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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well he stabbed people to death. Do we need to get a psych eval for buying steak knives?

Can you cut your steak with a gun?

 Frazzled wrote:
He also ran over some people with his BMW. Do we need a psych eval for buying BMWs? Ok, maybe we do for that one...

Can you drive your gun, to go from one city to another? Beside, you need a license to drive.

I am pretty sure both the knife and the car actually serves a purpose other than killing people. I am not really sure what else the gun can do. Killing animals and destroying stuff, I guess. So, why do we need them? To defend ourselves? It does not work. That guy could stab people with a steak knife and get away with it without getting shot. He then took his car and run over people without being shot. He then shot at people without being shot. Guns favor the attacker over the victim.

You say defending yourself with a gun doesn't work, yet a ton of successful stories of people defending themselves says you are wrong.

Guns favor whoever has them. Bad guys will get guns regardless of gun laws, cause criminals dont follow them.

Gun control does nothing beyond disarming the law abiding citizens, and deprive them of their constitutional rights.

You are on the same level as eliminating freedom of speech or religion.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Can you drive your gun, to go from one city to another? Beside, you need a license to drive.

Only specific types of vehicles and only on public property. You can buy a small motorized scooter and never need a license for it, or you can buy a Mustang and never need a license plate or drivers license if it never touches a public street. You're also not guaranteed the right to drive a motor vehicles by the constitution.

I am pretty sure both the knife and the car actually serves a purpose other than killing people. I am not really sure what else the gun can do.

Put holes in paper? Every bullet I've ever fired has gone into a paper target or a piece of fruit.

Killing animals and destroying stuff, I guess. So, why do we need them?

The enshrined protection on civilian ownership on firearms in the US is to ensure the state does not retain a monopoly on the means and use of force, and to provide the state a means of force when/if necessary. The large standing armies of the US are a relatively recent phenomenon, aside from few years the US civil war, up until living memory the US armed forces were relatively small and often self-armed/supplemented to some degree.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Can you drive your gun, to go from one city to another? Beside, you need a license to drive.

Only specific types of vehicles and only on public property. You can buy a small motorized scooter and never need a license for it, or you can buy a Mustang and never need a license plate or drivers license if it never touches a public street. You're also not guaranteed the right to drive a motor vehicles by the constitution.

Vehicles only really present a danger to the public when they are in public.

I am pretty sure both the knife and the car actually serves a purpose other than killing people. I am not really sure what else the gun can do.

Put holes in paper? Every bullet I've ever fired has gone into a paper target or a piece of fruit.

There are much safer, cheaper, more accurate ways to put holes in paper and fruit.

 Smacks wrote:
There are much safer, cheaper, more accurate ways to put holes in paper and fruit.

I can state with certainty that every last one of those methods are far more boring though.

 daedalus wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
There are much safer, cheaper, more accurate ways to put holes in paper and fruit.

I can state with certainty that every last one of those methods are far more boring though.

Deep down I just know this is at the heart of the matter. "Don't take our toys guns away"

 Smacks wrote:

Vehicles only really present a danger to the public when they are in public.

that's not necessarily true, they just present a much greater consistent potential danger. Depends on what you are doing and how many people you have on said private property.

There are much safer, cheaper, more accurate ways to put holes in paper and fruit.

Just as there are often safer and cheaper modes of transportation than cars depending on where you live. That said, firearms are not just weapons, they can also be sporting and hobby equipment. Target shooting is a longstanding sport.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Vehicles only really present a danger to the public when they are in public.

that's not necessarily true, they just present a much greater consistent potential danger. Depends on what you are doing and how many people you have on said private property.

But if you had a sufficiently large number of people you would likely start to need some liability insurance etc... And a system evolves which starts to resemble a license.

There are much safer, cheaper, more accurate ways to put holes in paper and fruit.

Just as there are often safer and cheaper modes of transportation than cars depending on where you live. That said, firearms are not just weapons, they can also be sporting and hobby equipment. Target shooting is a longstanding sport.

I think there is a lot of room for improvement regarding cars too. But they are often the only realistic option for people to get around in an acceptable amount of time. Guns aren't good for much aside from killing things. For target sport they are probably unnecessarily powerful.

I am pro gun but I feel there needs to be some sort of system in place. You should have to go through training and safety courses and receive a license just like you would with a car.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel Psych evaluations should be a mandatory thing before getting any kind of firearms license.

There's no such thing as a firearms license. That said, there is a background check and waiting period on every firearms purchase.

I mostly mean concealed carry, but since laws around the south are pretty much circumventing that in one way or another its moot.

 Vash108 wrote:
I am pro gun but I feel there needs to be some sort of system in place. You should have to go through training and safety courses and receive a license just like you would with a car.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel Psych evaluations should be a mandatory thing before getting any kind of firearms license.

There's no such thing as a firearms license. That said, there is a background check and waiting period on every firearms purchase.

I mostly mean concealed carry, but since laws around the south are pretty much circumventing that in one way or another its moot.

You can pay for mine then.

 Smacks wrote:


But if you had a sufficiently large number of people you would likely start to need some liability insurance etc... And a system evolves which starts to resemble a license.

For a super large event yeah, but if I just want a dozen or two dozen pals over for a backwoods dirt race, that's potentially dangerous and I don't need any licensing at all.

I think there is a lot of room for improvement regarding cars too. But they are often the only realistic option for people to get around in an acceptable amount of time. Guns aren't good for much aside from killing things. For target sport they are probably unnecessarily powerful.

I guess that depends on what you define as "powerful", it also depends on what ranges and accuracy you're looking for. If you're looking to hit targets past 100 meters, or anything past 50 meters with consistent sub 3 Minute of Angle accuracy on a consistent basis, you're going to need a rifle. If you want to hit multiple targets at say, 15-25 meters quickly, well a pistol is what you do that with. If you want to hit a chest-sized target at 75 meters, Archery is cool for that. If you want to hit a sub 1-MoA target at 500m, you're probably looking at a Bench/Rail rifle (not to be confused with a "railgun/gauss rifle" of scifi fame).

 Vash108 wrote:

I mostly mean concealed carry, but since laws around the south are pretty much circumventing that in one way or another its moot.

For concealed carry, at least in CA (where this shooting occurred) it's very difficult, nigh impossible to get a CCW, it's up to the county Sheriff to decide if they want to issue them. I think in 2011 LA county issued like 3. They do interviews with references and extensive background checks.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I am pro gun but I feel there needs to be some sort of system in place. You should have to go through training and safety courses and receive a license just like you would with a car.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel Psych evaluations should be a mandatory thing before getting any kind of firearms license.

There's no such thing as a firearms license. That said, there is a background check and waiting period on every firearms purchase.

I mostly mean concealed carry, but since laws around the south are pretty much circumventing that in one way or another its moot.

You can pay for mine then.

I don't know. I'f you can't be asked to pay for that you probably shouldn't be owning or carrying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Smacks wrote:


But if you had a sufficiently large number of people you would likely start to need some liability insurance etc... And a system evolves which starts to resemble a license.

For a super large event yeah, but if I just want a dozen or two dozen pals over for a backwoods dirt race, that's potentially dangerous and I don't need any licensing at all.

I think there is a lot of room for improvement regarding cars too. But they are often the only realistic option for people to get around in an acceptable amount of time. Guns aren't good for much aside from killing things. For target sport they are probably unnecessarily powerful.

I guess that depends on what you define as "powerful", it also depends on what ranges and accuracy you're looking for. If you're looking to hit targets past 100 meters, or anything past 50 meters with consistent sub 3 Minute of Angle accuracy on a consistent basis, you're going to need a rifle. If you want to hit multiple targets at say, 15-25 meters quickly, well a pistol is what you do that with. If you want to hit a chest-sized target at 75 meters, Archery is cool for that. If you want to hit a sub 1-MoA target at 500m, you're probably looking at a Bench/Rail rifle (not to be confused with a "railgun/gauss rifle" of scifi fame).

 Vash108 wrote:

I mostly mean concealed carry, but since laws around the south are pretty much circumventing that in one way or another its moot.

For concealed carry, at least in CA (where this shooting occurred) it's very difficult, nigh impossible to get a CCW, it's up to the county Sheriff to decide if they want to issue them. I think in 2011 LA county issued like 3. They do interviews with references and extensive background checks.

CCW is pretty much a joke everywhere else. Walk in. Insert Money. Take CCW.

 Vash108 wrote:

I don't know. I'f you can't be asked to pay for that you probably shouldn't be owning or carrying.

I don't know. If you can't be asked to pay for or acquire a free ID you probably shouldn't be voting then.

The constitution tells us otherwise, doesn't it. Additionally, I don't need to pay for someone to teach me proper gun safety. I can do that on my own.

. Walk in. Insert Money. Take CCW.

Simply untrue.

Why does the government need to know what weapons I or other people own? Going through training courses then issueing Licenses to people just creates a list of who has weapons and who doesn't.

As for the Psych evaluation:
-Who determines what "unfit to own a firearm" means?
-Who's going to pay for these tests?
-Are you going to pay out of pocket?
-If so that will prevent poor people from owning a gun.

 -Shrike- wrote:
But a prevalence of guns does not automatically result in more deaths. As an example, I give you Switzerland, where around 29% of the population own guns, yet it has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

I happen to be pretty familiar with Switzerland, because my family has an apartment in La Chaux de Fond, and we regularly go there for vacation. I even have the Swiss nationality. The relation Swiss have with their guns is totally unlike that of U.S. citizens. I do not remember any Swiss saying he needs a weapon to keep himself or herself safe. Ever. I do not know of any Swiss equivalent to the N.R.A. Why do Swiss people have so much weapons? Because they are basically all militia. They are all supposed to be ready to defend Switzerland if it ever gets attacked. They have to regularly go to mandatory training. And they are supposed to keep their service weapon at their place. This tradition is why many Swiss people have some military-grade weapon at home.
Now, some interesting detail that I feel is worth mentioning is that they do not have the ammunition needed to fire it, though. And they do not have the right to carry it with them except when going to training either, except if they get a license (like in pretty much every country in Europe).
So, hardly comparable directly to the U.S., where people feel they need their guns to defend themselves from their fellow U.S. citizens and from the government.
As a matter of fact, there are sometime debates about gun control in Switzerland, but they are just episodic, and never go into the full-blown hysteria that the U.S. is famous for.

 -Shrike- wrote:
In general, the problem lies not with the weapon, but with the person who wields it, which is why I support better mental health care over more restrictive gun laws.

I do not think Switzerland have less crime because they have better mental health care. I think the difference goes way deeper than that. It is a pretty different society than what you get in the U.S., for a bunch of reasons. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You say defending yourself with a gun doesn't work, yet a ton of successful stories of people defending themselves says you are wrong.

Well, was it Columbine? Or Virginia Tech? Or… so many shootings, I cannot even remember their names.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Guns favor whoever has them.

Nope. When both people have guns, the attacker gets a very clear advantage over its unsuspecting victim. Even if the victim has one too.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bad guys will get guns regardless of gun laws, cause criminals dont follow them.

And criminals will steal a billion dollars or two out of some bank too, because they do not care about the law. Except actually, not “caring about the law” is not some magical password that allows you to do everything the law forbid.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Gun control does nothing beyond disarming the law abiding citizens, and deprive them of their constitutional rights.

You are on the same level as eliminating freedom of speech or religion.

I do not know, which constitution are you talking about? And why is this constitution supposed to be a moral guide again? I am pretty sure eliminating freedom of speech would go against human rights. I am pretty sure gun control does not go against human rights. Because for some reason, “owning a gun” was not added to that list of human right. Why, why on earth would they forget to add it?

 Vaktathi wrote:
You're also not guaranteed the right to drive a motor vehicles by the constitution.

Why would I care about that constitution? Seriously, what is with this constitution fetish?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Put holes in paper? Every bullet I've ever fired has gone into a paper target or a piece of fruit.

There are firing ranges for that. Would you mind being forbidden to have ammunition outside of the firing range, like it works for Swiss militia that does not get a special permit?
Yeah, it would be annoying, just like those speed limits are annoying (and beside, criminals do not respect speed limits sometime, so why enforce them anyway?)

 Vaktathi wrote:
The enshrined protection on civilian ownership on firearms in the US is to ensure the state does not retain a monopoly on the means and use of force, and to provide the state a means of force when/if necessary.

And that is pure bs. First, because disorganized civilians do not stand a chance against the full-blown power of the U.S. army. Second, because last time I check, mind-sweep was not standard procedure upon entering the U.S. army. Even if by some bad science-fiction trick, the U.S. government suddenly became a fascist regime, the army would still be comprised of apple-pie loving, democracy-spreading Captain America rather than evil fascist overlords.
If even U.S. citizens cannot trust the U.S. army, how do you expect the people from countries it invades to see them .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
The constitution tells us otherwise, doesn't it.

More constitution fetish. You do know that this was written a long, long time ago in a society that had quite different values from your current ones (hint: slavery, racism, place of women, homosexuals, …), in a context that was very different from modern-day U.S.A. (hint: not the single biggest army in the world by a huge margin, and not a long-established democracy either)?
Why would you consider it relevant, then?

 Smacks wrote:

Deep down I just know this is at the heart of the matter. "Don't take our toys guns away"

Not sure why that's a bad thing.

"You're just grown men playing with toys!" said the war-gamer accusingly.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:


I do not think Switzerland have less crime because they have better mental health care. I think the difference goes way deeper than that. It is a pretty different society than what you get in the U.S., for a bunch of reasons. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with a homogenous population or the vast disparity in population density.

Well, was it Columbine? Or Virginia Tech? Or… so many shootings, I cannot even remember their names.

Do you mean all the shootings that have occurred in specifically designated gun free zones?

Nope. When both people have guns, the attacker gets a very clear advantage over its unsuspecting victim. Even if the victim has one too.

For the first shot, sure. Not for any subsequent ones. There were people at the Aurora theatre that had to leave their guns in their cars because they're law abiding citizens. Had they been allowed to carry, the death toll would have most probably been smaller.

I do not know, which constitution are you talking about? And why is this constitution supposed to be a moral guide again? I am pretty sure eliminating freedom of speech would go against human rights. I am pretty sure gun control does not go against human rights. Because for some reason, “owning a gun” was not added to that list of human right. Why, why on earth would they forget to add it?

We get it. You have no respect or need for the US constitution. It's tired.

And that is pure bs. First, because disorganized civilians do not stand a chance against the full-blown power of the U.S. army.

History tells a different story.

Keeping your toys is not a problem. Refusing to allow restriction in the use of said toys that could endanger the general public, however…
In my Call of Cthulhu RPG group, there is a girl that do shooting, among a ton of other cool stuff like fencing and learning tons of languages and visiting North Korea. She explained us some of the gun control laws in France, and damn that was though stuff. However, she just uses the gun they provide at the shooting range, so she has absolutely no problem whatsoever with those laws.
Would you have any problem with gun control laws that do not affect your ability to rent a gun at the shooting range and shoot only there?

Calling guns "toys" shows either a lack of understanding of said issue or disrespect for the opposing side - of which both are kinda not the best idea to have in order to be taken seriously when debating a topic.

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel Psych evaluations should be a mandatory thing before getting any kind of firearms license.

I feel it should be mandatory before having kids and getting married.

Edit: Psych Evaluations should be mandatory, not firearm licenses. To be clear.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

I don't know. I'f you can't be asked to pay for that you probably shouldn't be owning or carrying.

I don't know. If you can't be asked to pay for or acquire a free ID you probably shouldn't be voting then.

The constitution tells us otherwise, doesn't it. Additionally, I don't need to pay for someone to teach me proper gun safety. I can do that on my own.

. Walk in. Insert Money. Take CCW.

Simply untrue.

Are you trying to say I don't have an ID?

I pretty much walked in, filled a few things out gave them my money and received my Concealed Carry
http://www.usacarry.com/georgia_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

I know our founding fathers would be proud at this very moment with these guys who like to just pop in in places like Chipolte. I would feel a bit better to know they had to go through some kind of training and certification.

Because in America the right to own firearms is a fundamental right, an extension of the right to defend yourself.

If I said you people in France don't reallyneed freedom of speech, or at least you should get a licence to speak dissenting viewpoints, you'd say I was crazy. And rightly so.

That's how you look from our viewpoint. You might as well be advocating for intensive restrictions on free speech, or religion, or assembly.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Gun control does nothing beyond disarming the law abiding citizens, and deprive them of their constitutional rights.

You are on the same level as eliminating freedom of speech or religion.

I do not know, which constitution are you talking about? And why is this constitution supposed to be a moral guide again? I am pretty sure eliminating freedom of speech would go against human rights. I am pretty sure gun control does not go against human rights. Because for some reason, “owning a gun” was not added to that list of human right. Why, why on earth would they forget to add it?

Who's making this list of human rights that you're going off of? Why do you think that gun ownership is a moral issue?

 Vaktathi wrote:
You're also not guaranteed the right to drive a motor vehicles by the constitution.

Why would I care about that constitution? Seriously, what is with this constitution fetish?

Well, you wouldn't, really. WE care about it though because it's the groundwork for our government and the rights provided to us. We don't have much history or culture here in America; we have to cherish whatever scraps of whatever we can.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Put holes in paper? Every bullet I've ever fired has gone into a paper target or a piece of fruit.

There are firing ranges for that. Would you mind being forbidden to have ammunition outside of the firing range, like it works for Swiss militia that does not get a special permit?
Yeah, it would be annoying, just like those speed limits are annoying (and beside, criminals do not respect speed limits sometime, so why enforce them anyway?)

Revenue generation. There's about 6.2 billion a year collected. Also this: http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2009-01/evidence-traffic-tickets-aren%E2%80%99t-just-about-road-safety
You thought they were about safety?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The enshrined protection on civilian ownership on firearms in the US is to ensure the state does not retain a monopoly on the means and use of force, and to provide the state a means of force when/if necessary.

And that is pure bs. First, because disorganized civilians do not stand a chance against the full-blown power of the U.S. army. Second, because last time I check, mind-sweep was not standard procedure upon entering the U.S. army. Even if by some bad science-fiction trick, the U.S. government suddenly became a fascist regime, the army would still be comprised of apple-pie loving, democracy-spreading Captain America rather than evil fascist overlords.

The Stanford Prison Experiment would like to have some words with you.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm sure it has nothing to do with a homogenous population or the vast disparity in population density.

That is pretty much a subset of why Swiss society is very different from U.S. society. I never meant to imply the Swiss society was something that could work outside of Switzerland.

 cincydooley wrote:
For the first shot, sure. Not for any subsequent ones.

Small comfort if you are dead from the first shot.

 cincydooley wrote:
We get it. You have no respect or need for the US constitution.

Why would I? Why do you?
I am not saying it is inherently bad or anything, I am saying it is not automatically right.

 cincydooley wrote:
History tells a different story.

I must have missed some history lessons, then. When was the U.S. invaded by some disorganized civilians? Because I can sure show a number of time where it happened the other way around .

 Smacks wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
There are much safer, cheaper, more accurate ways to put holes in paper and fruit.

I can state with certainty that every last one of those methods are far more boring though.

Deep down I just know this is at the heart of the matter. "Don't take our toys guns away"

Deep down, what you think you know is wrong.

More constitution fetish. You do know that this was written a long, long time ago in a society that had quite different values from your current ones (hint: slavery, racism, place of women, homosexuals, …), in a context that was very different from modern-day U.S.A. (hint: not the single biggest army in the world by a huge margin, and not a long-established democracy either)?
Why would you consider it relevant, then?

Says the feren guy on a US Board. Didn't Switzerland get rich on stolen Nazi gold that they conveniently kept after the war? Just asking.

It is automatically right, for the US.


You can claim gun control works in Europe, and be correct. We can also claim it doesn't work in the US, and also be correct.

Two very different situations. You never had very many guns/weapons period, because of the feudal legacy of keeping the peasants unarmed. You also don't have it as a fundamental right.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

And that is pure bs. First, because disorganized civilians do not stand a chance against the full-blown power of the U.S. army. Second, because last time I check, mind-sweep was not standard procedure upon entering the U.S. army. Even if by some bad science-fiction trick, the U.S. government suddenly became a fascist regime, the army would still be comprised of apple-pie loving, democracy-spreading Captain America rather than evil fascist overlords.
If even U.S. citizens cannot trust the U.S. army, how do you expect the people from countries it invades to see them .

several million to well over 100 million Pissed off armed civilians Vs ~200,000 combat troops that are stationed in the united states (4:1 combat arms) Now these 200,000 troops have to police the entire country and thats assuming that none of them decide to assist an armed rebellion or question fighting US citizens. now if these troops are split up evenly thats 20,000 military members per state with only 4,000 of them being combat troops.

And while the "rebellion/Civil war" goes on how do you think other nations around the world are going to react? are Russia and China going to sit arround and do nothing or actually make moves to destablize areas to expand their territory or control?

That also doesn't include any national guard units or whatever people get by raiding federal armories.

And given the relative effectiveness of insurgents o fight the US army we can definitely see how such a fight would be very one sided, and the army would lose.

That guy to the left clearly has not wasted many moments of his life in front of a salad bar, or in daylight.

I do believe you found the world's first vampire fatty!


"Fatty fatty!"
-She Who Must Be Obeyed, commenting on Rodney the wiener dog's apparent fat rolls.

 Vash108 wrote:

I know our founding fathers would be proud at this very moment with these guys who like to just pop in in places like Chipolte.

What? You mean back when everyone could carry weapons and no one cared about it? Then several decades later the slaves where freed and Guncontrol pops up because we cant have black people owning guns.

 Vash108 wrote:

I would feel a bit better to know they had to go through some kind of training and certification.