the crown but are demonstrably inherent rights born into mankind as a whole.

actually the restriction of weapons is relatively new, before the past hundred years there was not really a restriction on weapons in civilian hands, the only real restriction was cost.

Hence why I said "best available weapon".

I don't think I mentioned anything about restrictions, although many of those have come about through misuse by others.

I think we are at critical mass where any more action by the US government toward firearms (past what encroachments already exist) would cause huge problems.

If we're going to start straying into veiled "the people will rise up and fix the problem" territory, we're about done here.

xraytango wrote:
Hence why I said "best available weapon".

I don't think I mentioned anything about restrictions, although many of those have come about through misuse by others.

I think we are at critical mass where any more action by the US government toward firearms (past what encroachments already exist) would cause huge problems.

problem is states are limiting guns in small ways when and where they can like here in California several laws are about to be signed and/or approved, they are:

Assembly Bill 1664 would reclassify hundreds of thousands of legally owned semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.” These are constitutionally protected firearms that have no association with crime. The changes would happen quickly at the expense of gun owners and without public notice. Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2013 and the California State Sheriffs’ Association has opposed this legislation.

Assembly Bill 1673 would expand the definition of “firearm” to include unfinished frames and/or receivers that can be readily convertible. Depending on how this vague terminology is interpreted, AB 1673 could essentially treat pieces of metal as firearms, subjecting them to California’s exhaustive regulations and restrictions currently applicable to firearms.

Assembly Bill 1674 would expand the existing one handgun a month law to include to long guns. AB 1674 will have no impact on criminal access to firearms and instead significantly hamper law abiding individuals, causing increased costs, time and paperwork to purchase multiple firearms. Criminals will continue to ignore this law purchasing firearms illegally, ignoring this burdensome and ineffective restriction.

Assembly Bill 1695 would create a 10 year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of falsely reporting a lost or stolen firearm. The NRA does not oppose making it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false lost or stolen report to law enforcement. Our reason for opposition is related to the restriction of a constitutional right for the conviction of a misdemeanor offense.

Senate Bill 880, similar to AB 1664, would make changes of monumental scale to California’s firearm laws by reclassifying hundreds of thousands of legally owned semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.” These are constitutionally protected firearms that have no association with crime. These changes would happen quickly with great individual costs to many gun owners and no public notice. Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2013.



Senate Bill 894 would require a victim of a crime to report to local Law Enforcement the theft of a firearm within an arbitrary time requirement of five days and the recovery of the firearm within 48 hours. Governor Brown has twice vetoed similar legislation stating, “I was not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns. I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not.”

Senate Bill 1235 would require the Attorney General to maintain information about ammunition transactions and ammunition vendor licenses and would authorize specified agencies, officials, and officers to disseminate the name of a person and the fact of any ammunition purchases by that person, as specified, if the subject of the record has been arraigned, is being prosecuted, or is serving a sentence for domestic violence or is the subject of specified protective orders. First and foremost, the reporting of ammunition sales has already been tried -- and failed -- at the federal level. SB 1235 would impose drastic and unjustified restrictions on law-abiding gun owners while doing nothing to reduce violent crime.

Senate Bill 1407 would make it a crime under California law for an individual to manufacture a firearm without first obtaining California Department of Justice (DOJ) approval to do so and subsequently engraving a DOJ-provided serial number on the firearm. This legislation should be opposed because it will effectively nullify the long-standing and constitutionally protected activity of building one’s own firearms. Governor Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2014.

Senate Bill 1446 would ban the simple possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges. The federal “large-ammunition feeding device” ban of 1994-2004 was allowed to sunset due in part to its ineffectiveness. Yet, California anti-gun legislators still are persisting with this ban knowing that the congressionally-mandated study concluded that “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban and the bans 10-round limit on new magazines was not a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.

I wasn't going in to that area, at all.

What I mean is that the debates will gridlock and nothing much more than that.

The previously posted video makes a pretty good point of it. The other thing that could happen is that if the whole nation became a gun-free-zone then Chicago's situation will spread like cancer. Australia is the example here.

Anyone care to recall what happened to Kev White when his home was invaded? Would that he had an effective means of defense, some sort of force multiplier, perhaps things might have gone different?

Far worse than a citizen uprising would be making a wide portion (60% I don't know how many Muricans own guns?) become criminals overnight for possessing a previously legal item.

The pen is mighty.

Asterios, you ninja'd me lol!

Yes I have heard of those awful restrictions, seen some videos on them. The bad part is that some of those are from the Senate and some of those are from the House, they've got you flanked with similarly worded propositions so that if one goes down the other comes in as a political blindside hit.

Maybe they'll get it sorted out, doubtful though as a lot of that is feel good legislation which we know is all that matters in California.

I don't believe it's possible to actually reign in America's gun problem with how many firearms are out there. At least, not within our lifetime. What people have to remember is that mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech aren't the majority of gun-related homicide in the country. Most of it is drug or gang-related iirc.

I would say America's high firearm homicide rate has a lot to do with the disenfranchisement of minorities and the questionably effective War on Drugs more than a loony who got his hands on a scary assault rifle.

@xraytango

How, and what, is Australia the example of?

xraytango wrote:

Yes I have heard of those awful restrictions, seen some videos on them. The bad part is that some of those are from the Senate and some of those are from the House, they've got you flanked with similarly worded propositions so that if one goes down the other comes in as a political blindside hit.

Maybe they'll get it sorted out, doubtful though as a lot of that is feel good legislation which we know is all that matters in California.

yeah i'm pretty sure some of these will get signed in and others will go to a vote of the public and well California is all snuggles and love while criminals are killing people left and right and they feel these laws will stop them, welcome to California the land of the dreamers.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
@xraytango

How, and what, is Australia the example of?

Certain parties in this eternal argument often use us as an example of gun control gone wrong. They won't listen to your explanations so it is easier to just ignore it, as much as it may grate.

Australians will never understand the freedom to have a mass shooting nearly every day.

well the thing with Australia is when the new gun laws came into effect there was a spike of gun crimes but eventually gun crimes reduced back to pre-gun law levels and while they have gone down a little it has not validated what they said would happen which would be a drastic drop in gun crimes which has yet to come about, that couple with their gun buy back program proved to be an utter failure with only 20% of possible guns being bought back.

my Family there do not think the laws will stand much longer.

Asterios wrote:
well the thing with Australia is when the new gun laws came into effect there was a spike of gun crimes but eventually gun crimes reduced back to pre-gun law levels and while they have gone down a little it has not validated what they said would happen which would be a drastic drop in gun crimes which has yet to come about, that couple with their gun buy back program proved to be an utter failure with only 20% of possible guns being bought back.

my Family there do not think the laws will stand much longer.

Right, we hear all about those mass shootings in Australia all the time. What with all the guns they do not have over there.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Asterios wrote:
well the thing with Australia is when the new gun laws came into effect there was a spike of gun crimes but eventually gun crimes reduced back to pre-gun law levels and while they have gone down a little it has not validated what they said would happen which would be a drastic drop in gun crimes which has yet to come about, that couple with their gun buy back program proved to be an utter failure with only 20% of possible guns being bought back.

my Family there do not think the laws will stand much longer.

Right, we hear all about those mass shootings in Australia all the time. What with all the guns they do not have over there.

no mention was made of mass shootings and to be honest mass shootings account for a very small portion of gun crimes, heck my own town has had more gun deaths and such then a certain night club shooting in a year and my town is not all that big.

Here is a quote from an article I found interesting, seems well written and fairly balanced (not in the Fox news way though)

Leave aside that Australia had—and has—far fewer guns and people than we do. Forget the bits about the gun lobby or Australia’s greater urbanization. The crucial point is the final one: Australia does not have a bill of rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the first. Progressives generally have no compunction about breaching the Second Amendment, but one wonders how many others they would be eager to violate in their quest to nullify the second. Civil war and a tattered Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking “Australia.” It is not a model; it is a mirage.

By Varad Mehta

Full article here: http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/

Too much is made of the Civil War fantasy, but it's hard to stay away from the possibility of that happening, it's an extreme example, but other than that - the article makes some interesting points I thought.

here's some more food for thought, pretty much explains how a gun ban in the US would really accomplish nothing.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:So just because New York cops are bad shots, it doesn't mean that every American cop is no good with a gun.

They're probably pretty representative. We'd have to comb through all officer-involved shooting reports for every county in the country for a given year to be sure, but I'd be surprised if they weren't. They're comparatively much better funded than most police departments, and the budget is the main reason why most don't do anything more than basic quals.

Vaktathi wrote:The NYPD also has both notoriously low shooting qualifications and training, as well as pistols modified to have monstrously heavy trigger pulls to simulate the old double action revolvers they used decades ago (instead of retraining on the new equipment) which results in further accuracy issues.

Everybody's got notoriously low shooting quals and training. Nobody has the budget to actually get good. It takes thousands of rounds per individual, per year, and that gets very expensive, very fast. I've yet to see a police qual that looked particularly difficult for anyone who even casually shoots.

Their trigger weight is certainly gak, but blaming bad accuracy on it is a bad habit. You can shoot the worst trigger in the world if you actually train with it.

Maybe the military should send them bullets instead of tanks.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Maybe the military should send them bullets instead of tanks.

The NYPD has an Abrams now? fething hell, I didn't know things were -that- out of control.

Still took them 16 shots to hit a guy.

well looks like Chicago which has some of the strictest gun laws and yet still stuff like this happens, furthermore Chicago has some of the highest gun deaths too, while also have the most stringnent gun laws:

http://fox40.com/2016/06/16/disturbing-video-chicago-man-gunned-down-while-broadcasting-live-on-facebook/

also from last year:

http://www.infowars.com/82-shot-15-dead-in-city-with-the-strictest-gun-laws-in-the-united-states/

Asterios wrote:
well looks like Chicago which has some of the strictest gun laws and yet still stuff like this happens, furthermore Chicago has some of the highest gun deaths too, while also have the most stringnent gun laws:

http://fox40.com/2016/06/16/disturbing-video-chicago-man-gunned-down-while-broadcasting-live-on-facebook/

The problem with local gun control is that criminals can easily acquire firearms from out of state. It's how the guys who shot up that clinic in San Bernadino acquired those highly illegal automatic weapons.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asterios wrote:
well looks like Chicago which has some of the strictest gun laws and yet still stuff like this happens, furthermore Chicago has some of the highest gun deaths too, while also have the most stringnent gun laws:

http://fox40.com/2016/06/16/disturbing-video-chicago-man-gunned-down-while-broadcasting-live-on-facebook/

The problem with local gun control is that criminals can easily acquire firearms from out of state. It's how the guys who shot up that clinic in San Bernadino acquired those highly illegal automatic weapons.

so even if guns are outlawed in the whole USA they can still be brought in by other countries, like they are now? or heck even from the government like the ATF's Fast and Furious operation ?

I have a question I'm not sure needs a new thread. Say England and Australia adopted gun laws similar to Texas next week. Would either country have large numbers of gun enthusiasts. I guess I'm asking is do those 2 countries not have guns still because of the government's or because the people genuinely don't want them.

xraytango wrote:
Here is a quote from an article I found interesting, seems well written and fairly balanced (not in the Fox news way though)

Leave aside that Australia had—and has—far fewer guns and people than we do. Forget the bits about the gun lobby or Australia’s greater urbanization. The crucial point is the final one: Australia does not have a bill of rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the first. Progressives generally have no compunction about breaching the Second Amendment, but one wonders how many others they would be eager to violate in their quest to nullify the second. Civil war and a tattered Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking “Australia.” It is not a model; it is a mirage.

The constitution is a document of law no more no less, it may be the highest in the land but it's a simple document of law all the same. It's no more above criticism and reconsideration than any other set of laws. God did not descend from the heavens and reveal that it was writ in the very workings of the universe that this shall be the way in america and no other way can be. It's fair to look at the 2nd amendment, or any other part of the bill of rights and the constitution as a whole and ask the question:

"Is this is still wholly and entirely a good idea as last interpreted? Why or why not?".

It's just not valid to answer any suggestion of things that may violate the 2nd amendment with "that violates it" because those arguments by definition are equivalent to saying that something is wrong with the 2nd amendment itself or that perhaps it's too broadly defined or loosely interpreted. I feel no great urge to go around seizing guns, but this entire line of thinking is just uselessly circular. The mere existence of the 2nd amendment in it's current form and interpretation is not justification or defense of the 2nd amendment in it's current form and interpretation.

This isn't to say I think there is any political will or broad support for in any changes to the 2nd amendment. So any discussion is going to be purely in the real of the hypothetical. The gun control debate is a non-debate, the issue has been settled. There won't be any substantive move towards gun control not in the lifetime of anyone reading this, and certainly not in the immediate future. It doesn't matter if you think gun control is a cure-all for our gun violence problems, totally worthless and pointless or something in between: It's not going to happen.

Still there is at least some value in discussing if our current course is the right one so that we might might have a bit more insight into our current situation.

 Chongara wrote:

xraytango wrote:
Here is a quote from an article I found interesting, seems well written and fairly balanced (not in the Fox news way though)

Leave aside that Australia had—and has—far fewer guns and people than we do. Forget the bits about the gun lobby or Australia’s greater urbanization. The crucial point is the final one: Australia does not have a bill of rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the first. Progressives generally have no compunction about breaching the Second Amendment, but one wonders how many others they would be eager to violate in their quest to nullify the second. Civil war and a tattered Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking “Australia.” It is not a model; it is a mirage.

The constitution is a document of law no more no less, it may be the highest in the land but it's a simple document of law all the same. It's no more above criticism and reconsideration than any other set of laws. God did not descend from the heavens and reveal that it was writ in the very workings of the universe that this shall be the way in america and no other way can be. It's fair to look at the 2nd amendment, or any other part of the bill of rights and the constitution as a whole and ask the question:

"Is this is still wholly and entirely a good idea as last interpreted? Why or why not?".

It's just not valid to answer any suggestion of things that may violate the 2nd amendment with "that violates it" because those arguments by definition are equivalent to saying that something is wrong with the 2nd amendment itself or that perhaps it's too broadly defined or loosely interpreted. I feel no great urge to go around seizing guns, but this entire line of thinking is just uselessly circular. The mere existence of the 2nd amendment in it's current form and interpretation is not justification or defense of the 2nd amendment in it's current form and interpretation.

This isn't to say I think there is any political will or broad support for in any changes to the 2nd amendment. So any discussion is going to be purely in the real of the hypothetical. The gun control debate is a non-debate, the issue has been settled. There won't be any substantive move towards gun control not in the lifetime of anyone reading this, and certainly not in the immediate future. It doesn't matter if you think gun control is a cure-all for our gun violence problems, totally worthless and pointless or something in between: It's not going to happen.

Still there is at least some value in discussing if our current course is the right one so that we might might have a bit more insight into our current situation.

That was a much better explanation of my point-of-view on the subject than I've managed so far.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I don't believe it's possible to actually reign in America's gun problem with how many firearms are out there. At least, not within our lifetime. What people have to remember is that mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech aren't the majority of gun-related homicide in the country. Most of it is drug or gang-related iirc.

I would say America's high firearm homicide rate has a lot to do with the disenfranchisement of minorities and the questionably effective War on Drugs more than a loony who got his hands on a scary assault rifle.

I think you could add in how we diagnose and treat 'loony' folks as well. We need some work on addressing mental health.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asterios wrote:
well looks like Chicago which has some of the strictest gun laws and yet still stuff like this happens, furthermore Chicago has some of the highest gun deaths too, while also have the most stringnent gun laws:

http://fox40.com/2016/06/16/disturbing-video-chicago-man-gunned-down-while-broadcasting-live-on-facebook/

The problem with local gun control is that criminals can easily acquire firearms from out of state. It's how the guys who shot up that clinic in San Bernadino acquired those highly illegal automatic weapons.

Both rifles used in the San Bernadino attack were standard AR15s. They were modified to remove the extra restrictions CA law has against AR15s but both of those guns could have been lawfully purchased as they were used in numerous states. Neither were fully automatic.

yellowfever wrote:
I have a question I'm not sure needs a new thread. Say England and Australia adopted gun laws similar to Texas next week. Would either country have large numbers of gun enthusiasts. I guess I'm asking is do those 2 countries not have guns still because of the government's or because the people genuinely don't want them.

As I understand it, which really isn't the best because I've never lived in either place.... There aren't and weren't really great numbers of enthusiasts. In the UK, there's farmers, competitive shooters, and maybe a hunter here or there. It's probably quite similar in Australia, since farmers have to constantly engaged in the life or death struggle of survival from the constant Drop Bear assaults.


I would estimate that the Australian gun buyback programs were pretty successful because the populace wanted things that way.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
I have a question I'm not sure needs a new thread. Say England and Australia adopted gun laws similar to Texas next week. Would either country have large numbers of gun enthusiasts. I guess I'm asking is do those 2 countries not have guns still because of the government's or because the people genuinely don't want them.

As I understand it, which really isn't the best because I've never lived in either place.... There aren't and weren't really great numbers of enthusiasts. In the UK, there's farmers, competitive shooters, and maybe a hunter here or there. It's probably quite similar in Australia, since farmers have to constantly engaged in the life or death struggle of survival from the constant Drop Bear assaults.


I would estimate that the Australian gun buyback programs were pretty successful because the populace wanted things that way.

This. The majority of our population do not want guns. We don't have mass proliferation of guns so our criminals, for the most part, do not have guns. This means that outside of specialist officers our police force does not carry guns and we don't feel like we need guns to protect ourselves, instead making use of things like cricket bats and cups of scalding tea.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
I have a question I'm not sure needs a new thread. Say England and Australia adopted gun laws similar to Texas next week. Would either country have large numbers of gun enthusiasts. I guess I'm asking is do those 2 countries not have guns still because of the government's or because the people genuinely don't want them.

As I understand it, which really isn't the best because I've never lived in either place.... There aren't and weren't really great numbers of enthusiasts. In the UK, there's farmers, competitive shooters, and maybe a hunter here or there. It's probably quite similar in Australia, since farmers have to constantly engaged in the life or death struggle of survival from the constant Drop Bear assaults.


I would estimate that the Australian gun buyback programs were pretty successful because the populace wanted things that way.

actually ranchers in Australia will fight for their guns, nothing like a Croc or two chomping down on your cattle to irk you some, or a goanna trying to eat your dog as a snack or meal.

then there is the classic Dingos after their babies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
I have a question I'm not sure needs a new thread. Say England and Australia adopted gun laws similar to Texas next week. Would either country have large numbers of gun enthusiasts. I guess I'm asking is do those 2 countries not have guns still because of the government's or because the people genuinely don't want them.

As I understand it, which really isn't the best because I've never lived in either place.... There aren't and weren't really great numbers of enthusiasts. In the UK, there's farmers, competitive shooters, and maybe a hunter here or there. It's probably quite similar in Australia, since farmers have to constantly engaged in the life or death struggle of survival from the constant Drop Bear assaults.


I would estimate that the Australian gun buyback programs were pretty successful because the populace wanted things that way.

This. The majority of our population do not want guns. We don't have mass proliferation of guns so our criminals, for the most part, do not have guns. This means that outside of specialist officers our police force does not carry guns and we don't feel like we need guns to protect ourselves, instead making use of things like cricket bats and cups of scalding tea.

or just maybe, just maybe it might be a sign of the times in the past couple years most countries have seen an uptick in crime (even UK https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/21/england-wales-homicides-rise-knife-gun-crime ) they may not be big upticks but an increase is still an increase, the issue is it could be because of over crowding and such, guns have been around for awhile and the guns being used now a days have been around quite a while too, but up until say 9/11 any form of mass shooting or such was very rare and a terrorist attack on US soil even was practically unthinkable and maybe happened what once? the issue as I see it stems from the internet, lets face it people want their 15 minutes of fame and back in the 70's and before people rarely heard about all the school massacres (oh yeah school massacres are nothing new, been going on for a couple of centuries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States and thats just the shootings), now a days things are all over the world as soon as they happen and groups like terrorists or troubled teens want to get their faces out there and its easy to do these days with the internet, blaming these instances on guns is a fools errand, its like blaming the car for someone who kills a person with one, do you see people calling for the banning of cars? no and yet cars have been involved in some very serious deaths and injuries with some people driving cars thru farmers markets running over people and such. so why blame a tool in one instance and not another?

This is a question I propose to those of you who support gun control or banning of guns, why are you wanting guns to be banned and cars not? both items have secondary uses, in fact last year more people were killed because of cars then because of guns, in fact just the first half of last year 19,000 people died because of car accidents just in the US, so it begs the question why are cars not banned? since gun control advocates seem to think it is the tool not the person responsible for the deaths, so with that same reasoning cars should be banned too.

I wasn't talking about self defense. Just in general would guns be popular as far as shooting, hunting, or general entertainment if they were allowed.

yellowfever wrote:
I wasn't talking about self defense. Just in general would guns be popular as far as shooting, hunting, or general entertainment if they were allowed.

so Kangaroos are not hunted?

yellowfever wrote:
I wasn't talking about self defense. Just in general would guns be popular as far as shooting, hunting, or general entertainment if they were allowed.

Guns are allowed in the UK, they just aren't very popular.

The restrictions are no pistols, rifles can only be bolt action, shotguns cannot be self-loading, and you have to have a "proper" reason for needing the weapon, such as culling deer, shooting partridges or target shooting. In other words no "entertainment". If people want to have fun with combat pistol and so on they use air guns or airsoft.

Also you have to be of good character and not have a criminal record or mental health problems and so on.

Once you have got a licence you have to store the gun and ammunition securely in locked cabinets. The police are entitled to check this.

Obviously from the US point of view the key problem with this is the idea that the police (i.e. government) check the licensing conditions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously from the US point of view the key problem with this is the idea that the police (i.e. government) check the licensing conditions.

They key problem, actually, is long before that; it's the complete disregard for the right to self-defense.

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously from the US point of view the key problem with this is the idea that the police (i.e. government) check the licensing conditions.

They key problem, actually, is long before that; it's the complete disregard for the right to self-defense.

We don't need them for self defence.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously from the US point of view the key problem with this is the idea that the police (i.e. government) check the licensing conditions.

They key problem, actually, is long before that; it's the complete disregard for the right to self-defense.

We don't need them for self defence.

I suspect Lee Rigby would not have minded having a gun, or minded if some of the folks who helplessly watched him get hacked to death had had a gun.

I would say target shooting is entertainment. You answered my question in your first sentence. I wasn't asking about the regulations. Just wondering if guns would be popular if given a chance.

 CptJake wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously from the US point of view the key problem with this is the idea that the police (i.e. government) check the licensing conditions.

They key problem, actually, is long before that; it's the complete disregard for the right to self-defense.

We don't need them for self defence.

I suspect Lee Rigby would not have minded having a gun, or minded if some of the folks who helplessly watched him get hacked to death had had a gun.

You think he would have saved himself with a gun? You do know they ran him over with a car travelling at 30 to 40 miles per hour before killing him with the knives and cleavers, right? Not to mention that after they had killed him they made no other threatening action until the police response arrived, something which definitely wouldn't have been the case had people started shooting at them.

Also, if we had guns here then they probably would've had a working gun rather than a non-functioning revolver. So the net result probably would've been more people dead.

yellowfever wrote:
I would say target shooting is entertainment. You answered my question in your first sentence. I wasn't asking about the regulations. Just wondering if guns would be popular if given a chance.

Well, they were given a chance before laws banning them came into play over there.

The US has (at least) .98 guns for every 1 person. The only country that's ever come remotely close was, IIRC, Serbia, at .58. Britain and Australia were nowhere near us even when guns were legal. (Yeah, yeah, I know you can still technically have a .410 with its breech welded shut if you wait twenty years and promise to never vote conservative or whatever.)

So no, it's extremely unlikely that any of the Commonwealth nations would have anywhere near the popularity of guns if they were suddenly easily available.

The UK also has some fundamental differences that work to make firearms much less popular. There's a lot more people packed into a lot smaller are in terms of proportional population density, making it hard to find places to shoot. They also have had severe restrictions and different social attitudes in place for well over a century. By and large you dont gave to worry about cross border cartel activities and the like the way many places in the US do, though I will note that Northern Ireland is an exception, and thus its still legal to possess handguns there and acquire carry permits.

Speaking as an Australian who enjoys shooting, likes to hunt, etc (not someone going on about dingoes eating babies or anything else stupid) it really isn't that necessary to own a rifle to shoot. Most of the time, to shoot, you'd want to have a mate who was out west (or east in Perth I guess...shudder) in the bush who owns land with a roo/pig/cat problem. You'd talk to him, organise a time, then go out, do your rooing, take the pelts and eat the ones you got/take the left overa back for his dogs.

Thing is, there are good odds your mate out west owns a few firearms already. So you can do the exact same thing for the cost of some ammunition and time zeroing one of his weapons to you. Which is, at least in my circles, the way we do it. So not many of us would probably buy a firearm, at most we'd mostly end up buying our own rounds rather than giving our mate some cash to square things up.

Hope thst helped clarify at least one of the (seemingly) common mindsets here.

Thanks guys. That's what I was wondering

 motyak wrote:
Speaking as an Australian who enjoys shooting, likes to hunt, etc (not someone going on about dingoes eating babies or anything else stupid) it really isn't that necessary to own a rifle to shoot. Most of the time, to shoot, you'd want to have a mate who was out west (or east in Perth I guess...shudder) in the bush who owns land with a roo/pig/cat problem. You'd talk to him, organise a time, then go out, do your rooing, take the pelts and eat the ones you got/take the left overa back for his dogs..

I always found roo meat too dang sweet for my tastes.

Another Point of view, it seems, with some evidence to back it up

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Another Point of view, it seems, with some evidence to back it up

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14

He must have missed the part where Federalist 29 states:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped

The people at large WERE the militia.

Lots of stuff to dispute the crap in your link: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

As Hamilton says in Federalist 28:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

More from the link:

The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))

Once they wrote 'The right of the people' they assumed folks were smart enough to know that meant The People. Otherwise they would have used the term Militia instead on People. They didn't. For a reason.

As the link points out:

three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the Second Amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period

A lot more than your link's cherry picking of Federalist 29...

he organized militia of this state taken collectively shall be known as the state military establishment and constitutes the armed forces of this state. The organized militia consists of the army national guard, the air national guard, and the defense force when actually in existence as provided in this act. The unorganized militia consists of all other able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied citizens who are residents of this state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be age 17 or over and not more than age 60, and shall be subject to state military duty as provided in this act.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(tibpliewgkd4vnxfvzwimvdm))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-32-509

§ 127A-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the State shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United
States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become
citizens of the United States, subject to the qualifications prescribed in this Chapter, who shall be
drafted into the militia or shall voluntarily accept commission, appointment, or assignment to
duty therein. (1917, c. 200, s. 1; C.S., s. 6791; 1949, c. 1130, s. 1; 1957, c. 1043, s. 1; 1963, c.
1016, s. 2; 1967, c. 563, s. 1; 1975, c. 604, s. 2; 2011-195, s. 1(a).)

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByChapter/Chapter_127A.pdf

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens...

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130


Just a sampling of a handful of the states, and what the legal definition of the "militia" is. Basically everyone. So can we stop that stupid line of argument?

 djones520 wrote:

Just a sampling of a handful of the states, and what the legal definition of the "militia" is. Basically everyone. So can we stop that stupid line of argument?

If the definition of militia is "basically everyone".... then why isn't it well regulated anymore?

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously from the US point of view the key problem with this is the idea that the police (i.e. government) check the licensing conditions.

They key problem, actually, is long before that; it's the complete disregard for the right to self-defense.

The 2nd amendment doesn't mention self-defence.

The basis of the court judgement in this case is that there isn't a fundamental right in English law for carrying concealed weapons, and that was carried into US law.

Thus, only people with a special need to carry a concealed weapon should be allowed to do so. For example in the UK, police and security officers in Northern Ireland can get concealed pistol licences, because they are at special threat from the IRA, while pistols are generally forbidden to the general public in the UK, who aren't.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The 2nd amendment doesn't mention self-defence.

Yet the Supreme Court has said it's a right inherent in the Second Amendment all the same.

The basis of the court judgement in this case is that there isn't a fundamental right in English law for carrying concealed weapons, and that was carried into US law.

And when a different, less 'progressive' circuit court says otherwise, the Supreme Court will settle the argument.

Then let's wait for that to happen. At the moment the decision of the court stands.

The current ruling of the Supreme Court is that the 2nd amendment grants the right to have a weapon in the home for defence. (This does not necessarily extend to carrying a weapon in public places.) Also, that individual states are not subject to the restrictions of the 2nd amendment.

The various relevant cases are listed in the Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Then let's wait for that to happen. At the moment the decision of the court stands.

The current ruling of the Supreme Court is that the 2nd amendment grants the right to have a weapon in the home for defence. (This does not necessarily extend to carrying a weapon in public places.) Also, that individual states are not subject to the restrictions of the 2nd amendment.

The various relevant cases are listed in the Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States

You probably ought to check out this one.

I did. Perhaps your interpretation of the decisions differs from mine. The tenor of your remark would seem to suggest that you believe the Supreme Court has ruled that the states cannot prevent people from having concealed gun licenses, which is the topic of the case.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I did. Perhaps your interpretation of the decisions differs from mine.

That wouldn't shock me at all.

The tenor of your remark would seem to suggest that you believe the Supreme Court has ruled that the states cannot prevent people from having concealed gun licenses, which is the topic of the case.

Well, no. This was the 7th Circuit (one of the other, less crazy circuit courts I referenced earlier), telling Illinois it couldn't outright ban concealed carry, because "[t]he distinct use of the words "keep" and "bear" in the text of the Second Amendment...implied the right to carry outside one's home, as in historical context, the meaning of the word did not limit it to the home and it would be awkward to attempt to assign that connotation to documents of the time period."

To quote someone from earlier in this thread, "At the moment the decision of the court stands."

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Just a sampling of a handful of the states, and what the legal definition of the "militia" is. Basically everyone. So can we stop that stupid line of argument?

If the definition of militia is "basically everyone".... then why isn't it well regulated anymore?

Perhaps the answer lies in the difference between how you understand the term 'well regulated' and how the folks in the late 1700s understood the term.

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I did. Perhaps your interpretation of the decisions differs from mine.

That wouldn't shock me at all.

The tenor of your remark would seem to suggest that you believe the Supreme Court has ruled that the states cannot prevent people from having concealed gun licenses, which is the topic of the case.

Well, no. This was the 7th Circuit (one of the other, less crazy circuit courts I referenced earlier), telling Illinois it couldn't outright ban concealed carry, because "[t]he distinct use of the words "keep" and "bear" in the text of the Second Amendment...implied the right to carry outside one's home, as in historical context, the meaning of the word did not limit it to the home and it would be awkward to attempt to assign that connotation to documents of the time period."

To quote someone from earlier in this thread, "At the moment the decision of the court stands."

The 7th circuit is correct in ruling that the 2A gives citizens the right to bear arms and the 9th circuit is correct in that the 2A doesn't explicitly guarantee a constitutional right to concealed carry. The issue that the 9th circuits narrow ruling doesn't address is that CA has outlawed open carry of any kind so if CA county sherrifs refuse to issue concealed carry permits then CA residents are being denied their constitutional right to bear arms. CA has to allow citizens who can lawfully own firearms a manner in which they can bear those arms as guaranteed by the constitution. That right can't be denied to CA citizens through an arbitrary process.

I have a question about this.

Your founding fathers said they gave rights to bear arms.

They where also against a standing army. But once they took over the country they created a millitary to keep control.

So if they changed their opnion when things changed why would the law to bear arms not change?

Things have changed quite a bit and e goverment coming to get you is no longer a real thing.

99% of the people are poor and if the 1% does anythig. To dsirupt that the army is also the 99%. The need for millitary weapons is no longer a thing civilians need to worry about unless they wish to millitarize against civilans.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The 7th circuit is correct in ruling that the 2A gives citizens the right to bear arms and the 9th circuit is correct in that the 2A doesn't explicitly guarantee a constitutional right to concealed carry. The issue that the 9th circuits narrow ruling doesn't address is that CA has outlawed open carry of any kind so if CA county sherrifs refuse to issue concealed carry permits then CA residents are being denied their constitutional right to bear arms. CA has to allow citizens who can lawfully own firearms a manner in which they can bear those arms as guaranteed by the constitution. That right can't be denied to CA citizens through an arbitrary process.

It's important to remember that the 7th Circuit case was brought about specifically because Illinois was the only state in the nation without some form of concealed carry law - it wasn't an open carry case, it was a concealed carry case. 7th Circuit said they had to come up with one or they'd be, by default, a state where people could carry concealed without a permit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I have a question about this.

Your founding fathers said they gave rights to bear arms.

They where also against a standing army. But once they took over the country they created a millitary to keep control.

So if they changed their opnion when things changed why would the law to bear arms not change?

Things have changed quite a bit and e goverment coming to get you is no longer a real thing.

99% of the people are poor and if the 1% does anythig. To dsirupt that the army is also the 99%. The need for millitary weapons is no longer a thing civilians need to worry about unless they wish to millitarize against civilans.

If that's the case, the Constitution contains a system for removing or altering the Second Amendment.

It would never occur while anyone currently alive is still alive, because American public opinion is strongly in favor of keeping the Second Amendment around.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I have a question about this.

Your founding fathers said they gave rights to bear arms.

No, the Founding Fathers do not say they GAVE the right to bear arms. They say the Gov't cannot take that right away. Subtle difference, but still a difference.

 CptJake wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I have a question about this.

Your founding fathers said they gave rights to bear arms.

No, the Founding Fathers do not say they GAVE the right to bear arms. They say the Gov't cannot take that right away. Subtle difference, but still a difference.

Yes but should t all laws be revisited based on the evolving cultures? Such as the majourity of us live within 8 feet of another person and millions of people are within eye sight in majour cities. Also now that weapons can kill dozens if not more people in seconds should the law be revisted such as the long rifle regestry?

I am just unsure if right to bear arms means the right to millitary grade equipment ment for only killing other humans. As shown by the countless mass shootings, how long until the majourity change their minds to be against millitary weapons.

If the goverment the current fathers of your country say that the majourity have voted and now they ar banning all millitary weapons from civilians will you agree? These are your current leaders and voted in by the majourity. So going against them would be spiting on the legacy of the founding fathers.



But I also have no dog in this fight so I am not bias either way.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I have a question about this.

Your founding fathers said they gave rights to bear arms.

No, the Founding Fathers do not say they GAVE the right to bear arms. They say the Gov't cannot take that right away. Subtle difference, but still a difference.

Yes but should t all laws be revisited based on the evolving cultures? Such as the majourity of us live within 8 feet of another person and millions of people are within eye sight in majour cities. Also now that weapons can kill dozens if not more people in seconds should the law be revisted such as the long rifle regestry?

I am just unsure if right to bear arms means the right to millitary grade equipment ment for only killing other humans. As shown by the countless mass shootings, how long until the majourity change their minds to be against millitary weapons.

If the goverment the current fathers of your country say that the majourity have voted and now they ar banning all millitary weapons from civilians will you agree? These are your current leaders and voted in by the majourity. So going against them would be spiting on the legacy of the founding fathers.



But I also have no dog in this fight so I am not bias either way.

Well, first off, the majority of mass killings are done with hand guns. Not rifles let alone 'military weapons'. So that kind of destroys your point. Our current leaders have a legal mechanism, described a few times in this very thread, to amend the Constitution to change the 2nd Amendment or even outright repeal it. Let them. The people and the States (who have to ratify the change) telling them to feth Off would be right in line with what our founding Fathers intended. Which is why the legal process is not an easy one.

And for what it is worth, 'Military Weapons' have been effectively banned for decades.


The 'right to bear arms' very clearly meant military weapons to include warships and cannon. So your ignorance of what the Founding Fathers intended and your clear distaste for civilian ownership of modern NON-military firearms seems to be coloring your thoughts.

 CptJake wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I have a question about this.

Your founding fathers said they gave rights to bear arms.

No, the Founding Fathers do not say they GAVE the right to bear arms. They say the Gov't cannot take that right away. Subtle difference, but still a difference.

Yes but should t all laws be revisited based on the evolving cultures? Such as the majourity of us live within 8 feet of another person and millions of people are within eye sight in majour cities. Also now that weapons can kill dozens if not more people in seconds should the law be revisted such as the long rifle regestry?

I am just unsure if right to bear arms means the right to millitary grade equipment ment for only killing other humans. As shown by the countless mass shootings, how long until the majourity change their minds to be against millitary weapons.

If the goverment the current fathers of your country say that the majourity have voted and now they ar banning all millitary weapons from civilians will you agree? These are your current leaders and voted in by the majourity. So going against them would be spiting on the legacy of the founding fathers.



But I also have no dog in this fight so I am not bias either way.

Well, first off, the majority of mass killings are done with hand guns. Not rifles let alone 'military weapons'. So that kind of destroys your point. Our current leaders have a legal mechanism, described a few times in this very thread, to amend the Constitution to change the 2nd Amendment or even outright repeal it. Let them. The people and the States (who have to ratify the change) telling them to feth Off would be right in line with what our founding Fathers intended. Which is why the legal process is not an easy one.

And for what it is worth, 'Military Weapons' have been effectively banned for decades.


The 'right to bear arms' very clearly meant military weapons to include warships and cannon. So your ignorance of what the Founding Fathers intended and your clear distaste for civilian ownership of modern NON-military firearms seems to be coloring your thoughts.

Not ignorance it is apathy at best. Also your ignorance for long rife regestry reffers to Canada.

But I will end it here because when someone starts a conversation and someone...... Expresses themselves in the way I believe your post was meant it is best to let them speak to themselves good day.

OgreChubbs wrote:

I am just unsure if right to bear arms means the right to millitary grade equipment ment for only killing other humans. As shown by the countless mass shootings, how long until the majourity change their minds to be against millitary weapons.

"Military Grade" is a buzzword, it doesn't really mean anything. Is there some sort of arbitrary rate of fire or caliber that makes it so? Is it some sort of specification? Does the simple use of a weapon by a military make it "military grade"?

Most bolt action hunting rifles out there are built on a Mauser action, the same Mauser action developed specifically for the Imperial Germany Army to kill other human beings, that served through two world wars and many other conflicts, in the armies of dozens of nations, and is the most widely produced and used military weapon behind the Kalashnikov and that likely has probably killed more human beings than any other infantry small arm except possibly the Kalashnikov. Does that make Grandpappy's bolt action hunting rifle a "military grade" weapon?

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Just a sampling of a handful of the states, and what the legal definition of the "militia" is. Basically everyone. So can we stop that stupid line of argument?

If the definition of militia is "basically everyone".... then why isn't it well regulated anymore?

Perhaps the answer lies in the difference between how you understand the term 'well regulated' and how the folks in the late 1700s understood the term.

Again, Federalist No. 29 gives an answer for that, a "well-regulated militia"... as we've established is "all able-bodied males" (in that time, today it's functionally everyone), but the regulated comes in the form that each state's militia should be drilled and regulated such that it can perform ALL of the duties expected of garrison, field, and battlefield army or navy.

If a specification is needed for "military grade" it can be developed. This obsession with denying definitions of terms is a peculiarity of the pro-gun movement.

The clear difference between a bolt action rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity of 6 or 8 rounds, and a semi-automatic rifle (AR-15) with a 30-round quick swap magazine, is that the effective rate of fire of the AR-15 unsurprisingly is a lot higher.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If a specification is needed for "military grade" it can be developed. This obsession with denying definitions of terms is a peculiarity of the pro-gun movement.

It's because labels get applied to a humongous variety of things with very little consistency and thus very threatening sounding names get applied wherever it's convenient to emphasize a point without having any basis outside of pro-guncontrol arguments.

The clear difference between a bolt action rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity of 6 or 8 rounds, and a semi-automatic rifle (AR-15) with a 30-round quick swap magazine, is that the effective rate of fire of the AR-15 unsurprisingly is a lot higher.

I'm not saying that there's no difference between a bolt action rifle a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. My point was that simply throwing around terms like "military grade weapons", largely in an attempt to portray something as being entirely unsuited to civilian use, is vague to the point of being meaningless beyond appealing to an emotional reaction. A single-shot bolt action rifle can be as "military grade" as a heavy machine gun or rocket launcher, while at the same time civilian weapons often can enjoy much greater performance over military equivalents as civilians can be more willing to devote the resources to a single platform to get more out of it. For example, a military M4 or M16, aside from having a giggle-switch, isn't going to match the performance (in terms of accuracy or effective engagement range) of a well built high end civilian AR15 because the military isn't willing to spend what it would cost to get that performance. Likewise, many weapons used by the military are modified civilian weapons, such as the Remington 700, used by the US army as the M24 Sniper Weapons System (which sounds *way* scarier than "Remington 700" despite being the exact same gun).

Terms matter, they shape arguments and perceptions, and vague or incorrect terms do make a difference, especially in firearms law. An AR15 with a normal grip is an "Assault Weapon" in law in CA or NY for example, but with a modified and angled grip, suddenly it's not an "Assault Weapon". Most people wouldn't bat an eye at a Ruger Mini-14 "Ranch Rifle" (which can be purchased even in CA or NY without hassle) but might flip out at the mentioning of a Ruger AR556 as an "AR15" variant (which *is* an "Assault Weapon" in places like CA and NY), despite firing the same round with largely the same rate of fire, accuracy, range, etc. A rifle with a 14.5" barrel with a 1.5" pinned flash hider is a normal rifle, but that same rifle with an unpinned flash hider is suddenly a highly controlled "Short Barreled Rifle" (mentioned by the current Administration as amongst "the most dangerous weapons"), or, even more silly, a CZ Scorpion Evo 3 Pistol, with no stock, is just a pistol, but put a stock on it and suddenly it's a controlled "Short Barreled Rifle" and also subject to 922r compliance on foreign parts counts. One of these is an unregulated "Pistol" with an arm-brace, the other is a Short Barreled Rifle with a stock and subject to NFA compliance. The terms matter.

As we've seen with AR15's, things can get weird. In the US, legally a firearm is the serial numbered receiver. That means for an AR-15 the part that is legally a "firearm" is this

Well, from that alone, what caliber is that weapon? Is it a rifle? A pistol? Is it centerfire or rimfire? Is it semi-automatic or bolt action? (yes bolt action AR's exist, particularly in places like the UK, CA, and NY). Is it an "Assault Weapon"? Legally it's not even an AR15, it's a New Frontier Armory G-15, whereas AR15 is a Colt Firearms trademarked product name, which is why despite banning AR15's by name, you can still get AR15's in places like CA if it's not a "Colt AR15".

In the highly politicized and legally controlled world of firearms, terms really do matter.

All the above being true, classifications can be made.

Absolutely classifications can be made, I don't disagree there. However, I don't think terms like "military grade" (or other things like "assault-style") have much meaning outside of just trying to make things sound scary.

 Vaktathi wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

I am just unsure if right to bear arms means the right to millitary grade equipment ment for only killing other humans. As shown by the countless mass shootings, how long until the majourity change their minds to be against millitary weapons.

"Military Grade" is a buzzword, it doesn't really mean anything. Is there some sort of arbitrary rate of fire or caliber that makes it so? Is it some sort of specification? Does the simple use of a weapon by a military make it "military grade"?

Most bolt action hunting rifles out there are built on a Mauser action, the same Mauser action developed specifically for the Imperial Germany Army to kill other human beings, that served through two world wars and many other conflicts, in the armies of dozens of nations, and is the most widely produced and used military weapon behind the Kalashnikov and that likely has probably killed more human beings than any other infantry small arm except possibly the Kalashnikov. Does that make Grandpappy's bolt action hunting rifle a "military grade" weapon?

I guess my gun knowledge needs upgrading ( no doubt lol) but I guess I am in my way due to my gandfather who was in ww2. He always said you only need a gun to hunt for food in your own country. So I guess iis alot more different then before but I thought the term millitary weaponry was considered semi auto clip feed.

Long rifles are all that I own and 2 hand guns for when I go visit the U.S.A.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All the above being true, classifications can be made.

Yeah, they did that with the first federal AWB.

It didn't work, because the people who wrote the law had no fething clue what they were talking about.

If all the experts are on the other side of the argument, perhaps that's a sign of something.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If a specification is needed for "military grade" it can be developed. This obsession with denying definitions of terms is a peculiarity of the pro-gun movement..

It's not a peculiarity. It's a wholly reasonable response to when people call for banning things, and then immediately revealing they have no idea what exactly it is they need to ban. People who don't know anything are calling for a restriction on rights that mean a lot to a lot of people. It's more than a little frustrating.

You know that the last AWB was completely stupid, you referenced it here somewhere. So it's very irritating that we appear to be heading for another one, once again framed around totally arbitrary stuff like barrel shrouds and pistol grips and bayonet lugs, all of which is in furtherance of reducing deaths in incidents that are already a teeny, tiny fraction of all homicides, let alone all deaths - all the time while crowing meaningless buzzwords like "common sense gun control" by people who generally believe that fully automatic weapons are lawful and easily accessible. All of this could be avoided if we had universal background checks, they swear, despite the fact the guy in the most recent event we're not talking about had multiple background and psychological tests - the last few high profile spree murders/mass shootings happened with lawfully acquired weapons!

Within 3 years, we're probably going to have a a ban on a class of rifles that kills about 250 people a year - or about half the people that are killed with hammers - even while knowing damn well everyone knows the last "assault weapon ban" didn't do anything useful, and that we're not going to do anything about, say, pistols, which kill 6,000 people in the US a year.

So it's not dissembling or diversion that is causing this "obsession with definitions", as you put it, it's at least asking for an attempt at an honest discourse with people who have made a minimal effort to speak intelligently on a matter.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All the above being true, classifications can be made.

To what end?

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All the above being true, classifications can be made.

Yeah, they did that with the first federal AWB.

It didn't work, because the people who wrote the law had no fething clue what they were talking about.

If all the experts are on the other side of the argument, perhaps that's a sign of something.

It is a sign that the "experts" don't have any interest in engaging with the process, in fact they want to frustrate it. This is because the pro-gun side doesn't want to help in any way something they fear might lead to gun control. It does not obviate the point that realistic classifications of guns can be made, and need to be made in order to study what weapons actually are dangerous and might be considered for legal curbs.

The same logic is behind the continual frustration of programmes to research gun deployment and gun violence in the USA, even extending to making it illegal to maintain a register of weapons.

This leaves both sides with arguments based on emotions and anecdotes rather than solid research. This obviously is useless for effective public policy, and tends to favour the status quo.

Research done partly in other countries indicates that having lots of guns easily available leads to a greater number of injuries, and worse injuries. This is also supported by basic public health statistics like the suicide rate and murder rate in the US. These of course can be disputed because of the factors I mentioned above.

However what we don't have is solid evidence concerning the benefits of guns. It has to be seen by both sides that there are benefits to guns. Everyone who wants a gun isn't a swivel-eyed loon planning a record-breaking massacre. The majority of guns are used for legitimate purposes.

The question should be whether illegitimate gun violence could be reduced by sensible controls without compromising worthwhile gun use. It's impossible to look into that in the current situation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


It is a sign that the "experts" don't have any interest in engaging with the process, in fact they want to frustrate it. This is because the pro-gun side doesn't want to help in any way something they fear might lead to gun control. It does not obviate the point that realistic classifications of guns can be made, and need to be made in order to study what weapons actually are dangerous and might be considered for legal curbs.

Well, no. That's remarkably untrue. Classifications of guns exist. People who know about firearms already make use of them - for instance, they accurately refer to genuine assault rifles as "assault rifles."

What the experts I mentioned have no interest in is helping a willfully ignorant political movement come up with new, politically-motivated 'classifications' solely for the purpose of fear mongering.

The NRA was on board with the federal AWB in the '90s. They learned the hard way why it was a terrible idea. They lost a lot of support to get a decade's worth of legislation that, by the government's own admission, didn't do a damn thing.

People who claim that banning high capacity magazines will be effective because "once you ban them, all the bullets in the remaining ones will eventually be used up!" don't care about facts. (And yes, that exact argument has been used by an elected official.) They're the guys claiming that the female body has ways to shut pregnancy down in cases of legitimate rape of the gun debate.

The same logic is behind the continual frustration of programmes to research gun deployment and gun violence in the USA, even extending to making it illegal to maintain a register of weapons.

Registries were made illegal because the anti-gun side has not been shy about how such registries would be used.

The question should be whether illegitimate gun violence could be reduced by sensible controls without compromising worthwhile gun use. It's impossible to look into that in the current situation.

No, it isn't.

It is, however, impossible to look into that when one side is trying to pass off, "Barrel shrouds alter .223 terminal ballistics and thus should be banned!" as sensible.

That's what I love about Dakka. Everyone is an expert in Constitutional Law and they're not afraid to prove it.

Seaward wrote:


... ...

It is, however, impossible to look into that when one side is trying to pass off, "Barrel shrouds alter .223 terminal ballistics and thus should be banned!" as sensible.

I am not clear how this is engaging with the issues. Instead of joining in the debate it is like standing on the sidelines heckling.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a sign that the "experts" don't have any interest in engaging with the process, in fact they want to frustrate it. This is because the pro-gun side doesn't want to help in any way something they fear might lead to gun control. It does not obviate the point that realistic classifications of guns can be made, and need to be made in order to study what weapons actually are dangerous and might be considered for legal curbs.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am not clear how this is engaging with the issues. Instead of joining in the debate it is like standing on the sidelines heckling.

How can you have a coherent debate when one side doesn't want to explain precisely what the debate is about?

I think you're making some assumptions. No one wants 6,000 people killed with handguns. No one wants mass shootings. I'd be OK with having a higher level of gun control if it meant that we would meaningfully reduce the number of firearms deaths in the country. I accept that my right to free speech has some limitations, such as fraud, or fighting words, or fire in a crowded theater, or any one of the commonly accepted restrictions we need on a right in order to have a workable society. I get that.

However, that's not the debate we're having. We're having arguments about how we need to ban high capacity magazine clips despite the fact that a very, very tiny percentage of all firearms deaths per year happen with rifles, that we need to have universal background checks to combat mass shootings (that were perpetrated by people who passed background checks).

You can't realistically accept people to roll over on having their rights infringed to further a new ban that would be similar to the old one, which did virtually nothing useful by anyone's measure - it was so ineffective the Obama administration made no attempt to renew it because of it's lack of efficacy.

The inability of people who wish to ban firearms to come up with a coherent plan is an actual, real problem; it's not just gun nuts being needless pedants because they don't want to have to cede anything. Look at this petition! You can't have an honest debate with the level of vagueness that has been presented, centered around a totally undefined political term.

I've already explained what I think the debate needs to be about. To be clear, I am talking about the debate in this forum. If people don't think it's worth pursuing I may as well close the thread.

I don't understand you, and I'm not being intentionally obtuse. I think there's an undercurrent here I'm not picking up on.

The point I am trying to make is that this forum is for our current members to debate issues such as gun control (in this specific thread.)

If people bring in stuff that some other people did 20 years ago as a reason for us not to debate things now, there is no point in the thread.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All the above being true, classifications can be made.

Yeah, they did that with the first federal AWB.

It didn't work, because the people who wrote the law had no fething clue what they were talking about.

If all the experts are on the other side of the argument, perhaps that's a sign of something.

It is a sign that the "experts" don't have any interest in engaging with the process, in fact they want to frustrate it.

Or it's a sign that one side generally doesn't really know what it's talking about and the other side is sitting there exasperated trying to point out that things that terms that are being thrown about don't really mean anything.

This is because the pro-gun side doesn't want to help in any way something they fear might lead to gun control. It does not obviate the point that realistic classifications of guns can be made, and need to be made in order to study what weapons actually are dangerous and might be considered for legal curbs.

Classifications exist. Nobody is going to argue about what the term "semi-automatic" or "bolt action" mean for example. Where people get rumphurt is when people use a term like "assault weapon" or "military grade" or "assault style" and press for legislation around said terms without them really having any meaning and being completely unused by those who actually engage in firearms activities, they're used almost exclusively by pro-guncontrol groups and media hype.

The same logic is behind the continual frustration of programmes to research gun deployment and gun violence in the USA, even extending to making it illegal to maintain a register of weapons.

Registries do exist of various sorts. There is extreme pressure against registries because there is conclusive evidence that they are both horridly maintained and eventually used to limit or take people's weapons. The NFA registry is a good example (which requires photographs, fingerprint and local chief law enforcement officer sign-off), where the ATF has been unable to maintain accurate records, including for machine guns, takes many months and sometimes in excess of a year to process transfer and permission to manufacture requests, and said registry has been used to ban the sale of certain weapons by not allowing new weapons on the registry. CA's "Assault Weapons" registry is another great example, where it's basically impossible to get off of it even after getting rid of said weapons and sending multiple certified letters to the CA DoJ to confirm as much, meanwhile CA uses that registry to send threatening sounding letters to people on it about their "responsibility for such dangerous weapons" every year and had a wonderful example of confiscation where it was decided that, after one of the rounds of AW bans, that a certain SKS model that wasn't originally covered really should have been, people dutifully registered them but then had to forfeit them after it was determined that the Registry was not allowed to be re-opened. Meanwhile, the actual value of these registries in solving crimes and tracking down suspects has been shown to be essentially zero, with few, if any, criminals actually tracked down via such registries.

So people learned the lesson that they don't really do anything to solve crime, aren't accurately maintained, take forever to process anything, and are routinely used to cut off access to certain weapons. That's why you get so much pushback against registries.

The question should be whether illegitimate gun violence could be reduced by sensible controls without compromising worthwhile gun use. It's impossible to look into that in the current situation.

The problem is that "sensible controls" are, more often than not, proposed solutions to problems that don't exist or are extremely minute.

There was the cry for universal background checks...after shootings where the perpetrators either passed background checks or murdered the legal owners and stole their weapons (thus bypassing any checks, such as with Sandy Hook). There have been cries for "Assault Weapon" bans, despite the fact that weapons covered by such bans are responsible for probably the least number of deaths of any type of firearm. Now there are cries for using No-Fly and Terror watchlists (which are secret lists subject to no due process) to prevent people from acquiring firearms in the aftermath of mass shootings, despite the fact that no mass shooting would have been prevented by such lists.

Shall I lock the thread, then?

That's your prerogative as a mod if you desire no further discussion on the topic.

I don't think we're having a discussion. We seem to having a series of points thrown up to prove that we can't have a discussion.

For example it is said that registration is never done properly and always leads to confiscation and therefore is undesirable, so it should not be discussed.

If we want to discuss this issue, we have to include registration on the agenda because it is the starting point to getting important data about how many guns there are in the country and who has got them.

Similarly we need to be able to identify different types of guns in order to the costs and benefits of them. The fact that in the early 90s someone invented a stupid way of classifying guns does not mean it is impossible to invent a proper way of doing it now.

The biggest problem in having a real debate is the NRA. They stifle any debat as "taking away our guns", and then they come up with bizarre things like banning people on one of the terror watch lists from buying guns. Because using letting the government use a secret list of people which requires no oversight, no chance of appeal and no review to control access to something is a brilliant way to ensure there is no government abuse. I think the fact that the NRA blocks all debate on an open and transparent registration system but is happy for people to be banned because of a secret list says a lot.

Actually, I think the NRA was against the idea of banning terror watch list people from having guns.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Actually, I think the NRA was against the idea of banning terror watch list people from having guns.

And they should be against it, as should every American who understands what Due Process is.

And it is worth pointing out, a law banning folks on the terror watch list from having guns (guess someone intends to confiscate any they may already have) would not have stopped a singe death, since none of the perps were on the list when they got their guns and killed people. A solution in search of a problem...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think we're having a discussion. We seem to having a series of points thrown up to prove that we can't have a discussion.

For example it is said that registration is never done properly and always leads to confiscation and therefore is undesirable, so it should not be discussed.

If we want to discuss this issue, we have to include registration on the agenda because it is the starting point to getting important data about how many guns there are in the country and who has got them.

Just out of curiosity, what is the goal of this massive and accurate registry? What do you think is supposed to happen with all that 'important data'?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think we're having a discussion. We seem to having a series of points thrown up to prove that we can't have a discussion.

For example it is said that registration is never done properly and always leads to confiscation and therefore is undesirable, so it should not be discussed.

If we want to discuss this issue, we have to include registration on the agenda because it is the starting point to getting important data about how many guns there are in the country and who has got them.

Similarly we need to be able to identify different types of guns in order to the costs and benefits of them. The fact that in the early 90s someone invented a stupid way of classifying guns does not mean it is impossible to invent a proper way of doing it now.

So, what do you propose? How do you think they would be classified? Or, to go back a step, first, what is the desired outcome? What are we hoping to do with said hypothetical gun control, and how specifically should it be implemented?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Actually, I think the NRA was against the idea of banning terror watch list people from having guns.

If we're referring to the "terror watch list" and meaning the no-fly list, then I think we should be working to fix the problems with it as it lays now before we expand it's scope. Right now people are thrown on this list without being told they are on there, their right to free travel is impeded, they have no way of being removed from the list, and no way of appealing it. It's completely absurd.

I don't have a problem with the basic idea that if you're being investigated for suspicion of plotting terrorism by a law enforcement agency, you should be prohibited from buying a gun. However, there needs to be some kind of way for you to challenge it, or at least to have a judge sign off of it. Maybe something like a order of protection or a writ that law enforcement can get?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think we're having a discussion. We seem to having a series of points thrown up to prove that we can't have a discussion.

For example it is said that registration is never done properly and always leads to confiscation and therefore is undesirable, so it should not be discussed.

If we want to discuss this issue, we have to include registration on the agenda because it is the starting point to getting important data about how many guns there are in the country and who has got them.

On some level, I can understand that. I get the data collection aspect to better inform debate. However, it's hard to get beyond the past experiences, particularly when said past experiences are so uniformly alike in their problems over many decades, and especially when the legislative vanguards of the side advocating them (CA and NY) keep pushing the bounds of restrictions and bans further and further with the aid of such registries. That *potential* Pandora's box has people so terrified (in some ways unnecessarily, in some ways very understandably) that nobody wants to risk it. There's also issues of administration and enforcement which makes it far more difficult in the US than other nations (bigger population, far more guns both in absolute and proportional terms, greater land area, greater variance of local laws, etc), and nobody has really talked about how to effectively administer one so they don't end up like the other registries that can't properly maintain their data or respond to registration requests in a timely manner.

Even with simple background check requests we're running into issues, as the FBI are so overworked processing checks that they have suspended processing of "delayed" returns entirely. Under Federal law, if a "delay" is not followed through in 3 days, an FFL may (though not *must*) release the item to the purchaser, however there is talk of legislation that would prevent such transfers. This means that any delayed return would then effectively become a "denied" return if the FBI just stops processing delays, in much the same way CLEO sign off for NFA items became a way to prevent their acquisition if the CLEO just didn't want to deal with it. This then fuels fears that background checks will be used as a defacto ban mechanism.

There's lots to talk about, but sadly nothing is particularly easy or clear cut. In theory, would a registry of all US firearms be possible? Sure. Could that data be used to help inform the debate? Sure. But, as explained, there are massive issues with getting there and I haven't seen any suggestions on how to accomplish that without running into the same issues every existing registry has without also diluting such an endeavor to the point of uselessness.

Similarly we need to be able to identify different types of guns in order to the costs and benefits of them. The fact that in the early 90s someone invented a stupid way of classifying guns does not mean it is impossible to invent a proper way of doing it now.

Do you have any suggestions on that front?

A big problem is that firearms really are so varied, and particularly with things like the AR-15, so variable in how they can be assembled and used, that classification becomes difficult to apply in a meaningful manner beyond the most basic terms of operation, and even that can get tricky. Going back to the AR15 receiver I posted earlier, purchased on its own, how do you classify and register that firearm at the point of sale when it's just a bare receiver? If someone walks in, plonks $1000 down, and buys 10 of them, well, that could be everything from ten very clunky .22lr rimfire bolt action pistols to ten semi-automatic center fire rifles, or a mix of everything in between and more.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In theory, would a registry of all US firearms be possible? Sure.

From a bureaucratic standpoint, sure, it's possible. It would be extremely expensive and hilariously inefficient, but the latter, at least, might well be a feature rather than a bug.

From a "gathering useful data" standpoint, though? Not so much. The majority of "assault weapon" owners in New York are estimated to have simply ignored the registration requirement of New York's SAFE Act in 2014. They estimated a million firearms that would fall under that nebulous label in the state, and when the law went into effect, they got 45,000 registrations.

Seaward wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In theory, would a registry of all US firearms be possible? Sure.

From a bureaucratic standpoint, sure, it's possible. It would be extremely expensive and hilariously inefficient, but the latter, at least, might well be a feature rather than a bug.

From a "gathering useful data" standpoint, though? Not so much. The majority of "assault weapon" owners in New York are estimated to have simply ignored the registration requirement of New York's SAFE Act in 2014. They estimated a million firearms that would fall under that nebulous label in the state, and when the law went into effect, they got 45,000 registrations.

Why do you assume that a registry will be inefficient?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Why do you assume that a registry will be inefficient?

Because the ones that we have already are, and they deal with a fraction of the guns in the country.

Seaward wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Why do you assume that a registry will be inefficient?

Because the ones that we have already are, and they deal with a fraction of the guns in the country.

Hard think the incredibly efficient agencies that end up with US senators mistakenly on the No Fly List could get 10s of millions of gun owners to register 100s of millions of guns and not screw up even if the gun owners were willing to go along. I suspect not all gun owners would be willing to go along, and I suspect the attempt would be tied up in courts for quite a while.

But again rather than talk about how hard it would be to implement correctly, I would love to get a better understanding of the goal/end state. What is the use of all this 'important data'? How important is it? What legitimate function requires this data?

It's a lot of queries to answer all at one go and try to make it succinct, so let me start with gun classification.

How would I classify guns? While I'm not an expert it seems to me there are some technical factors such as 'type' -- rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc -- action and calibre, that are pretty obvious differences between weapons.

An AR-15 may be possible to assemble with different accessories but it's never going to become a shotgun, a pistol, or a bolt-action rifle, or convert from 0.223-inch to 0.5-inch. A difference like having a pistol grip on the front is actually fairly trivial compared to the main points.

That IMO is a possible starting point.

 Ouze wrote:
However, that's not the debate we're having. We're having arguments about how we need to ban high capacity magazine clips despite the fact that a very, very tiny percentage of all firearms deaths per year happen with rifles, that we need to have universal background checks to combat mass shootings (that were perpetrated by people who passed background checks).

From KK's initial post on this train of discussion, I got the sense that neither side can have a decent debate, without being allowed to actually study gun violence in a scientific manner. Keeping the CDC from doing its' job prevents all of us from having a proper debate about the issues.


I agree with you that certain elected officials, within half a second of opening their mouths talking about firearms reveal just how uninformed they are.... And while it's comedy gold, it does go to show that as American interests continue to evolve, people become more and more disconnected from other aspects of other people's lives. By that I mean that those anti-gun senators have hobbies... that could be modding out their Toyota Prius' with a super awesome exhaust kit, or "stancing" the car, and vaping.... But as they get further and further into their hobby, or even further and further into the issues of their actual job (as in, other pet projects and policies, not just guns) they tend to become more and more disconnected from other things to the point where they know absolutely nothing about a thing.

AR shotguns, pistols and bolt actions exist.

There is also a specialised .50 calibre version.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a lot of queries to answer all at one go and try to make it succinct, so let me start with gun classification.

How would I classify guns? While I'm not an expert it seems to me there are some technical factors such as 'type' -- rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc -- action and calibre, that are pretty obvious differences between weapons.

An AR-15 may be possible to assemble with different accessories but it's never going to become a shotgun, a pistol, or a bolt-action rifle, or convert from 0.223-inch to 0.5-inch. A difference like having a pistol grip on the front is actually fairly trivial compared to the main points.

That IMO is a possible starting point.

For many firearms you would be correct, but it is possible to make an AR15 receiver into all those things. That's how things can get so weird, especially when there's 8-12 million of these things in circulation that can be converted to such a wide array of weapon types.

Bolt Action AR (I believe this one is actually built for the UK market)

AR-15 .410 Shotgun Upper Receiver (goes onto standard AR15 lower receiver)

.50 Caliber AR-15 (.50 Beowulf cartridge) (note, not .50BMG, but still a .50 cal cartridge all the same)

AR-15 Pistol

EDIT: How could I have forgotten...AR-15 Soda Can Launcher

So, if you go and buy a single stripped AR-15 lower receiver, it can be made into all of the above (and more, there are belt fed AR's, .22lr AR's, etc) pretty much just by swapping parts (mostly the upper receiver). Many other firearms also have the ability to change between different types of weapons on a single receiver (my pal's CZ-75 pistol for example can change between 9x19mm Centerfire and .22lr Rimfire), though the AR-15 is by far the most common and versatile in this regard.

I'd imagine that it would be easier to classify by the individual parts. Taking a gun as a whole is only going to lead to confusion and unnecessary complication, and could lead to people making relatively benign alterations being charged with a crime.

This AR-15 Soda Can Launcher is interesting. Does it really launch Sodas? Is it a reliable beverage delivery system? Why are these not used at sportsball games to deliver a cool beverage? How does it handle a T-Shirt?

Asking for a friend.....

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a lot of queries to answer all at one go and try to make it succinct, so let me start with gun classification.

How would I classify guns? While I'm not an expert it seems to me there are some technical factors such as 'type' -- rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc -- action and calibre, that are pretty obvious differences between weapons.

An AR-15 may be possible to assemble with different accessories but it's never going to become a shotgun, a pistol, or a bolt-action rifle, or convert from 0.223-inch to 0.5-inch. A difference like having a pistol grip on the front is actually fairly trivial compared to the main points.

That IMO is a possible starting point.

Maybe you didn't see my original question in response to your post on classification, so I'll pose it again: To what end?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
This AR-15 Soda Can Launcher is interesting. Does it really launch Sodas? Is it a reliable beverage delivery system? Why are these not used at sportsball games to deliver a cool beverage? How does it handle a T-Shirt?

Asking for a friend.....

Not sure how it handles t-shirts, but it does seem to reliably launch beverages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4oKMmrljTk

Seaward wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In theory, would a registry of all US firearms be possible? Sure.

From a bureaucratic standpoint, sure, it's possible. It would be extremely expensive and hilariously inefficient, but the latter, at least, might well be a feature rather than a bug.

From a "gathering useful data" standpoint, though? Not so much. The majority of "assault weapon" owners in New York are estimated to have simply ignored the registration requirement of New York's SAFE Act in 2014. They estimated a million firearms that would fall under that nebulous label in the state, and when the law went into effect, they got 45,000 registrations.

It's not possible. There are already tens of millions of people living in dozens of states who collectively own hundreds of millions of guns. The Feds could ask them to register all of them but there's no way to enforce compliance because there are no current registries to cross check against. The closest thing we have in NY and CT can't even enforce compliance. The idea that the federal government is ever going to have an accurate registry of gun owners in regions like Appalachia and the Ozarks is laughable. The Feds will never have the manpower to enforce compliance and local LEOs in high gun ownership areas aren't going to do any enforcement for them. Even if the ATF tracked every new sale starting tomorrow the 300,000,000+ guns already privately owned defeat the purpose of a registry in the first place.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
This AR-15 Soda Can Launcher is interesting. Does it really launch Sodas? Is it a reliable beverage delivery system? Why are these not used at sportsball games to deliver a cool beverage? How does it handle a T-Shirt?

Asking for a friend.....

Not sure how it handles t-shirts, but it does seem to reliably launch beverages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4oKMmrljTk

Those tennis balls though, never have to throw one for a dog again. Truly, this is the future of fetch!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that this forum is for our current members to debate issues such as gun control (in this specific thread.)

There is an article in the Tribunist on the 15th that brings up a salient point, regarding these shootings.

http://tribunist.com/lifestyle/theres-a-way-to-stop-mass-shootings-and-you-wont-like-it/

There’s a Way to Stop Mass Shootings – and You Won’t Like It.



That’s right. You’re not going to like it because it’s going to require you to do something personally, as opposed to shouting for the government, or anyone to “do something!”

You ready? Here it is:

“Notice those around you who seem isolated, and engage them.”

If every one of us did this we’d have a culture that was deeply committed to ensuring no one was left lonely. And make no mistake, as I’ve written before loneliness is what causes these shooters to lash out. People with solid connections to other people don’t indiscriminately fire guns at strangers.

I know what you’re thinking. That’s never going to work because no one is going to make the effort to connect with the strange kid sitting by himself at lunch each day. No one is going to reach out to the gawky, awkward guy at work and ask him about his weekend.

You’re probably right and that’s an absolute shame.

Because I can tell you the things that aren’t going to work in this country when it comes to stopping these heinous acts. But they seem to be all anyone says, when inevitably, another person comes forward to inflict their tortured pain on innocent people.

Ban All Guns! – Due to the reading of the 2nd amendment and the precedents established by recent Supreme Court cases, this isn’t going anywhere. You’d need an amendment to the Constitution and there will NEVER be 30+ states willing to overturn it. Never mind the multitude of good reasons for its existence, no amount of outrage will overturn it so let’s just stop.

Ban All Guns! (pt. 2) – Assuming you actually could overturn the 2nd and outlaw every firearm in the country, then you’d have to go out and get them. Famously, there are more guns than people in the U.S. You couldn’t come close to collecting them all. Further, if Prohibition and the War on Drugs have taught us anything it’s that those intent on breaking the law are going to do just that. Laws be damned.

Ban Scary Guns Like the AR-15! – Fully auto weapons are already banned*. Most of these shootings occur with a handgun, plain and simple, and these aren’t going anywhere. Murder is illegal, and that doesn’t seem to stop these individuals from performing these atrocious acts. Do you think if there was a ban on shotguns that would stop them?

Keep Them Out of the Hands of Bad People! – Felons are prohibited from owing a firearm already. But let’s not forget, the overwhelming majority of these mass shootings aren’t done by criminals and their guns were obtained legally. How can you know who is going to do something like this? You can’t.

Do Something About Mental Health! – Cool. Yeah. So, like, free psychologists visits for everyone? Even if you could, the people that have done this haven’t been mentally ill, by and large. And, let’s not forget that medical records are private. Would you endorse mandatory psych screening for everyone and those records being sent to the government? Maybe just those who wish to own a gun? Remember, not every person who has engaged in a mass shooting has owned the gun they performed the act with. This is a complete non-starter of an issue with an insane price tag that does nothing to actually keep a person committed to violence from putting their hands on a gun.

Do… SOMETHING! – Gotcha. What do you want to do? “SOMETHING!” Ok, what do you have in mind? “I DON’T KNOW! BUT SOMEONE NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING!” Sure. Agreed. But what? Even Obama has had to say in his latest speech how routine it’s become.

If you can’t tell by this point in the list, there is NOTHING the government or any other organization can do to prevent these events.

You can’t effectively keep drugs out of the hands of those intent on doing drugs. You can’t keep beer out of the hands of high schoolers intent on getting beer. You have a HUGE supply of weapons everywhere and concrete federal law protecting those weapons. You’d have as much luck passing regulation against tornadoes. It would be equally as effective.

So there it is. The god’s honest truth. No entity can do anything meaningful (more than is presently being done) to thwart a disaffected person hell-bent on committing such an act.

But you can.

You can talk to your co-worker for a few minutes. You can talk to the kid in your Physics class that appears to be all alone. You can teach your children to do the same, to make sure no one is left to feel totally isolated. Because that’s the breeding ground. That’s where the seeds are planted.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a lot of queries to answer all at one go and try to make it succinct, so let me start with gun classification.

How would I classify guns? While I'm not an expert it seems to me there are some technical factors such as 'type' -- rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc -- action and calibre, that are pretty obvious differences between weapons.

An AR-15 may be possible to assemble with different accessories but it's never going to become a shotgun, a pistol, or a bolt-action rifle, or convert from 0.223-inch to 0.5-inch. A difference like having a pistol grip on the front is actually fairly trivial compared to the main points.

That IMO is a possible starting point.

Maybe you didn't see my original question in response to your post on classification, so I'll pose it again: To what end?

The no.1 problem with guns in the USA is that there isn't any reliable data. Who has what, how many, what are they used for and how does this relate to injuries, crime, prevention of crime and so on.

Without this kind of information it's impossible to know if guns are a Good Thing, a Bad Thing, or an indifferent thing.

We might find that 80% of gun injuries could be eliminated by controls on elephant guns. Or we might find that the elephant gun is the only thing that stands between US society and pachyderm armageddon. We can only guess.

Not really. We know the overwhelming number of injuries - intentional or otherwise - come from handguns. We know which guns are and are not being used in crimes. We know that concealed carry permit holders are far less likely to break the law than the average citizen.

I mean, what specifically do you want to know? The data's out there. Pretending that it isn't to make a point about registries is a bit odd, in my opinion. As we already covered, you could make a nationwide registry tomorrow (hypothetically, I mean; such an act would be illegal), and it wouldn't get you any reliable data, because the non-compliance rate would be off the charts, as we saw in New York (a liberal state, let us not forget).

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The no.1 problem with guns in the USA is that there isn't any reliable data. Who has what, how many, what are they used for and how does this relate to injuries, crime, prevention of crime and so on.

Without this kind of information it's impossible to know if guns are a Good Thing, a Bad Thing, or an indifferent thing.

We might find that 80% of gun injuries could be eliminated by controls on elephant guns. Or we might find that the elephant gun is the only thing that stands between US society and pachyderm armageddon. We can only guess.

I'm really confused by that. The #1 problem is lack of data? How can you seriously present that as the #1 problem? There is all kinds of data on injuries/accidental deaths (and deliberate deaths) due to all kinds of situations and devices to include guns. That is why we know for example that blunt objects kill WAY more people than all types of rifles each year.

Again, what is your goal/endstate? What actual problem is this 'important data' (the lack of which is the #1 problem) supposed to address? How specifically do you intend to use this data if you could collect it? How does that use address the actual problem (problem needs to be defined as other than 'lack of data').

 Steve steveson wrote:
The biggest problem in having a real debate is the NRA. They stifle any debat as "taking away our guns", and then they come up with bizarre things like banning people on one of the terror watch lists from buying guns. Because using letting the government use a secret list of people which requires no oversight, no chance of appeal and no review to control access to something is a brilliant way to ensure there is no government abuse. I think the fact that the NRA blocks all debate on an open and transparent registration system but is happy for people to be banned because of a secret list says a lot.

No. The NRA has about 4.5 million dues paying members and that's only about 5% of the gun owners in the US. The NRA gets media attention because they're the largest group that lobbies for 2A rights but it's not the obstacle that some pundits like to make it out to be. The 80 million gun owners spread over dozens of states are what kills gun control legislation in Congress. Bernie Sanders votes against gun control because he represents Vermont the most permissive state in the country when it comes to gun control. The NRA doesn't give Sanders a dime. The biggest proponents of gun restrictions are politicians from low gun ownership states, people like Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. The NRA could offer Schumer a giant check and it wouldn't sway him. The politicians that block gun control do it because their constituents don't want it. Harry Reid blocks gun control because Nevada is full of gun owners not because the NRA gives him money. In a similar fashion politicians from states like Wyoming are going to be pro 2A regardless of whether or not the NRA contributes anything to their campaigns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a lot of queries to answer all at one go and try to make it succinct, so let me start with gun classification.

How would I classify guns? While I'm not an expert it seems to me there are some technical factors such as 'type' -- rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc -- action and calibre, that are pretty obvious differences between weapons.

An AR-15 may be possible to assemble with different accessories but it's never going to become a shotgun, a pistol, or a bolt-action rifle, or convert from 0.223-inch to 0.5-inch. A difference like having a pistol grip on the front is actually fairly trivial compared to the main points.

That IMO is a possible starting point.

Maybe you didn't see my original question in response to your post on classification, so I'll pose it again: To what end?

The no.1 problem with guns in the USA is that there isn't any reliable data. Who has what, how many, what are they used for and how does this relate to injuries, crime, prevention of crime and so on.

Without this kind of information it's impossible to know if guns are a Good Thing, a Bad Thing, or an indifferent thing.

We might find that 80% of gun injuries could be eliminated by controls on elephant guns. Or we might find that the elephant gun is the only thing that stands between US society and pachyderm armageddon. We can only guess.

You mean data like this:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

And this:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/guns.cfm

The Department of Justice keeps extremely detailed records on gun crimes across the nation. Who commits the crimes, who is victimized by the crimes, what guns are used, etc. and it's all updated annually.

The end state desired is to be able to find the best balance of positive gun use compared to injuries in order to reduce unnecessary injuries.

There is good data on the number of injuries, but there are other factors involved in the situation, and the information on these is scrappy.

I wish we could get somebody like the CDC to do some research..... wait a second.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I wish we could get somebody like the CDC to do some research..... wait a second.....

They're not barred from doing research.

That's why Obama told them to do some after Sandy Hook.

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I wish we could get somebody like the CDC to do some research..... wait a second.....

They're not barred from doing research.

That's why Obama told them to do some after Sandy Hook.

Didn't say they are barred. But they are severely hamstrung on what funding they are allowed to spend on it.

That one piece of research is not even close to the amount they want to be spending and should be spending on it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Didn't say they are barred.

That's true, you merely implied it.

But they are severely hamstrung on what funding they are allowed to spend on it.

No, they aren't.

That one piece of research is not even close to the amount they want to be spending and should be spending on it.

Fortunately, it's far from the only "piece of research" on guns that the CDC has produced.

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Didn't say they are barred.

That's true, you merely implied it.

But they are severely hamstrung on what funding they are allowed to spend on it.

No, they aren't.

That one piece of research is not even close to the amount they want to be spending and should be spending on it.

Fortunately, it's far from the only "piece of research" on guns that the CDC has produced.

Well first, no I didn't.

Second, yes they very much are.

Third, it is one of very few pieces of research the CDC has produced after Jay Dickey cut their funding after being pressured by the NRA.

Here: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

“none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Quoted to help you out!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Well first, no I didn't.

Well argued.

Second, yes they very much are.

Third, it is one of very few pieces of research the CDC has produced after Jay Dickey cut their funding after being pressured by the NRA.

Here: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

“none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Quoted to help you out!

No. They can study as much as they want; they're not allowed to become political advocates. Largely because they ran into a bit of a problem with that before that law existed.

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Well first, no I didn't.

Well argued.

An example of how this thread has gotten far too snarky, moved too close to rule 1 violations, over its time. And now it's done.