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.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
Ah, gotcha. You can't rebut the need for weapons to be controlled, so you just discard the point. Therefore I'll go out and buy my .50 caliber machine gun and go "hunting" or "protect my home" against... I don't know, the government, or ISIS, or whatever.

If you qualify for lawful ownership of it then have fun I hear Class III firearms are expensive

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
You also still haven't addressed my point as to how the weapons I listed earlier evade the 2nd amendment.

Point? That was a rant that didn't even deserve the dignity of an actual rebuttal

Ah, gotcha. You can't rebut the need for weapons to be controlled, so you just discard the point. Therefore I'll go out and buy my .50 caliber machine gun and go "hunting" or "protect my home" against... I don't know, the government, or ISIS, or whatever.

You could go hunting, if the state allows it. Bolt action or semi would probably be the only main requirement there though. You can also actually use it to protect your home if you want to. But replacing drywall might be expensive after unloading a .50 cal machine gun on someone. And that recoil, surely there are better options.

Keep in mind that while a weapon might be legal to own, the state might actually have restrictions on how you can use it. Such as type of ammo and how much powder you can use to actually hunt. So it might not be a legal hunting weapon. There are laws for that sort of thing that don't infringe on your right to own it.

Of course you could actually also go to some of those neat ranges and get really good at shooting the .50 cal. Lots of fun can be had learning to shoot and get better at target shooting. You might even be able to enter a competition if you get good enough, win some prices.

This is a warning to several of the users in this thread, curtail your use of snide, backhanded comments. Try to have a gun thread that doesn't revolve around such talk.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I would say good talking to you, but when everything you've said has been based on fallacies, distortions, and misrepresentations that would be a blatant lie on my part.

Well that's not true, I'm open to discussing how guns effect society, and looking at the facts in an objective way. I will even reserve judgement on what the law "should" be. But you seem unable or unwilling to look beyond the 2nd amendment, even if the right to bear arms might make people's lives objectively worse, you don't even want to discuss it.

So end of conversation, but there is no need to call me a liar. I agree that the conversation has been unpleasant, which is sad, but at least we can agree on something.

I'll just chill and live my way, and you just live your own.

Now, home. Peace, I'm out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously, no offense intended. Sorry mods.

edited by motyak, no more sniping comments.

 Frazzled wrote:
You're only a Texan once the Lone Star beacon has been activated: with a combination of barbeque, pickup truck diesel exhaust, tequila, and gunpowder. This usually occurs in kindergarten.

This is from a couple pages back, but I'm dying to know: As someone not born in Texas, if I move to Texas, can I become a real Texan? Or will the authenticity of my Texan status always be in question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
You also still haven't addressed my point as to how the weapons I listed earlier evade the 2nd amendment.

Point? That was a rant that didn't even deserve the dignity of an actual rebuttal

Ah, gotcha. You can't rebut the need for weapons to be controlled, so you just discard the point. Therefore I'll go out and buy my .50 caliber machine gun and go "hunting" or "protect my home" against... I don't know, the government, or ISIS, or whatever.

Why shouldn't someone be able to buy a civilian .50 cal? They're incredibly expensive and the ammo is also incredibly expensive. Have we had a spate of people being murdered by criminals with .50 cals? Have there been a number of recent bank robberies or gas stations held up by someone with a .50 on a tripod?

Anyone who is going to spend all the money to buy a .50 cal legally is most likely going to be a serious collector or a shop owner, not a criminal. You're looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
I'll just chill and live my way, and you just live your own.

Now, home. Peace, I'm out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously, no offense intended. Sorry mods.

edited by motyak, no more sniping comments.

Oh, don't go yet! I still have questions!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I would say good talking to you, but when everything you've said has been based on fallacies, distortions, and misrepresentations that would be a blatant lie on my part.

Well that's not true, I'm open to discussing how guns effect society, and looking at the facts in an objective way. I will even reserve judgement on what the law "should" be. But you seem unable or unwilling to look beyond the 2nd amendment, even if the right to bear arms might make people's lives objectively worse, you don't even want to discuss it.

So end of conversation, but there is no need to call me a liar. I agree that the conversation has been unpleasant, which is sad, but at least we can agree on something.

What about the ways that the 2nd amendment make people's lives better?

 Hordini wrote:



Why shouldn't someone be able to buy a civilian .50 cal? They're incredibly expensive and the ammo is also incredibly expensive. Have we had a spate of people being murdered by criminals with .50 cals? Have there been a number of recent bank robberies or gas stations held up by someone with a .50 on a tripod?

Anyone who is going to spend all the money to buy a .50 cal legally is most likely going to be a serious collector or a shop owner, not a criminal. You're looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Guns up to an arbitrary size must be frightening to particular people. That's about all I can think of.

I'll bite on the original question: Because they're fun as hell to shoot. That's why we need them.

 Smacks wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Do you have any data to back up this claim that more concealed carry permits leads to more homicide?

I made no such claim. The issue is not concealed carry, it's guns in general. You have too many guns, and you think the answer is more guns. Here's some data for you.

The UK: hand guns have been illegal for 18 years. Number of spree killings in the past 18 years = 1 (carried out with a shotgun).

The USA: hands out gun permits like candy...

There is no such thing as a gun permit really (I own 9 firearms legally and certainly have never needed a permit to buy them). There are concealed carry permits (which vary wildly in availability). CCW holders are responsible for about ~90 homicidal (i.e. non self defense) killings each year. It's estimated there are about 8 million CCW holders in the US, giving them an average homicide rate about 1/3rd less than the average population.

Need I go on? I can think of three spree killings that I read about this year alone. I remember looking at the Wikipedia page for spree killings, and the USA had to have its own page separate from the rest of the world because there was so many. I'm happy for you that you got more guns to play with, maybe it's just the best you can make of a bad situation. But it IS a bad situation. Throwing more guns into the mix isn't ever going to solve it.

You seem to forget that the US as a whole is far larger, with a far larger population, with a much larger geographic area and a lot more unequal distribution of wealth. You need to stop comparing it to the UK and start comparing it more to Europe as a whole.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of gun crime takes place in specific areas of a few metro regions. Outside of places like New Orleans, Detroit, etc, gun crime isn't really higher than many other developed nations. San Diego for instance has a murder rate less than one tenth that of Chicago (and most of that in Chicago is isolated to a few square miles of South Chicago). What's amusing is that many of these places also have amongst the strictest gun control laws in the US. New York City averages a murder a day and getting a gun there is even harder than getting one in London.

There are other underlying issues besides just "zomg GUNZ", most of them socio-economic problems related to specific geographic areas.

Just as one can argue there may be no causal link to an increase in Chicago CCW's decreasing crime, there's little evidence that more guns equals more crime too. In fact, there's more guns being sold than ever before in the US and average homicide rates are very low, often at record lows. Is that a function of weapons availability or changes in socio-economic situations and social norms? Not sure one can say directly.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
You also still haven't addressed my point as to how the weapons I listed earlier evade the 2nd amendment.

Point? That was a rant that didn't even deserve the dignity of an actual rebuttal

Ah, gotcha. You can't rebut the need for weapons to be controlled, so you just discard the point. Therefore I'll go out and buy my .50 caliber machine gun and go "hunting" or "protect my home" against... I don't know, the government, or ISIS, or whatever.

I think that you don't actually understand any of the gun laws in the country.......


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

Well that's not true, I'm open to discussing how guns effect society, and looking at the facts in an objective way. I will even reserve judgement on what the law "should" be. But you seem unable or unwilling to look beyond the 2nd amendment, even if the right to bear arms might make people's lives objectively worse, you don't even want to discuss it.
.

Objectively worse? I think you may not have the same understanding of "objectively" that I do.

I know firearms make my life better by:

Allowing me to compete In skeet shooting and 3 gun competitions that are fun.
Allowing me to hunt and bring home tasty meats
Allowing me to feel secure In my ability to defend my family at home from criminals

 Smacks wrote:
Well that's not true, I'm open to discussing how guns effect society, and looking at the facts in an objective way. I will even reserve judgement on what the law "should" be. But you seem unable or unwilling to look beyond the 2nd amendment, even if the right to bear arms might make people's lives objectively worse, you don't even want to discuss it.

So end of conversation, but there is no need to call me a liar. I agree that the conversation has been unpleasant, which is sad, but at least we can agree on something.

Years of gun owners compromising have had their rights eroded for nothing in return, and instead they have been vilified, stereotyped, and treated as if they are all unstable and ready to murder at the drop of a hat.

 d-usa wrote:
The question would be "does it need to be amended".

It could be, if enough people wanted it to be. The constitution does give us the power to add things to it or take things away. So if enough people decided to follow the constitutional process and pass an amendment to nullify the 2nd they could. I doubt that this would actually happen anytime soon.

The 2nd itself is only as strong as the SCOTUS that backs it up. And every SCOTUS ruling only lasts until the SCOTUS changes their mind. We already pass plenty of laws that could easily meet the criteria for "infringing" the right to bear arms. The fact that I have to have a license to strap autoguns to my car could easily be seen as an infringement. The fact that I have to take a background check to buy a gun could be seen as an infringement. The fact that I can't open carry without a license could be seen as an infringement. But what actually constitutes an infringement depends on the guys and gals on the bench. If they decide that something infringes it does. If they decide that something doesn't infringe it doesn't. And when they change their minds then every other decision they previously made is invalidated. Hell, they could turn around and decide at some point that "you know, militia really means the national guard and not every citizen."

I doubt any of that will happen (either an amendment to nullify the 2nd or a SCOTUS ruling that essentially nullifies the way we interpret it today. So we will go forward and work within the realms of the 2nd (not amend it) and try to balance the safety of society with the rights of society. I think stuff could be better, but I also like my guns and I carry. It's a balancing act and it's not near as black and white as both sides make it out to be.

Guns are not good or bad. The 2nd is not as absolute as some people want it to be. We could never get rid of guns if we wanted to because we have a couple hundred years of handing out guns like candy. Which is also the reason why it would be dumb to try to get rid of guns now, because everybody and their dog has them now (legal or illegal).

I'm sorry I missed this post d-usa. Great post! It's hard to disagree with anything you've said here. I appreciate that the sheer amount of guns and the complexity of law makes any big changes unlikely. So discussing it is somewhat moot. Though I don't suppose anything we discuss on dakka amounts to much (come to think of it). It's just interesting, and sometimes I suppose I learn something new.

I'm actually not a proponent of sweeping changes. I think they are dangerous and reckless. I agree that making guns illegal overnight would be a beyond stupid. I favour guided evolution in systems over "imposed" design. Small corrections over time help to keep things stable and balanced. I would see "cleaning up guns" in America (notably illegal guns) as a 100-200 year project. So that we're not passing our same old problems onto future generations. I think my concern is that gun lobbyist are actually pushing things in the wrong direction. With concealed carry and things like castle and 'stand your ground' laws, It's all starting to sound a bit 'wild west'.

 Vaktathi wrote:
CCW holders are responsible for about ~90 homicidal (i.e. non self defense) killings each year. It's estimated there are about 8 million CCW holders in the US, giving them an average homicide rate about 1/3rd less than the average population.

You would also need to factor in how many of those guns end up lost, sold or stolen, and factor in other crimes and accidents. 90 deaths is fairly insignificant when it's just a statistic, I'm sure more people die falling down the stairs etc... But if it was someone close to me, I think I would be more interested in how necessary or avoidable they are. You can't bubble-wrap everyone, people need to go about their bushiness and take risks. But that doesn't mean we should ignore senseless violence and killing.

You seem to forget that the US as a whole is far larger, with a far larger population, with a much larger geographic area and a lot more unequal distribution of wealth. You need to stop comparing it to the UK and start comparing it more to Europe as a whole.

The US is geographically a lot bigger than the UK, but only has about 5 times the population, and only one city which is (arguably) larger than London. Europe would be considerably bigger and more diverse. Unfortunately Europe as a whole doesn't have the UKs stringent gun laws, so comparisons there would be a bit pointless.

 Hordini wrote:
What about the ways that the 2nd amendment make people's lives better?

 cincydooley wrote:
Objectively worse? I think you may not have the same understanding of "objectively" that I do.

When I said objectively worse, I didn't mean that I thought it actually was objectively worse (I honestly don't know). I was talking about "if" one side could after hypothetical discussion and research show that was the case. And by 'objective' I was mostly talking about crimes and deaths.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Years of gun owners compromising have had their rights eroded for nothing in return, and instead they have been vilified, stereotyped, and treated as if they are all unstable and ready to murder at the drop of a hat.

Well I'm sorry that has happened to you. Though from my point of view it seems like gun owners are getting their way more and more recently. I don't think you are a bad person at all because you own a gun (being uncompromising maybe).

 Smacks wrote:
Well I'm sorry that has happened to you. Though from my point of view it seems like gun owners are getting their way more and more recently. I don't think you are a bad person at all because you own a gun (being uncompromising maybe).

After years of inroads being made into the rights of the law abiding all I can say is; about time.



I don't own a gun, but I do believe in the right to and the right to defend yourself.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
After years of inroads being made into the rights of the law abiding all I can say is; about time.

Spoiler:

I don't own a gun, but I do believe in the right to and the right to defend yourself.

Very good

I believe people should have the right to defend themselves too. I would also agree with gun rights 100% if that was all they were ever used for (nuke rights too). But a compromise should not be "You have less cake". The idea would be that you trade in gun rights for a generally safer and less violent society. I agree that 'gun control' as it is currently being pitched, probably doesn't promise or amount to that.

Of course, that comic doesn't mention that several of those things no longer exist or were not implemented: the Clinton executive orders all lapsed over a decade ago, the Smith & Wesson agreement never went into effect at all and was nulled out less than one year later, the School Safety & Law Enforcement Improvement Act was never passed into law... but this is the OT, so facts can go and get fethed.

 Smacks wrote:
I believe people should have the right to defend themselves too. I would also agree with gun rights 100% if that was all they were ever used for (nuke rights too). But a compromise should not be "You have less cake". The idea would be that you trade in gun rights for a generally safer and less violent society. I agree that 'gun control' as it is currently being pitched, probably doesn't promise or amount to that.

The majority of gun deaths are caused by criminals, not those legally bearing arms. Deal with those who break the law, not those who follow it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Of course, that comic doesn't mention that several of those things no longer exist or were not implemented: the Clinton executive orders all lapsed over a decade ago, the Smith & Wesson agreement never went into effect at all and was nulled out less than one year later, the School Safety & Law Enforcement Improvement Act was never passed into law... but this is the OT, so facts can go and get fethed.

It's a good way to show how many laws were passed that eroded gun ownership rights. After the Clinton ban lapsed there was no discernible increase in violence, like almost every other relaxing of gun control measures.

It's still super disingenuous, especially considering that this was published November 2013. By the end he has "only a few crumbs of cake" but of course he should have gotten some of the cake back.

He still wouldn't have gotten back what was taken, not even close

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely, please cite the thousands of attacks in the US last year by people wielding miniguns and flamethrowers.

I can tell you about the massive amounts of people killed by drunk drivers as compared to those weapons.

Well obviously it's a parable, not literally a cake, but it's pretty fraudulent. Here's how our gun rights have been eroded, using some examples of laws that never passed, never took effect, and/or lapsed a decade before this comic was drawn? Come on, if this had been a pro-gun-control comic, you wouldn't have leapt on this?

Are lies of omission no longer consider lies? While we're talking about "almost-passed" laws as an existential thread to gun rights, why are we leaving out the ones pushed for by Saint Reagan? How about his support of the Brady Bill? What about Former President Bush's ban on semi-auto imports that was made permanent?

I guess those don't "fit the narrative", as the cool kids now say.

I don't know why the author did not include those, but if you think I'm going to defend those bills you'd be mistaken.

 Ouze wrote:
It's still super disingenuous, especially considering that this was published November 2013. By the end he has "only a few crumbs of cake" but of course he should have gotten some of the cake back.

But what he would have gotten back wouldn't have been cake, now would it? And does getting it back really make up for the period of time it was taken away for no good reason?

I think you do know why he didn't include those. But I think the point is made.

 Breotan wrote:
And does getting it back really make up for the period of time it was taken away for no good reason?

Does the government owe people something for the amount of time Prohibition was in effect? I mean, how would that even work? It's the people themselves that got gun control effected in the first place, via their duly elected representatives in free and fair elections. That they later died out, were removed, and so on simply reflects the changing desires of the electorate.

 Ouze wrote:
Are lies of omission no longer consider lies?

Doesn't affect my position any. I'm against Republican gun control as much as I am against Democrat gun control. I am solidly Libertarian on this issue.

Yeah, I'd agree with that as well. Some of the "weapons bans", such as the 922(r) restricts actually have very little to do with gun control though couched as such and actually are more of trade protectionism, and pretty stupid to boot. An AK in US is illegal if it comes over with a double stack magazine well, but if it comes over as a single stack and gets cut here, it's OK. An AK with 100% foreign parts is unlawful, but if it has only 10 foreign parts, it's OK. An AK74 made by Izsmash (sp) is unlawful, but an AK74 made in Romania is OK. And so on.

 Ouze wrote:
I think you do know why he didn't include those. But I think the point is made.

I don't. Nor did I research which Administration passed what because it didn't matter to me. Democrat or Republican gun control measure, the fact that it is a gun control measure is what I object to.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The majority of gun deaths are caused by criminals, not those legally bearing arms. Deal with those who break the law, not those who follow it.

I think it's too late to do anything meaningful once a crime has taken place, prevention is always better. How do criminals get hold of guns anyway?

 Smacks wrote:
I think it's too late to do anything meaningful once a crime has taken place, prevention is always better. How do criminals get hold of guns anyway?

Unlawfully. Or from the DoJ

 Hordini wrote:
At the very least, it would certainly seem to suggest that concealed carry doesn't cause an increase in crime, which is something anti-gun types like to make noise about every time a new state allows concealed carry. They've been wrong every other time as well, of course, and now that Illinois is the 50th state to allow CCW, I suppose we're probably done hearing about it until the US gets a 51st state.

True. But proving anti-gun people rely on stupid arguments is about as hard and useful as proving pro-gun people rely on stupid arguments.

Reality is that whatever impact gun control or gun proliferation has on property crime is such a minor effect as to be impossible to detect in crime stats. Both sides of the gun debate try and work around this by going on silly data mining exercises much like the OP.

My point is, lawfully owned guns can be stolen and so become unlawfully owned guns. Obviously it's difficult to find accurate statistics on this, but a quick browse around on google suggest a fair sized portion of criminals acquire their guns by stealing them (often from friends and family).

 Smacks wrote:
My point is, lawfully owned guns can be stolen and so become unlawfully owned guns. Obviously it's difficult to find accurate statistics on this, but a quick browse around on google suggest a fair sized portion of criminals acquire their guns by stealing them (often from friends and family).

So what is your solution?