Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Meanwhile, I'm once again staggered at the number of rightwingers that are suddenly so concerned with the sanctity of the constitution. Were all you holiday for the last eight years or something?

Grignard wrote:But you don't need laws limiting the access to highly destructive weapons, say, nuclear warheads, just as an example. That is beyond the ability for a private citizen to acquire, so what is the point of a law limiting it's possession?

Well that's a bit ignorant. Do you seriously think your country has no laws prohibiting that kind of weaponry, not to mention the amount of treaties your country has signed prohibiting certain weapons.

Grignard wrote:But you don't need laws limiting the access to highly destructive weapons, say, nuclear warheads, just as an example. That is beyond the ability for a private citizen to acquire, so what is the point of a law limiting it's possession?

Yeah, you've raised the issue about nuclear weapons being inaccessible to civilians in a previous thread. I pointed out then that there are lots of deadly weapons that are accessible to civilians, such as commercial explosives. Funnily enough you didn't reply.

Do you think commerical explosives should be available to all?

sebster wrote:

Grignard wrote:But you don't need laws limiting the access to highly destructive weapons, say, nuclear warheads, just as an example. That is beyond the ability for a private citizen to acquire, so what is the point of a law limiting it's possession?

Yeah, you've raised the issue about nuclear weapons being inaccessible to civilians in a previous thread. I pointed out then that there are lots of deadly weapons that are accessible to civilians, such as commercial explosives. Funnily enough you didn't reply.

Do you think commerical explosives should be available to all?

I did respond to that. I mentioned that I'm trained as a chemist. The state had no problem giving me that education. I could create black powder and pretty much have it be untraceable, or high explosives though I imagine that someone could track where the ingredients were going, if they had occasion to. So no, whats the point of legislating that?

And don't assume I'm a "right winger" whatever that means. I frankly had some problems with quite a few policies of the last administration.

So no, whats the point of legislating that?

Are you asking why explosives should be legislated because you can make them? All weapons are produced in the civilian business markets. Non governmental capability of manufacture has nothing to do with whether or not it should be illegal. The laws are meant to reduce the incidence of said explosives falling into the hands of those that would use them for ill. Its meant as a barrier of widespread usage. Laws aren't designed to make things impossible, they are there to discourage and make difficult.


I think thats the big crux here. People think that making something illegal makes it impossible or even difficult to access/use. Thats not the point of making actions and nouns illegal to perform and possess. Its about inhibiting the ability to use and perform such things and its about creating a legal recourse to punish their use.

In what way is it easier to track weapons that have never been registered?

Well you have to do that anyway. It just makes it so that you dont have to wade through millions of registered ones as well. A process that is far from instant.

Crimes of passion aren't particularly common, and rarely require the use of a firearm to commit.

Where do you get that they aren't common? Depending on definition they are one of the most common forms of "intended" homicide that occurs.

Accidents are usually a result poor training and thoughtlessness, and they aren't crime at any rate. I don't really care about them.

So I take it you're against seatbelts too?

Not really. Banning doesn't, at any rate, and I don't have a problem with most of the laws already on the books.

And why doesn't it work. You have yet to explain why. You have yet to site a situation where it hasn't worked. You have yet to do anything but make illogical social arguments.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So no, whats the point of legislating that?

Are you asking why explosives should be legislated because you can make them? All weapons are produced in the civilian business markets. Non governmental capability of manufacture has nothing to do with whether or not it should be illegal. The laws are meant to reduce the incidence of said explosives falling into the hands of those that would use them for ill. Its meant as a barrier of widespread usage. Laws aren't designed to make things impossible, they are there to discourage and make difficult.


I think thats the big crux here. People think that making something illegal makes it impossible or even difficult to access/use. Thats not the point of making actions and nouns illegal to perform and possess. Its about inhibiting the ability to use and perform such things and its about creating a legal recourse to punish their use.

Well, I was trying to think of something worthwhile to say, but what is the point of arguing with you Shuma. I don't particularly think you're even worth wasting keystrokes on. Sebster is really who I was talking to.

whatwhat wrote:http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf <-- a report which notes a correlation between gun crimes and gun possession and also determines that there isn't as much of a corelation between gun possession and suicides/homicides.

Nice find.

sebster wrote:If you want to stop the violence in both countries then you look at gang violence and the market driving gang violence... drugs. Everything else is window dressing.

This.

Why is it that everyone wants to punish the law abiding citizens who happen to like to squeeze a few rounds off at a piece of at a piece of paper???

I was talking about a trip to the range I had with a friend of mine from work. Someone overheard that I brought along my Wasr-10 (ak-47) and went all apesh on me.


I own guns, I have not killed or shot at anyone, I have never threatened anyone with them, I have never robed anyone.... so why dose everyone think I’m a crazy wack job that’s out to kill people??? Is it because I like to shot at pop cans?

Oooooo I know, I must be a wacko because I like to shoot at little circles on paper.

Envy89 wrote:Why is it that everyone wants to punish the law abiding citizens who happen to like to squeeze a few rounds off at a piece of at a piece of paper???

I was talking about a trip to the range I had with a friend of mine from work. Someone overheard that I brought along my Wasr-10 (ak-47) and went all apesh on me.


I own guns, I have not killed or shot at anyone, I have never threatened anyone with them, I have never robed anyone.... so why dose everyone think I’m a crazy wack job that’s out to kill people??? Is it because I like to shot at pop cans?

Oooooo I know, I must be a wacko because I like to shoot at little circles on paper.

I'm not sure anyone is accusing you of being a wack job. Unfortunately there are people out there who are. I'm not disagreeing with you, but you being a nut job or not is not what is being argued

Grignard wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

So no, whats the point of legislating that?

Are you asking why explosives should be legislated because you can make them? All weapons are produced in the civilian business markets. Non governmental capability of manufacture has nothing to do with whether or not it should be illegal. The laws are meant to reduce the incidence of said explosives falling into the hands of those that would use them for ill. Its meant as a barrier of widespread usage. Laws aren't designed to make things impossible, they are there to discourage and make difficult.


I think thats the big crux here. People think that making something illegal makes it impossible or even difficult to access/use. Thats not the point of making actions and nouns illegal to perform and possess. Its about inhibiting the ability to use and perform such things and its about creating a legal recourse to punish their use.

Well, I was trying to think of something worthwhile to say, but what is the point of arguing with you Shuma. I don't particularly think you're even worth wasting keystrokes on. Sebster is really who I was talking to.

Oooooo I know, I must be a wacko because I like to shoot at little circles on paper.

We don't have mandatory and regular psych evaluations as a requirement for weapon ownership. Its legislation that punishes everyone for the actions of the few. Like most safety and anti crime legislation of the kind.

I prefer the term freedom weapons over assault weapons.

ShumaGorath wrote:Where do you get that they aren't common? Depending on definition they are one of the most common forms of "intended" homicide that occurs.

Well, I suppose it does depend on the definition. I'm more referring to blind rage from someone who wouldn't normally have a disposition towards extreme violence.

So I take it you're against seatbelts too?

I don't see it as the government's place to force people to wear them.

And why doesn't it work. You have yet to explain why.

Because their are already too many guns in the country, there are already too many channels the guns can be brought in through, there are already too many ways someone can be killed without the use of firearms, there's already too much of a cultural disposition in America towards violence, there's already too much motive for murder thanks to drugs and gangs, etc, etc. What do you think this entire thread has been about?

You have yet to site a situation where it hasn't worked.

First off, it's the duty of the lawmaker who is restricting the citizens of their country - especially in the case of altering/invalidating part of the constitution - to prove that their law will be successful, and successful to such a degree that passing the law was justified.

Second, D.C.

GMMStudios wrote:I prefer the term freedom weapons over assault weapons.

LAWLING! EVERYWHERE!

Srsly though I totally cracked at this after pouring through this super serious sauce debate.

Freedom fries are the best food ever. All the other fries are with the terrorists.

I was serious

Well, I suppose it does depend on the definition. I'm more referring to blind rage from someone who wouldn't normally have a disposition towards extreme violence.

I generally use it as a term for crimes influenced by extremes of emotion. Its much easier to make a snap decision to kill with a gun then with other forms of weaponry, even when performing crimes like robbery. It really takes a different sort of mental state to stab someone to death, it's not just push button, its much more personal.

I don't see it as the government's place to force people to wear them.

I can respect that.

Because their are already too many guns in the country, there are already too many channels the guns can be brought in through, there are already too many ways someone can be killed without the use of firearms, there's already too much of a cultural disposition in America towards violence, there's already too much motive for murder thanks to drugs and gangs, etc, etc. What do you think this entire thread has been about?

Well its been about the debate over legislation to ban types of firearms. All of those things are true, but time is linear and fluid and none of those are insurmountable social problems. The first step to dramatically reducing the number of firearms in the country is to do so in the easiest fashion, that being removing the general sale of them. After that you can narrow down channels of illegal entry and cut them off too. You can't defeat the gun, but it's about the fight and not the victory. Its about an acceptable level of possession, which is above none at all. As for other ways people can be killed, I hardly see how that enters the discussion. People can be killed with waffles, and you can build houses out of guns, everything is possible.

The cultural disposition however is a big issue. Gun laws like these take a lot of time to really begin to work. You need to change the cultural landscape and you need to spend the money and take the time to reduce demand and cut off the channels of entry for firearms. Neither of which are likely to be allowed to happen given the see saw political landscape of this country. As for the drug and gang problems, I think considerable headway can be made in those cattegories. Just look at the gang wars in the last few decades, effort and legislation has reduced the gang drug trade (lucrative drug trades being one of the biggest factors to gun violence in gangs) considerably in many areas.

First off, it's the duty of the lawmaker who is restricting the citizens of their country - especially in the case of altering/invalidating part of the constitution - to prove that their law will be successful, and successful to such a degree that passing the law was justified.

I think they do that. Often. I'm not one of them though.

Grignard wrote:I did respond to that.

Did you? I must have missed the response or forgotten it. My apologies.

I mentioned that I'm trained as a chemist. The state had no problem giving me that education. I could create black powder and pretty much have it be untraceable, or high explosives though I imagine that someone could track where the ingredients were going, if they had occasion to. So no, whats the point of legislating that?

But not everyone has your level of expertise? And even if they went out and got it, they still wouldn't be able to access heavy machine guns and grenades. Following your argument, anything and everything would be available, with the only cheque being the pocketbook of the individual.

RPGs aren't just within the reach of the average nutter, they're downright cheap. Are you really saying you believe that grenades, RPGs, heavy machine guns and commercial grade explosives should be freely available.

And don't assume I'm a "right winger" whatever that means. I frankly had some problems with quite a few policies of the last administration.

My post about the right wing overlooking the civil rights abuses of the Bush administration wasn't directed at anything you said. I typed that as it popped into my head as I read through the thread, and I wasn't even aware you'd commented on a post of mine.

sebster wrote:Meanwhile, I'm once again staggered at the number of rightwingers that are suddenly so concerned with the sanctity of the constitution. Were all you holiday for the last eight years or something?

And Sebster wins the "somebody had to say it" award!

As this is turning into yet another discussion about gun control, I'm probably not going to stay out. I just don't care very much about the issue either way. I do know a few things though:
1) Guns will never be fully banned. That wacky constitution is pretty clear that if nothing else, guns will be in the hands of citizens in some way.
2) When something is legal for some purposes but illegal for others, demand creates a supply and the guns will leave legal hands and enter illegal ones.
3) Absent a full gun ban (which can't happen) there will always be guns in circulation.
4) There are already a metric poop-load of guns in the United states, and they're not going to dry up over night.
5) Gun control is an issue that re-elects or defeats congressmen
6) The NRA and the Firearms industry know how to get money and make it available to the right politicians.
7) Banning things has never worked in the US before.

Because of all these things, I think that the best solution is to attack the problem where you can: waiting periods, registration of hand guns, etc. All banning weapons does is hassle gun owners.

Polonius wrote:Because of all these things, I think that the best solution is to attack the problem where you can: waiting periods, registration of hand guns, etc. All banning weapons does is hassle gun owners.

I think it's even less related to guns than that. I don't think waiting periods, registration of hand guns and the rest will even make that much of a difference in homicide and gun homicide figures. Those are related pretty directly to criminal activity and wealth inequality. Want to stop the violence, give people worthwhile lives within society.

So I think in terms of gun control, both sides are without merit, because yet another law on guns won't do anything, but nor will yet another law on guns mean a thing to your freedoms. As long as each continues fighting tooth and nail over the utterly trivial (like magazine size), there will be no progress made in solving the real problems.

Fair enough. I'm libertarian enough to say that when a law won't do what it says, and it's going to inconvenience people, the immortal rule of "Don't be a Dick" comes into play.

In general i'm not against arms control because I understand that in our form of Democracy there will always be limits on our freedoms. We aren't living in a utopian, perfect (anarchist) society.

That said, I am opposed to the reinstatement of the Semi-austomatic Assault Weapons ban (SA-AWB). It was ineffective during the time it existed and the options removed from weapons that were considered as Semiautomatic-Assault Weapons (SA-AWs) to make them a non SA-AW weapon were purely cosmetic. I can't seem to recall the last time i heard of a flash suppressor or bayonet lug being a pivotal aspect of any crime. One could make an argument that removing pistol grips on rifles which were SA-AWs could have potentially made them less deadly. But when a citizen couldn't legally get an AR-15 but yet could still get an M-14 I start to get a little confused. You still have an awful lot of "stopping power" witch such a weapon, and at the end of the day there are dozens of semi-automatic rifles that didn't constitute as SA-AWs that were just as deadly. Can't get an AK-47? Then just pick up an SKS without a bayonet.

I understand the reasoning behind trying to ban SA-AW weapons such as the TEC-9, and other weapons in it's vein (what I call machine pistols) as they have no inherent value in target shooting and hunting, in addition to potentially being a bit excessive for self defense. Not that I necessarily agree with a ban on such weapons, but again in the interest of compromise I wouldn't protest the outlawing of such weapons.

Did you guys by chance read the majority opinion in the Supreme Court Case Heller vs District of Columbia? Thats some good stuff there regardless of which side you are on in the debate. The dissenting opinion is worth a read as well.

PS: A clip and a magazine are not the same thing.

PPS: If you're American and have an interest in Firearms legislation, pelase go here: http://www.atf.gov/dcof/index.htm

From there you can pick up a copy of the latest edition of Federal Firearms Law and the collected book of State Firearm Laws.

In the right frame click on "publications" and order:

ATF P 5300.4 - Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide
ATF P 5300.5 (CD-Rom) - State Laws and Published Ordinances-Firearms

There are a few other things of interest as well.

THESE ARE FREE INCLUDING SHIPPING.

So that means if you own a firearm or have any sort of views with respect to arms control then pick these up and get educated. There are far too many people on both sides of the arms issue who are highly uneducated. For example, if you don't know what the legal definition of a Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon is then I suggest picking this up. You can't argue about it if you don't know what it is? (but then again...SA-AW might be removed from these books, still you can find the revelent info on the previous ban online.

Education is the most important part of owning a firearm, and well just about everything else too.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

whatwhat wrote:http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf <-- a report which notes a correlation between gun crimes and gun possession and also determines that there isn't as much of a corelation between gun possession and suicides/homicides.

Nice find.

sebster wrote:If you want to stop the violence in both countries then you look at gang violence and the market driving gang violence... drugs. Everything else is window dressing.

This.

Erm, my point was an answer to you dismissing my earlier point by asking me to look at the homicide figures. What has sebsters point got to do with it?

That said, I am opposed to the reinstatement of the Semi-austomatic Assault Weapons ban (SA-AWB). It was ineffective during the time it existed and the options removed from weapons that were considered as Semiautomatic-Assault Weapons (SA-AWs) to make them a non SA-AW weapon were purely cosmetic. I can't seem to recall the last time i heard of a flash suppressor or bayonet lug being a pivotal aspect of any crime. One could make an argument that removing pistol grips on rifles which were SA-AWs could have potentially made them less deadly. But when a citizen couldn't legally get an AR-15 but yet could still get an M-14 I start to get a little confused. You still have an awful lot of "stopping power" witch such a weapon, and at the end of the day there are dozens of semi-automatic rifles that didn't constitute as SA-AWs that were just as deadly. Can't get an AK-47? Then just pick up an SKS without a bayonet.

I understand the reasoning behind trying to ban SA-AW weapons such as the TEC-9, and other weapons in it's vein (what I call machine pistols) as they have no inherent value in target shooting and hunting, in addition to potentially being a bit excessive for self defense. Not that I necessarily agree with a ban on such weapons, but again in the interest of compromise I wouldn't protest the outlawing of such weapons.

Exactly. Man I totally forgot about Tec-9s etc. Yea I'd be ok wacking those.

But assault rifles are just rifles that some congresswoman saw too many movies of.

whatwhat wrote:Erm, my point was an answer to you dismissing my earlier point by asking me to look at the homicide figures. What has sebsters point got to do with it?

Oh, sorry, I was just agreeing with sebster. Didn't mean for that to relate to your article.

Also, what page is "The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the results of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Strong correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide, but that the overall rate of suicide using firearms is low, and homicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available," On?

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Your argument is irrelevant Shuma. Its an absolute right.

Perhaps you'd be better maybe even keeping things like this for adults ? Authorities said the youth model 20-gauge shotgun was thought to have been found in the boy's bedroom. It is designed for children and such weapons do not have to be registered.

..errmmm.... whose idea was that then ? You're arming children now ? SRSLY ?

Wouldn't want to be a teacher in America.

Well educated, and disciplined youths lead to well educated and disciplined adults. I owned a few firearms when I was a child. I was taught how to use them, and what the consequences were. Granted I wasn't allowed to keep them in my room, but I knew where the key was to the gun safe at all times, and when *I* wanted to take my guns out shooting *I* could, as long as I was being responsible in the rest of my life (Grades, chores, etc.). The truth is, as a country the U.S. has always had a well armed populace until the 1900's. A firearm is a tool, just like your paintbrush. How and what you use it on is YOUR decision. Ban bad decision making, not tools. I know this isn't going to work 100%, but disarming the people who make wise and ethical choices only makes it easier for others to inflict the results of bad choices upon them.

The whole 'guns are only made to kill' argument aside, We as US citizens are GUARANTEED the right to defend ourselves, not just from our 'neighbors', but from our leadership as well. When we first became a country not only were militias commonplace, they were a mandatory duty for many townsfolk both here AND in England. The police force WAS the populace and vice versa. The Founding Fathers obviously saw that sooner or later the people ALWAYS rise up against their government, by themselves or when incited by other sources. They also saw this as a healthy progression from an oppressive government to a more liberal one. THIS is why the Second Ammendment was added. As United States citizens when we don't like something we have the power to tell our government 'Stop.'. IF they refuse, then as an armed populace we can then MAKE them stop. As an unarmed populace we can just cry in the corner and go back to our sitcoms.

Polonius wrote:Fair enough. I'm libertarian enough to say that when a law won't do what it says, and it's going to inconvenience people, the immortal rule of "Don't be a Dick" comes into play.

YAY! Another Libertarian!
That's the main thing that chaps my hide from a political stand point is you will always have this constant trade of between responsibility and freedom vs. irresponsibility and suppression. You can't gain additional freedom without accepting additional responsibility and you can't reduce your responsibilities without losing your freedoms. When I came of age, I knew that unless I wanted to stay with my parents until I was 45 and spend the entire time living by their rules that I would have to find a place of my own. So, I moved out and stayed up as late as I wanted and made as much noise as I wanted and came and went whenever I wanted. But with all that freedom came a power bill, a phone bill, rent, water bill, etc. etc. that I became responsible for. If I want the right to freely own a firearm, it's my responsibility as a gun owner to A) ensure it's not used in slowed ways that result in the death and/or injury of innocents and B) it's not easily accessible to criminals who might steal it. That's the problem with America nowadays, no one wants the responsibility and the risk that comes from being free. They want to be forced into feeding lines so they can suck on Uncle Sam's teets and go home and watch American Idol while being Americans Idle...

Oh, I'm not really a libertarian politically. I'm an ACLU, civil rights are great type, but I extend those rights to things some liberals don't, guns most notably. I'm also an economic moderate who thinks that high taxes aren't the worst thing ever, and the growing complexity of modern society makes an expansion of the role of government not entirely avoidable.