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.

Tsilber wrote:
Look at it like this, If you banned guns outright in the USA what would happen.

It would be illegal to own a Gun, okay got it. So 95% of the population would not own a gun.

I highly doubt that.

Mine, for example, would all get stolen the day before the ban.

Tsilber wrote:

Gun control will never happen. Laws are for those who follow the law. The Lawless follow none.

No, they don't. But there are very few people that do not follow any law, and very few people that follow all laws, so I'm not sure why either group is relevant.

The purpose of gun control is plainly to restrict the availability of firearms. This won't ever make them completely unavailable, but it will, unarguably, make them more difficult to obtain*.





*As many opponents of gun control enjoy going on about.

So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.

The clips vs. magazines thing is a classic, and the illusion of what an "assault weapon" is has already been covered (still not sure why "assault weapons" (by the 94 AWB's definition) is at the center of the present discourse, didn't the CT shooter use a pair of pistols/don't pistols cause the majority of gun related deaths nation wide?)

So here's my favorite new terms I've learned:
Heavy Duty - Used by a couple media outlets, still not sure what they mean by it exactly...
High Power - to be fair this actually means something, but it's usually applied to large caliber rifles, not pistols as I've seen it used a couple times now.
Megaclips - No idea. None at all. Maybe it's a super large clip that you put in place with a crane and feed it into artillery pieces? that somehow have internal magazines now? Whatever they need to be banned apparently.

Favorite new things I've learned about me thanks to the kind people on the other side.
I'm a Republican, Christian, uneducated redneck, coward, and I should shoot myself with one of my own guns.

 dogma wrote:

Well, yeah, but tyrannical doomsday prognostications generally leverage the number of body bags that FEMA has stockpiled. In a realistic scenario involving a legitimate threat to the power of the federal government the US military would most likely behave as every other military in a similar situation has: follow the orders of the immediate CO. Because, at the end of the day, identifying oneself as being military is almost always far stronger than identifying oneself as being nationality X; especially with a nationality as weak as "American".

Identity doesn't even factor into it. Humans have a tendency to obey a hierarchy. The CIA, once upon a time, did an experiment, where they tested to see at what point people would refuse an order to torture another human being. They took a bunch of college students and basically told them they were going to administer an experiment on people, which might cause the subjects a degree of suffering. They were to keep going though, as the subject's level of discomfort was part of the experiment. Almost the entire group, during the experiment, was willing to inflict incredible (though simulated) suffering on the subjects. When asked why they were willing to behave in such a callous and inhuman manner toward their fellow human beings when they could have refused and stopped the test at any time, 90% replied 'I was following orders'.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.

First, it isn't a distinction between people that favor guns and people that oppose them. For example, I own 3 guns and favor gun control.

Second, while I agree with you that the people opposed to gun control invent terminology, the people that oppose it have done very little in public media to attack that tendency. Neither side, on a political level, seems to have any interest in a technical discussion.

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.

First, it isn't a distinction between people that favor guns and people that oppose them. For example, I own 3 guns and favor gun control.

Second, while I agree with you that the people opposed to gun control invent terminology, the people that oppose it have done very little in public media to attack that tendency. Neither side, on a political level, seems to have any interest in a technical discussion.

Mostly because neither side politically seems to know what they're talking about in the technical sense. You can I can debate policy on control and licensing standards for deep sea submarines all day, but beyond a general concept of what a submarine is and does, is either of us qualified to speak about submarines from a technical stand point?

 dogma wrote:
Neither side, on a political level, seems to have any interest in a technical discussion.

Neither side wants to push for sensible legislation, either. How does limiting magazine capacity keep guns out of the hands of dangerous madmen?

The thing is, that unless you deal with the core reason that these people are doing these things, then they're going to find a way to do it one way or another. I hate to say it, but guns are one of the less horrific ways that people like this can kill large numbers of people.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Identity doesn't even factor into it. Humans have a tendency to obey a hierarchy.

Of course identity factors into it. A hierarchy cannot exist without identity.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

The CIA, once upon a time, did an experiment, where they tested to see at what point people would refuse an order to torture another human being.

You mean the Milgram Experiments, which were not conducted by the CIA, but by Stanley Milgram. Though the CIA used similar methods at times.

His general conclusion was that most people would do their job, even if it violated moral conviction, but that they would not be happy about it. And further, that that it was a relatively slim majority, ~60% as memory serves, which is far from "almost all".

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Mostly because neither side politically seems to know what they're talking about in the technical sense. You can I can debate policy on control and licensing standards for deep sea submarines all day, but beyond a general concept of what a submarine is and does, is either of us qualified to speak about submarines from a technical stand point?

No, but I'm certain that some people are, and I'm certain that if someone paid me enough I could become qualified.

The problem isn't that they don't know what they're talking about, the R's and D's have plenty of employees that will learn if necessary. The problem is that a technical debate doesn't behoove either party, because most people aren't paid to learn things beyond their hobbies and professions.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

The thing is, that unless you deal with the core reason that these people are doing these things, then they're going to find a way to do it one way or another.

I disagree. A person angry enough to shoot lots of children is not necessarily angry enough to learn the chemistry involved in building a bomb.

Civilians shouldn't own guns. It's just that simple.

Oh, that settles it then!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.

The clips vs. magazines thing is a classic, and the illusion of what an "assault weapon" is has already been covered (still not sure why "assault weapons" (by the 94 AWB's definition) is at the center of the present discourse, didn't the CT shooter use a pair of pistols/don't pistols cause the majority of gun related deaths nation wide?)

So here's my favorite new terms I've learned:
Heavy Duty - Used by a couple media outlets, still not sure what they mean by it exactly...
High Power - to be fair this actually means something, but it's usually applied to large caliber rifles, not pistols as I've seen it used a couple times now.
Megaclips - No idea. None at all. Maybe it's a super large clip that you put in place with a crane and feed it into artillery pieces? that somehow have internal magazines now? Whatever they need to be banned apparently.

Favorite new things I've learned about me thanks to the kind people on the other side.
I'm a Republican, Christian, uneducated redneck, coward, and I should shoot myself with one of my own guns.

Heavy Duty weapon doesn't really made sense.
High Power - When non gun familiar people use High Power they generally mean guns with a seemingly large round. The fact that they can't even use that properly is disconcerting, but not unexpected. For instance a Desert Eagle, or any pistol that chambers .44 or bigger methinks, is considered high powered by the general public. Though I think this has grown out of video game gun glorification.
Megaclips - This means a magazine that has been extended, or manufactured with a capacity, beyond the typical number of maximum rounds. For instance putting a 30 round magazine into a 9mm pistol that normally only carries 17 would be a "Megaclip." Example below.

 whembly wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think people necessarily have in mind the US government declaring war on them. They are thinking more of the petty tyrannies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hedgehog wrote:
One important point to make is that the right to bear arms isn't a universal human right - it's an American one.

Why is that important to note? Who thinks otherwise? People you're talking to or people you're imagining?

It's difficult to tell. Some here seem to respond violently to any suggestion that this right be curtailed, as evidence by the occasional 'I'll shoot anyone who wants to restrict my rights to own guns' comments. I'm not sure if it's because they sincerely believe gun ownership is a human right, and can't conceive of any other state of affairs existing, or whether they've recognised it's simply a quirk of American culture.

If the former, it's likely that no logic or argument will change their minds. If the latter, I suspect they're more likely to at least be receptive to the idea that gun control can and does work in most countries, and perhaps elements of this can be applied to the US with the aim of preventing the mass shootings that seem to be so common there these days.

The point some are making is that MORE gun control only really impacts the law-abiding citizens. That's why some gun owners are claiming... "hey, why are you disarming ME?".

Criminials couldn't give a feth to current gun laws.

I guess some could advocate a total gun ban. However... take a look at the homicides (not just guns, all) in the UK.

You would think there would be a downward trend of all Homicide (if, guns were a large part of the crime). But you don't see that.

...
...

You would not, because gun crime has always been low in the UK. The UK has had only three mass gun killings, of the type under discussion, in the past 40 years. At the moment we are more worried about teenagers fighting with knives.

If you compare the murder rate in the US, you will find that it is about triple, and that 2/3rds of US murders involve guns. That is a more valid comparison if you want to think about the possible effects of guns.

Gun control is not being pushed in the UK. It is widely agreed that there is already enough of it. You can have shotguns and bolt-action rifles, which are adequate for sporting purposes and an important working tool for agriculture.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.

Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense andpublic protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers.


Both sides has extreams, from the "ban all guns. Guns are bad and have no use" on one side (They are a vital agricutural tool and part of a vibrant and healthy sport) to "Well if you ban guns only the bad guys will have them" on the other, as if we live in the wild west.

If I lived in the US, would I own a hand gun or a rifle? Yes, probably, I enjoy air pistol shooting and archery, so would enjoy the sport. Equaly though I think the free avalability of guns in the US is a world wide problem with both the killings in the US and the number of legaly purchased arms that make there way in to illigal hands overseas.

I also think that almost all people who think they could stop an armed killer with a hand gun are living in a fantasy world. To get a good enough shot to be sure of putting someone down without the risk of hitting someone else almost always means putting yourself at allot of risk.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:
I've never understood the whole 'Defence against an oppressive government' idea.

Let's face it, these days governments have insanely effective weapons with truly incredible killing power. Surely therefore the logic behind this concept is that the civilian population is able to challenge the military forces that are oppressing them - and the more equal the terms the better...

So how far do you go?

- Heavy machine guns?
- 40mm cannons?
- RPGs?
- SAMs?
- MBTs?
- Scuds?
- Mustard gas?
- Anthrax?
- Tactical nuclear weapons?
- H-bombs?

Why do those using this argument stop at assault weapons? Why do advocates of this concept draw the line there, and not somewhere else in this spectrum? After all, the further down this list you go, the lower the chance a dictatorship has of winning against an armed resistance... you can bet that no-one is going to try and invade or oppress a country where everyone has their own suitcase nuke!

Well, let me look around the fortress here.

- Heavy machine guns? CHECK
- 40mm cannons? CHECK (and we also have such delightful flavors as 12 and 24 pound, 75mm PAK, British 25 pounder, 105mm and 155.
- RPGs? CHECK (weirdly, I found a bazooka round in my filing cabinet today. I had wondered where it had gotten to.)
- SAMs? None in stock, but can get with 24 hours notice.
- MBTs? CHECK
- Scuds? Who would want a piece of crap like this?
- Mustard gas? See SAMs
- Anthrax? I don't do Germs. I leave that to people who don't catch everything going around. Though I do have a variety of anthrax countermeasures on tap.
- Tactical nuclear weapons? Don't do nukes. Maintaining them in a state of readiness is beyond my means.
- H-bombs? I suppose if i had the materials... but no, again, too hard to safely maintain.


Suitcase nukes are a bit of a misnomer. They still weigh several tons.

And, let me counter with this: take a given army, and see how many tanks to rifles they have.

Agreed, all armies will have a much higher number of infantryman then the rest. Now tell me how many modern armies don't have tanks and so on
(NBC weapons not included due to treaty restrictions or bans).

And you still haven't answered the point I originally raised - where do you draw the line if believe you need an armed citizenry as a protection against dictatorship? Are you really advocating the unrestricted personal ownership of fully armed main battle tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons for anyone who can afford them? Why is the line seemengly drawn at assault weapons?

Steve steveson wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.

Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense andpublic protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers.

You do realize that is the entire point of Concealed Carry laws right? To be licensed to carry a gun for your own protection...

That is the pretext. The point of the law is to enforce constitutional rights, though.

KalashnikovMarine wrote: didn't the CT shooter use a pair of pistols?

No. The coroner reported that all of the victims were shot by a rifle, contrary to media reports.
http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-school-shooting-names-of-victims-of-sandy-hook-massacre-released

 whembly wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
I was speaking hypothetically... let's say 80%, 70%, 60%.

Either way, the point, which you seemed to have missed. Is that people who wanted a gun to commit a murder, would still obtain guns, and murderers would still murder.

Look... this whole ordeal touched me in ways I've never thought of as being a dad of a 6 and 8 year old... And having multiple familiy members teaching profession.

I don't know what is the right answer.

My gut feeling is that it's impossible to get rid of guns... so, I don't mind sensible regulation and more concerted effort to discover/treat mental illness.

It's the "how" that is going to be challenging.

I am with you 100%, Father of 2 daughters myself. We are about 30 miles North of Newton Ct.

I was pointing out sad fact, I am by all means not happy with making that statement that banning guns would never work.

but the real is guns will always be available for people whether banned or not. I am a Gun owner, I believe in the right to carry conceal. However if laws were passed to ban guns, I would ultimately hand my own over. If they were to ban guns outright, they would also have to have a NO TOLERANCE, NO second CHANCE law. All these pro-gun extremist can say what they want to try to argue how there guns would get stolen or how they would hide em... But when 15 year Jail sentences start getting handed out, without parole for illegal possession of a firearm. I'm sure it would change some minds.

Now those against guns 100%. Im willing to bet in most cases, people who believe Guns should be banned out right, are the same people that argue against the Death Penalty, or harsher punishments.

The way i believe to do this. maximize how many Guns a person can own. Stricter background checks to obtain Rifles and pistols (here in Ct, if you do not have a permit its a 2 week background check to get a rifle or shotgun, and you can not own a hand gun). I honestly don't mind if they ban assault rifles, I shoot my Ar-15 1-2 times a year.
But stricter laws on people who have guns illegally, and commit crimes with guns. Examples need to be made. Any Intent with a hand gun crime, should be the same as the crime itself. Meaning if people rob a store and shoot the clerk, but the clerk lives. The charges should not be attempted murder/man slaughter. It should just be murder/manslaughter.

Also I truly feel that people should be made more aware of guns. I said earlier in this topic, Texas, Utah, and North Dakota all have towns with an open carry law. People everywhere carry guns. That town in Texas is the lowest Gun related crimes in the USA.

Some teachers should be trained to carry, concealed or not. Kids see police officers everyday, they are used to seeing a gun on their side.

And I say again, there is no evidence anywhere that shows if more people had guns there would be more gun related crimes.

My comments are not meant to offend anyway, they are also not extreme either way. I am a Gun owner who believes there should be a lot stricter Gun Control and Laws.

Heres an example of how Gun laws in Connecticut are a joke.

About 4 years ago a Guy pulled a gun on me at Chucky Cheese, yes Chucky Cheese. We were in the parking lot, he was the New boyfriend of me and my fiancee's , good friend. Had I had a gun on me I would of probably shot him. But i did charge him as I forced my family to run the opposite way. He got 1 shot off and missed, I took him down and destroyed his face on the concrete. This A-hole's lawyer almost got him off, because they said my charging him provoked him and then because of how bad i beat him up that charges should of been filed against me. I charged him because he pulled a gun out in the parking lot as I was walking my family to our car. His Lawyer, said that he would of never shot at me had I not charged him. But the guy did pull the gun out on me and my family in the parking lot of a Mother-F'n chucky cheese...., perhaps i should just walk away and risk him being completely crazy shooting at me and my family. Anyway I then pounded him, until he no longer fought back and let go of the gun. (This whole scene was on surveillance from a camera in the parking lot). Ultimately he got 3 years and was out in 1.5. 1.5 for shooting at a man and his family while under the influence, because he failed to hit anyone he got a lesser sentence. Now granted I am far more grateful he did miss me and my family, and everyone else in that parking lot that night. But sometimes intent should be the same punishment as the doing it. Btw he had a pistol permit, and it was revoked.

Tilsber, I think you have made one of the first logical, well laid out arguments. I dissagree with a few points, but you are one of the few to come up with a clear argument that falls between the two camps. Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.

Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense andpublic protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers.

You do realize that is the entire point of Concealed Carry laws right? To be licensed to carry a gun for your own protection...

Yes. I know the reason for the law. I also think the law is outdated and worthless.

Not to sound crass, but why?

it's fine that you think it's outdated, I'd just like to know why you think that way.

Gun Comntrol= Boring old debate with nothing new to be added. I think we can all agree that Gun Control will not stop people from committing mass killings. I'm sur esome one smarter then me can poitn to some archeological evidence to support that hypothesis.

The question in my mind is, why does someone suddenly start thinking a mass killing is in order. Can someone point me to some information about that?

It's not like people are using it pretty effectively on a regular basis.

I think what really gets me is the chicken little attitude I find among vocal gun owners. The panic buying, the rampant stupidity of signing white house petitions to preserve rights guaranteed by the BoR. the fear mongering the do to preserve thier guns is nearly as bad as the fear mongering done to ban them.

 dogma wrote:

I disagree. A person angry enough to shoot lots of children is not necessarily angry enough to learn the chemistry involved in building a bomb.

Really? My understanding of it is that most mass shootings are not generally spur of the moment acts, but something the shooter spends at least some time planning. They had no problem building approx 99 improvised explosives for Columbine, for example.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 dogma wrote:

I disagree. A person angry enough to shoot lots of children is not necessarily angry enough to learn the chemistry involved in building a bomb.

Really? My understanding of it is that most mass shootings are not generally spur of the moment acts, but something the shooter spends at least some time planning. They had no problem building approx 99 improvised explosives for Columbine, for example.

Yeah well, we all know that DOOM caused those kids to snap, they probably lost their bunny too...

But seriously, I would say in most cases there is some form of planning involved, even if it's nothing more than selling your worldly possessions and telling your gf you're moving to Hawaii (Oregon Mall shooting), but this kid, with all the stuff his mom had on hand, may not have needed much planning, if any at all.

I heard a weird rumor that the mom may have killed herself and that caused the kid to snap? Can anyone confirm or deny?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 dogma wrote:

I disagree. A person angry enough to shoot lots of children is not necessarily angry enough to learn the chemistry involved in building a bomb.

Really? My understanding of it is that most mass shootings are not generally spur of the moment acts, but something the shooter spends at least some time planning. They had no problem building approx 99 improvised explosives for Columbine, for example.

I think it's already been pointed out ITT tha amongst school shooting Columbine is the exception rather than the rule. With our current lock down procedures how hard would it be to introduce chloramine gas to a central air system and cause a mess of casualties with perhaps the most easily attainable chemical weapon?

 Hedgehog wrote:

And you still haven't answered the point I originally raised - where do you draw the line if believe you need an armed citizenry as a protection against dictatorship? Are you really advocating the unrestricted personal ownership of fully armed main battle tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons for anyone who can afford them? Why is the line seemengly drawn at assault weapons?

Yes, I do advocate the unrestricted ownership of those things, except nukes (due to the risk to the public of radiation exposure due to poor maintenance). Generally speaking, their price tag tends to be prohibition enough that the average madman is not going to buy a tank. To buy new, direct from the factory, an MBT will likely set you back 60 million, if you want to buy Made in the USA. (Weirdly, buying Japanese will set you back even more).


As far as why 'assault weapons', that's easy but two fold: They're comparatively inexpensive, and even without massacres, thanks to the movies, they're linked in most people's minds with violence and evil. This makes them an easy scapegoat.

 AustonT wrote:
I think what really gets me is the chicken little attitude I find among vocal gun owners. The panic buying, the rampant stupidity of signing white house petitions to preserve rights guaranteed by the BoR. the fear mongering the do to preserve thier guns is nearly as bad as the fear mongering done to ban them.

It will be worse than 2008 when I just wanted to go to the gun range to shoot a few rounds without having to drive to every store to find some ammo...

I've always found that if someone wants to get a firearms enthusiast worked up, but not so much as to cause problems, that one should refer to a magazine as a clip and vice versa.

Like it or not Clip is now a synonym for Magazine. To argue otherwise is pretty much semantics, similar to calling a star screwdriver a phillips screwdriver and getting angry over it.