President Obama outlines executive orders for gun control (text of proposal on pg5)

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.

**Asherian Command**

Dreadwinter wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Heeeeere we go with the hypotheticals...

No, pepper spray and tasers are not good alternatives to firearms for most people. Pepper spray doesn't typically stop threats even with direct hits to the eyes. Tasers sometimes stop threats, but are often impeded by garments as common as sweat shirts.

Sweat shirts don't stop bullets. Guns in a proper caliber, with good shot placement, will stop threats. Good shot placement is a product of training. Guns aren't magical talismans that ward off evil - you need to train with them, and obviously anyone who carries a gun should train regularly, and try to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.

And Asherian Command has it right that guns aren't a fix-all. Date rape is unfortunately very common, and none of these tools will prevent a woman from being roofied, from being attacked by someone close to her, etc. This kind of thing is awful and we all want it to go away, but we have to be realistic about the role of firearms and their use against criminals.

Wow, you started by commenting about hypotheticals and they talked about how hypothetically a gun is better with proper training.

Luckily you do not need training for pepper spray. Or accuracy.

The only problem with pepper spray is that it can blow back in your face but , that would take alot of wind current to blow completely back.

**Stormrider**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So if you buy a gun on a whim, don't fire it, and want to sell it (as perhaps your only firearm sale all year) then you may now be considered a dealer. I'm glad that we now have such "clear, definitive standards"...

As a collector and hobbyist with firearms, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I would:

A. Knowingly sell a collector grade weapon (like a vintage era WWII rifle for example) to a criminal - the multitudes of reasons why a perp wouldn't buy said weapon for potential crimes doesn't bear the treatise needed to explain it all. Furthermore, any one I have sold to has been a collector and someone I have known for years, not just a random stranger. I can indemnify myself without compulsion, thanks.

B. Need to either go through a 3rd Party FFL for a private transaction sale (even for someone I know personally, especially if said person has already filled out a 4473 in the past) or would myself have to acquire an FFL (which is getting to be a very difficult license to have if you're not a practicing businessman and have a storefront) just to sell is ludicrous and would muddy up the numbers of an already near worthless NICS system anyways. It's bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.

C. Continue to follow their laws that I am not subject to, Missouri doesn't require a NICS check for private transactions and I don't sell across state lines. If I did, I would be sure to go through a 3rd Party FFL as the receiver of the weapon (the details regarding shipments of firearms are verbose and frankly more trouble for criminals to even dream of attempting to do unless they're criminally dumb) and they run the NICS check before my buyer would take ownership of the weapon. Since most of my collection is C&R eligible or Antique, I don't need to worry about most of the interwebz action anyway.

4473's aren't kept by the BATFE (I'll bring the Chips!

) either, the data entered is merely run through the FBI Criminal database and after the potential buyer is: A. Allowed to buy the Firearm B. The Buyer is Denied due to a felony in their background or C. Denied due to a false positive from name familiarity, the form is forgotten at the Federal Level. That's it, the mighty NICS is an avenue that makes people who aren't committing crime go through a step to go do an activity that isn't criminal. Intrinsic danger of said activity isn't relevant. Intent with said activity is, and NICS cannot prevent that, even with someone with no history of mental illness, a criminal past or a desire to blow their brains out. That's part of being in a Free Society. If B occurs, it's up to the Feds to ringy-dingy the local LE and let them know a prohibited possessor is trying to buy a gun, if the Local LE drops the ball, that's not something NICS or the Feds can stop. NICS cannot also flag anything the local LE's fail to report due to their own incompetence (Jared Loguhner not being reported to the Feds by the Pima County Sherrif's department being one glaring example or James Holmes who should've been reported by his campus Psychiatrist but she couldn't have been bothered), so the idea that an already clunky system will stop crime (when habitual criminals already circumvent said processes to commit crime) is bordering on the onanistic.

Our gun violence rate has gone down in this state save for one major reason, Meth. That's also banned, good luck stopping it all.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Thats......stupid. Like really stupid.
People know my feelings on guns, but the idea that you sell something you are no longer interested in, you are a dealer in it?
By the same logic, im a war machine dealer cause I sold my Khador Army.

Government Logic: If it doesn't anything we don't like, deploy regulations and more murky definitions.

Asherian Command wrote:

Difference is that a gun is a weapon, and your selling hobbyist models. They are not a weapon or weapons, they are collectables. A gun is useless without its bullets, but it is still a weapon. IF I sold one to a neighbor kid do you really think I should really be doing that? Or selling it to a gangbanger? Don't you think I should be fined for that? I understand that you don't want that responsiblty but you have your responsiblity to your community and keeping people safe. If you sell a gun to someone who shoots up a school are you really going to be fine with that?

By that logic, I couldn't sell a bayonet to just anyone without the Government's permission, even though it's still just a knife.

PS - Nice strawman at the end, clearly people who would sell weapons that were used in future crimes would be 100% A OK with that. Of course they wouldn't, they'd be criminally liable.

So oh I have all these morphine or focus drugs that I have from my days in the hosptial or when I had ADD to focus on school work, If I sell them that is illegal, I would be fined and thrown in prison.[/quite]

Those are controlled substances that required prescriptions to buy or use, not a fundamental right. Those are also respectively mind-altering, a gun in your hands or on your person doesn't automatically make you want to kill.

You know that you can buy a firearm in many States without a license, right? Especially long guns (shot guns, rifles).

Wait a second.

So in the united states. Where I Have to buy a permit for my modelling software, and a permit to practice explosives, and then defensive driving, and then bodyguarding, and building permits if you want to build a ramp. I don't need liscense for a gun?

You do live in the land of "Bilk Your Money" Chicago, Illinois.

SOFDC wrote:
and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.

That's rich, especially if said firearm has had parts swapped or has had the numbers obliterated. I realize that there's a lot of Americans that are ignorant of firearms, but this is really "How To Criminal 101" stuff. Drop weapons (improvised or modified is preferred as there's no paper trail) are quite common in murders if the criminal is only slightly sophisticated. If a perp is dumb enough to allow that damning a piece of evidence to be found, they're really dumb and will be caught.

Alright I have to know: How many people who actually -own- firearms would willingly go and replace their daily carry (Or lets go a step further, buy at all) with a "Smart" gun? Put me down in the "No" category. You can dump all the government money into trying to develop the tech, but if there are no buyers....

Not a chance, redundancy and reliability are best friends in my book. Some fidgety electronics are exactly what I don't need in a carry weapon. Fanciful wish-listing from the ignorant once again.

"Buy my utopian fantasy or else!"

How about no?

angelofvengeance wrote:I think you guys are long overdue some form of gun control.

Location: UK - Please opine the ease of being a legal buyer in the US using personal experience and real anecdotes. It's really easy if you're not a criminal, but for them, it's extremely easy if they're willing to circumvent scads of existing laws and risk lots of extra jail time. The chief culprit of gun violence (I don't consider suicide to be violence as it is singular) is gang violence, and most gang members have rap sheets a mile long. Why aren't they in prison? A lack of severe penalties for committing gun crimes in the past, which in turn makes any subsequent gun crime committed by said criminal DOUBLE ILLEGAL.

Kudos to Obama for at least trying.

I'm sure there's plenty of evidence of a singular man defying the will of Bicameral houses and the people they represent as having motives of nothing but the most austere intentions. That's never gone awry in history, ever. Politics for the sake of assuaging a base or imposing will is the worst kind of cynical, calculating and worthless type. It's thumbing millions of Americans in the eye for the sake of it. Fake tears are just the icing on the gak cake.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.

Most of it is ineffective because the people it's intended to stop don't go through the channels it monitors.

Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance?

No, but any responsible parent teaches their children from a very early age that guns aren't toys. That doesn't need compulsion, it needs people to not be reprobates.

Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns?

Because registering that number of firearms would be a Herculean feat and would also pave the way for confiscation. History has been very unkind to this action.

CptJake wrote:

Spoiler:

I say we ban High Capacity Gravity forces, it's clearly a scourge on the American people.

Ouze wrote:When I got my conceal carry permit, all that was required was to watch a video and then take a test; all online. The video was 45 minutes and the test was 10 question of which you had to answer 6 correctly; nearly all of which were "where can't you carry a gun". I was truly surprised how lax it was.

It's handled the correct way IMO, State to State. MO Requires a lot of classroom time with a little range time, I was already way past proficient so the range time was a joke. I did learn some minor subtitles in the State Statutes regarding Self Defense however.

I personally think the second amendment is horribly outdated; a relic of the times when the government was not expected to have a standing army. I'm not averse to the idea that people are free to own firearms for self defense but as it's currently implemented, I'm not a huge fan.

Good news, your home will now be Quarters to a Platoon of Engineers. I think the 2nd is just fine the way it is, simple, effective and not really up for interpretation unless you're a serious rules lawyer. A poorly placed comma doesn't preclude Self Defense or the free exercise thereof.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

In 2015, you were more likely to be shot by a dog, or a person under 5 years old, than you were by gun toting terrorists.

Aww shucks, guess we should ignore every instance of Jihadism because it's less likely. I was also more likely to be struck by lighting than killed by a Terrorist, it still doesn't mean I am going to re-enact Agincourt in a severe thunderstorm.

Rural gun owners were less likely to be the victim of gun violence than non gun owning urban dwellers.

Population density plays a large role in that (as does high violent crime areas in larger cities, which skew the data generally), but Rural Gun Ownership also is a lot higher, so they're the chicken to the high gun crime urban areas Egg. Criminals won't go where they're likely to face resistance, they'll go close by and to people they can victimize without much fight back.

If you take the urban gun crime figures out of the official counting. the USA looks a lot better.

The amount of homicides committed in high crime areas of major metropolitan areas makes the US look like a war zone, but if you live in an area like I do, crime is relatively low in comparison to the population size with most of the firearms related crime being gang or drug related in some way or another.

Point is, I don't think this proposal will change that much.

That's not relevant to me, no one President can do what he did legally, appointed blue ribbon commission of lackeys in lock step agreement with it or not. EO's cannot infringe on Amendments to the Constitution and be legal, it's quite clear. If a court decides that is is legal, then the entire purpose behind the separation of powers and the need for a court is void IMO. That would signal the dog most certainly enjoying being wagged by the tail.

skyth wrote:
I'm also amused that the Republicans are aghast at any kind of regulation of firearms (Including mandatory training) but have no problems putting in all sorts of regulations about another protected right (Abortion).

One is codifying a voluntary guaranteed death of a human being, one is merely an expression of natural rights. They're not congruous at the basal level.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Sometime this year, I may start a thread on why I believe SCOTUS got it wrong over the Heller case, but that's for a later date.

Please do, I am sure it will be riveting and full of wrong.

1) Militias were an effective 'police force' during the revolution to hold onto areas when the British troops left, and keep people in line, especially Tories, but they didn't win the revolution by themselves.

Not really, you're conflating Militias with Posses, which is what the local constable or Sheriff would drum up, Militias were supplementary soldiers used in local conflicts as they possessed tactical knowledge a non-local Federal force wouldn't possess.

Needless to say, the militias fell out of fashion!

The National Guard? They were federalized under Woodrow Wilson, prior to that, they were begged to join Wars the Federal Government declared. It was up to the Governors of the respective states to sign off on their participation.

whembly wrote:

Especially this:

Obama tells a rape victim that a gun may not make her safer. pic.twitter.com/KGKxpnttEO
— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) January 8, 2016

Aye..... Deterrence is a major portion of crime prevention.

Asherian Command wrote:

I don't think they deserve to die, especially if they didn't commit it yet. I rather them face time than face death with no possiblity of changing and reform. Rapists are pretty bad but they don't deserve an execution.

You know, that's really not up to the judge in the heat of the moment, ramifications for bad decisions can be quite a bear if you're willing to do something that heinous to someone else. If I do ever have a daughter, you bet your ass she's learning how to defend herself in multiple ways, firearms included.

I think someone so easily turning a gun on someone they know and probably loved is alot harder a bit more difficult than many of you make it out to be. Plus the ages it would happen at would be college level so at campuses so the likelihood of someone bringing a gun to college IS VERY UNLIKELY

What do you think training is for? It doesn't stop at the range, aware carriers should entertain any possibility in a theoretical sense. Also, a gun drawn doesn't preclude a bullet being fired. Again, deterrence can be just if not more effective than actually killing said attacker, in many states, it's probably better if they run away from a legal POV, a lot less headache and potential prosecution for protecting yourself.

Your comment about bullet dodging was also true laugher, please don't say things like that.

**Los pollos hermanos**

Eh its not so bad but I'm still against it. I don't like where these things tend to lead. Its testing the waters if the President can pass one minor gun law its only a matter of time before restrictions start bleeding through other bills and changes and the stranglehold gets tighter and tighter. So far the American government has been desperate to get rid of American citizens guns for years, now that they have a doorway well more of a crack its only a matter of time before they make that into a massive break. Gov taking away peoples guns is like springing a leak on a ship once it starts it only grows and grows until it sinks the whole thing.

Trust me people give the government a way in and they're rob you blind by the end of it.

**Frazzled**

Asherian Command wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ain't over yet...
Guns in America town hall with President Obama: Live updates

He made some whoppers that's going to bite him in the ass...

Especially this:

Obama tells a rape victim that a gun may not make her safer. pic.twitter.com/KGKxpnttEO
— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) January 8, 2016

He's not wrong. It won't.

The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.

So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.

Thats less than sane. You can't pull a pistol from a holster but you can fumble out pepper spray? Why do cops even carry guns then?
Having done both, I can assure you I can draw a pistol far far faster. Also, there's nothing wrong with having BOTH.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

And Asherian Command has it right that guns aren't a fix-all. Date rape is unfortunately very common, and none of these tools will prevent a woman from being roofied, from being attacked by someone close to her, etc. This kind of thing is awful and we all want it to go away, but we have to be realistic about the role of firearms and their use against criminals.

Very true.

**Seaward**

Asherian Command wrote:
He's not wrong. It won't.

The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.

So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.

My wife got a got a gun and started carrying several years ago when I was deployed and she was getting stalked at work by a guy who ultimately ended up following her home on more than one occasion, after the police said they couldn't do anything until he actually committed a crime.

Her best time so far on drawing from the surrender position (hands over the head) and putting two in the A and one in the A/B (also known as the Miami Vice drill, after Jim Zubiena) so far is two seconds flat. I'd take that over pepper spray, and not coincidentally, so would she.

**Breotan**

So earlier a policeman was shot by a thug with a pistol that was stolen... FROM THE POLICE about two or three years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389974/Philadelphia-police-Officer-shot-police-cruiser.html

So first off, a statement from the new Mayor.

Jim Kenney, in his first week as mayor of the nation's fifth-largest city, said, 'There are just too many guns on the streets, and I think our national government needs to do something about that.'

His statement comes on the heels of President Barack Obama's announcement Tuesday of his plan to tighten gun control laws.

The Fed should do "something". Gotcha.

At a press conference today it was revealed the gunman, who has a criminal record, used a police handgun reported stolen in 2013.

I'm guessing that by closing the "gun show loophole" there will be fewer stolen police handguns on the street?

No? Okay, what should the Fed do about local police getting their firearms stolen? Besides imposing further restrictions on law abiding citizens, I mean.

**CptJake**

Breotan wrote:
So earlier a policeman was shot by a thug with a pistol that was stolen... FROM THE POLICE about two or three years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389974/Philadelphia-police-Officer-shot-police-cruiser.html

So first off, a statement from the new Mayor.

Jim Kenney, in his first week as mayor of the nation's fifth-largest city, said, 'There are just too many guns on the streets, and I think our national government needs to do something about that.'

His statement comes on the heels of President Barack Obama's announcement Tuesday of his plan to tighten gun control laws.

The Fed should do "something". Gotcha.

At a press conference today it was revealed the gunman, who has a criminal record, used a police handgun reported stolen in 2013.

I'm guessing that by closing the "gun show loophole" there will be fewer stolen police handguns on the street?

No? Okay, what should the Fed do about local police getting their firearms stolen? Besides imposing further restrictions on law abiding citizens, I mean.

Perp claims to have done his crime in the Name of Allah, striking at those who uphold laws other than Sharia.

I suspect this incident won't be the topic of the next POTUS Town Hall.

**Breotan**

CptJake wrote:
Perp claims to have done his crime in the Name of Allah, striking at those who uphold laws other than Sharia.

I suspect this incident won't be the topic of the next POTUS Town Hall.

Even with the claims, I refuse to believe this is terrorism. The guy is a gang thug and he's shouting this stuff to get attention and be defiant. Still, if he winds up getting terrorism charges tossed at him, I won't be crying about it. Let him do his time in Leavenworth for all I care.

**CptJake**

I wasn't calling it terrorism, just pointing out what the perp says was his motivation and commenting that it is not the type of case Obama likes to bring to the forefront as he stumps for more gun control measures. It does not fit the narrative for a variety of reasons such as the motivation and source of the gun.

Thank goodness the cop was not killed, and kudos to him for returning fire and hitting the perp even after having been wounded himself.

**whembly**

The dude just straight ambushed him:

**Breotan**

They should go after the rest of the gang as co-conspirators.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Breotan wrote:

Even with the claims, I refuse to believe this is terrorism. The guy is a gang thug and he's shouting this stuff to get attention and be defiant. Still, if he winds up getting terrorism charges tossed at him, I won't be crying about it. Let him do his time in Leavenworth for all I care.

Thug? Whoa whoa...that word is a bannable offense these days. And let's be honest, Islamic terrorists who murder people aren't the problem. Fat white neckbeards who occupy empty buildings are the real threat.

(that's sarcasm BTW I agree with you

)

**Ouze**

Ok, we're done with the executive order discussion, then?

**Grey Templar**

Dreadwinter wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Heeeeere we go with the hypotheticals...

No, pepper spray and tasers are not good alternatives to firearms for most people. Pepper spray doesn't typically stop threats even with direct hits to the eyes. Tasers sometimes stop threats, but are often impeded by garments as common as sweat shirts.

Sweat shirts don't stop bullets. Guns in a proper caliber, with good shot placement, will stop threats. Good shot placement is a product of training. Guns aren't magical talismans that ward off evil - you need to train with them, and obviously anyone who carries a gun should train regularly, and try to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.

And Asherian Command has it right that guns aren't a fix-all. Date rape is unfortunately very common, and none of these tools will prevent a woman from being roofied, from being attacked by someone close to her, etc. This kind of thing is awful and we all want it to go away, but we have to be realistic about the role of firearms and their use against criminals.

Wow, you started by commenting about hypotheticals and they talked about how hypothetically a gun is better with proper training.

Luckily you do not need training for pepper spray. Or accuracy.

Pepper spray doesn't always incapacitate. There is a not insignificant chance it will only infuriate the target, and at close ranges it is just as likely to also effect the user.

Tasers also have major problems. If you miss the taser becomes useless, and you need both projectiles to hit. And if the target has any sort of thick clothing, it can have no effect if the prongs don't penetrate.

With a gun you have multiple chances, and far better stopping power.

**Breotan**

Ouze wrote:
Ok, we're done with the executive order discussion, then?

I was trying to use the "stolen police pistol" as an example of how ineffective these new regulations are.

**Ashiraya**

"A toddler shoots someone every 25 minutes."

We need to STOP THAT KID!

**CptJake**

I may have missed it but did not see this posted.

Link is to the Town Hall and a full transcript:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/transcript-obama-town-hall-guns-in-america/index.html

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
Ok, we're done with the executive order discussion, then?

To try and help get us back on track;
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/most_voters_oppose_obama_acting_alone_on_gun_control

Voters don’t approve of President Obama’s decision to go it alone with several gun control initiatives and don’t believe his actions will reduce the number of mass killings the country has experienced recently.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Likely U.S. Voters say the government should only do what the president and Congress agree on when it comes to gun control. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% believe Obama should take action alone if Congress does not approve the initiatives he has proposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Only 21% think the president’s new executive order further extending federal government oversight of gun sales will reduce the number of mass shootings in America. Fifty-nine percent (59%) disagree and say the additional oversight will not reduce the number of these shootings. But 20% are not sure.

Voters remain closely divided on the need for additional gun control. Forty-five percent (45%) believe the United States needs stricter gun control laws, but 50% disagree. In surveys for the past several years, voters have tended to oppose further gun control laws except during brief periods following high-profile shootings like the ones at Virginia Tech and at a Connecticut elementary school.

However, most voters have long believed that the government needs to do a better job enforcing the gun laws already on the books.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 6-7, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of voters think it is more important for Congress and the president to work together to achieve what’s best for the country rather than to stand for what they believe in.

But they are far more likely to blame Congress than the president for preventing that from happening.

Generally speaking, most voters continue to believe the federal government should only do what the president and Congress agree on. More specifically, they oppose Obama going it alone on issues like global warming, the nuclear deal with Iran and his plan to exempt up to five million illegal immigrants from deportation.

Women and those under 40 continue to favor additional gun control more than men and older voters do. But most women and younger voters still oppose the president going it alone on gun control.

Seventy-three percent (73%) of Democrats think the country needs stricter gun control, but 76% of Republicans and 54% of voters not affiliated with either major party disagree.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of GOP voters and 59% of unaffiliateds believe the government should only do what the president and Congress agree on when it comes to gun control.

Democrats by a 56% to 34% margin think the president should take action alone on gun control if Congress does not approve the initiatives he has proposed. But even among voters in his own party, just 33% believe Obama’s new initiatives will reduce the number of mass killings in America.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters who favor stricter gun control say the president should take action on his own if necessary. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of voters who oppose additional gun control think the government should only do what the president and Congress agree on.

Most voters have said in surveys since the Newtown school shootings three years ago that the best way to prevent mass shootings is to focus more on the mentally ill rather than on increased gun control.

The president has singled out the National Rifle Association, the country’s leading gun rights organization, as the cause of Congress’ failure to approve additional gun control. But most Americans believe the NRA’s gun policies make this country safer, perhaps in part because they tend to think more gun control will only hurt law-abiding citizens.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of Americans with a gun in their household feel safer because that gun is there. This helps explain why guns have been selling at a record pace in recent weeks.

Just 34% of voters believe laws regarding the ownership of guns should be the responsibility of the federal government. Most see it as a state or local responsibility instead. Just 21% think it would be good for America if only government officials such as the police and military personnel were allowed to have guns.

A big problem for supporters of more gun control is that 62% of Americans don't trust the federal government to fairly enforce gun control laws.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

**Kanluwen**

What's with the random underlining?

**A Town Called Malus**

Funny bit in there, considering the "repeal Obamacare" bill that just got voted on then vetoed:

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of voters think it is more important for Congress and the president to work together to achieve what’s best for the country rather than to stand for what they believe in.

**DutchWinsAll**

Grey Templar wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Heeeeere we go with the hypotheticals...

No, pepper spray and tasers are not good alternatives to firearms for most people. Pepper spray doesn't typically stop threats even with direct hits to the eyes. Tasers sometimes stop threats, but are often impeded by garments as common as sweat shirts.

Sweat shirts don't stop bullets. Guns in a proper caliber, with good shot placement, will stop threats. Good shot placement is a product of training. Guns aren't magical talismans that ward off evil - you need to train with them, and obviously anyone who carries a gun should train regularly, and try to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.

And Asherian Command has it right that guns aren't a fix-all. Date rape is unfortunately very common, and none of these tools will prevent a woman from being roofied, from being attacked by someone close to her, etc. This kind of thing is awful and we all want it to go away, but we have to be realistic about the role of firearms and their use against criminals.

Wow, you started by commenting about hypotheticals and they talked about how hypothetically a gun is better with proper training.

Luckily you do not need training for pepper spray. Or accuracy.

Pepper spray doesn't always incapacitate. There is a not insignificant chance it will only infuriate the target, and at close ranges it is just as likely to also effect the user.

Tasers also have major problems. If you miss the taser becomes useless, and you need both projectiles to hit. And if the target has any sort of thick clothing, it can have no effect if the prongs don't penetrate.

With a gun you have multiple chances, and far better stopping power.

In a "jumps out of the bush" type attack, a gun would absolutely be the best option. But very few rapes are of this type, where an unknown attacker strikes from an unknown angle to beat and rape. It happened to a friend of mine years ago actually and was the straw that made me prejudice against a different race than mine, but that's beside the point.

The vast majority of rapes involve drunk girls putting themselves in positions with a new but known guy where they are unable to fight back, and basically then no weapon is going to help you all that much. That much talked about currently rapist Bill Cosby, how would any weapon including a gun have helped those unconscious women?

**Grey Templar**

True, it wouldn't help in all cases. But just because something doesn't work all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. And guns are useful at preventing more than just rape.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Grey Templar wrote:
True, it wouldn't help in all cases. But just because something doesn't work all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

I'm going to save this quote for the next gun control thread.

**Grey Templar**

I notice you doctored my quote and left the important part out so you can take it out of context.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Grey Templar wrote:
I notice you doctored my quote and left the important part out so you can take it out of context.

Why does the quote apply to your example but not to gun control?

**Grey Templar**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
I notice you doctored my quote and left the important part out so you can take it out of context.

Why does the quote apply to your example but not to gun control?

Context perhaps.

Gun control allegedly wants to reduce the number of people who get killed with guns. But gun control doesn't succeed at that, it only succeeds in infringing on a constitutional right.

The logic behind gun control is "Illegal guns kill X people a year." "Lets take away the guns that people legally own!"

**AlmightyWalrus**

Grey Templar wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
I notice you doctored my quote and left the important part out so you can take it out of context.

Why does the quote apply to your example but not to gun control?

Context perhaps.

Gun control allegedly wants to reduce the number of people who get killed with guns. But gun control doesn't succeed at that, it only succeeds in infringing on a constitutional right.

The logic behind gun control is "Illegal guns kill X people a year." "Lets take away the guns that people legally own!"

There's no debate to be had if you think that's the gun control argument. At all. I even agree that gun control isn't going to do anything, but your argument is so full of cognitice dissonance that it's silly.

**Grey Templar**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
I notice you doctored my quote and left the important part out so you can take it out of context.

Why does the quote apply to your example but not to gun control?

Context perhaps.

Gun control allegedly wants to reduce the number of people who get killed with guns. But gun control doesn't succeed at that, it only succeeds in infringing on a constitutional right.

The logic behind gun control is "Illegal guns kill X people a year." "Lets take away the guns that people legally own!"

There's no debate to be had if you think that's the gun control argument. At all. I even agree that gun control isn't going to do anything, but your argument is so full of cognitice dissonance that it's silly.

Nope, that really is their logic.

They see people getting killed, so their response is to try and prevent people who aren't involved from owning guns. They ban guns which aren't even the kinds being use to kill the people they allegedly want to prevent from getting killed.

It really is "Illegal guns kill people = take away completely different guns that people own legally!"

**AlmightyWalrus**

Grey Templar wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
I notice you doctored my quote and left the important part out so you can take it out of context.

Why does the quote apply to your example but not to gun control?

Context perhaps.

Gun control allegedly wants to reduce the number of people who get killed with guns. But gun control doesn't succeed at that, it only succeeds in infringing on a constitutional right.

The logic behind gun control is "Illegal guns kill X people a year." "Lets take away the guns that people legally own!"

There's no debate to be had if you think that's the gun control argument. At all. I even agree that gun control isn't going to do anything, but your argument is so full of cognitice dissonance that it's silly.

Nope, that really is their logic.

They see people getting killed, so their response is to try and prevent people who aren't involved from owning guns. They ban guns which aren't even the kinds being use to kill the people they allegedly want to prevent from getting killed.

It really is "Illegal guns kill people = take away completely different guns that people own legally!"

As I said, if you can't see how the debate is more nuanced than that then the debade is completely wasted.

**Grey Templar**

If gun control advocates didn't constantly try to take away the wrong type of guns or enact measures that didn't do anything to address the actual problem you might have a point.