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:

 AustonT wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?

The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.

That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's also based on the false notion that the members of militaries and police always side with their government. It's the basic mindless robot argument that's about as useful as a spoiler on a mini van.

I do not think that as many members of the militaries and police would side with the citizenry that people believe.

You're over complicating it. Of course if things went bad in the country it wouldn't be this black and white. However that doesn't change the fact that a group of citizens in a Waco situation v a federal force unleashed would be outgunned.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?

The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.

That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Entirely different situation.
These "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are using scavenged military equipment and have no qualms with sacrificing their own lives.

And there's suspicion in a lot of intelligence agencies that these "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are also receiving training and armaments from foreign sources with a vested interest in continuing the conflicts.

Protecting yourself, your family and your property is a different matter, but even that needs to be put into perspective. If the gun is considered a tool, then there is no need to have multiple tools that do the same job. Why have 4 handguns, a shotgun, hunting rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition?

All saws saw. Why would anyone ever need more than one saw? Saws do the same job, so you only ever need one saw.

Most people only have a handsaw.

In the area where I live, where trees commonly come down during the winter and hurricane season, many people have a chainsaw and handsaw to clean up if necessary.

What would be so wrong with restricting gun ownership to one pistol per person or a shotgun? Someone breaks in, you have a weapon to challenge them.

Either a pistol or a shotgun, you mean? Well, a shotgun's pretty hard to carry concealed, but it's also better for home defense. Why should I be obliged to pick only one? See above again re: saws sawing.

I agree that a shotgun will have a different time where it becomes handy than a pistol.

What I do not agree with is people having hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition continually on hand at home. Who would ever, realistically, need that to "defend their home"?

A compromise needs to happen in regards to firearms, because it sure will not happen with treating the mentally ill without some serious violation of individuals' constitutional rights.

As I've said before, I understand the fascination with weapons and got a buzz when handling them in the TA, and yes, if allowed I would of collected them. Thankfully the laws over here stopped me from having them and you soon realise that there is no need for them as a member of the general public.

I've had need for mine, as has my girlfriend. I'm glad you haven't been in a situation where a gun would've come in handy, but let's not pretend that your individual experience is universal.

And let's not pretend your experience is either.

Wait people have hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition?
1. Who's the millionaire?
2. So what? That just means they're either: Competing and have a corporate sponsor (such a thing does exist actually), or have to much money that they need to give to me.
3. Why do you want to oppress them again?

A lot of these "doomsday preppers" are in the tens of thousands in rounds of ammunition.

If you are competing or having a corporate sponsor, why do you need to have it at your house?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Entirely different situation.
These "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are using scavenged military equipment and have no qualms with sacrificing their own lives.

And there's suspicion in a lot of intelligence agencies that these "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are also receiving training and armaments from foreign sources with a vested interest in continuing the conflicts.

And as at least a couple different people who've got the personal experience with the types of organizations involved to know have told you, not every cop or member of the military in America would side with this hypothetical tyrannical government if it came to power. For that matter, do you think the army of the Confederacy was made up of imported mercenaries or something?

Most people only have a handsaw.

In the area where I live, where trees commonly come down during the winter and hurricane season, many people have a chainsaw and handsaw to clean up if necessary.

Why on earth would they need more than one saw? All saws saw.

I agree that a shotgun will have a different time where it becomes handy than a pistol.

What I do not agree with is people having hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition continually on hand at home. Who would ever, realistically, need that to "defend their home"?

You're making the assumption that it's there to "defend their home." I, for example, usually have between 2,000 and 3,000 rounds in the house at any given time, the overwhelming majority of it being plain, cheap ball for practice. I run through about five hundred rounds a week, so it's not a static supply - some goes out, more comes in. I'd say I probably have about 500 rounds of hollowpoints at any given time, because that, too, goes out and in; I usually fire off my carry load once a week at the start of practice.

I am fond of the notion you seem to have that having hundreds of thousands of rounds is at all common, though. Even at internet prices of 9mm, you're talking between $30,000 and $40,000 to establish that sort of stockpile - at the low end.

And let's not pretend your experience is either.

I've never claimed it is. All I've said is that the notion that nobody ever needs to defend themselves because a guy in Britain hasn't had to is flawed logic at best.

 Seaward wrote:
That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One would suggest this isn't especially helpful as an example as the military forces involved in these situations have been actively trying to minimise the deaths and damages to civilians. If the USA army, for example, decided to wipe out the population of hypertheticalstan then it'd happen.

I can't see the UN troops, once they emerge from the salt mines of Utah at the behest of their Illuminati secret muslim leader, being as bothered about "collateral damage" as they take you away to the camps/wherever.

 reds8n wrote:
I can't see the UN troops, once they emerge from the salt mines of Utah at the behest of their Illuminati secret muslim leader, being as bothered about "collateral damage" as they take you away to the camps/wherever.

I don't think even the people who are actually worried about the UN are worried about UN troops due to their combat prowess.

Under the same argument it takes a majoraty vote in both the house of commons and the house of lords to repeal an act of parlement rather than the one house in the US. The reason there are so few is more to do with the political power of the constitution in the US.

Thats the same as here. Big whup.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Entirely different situation.
These "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are using scavenged military equipment and have no qualms with sacrificing their own lives.

And there's suspicion in a lot of intelligence agencies that these "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are also receiving training and armaments from foreign sources with a vested interest in continuing the conflicts.

And as at least a couple different people who've got the personal experience with the types of organizations involved to know have told you, not every cop or member of the military in America would side with this hypothetical tyrannical government if it came to power. For that matter, do you think the army of the Confederacy was made up of imported mercenaries or something?

Do you think that every citizen of the Confederacy fought for them?
Or for that matter, the same situation happened with the Union?

I want to know how a tyrannical government comes to power here in the United States without any kind of check preventing it.

Most people only have a handsaw.

In the area where I live, where trees commonly come down during the winter and hurricane season, many people have a chainsaw and handsaw to clean up if necessary.

Why on earth would they need more than one saw? All saws saw.

Ever tried cutting apart a hundred year old pine with just a handsaw?

I agree that a shotgun will have a different time where it becomes handy than a pistol.

What I do not agree with is people having hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition continually on hand at home. Who would ever, realistically, need that to "defend their home"?

You're making the assumption that it's there to "defend their home." I, for example, usually have between 2,000 and 3,000 rounds in the house at any given time, the overwhelming majority of it being plain, cheap ball for practice. I run through about five hundred rounds a week, so it's not a static supply - some goes out, more comes in. I'd say I probably have about 500 rounds of hollowpoints at any given time, because that, too, goes out and in; I usually fire off my carry load once a week at the start of practice.

I am fond of the notion you seem to have that having hundreds of thousands of rounds is at all common, though. Even at internet prices of 9mm, you're talking between $30,000 and $40,000 to establish that sort of stockpile - at the low end.

Yet there are people who have such stockpiles. Many of them are members of "militias" which have the stated mission of armed resistance against the United States government over the stupidest things.

And let's not pretend your experience is either.

I've never claimed it is. All I've said is that the notion that nobody ever needs to defend themselves because a guy in Britain hasn't had to is flawed logic at best.

Which does not change the fact that some sensible limitations should be put into place regarding gun ownership.

=P If the UN developed the "shoot first, call them all terrorists later" approach that the US army does then it'd get a lot more done. That this would also cause it to lose all credibility doesn't mean you should belittle them for trying to have some morals when it comes to war dear.

 Seaward wrote:

Most people only have a handsaw.

In the area where I live, where trees commonly come down during the winter and hurricane season, many people have a chainsaw and handsaw to clean up if necessary.

Why on earth would they need more than one saw? All saws saw.

Idk if you saw the damage from Sandy, but some saws saw better than other saws. A chainsaw is far more efficient at cutting trees and large piece of wood into smaller, more "bite-sized" fireplace friendly nuggets than a handsaw...


On topic though: I am liking some of the discussion here, and as to the smallarmssurvey that steve was talking about, they did one for 2012, but the focus of the survey was something entirely different.

 Kanluwen wrote:
A lot of these "doomsday preppers" are in the tens of thousands in rounds of ammunition.

If you are competing or having a corporate sponsor, why do you need to have it at your house?

You went from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. Thats a BIG change.
1. Tens of thousands - very rare but occurs. Again, competitive shooters will have such. If I'm burning through three thousand rounds a month to win - well we don't really win much now do we? -and buying in a market afraid the federal government is going to seize everything I need more than a month's supply.
2. Again so what? The only people who should be concerned about that are people who literally want to take your rights away and oppress you. No mass or serial killer has pulled up in a van with tens of thousands of rounds. No one can carry that load, even if it were just .22 LRs.

You can make the argument they don't need it, but thats horsegak. We don't need anything but food, clothing, and shelter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
=P If the UN developed the "shoot first, call them all terrorists later" approach that the US army does then it'd get a lot more done. That this would also cause it to lose all credibility doesn't mean you should belittle them for trying to have some morals when it comes to war dear.

Well the UN did just adopt the Dictator standard for internet control. Give them a little time, and you might get your wish.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
A lot of these "doomsday preppers" are in the tens of thousands in rounds of ammunition.

If you are competing or having a corporate sponsor, why do you need to have it at your house?

You went from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. Thats a BIG change.

It is, but it is more realistic and not taking into account the militia oriented goombas. Those are the people who realistically will have that much ammunition. I blame lack of caffeine for the original "hundreds of thousands" remark.

1. Tens of thousands - very rare but occurs. Again, competitive shooters will have such. If I'm burning through three thousand rounds a month to win - well we don't really win much now do we? -and buying in a market afraid the federal government is going to seize everything I need more than a month's supply.

Competitive shooters I can understand. They are not simply going to be using those rounds for competitions, but also for practice.

2. Again so what? The only people who should be concerned about that are people who literally want to take your rights away and oppress you. No mass or serial killer has pulled up in a van with tens of thousands of rounds. No one can carry that load, even if it were just .22 LRs.

If they want to oppress you, it does not matter how much bloody ammunition you have. Unless you get individuals who are willing to put everything on the line to fight the government, I do not foresee any civil movement preventing government tyranny.

You can make the argument they don't need it, but thats horsegak. We don't need anything but food, clothing, and shelter.

This is a silly argument.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
=P If the UN developed the "shoot first, call them all terrorists later" approach that the US army does then it'd get a lot more done. That this would also cause it to lose all credibility doesn't mean you should belittle them for trying to have some morals when it comes to war dear.

Well the UN did just adopt the Dictator standard for internet control. Give them a little time, and you might get your wish.

^^ Because naturally everything's black and white. If you put in place stricter laws you're a dictator, if you put in more liberal ones your a damn dirty communist right?

I don't recall any of my family ever saying, "If you see a UN soldier with a gun, duck!"...

I cannot say with any certainty that I wouldn't curl up and cry like a baby if the government were to suddenly oppress me...

I'd need Chris Hemsworth and Josh Peck to motivate me into saving my town.

Frazz, just for my general knowledge. You're a competitive shooter, and have at least an average Texan's knowledge of firearms, do you own something that would have fallen under the "Federal Assault Rifle Ban"?

The UN adoption of "the Dictator standard for Internet Control" was pushed through by a number of nations with a vested interest in such a thing, like Russia and China.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Do you think that every citizen of the Confederacy fought for them?
Or for that matter, the same situation happened with the Union?

I think you wildly missed my point, but that's alright. It's an irrelevant discussion, as far more people keep guns for personal defense than to refresh the tree of liberty. The assertion that the modern military/police forces would crush any such armed resistance is at absolute best an unknown.

Ever tried cutting apart a hundred year old pine with just a handsaw?

So you would agree that different saws are better at different tasks within the realm of sawing than others.

Much like different firearms are better at different tasks within the realm of shooting bullets than others.

Yet there are people who have such stockpiles. Many of them are members of "militias" which have the stated mission of armed resistance against the United States government over the stupidest things.

Yes, there probably are people who have over a hundred thousand rounds of ammunition in their home. I don't know that for sure - I've never heard of any - but I'll grant the premise for the sake of argument.

Jay Leno owns something ridiculous like over a hundred cars. I would probably not use him as an example of the common car owner in America if that's what we were discussing.

Which does not change the fact that some sensible limitations should be put into place regarding gun ownership.

See, this is what I actually want to hear. What do you have in mind?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Frazz, just for my general knowledge. You're a competitive shooter, and have at least an average Texan's knowledge of firearms, do you own something that would have fallen under the "Federal Assault Rifle Ban"?

I do.

If it goes into effect again, I make a thirty-second cosmetic change and - what do you know! - it's legal once more. It's an absurd, absurd law.

 reds8n wrote:

Again, no they're not.

see earlier and also : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

What's interesting in that article is that there's a minor flaw in it: While firearm suicides in Israel on weekends did decrease, suicides by strangulation, the number two method, increased. This gets glossed over by claiming that 'weekday suicides did not increase'. There's also the minor issue with Switzerland that, while technically true, Swiss gun ownership has gone down, and there has been a move to put arms in armories, as the citizens do not own the guns, Switzerland does. Lack of private ownership does not translate into a lack of weapons on hand in this case.

Oh, and red8n, there's nothing in that article that actually disproves his mention of teachers. Teachers in the settlements are known for carrying, as is just about everyone in the settlements. For obvious reasons. It's one of the easiest ways to get a gun in Israel is to work or do business in the settlements. As they mention in that link.

After hearing about this shooting, my Momd called and asked me; "What's wrong with fairly bright, young, white guys that they keep shooting people up?"

Thankfully, I didn't have any real insight into the situation.

However, to specualte madly; I would say being told your whole life that you would be successful and happy in life if you just did X, Y, and Z. Only to realize once you achieved X, Y, and Z; that everything you had been told before was a lie. That COULD make some people a bit angry and crazy.

I know, why am I not talking about Gun Control!?!

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Do you think that every citizen of the Confederacy fought for them?
Or for that matter, the same situation happened with the Union?

I think you wildly missed my point, but that's alright. It's an irrelevant discussion, as far more people keep guns for personal defense than to refresh the tree of liberty. The assertion that the modern military/police forces would crush any such armed resistance is at absolute best an unknown.

It really is not.
When you frame it in the context of "What would necessitate an armed resistance?", you also have to frame it in the context of "What would cause the modern military and police forces to forgo their sworn oaths to the government and its citizens?".

Ever tried cutting apart a hundred year old pine with just a handsaw?

So you would agree that different saws are better at different tasks within the realm of sawing than others.

Much like different firearms are better at different tasks within the realm of shooting bullets than others.

Almost like I actually already agreed with that.

Yet there are people who have such stockpiles. Many of them are members of "militias" which have the stated mission of armed resistance against the United States government over the stupidest things.

Yes, there probably are people who have over a hundred thousand rounds of ammunition in their home. I don't know that for sure - I've never heard of any - but I'll grant the premise for the sake of argument.

Jay Leno owns something ridiculous like over a hundred cars. I would probably not use him as an example of the common car owner in America if that's what we were discussing.

There is one important difference there.

Jay Leno is not a member of an organization with a stated goal of opposing the government, and cars are not weapons.
They can be used as weapons certainly, but that is not their intent.

Which does not change the fact that some sensible limitations should be put into place regarding gun ownership.

See, this is what I actually want to hear. What do you have in mind?

Well, for a start it should not simply be the person applying for a gun who is given training and certified for handling the firearm. It should be anyone who is realistically going to have access to the firearm. There should, in my opinion, be a far more in depth background check that is given to individuals wanting firearms than there is.
Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.

I do not feel that either of those two ideas are excessively restrictive for someone who wishes to legally own a firearm.

I would say that the media saturation with this damn topic is always annoying. Every time there's a mass shooting in the US it totally envelopes the BBC World News service during the daylight hours. I guess that everything else that's going on in the world isn't nearly as important as something that went on in a town in the US...

 Easy E wrote:
After hearing about this shooting, my Momd called and asked me; "What's wrong with fairly bright, young, white guys that they keep shooting people up?"

Thankfully, I didn't have any real insight into the situation.

However, to specualte madly; I would say being told your whole life that you would be successful and happy in life if you just did X, Y, and Z. Only to realize once you achieved X, Y, and Z; that everything you had been told before was a lie. That COULD make some people a bit angry and crazy.

I know, why am I not talking about Gun Control!?!

I personally think it's about agency. If these guys just wanted to die while shooting off guns, they'd engage cops. They want to die by their own hand, and they want to do it after gaining infamy. If the cops or someone else with a gun shows up, they cut the spree and ice themselves. It's some fethed-up desire for control.

 Easy E wrote:
After hearing about this shooting, my Momd called and asked me; "What's wrong with fairly bright, young, white guys that they keep shooting people up?"

Thankfully, I didn't have any real insight into the situation.

However, to specualte madly; I would say being told your whole life that you would be successful and happy in life if you just did X, Y, and Z. Only to realize once you achieved X, Y, and Z; that everything you had been told before was a lie. That COULD make some people a bit angry and crazy.

I know, why am I not talking about Gun Control!?!

I was told I could be anything I wanted to be, I just had to strive and work hard for it. I'm decently happy with my life, I'd like to be on my own, but my working hard aspect didn't pan out in college... I got good grades, but not scholarship good grades...

Easy, is what you're talking about, like the "everyone's a winner" mentality?

 Kanluwen wrote:
It really is not.
When you frame it in the context of "What would necessitate an armed resistance?", you also have to frame it in the context of "What would cause the modern military and police forces to forgo their sworn oaths to the government and its citizens?".

You're forgetting sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution.

Almost like I actually already agreed with that.

Then what're you arguing with me for? I was using the saw example to have a go at the guy who thought someone would only ever need one gun, ever, because they all do the same thing.

There is one important difference there.

Jay Leno is not a member of an organization with a stated goal of opposing the government, and cars are not weapons.
They can be used as weapons certainly, but that is not their intent.

There are a lot of important differences, but the point is that, just as Jay Leno is a tiny, tiny exception in a given populace, so too are individuals who store hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition, so using either of them as the basis for a law is a bit strange.

Well, for a start it should not simply be the person applying for a gun who is given training and certified for handling the firearm. It should be anyone who is realistically going to have access to the firearm.

What about people who will eventually have access to it that are unknown to the buyer at the time of purchase? If you decide to move in with your girlfriend after buying a gun, does she have to go in and get a background check? How exactly do you run a background check on, for example, ten year-old children?

There should, in my opinion, be a far more in depth background check that is given to individuals wanting firearms than there is.

Encompassing what?

Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.

There I'll have to say no, just as I would if you were to suggest random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that I wasn't accessing content on my computer that violated obscenity laws.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I cannot say with any certainty that I wouldn't curl up and cry like a baby if the government were to suddenly oppress me...

I'd need Chris Hemsworth and Josh Peck to motivate me into saving my town.

Frazz, just for my general knowledge. You're a competitive shooter, and have at least an average Texan's knowledge of firearms, do you own something that would have fallen under the "Federal Assault Rifle Ban"?

You mean the old law, thats still in place in California?
Yep. if you own a 9mm you pretty much violate that law. But my .45 ACP and 44 mag are perfectly fine.
I have an older rifle that may be excluded due to age/antiquity, but existing firearms would likely still be legal. Actual seizure of firearms is much more difficult...

 Seaward wrote:

Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.

There I'll have to say no, just as I would if you were to suggest random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that I wasn't accessing content on my computer that violated obscenity laws.

I'm going to have to disagree with the point on "random inspections". I'm legally allowed to own a rifle without any form of permit... I have 0 "training" or "certification" outside of the fact that I was range officer at a Boy Scout camp, and my storage procedures are based on that knowledge. Store the guns as securely as possible, ensuring you only have access to them. My rifle is stored in my room where the only person that can get to it on average is me, since my parents don't go up into my room (They're over 60, stairs aren't their friend).

Would I have my gun stored in such a way if I had a child or younger sibling? Feth no! I'd either sell the gun, or buy a locked combination case that only I knew the pin to. If I needed to, I could tell a parent or child (if old enough) how to access my gun safe in emergency situations. Then after the emergency is done, I reset the combination to where only I know it... once a again.

It is, but it is more realistic and not taking into account the militia oriented goombas. Those are the people who realistically will have that much ammunition. I blame lack of caffeine for the original "hundreds of thousands" remark.
***Understand, a lack of coffee is a terrible thing.

Competitive shooters I can understand. They are not simply going to be using those rounds for competitions, but also for practice.
***Exactly, before that and the Obama Bullet Bubble I, I never had that much about. Some bricks of .22s and maybe 200 or so at most. Not now.
If they want to oppress you, it does not matter how much bloody ammunition you have. Unless you get individuals who are willing to put everything on the line to fight the government, I do not foresee any civil movement preventing government tyranny.
****That’s kind of the point.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
=P If the UN developed the "shoot first, call them all terrorists later" approach that the US army does then it'd get a lot more done. That this would also cause it to lose all credibility doesn't mean you should belittle them for trying to have some morals when it comes to war dear.

Well the UN did just adopt the Dictator standard for internet control. Give them a little time, and you might get your wish.

^^ Because naturally everything's black and white. If you put in place stricter laws you're a dictator, if you put in more liberal ones your a damn dirty communist right?

I don't recall any of my family ever saying, "If you see a UN soldier with a gun, duck!"...

So you support what just happened at the UN, something YOUR NATION refused to take part in?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I would say that the media saturation with this damn topic is always annoying. Every time there's a mass shooting in the US it totally envelopes the BBC World News service during the daylight hours. I guess that everything else that's going on in the world isn't nearly as important as something that went on in a town in the US...

i agree. I've been listening to the BBC since this morning to avoid NPR and the other news. They're off the charts milking this thing for Day Three.

My primary carry's stored either above and a little to the right of my nuts, or else in a Crossbreed holster velcro'd to the side of my nightstand. Neither runs counter to the training I've received, yet both would likely make the average gun controller extremely uncomfortable.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It really is not.
When you frame it in the context of "What would necessitate an armed resistance?", you also have to frame it in the context of "What would cause the modern military and police forces to forgo their sworn oaths to the government and its citizens?".

You're forgetting sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution.

No, I am not. Because the likelihood of a government dismissing the Constitution is so small it is not worth considering.

Almost like I actually already agreed with that.

Then what're you arguing with me for? I was using the saw example to have a go at the guy who thought someone would only ever need one gun, ever, because they all do the same thing.

I was not arguing with you about it. I used the saw/chainsaw example to show that not everything is necessary in every locale.

There is one important difference there.

Jay Leno is not a member of an organization with a stated goal of opposing the government, and cars are not weapons.
They can be used as weapons certainly, but that is not their intent.

There are a lot of important differences, but the point is that, just as Jay Leno is a tiny, tiny exception in a given populace, so too are individuals who store hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition, so using either of them as the basis for a law is a bit strange.

The individuals who store hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition are not actually entirely bad examples, if rare ones.

Well, for a start it should not simply be the person applying for a gun who is given training and certified for handling the firearm. It should be anyone who is realistically going to have access to the firearm.

What about people who will eventually have access to it that are unknown to the buyer at the time of purchase? If you decide to move in with your girlfriend after buying a gun, does she have to go in and get a background check?

Why should she not?

How exactly do you run a background check on, for example, ten year-old children?

You do not, but you do ensure that they are not allowed to handle the gun without supervision, etc.

There should, in my opinion, be a far more in depth background check that is given to individuals wanting firearms than there is.

Encompassing what?

Well for a starter, finding out why people want to own a firearm. Finding out what is going on in an individual's life at the time of purchase of the firearm, etc.

The number of spree shooters using illegally acquired weapons is much smaller than those who are legally obtaining them.
That needs to stop.

Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.

There I'll have to say no, just as I would if you were to suggest random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that I wasn't accessing content on my computer that violated obscenity laws.

Why?

There is no enforcement of "obscenity laws" except in cases of lesser included offenses. Obscene material does not really hurt anybody but improperly stored firearms can lead to injuries or even deaths if children get access to them.
Firearms can be stolen as well and in some cases the theft is not reported.

 Frazzled wrote:
I've been listening to the BBC since this morning to avoid NPR and the other news. They're off the charts milking this thing for Day Three.

:/

A bit much to complain that this shooting is receiving news coverage.

 Frazzled wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
=P If the UN developed the "shoot first, call them all terrorists later" approach that the US army does then it'd get a lot more done. That this would also cause it to lose all credibility doesn't mean you should belittle them for trying to have some morals when it comes to war dear.

Well the UN did just adopt the Dictator standard for internet control. Give them a little time, and you might get your wish.

^^ Because naturally everything's black and white. If you put in place stricter laws you're a dictator, if you put in more liberal ones your a damn dirty communist right?

I don't recall any of my family ever saying, "If you see a UN soldier with a gun, duck!"...

So you support what just happened at the UN, something YOUR NATION refused to take part in?

Because everyone in a country supports the views of they're government.

* Titbit, the UK government's run by the Tory part right now. Fun fact, the population of England is much larger than Scotland. Guess how many people here voted them in? >ref independance XD

But no, I'm not an advocator of cencorship. My point was the way that you choose to discuss it in a berrating manner.

Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.

You better have a warrant and you better bring a lot of friends.