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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Notice how knives are a far less efficient tool for killing people?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/12/2012121481220620325.html

I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.

Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.

Gun laws are protected by the Second Amendment. Firearms rights are not just laws but an actual right enshrined under the Second Amendment.

Which is entirely open to interpretation by the Supreme Court as necessary.

Well have I got news for you! They have, it's still valid and it still applies. In fact under those interpretations Illinois's concealed carry ban was just struck down.

Which does not prove a single thing about the constitutionality about the right for individuals to own "assault weapons", which is a big sticking point for both sides of the gun debate.

The ability to conceal a handgun on your person != the right to bear arms, by the way.
!

Actually according to the Supreme Court's decision on Maryland and DC vs. Heller yes it does. (AND the 7th Circuit's decision to strike down Illinois's concealed carry ban also focuses on RKBA along with the USSC's recent strike downs in Maryland and DC, along with a few other 2A related rulings)

Now since you used a made up term, define assault weapons for the rest of the class please. Do you base your definition on the cosmetic 94 AWB? Or something else?

 AustonT wrote:
Yeah screw trying to help people with mental illness!
The two U's are the answer
Euthanasia
And Eugenics.

NO. C,P,and Q
Cake, Pizza, and Queso. No one goes nuts in the middle of a queso eating spree.

There's a reason I put "assault weapon" in quotations.

It is, as you noted, a made-up term. It has no real application beyond a catch all for both sides to argue themselves hoarse over.

Interesting Harvard study if you don't mind putting in 35 pages or so of reading.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's a reason I put "assault weapon" in quotations.

It is, as you noted, a made-up term. It has no real application beyond a catch all for both sides to argue themselves hoarse over.

Well since they don't exist, it isn't a problem is it?

 whembly wrote:
This is an interesting analysis... I want to preface this with a question: When comparing numbers to other counters, are the reported incidents counted the same way?

Oh... one other thing...UK is more violent? Say whaaat?
I've tried some google-fu and the data is all over the map. o.O
According to Wiki, US has 470 per 100,000... which wouldn't put us in the top 10 list below if that list is accurate.

 d-usa wrote:
Mental health testing for firearms is probably not going to happen anytime soon. Just political suicide to push for that. Must have insurance to get that exam, would insurance cover "mental fitness exams for gun ownership", would any psychiatrist be willing to sign of on the "won't kill people" paper and risk being sued by the family of survivors, etc etc etc

I am in favor of a waiting period , I am also in favor of fixing the gun show craziness that we seem to have.

I'm ok with the latter. All firearms sales should be through FFL after a proper check. While I don't see the positive of the former I'd be ok with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
[Truthfully, the only time your gun should be out of your safe and/or trigger lock is when it is being cleaned or on your person.

Agreed.
Pretty soon I'm gonna start liking you.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The Second Amendment was intended for a nation where the army of the time had no distinct advantage over the regular citizenry with their muskets and rifles.
For the Second Amendment to have any applicable logic for today citizens would have to be allowed to own tanks, attack helicopters, anti aircraft weaponry, anti armor weaponry, and advanced night vision equipment.

I don't see any of those beyond the night vision equipment being allowed currently.

Um...considering I own everything on that list but the attack helo, legally, though I grant they require licenses and permits, I have to call shenanigans on your argument. Any US citizen, as long as they pass the correct checks and are licensed, can own howitzers, bombers, tanks, and pretty much anything else. The reason the average joe does not is not that they're illegal, it's that they're expensive to purchase and maintain. Parts for even a lightly used tank are hell, and some tanks it's hard to find qualified mechanics for in the US. God help you with a WW2 Panther. The parts for those are insane and a lot of time it's cheaper to make your own. That and Germans did not go in for ease of replacement like the US did with Shermans.

I thought the laws for owning a tank also means you have ot have the weapons disable.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's a reason I put "assault weapon" in quotations.

It is, as you noted, a made-up term. It has no real application beyond a catch all for both sides to argue themselves hoarse over.

Well since they don't exist, it isn't a problem is it?

While the category is made up, it does not change that there is in fact an issue with the availability of firearms at large to the general populace.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I thought the laws for owning a tank also means you have ot have the weapons disable.

Not necessarily...

If they were old weapons from WW2 in Germany, the weapon my have been disabled in order for it to be delievered into Civilian hands... but, once here, we can refurbish it as appropriate licenses are filed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The "right to bear arms" is a relic of a bygone era.

You're in such good company Kan.

Keep fighting the good fight.

 AustonT wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

The "right to bear arms" is a relic of a bygone era.

You're in such good company Kan.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Cute.

Maybe you can actually present some kind of argument rather than relying upon garbage spouted by individuals who cannot formulate some kind of logical response as to why gun control should not be enacted.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's a reason I put "assault weapon" in quotations.

It is, as you noted, a made-up term. It has no real application beyond a catch all for both sides to argue themselves hoarse over.

Well since they don't exist, it isn't a problem is it?

While the category is made up, it does not change that there is in fact an issue with the availability of firearms at large to the general populace.

I'd say "Assault Weapons" as defined by the 94 AWB aren't much of an issue and the facts/Congress agree.

Fact: Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.”
Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, calculated from Bureau of Justice Statistics,
assault weapon recovery rates

Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the
average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.”
-House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban Work, New York Times. April 7, 1989. P. A-15, quoting Philip
McGuire, Handgun Control, Inc.,

Fact: Even the government agrees. “... the weapons banned by this legislation [1994
Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”
- Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

The "right to bear arms" is a relic of a bygone era.

You're in such good company Kan.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Cute.

Maybe you can actually present some kind of argument rather than relying upon garbage spouted by individuals who cannot formulate some kind of logical response as to why gun control should not be enacted.

Not his fault he's right, those noted "luminaries" agree completely that guns don't belong in the hands of the people.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

The "right to bear arms" is a relic of a bygone era.

You're in such good company Kan.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Cute.

Maybe you can actually present some kind of argument rather than relying upon garbage spouted by individuals who cannot formulate some kind of logical response

Just because I quoted you doesn't mean I'm relying on you.


Oh you meant the picture. My mistake.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's a reason I put "assault weapon" in quotations.

It is, as you noted, a made-up term. It has no real application beyond a catch all for both sides to argue themselves hoarse over.

Well since they don't exist, it isn't a problem is it?

While the category is made up, it does not change that there is in fact an issue with the availability of firearms at large to the general populace.

I'd say "Assault Weapons" as defined by the 94 AWB aren't much of an issue and the facts/Congress agree.

Fact: Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.”
Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, calculated from Bureau of Justice Statistics,
assault weapon recovery rates

I want to see these "facts". Especially what they are categorizing as criminals.

Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the
average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.”
-House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban Work, New York Times. April 7, 1989. P. A-15, quoting Philip
McGuire, Handgun Control, Inc.,

Gee.

It's almost like the majority of violent crime is committed within situations where a large firearm cannot be readily concealed.

Fact: Even the government agrees. “... the weapons banned by this legislation [1994
Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”
- Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999

That does not really change anything, since the 1994 FAWB was in response to the incidents at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Not his fault he's right, those noted "luminaries" agree completely that guns don't belong in the hands of the people.

Of course they did.

They came to power, barring Adolf Hitler and to an extent Qaddafi, through "guns in the hands of the people".

I cited all my facts, my source and their source. Go wild.

Ruby Ridge has no connection the '94 AWB... it is an excellent example of the over reach of Fedeal LEAs resulting in the murder of multiple citizens. We can confirm it was an over reach because of the massive controversy, the 3.1 Million settlement paid to the Weaver family, the COMPLETE overhaul of Federal LEA deadly force use, and got at least twelve FBI agents drug over the coals professionally speaking.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I thought the laws for owning a tank also means you have ot have the weapons disable.

Tanks, artillery, bombs, etc. all fall under the auspices of the National Firearms Act of 1934 as “other destructive devices.” In general this means they may be privately owned, subject to the payment of a transfer tax, and filling out all of the requisite paperwork.

To buy one, you have to get the signature of the local police chief, pass a background check, and register it with BATF. You also have to get ATF permission to cross state lines with it. Corporations can be the registered owners, so as long as you are an employee with a letter on company letterhead stating you have company permission, you can have it without getting all the paperwork yourself. (Note, this is how mercs can drive tanks around in the US legally)

The US defense department has to demill everything they sell to private citizens, but it doesn't mean you can't buy it from someone else. You're usually looking at either foreign made or a generation or two old for private sales from out of country, but don't underestimate old. Some tanks have (again, legally acquirable) upgrade packages long after their initial production.

Here's some more fun articles for you:

From the CDC:
"insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review
"due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=96


On a different note, I know that alleged Morgan Freeman quote was posted earlier. Mr. Freeman's camp confirms it's a hoax.
http://news.yahoo.com/morgan-freeman-denies-making-statement-school-shooting-013627371.html;_ylt=Ar4t1KDGBnIASgFPETXd0SGbCMZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTVxajMyZ2FkBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3MgZm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDMjc0MjllNmYtN2UxZC0zZjA3LTlmMjgtNWRlNDdhMTBiZDEyBHBvcwM0BHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyAzY2NWU5NDkxLTQ3ZWEtMTFlMi1iNmFmLTk2OTUxNzBhMGNkOQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTM1a3VoMjhwBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDOTE5MzBlZGEtOWMxYS0zNzRjLWEyNzAtYWU4ZmQ4MjZmNWU3BHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3x0aGV0aWNrZXQEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I thought the laws for owning a tank also means you have ot have the weapons disable.

Tanks, artillery, bombs, etc. all fall under the auspices of the National Firearms Act of 1934 as “other destructive devices.” In general this means they may be privately owned, subject to the payment of a transfer tax, and filling out all of the requisite paperwork.

To buy one, you have to get the signature of the local police chief, pass a background check, and register it with BATF. You also have to get ATF permission to cross state lines with it. Corporations can be the registered owners, so as long as you are an employee with a letter on company letterhead stating you have company permission, you can have it without getting all the paperwork yourself. (Note, this is how mercs can drive tanks around in the US legally)

The US defense department has to demill everything they sell to private citizens, but it doesn't mean you can't buy it from someone else. You're usually looking at either foreign made or a generation or two old for private sales from out of country, but don't underestimate old. Some tanks have (again, legally acquirable) upgrade packages long after their initial production.

All of this of course is insanely expensive.

But awesome.

If I had the money I'd have a T-34 in the garage by now now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


All of this of course is insanely expensive.

But awesome.

If I had the money I'd have a T-34 in the garage by now now.

I... seem to remember someone telling me they had a T-34 for sale recently, but the problem was paying for shipping from England. It was still in operational condition, but they were offering to have it demilled if required.

Personally, I with I had the spare change for one of those Yugoslavian war veteran M-18 hellcats that people have been restoring. Too bad that a half mil is beyond my reach atm.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


All of this of course is insanely expensive.

But awesome.

If I had the money I'd have a T-34 in the garage by now now.

I... seem to remember someone telling me they had a T-34 for sale recently, but the problem was paying for shipping from England. It was still in operational condition, but they were offering to have it demilled if required.

Personally, I with I had the spare change for one of those Yugoslavian war veteran M-18 hellcats that people have been restoring. Too bad that a half mil is beyond my reach atm.

I saw that one actually! It did need some restoration work if we're thinking of the same armored vehicle. Didn't even want toooo much for it. about 29,000 more then I can afford still, but now bad.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

I saw that one actually! It did need some restoration work if we're thinking of the same armored vehicle. Didn't even want toooo much for it. about 29,000 more then I can afford still, but now bad.

http://www.site.ww2mv.com/M18_Hellcat_For_Sale.php

This one. And they even lowered the price for Christmas! Too bad I still can't afford...

Maybe if I get a big contract I'll splurge, but...

If I do, someplace I have the 76mm gun, since I read this one is a gas cannon. ..

..bit I'd really like to mount her with the 90mm. They did it as an experiment during the war. I'm curious what she'd feel like with it.

I want a German Wiesel.

For Allied armor I'd want to get my paws on a Firefly



That Panzer VI Ausf F. repro on the site you linked would make my day too Baron.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which does not prove a single thing about the constitutionality about the right for individuals to own "assault weapons", which is a big sticking point for both sides of the gun debate.

The ability to conceal a handgun on your person != the right to bear arms, by the way.

Oh and look. Here comes Whembly with blog posts!

"Assault weapons" are only a sticking point for the anti-gun side, actually.

As far as the ability to conceal a handgun goes, the court, in striking down Illinois' ban, ruled that the right to "bear" arms did in fact mean the right to carry them, as simply being allowed to have them in your home wouldn't meet the definition of bearing, but keeping.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
For Allied armor I'd want to get my paws on a Firefly

I'd go with the Easy 8 for Shermans during the war, and post was the M-50 Super Sherman (it was an Israeli upgrade using parts from AMX 13/75s and Panzer 4s, a regular Frankentank).

Over alll? Hmm.... Panther.

Firearm sales are through the roof right now, by the way. My local shop had sold over 20 AR-15s by noon today. Ammo shelves are bare. Even online there's not a bolt carrier group worth buying available.

 Seaward wrote:
Firearm sales are through the roof right now, by the way. My local shop had sold over 20 AR-15s by noon today. Ammo shelves are bare. Even online there's not a bolt carrier group worth buying available.

The latter's been true for awhile now but yeah it was similar here. I was picking up a Marlin lever action I had bought and I had to WADE through. You can't find 5.56/.233, .22 or any of the popular hunting rounds at Walmart or any of the major sporting goods stores. Dick's Sporting Goods were down to 1/3 their normal stock of weapons. Walmart sold out of black rifles completely in three locations.

 AustonT wrote:

Keep fighting the good fight.

You're relying on bs history given to you by liars. The claim that Hitler put in place gun control is a long discredited myth. The idea that gun control in China, while admittedly very strict, would have any meaningful impact on a society built on subsistance farmers as Mao's China was, is just plain weird. Just... feth. This 'dictator's don't let you have guns!' is just so fething stupid. Plenty of dictators had relaxed laws on guns - look no further than Saddam Hussein. It doesn't matter whether you have access to guns or not, because that just isn't how power works.

I'm not, by the way, trying to make an argument for or against gun control*, I'm just sick of this debate being fought with nonsense yet again.




*I only popped my head in here as a friend mentioned the thread to me in pm, and sure enough its the same old nonsense as always.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which does not prove a single thing about the constitutionality about the right for individuals to own "assault weapons", which is a big sticking point for both sides of the gun debate.

The ability to conceal a handgun on your person != the right to bear arms, by the way.

Oh and look. Here comes Whembly with blog posts!

"Assault weapons" are only a sticking point for the anti-gun side, actually.

Bollocks.

The statement of "assault weapons" is continuously used by the pro-gun side as an implication that the anti-gun side has no clue what they are talking about.

As far as the ability to conceal a handgun goes, the court, in striking down Illinois' ban, ruled that the right to "bear" arms did in fact mean the right to carry them, as simply being allowed to have them in your home wouldn't meet the definition of bearing, but keeping.

The court, in striking down Illinois' ban, ruled that the right to bear arms is not limited simply to the home.

That is not the same thing as the right to carry them, at all times and in all places.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Firearm sales are through the roof right now, by the way. My local shop had sold over 20 AR-15s by noon today. Ammo shelves are bare. Even online there's not a bolt carrier group worth buying available.

Firearm sales always spike after events like we saw.

Because every individual out there who remotely qualifies to handle a gun thinks they could stop something like this, if only they had been there!

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bollocks.

The statement of "assault weapons" is continuously used by the pro-gun side as an implication that the anti-gun side has no clue what they are talking about.

I'm not sure what your point is. That happens to be true.

The court, in striking down Illinois' ban, ruled that the right to bear arms is not limited simply to the home.

That is not the same thing as the right to carry them, at all times and in all places.

No, they made pretty clear that the right is to carry them.

Firearm sales always spike after events like we saw.

Because every individual out there who remotely qualifies to handle a gun thinks they could stop something like this, if only they had been there!

Actually, it's because rhetoric immediately after indicates that politicians might try to ban guns, so it's time to go ahead and pick up what you need now.

As far as that belief, I'm not sure it's wrong. I'm aware of many mass shootings stopped by a CCW holder; I'm aware of none where a CCW holder was present but didn't stop the atrocity.