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.

It's hard to believe, but Walmart sucks even more now.
I'll get my "Assault Rifles" elsewhere.
People often forget this part of the 2nd A.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's pretty clear. The People, meaning everyone. Shall not be infringed. The founding fathers thought that it was quite important. Reading their writings they thought an armed populace was necessary for a free society.

I wonder what ammo they'll stop carrying. I've never bought a gun at WalMart but do get ammo there once in a while.

 CptJake wrote:
I wonder what ammo they'll stop carrying. I've never bought a gun at WalMart but do get ammo there once in a while.

I get my skeet shells there fairly often. They have some bulk packs that are reasonably priced.

I imagine I'll be okay with these.

 cincydooley wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I wonder what ammo they'll stop carrying. I've never bought a gun at WalMart but do get ammo there once in a while.

I get my skeet shells there fairly often. They have some bulk packs that are reasonably priced.

I imagine I'll be okay with these.

Should be fine as they're not high-powered armor-piercing dum-dum explosive man-stopper bullets.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place

I would disagree with you here. The weapons aren't the cause of the violence; they're a symptom of it. Even if every gun in the United States of America magically vanished tonight, tomorrow you would still wake up to murder victims, armed robbery and all sorts of other violent crimes. Guns are a tool for those crimes, that's all. Social inequity, poverty, lack of empathy for others; there are a wide variety of causes for violence in the US. Guns are not one of those causes.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place

I would disagree with you here. The weapons aren't the cause of the violence; they're a symptom of it. Even if every gun in the United States of America magically vanished tonight, tomorrow you would still wake up to murder victims, armed robbery and all sorts of other violent crimes. Guns are a tool for those crimes, that's all. Social inequity, poverty, lack of empathy for others; there are a wide variety of causes for violence in the US. Guns are not one of those causes.

Guns make it easier to kill people, which means that the death rate is higher than if guns were not readily available.

Note: Death Rate =/= Rate of Violent Crimes.

There are (regardless if perception) many crimes stopped/prevented or at least the damage mitigated due to a victim/intended victim being armed or an armed person intervening.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place

I would disagree with you here. The weapons aren't the cause of the violence; they're a symptom of it. Even if every gun in the United States of America magically vanished tonight, tomorrow you would still wake up to murder victims, armed robbery and all sorts of other violent crimes. Guns are a tool for those crimes, that's all. Social inequity, poverty, lack of empathy for others; there are a wide variety of causes for violence in the US. Guns are not one of those causes.

Guns make it easier to kill people, which means that the death rate is higher than if guns were not readily available.

And? I'm discussing the cause of violent crimes, which the quote I responded to suggested was due to guns.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place

I would disagree with you here. The weapons aren't the cause of the violence; they're a symptom of it. Even if every gun in the United States of America magically vanished tonight, tomorrow you would still wake up to murder victims, armed robbery and all sorts of other violent crimes. Guns are a tool for those crimes, that's all. Social inequity, poverty, lack of empathy for others; there are a wide variety of causes for violence in the US. Guns are not one of those causes.

Exactly. Especially since in recent years gun ownership has been going up while violent crime has been taking a nose dive worthy of a Stuka.

http://www.handgundefense.com/images/Crime-Chart.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZDPmzy5GXQs/TvS3Yt-Cp9I/AAAAAAAALJ0/UtsYVjeL7cs/s1600/cch-crime-stats.png

 MWHistorian wrote:
It's hard to believe, but Walmart sucks even more now.
I'll get my "Assault Rifles" elsewhere.
People often forget this part of the 2nd A.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's pretty clear. The People, meaning everyone. Shall not be infringed. The founding fathers thought that it was quite important. Reading their writings they thought an armed populace was necessary for a free society.

Did the founding fathers have knowledge of 30-round magazines and firing off that many shots in as many seconds? In their day, a professional could maybe manage three shots in a minute. That's neither here nor there though.

To me, having the lowest common denominator selling this type of firearm is worrying. The staff there don't really care and aren't really accountable. Was all the proper paperwork filled out? Was a background check done? The pimple-faced kid making eight bucks an hour doesn't give a damn. THAT'S where I get wary.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place

I would disagree with you here. The weapons aren't the cause of the violence; they're a symptom of it. Even if every gun in the United States of America magically vanished tonight, tomorrow you would still wake up to murder victims, armed robbery and all sorts of other violent crimes. Guns are a tool for those crimes, that's all. Social inequity, poverty, lack of empathy for others; there are a wide variety of causes for violence in the US. Guns are not one of those causes.

Loads of studies show that easy availability of weapons increases the amount of violence involving weapons, and makes the damage worse according to the effectiveness of the weapons.

Quite aside from shootings related to crimes, how's the rate of suicide by gun compared to other methods? Many people that get so desperate that they'd off themself won't go through with it if they don't have an easy method of doing so readily available. Like suicide rates going down in the UK after they started phasing out coal gas ovens, for example - it was a handy method and once it was gone people just decided to live on instead of killing themself.

 Lord Corellia wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
It's hard to believe, but Walmart sucks even more now.
I'll get my "Assault Rifles" elsewhere.
People often forget this part of the 2nd A.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's pretty clear. The People, meaning everyone. Shall not be infringed. The founding fathers thought that it was quite important. Reading their writings they thought an armed populace was necessary for a free society.

Did the founding fathers have knowledge of 30-round magazines and firing off that many shots in as many seconds? In their day, a professional could maybe manage three shots in a minute. That's neither here nor there though.

In their day private citizens and groups owned cannon and warships.

That's neither here nor there though.

 Lord Corellia wrote:


To me, having the lowest common denominator selling this type of firearm is worrying. The staff there don't really care and aren't really accountable. Was all the proper paperwork filled out? Was a background check done? The pimple-faced kid making eight bucks an hour doesn't give a damn. THAT'S where I get wary.

The staff at a WalMart is pretty damned likely to get the paperwork filled out, as the company has audit systems and is a big enough company that the Feds take interest to make sure they do so. The pimple-faced kid making $8 an hour can't ring up a gun unless the checks are done, the system WalMart has won't let him.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place

I would disagree with you here. The weapons aren't the cause of the violence; they're a symptom of it. Even if every gun in the United States of America magically vanished tonight, tomorrow you would still wake up to murder victims, armed robbery and all sorts of other violent crimes. Guns are a tool for those crimes, that's all. Social inequity, poverty, lack of empathy for others; there are a wide variety of causes for violence in the US. Guns are not one of those causes.

Loads of studies show that easy availability of weapons increases the amount of violence involving weapons, and makes the damage worse according to the effectiveness of the weapons.

I mean, we can file that under "no frelling duh".

The point I'm making has nothing to do with the tool used in violence. From guns to cars to bare hands, the root cause of violence isn't the tool used. We recently had a woman on the news for killing her husband by running over him (repeatedly) with her car. The car did not make her do that. Something inside her told her that was her best course of action. That ephemeral "something" is the root of her violence, not the SUV she used to break her husband's body.

My point was and continues to be that there "vicious cycle" of violence has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with a breakdown in the collective empathy of the people in the US where violence becomes the only solution to problems in the mind of some persons.

Another example: The Bath School disaster. A man detonated a series of bombs at his home and a school, because he was upset about tax hikes, his property being foreclosed and being defeated in an election. For a majority of people in that situation, the answer is not "blow up a crapton of people, including 38 children". For this particular a-hole, it was. The cause of the violence wasn't the bombs. The cause of the violence was a murderous a-hole.

 Lord Corellia wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
It's hard to believe, but Walmart sucks even more now.
I'll get my "Assault Rifles" elsewhere.
People often forget this part of the 2nd A.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's pretty clear. The People, meaning everyone. Shall not be infringed. The founding fathers thought that it was quite important. Reading their writings they thought an armed populace was necessary for a free society.

Did the founding fathers have knowledge of 30-round magazines and firing off that many shots in as many seconds? In their day, a professional could maybe manage three shots in a minute. That's neither here nor there though.

To me, having the lowest common denominator selling this type of firearm is worrying. The staff there don't really care and aren't really accountable. Was all the proper paperwork filled out? Was a background check done? The pimple-faced kid making eight bucks an hour doesn't give a damn. THAT'S where I get wary.

No, but the Founding Fathers were familiar with private citizens owning their own warships and artillery. At the time Navy's were often largely made up of Privateers. It was also common practice for many military regiments to be entirely the property of the commanding officer, who employed his men out of his own pocket and was paid by the government for their services(typically based on how many men the regiment was comprised of and what type of regiment it was). They'd be shocked we didn't allow citizens to own warships and artillery, a firearm which shoots 30 rounds a minute would be even more of a shock that you consider it not to be proper for a citizen to carry(which is btw a pretty low rate for a semi-automatic. You should be able to get a minimum of 60 rounds a minute with a semi)

The concept of a professional national army was only just beginning to be a concept, and not a hugely popular one in the US at the time. The assumption at the time was very much that the citizens could own anything they damn well pleased. And usually better quality than the government could afford. The British were still using the century old Brown Bess musket while private citizens were using rifles which were far superior in both range and accuracy.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I think your confusing "care about" and "enjoy".

Fair enough. I guess anti-firearm lobbyists do care about firearms inasmuch as they care about restricting private ownership of firearms. But as you (probably) suspected, I had in mind folks who have thought about firearms more broadly than the topic of banning them. As a matter of anecdote, the basis for most personal opinions if we're honest, I have found that there is a strong correlation between not caring about firearms (not being involved with collecting or using them as a sport and/or hobby) and supporting anti-firearm policy. So, I think this:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Assuming that people who want gun controls know nothing and want all guns banned.

is actually a pretty fair assumption. But you can test it out for yourself. You might notice that most anti-firearm lobbyists lead by claiming that it is time to have a "serious" or "reasonable" discussion about gun control -- of course this is a rhetorical tactic, setting up those who want to preserve private ownership of firearms as not being serious or reasonable or wanting to have a discussion. In fact, any authentically "serious" or "reasonable" discussion about gun control MUST begin with a comprehensive account of all gun control policies currently in place and whether they are being enforced. See how many anti-firearms forum users start with that or even broach the subject without being prompted.

In the US, gun control is to the Left what abortion is to the Right -- a hot button you constantly push to rile up your base regardless of the fact that you have no meaningful policy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but the Founding Fathers were familiar with private citizens owning their own warships and artillery. At the time Navy's were often largely made up of Privateers. It was also common practice for many military regiments to be entirely the property of the commanding officer, who employed his men out of his own pocket and was paid by the government for their services(typically based on how many men the regiment was comprised of and what type of regiment it was). They'd be shocked we didn't allow citizens to own warships and artillery, a firearm which shoots 30 rounds a minute would be even more of a shock that you consider it not to be proper for a citizen to carry(which is btw a pretty low rate for a semi-automatic. You should be able to get a minimum of 60 rounds a minute with a semi)

I must admit, I didn't know about citizens owning cannon and the like. America was founded on the "I'll do anything I like and no one can tell me any different" attitude though, so I guess it shouldn't come as a shock. All I'm seeing is "60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me." Say what you will about me not understanding the situation or the culture or whatever you like, we will continue to disagree and I'm fine with that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The concept of a professional national army was only just beginning to be a concept, and not a hugely popular one in the US at the time. The assumption at the time was very much that the citizens could own anything they damn well pleased. And usually better quality than the government could afford. The British were still using the century old Brown Bess musket while private citizens were using rifles which were far superior in both range and accuracy.

Yes, the paranoia of "guv'ment comin' ta git me!" was strong then. Of course, the government was more powerful then being a King with very little oversight or repercussion. Being mistrusting of a new government is understandable though, as it hadn't really been tried in such a way before. It was scary for the people. Probably just as scary for the government though

"60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me."

Where the hell are you getting those stats?

You do realize that mass shootings are incredibly rare right? They don't even account for any significant portion of gun deaths(which themselves are going down).

Basing sweeping legislation effecting millions of people on an incredibly rare event seems just a tad bit excessive don't you think? Especially when all the big school shootings were done with weapons acquired illegally, so more strict gun laws would have done nothing.

The British were still using the century old Brown Bess musket while private citizens were using rifles which were far superior in both range and accuracy.

Not that myth again

Anyway, this thread has reminded me of something I've been wanting to do for a while: a discussion of SCOTUS's ruling on the Heller case.

There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.

For example, Pennsylvania was the only state pre-constitution days, that had a clause allowing people to own firearms for self-defence purposes.

And of course, James Madison wanted an opt-out clause for people who never wanted to join the militias, which suggests that the militias, and not a standing army, was to bear the brunt of defending the USA.

Which makes sense, when you've told one standing army where to go

But militias fell out of favour during the war of 1812 when a certain militia didn't defend a certain capitol city and a certain James Madison had to flee for his life. He wasn't keen on militias after that

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.

No, no there isn't.

 whembly wrote:
"60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me."

Where the hell are you getting those stats?

The bit about "proper" semi-autos firing 60 rounds a minute.

Why? For what purpose would a civilian need such a weapon? Hunting the Flash? What kind of home invasion do people think is going to happen where they need that rate of fire?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.

No, no there isn't.

Yes, yes, there is

 Lord Corellia wrote:
All I'm seeing is "60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me."

I'll raise you a "Thousands of lives saved and rapes prevented, you can't take it from me".

But you don't see those on the news because it's hard to sensationalise to draw viewers, so naturally the public perception is skewed toward the anti-gun perspective because most people just watch the evening news on network television, see the shocking news stories that draw viewers and make money, and don't investigate further.

Just like the "gun violence" stats that antis like to quote actually include suicide, gang shootings, justified self-defense and police action, but they put it across as all being entirely due to mass-murderers to further their agenda.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place

You misspelled drugs.

Drugs are the reason are crime rate is so high.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.

No, no there isn't.

Yes, yes, there is

The Supreme Court and the actual text of the Constitution says you are very very wrong.

 kronk wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place

You misspelled drugs.

Drugs are the reason are crime rate is so high.

You'd have to be on drugs to say that with a straight face

 Lord Corellia wrote:

 whembly wrote:
"60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me."

Where the hell are you getting those stats?

The bit about "proper" semi-autos firing 60 rounds a minute.

Why? For what purpose would a civilian need such a weapon? Hunting the Flash? What kind of home invasion do people think is going to happen where they need that rate of fire?

I need that firepower because I want to ensure I can actively engage my target(s) until the threat is eliminated. Do some basic research on self-defense shootings and you'll see that criminals, especially if under the influence of narcotics, don't roll over dead after 1 shot like in Hollywood movies.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You do realize that mass shootings are incredibly rare right? They don't even account for any significant portion of gun deaths(which themselves are going down).

Basing sweeping legislation effecting millions of people on an incredibly rare event seems just a tad bit excessive don't you think? Especially when all the big school shootings were done with weapons acquired illegally, so more strict gun laws would have done nothing.

Yes, I realize that they are rare. What purpose does it serve for an average Joe to have a weapon with a rate of fire that high? Doesn't accuracy fall drastically when you're trying to deal with that sort of recoil?

I think I know the answer: because we're allowed to. My aunt (by marriage) has a brother who owns a massive .50 cal sniper rifle. That he can legally own but can't legally fire anywhere within a hundred miles of where he lives. He has literally never fired this thing. What's the point of owning something if you can't use it for the purpose for which it was intended?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.

No, no there isn't.

Yes, yes, there is

It's odd you're still bringing this up when you explicitly asked this just two weeeks ago, I explained the supreme court ruling on it that definitively answered that question, and here you are doing it again. A man with a lower opinion of humanity that I would assume you are intentionally threadcrapping or trolling, but I have a naive hope in the human spirit that allows that perhaps you simply forgot. Suffice it to say, your argument has been definitively and conclusively been rejected by the US Supreme Court and since it took them approximately 200 years to get to that ruling, I don't expect them to revisit them soon. As such, is is settled law.