# The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuff"



## Attaman (Dec 14, 2012)

Since people seem _obsessed_ to keep bringing up Firearms, Second Amendment, and so-on in threads about shootings (within the United States or otherwise), I feel like it'd do victims, interested forum-goers, and moderators a world of good punting all such discussion into a thread specifically for the topic. Allow people looking for news on a School Shooting to find news on the School Shooting, for example, instead of have to sift through five pages of banter.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Now, for my personal opinion? First off, the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution has long since ceased to have any value or purpose.

Before someone jumps on my back about how I want to take away everyone's guns and leave only criminals / the military with such: No. This is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that the Amendment, which was based on the idea of having a well-regulated militia who could take up arms in the case of Government abuse, invasion, or so-on has ceased to be practical or applied in any reasonable way, shape, or form. Do people want to hear what an accurate image of a properly respected Second Amendment is? You ready? _The National Guard_. Not the NRA, not independent firearm owners, the National Guard. 

You want to know why? First off, it is a _well regulated_ militia / group of firearm owners. While the standards are less severe than for certain armed branches, you generally must be this sane to be eligible to join and show a continued absence of insanity / irresponsibility to remain within. Versus, say, being able to acquire a free firearm for taking part in [x] promotional business offer and then keeping said firearm until you commit some serious crime. 

Second on the Amendment issue, _private firearm owners are going to mean *jack shit* in a Red Dawn-style scenario_. Congrats, you have a nine millimeter pistol and a hunting rifle. You know what them invading Norks have? _Tanks._ And _aircraft_. Oh yes, having your firearms will be nice for if you try to slip off into the wilderness, or if you take up the very profitable (and, likely, brief) living of a guerilla fighter. But when it comes to repelling them? Have fun. Same goes for if the United States Government for some reason decides "Paul Ryan is the first Life President", as in the end any military action of importance is going to come down to a military branch, either fighting amongst others or dealing with a non-military branch (most probably in a fashion that's either "Military refrains from gunning down civilians" or "Military guns down civilians").

The Second Amendment being cited as a "Constitutional Right" for everyone to own whatever firearms they desire is inane, as it basically ignores the entire purpose of the Amendment to squawk "Something something firearm something something people".

Now, to reinforce that I don't think firearms shouldn't be military-only, private ownership is not wrong or evil. If you can show yourself, routinely, to be a responsible firearm owner, and in a suitable environment for owning a firearm, there is no particular reason to deny someone such a privilege any more than there is to deny ownership of a sword, bow, car, plane, etcetera. _However_, it's becoming increasingly clear that within the United States the regulations on firearms and firearm ownership _greatly_ need a reform from where they stand now.

And to now briefly address something from the thread that sparked this: Aiming to "put a bullet into that sick fucks brain" _is_ an irresponsible use of a firearm. Why? Well, mostly because this quote is in relation to _self defense_, and the point of such is to _protect yourself and those around you until proper authorities can arrive_. If you accidentally hit the skull, or it's the only way to keep yourself safe, that's one thing. But more often than not? If you have the time to properly aim at someone's head and shoot them there, you can probably aim for their arms or legs at the same time. Or, hell, even center-mass, which is significantly more likely to _not_ kill the home-invader.

Note again that I'm not trying to say "Oh man those poor robbers u ebil firearm owners". I'm saying that if your immediate thought with self-defense is "shoot that fucker in the head", _put away your firearm and get a psychiatric evaluation to make sure you're fit to own it_. Killing someone, self-defense or not, is a _very_ big action, as well as _very_ final.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Since another argument seems to have popped up in the thread, "Well if responsible citizens have trouble getting firearms, how will they defend themselves from criminals?" You know how I respond to that? "You're right, that is an issue. Shame that you cannot trust the average citizen to be responsible."

Evidence A: The Giffords shorting in Arizona. Several people at that rally were practicing concealed carry. You know what happened then? The only concealed carry people who were of note were ones that _were goddamn saints_ for having _not_ drawn their firearms, as it turned out that a significant number of them were aiming at the wrong people.

Evidence B: The theatre shooting in Aurora. Many people cried "Oh ehm gee, if only concealed carry were more prevalent everyone would have been fine." People who had time to read the articles and come to what one would hope is a reasonable conclusion. The problem? The gunman was in body armor. In a dark theatre. That was crowded. Oh, and he threw smoke grenades. Please, _please_ explain to me how this is _responsible_ concealed carry?

It is very true that concealed carry can work effectively, as we even have a case in the US of someone sniping a gunman with their own private firearm while police had them pinned. But you know what? _Not every situation can be made better by increasing the number of firearms involved_. This is something that has so many of the critics stumped: They aren't asking for firearms to be removed from responsible private owners' property and ownership, merely that regulation be increased so as to remove them from irresponsible owners' hands and keep them out of such. Though for some reason the moment regulation is brought up people hoot-and-hollar like howler monkeys about the UN, stripping constitutional rights, "Criminals rule the street", etcetera.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Off-the-rails debates are a crime of passion. You can't force them.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

You could have summed all that up with keep them out of the crazies hands.

I agree with you, but I have another issue with this debate that I think needs clarification and badly (though you did a good job of this part of the issue).
Back then we also had muzzle loaders, one shot weapons that take a minute or so to reload, you arent going to go and commit mass murder with one highly inaccurate round a minute (IF that). Now we have automatic firearms with high capacity magazines. There is absolutley no need for anyone to have either of these. Currently automatic firing rates are illegal but we have no regulation on magazine size. I can easily go to my local gun shop but an AK and find a 100 round capacity magazine somewhere online without a problem. Even handguns have extended magazines you can buy that can increase your ammunition capacity greatly. I have no qualms of hunting rifles or other bolt action/semi automatic firearms with a low capacity, at this point its similar to where knives are (though still FAR more deadly), you can kill someone but you most likely arent going on a rampage with it.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> [Stuff]



/thread


----------



## Kosdu (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

This thread, it has been thought out well.




It makes no sense, giving guns to people without an extensive background check and a psychological evaluation.


When I'm old enough, I can go get my liscence. Then buy as many semi-autos as I want to turn full auto, or alternatively go to the black market or out on the streets and buy myself high capacity automatics.



Guns don't have the intention of killing, people do. So why do we give them out like candy?




If I am mugged, I take martial arts. I will likely be okay.


But how many actually defend themselves? And what off richoshets and accidental deaths?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Kosdu said:


> And what off richoshets and accidental deaths?



You know, to prevent accidental deaths and injuries, it wouldn't be a bad idea if weapon safety, responsibility, control, and usage were things that would be absolutely mandatory teaching topics before anyone could get their hands on a gun of their own.

Kinda like a driving license. But shooty.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> Since people seem _obsessed_ to keep bringing up Firearms, Second Amendment, and so-on in threads about shootings (within the United States or otherwise), I feel like it'd do victims, interested forum-goers, and moderators a world of good punting all such discussion into a thread specifically for the topic. Allow people looking for news on a School Shooting to find news on the School Shooting, for example, instead of have to sift through five pages of banter.



What else did you expect in a thread about shooting? :v



Kosdu said:


> But how many actually defend themselves? And what off richoshets and accidental deaths?



People die from accidents everyday. All sorts of different accidents. So imo, this means moot.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Randy-Darkshade said:


> What else did you expect in a thread about shooting? :v


Preferably frequent updates to the news, discussion of the shooter / news coverage, etcetera. Not, uh, a spat on constitutional rights.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Kinda like a driving license. But shooty.


+1 internets


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Kosdu said:


> If I am mugged, I take martial arts. I will likely be okay.



Right. Have fun with that :roll:


----------



## Validuz (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Yeah. The argument that American citizens got weapons in their homes to repell an invading army is laughable. It's not like they could do anything against an armored vehicle anyhow. Sure, it'd going to help but in the larger view of things it wouldnt help much. And instead of the invading army making its say through the cities. They'd level them before aproaching if they knew how much of a resistance they'd get. Modern artillery and tanks could do it from kilometers away.

I would find it comforting to know i had a handgun at home incase of a burgular if i lived in the US that is. But letting pretty much anyone buy a .50' sniper rifle. A fully automatic machinegun and that kind of stuff for 'HOME DEFENCE' is.. Odd to say the least. Theyre expensive toys for the shooting range.

---

About school/public shootings though. I'm not sure on how to answer that. After the virginia-tech shooting a few years ago i remember reading about a school that was thinking about letting any student there carry a handgun. My mind instantly flashed to a scenario where a single student, pissed cuz he's being bullied. Fire a couple of shots in the mess-hall.(Is that what it's called? The food-place at schools.) And 20 students pull out their guns. Since everyone is holding a gun, scared, pointing at eachother. How many do you think will stand down from that mexican-standoff? Bullets will start flying and half the room would be gunned down.
What about arming the teachers? A 'responsible' adult in each classroom? Might work. But i'd be rather irked by the thought that my teacher had a handgun. Not to mention ALOT of teachers wouldnt be able to fire it, even in self defence(speaking from my own experience on what kind of teachers i've had.)
It's a shame that these things happend. But anything short of having a super x-ray metaldetector that scans everyone as they enter the peremices(sp?) or a couple of on-duty cops there at all times. (Both wich would cost alot of money!) there's little to be done.

Norway 2011.
As you might know. Both Norway and Sweden are rather strict when it comes to gunlaws. but that didnt stop 'Breivik' as he's commonly known here. To gun down 69ppl at a summercamp and blow up a bomb outside the government building. A total killcount of 77. All in a country with very strict guncontrol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

Edit: I just have to add this Wikipedia antry.. THIS. Is why we can't have nice things. "Breivik's usage of shooter video games has sparked debate about further censorship in violent video games." -_-; Really? REALLY?! It's utter fucking bullshit. If videogames had any effect on me in that way, i'd halved the Scandinavian population by now.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Ricky said:


> Right. Have fun with that :roll:



Yeah, I can see someone trying to use martial arts to fend off a gunman, somehow I don't think the person performing martial arts will be successful. :v


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Validuz said:


> Yeah. The argument that American citizens got weapons in their homes to repell an invading army is laughable. It's not like they could do anything against an armored vehicle anyhow. Sure, it'd going to help but in the larger view of things it wouldnt help much. And instead of the invading army making its say through the cities. They'd level them before aproaching if they knew how much of a resistance they'd get. Modern artillery and tanks could do it from kilometers away.
> 
> I would find it comforting to know i had a handgun at home incase of a burgular if i lived in the US that is. But letting pretty much anyone buy a .50' sniper rifle. A fully automatic machinegun and that kind of stuff for 'HOME DEFENCE' is.. Odd to say the least. Theyre expensive toys for the shooting range.
> 
> ...



not "anyone" can buy a .50' in fact most people can not. Automatic firing modes are illegal for civilians as well unless a permit is obtained but that is strictly for sport shooting. No one in the states argues for an invading army, its more of a protection measure or for hunting. Lets face it, someone breaks into your house with a weapon you're fucked if you dont have one as well. Police only arrive AFTER the crime has happened.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Randy-Darkshade said:


> Yeah, I can see someone trying to use martial arts to fend off a gunman, somehow I don't think the person performing martial arts will be successful. :v



[yt]dJOXLryzs8g[/yt]


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

The problem with this debate is-
[YT]YqzJlBcCsow[/YT]


----------



## Fernin (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I have my gun. I can address a threat from anyone be they armed with their fists, a baseball bat, a piece of wood, a knife, or another gun. For everyone who thinks that because they know some martial arts (I spent years with taekwondo and Judo myself), your abilities mean dick all in the face of multiple attackers, or armed attackers; you're not some magic movie ninja. Further more if you have to defend someone other than yourself you can only address one hostile at a time hand to hand, that leaves plenty of time for them to drag off your sister/mother/brother/wife/husband and beat them to death. That is why I carry a gun, it is the great equalizer and I don't give two squirts of piss about what the anti gun crowd thinks.

As for shit like this school shooting, it's a tragedy yes, but the problem we need to address when it comes to this stuff is the PEOPLE. In a world without guns this man could have just as easily built pipe bombs and started tossing them into room, frankly that would have probably killed even more people.


----------



## Anubite (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Kosdu said:


> It makes no sense, giving guns to people without an extensive background check and a psychological evaluation.



New Jersey has a mandatory psych exam and requires several recommendations before you can get a gun. An extensive background check is required where I live. Also not allowed to purchase a gun legally out of state without licences.



Kosdu said:


> When I'm old enough, I can go get my licence  Then buy as many semi-autos as I want to turn full auto, or alternatively go to the black market or out on the streets and buy myself high capacity automatics.



Find the black market or a gun store that sells high cap mags and then talk to me. Local gun shows sell semi automatics and a good portion of modern class 3 weapons can be modified to be automatic. You can also buy a high powered hunting rifle and most shootings are from semi automatics or shotguns, not AR-15s and AK-47s.



Kosdu said:


> Guns don't have the intention of killing, people do. So why do we give them out like candy?



The first half I agree with. The second part is not so true, not everyone store sells guns like candy, their not likely to be bought by a teenager because to even let you hold one of the guns you have to have your licence on you and be 18 to get a weapon in my state. Most people go through the process in order to get them and its a long time before the state passes the licencing on your weapon before you get it here. Its not a hey, I am going to go buy a Sig p226 or a 5.7 because I can, its not like that. NJ requires 21 years of age and a slew of recommendations from others, employers and non family related persons to sign a document saying your a stable individual. Restrictions on the class of weapons are all over the place.

Part of NJ firearm laws.

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/062408_title13ch54.pdf



Kosdu said:


> If I am mugged, I take martial arts. I will likely be okay.



Say that to a guy with a 9mm or a dude with a knife, when it actually happens to you, its far different then what you think.




Kosdu said:


> But how many actually defend themselves? And what off ricochets and accidental deaths?



Accidents are applied to anything you do, yes its true you are likely to harm yourself with a firearm, but your more likely to cut your hand off then shoot yourself with a gun because of the frequent use of the knife. Not saying its going to happen to you everyday, but it is something that happens. People are stupid and ricochets aren't that common.

Look at this article, out of 100,000 people, a death by firearm is only 10.2. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

As far as I am concerned, firearms are a double edged sword no matter what side you are on, yes their dangerous and they cause injuries when used improperly, but one bad apple doesn't need to spoil the bunch for the rest of the firearm enthusiast. I personally will be collecting more firearms because of their historical use and others because each piece is an interesting machine or a work of art. I am for more control yes, but still being able to purchase a firearm because its a collecting hobby and one to go to the range shooting, not a homicidal murdering spree.

Take what I said as you like, I am not looking to piss people off, just to get people to read and do bit of research in order to get a solid debate and not an argument going. People get far to mad when discussing things like this and I want a healthy debate.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I own 4 firearms, 3 rifles and 1 handgun.  I use them properly at the range and exercise gun safely 24/7.  It's not the guns you have to worry about its unstable people.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



d.batty said:


> I own 4 firearms, 3 rifles and 1 handgun.  I use them properly at the range and exercise gun safely 24/7.  It's not the guns you have to worry about its unstable people.



I don't own a gun because I'm pretty sure I would kill many, many people if I had one...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



FenrirUlv said:


> not "anyone" can buy a .50' in fact most people can not. Automatic firing modes are illegal for civilians as well unless a permit is obtained but that is strictly for sport shooting. No one in the states argues for an invading army, its more of a protection measure or for hunting. Lets face it, someone breaks into your house with a weapon you're fucked if you dont have one as well. Police only arrive AFTER the crime has happened.



Well, that isn't the cops fault, they are not magicians, they can't just appear at the click of their fingers.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Randy-Darkshade said:


> Well, that isn't the cops fault, they are not magicians, they can't just appear at the click of their fingers.


Yea, I didnt see where he said he is in favor of having a handgun in case of burglary. I thought he said he was just against it in general and using those drastic situations as examples. My bad ^-^


----------



## Validuz (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fernin said:


> In a world without guns this man could have just as easily built pipe bombs and started tossing them into room, frankly that would have probably killed even more people.



Yes. If someone really want to kill people. He can do it without guns. That's a fact. I remember an episode about serial killers on Discovery Channel. A single guy went on a spree with a screwdriver and killed like 20people in a Russian park. If there is a will. There is a way.



d.batty said:


> I own 4 firearms, 3 rifles and 1 handgun. I use them properly at the range and exercise gun safely 24/7. It's not the guns you have to worry about its unstable people.



Aye. I've never been that concerned about guns. Guns in the wrong hands on the other hand...


----------



## Kosdu (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I think I managed to establish that I'm an overconfident idiot in every regard.

Have fun.


----------



## Fernin (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Kosdu said:


> I think I managed to establish that I'm an overconfident idiot in every regard.



You said it. =0


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fernin said:


> I have my gun. I can address a threat from anyone be they armed with their fists, a baseball bat, a piece of wood, a knife, or another gun. For everyone who thinks that because they know some martial arts (I spent years with taekwondo and Judo myself), your abilities mean dick all in the face of multiple attackers, or armed attackers; you're not some magic movie ninja. Further more if you have to defend someone other than yourself you can only address one hostile at a time hand to hand, that leaves plenty of time for them to drag off your sister/mother/brother/wife/husband and beat them to death. That is why I carry a gun, it is the great equalizer and I don't give two squirts of piss about what the anti gun crowd thinks.
> 
> As for shit like this school shooting, it's a tragedy yes, but the problem we need to address when it comes to this stuff is the PEOPLE. In a world without guns this man could have just as easily built pipe bombs and started tossing them into room, frankly that would have probably killed even more people.


Im not arguing against handguns for self defense, Im all for it, but are we really going to allow people to purchase military grade, high fire or high capacity weapons? With your comparison to pipe bombs its true it would kill far more, but you have to make them yourself, you arent going to go make guns yourself. Not to mention that owning a pipe bomb is already illegal, or really any sort of lethal explosive for that matter. Then we have the issue of how easy it is to obtain them, I can go to the store 5 minutes from my house, pick up an AR after purchase two days later with relative ease, switch its firing mechanism to auto and buy a drum magazine online, sounds like a recipe for mass murder, not self defense.


----------



## Validuz (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



FenrirUlv said:


> Im not arguing against handguns for self defense, Im all for it, but are we really going to allow people to purchase military grade, high fire or high capacity weapons? With your comparison to pipe bombs its true it would kill far more, but you have to make them yourself, you arent going to go make guns yourself. Not to mention that owning a pipe bomb is already illegal, or really any sort of lethal explosive for that matter. Then we have the issue of how easy it is to obtain them, I can go to the store 5 minutes from my house, pick up an AR after purchase two days later with relative ease, switch its firing mechanism to auto and buy a drum magazine online, sounds like a recipe for mass murder, not self defense.



Yeah. Swedish gunlaws for example. (As far as i've heard. By people that knows these things!) An assaultrifle here is limited to 5rounds in the magazine, and semi-auto only. More than enough for hunting/home defence.

Granted. Not as fun. But definetly safer.


----------



## Fernin (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



FenrirUlv said:


> Im not arguing against handguns for self defense, Im all for it, but are we really going to allow people to purchase military grade, high fire or high capacity weapons? With your comparison to pipe bombs its true it would kill far more, but you have to make them yourself, you arent going to go make guns yourself. Not to mention that owning a pipe bomb is already illegal, or really any sort of lethal explosive for that matter. Then we have the issue of how easy it is to obtain them, I can go to the store 5 minutes from my house, pick up an AR after purchase two days later with relative ease, switch its firing mechanism to auto and buy a drum magazine online, sounds like a recipe for mass murder, not self defense.



Some points for your consideration.

1: Military fire arms are hellishly expensive, think 15k+ for just the fire arm for a civilian, then add in all the fees and taxes and you have a very expensive, time consuming, government hawk-watched murder plan there.

2: Capacity is a pointless distinction, civilian or military guns will accept the same mags, hell I have a 32 round magazine for my husband's glock. The number of rounds carried by a single mag means nothing when you can just carry more mags, and is thus irrelevant to the discussion.

3: I could search on google for ten minutes then go to wal-mart, spend less than 100 dollars, and have all the supplies I need to make pounds of chemical explosives, or poison gas. 

4: People who're going to go kill someone probably don't care if their weapon of choice is legal or not since THEY'RE GOING TO GO COMMIT A CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE. This often needs to be in caps since most people don't seem understand that someone planning a crime doesn't care about legal or illegal to begin with.

5: Refer to how easily I can go to wal-mart and buy all the chemicals I need to make a bomb, and all without that pesky waiting period; I could commit my murders the same day! 

6:Let's also not forget that a rifle like an AR is no more lethal than a .22, or a pistol, or a hunting rifle, or anything else that shoots a friggen bullet. The fact that it's an AR frame doesn't magically make it more lethal than any other gun. What it does do though is result in it being more expensive, and if you look at the majority of fire arm related deaths, they're committed with handguns, not rifles.

7: You must be able to work some funny magic if you can convert a stock AR to fully auto in your garage, given that the internal action of the weapon isn't designed for that kind of function. This isn't like a tech 9 from way back when, when all you had to do was file down a tab. This holds true of ANY modern rifle. Further more a civilian AR won't even accept the internals of an M16 or other automatic rifle if you somehow manged to get ahold of them in the first place.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fernin said:


> 1: Military fire arms are hellishly expensive, think 15k+ for just the fire arm for a civilian, then add in all the fees and taxes and you have a very expensive, time consuming, government hawk-watched murder plan there.


Didn't stop all those mass murderers who legally bought military-grade assault rifles to carry out their plans.



> 3: I could search on google for ten minutes then go to wal-mart, spend less than 100 dollars, and have all the supplies I need to make pounds of chemical explosives, or poison gas.


You don't hear of homebrew bomb attacks every new month, however.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fernin said:


> Some points for your consideration.
> 
> 1: Military fire arms are hellishly expensive, think 15k+ for just the fire arm for a civilian, then add in all the fees and taxes and you have a very expensive, time consuming, government hawk-watched murder plan there.
> 
> ...



1. I can purchase an AK style rifle for $900 
2. It isnt irrelevant at all, you would need to reload and that causes time. You cant seriously think that a muzzle loader is as dangerous as a glock with 32 rounds can you? I mean, I can bring a hell of a lot of musket balls but I still need to reload.
3. Yes, but the point is the items to make that have everyday use, not to mention how dangerous it is to construct them. Guns dont have an everyday purpose, they are designed to kill.
4. And most violent crimes involving guns in the states are obtained completely legally, yes you can always go to the black market (hell there was a french reporter who bought a nuclear warhead) but that is no reason to make them legal.
5. irrelevant, The time at which you do it doesnt matter, the action does.
6. Yes and I have nothing against owning any frame you like, but when you have high firing rate and high capacity of ammo that is a major problem. You dont need that for hunting and you certainly dont need that for self defense (pointing to as you said the lethality and not to mention how unrealistic it is to be caught in a self defense scenario while having an AR.
7. Are you fucking kidding me? All I need to do is go buy an automatic receiver depending on which frame I use or shit even a slide fire stock and Im in business.


----------



## Fernin (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gryphoneer said:


> Didn't stop all those mass murderers who legally bought military-grade assault rifles to carry out their plans.
> 
> 
> You don't hear of homebrew bomb attacks every new month, however.



"Military grade" is a stupid and pointless term, a gun is gun, is a gun, is a gun. At the end of the day it shoots a bullet. Futher more where are all these assault rifles murders you seem to know about? Hmm? Virtually every killing involving a gun involved a small caliber handgun (.22 and 9mm mostly). 


As for the home brew bombs, you must have missed the 80/90s. It's rare now because because alot of people don't realize how easy it is. Of course by the gist I get from your post it'd be better if they went back to that more effective and destructive method of murder, yah?


----------



## Fernin (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



FenrirUlv said:


> 1. I can purchase an AK style rifle for $900
> 2. It isnt irrelevant at all, you would need to reload and that causes time. You cant seriously think that a muzzle loader is as dangerous as a glock with 32 rounds can you? I mean, I can bring a hell of a lot of musket balls but I still need to reload.
> 3. Yes, but the point is the items to make that have everyday use, not to mention how dangerous it is to construct them. Guns dont have an everyday purpose, they are designed to kill.
> 4. And most violent crimes involving guns in the states are obtained completely legally, yes you can always go to the black market (hell there was a french reporter who bought a nuclear warhead) but that is no reason to make them legal.
> ...



1: Right, I totally believe you can find an automatic AK stateside for 900 dollars. /sarcasm
2: Your example is so stupid it hurts. Anyone with any dexterity can reload a magazine fed pistol or rifle in less than 2-3 seconds, and if they remember to not fire on the last round of the mag they don't even have to cycle.
3: Guns are a tool, just like anything else, they're not designed to go out and murder, they're designed to defend, the issue is misuse. You also don't seem to understand how easy it is to make a home made bomb.
4: If you want to make this distinction then why don't we just ban guns entirely since ANY gun can be used for murder. Oh, wait, that's right, then when 4 dudes break into your house with knives or baseball bats you'll be unable to defend yourself. Bummer.Also,we should ban knives, large sticks, hands, feet, any everything else people MISUSE to kill one another with.
5: You missed the point entirely. My point was it's even easier to get the stuff to make a bomb than it is to gen a gun an ammo. Faster too.
6: Fire rate of any semi is as fast as you can pull the trigger, which is fast enough to make it not worth spending thousands to buy an automatic firearm. This might explain why there hasn't been a major killing with a full auto weapon since, oh, well, pretty much the 70s. Given that the price and difficulty of getting automatic weapon limits them the wealthy hobby shooters, they're largely irrelevant to the crime rate.
7: You don't seem to understand how the gun works in the first place, you can't take an M16 receiver (a 6-7k piece on it's own with all the same watch dog oversight as a full gun)and put AR internals in it and magically have an automatic weapon. It's like trying put the internals from a 1.6L inline for into a V8, it just doesn't work. I do agree the slide fire stocks are an issue however and should NOT be available.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fernin said:


> "Military grade" is a stupid and pointless term, a gun is gun, is a gun, is a gun. At the end of the day it shoots a bullet. Futher more where are all these assault rifles murders you seem to know about? Hmm?


There you go, buddy.

The combat features of legally purchasable semi-automatic assault weapons with high-capacity ammunition magazines are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts because of their high firepower.




> As for the home brew bombs, you must have missed the 80/90s. It's rare now because because alot of people don't realize how easy it is. Of course by the gist I get from your post it'd be better if they went back to that more effective and destructive method of murder, yah?


So, you want to tell me people sort of, erm, forgot that they can shop bombs at Kmart and introducing common sense gun legislation would remind them, thus leading to bloodier attacks?

_Oooooo_kay.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Anything can be used as a weapon. I mean laying around me I have two long screw drivers, a short screw driver, even the glass I've been drinking from can be used as a weapon. Even the monitor I'm staring at can be hurled across the room at someone and thus, become a weapon. The list of items just laying at hand around me can go on and on. 

I used to be one of those people who thought guns should be banned but I realized that wont do much good.

As far as explosives go, it's no hard. I know how to make a form of explosive at home but I am not gonna say how to do it or what to use. I'm not even happy I was told. One of the ingredients you could get from a chemist years ago but they don't sell it to the public anymore, probably for this very reason.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

So you think banning military-grade rifles and other high powered firearms will lead to screw driving sprees?


----------



## FenrirUlv (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fernin said:


> 1: Right, I totally believe you can find an automatic AK stateside for 900 dollars. /sarcasm
> 2: Your example is so stupid it hurts. Anyone with any dexterity can reload a magazine fed pistol or rifle in less than 2-3 seconds, and if they remember to not fire on the last round of the mag they don't even have to cycle.
> 3: Guns are a tool, just like anything else, they're not designed to go out and murder, they're designed to defend, the issue is misuse. You also don't seem to understand how easy it is to make a home made bomb.
> 4: If you want to make this distinction then why don't we just ban guns entirely since ANY gun can be used for murder. Oh, wait, that's right, then when 4 dudes break into your house with knives or baseball bats you'll be unable to defend yourself. Bummer.Also,we should ban knives, large sticks, hands, feet, any everything else people MISUSE to kill one another with.
> ...



1. Just because you cant find it doesnt mean I cant and I never said automatic, I said the frame.
2. Its not stupid at all, the fact of the matter is most people do not have extensive weapon training and do not have that dexterity. limiting the amount of shots in a magazine means lower fire rate which means less people getting killed in the case of one of these events and you do not need high capacity for self defense or hunting.
3. Yes, they are, a tool designed for the sole purpose of killing, you can say self defense but thats bullshit they are designed to kill whether aggressively or defensively. Guns though do not have a separate everyday use such as knives or fire.
4. I never argued that point, that is a strawman argument and slippery slope fallacy.
5. Its easier to get, and harder to make, not to mention dangerous as hell. Just as if guns were illegal (which Im not even for by the way) you wouldnt make the materials to make them illegal but the item its self.
6. Well thats just false, we can see at least 2% of the crimes in california alone in 2009 were from automatic weapons as shown here http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_09.pdf I have no qualms with shooting ranges or other events that you can go to to use automatic weaponry, but keep them out of the private hands of citizens. This is like saying given the price and difficulty of warheads it limits them to wealthy pyromaniacs, it doesnt matter, they should still be illegal.
7. Since when did I specify what frame? Where did I specifically say a certain receiver? I didnt. Not to mention that I can easily go buy a slidefire stock for an AR which is completely legal for $350 which would give me, essentially, automatic fire through bump firing.

You are using completely dishonest arguments when you dont need to.


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I think I almost agree with everything that OP has said.



Attaman said:


> Before someone jumps on my back about how I want to take away everyone's guns and leave only criminals / the military with such: No. This is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that the Amendment, which was based on the idea of having a well-regulated militia who could take up arms in the case of Government abuse, invasion, or so-on has ceased to be practical or applied in any reasonable way, shape, or form.
> 
> Second on the Amendment issue, _private firearm owners are going to mean *jack shit* in a Red Dawn-style scenario_. Congrats, you have a nine millimeter pistol and a hunting rifle. You know what them invading Norks have? _Tanks._ And _aircraft_. Oh yes, having your firearms will be nice for if you try to slip off into the wilderness, or if you take up the very profitable (and, likely, brief) living of a guerilla fighter. But when it comes to repelling them? Have fun. Same goes for if the United States Government for some reason decides "Paul Ryan is the first Life President", as in the end any military action of importance is going to come down to a military branch, either fighting amongst others or dealing with a non-military branch (most probably in a fashion that's either "Military refrains from gunning down civilians" or "Military guns down civilians").



I think a lot of more right wing redneck gun lovers (usually in the deep south and west, and in rural areas, like in Michigan's rural areas where militias live) have this crazy idea that if they keep a lot of guns in their house and the EBIL Goverment becomes too socialist/communist/liberal/a dictatorship, that they can single-handedly fight the US army in the name of freedom and WIN. Especially those nutters like the Michigan Militia that live in places like the thumb and around Jackson and Howell (both redneck central) who think they can overthrow the government.

Go ahead, give it a try. Before you even leave your house the military will have lobbed a missile through your front door with an unmanned drone 10 miles away.

The military has weapons that can kill you from MILES away. Without you even knowing it. Without you even SEEING it. Even the best trained US special ops snipers can shoot someone in the head from a few miles away. How the fuck is your little ragtag band of toothless rednecks running around in the woods with assault rifles bought at Wal-mart gonna compete with that?!


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gryphoneer said:


> So you think banning military-grade rifles and other high powered firearms will lead to screw driving sprees?



That's silly and nobody said that.

The point is: take away guns and there will still be murder. It doesn't solve anything. Furthermore, people will still be able to get guns albeit illegally. You're just giving the bad guys an advantage and the common good citizen no way to protect himself.

The only reason this debate comes up after a shooting is an emotional knee-jerk reaction. "People are getting shot! We need to take away all the guns" isa very naive and myopic point of view. All things considered, it might help reduce successful murders a bit but you also removed people's right to defend themselves. I don't think the correct way to solve problems is by removing more and more freedoms.


----------



## helioswolf (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



CrazyLee said:


> I think I almost agree with everything that OP has said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Somewhere, Honey Boo Boo is crying because you said redneck :V

So, lets assume guns were just made illegal over night.  How do you think it would go down?  Do you think people would be simply told they have to turn their guns into the local police department or something, or do you think they'd send the military door to door and demand guns?  Do you think people would go along with it?


----------



## Attaman (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



helioswolf said:


> So, lets assume guns were just made illegal over night.


 You do realize his post, and the one it was in response to, had absolutely nothing to do with guns becoming illegal, so you're basically trying to draw him into an unrelated discussion in an attempt to damage credibility, yes?

Part of the reason I haven't jumped in this thread for a while to respond to a couple of the posters. Some of the opinions that have been shared I agree with, some of them I do not. However, to take Fernin's posts for the example, the availability of lethal firearm alternatives doesn't really have much relevance to the arguments "The Second Amendment has lost much purpose in recent years", "Proper regulation of firearms is / can be good", "Shouting 'He's coming right at is!' does not make it immediately make it morally acceptable to kill someone in most scenarios", and "Concealed Carry could be a great deal more useful and practical if you could rely on intelligent and calm reactions in a stressful environment, as well as the average Concealed Carry-er to be fairly competent". As such, I don't feel particularly a need to vent with Fernin every point of theirs I agree and disagree with.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Ricky said:


> The point is: take away guns and there will still be murder.


Number 1: *Nobody* besides gun nuts reduces common sense gun legislation to "taking away our guns".

Number 2: Well, duh, but way, _way _less murder. Also, way fewer and way less bloody non-lethal gun-related incidents. What's your goddamn point?


----------



## Taralack (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Not this again.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Toraneko said:


> Not this again.


Well if people could keep the disaster threads clean then maybe we could have more nice things. >(


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Ricky said:


> The point is: take away guns and there will still be murder. It doesn't solve anything. Furthermore, people will still be able to get guns albeit illegally. You're just giving the bad guys an advantage and the common good citizen no way to protect himself.



It still removes an option off of the table for someone who is about to fly off the handle.

Problem is, as much as I do advocate that there should be extensive psychological and background checks before weapons should be allowed to purchase that doesn't solve the issue of what happens with the dude who bought his gun 15 years ago, is totally fine at that point, then down the line decides he's going to take someone's life because life happens?

This was the problem with the Empire State Building shooting which I made a thread about over the summer.  The shooter had bought his gun back in the 90s when he was living down south, moved to New York and had all the appropriate laws/paperwork to show that he was legally allowed to own the weapon in the state.  He ends up getting in a bitter dispute with his manager, gets fired, and decides the best way to handle the situation is to find him in the morning when the manager is getting breakfast and blow him away on a crowded street.

What people constantly miss in these types of issues is what drives people to these extremes.  Because this is as much of a societal problem as it is an issue about our gun laws.  Why are people being driven to the point where killing numerous other people is a viable solution?  And "well they're just nuts" unfortunately isn't a good answer as it fails to help us find ways to prevent such tragedies from happening.  Instead the own practical solution people come up with is "give people more killing tools/give them less killing tools."

Take for instance the recent murder-suicide committed by former Kansas City Chief player Javon Belcher.  Belcher and his girlfriend/mother of his child were having a domestic dispute which ended in him killing her and then himself in front of his coach and other Kansas City Chiefs staff.  Bob Costas, haughty dipshit that he is, goes on Sunday Night Football the following night and gives an editorial about gun control with no mention about the issues of Belcher's domestic issues or the fact that it had come to light that he was experiencing mental problems which hints at the possibility that he was suffering symptoms of a concussion.  Thanks to his fatal injury however, doctors won't be able to effectively determine if that was the case.  Belcher by the way, also was legally allowed to have a weapon and allegedly showed no prior issues with mental health.

My personal feelings on firearms?  I don't understand why anyone would honestly need one.  I don't feel the need to own one for "safety" as I figure I didn't want to place my fate in my reaction time to unholster/grab a weapon while one is drawn on me.  People seem to forget about a little thing called "escalation."

[yt]4EMUm8Zsfrk[/yt]

Skip to 0:30

Long and short of it, giving people more weapons is a short-term solution.  Eventually criminals or someone with less than stellar mental health will move on to something which still gives them an edge.  We saw that with the Colorado shootings where the kid was armed to the teeth with body armor and smoke bombs along with automatic weapons which would pierce most body armor.  You're not scaring away threats to yourself, you're forcing other people to change tactics.  And with firearms, there always seems to be a bigger/badder one that becomes available, to the point where you have to ask yourself "where does it end?"  You may say "but Term, that means then people will move on to knives/bare-hands/etc."  Lot harder to kill on the scale we're seeing with a knife in broad daylight.  If it's coming down to you asking me the morbid choice of whether I'd want a kid showing up at an elementary school and killing a bunch of people with a gun or the same kid who's able to kill maybe one person and injure another six while they're restraining him, I'd take the latter.

You guys know what the best self-defense system there is in order to handle someone who just pulled a gun on you?  Put your hands up, give them your cash/jewels/whatever, and let them run away before calling the cops.  If you honestly feel you need protection, get pepper spray.  You don't hear about kids raiding mommy or daddy's pepper spray and killing half a dozen people.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 14, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I delivered pizza in Richmond, which is infamous for gang violence and violent crimes. Within the past decade it was in the top 5 cities in America for murders. Nothing makes you more paranoid than driving around at night, alone, to shady apartment blocks with a lit sign on your car that advertises basically that you carry cash. Needless to say, we had lots of drivers getting bumped off. Some fought back, even though it was against company policy. One driver in particular was held up by a pair of robbers. The driver pulled a handgun and capped the guy in the chest. The second robber ran away and was caught later. The gun they were using to rob him, it turned out, was an airsoft, but it being at night he had no way of knowing it, and they were robbing him regardless. The police said it was open and shut self defense, but the driver was fired for breaking company policy.

The company received so many angry letters for firing the driver for defending himself, they had to hire him back.

Compare that with a different scenario, same area, where a driver was shot and killed for his money after making a delivery.

You can't trust the cops to protect you, and there will always be crazies. It's impossible to predict. However, from what I've seen, disarming the public is only going to cause more harm than good. We need to hold people accountable as individuals for their actions and stop blaming "the lax gun laws" or "the strict gun laws". Imposing your opinions on other people is only going to lead to more suffering.


----------



## Bazeel (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the 'even playing field' argument. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but wouldn't severe limiting of firearms, or the ability to legally carry them, result in a 'Survival of the fittest' sort of encounter, whenever dealing with criminals? If, say, Joe Bad-Guy was 240 lbs of muscle, and Mary Nurse was 100 lbs of 'I work at the Hospital', wouldn't Joe win whatever he wants with her, should police not be within shouting distance?

I'm not trying to step on toes here, just ask a question in relation to the comments.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

^^ That's another thing, I'm 140lbs and 5'11". If I was in a physical confrontation with a robber or something, I'd in all likelihood have my ass handed to me without some sort of weaponry. Plus, idk if people know how most robbers operate, but if its gang related they will usually kill your regardless of whether or not you give them the money.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Bazeel said:


> I'm surprised that no one has brought up the 'even playing field' argument. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but wouldn't severe limiting of firearms, or the ability to legally carry them, result in a 'Survival of the fittest' sort of encounter, whenever dealing with criminals? If, say, Joe Bad-Guy was 240 lbs of muscle, and Mary Nurse was 100 lbs of 'I work at the Hospital', wouldn't Joe win whatever he wants with her, should police not be within shouting distance?
> 
> I'm not trying to step on toes here, just ask a question in relation to the comments.



Uh, how exactly is this a survival of the fittest scenario if you're using firearms?

And why do we jump immediately to firearms? Why not use less lethal means such as pepper spray which I brought up or a stun gun if its legal in your state?  Why do we immediately go to the "kill the motherfucker" option for self defense?

Also your scenario assumes that this is a level playing field, when if Joe Bad-Guy really has malicious intent for Mary Nurse, why would he approach her in a way where he can't immediately control the situation, ie grabbing her from behind, pointing a weapon at her first, etc.?  Not seein how hiding a gun her scrubs is goin to help her then. 

What also happens when Joe Bad-Guy is actually Mary Nurses' troubled son who uses her "equalizer" to murder her and 20 other people?  Didn't help Nancy Lanza.



TeenageAngst said:


> ^^ That's another thing, I'm 140lbs and 5'11". If I was in a physical confrontation with a robber or something, I'd in all likelihood have my ass handed to me without some sort of weaponry. Plus, idk if people know how most robbers operate, but if its gang related they will usually kill your regardless of whether or not you give them the money.



How about avoiding situations where gang violence would happen to you?

And again, if a weapon is already trained on you what good is having a gun if its not already out?  You listed one instance where someone only lived because a fake gun was pulled on him, and ended up ending someone else's life. The other situation the person was killed.  What did having a gun in either of those situations solve?


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



> And why do we jump immediately to firearms? Why not use less lethal means such as pepper spray which I brought up or a stun gun if its legal in your state? Why do we immediately go to the "kill the motherfucker" option for self defense?



http://youtu.be/NHb2_P1Xd7g

Because they're not a sure thing. Plus, if someone's trying to kill you, you can't pussyfoot around.



> How about avoiding situations where gang violence would happen to you?
> 
> And again, if a weapon is already trained on you what good is having a gun if its not already out? You listed one instance where someone only lived because a fake gun was pulled on him, and ended up ending someone else's life. The other situation the person was killed. What did having a gun in either of those situations solve?



So I guess we should just not live/work in places where there's gang activity. Except us folks with lower income levels can't afford to do that, so... yeah. Unless you're willing to chip in some of your righteous indignation in the form of rent assistance of course, otherwise we need to defend ourselves.

Having a gun doesn't solve the problem, it's merely a rational response to living in a violent area. If you're in a dangerous part of town, you purchase protection. If you're poor, that protection is a Saturday night special.


----------



## Bazeel (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

First, I think you misread my intentions, but that is okay. I mean 'survival of the fittest' without the use of firearms, or another 'leveling' weapon. The strong will be able to do as they wish to the weak, should they so desire, if police intervention is not readily available.

Second, Pepper spray is certainly a viable option, though it is not unknown to have people fight through it, or have a delayed effect. I'm not contesting that in the least. Stun-guns are always tricky, considering the need to get within physical striking distance to use one. 

The third point that you bring up should be marginalized with proper situational awareness. While I believe the best way to prevent this sort of thing is to keep away from 'out of the way' areas at night, or staying away from crime prone areas, this is not always an option. Someone who knows there is an element of increased danger in their area should be keeping an eye out for people following them, and so on, and be able to take measures to reduce the possibility of being caught unawares, or at least turn to confront the individual as needed. Note that I am not saying 'Draw and gun 'em down', but simply turn, inquire of their intentions, or something similar. This is fairly common knowledge to most people who live within a city, or a high-crime region.

Finally, this is a moot point, as it is an obvious lack of proper storage of the firearms. Weapons and ammunition should be stored separately, both locked. If there are misgivings about people whom live in your household getting their hands on these weapons, then the keys / combinations should not be shared with them.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> http://youtu.be/NHb2_P1Xd7g
> 
> Because they're not a sure thing. Plus, if someone's trying to kill you, you can't pussyfoot around.



Again how is it a sure thing if a weapon is already trained on you?  A gun in a situation where someone is trying to explicitly kill you with a gun is only good if its already out.  Otherwise you're hoping that the two seconds you try to pull out your gun the other guy hasn't already popped a few rounds in you. 

So seriously, what is the point?


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Again how is it a sure thing if a weapon is already trained on you?  A gun in a situation where someone is trying to explicitly kill you with a gun is only good if its already out.  Otherwise you're hoping that the two seconds you try to pull out your gun the other guy hasn't already popped a few rounds in you.
> 
> So seriously, what is the point?



What if the robber has a knife? What if it's a mugger who'd leave you bleeding in the street instead of shooting you dead? What if it's a group of people who beat you and steal your money? We could play this game all night. In some situations a gun won't help, in some it would.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> So I guess we should just not live/work in places where there's gang activity. Except us folks with lower income levels can't afford to do that, so... yeah. Unless you're willing to chip in some of your righteous indignation in the form of rent assistance of course, otherwise we need to defend ourselves.



I see news reports everyday in the New York Daily News about someone who's been shot and killed. A lot of these attacks are either surprise hits or arguments that escalated into someone pulling a gun to prove a point. 

I don't really see how owning a gun is truly defending yourself. If someone is trying to mug/kill you they most often don't telegraph to you in such a way where you'd honestly have enough time to react by pulling your own weapon out of a secure box or a concealed holster. Seriously, it's about as good as using a paper weight and you give you just as much true security.

Bad area or not there's still simple things you can do to try and protect yourself that don't involve adding a gun to the scenario.



> Having a gun doesn't solve the problem, it's merely a rational response to living in a violent area. If you're in a dangerous part of town, you purchase protection. If you're poor, that protection is a Saturday night special.



And as I mentioned, criminals then find a way around your rational response of buying a weapon, either by getting the drop on you or bringing more gun to the fight then you. So really, in the long run you're only perpetuating the need for more guns or ones that are more effective at killing people. Your response adds to the problem, especially if you don't have the sense to secure the weapon.  More on that later. 



Bazeel said:


> First, I think you misread my intentions, but that is okay. I mean 'survival of the fittest' without the use of firearms, or another 'leveling' weapon. The strong will be able to do as they wish to the weak, should they so desire, if police intervention is not readily available.



Not seeing the point of this but alright. 



> Second, Pepper spray is certainly a viable option, though it is not unknown to have people fight through it, or have a delayed effect. I'm not contesting that in the least. Stun-guns are always tricky, considering the need to get within physical striking distance to use one.



Most confrontations in a mugging scenario happen within 3-5 feet.  In the case of a home invasion its even shorter. That's usually well within the effective range of a pepper spray or a stun gun. Really I'd be looking for something that gave me the ability to run away, not kill my assailant. And really, again if we're going on a nurse scenario where is she hiding her gun?  Not exactly conceal carry type clothing. And the moment an assailant sees her going for her bag unsolicited you don't think he'll know something is up?  I mean this is just common sense here whereas the gun argument is nothing more than a false sense of security with more potential for harming yourself and your family members than protecting them. 



> The third point that you bring up should be marginalized with proper situational awareness. While I believe the best way to prevent this sort of thing is to keep away from 'out of the way' areas at night, or staying away from crime prone areas, this is not always an option. Someone who knows there is an element of increased danger in their area should be keeping an eye out for people following them, and so on, and be able to take measures to reduce the possibility of being caught unawares, or at least turn to confront the individual as needed. Note that I am not saying 'Draw and gun 'em down', but simply turn, inquire of their intentions, or something similar. This is fairly common knowledge to most people who live within a city, or a high-crime region.



Proper situational awareness would prevent your need to have a gun in the first place. If you take a specific route to and from places that you know is brightly lit/has access to locations that have phones/are heavily crowded/are on known police patrol routes you'll be more effective at protecting yourself than strolling down the block with a 9mm in your pocket. If it means having to take a cab/go the long way to and from somewhere to avoid trouble streets or areas, it's worth it.  I've done plenty of work in sketchy areas and I follow the above exactly. And I feel secure enough where I don't feel the need to add a gun to that list. 



> Finally, this is a moot point, as it is an obvious lack of proper storage of the firearms. Weapons and ammunition should be stored separately, both locked. If there are misgivings about people whom live in your household getting their hands on these weapons, then the keys / combinations should not be shared with them.



Yet therein lies the catch-22 of the gun for home/personal defense argument.  If you live in such a bad neighborhood where you honestly feel like any second some guy is going to barge in and rob the place, why are you leaving a gun locked up like its in the Smithsonian where you can't quickly access it?  Or where you wouldn't have a full magazine on stand-by or already loaded into the weapon?  Proper storage only takes you so far anyway, because if you have someone in your house who is honestly determined to kill somebody, then a lock box sure as shit ain't stopping them, just as locking your medicine cabinet isn't keeping your kids from getting to the painkillers you have stored away.  It doesn't work for the practical purpose of using a gun for defense and it certainly wouldn't keep a determined individual from getting the weapon(s). 



TeenageAngst said:


> What if the robber has a knife? What if it's a mugger who'd leave you bleeding in the street instead of shooting you dead? What if it's a group of people who beat you and steal your money? We could play this game all night. In some situations a gun won't help, in some it would.



At least in my scenarios the victim doesn't end up becoming a murderer themselves.  Trying to whip out a weapon or use those sweet moves you learned in self defense class will more likely cause a situation to get worse than simply cooperating with a mugger.  I'd rather take my chances that the guy will just take what he wants and leaves rather than attempt to try and fight them off and give them no option but to use lethal force on me.  I'm not going to lull myself into a false sense of security by carrying around a weapon I more than likely wont have enough time to use to defend myself in the first place.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Term, you're not going to win this one. Until you've been in a run down apartment complex late at night carrying a wad of cash in your pocket, waiting in a dark doorway with your back to the dark woods with the sounds of domestic disputes echoing off the walls, until you've felt *that* and can confidently say you would rather not be armed, we can't discuss this further. You're speaking from some deluded moral high ground but I'm glad you think people should not kill each other. Fact of the matter is though, I don't have that luxury, and neither do a lot of people. Like I said, a gun isn't always the answer, but I'd rather be safe and have it just in case I can use it, than sorry and end up some hood rat's gang initiation trophy.


----------



## Bazeel (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I can't respond to most of this in a 'civilian' manner, as I am former military, and still think much of the same; Situational awareness is still the key aspect to most of the 'They will just get you no matter what'  sort of mentality I am seeing here. I suppose some people won't simply lay down and give up, and others will. That's totally fine, and I understand that! Personal choice is a wonderful thing! However, it is rather evident that the 'debate' is turning into a circular argument, which is what typically happens in this sort of situation, where the two parties will never really come to agree on any middle ground.

Before stepping out of the discussion, I will say that I am strongly supporting of more firearm purchasing regulations, especially with mandatory training and safety classes. Luckily, I was able to get my CHP with nothing more than my DD214, which showed proper training in a military setting. I'm not entirely sure what the process is in VA for civilians, but I believe it is much the same when it comes to showing positive proof of training. Education, training, and proper handling should be mandatory before picking up a firearm, as should be registration (in my opinion). That's all! Have a nice morning, FAF!


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> Term, you're not going to win this one. Until you've been in a run down apartment complex late at night carrying a wad of cash in your pocket, waiting in a dark doorway with your back to the dark woods with the sounds of domestic disputes echoing off the walls, until you've felt *that* and can confidently say you would rather not be armed, we can't discuss this further. You're speaking from some deluded moral high ground but I'm glad you think people should not kill each other. Fact of the matter is though, I don't have that luxury, and neither do a lot of people. Like I said, a gun isn't always the answer, but I'd rather be safe and have it just in case I can use it, than sorry and end up some hood rat's gang initiation trophy.



"BOOHOO YOU HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT I'VE SEEN AND BEEN WHERE I'VE BEEN SO UR WRONG"

Yeah, okay buddy.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> "BOOHOO YOU HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT I'VE SEEN AND BEEN WHERE I'VE BEEN SO UR WRONG"
> 
> Yeah, okay buddy.



Just remember, folks, this guy's a mod.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Clearly you haven't been on FAF long.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Your name is blue in my browser, but I'm on my phone.


----------



## Bazeel (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Clearly you haven't been on FAF long.



Would making sniping remarks at users by administration be standard on these forums? Educate me, I'm not a frequent visitor here- I do main site work.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

It simply shouldn't be this easy for the general populace to het their hands on an arsenal.
Criminals will _always_ manage to get their hands on guns, that doesn't mean it should be easy for an insane guy who plans a school shooting as well!


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Uh, captain, the last guy who pulled a mass shooting rigged his apartment to explode with homemade bombs. It contained enough explosives to damage surrounding buildings. I don't think such a person would be dissuaded by additional background checks or legal restrictions or state legislation. I think such a person would, in a gunless society, probably have blown the movie theater to kingdom come. These people are insane but they're not stupid.

Plus, gun restrictions will lead to a larger black market. And, you know, if a criminal is buying off the black market anyway, they're going to get the best kind of weapon they can. So instead of a semiautomatic pocket pistol or a revolver, it might be a machine pistol.

And lest we forget just how successful all our previous attempts at legislating away the ills of society have been. Last I heard they can't even keep illegal drugs out of our maximum security prisons, let alone off the streets or out of the hands of criminals.

Just keeping it real.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> Uh, captain, the last guy who pulled a mass shooting rigged his apartment to explode with homemade bombs. It contained enough explosives to damage surrounding buildings. I don't think such a person would be dissuaded by additional background checks or legal restrictions or state legislation. I think such a person would, in a gunless society, probably have blown the movie theater to kingdom come. These people are insane but they're not stupid.
> 
> Plus, gun restrictions will lead to a larger black market. And, you know, if a criminal is buying off the black market anyway, they're going to get the best kind of weapon they can. So instead of a semiautomatic pocket pistol or a revolver, it might be a machine pistol.
> 
> ...


I think restricting gun distribution would have quite the impact on this. Even though you _can_ buy from black market, I'd think there's a connection with the gun handling in the US and school shootings. You've got quite many school incidents Whereas countries with stricter gun laws have a lot less. Also you got a lot of firearm murders compared to other countries.
You got about 140 school shootings where the rest of the world has got 42

And trying to legislate the ills away does reduce the usage of the said thing. It can never be completely removed, but it can be hindered severely.


----------



## Lhune (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

The funny part of this is that all the pro-gun folks seem to completely disregard the fact that there are numerous developed countries out there where firearms are illegal to have for the common civilian. Why not just compare the two situations?

---

"_In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those,*8,775*__ were caused by firearms._" (source; http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state )

8775 / 314944737 (current population of the USA) = 2,78e-5 (0,0000278 ) , times 100.000 = *2.78 per 100.000 citizens* killed by firearms.

"_In the Netherlands, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is __2009: *0.57*_" (source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/netherlands )

---

Now these numbers obviously don't tell you everything, the majority of murders that involve guns in the Netherlands happen in Amsterdam (densely populated, high tourism rates, trafficking of drugs and people and so on), in that same way the USA has regions where the rates of murders that involved firerarms are much higher and in some they are much lower. Guns are not necessarily hard to come by in the Netherlands, if you're above the age of 18 and have been a member of a shooting range for a year you can legally own a firearm of your own. However, because it's not the social norm, far less people have guns than would be possible. I'm guessing that the rates still being relatively high in the Netherlands are due to the fact that guns are so easy to come by for people who _do_ want to cause harm or just have a fascination with guns. If this was somehow stopped or regulated better, I'm pretty confident that the rates would be lower. 

Living in a country where so few people own firearms (3,8 per 100 people) doesn't make me feel unsafe at all. The chances of you getting shot or even threatened with a gun in your life are very low as most people who have this happen to them are either involved in criminal organisations themselves or own a shop of some kind. There are always the odd few cases where common people are shot out of revenge or due to someone just "going crazy", but none of those cases could possibly have been prevented or solved by people owning guns themselves as they are very rare cases that you can't possibly prepare yourself for. I don't see or feel a need for everyone to have guns available to them, the only possible situation I can think of in which a gun would be useful to have is if you have to deal with wild predators on a regular basis (bears, pumas and so on). I can't imagine a situation that involves people where you would absolutely need a gun; even if people are breaking into your house and they do have guns, if you start shooting at them and they aren't alone, chances are pretty big someone's going to get killed. If someone breaks into a house here, even if they are armed (which isn't always the case), the chances of someone getting shot is always pretty low since the house owners rarely have a gun and as such don't pose enough of a threat to shoot down.

Just my two cents. I know that last sentence might sound pretty terrible to some of you, but if someone with a gun breaks into my house I would be much more likely to just comply than to try and fight them and most likely lose my life (not to mention that if I did have a gun and shot them, it would be classed as murder and I would much rather have some of my possessions taken from me than to be sent to jail for protecting them). Stolen money or items can be replaced, my life can't.


----------



## Anubite (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Germany does a fantastic job regulating firearms.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Bazeel said:


> I'm surprised that no one has brought up the 'even playing field' argument. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but wouldn't severe limiting of firearms, or the ability to legally carry them, result in a 'Survival of the fittest' sort of encounter, whenever dealing with criminals? If, say, Joe Bad-Guy was 240 lbs of muscle, and Mary Nurse was 100 lbs of 'I work at the Hospital', wouldn't Joe win whatever he wants with her, should police not be within shouting distance?


It's kind of a flawed scenario, isn't it?

Firearms are force-multipliers and consequently give puny guys the power to wreak more damage than ever before, which is why they're the primary users (in the civilian sector).


----------



## Attaman (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I'm wondering, since it was brought up by people who don't seem to have the ability of reading comprehension:

1) When the hell Self Defense was meant to be a permanent solution that also included the roles of Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Or is this an example of the sort of mental reaching one needs to do for the argument that "Second Amendment pertains to well-regulated militia" = "GIVE AK-47's TO EVERYONE"? Self-Defense's "It isn't murder" is intended to be there for those who in the heat of the situation made mistakes and could not be expected to make rational decisions. It is _not_ there for anyone who feels threatened to kill their attacker because they deserve it / they must do anything it takes to defend their life / etcetera. 

2) When the hell the ability to carry switchblades, stun-guns, pepperspray / mace, riot prods, and so-on was considered "unarmed". Term's argument is not "All law-abiding citizens must go out like cattle and hope never-speedy police are there to save them", and arguing as though it is, well, is outright disingenuous. He's arguing that maybe, _maybe_ some people can't be trusted with fairly lethal self-defense equipment (which, considering the above "I can't defend myself if I can't kill someone from a block away", seems fairly likely) and should instead be given items that are non-lethal but still _hurt like fuck_ to be on the receiving end of / can readily repel many attackers.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

'x is more dangerous than guns therefore guns should be left alone' appears to be a popular mantra. 

In  most of the provided examples 'x' has other important functions-  notably the example of surgery, which is why those things are not under  such intent regulation, or intent to be regulated. [although in the example of surgery it is heavily regulated for obvious reasons]

Weapons do  have other functions, but they often tend to encompass horrid things  such as bloodsports- so somebody's desire to kill and wound wild animals  for fun may not exactly be as justifiable to everyone as life-saving  surgery. 

The main crux, in my view, concerns guns as a form of  self defence. If more of us arm ourselves to defend ourselves we should  be aware that our enemies will also increase their arms, and that both  groups will experience a mutual increase in accidents. Maybe it's not a  race we should take part in.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> Weapons do  have other functions, but they often tend to encompass horrid things  such as bloodsports- so somebody's desire to kill and wound wild animals  for fun may not exactly be as justifiable to everyone as life-saving  surgery.



Yeah, the world of gun sporting is truly horrible.

Those poor targets and clay pigeons, who will feed their kids?

Also we could have the 10,001st debate on population control of animals/vermin if you want.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Yeah, the world of gun sporting is truly horrible.
> 
> Those poor targets and clay pigeons, who will feed their kids?
> 
> Also we could have the 10,001st debate on population control of animals/vermin if you want.



No I don't care about clay pigeons, but large amounts of metal impurities becoming concentrated in ecosystems...and killing animals for sport...

I feel ambivilent about population control or the removal of nonindigenous species.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> No I don't care about clay pigeons, but large amounts of metal impurities becoming concentrated in ecosystems



Because clay pigeon shoots are done in the wild and not on privately owned and fenced open fields or dedicated firing ranges and stuff like that.

Also for an extremely long time, ammunition has been manufactured to be tipped with environmentally friendly metals (i.e. not lead) and in recent years, people have been pushing to take that even further.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Because clay pigeon shoots are done in the wild and not on privately owned and fenced open fields or dedicated firing ranges and stuff like that.



Metals used in shooting fall to earth, they are corroded and leached into the ground water and transported through the water system to rivers and lakes. 
This may explain why waterfowl in the UK have a strangely high level of lead poisoning, because that element is present in above-normal concentrations in their environments as a result of the legacy of shot that has found its way into the water system.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> This may explain why waterfowl in the UK have a strangely high level of lead poisoning, because that element is present in above-normal concentrations in their environments as a result of the legacy of shot that has found its way into the water system.



Read my edit above. And explain to me how the ammunition I own personally that has absolutely no lead content - or that of any other harmful compounds - is causing this problem.

Besides military organisations like NATO have been fighting to keep their ammunition tipped with metals that aren't harmful, like lead. Because lead is expensive, melts easily, and the difference between other choice metals and lead being used in ammunition has a meaningless difference in terms of effectiveness, so they opt for the more environmentally-friendly choice when possible, and the amount of non-lead ammo in proportion to lead ammo is increasing over time, due to lead becoming obsolete and dangerous.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Read my edit above. And explain to me how the ammunition I own personally has absolutely no lead content - or that of any other harmful compounds - is causing this problem.



Bismuth let me guess? As long as you're not killing things or keeping the guns and ammo at your house/outside the range I don't think I have any objection.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> Bismuth let me guess?



Steel, copper, and nickel come to mind.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> Your name is blue in my browser, but I'm on my phone.



Well while you were reading my name you seemed to miss the "Schmuck" bit.  Might have answered a few of your questions.

Likewise, mod status on this forum doesn't hold that I can't point out a bullshit comment when I see one.



Bazeel said:


> Would making sniping remarks at users by administration be standard on these forums? Educate me, I'm not a frequent visitor here- I do main site work.



The sooner you realize that FA and FAF are essentially two separate entities given the tone of this place and our staff of mods/admins the better.

Consider us the Randal Graves of furry websites.

[yt]R4Et5S_alCE[/yt]

Skip to 1:01

And as stated, if I see a bullshit comment, I'm gonna call it as I see it.

The cop-out "end of conversation" speech of "no one knows the troubles I've seen" to dismiss someone's opinion is a piss poor argument and puts one's own anecdotal evidence on a high pedestal than what may or may not be best for society.  Because he feels like he's somehow more safe having a gun in his possession doesn't make me right or wrong, given that this thread is asking for opinions.  I ask very simple questions regarding how a gun will practically give him a better chance for survival.  The two examples of a situation he can recall does not help his argument, given that a gun hadn't prevented a crime from being committed and in both instances someone died, both of the people being technically unarmed.  The same violence we hear about every day happens once again in a mobius strip of bullshit.

I want some straight answers regarding how an untrained or a citizen with limited training in firearms is supposed to suddenly turn into John Wayne or Clint Eastwood and suddenly have the reaction time to unholster a weapon and fire it simply to stop a criminal when a gun is trained on them.  Because really, we're not talking about military or police personnel here, we're talking normal every day people here who are buying the gun for "peace of mind" but if push comes to shove, do you really trust them to use it effectively?  Would you trust yourself?  Do people grasp what taking another human life means?  Maybe since you're ex-military you can't really answer that question since you clearly would have extensive training.

But no.  Instead it's "you don't know where I've come from and all the threats I face on a daily basis, so you don't know what you're talking about and are just a moralfag.  You wouldn't understand."  Fuck that noise.  Sorry if I don't try to pussy out of conversations by bringing up all the things I've seen and claim TA clearly doesn't know what he's talking about because my anecdotal arguments are more prudent then his, making his opinions invalid.

tl:dr; his cop-out was fucking stupid and I'm going to call him out on it any day of the week.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Say what you want but you'll all be pissing in your pants during the Zombie Apocalypse!


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



> tl:dr; his cop-out was fucking stupid and I'm going to call him out on it any day of the week.



First, I already admitted that generally speaking, you're screwed if you already have a gun trained on you. However, there's lots of instances where you WON'T have a gun already trained on you. It could be a knife, a bat, etc. There's also instances where, while reaching for your wallet, it just happens to be in the same pocket as your holster. Generally speaking one doesn't just shoot a motherfucker, they comply. It's only after the guy decides that your wallet isn't enough that it comes time to try your luck because you're dead anyway.

Also, I never said I carry a gun. I don't have one. My dad has a 1911 from WWII he keeps in his bedroom, and we have a busted Carcano carbine with no firing pin. I roll around with a pipewrench, a police-issue flashlight, and a knife depending on where I'm going. I do this because I was actually trained in limited knife combat and self defense, whereas I've never been trained to use a gun, so it'd likely turn into a liability. I don't carry one because I'm responsible enough to know I wouldn't know how to use the damn thing in an emergency.

Now since you like my anecdotes I have another. My dad keeps a metal pipe in his car for protection much like I have my pipewrench. He keeps it between the door and the seat. One day some motherfucker decided to try and piss him off by instigating all kinds of road rage on our way home from something or other. The guy followed us around and eventually my dad pulled over. The guy got out and started yelling at him about something, I think we was mad my dad passed him, and my dad reached for his pipe. Except the pipe from the angle of the outside of the car looked a lot like a shotgun barrel. Before he'd even pulled it up all the way, the dude was running back into his car. The point is you don't HAVE to use a gun for it to be an effective ward against people looking to start something.

Also, as I said in the other topic: Canada allows guns and they don't have these murder sprees. Japan allows no guns and their gun deaths are nearly zero. Mexico doesn't allow guns and they have incredibly high numbers of gun deaths. And finally the USA allows guns and this crap happens all the time. The key isn't the gun control, the key is the culture of the people holding the guns. If you have this macho "hurr I'ma hero cowboy!" mentality, you're going to have gun deaths. Obviously the laws in place below the border aren't working. Obviously the freedoms to the north aren't causing wanton violence. The problem isn't the guns, the problem is the American culture.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> This was the problem with the Empire State Building shooting which I made a thread about over the summer.  The shooter had bought his gun back in the 90s when he was living down south, moved to New York and had all the appropriate laws/paperwork to show that he was legally allowed to own the weapon in the state.  He ends up getting in a bitter dispute with his manager, gets fired, and decides the best way to handle the situation is to find him in the morning when the manager is getting breakfast and blow him away on a crowded street.
> [...]
> Take for instance the recent murder-suicide committed by former Kansas City Chief player Javon Belcher.  Belcher and his girlfriend/mother of his child were having a domestic dispute which ended in him killing her and then himself in front of his coach and other Kansas City Chiefs staff.  Bob Costas, haughty dipshit that he is, goes on Sunday Night Football the following night and gives an editorial about gun control with no mention about the issues of Belcher's domestic issues or the fact that it had come to light that he was experiencing mental problems which hints at the possibility that he was suffering symptoms of a concussion.  Thanks to his fatal injury however, doctors won't be able to effectively determine if that was the case.  Belcher by the way, also was legally allowed to have a weapon and allegedly showed no prior issues with mental health.



Is gun licensing in the US effectively a "lifetime licence" that you apply for once and you keep forever, or does it have an expiry period after which you have to re-validate your suitability?

Here in NZ all gun licences are valid for ten years only, and you have to reapply to get it again.


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> Term, you're not going to win this one.



I might though.

I was robbed at gunpoint by two people while delivering a pizza to a ghetto Detroit suburb neighborhood.

If we're going to drag pizza delivery into this maybe we should talk to someone who's been there.


----------



## Ames (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



CrazyLee said:


> I might though.
> 
> I was robbed at gunpoint by two people while delivering a pizza to a ghetto Detroit suburb neighborhood.
> 
> If we're going to drag pizza delivery into this maybe we should talk to someone who's been there.



>pizza delivery
>Detroit

jesus christ what possessed you to take up such a job
how are you still alive

I've driven through the shadier parts of Detroit a couple of times, repeatedly shit my pants.  Some parts are just plain fucking terrifying.


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



JamesB said:


> >pizza delivery
> >Detroit
> 
> jesus christ what possessed you to take up such a job
> ...


I needed a job, they didn't ask a lot of questions.
My suburb isn't as rough as Detroit proper but we have some pretty nasty neighborhoods here and there... and sadly my pizza place decided to deliver to those places at night. I remember one night I drove past an entire street police-taped off because there was a shooting.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> First, I already admitted that generally speaking, you're screwed if you already have a gun trained on you. However, there's lots of instances where you WON'T have a gun already trained on you. It could be a knife, a bat, etc. There's also instances where, while reaching for your wallet, it just happens to be in the same pocket as your holster. Generally speaking one doesn't just shoot a motherfucker, they comply. It's only after the guy decides that your wallet isn't enough that it comes time to try your luck because you're dead anyway.



Then again in this situation, why choose a gun instead of a less than lethal alternative?  And please, don't use the "x is unreliable."  Last time I checked, guns misfire/jam/malfunction.  A close quarters situation where a knife/bat/etc. would be a threat to you would be well within the effective range of aforementioned stun guns/pepper spray.  So why choose the option where one of you may end up dead if for instance you may not be the kind of person who would keep their cool and wouldn't immediately pull a gun on someone out of panic?



> Also, I never said I carry a gun. I don't have one. My dad has a 1911 from WWII he keeps in his bedroom, and we have a busted Carcano carbine with no firing pin. I roll around with a pipewrench, a police-issue flashlight, and a knife depending on where I'm going. I do this because I was actually trained in limited knife combat and self defense, whereas I've never been trained to use a gun, so it'd likely turn into a liability. I don't carry one because I'm responsible enough to know I wouldn't know how to use the damn thing in an emergency.



What the hell is "limited knife combat?"  What does that honestly mean besides "thrust, retract, hope for the best."?  I'm sorry I'm not exactly sure what the point of listing your personal arsenal and what training you have is relevant to the discussion of using a gun as a self-defense tool in practical day-to-day life.

If you're responsible enough to recognize that you may not be able to effectively use a firearm in a pressure situation that's fine.  But then there's countless other people in this country who believe just because they attended a couple of classes and shot at a paper target suddenly they're capable of becoming Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino.  As Mike Tyson famously said "Everyone's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth."  When reality smacks them upside the head that they have a firearm in their hands and that becomes an available option, I don't trust that the majority of gun owners are capable of making a responsible choice or one which doesn't end in someone leaving in a body bag.

There's also the factor of common human stupidity which leads to bad things happening with gun ownership.  Such as what gave Adam Lanza his arsenal for his massacre.  Or the 500 specific gun accidents that happen every year.  And this isn't even counting the numerous times where a kid is found to have brought their parent's gun to school that was just laying around.  This kind of shit is why stricter gun control is necessary.  Because while the gun lobby loves bringing up criminals and the black market, they always fail to account for the loss of life and the negligence involved that puts guns in the hands of minors/disturbed individuals and what leads even the most trained individuals in this country who handle guns to accidentally kill themselves or someone else.  "BUT CARS AND DOCTORS KILL PEOPLE."  I'm sorry but those don't exist or are designed for the sole purpose of causing traumatic flesh wounds which tend to have the nasty side-effect of death for someone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of the weapon.  



> Now since you like my anecdotes I have another. My dad keeps a metal pipe in his car for protection much like I have my pipewrench. He keeps it between the door and the seat. One day some motherfucker decided to try and piss him off by instigating all kinds of road rage on our way home from something or other. The guy followed us around and eventually my dad pulled over. The guy got out and started yelling at him about something, I think we was mad my dad passed him, and my dad reached for his pipe. Except the pipe from the angle of the outside of the car looked a lot like a shotgun barrel. Before he'd even pulled it up all the way, the dude was running back into his car. The point is you don't HAVE to use a gun for it to be an effective ward against people looking to start something.



Okay, so what exactly leads you to believe he thought your dad was getting a shotgun?  You're telling me it does.  I haven't seen it.  That other guy I assume didn't communicate to you that he thought it was a shotgun.  Frankly if someone's reaching for any object in their car after a heated argument and I'm unarmed, I don't want to stick around to see what the fuck it is.  "Gun" isn't so much what I'd be worried about as "this has escalated where I can't match."  So again, what does this story matter in the grand scheme of the overall conversation, aside from your assumption that the other dude HAD to think it was a shotgun your dad was grabbing and not just a "weapon?"



> Also, as I said in the other topic: Canada allows guns and they don't have these murder sprees. Japan allows no guns and their gun deaths are nearly zero. Mexico doesn't allow guns and they have incredibly high numbers of gun deaths. And finally the USA allows guns and this crap happens all the time. The key isn't the gun control, the key is the culture of the people holding the guns. If you have this macho "hurr I'ma hero cowboy!" mentality, you're going to have gun deaths. Obviously the laws in place below the border aren't working. Obviously the freedoms to the north aren't causing wanton violence. The problem isn't the guns, the problem is the American culture.



And as you'll notice with my OP and countless other threads I've posted in I say the same damn thing.  There's a cultural issue that needs to be examined.  But certainly it doesn't help that we give people "second amendment solutions" as a viable option and then parade someone around like a fucking hero because he ended the life of a troubled 16-year-old.



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Is gun licensing in the US effectively a "lifetime licence" that you apply for once and you keep forever, or does it have an expiry period after which you have to re-validate your suitability?
> 
> Here in NZ all gun licences are valid for ten years only, and you have to reapply to get it again.



It's a state-to-state issue.

In New York and California it's a two-year permit which you often need to get twice over those two years at least four months outside of each other.

In other states it's five.  In some it's just a matter of applying and getting the renewed permit.  You'd have to look at each state.

Even then, a lot of shit can happen in a year.  And in both of the instances I've mentioned they didn't appear to be issues which would have been solved by a two-five year permit limit.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



> Then again in this situation, why choose a gun instead of a less than lethal alternative? And please, don't use the "x is unreliable." Last time I checked, guns misfire/jam/malfunction. A close quarters situation where a knife/bat/etc. would be a threat to you would be well within the effective range of aforementioned stun guns/pepper spray. So why choose the option where one of you may end up dead if for instance you may not be the kind of person who would keep their cool and wouldn't immediately pull a gun on someone out of panic?



Compared to the mechanisms involved in a semiautomatic pistol, particularly the snubnose revolver of which I'm fond, they're not reliable and they have poor utility. Stun guns you have to be within touching distance. Pepper spray the same way, and god help you if they're wearing a mask. Most times pepper spray actually hurts the user because it sprays back in their face. Also, when someone draws a knife, everyone involved is going to get cut. It's not stab/thrust/react but it is hope for the best because if you draw a knife, and the other guy has a weapon, chances are you're both going to be going to the ER. Most of knife fighting is learning how to minimize damage to yourself.

The major crux of your argument, from what I can gather, is that people shouldn't be using guns for self defense because there's plenty of alternatives and the dangers are just too great. Except if you make it too hard for people to carry guns for self defense, then lets pretend they all get non-lethal variants (we're going to assume defensive knives are also not allowed since the two go hand in hand). Crimes do tend to go up when guns are heavily restricted because then only the bad guys bother to risk the legal implications of having them. So then you'd have robbers with guns against people with pepperspray, that's no good. On top of that, you have to factor in gang and drug culture, which are usually prevalent in the violent areas. This adds a lot of unpredictability to the nature and violence of the crimes, thus complying with the robber will not be enough for them to leave you alone.

Basically you gotta have the lethal option even if it's not the best option in every scenario because without it you're going to be placed at a higher risk by people who would otherwise be deterred by the possibility. The question is, is the increase in crime that naturally follows higher gun restrictions an acceptable alternative to accidental deaths?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> Compared to the mechanisms involved in a semiautomatic pistol, particularly the snubnose revolver of which I'm fond, they're not reliable and they have poor utility.



They also often result in "overkill," or otherwise using more force than may be actually necessary to defend oneself in a hostile situation.  Especially considering that once someone panics, they're not likely just squeeze off one round, but will more likely empty a clip into someone.  This was seen most evidently in the CCTV footage of the Empire State Building shooter where the responding officers emptied their magazines into an individual.  And those were trained cops.  Imagine then the response of a less-apt person and the amount of collateral damage that results.  So you're dealing with a system that may be more "reliable" but also causes death and significant collateral damage.  There's no "utility" to a gun other than "killing".

In any case you also just went on a tangent about simply showing you can defend yourself with a weapon.  So honestly, if you had a less than lethal alternative I'm not seeing why one is going to be more apt to prevent someone from attacking you than the other.  As I already pointed out, the movement for a self defense tool is just as effective regardless of whether or not the tool is a gun.  If that's the case, then why be tempted to go to the option of the lethal option?



> The major crux of your argument, from what I can gather, is that people shouldn't be using guns for self defense because there's plenty of alternatives and the dangers are just too great. Except if you make it too hard for people to carry guns for self defense, then lets pretend they all get non-lethal variants (we're going to assume defensive knives are also not allowed since the two go hand in hand). Crimes do tend to go up when guns are heavily restricted because then only the bad guys bother to risk the legal implications of having them. So then you'd have robbers with guns against people with pepperspray, that's no good. On top of that, you have to factor in gang and drug culture, which are usually prevalent in the violent areas. This adds a lot of unpredictability to the nature and violence of the crimes, thus complying with the robber will not be enough for them to leave you alone.



Again, my issue where self-defense is concerned is why go with the lethal option?  Because frankly I don't believe people buy guns for self-defense without having the intent to use it should they be prodded.  A gun is just as much of a psychological factor for the person brandishing it as it is for the person who's on the business end of it.  And we've seen this happen time and again where the "responsible gun owner" decides to use their weapon on what they perceive as a threat because they have that killing power and assume that means they other "criminal" does as well.  Consider the NY State Trooper who shot and killed his own son because he thought his son was an intruder.  This is not a man who carries his weapon saying "well I'm not going to use this unless it's my last resort."  And again, this is supposedly a trained, responsible gun owner.  

The "crimes tend to go up" bit is a bit dishonest because you're not mentioning what crimes you're talking about.  You're just saying "crime".  And what does that even mean?  Where's the study?  And still yet, this doesn't mention anything about the mass murdering sprees that are currently happening, in alarming numbers, using legally purchased weapons.  Legally purchased weapons accounted for almost 50 of the last 62 mass murders by firearm in this country alone, the weapon of choice overwhelmingly being semi-automatic pistols, the self-defense weapon we're talking about.  There's something wrong with our standards if we're making it easy for mass murders to legally purchase firearms for use in mass killings.  50 of 62 is just too damn high for anyone's liking.  And given how much these things are on the rise, we're likely going to keep seeing more legally purchased weapons used for mass killing.

And no, I'm not seeing "robber with gun going up against victim with gun" as a viable long-term solution to solve problems.  I've said it before, if you're going to tell criminals "there's a good chance the person you're robbing may be armed" it's going to start becoming "robber with body armor against victim with gun." Then what?  Because if you're going to argue that determined criminals are going to turn to the black market to get weapons in a gun control-heavy environment, you have to also accept that those same criminals are just as able to purchase counter-measures to small arms fire available to civilians.  And oh, by the way, we have from the Aurora shooting and possibly with Adam Lanza depending on what "military-style vest" means.  So again, I'd just like to know where the escalation is going to stop.  Because deregulation or keeping our current climate stagnant on how we treat gun violence in this country certainly doesn't appear like a much more effective option.



> Basically you gotta have the lethal option even if it's not the best option in every scenario because without it you're going to be placed at a higher risk by people who would otherwise be deterred by the possibility. The question is, is the increase in crime that naturally follows higher gun restrictions an acceptable alternative to accidental deaths?



Again, ignoring the mass-murders in that sentence.  Seven this past year as Mayfurr keeping bringing up, and those are just ones which count four or more victims.

And we also continue with the disingenuous "higher crime rates" comment with no actual backing up her with sources.  Here's one thing that higher gun restrictions lower: homicides.

Here's another fun statistic: In June, US violent crimes showed declines to near historic lows according to the FBI while according to Gallup and the GSS, while crime rates have been declining in this country, Gun ownership has also been waning.

So pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical towards the "less guns/more restrictions means more crime" argument.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Ok Term.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Dec 15, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> Ok Term.



Is that an "Ok Term I see your point." or an "Ok Term whatever, I'm not actually interested in ever changing my opinion."?


----------



## Hinalle K. (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Is that an "Ok Term I see your point." or an "Ok Term whatever, I'm not actually interested in ever changing my opinion."?


You clearly aren't very familiar with TA :v


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Term and I are an immovable object and an unstoppable force in terms of opinion. I was halfway through a diatribe when I realized that it really doesn't matter since gun control has not and probably won't be enacted for a very long time. I've pretty much already won, he's just cranky at a perceived cause of shootings.

I say perceived because we've had legal semiautomatic pistols in the hands of the population for over a century and we haven't had rampant school shootings but in the past couple decades. Again, guns aren't the problem, it's the culture. Also all these loony toons have been on SSRIs, might wanna look into that.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Is that an "Ok Term I see your point." or an "Ok Term whatever, I'm not actually interested in ever changing my opinion."?



Yeah, because everyone needs to change their opinion when someone writes a huge text wall :roll:

He made some good points but it's still just that; an opinion. We already have gun control laws in most states. There will always be liberals who want more and more control and to implant GPS tracking devices in people's hands because it's statistically shown to reduce crime.

I don't agree with any of them, either.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

In the end, Teenage wins, I can't see Americans parting with their beloved guns anytime soon.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Hinalle K. said:


> In the end, Teenage wins, I can't see Americans parting with their beloved guns anytime soon.



And so we'll keep seeing Colombine, Aurora, Virginia Tech etc etc continue several times every year until "Gun massacre in the US" is about as surprising as "Dog bites man".

If it isn't already.


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

If making possession of something illegal will make it hard for people to get a hold of, then maybe we should try making Marijuana, Heroin, and Cocaine illegal.

Oh, wait...

As for the OP, people like you are one of the major problems with our politics nowadays. Ignoring the spirit of the constitution and re-interpreting it based on out of context quotes from it and technicalities to suit your own liberal agenda. (Obamacare is constitutional!!1! 'Cuz, the government can tax action and fine inaction. "Give me tyranny or give me death!" Said no founding father ever.)

I skimmed half of this thread. But the crux of the debate seems to be whether you need a weapon to defend yourself or not. That's not the point of the second amendment.

Actually, I'll go even further. Need was never, and has never been, the point of the constitution. The constitution is about rights, liberties, freedoms. Not needs. Why was the government instituted? To secure our rights. Not to take from some people what they don't need and/or give to people who need things.

The original post was basically saying "The right to self-defense is outdated. You don't need to defend yourself anymore. You have the government to do that. And there's no way you can be as effective at doing so as the government can be, except in situations where the police can't act fast enough." That's not the point. Your pacifism about "boohoo, you might kill someone who was trying to kill you and then someone would be dead anyway" is irrelevant and downright evil. If someone is being attacked, they have a right to defend themselves the best they can until the police arrive. And if they can't reasonably do so while leaving their attacker alive, then they have every right to kill their attacker in cold blood if that's what it takes. When pacifists like you stand up for this unconditional preservation of the life of every human being, you equate the lives of innocent and guilty people. When someone decides they're going to -initiate force- against someone else with a lethal weapon, they waive their right to life by putting the other person in a position of my life against yours. If they can't live and let live, then they can die. I'll be damned if I'll sit by and let you advocate that innocent people let evil people kill them just for your hippy tree-hugging notion of all life being equal. The instant one person initiates force against someone else by being the first person to point the gun (or threatening to do so), their life becomes less valuable than the life of their victim in the eyes of any rational person.

As to the second amendment itself, I'm pretty sure the reason for it is not to defend yourself against invading armies. It's so the people can overthrow the government if it becomes so tyrannic that they can't take it anymore. The notion that we should leave gun ownership up to the military is idiotic and the complete opposite of the point of that whole amendment.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Interpretting constitutional text over two centuries old as if is the final word on everything is a recipe for inertia. The constitution of the united states was already updated before to exclude permittence of slavery amongst other nasty things.

As far as I understand it the second ammendment is to give organised militias power to defend themselves in case of a tyranical government or invasion force. Your country has the biggest military *in the world*, so fat chance of that ever being realistic. 

Generally organised militias aren't a force for moral good either; in Northern Ireland organised militias operate and have been known to demand parents to take their teenage children to be shot in the legs as punishment for alleged crimes against the community.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> Interpretting constitutional text over two centuries old as if is the final word on everything is a recipe for inertia. The constitution of the united states was already updated before to exclude permittence of slavery amongst other nasty things.
> 
> As far as I understand it the second ammendment is to give organised militias power to defend themselves in case of a tyranical government or invasion force. Your country has the biggest military *in the world*, so fat chance of that ever being realistic.
> 
> Generally organised militias aren't a force for moral good either; in Northern Ireland organised militias operate and have been known to demand parents to take their teenage children to be shot in the legs as punishment for alleged crimes against the community.



The Swiss would like a word with you.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Arshes Nei said:


> Say what you want but you'll all be pissing in your pants during the Zombie Apocalypse!



The zombie survival guide says to use swords. Guns will give your position away!

I still find it kind of interesting that some states still have their own little defense forces/militias. Hell, some even have a naval militia still. They are mostly mobilized for natural disasters response, so I think they may have outgrown their military defense role.


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I should probably add, then, that I'm not just taking the constitution as an axiom that should never be questioned. I have a deeper justification for my support of the constitution.

The founding fathers didn't create the inalienable individual rights when they put them in the constitution. They identified them. But to understand that we'd have to delve into what rights are.

There are two major moralities that have been in conflict throughout the centuries. Altruism and egoism. The idea that you have a moral duty to serve others, and the idea that it's right for you to serve yourself. On a desert island, it's objectively better for you to serve yourself than to seek someone else to serve. Even if you found them, you wouldn't survive long if you gave them all of your food, and had baseless faith that they'd feel morally obligated to give you some of their food later. You gotta pursue the values needed for your own life. So egoism is a morality that is provably better to practice than altruism. (Not to be confused with benevolence.)

In the context of a society, morality still applies. What's good for you by yourself is still good for you when living in a society. If it's good for you to pursue the values needed to sustain your life, it's still good to do so when there's others around. But in order for you to continue to do so, the others need to leave you alone so you can do so. Thus in a society, there are certain conditions that must be protected in order for people to live. The founding fathers identified these as Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Your life belongs to you, first and foremost. In order for you to live, you must be free to choose, which is liberty. In order for you to live, you must be able to keep the fruits of your labor, which is Property. And in order to live, you must choose your own values and select your own goals, which is the pursuit of happiness. Thus Capitalist America is rooted in a morality of egoism. I defend the constitution because, even though it's a flawed document, its intentions were excellent. The limited government it set up, that allowed people to be free, resulted in an explosion of wealth and the standard of living of humanity rocketing upward during and after the industrial revolution.

One way to think of rights, is that it's the connection between egoist morality and capitalist politics. (I speak of ethics and politics as branches of philosophy.)

Altruism, the opposite morality, has a concept that connects it to society too. That concept is: Duty. You are required to serve. And the types of societies that arise from altruism are your various types of statism. Communism, socialism, theocracy. Any type of society where the individual must serve some good greater than themselves, is rooted in the morality of altruism. And the concept of duty is diametrically opposed to the concept of rights. Rather than life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, we have things like "free" health care, "free" education, "right" to a living wage, which is really just entitlements that some people have to pay for in order to serve the needs of others.

So when you attack the constitution, I don't see just someone questioning an old document. I see them questioning the root of everything good in our society. Self-defense is an application of individual rights. The reason we have instituted a government to defend us from criminals, etc, is because we already have the right to do so, but forming a government and objectively defined laws to do so for us puts force under more objective control, as opposed to people meting out justice subjectively with torches and pitchforks.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> As far as I understand it the second ammendment is to give organised militias power to defend themselves in case of a tyranical government or invasion force. Your country has the biggest military *in the world*, so fat chance of that ever being realistic.



Well the Supreme Court had different ideas.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Then they decided that it applied to the 50 states.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago


Also somewhat forgotten, military weapons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. *Attorneys for the United States argued four points:*

   1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
   2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
*3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.*
   4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[3] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.

Decision

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

    "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

In dicta, the Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

    "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' *And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."*


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Your premise, that desert-island morality is still practical and useful in a societal environment does not follow. 

I support people's choice to march to a beat of a different drummer and pursue their own interests, rather than exclusively collective interests, but in a society we do function better when we cooperate in some fields. 
Most of us live in a world where we have rights and responsibilities. I have the right to recieve an education, but I will be responsible to later fund that system if I can so that others can experience the same benefits I have. 

Altruism and egoism are not black and white, most of us live in a grey area of compromise by surrendering personal desires that we know would be unhelpful towards others.


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

You're partially right that there is value in cooperation. But it's still individuals choosing to cooperate to pursue mutual goals, generally because they each have something to gain from cooperating.

It does still apply to society. You still have to earn your own living, most likely by working at a job, or a career, or whatever productive activity you choose to sustain yourself with.

Like the other animals have tools and methods of survival, we do too. Wolves have jaws and teeth as their tool, and hunting in packs as their method. Humans have conceptual consciousness as their tool, and rationality and productivity as their method. All human life depends on thinking and producing. Society may make human interactions more complex, but this is still a fundamental truth about human nature. Anyone who doesn't have to think and/or produce to survive, is being kept alive by someone else's thinking and/or productivity. Ideally, if you're working to support yourself in some way, you've taken your life into your own hands. Otherwise, your life is in the hands of others.

Unhelpful toward others? Are you saying you surrender your desires for the sole reason that someone else won't be benefiting from it? If you take that consistently, then you probably suffer a lot in life.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Amaroq said:


> You're partially right that there is value in cooperation. But it's still individuals choosing to cooperate to pursue mutual goals, generally because they each have something to gain from cooperating.
> 
> It does still apply to society. You still have to earn your own living, most likely by working at a job, or a career, or whatever productive activity you choose to sustain yourself with.
> 
> ...



We earn our own salaries but we don't earn our own infrastructure or mountain rescure services. No single person can afford these so the mechanisms we require to 'live' as you put it do stretch beyond the self. 
In this instance we may consider that current access to personal weapons might be causing unmerrited harm to other people, even if we personally feel safe with them by our sides and threatened by the idea of restrictions. 

I meant unhelpful in the active sense. I won't throw my trash on the ground because I understand that isn't helpful for the litter pickers or the people who live around there. I don't carry around knives with me because I understand that it's more probably innocent people will get hurt as a result of the blades than I will use them to successfully defend myself. 

Pretty average stuff that many of us do in the interests of others and hope that others will gladly reciprocate.


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

One thing to keep in mind is that our tax dollars pay for that infrastructure. And there's nothing that promotes collectivism in the fact that that infrastructure was already there. Do we have a lot to gain from the infrastructure that's already there? We sure do! But that isn't something that can be held over the heads of individualists. Ideally, it would all be private. In that case, our way of supporting it would be purchasing the services we use. How do we get the money for that? We work for it. So we would be working for the benefits we gain from the system. We'd be earning it every step of the way. The same is still true even though a lot of it is public rather than private. We all pay for it in the form of taxes, against our will. But I think it would be better if people could choose that for themselves, and pay for what they want or need.

So in a way, yes, we do earn the infrastructure. And even though we can't possibly pay into it enough to equal the value of the whole thing, so what? Scientists build off of the shoulders of those who came before them all the time. The rest of us can too. The fact that there were shoulders there for us to stand on doesn't mean that what we built off of those shoulders should be minimized because we didn't build it that high ourselves off of the ground.

I understand what you're saying now. I wouldn't throw my trash on the ground either. Mainly out of benevolence. I don't want to actively hurt or inconvenience others. What reason do I have for doing so?

If you're unfamiliar with the ideas I'm promoting, this is basically Ayn Rand's Objectivism. I'm almost afraid to say it because the conversation always devolves once that name has been spoken. But hopefully with everything I've said so far, people realize that there's more to it than just what other people have told them.

Also, sorry for bringing this off topic so much. But all knowledge is interconnected. And every type of society being promoted has a moral code at its root. So there is a connection between morality and the topic at hand. Mainly I'm arguing that each individual's life belongs to themselves, and they have a right to defend their life and their values against those who initiate force. This is an application of rational egoism to the context of a society where others might choose to initiate force against you, your loved ones, your property, etc. We have a government whose ideal purpose is to protect our rights (obviously it's grown well beyond that). But the right to life is the primary, and that justifies using force in self-defense if you can't offload that role onto the police without risking your life unnecessarily.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I disagree that ideally all infrastucture would be private. Not everyone has the capability to support the infrastructure or services they need. For example some of us have crippling medical conditions or have family and friends who we need to support, or are just going through a spell of bad luck. 
I think, for now, taxation is the only realistic way to achieve the funding to help such groups etcetera 

If you provide people with arms some will do the initiating or accidentally hurt themselves, some situations may escalate into arms races. This might not benefit people as a whole, so everyone else who could be affected deserves consideration.

If our right to life is paramount, why do so many in your country insist that life-saving surgery and operations remain out of the reach of those who cannot reasonable afford them? 
It seems like the right to take away life is valued more highly in some cases than to recieve it. 


To skip to the crux though. 
-The constitution both has the intent of personal freedom and the specification to own deadly weapons
-Criticising this constitution, such as its leniancy towards weapons, does not equate to criticising the ethose of personal freedoms.
-An entirely personally free system is ideologically desireable, but perhaps not realistic. When left alone economies usually form boltzmann distributions with super rich and super poor groups inheriting their respective situations, which is not desireable.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Amaroq said:


> As for the OP, people like you are one of the major problems with our politics nowadays.


Alright, please explain yourself. If you do so in a reasonable fashion, I will try to respond in kind an-



Amaroq said:


> Ignoring the spirit of the constitution and re-interpreting it based on out of context quotes from it and technicalities to suit your own liberal agenda.


And we're done already. Congratulations. In your fourth sentence you've already nosedived your credibility into the ground harder than a drunken pilot at an airshow.




Amaroq said:


> The constitution is about rights, liberties, freedoms. Not needs.


 You don't _need_ healthcare, you entitled prat. :V What makes you think we should gi- OH EM GEE DEY DUN GIVE US UNLIMITED GUNS! EBIL! IT'S OUR RIGHT!

So apparently the right to a firearm is more important than a right to accessible medical care. I guess this makes sense, since I mean in this scenario you can just take sick Grandma behind the shed and put her down. At least you've got an alternative.



Amaroq said:


> The original post was basically saying "The right to self-defense is outdated.


 Haha, jesus christ, you didn't even read my posts did you? You saw "Something something second amendment something something regulation something something outdated". 

If you actually _read_ my posts in this thread you'd see I said _nothing_ about removing the ability for anyone to get firearms, defend themselves in an emergency, etcetera. Hell, I explicitly said "Now, to reinforce that I don't think firearms shouldn't be military-only, private ownership is not wrong or evil. If you can show yourself, routinely, to be a responsible firearm owner, and in a suitable environment for owning a firearm, there is no particular reason to deny someone such a privilege any more than there is to deny ownership of a sword, bow, car, plane, etcetera." Unless you want to twist that to be me saying "No-one in the United States should own a car", you've no leg to stand on.



Amaroq said:


> You don't need to defend yourself anymore. You have the government to do that. And there's no way you can be as effective at doing so as the government can be, except in situations where the police can't act fast enough."


Reading comprehension motherfucker, do you have it? Sources say...

*[X]*

Ooch. Swing and a miss.



Amaroq said:


> That's not the point. Your pacifism about "boohoo, you might kill someone who was trying to kill you and then someone would be dead anyway" is irrelevant and downright evil. If someone is being attacked, they have a right to defend themselves the best they can until the police arrive. And if they can't reasonably do so while leaving their attacker alive, then they have every right to kill their attacker in cold blood if that's what it takes.


 You do realize I said practically this exact same thing, right?

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, that would entail you _actually reading my fucking posts_.



Amaroq said:


> When pacifists like you stand up for this unconditional preservation of the life of every human being, you equate the lives of innocent and guilty people.


 *A fucking human being is a goddamn human being*. Just because you hate someone doesn't suddenly make the lil' box next to them that says "[ ] Human" remain empty. For fuck's sake, what's next? Basic Human Rights don't apply to criminals?



Amaroq said:


> I'll be damned if I'll sit by and let you advocate that innocent people let evil people kill them just for your hippy tree-hugging notion of all life being equal.


 The fact that you seem to think the only mean of self-defense is pre-emptively murdering someone with a firearm is alarming. Seek psychiatric help. 

No, seriously. I'm not joking. Go see a psychiatrist, *now*. 



Amaroq said:


> The instant one person initiates force against someone else by being the first person to point the gun (or threatening to do so), their life becomes less valuable than the life of their victim in the eyes of any rational person.


 "JESUS NED, HE'S COMING RIGHT AT US!" 

Seriously, get psychiatric help. You're a danger to those around you.



Amaroq said:


> As to the second amendment itself, I'm pretty sure the reason for it is not to defend yourself against invading armies. It's so the people can overthrow the government if it becomes so tyrannic that they can't take it anymore. The notion that we should leave gun ownership up to the military is idiotic and the complete opposite of the point of that whole amendment.


 And the notion that Jim Redneck with a pair of AK's and six Glocks can turn the tide against the US Navy is entirely reasonable?


EDIT: You know what? Checking your other posts, I'm going to repeat "See psychiatric help". For fucks sake you just vilified _fucking public education_. You are insane, Amaroq, and you need to see someone. The sooner, the better.

EDIT 2: The Editing: You're literally going to regurgitate _Ayn Rand_'s philosophies? I'm going to seriously suggest you turn off Fox news, talk with some proper economists who don't believe the Freemarket Provides (fun game: Explain to me how the Virginia Coal Wars happened if the Free Market is a benevolent force), and _then_ see some psychiatric help.


----------



## Colonel Spigot (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Warning: Long ass Postâ€¦

The problem with the reaction to mass shootings is that too many people automatically focus on the guns and not the actual cause of the problem. It's far too easy to blame the tool and not its user, and why? Maybe it's because it would be so much easier to blame and ban scary looking semi-auto rifles (and the one in question here wasn't even used in this latest shooting, btw) than it is to address the gunman's psychological problems, which really is more complicated, admittedly, but is always the REAL underlying cause in EVERY SINGLE ONE of these shootings. We keep hearing that the shooter is always some quiet, socially awkward loner who has been bullied or ostracized by his peers, or that he had a history of mental problems, that he behaved strangely, that he had family problems, etc. Others have said it before and I'll say it again, removing the tool does not remove the intent, and stricter gun laws are, at best, a very dubious bandaid solution than an actual fix, and lead to a slippery slope of even stricter gun laws. But you're still not addressing the psychological issues that motivate these people to want to kill in the first place. I've heard people talk about how guns are more accessible in Americathan mental health services, so maybe we need to do something to make these services more available? Then there's also the issues of how funding for mental hospitals was gutted in the '80s, and how the current deinstitutionalized community-based care system is a revolving door situation where so many people are inadequately treated; a problem that is admitted by many professional psychologists. So basically, it's our mental health system that is at least partly at fault here. I think it's also likely to some degree because many people simply don't have the ability to cool off and relieve some of the pent-up anger, frustration, and stress in their lives by having someone to talk to and someone who is genuinely concerned about them and is willing to listen and help. In the United  States, a lot of people are very inwardly focused and self-absorbed and just don't care about the problems of others. All too often they just prefer to make judgements about others and act like it doesn't affect them, but it does, because these problems are experienced not just by one person but by lots of people, which in turn affects society as a whole. Our attitudes in this regard need to change. We are a society, a chain with each person linked to another, not islands separated from each other by a vast ocean.

Another problem is that we have too many lazy/clueless parents and teachers who aren't taking an active role in the lives of young people and providing guidance to them in what should be their positions as authority figures and mentors. Everybody just wants to give the kids a magic pill when they act up instead of being authoritative and responsible adults who utilize effective disciplinary measures like they should. So now we have a culture where everybody has become dependent on dangerous psychoactive drugs to solve every little problem, and we now have a veritable army of Prozac addicts who could break down and go nuts for any number of different reasons. Americans are more drugged up than any other nation on the planet, and Iâ€™ve been told that out of a global population of 7 billion, 311 million people consume 4/5 of all legal and illegal drugs on the planet (I donâ€™t know how accurate that is, but I wouldnâ€™t be surprised). Then you couple the drugs with the constant barrage of violence in the media, video games, and the messages that are sent, and yet we think that this isn't going to impact people in some way? I think weâ€™ve also just plain become desensitized to violence and killing. One good example is the current sweeping cultural phenomenon of blasting away at zombies, where, as I see it, we have effectively blurred the line between video game pop culture and lethal force. This is evidenced by the disturbing fact that we have Hornady, an ammunition manufacturer, having recently introduced their "Zombie-Max" line of rifle, pistol, and shotgun ammunition. Even if the product itself is intended as defensive, the packaging sends the wrong message and seems to say that lethal use of firearms is some kind of game or fun shoot-em-up fantasy. I will admit that I am a gun owner, and I will also admit that I am biased because I believe very strongly in gun rights, but Hornady, you should know better. This is a very bad and irresponsible move on your part, and you should really be more careful with your marketing strategies. 

I will further admit to having owned some of the types of weapons that the OP and some posters here are saying that I shouldn't possess because they have no "legitimate use". As a law-abiding American with freedom of choice and a right to own firearms, as well as an obligatory understanding of the responsibilities and important legal and moral implications that come with gun ownership, I think I am capable of deciding for _myself_ what does or doesn't suit my purposes and what is or is not legitimate in the context of my life situation and how/why I own/use firearms and what I can realistically use one for within lawful boundaries. I understand these weapons from a technical standpoint and I know what their abilities and limitations are with regards to the various uses for firearms in general. Most of the people that I'm seeing who are screaming that we need to ban "assault weapons" really don't understand the weapons they're talking about, and are only speaking from what they've learned from the media or seen on TV/movies/video games.

At the same time, however, yes, there should be limits. My views shouldnâ€™t be taken to mean that I believe anyone should be able to decide to own a tank or a howitzer with live firing shells if they so desire, but an AR-15 with a thirty round magazine is not a demonic doomsday weapon of mass destruction any more than a bolt action .30-06 big game rifle is. In fact, I'd be more concerned about someone trying to snipe me from a concealed position with the .30-06 because it fires a much larger, much more powerful round that is effective out to much longer distances. It's a rifle that can take down any creature on the North American continent, including an Alaskan grizzly bear, or punch right through a brick wall. Whereas an AR-15, firing its diminuitive (although obviously still deadly) .223 round has a much shorter effective range and is widely considered by hunters to not have sufficient ballistic capability (or lethality if you prefer) to reliably and humanely take down a deer with one shot. Which round do you think has the greater lethal capacity? Also the ability to fire an AR rapidly is negated by the fact that rapid fire is not conducive to accurate hits on target, even at relatively close ranges. The recoil and muzzle movement from rapid fire means that you waste a lot of ammo hitting everything except the intended target. Anyone who has used an M-16/M4 in the military can confirm this. With an AR-15, just like any other rifle, the fundamentals of marksmanship still apply: aim, control breath, squeeze trigger, one shot, one accurate hit. 

Many people posting on this thread, likely blinded by their prejudices and ignorance, will probably want to assume that I am some dumb, backwoods hick who jerks off to Sarah Palin, that I think that gun ownership should be a free-for-all with no strings attached, that I'm a teabagger, that I'm a paranoid, rightwing nutcase who will blast away at anything that moves, that I'm this, that I'm that, etc, etc. Don't generalize, don't blame us, don't persecute us, and don't paint gun owners with a broad brush. None of us want these shootings to happen any more than any non-gun owner does, and they directly threaten the future of lawful gun ownership because they inevitably get the anti-gun crowd worked up about our guns, which aren't even the crux of the problem here. It's bad enough already for us to hear about 20 innocent children being massacred for no reason at all. I think it's a stupid idea to arm teachers and principles, but I think it's equally stupid to act on an impulsive, emotional reaction to a tragedy and cry about banning guns or tightening the screws on lawful ownership and use. There are anywhere between 85 and 100 million gun owners in the US, but these mass shootings are committed by a very few people. I know some people will take offense to me because I'm defending the right to own and use guns lawfully after this tragedy, saying that I'm insensitive and self-centered. The guns are not the problem, but some people really want them to be and will try to convince you that they are. I have offered possible solutions to this problem of mass-shootings, I have brought up things here that I think should be addressed; that are at least adding to, if not causing, this profound societal illness that is manifesting itself in the most horrible of ways, but don't wage a full on war against my gun rights or those of millions of other Americans because of a few deeply disturbed individuals who for some reason feel that they have no other option but to hurt others to satisfy some psychological deficiency, or because they are just completely fucked in the head. We have had the second Amendment since 1791, that's almost 222 years of lawful and largely unencumbered gun ownership. By comparison, these mass shootings are a recent development. In the '50s and '60s, you could buy firearms from mail order catalogues and have them shipped directly to your door, no paperwork, no background checks, no questions asked, yet you weren't always turning on the TV or radio back then and hearing about some psycho shooting up his workplace, a school, a department store, or a movie theater, and you also didn't have rampant gang violence in big cities like we have today. If the guns weren't that big of a problem back then, then why should they be now? What changed about the presence of guns in America? If anything, I'd say the only thing that changed was gun laws becoming MORE restrictive with the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 Hughes machine gun ban amendment, the now defunct and proven ineffective 1994 "assault weapons" ban, as well as countless laws and ordinances at the state, county, and local levels and bureaucratic decisions by the BATF.

There is no easy solution to this problem, and I'm not professing to be a know it all or ultimate expert on every little detail, but if there was an easy solution, it would have been found by now, but I believe it has a lot to do with our mental health system and our overall modern culture. As bad as these shootings are, I think its preferable to live in a country where there are murders committed with guns by civilians than genocides committed by a bloated and powerful authoritarian government that has a total monopoly on firearms. You may say thatâ€™s a false dichotomy, but all throughout history, whenever a population has been disarmed by its government, it has opened the door for unrestrained, overt, and animalistic abuse of human rights and human dignity, because governments can then kill, torture, and steal without fear of retribution as they oppress their people with ever-increasing brutality. The framers of the Constitution understood this, and thatâ€™s why they included the Second Amendment. Itâ€™s also why Hitler banned guns in Germany, Lenin banned guns in Russia, Mao banned guns in China, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Castro, and so on. An Armed citizenry is a greater threat to government power than most people know, even with tanks, stealth bombers, and drones on the other side, because people then have an option to resist rather than just submit to control. Tyrants donâ€™t like that, and it is a threat to their hold on power. People say it canâ€™t happen in the United States, well itâ€™s already happening right now. Weâ€™re seeing it with the NDAA, with attempts to control the internet, and with the Patriot Act. Do we really want the federal government, more powerful than ever before, to have greater control over private ownership of weapons when theyâ€™re forcing this kind of crap on us? Iâ€™m not talking about a spontaneous open rebellion ala the French Revolution, facing down the army and secret police toe to toe. Iâ€™m talking about people being able to defend themselves and organize a clandestine resistance, for example as the Jews and other Germans might have done if they hadnâ€™t registered their guns and allowed them to be confiscated by the Gestapo. As idealistic or unrealistic as that may sound, I believe that some sort of stand, however meek or short-lived, is better than quiet submission. And remember, total gun bans are never instantaneous. It always starts with a "common sense" law here and a common sense law there, then registration, then banning and confiscation. Weapons in the hands of the people and the will to use them are ultimately an unfortunate necessity for preserving a free society and the rule of law, because it makes a potential tyrant more reluctant to overtly and aggressively oppress the people. Ultimately, I think that the good of guns in our society outweighs the bad, as horrible as the bad may be, but also considering that the alternative is much worse.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

...Yep, Hitler was going to get mentioned eventually, wasn't he?

He always does.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Didja know what the Nazis and al-Qaida fought for? GUN CONTROL :V


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I think when I get the scratch together I'm gonna buy a gun.

Not for self defense or jingoism or sport or anything like that, but just to spite the left.

And to spite the Republicans I'll make sure it's German-made.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> I think when I get the scratch together I'm gonna buy a gun.
> 
> Not for self defense or jingoism or sport or anything like that, but just to spite the left.
> 
> And to spite the Republicans I'll make sure it's German-made.


Nah, to spite Republicans say it's because you fear what'll happen if the market is freed. Say you're afraid the UN will take all your guns? "Smart man!" Say you're afraid that the Free Market will punt you into a company town and force you into being a mindless worker-drone? "LIEBERAL FOOL! FREE MARKET PROVIDES!"

Also, I can see you Amaroq. You were in this thread after I replied to "This" a poster after me. I hope you're considering my suggestion to seek psychiatric help.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> I think when I get the scratch together I'm gonna buy a gun.
> 
> Not for self defense or jingoism or sport or anything like that, but just to spite the left.
> 
> And to spite the Republicans I'll make sure it's German-made.



Why not have a Gay shot-gun wedding?


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I've actually always wanted a pump action. I might get a Remington 870 while I'm at it and keep it in the trunk for when I inevitably hit a deer.


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Way to be adult about this Attaman. I'll re-read your original post to make sure I was properly comprehending you. Maybe I jumped to a hasty conclusion. I did kinda skim it, admittedly.

Annnnnd... nope.

So you start your post by saying that the second amendment is oudated and has no value or purpose. That's a value-judgment. From the outset you're attacking the second amendment. Then you go on to say that you're not trying to take away our guns. And then you contradict yourself by then going on to say that the ideal "well-regulated militia" is the National Guard, and not private individuals. You don't honestly come out and say that you're opposed to private individuals owning guns. You claim that you support private individuals owning guns responsibly. And then you jump through a bunch of subtle logical hoops and manage to say the opposite without it sounding too much like you're saying it. "Only the National Guard is a well-regulated militia and thus the constitution only specifies that there should be a National Guard, not private ownership of guns" seems to be the conclusion you're driving at, oh so subtly.

Then you go on to criticize the amendment further by saying that private gun owners could never defend this country from an invasion or from the government actively turning on its people. You hammer that point home with a bunch of moral posturing about how crazy and stupid us rednecks must be for thinking guns can stop the military. And you subtly insert the idea that it would be the republican party that takes over the country, for... whatever insane reason, by sticking Paul Ryan's name in there. (Not that I'm a Republican or anything. But it's kinda funny to contemplate your scenario in which redneck republicans are fighting a redneck republican tyrannic government that tried to take away their guns or whatever. I assume you're a liberal because that's generally where all the anti-gun sentiment is.)



> The Second Amendment being cited as a "Constitutional Right" for everyone to own whatever firearms they desire is inane, as it basically ignores the entire purpose of the Amendment to squawk "Something something firearm something something people".



More posturing meant to make gun rights advocates out to be a bunch of retarded rednecks. A baseless assertion with a bunch of snarling and scary tone of voice with no actual reason why the second amendment can't be cited as the right for private individuals to own firearms.

Then you contradict yourself again and switch back to "But I think it's okay to own firearms", but you state subtly, smoothly, that it's a privilege, not a right. In fact, owning a sword, a car, a bow, are also privileges, rather than rights, according to you. Those are things that we wouldn't "deny" anymore/less than a gun, if you approve of the owner's capability or maturity or whatever standards you seek to impose on others before you allow them to own things.

Then you switch around to make another point. That anyone who wants to go kill someone is a sicko, no matter what that person did to deserve being killed. Well duh. That's why we have a justice system, so people don't go out killing people themselves over perceived wrongs. The exact wording was "aiming to put a bullet in that sick fuck's brain." I don't know the context of that statement, but I'm guessing someone in the previous thread said something about what they would do to the killer if they were there defending the children? If that isn't it, then I would agree. We don't get to just met out our own justice. We have a justice system for that.

After that, your pacifism starts showing. It's okay to own a firearm for self-defense as long as you try your hardest not to kill the other person. You say that it's okay to kill someone by accident or if it's the only way to protect yourself and others until authorities arrive. And then you switch around again, and suddenly it's, if you have time to aim for the head, you have time to aim elsewhere. So is it okay to kill them in self-defense, or is it not?

Then finally, you belittle gun rights advocates again by reassuring us, in kiddy speak, that you're not standing up for the robber at the expense of the gun owners life. (Which you actually were.) But that if anyone aims to kill in self-defense, then there's something wrong with them psychologically and they should have valued the aggressor's life enough to leave him alive. (Even though doing so could cost them their life if they give him time to fire his own weapon.)

And this is just your OP. You're either really cunning with debates, or your mind is a complete mess. How's that for reading comprehension.

Aaaand, pretty much your entire post in response to me boils down to...

"OH MY GOD I'M SO OUTRAGED! HOW COULD YOU BE SUCH A PSYCHOTIC PERSON? ANYONE WHO X MUST BE FUCKING CRAZY. SEEK PSYCHIATRIC HELP IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE I CAN'T FUCKING BELIEVE HOW FUCKING INSANE YOU ARE. OUTRAGE OUTRAGE OUTRAGE. SEETHING AND GROWLING AND POSTURING. MY TONE OF VOICE IS CONVEYING HOW HORRIBLE YOU ARE."

You might want to read up on Argument From Intimidation.
http://www.andrsib.com/rand/intimidation.htm
It's a logical fallacy that Ayn Rand (the most important philosopher of our time, by the way!) identified. It amounts to moral posturing to intimidate someone into renouncing their argument without you having to provide any logical argument of your own. Maybe if you snarl louder next time about how evil I am for believing such a thing, you might guilt me into renouncing the truth in order to gain your approval. 

EDIT: Don't worry, I wasn't running away from you. I was typing.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



XVII1931 said:


> Others have said it before and I'll say it again, removing the tool does not remove the intent, and stricter gun laws are, at best, a very dubious bandaid solution than an actual fix, and lead to a slippery slope of even stricter gun laws. But you're still not addressing the psychological issues that motivate these people to want to kill in the first place. I've heard people talk about how guns are more accessible in Americathan mental health services, so maybe we need to do something to make these services more available?


That would be very preferential, yes. By making mental health services more accessible to the common person, as well as reducing the social stigma many people perceive, one could reduce both the frequency of mental issues as well as the intensity.

However, to directly quote the words from someone who liked your post (another sign of 0 reading comprehension?), 


Amaroq said:


> Actually, I'll go even further. Need was never, and has never been, the point of the constitution. The constitution is about rights, liberties, freedoms. Not needs. Why was the government instituted? To secure our rights. Not to take from some people what they don't need and/or give to people who need things.


This is what you have to deal with, XVII. People who claim that the Federal Government has no right to provide such services. And before you claim I'm trying to twist your words, Amaroq, or make a false equivalency, 



Amaroq said:


> Rather than life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, we have things like "free" health care, "free" education, "right" to a living wage, which is really just entitlements that some people have to pay for in order to serve the needs of others.


Living wages? Education? Those are unimportant. But firearms? Double-plus good.



XVII1931 said:


> Then there's also the issues of how funding for mental hospitals was gutted in the '80s, and how the current deinstitutionalized community-based care system is a revolving door situation where so many people are inadequately treated; a problem that is admitted by many professional psychologists. So basically, it's our mental health system that is at least partly at fault here.


 You also have to look at our prison system. The average criminal who is sent to prison has no incentive to clean up their act. We do little to try to rehabilitate them, or to provide for them a better future when they are released. There's a reason we have a particularly high repeat-offender rate amongst first world nations. Being "tough on crime" tends to, more often than not, turn into "toughen crime". 



XVII1931 said:


> Then you couple the drugs with the constant barrage of violence in the media, video games, and the messages that are sent, and yet we think that this isn't going to impact people in some way? I think weâ€™ve also just plain become desensitized to violence and killing.


 I would readily agree. There are very few pieces of media, at least in the United States, that the Average Joe can access that portrays violence as anything other than double-plus good. At best you will see a story that tells you violence is double-plus good, "but only in [x] situation". 



XVII1931 said:


> If the guns weren't that big of a problem back then, then why should they be now?


 I'd argue it's an increase of violent party rhetoric when it comes to "You're either for us or against us". Twenty years ago, cooperation was not a dirty word in politics. You were actually expected to behave and get along with your peers, and that someone disagreed with you did not make them any less a human being. What they _believed_ might make them a *bad* person (ex: "We should return to slavery" is a terrible philosophy), but you did not loathe them specifically because they disagreed with you.

Some time in the last few years, this changed. This has changed to the point that people believe the only proper way to behave is "I either get everything I want, or I take my ball and I'm leaving". There is something _wrong_ with that. Worse, when you stir the pot and frequently speak rhetoric of "Second Amendment solutions", and combine it with the violent-desensitizing media you mentioned earlier on, you are essentially setting yourself up for disaster. If you tell someone enough "Violence is fine", "Use violence to solve your issues", and "People who disagree with you are a threat to your very well being", you cannot be surprised when they proceed to attack someone who disagrees with them. Worse, you should not be surprised, _then continue the same behavior in the hope it doesn't happen again_.




XVII1931 said:


> As bad as these shootings are, I think its preferable to live in a country where there are murders committed with guns by civilians than genocides committed by a bloated and powerful authoritarian government that has a total monopoly on firearms. You may say thatâ€™s a false dichotomy, but all throughout history, whenever a population has been disarmed by its government, it has opened the door for unrestrained, overt, and animalistic abuse of human rights and human dignity, because governments can then kill, torture, and steal without fear of retribution as they oppress their people with ever-increasing brutality.


There is a ready counterpoint to this, though. As has been mentioned in this thread even, there are nations (European and otherwise) who have a predominantly / entirely disarmed population, and in some cases they are confirmed to have higher standards of living and lower crime rates.

This is not to say "Disarm everyone, everything gets better!" But at the same time to argue "Keep everyone armed or else you'll probably be tortured and stolen from" only returns to the "Stirring up the pot" comment.



XVII1931 said:


> Tyrants donâ€™t like that, and it is a threat to their hold on power. People say it canâ€™t happen in the United States, well itâ€™s already happening right now. Weâ€™re seeing it with the NDAA, with attempts to control the internet, and with the Patriot Act.


 The Internet Treaty imploded, as a note. 



XVII1931 said:


> Do we really want the federal government, more powerful than ever before, to have greater control over private ownership of weapons when theyâ€™re forcing this kind of crap on us?


 Again, I feel like pointing out that a Civilian Militia is in no position to counter any of the military branches through force of arms. In order to do so, the sort of equipment you would need to allow for private citizens would include military-grade drones, aircraft, armoured vehicles, etcetera.

Furthermore, there is no way for the President to seize control on their own. They have power, but - while not curbed to the same degree - they are essentially a figurehead, akin to the Royal Family in the UK. There is some importance to them in the political process, but we are nowhere near the point that we have to fear a sudden "President for Life" development.

And if I had to be honest? I trust the Federal Government of the United States, sort of. I trust it more than the average person in the very least. I trust it more than the average United States Citizen, I trust it more than the Free Market (I trust it _way_ more than the Free Market), and I trust it more than the Media. There are some obvious exceptions, and obviously it must be done on a case-by-case basis (some Senators I wouldn't trust in arm's reach, let alone as far as I can throw them. Others I would readily vote for if given the chance), but if given the choice of trusting my life with the President or the Koch Brothers I would practically leap into the President's arms before even considering the Bro's.



XVII1931 said:


> for example as the Jews and other Germans might have done if they hadnâ€™t registered their guns and allowed them to be confiscated by the Gestapo.


 You do realize there were resistance movements, yes? One of the greatest pities in the modern day and age is how so few people realize that more than the French and British Officers were involved in the Resistance against Nazi-ism in Europe.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

We seem to be dancing around the point. 

Does the 'extra lethal protection' afforded to citizens by firearms etc significantly exceed the incidence of innocent people accidentally being shot and of bad guys being unnecessarily shot etc ?

From what I understand getting at this simple question is very difficult because the entire issue is polluted and fetishised as a question of freedom and cultural branding, so many of the groups conducting studies in this area are heavily biassed.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Amaroq said:


> So you start your post by saying that the second amendment is oudated and has no value or purpose. That's a value-judgment. From the outset you're attacking the second amendment.


 You're right, and I'll apologize here. I should have said "The Second Amendment _as it was originally written / designed_".



Amaroq said:


> Then you go on to say that you're not trying to take away our guns. And then you contradict yourself by then going on to say that the ideal "well-regulated militia" is the National Guard, and not private individuals.


 Uh, that's not a contradiction. 



Amaroq said:


> "Only the National Guard is a well-regulated militia and thus the constitution only specifies that there should be a National Guard, not private ownership of guns" seems to be the conclusion you're driving at, oh so subtly.


Again, I have an quote in that post equating firearm ownership to cars. Unless you want to argue I'm claiming only a certain population should drive / own cars, you're reading into things that _do not exist_.



Amaroq said:


> Then you go on to criticize the amendment further by saying that private gun owners could never defend this country from an invasion or from the government actively turning on its people.


 Because it's true. In the 224 years since the Constitution was initially drafted, there were some rather major changes in how first world nations operate in military matters. Changes that invalidate the average civilian with a 9mm, .223 rifle, or even a .45 automatic / semi-automatic weapon. If you want to imagine how a civilian uprising against the US military would go? Imagine the Battle of Mogadishu, but now remove all the rocket propelled grenades and fanaticism amongst the combatants.



Amaroq said:


> And you subtly insert the idea that it would be the republican party that takes over the country, for... whatever insane reason, by sticking Paul Ryan's name in there.


 Because there's such a thing as random examples. Would you rather I put John Doe? Obama? George Washington? You can replace the name with whoever's you want.



Amaroq said:


> Then you contradict yourself again and switch back to "But I think it's okay to own firearms", but you state subtly, smoothly, that it's a privilege, not a right.


 Again, I just want to make this clear: You think public education and health care is a privilege, but that owning a lethal weapon is a right?



Amaroq said:


> In fact, owning a sword, a car, a bow, are also privileges, rather than rights, according to you. Those are things that we wouldn't "deny" anymore/less than a gun, if you approve of the owner's capability or maturity or whatever standards you seek to impose on others before you allow them to own things.


 I, uh, am not following you again. Are you agreeing here? Disagreeing? As yeah, what I was saying is "If you can trust someone to be responsible, they can drive a car. Similarly, if you can trust someone to be responsible, they can own a gun."



Amaroq said:


> The exact wording was "aiming to put a bullet in that sick fuck's brain." I don't know the context of that statement, but I'm guessing someone in the previous thread said something about what they would do to the killer if they were there defending the children?


Nope.



			
				On page 2 said:
			
		

> Guns shouldnt be offensive, only for food or defensive as in someone breaks in your home to molest your family- rather than wait for someone on 911 to answer just pick up a gun and put a bullet into that sick fucks brain.





Amaroq said:


> If that isn't it, then I would agree. We don't get to just met out our own justice. We have a justice system for that.


 Indeed. The main point of that comment was that someone should never consider themselves Judge, Jury, and Executioner.



Amaroq said:


> After that, your pacifism starts showing. It's okay to own a firearm for self-defense as long as you try your hardest not to kill the other person. You say that it's okay to kill someone by accident or if it's the only way to protect yourself and others until authorities arrive. And then you switch around again, and suddenly it's, if you have time to aim for the head, you have time to aim elsewhere. So is it okay to kill them in self-defense, or is it not?


 If there's no other choice, yes. Say they're in body armor and only have their head exposed. In such a case, aiming for the arm would be rather worthless. But if they're completely unarmored, and you have the choice of shooting them in the arm or head (say you're behind them and they aren't aware, maybe they're holding up another family member), there's no reason to aim for the head as opposed to the arm holding the gun, or the legs, or even the lower spine. 



Amaroq said:


> It's a logical fallacy that Ayn Rand (the most important philosopher of our time, by the way!) identified.


 You do realize Ayn Rand is batshit insane, yes?


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> We seem to be dancing around the point.
> 
> Does the 'extra lethal protection' afforded to citizens by firearms etc significantly exceed the incidence of innocent people accidentally being shot and of bad guys being unnecessarily shot etc ?
> 
> From what I understand getting at this simple question is very difficult because the entire issue is polluted and fetishised as a question of freedom and cultural branding, so many of the groups conducting studies in this area are heavily biassed.



Not all guns are created equal though.

This is one thing that living in the south has taught me, there is a definite division of labor in firearms. Pistols are your shooting range and personal protection guns. Those are the ones you throw in the glovebox or keep in a holster under the steering column. Those would be the ones it seems you're having the most issues with, as they're semiautomatic and designed to put people down at relatively close range quickly.

Then you have your shotguns, usually pump action. These are the truck guns that farmers keep for work on the farm and that rednecks keep in the trunk/bedbox for the aforementioned inevitable deer they hit. They're also the home defense gun, because the ratcheting of a round into the chamber is a good no-shoot deterrent. Plus nothing's more intimidating than a loaded pump action, even armed robbers will freak out because they're outgunned.

Then you have your hunting rifles. These are bolt-action and slow to fire. Rednecks and farmers usually have one of these on hand as well, again for utility. They're damned accurate though and can easily pierce body armor. These aren't ones you'd turn to for home or self defense though.

Then you have your semiautomatic rifles. These are mostly for ranges and gun fun and are the ones the kooks buy and modify to be fully automatic. They're also used for home defense but really, their utility is pretty marginal. Other guns will do what they do better in almost any defensive or utility situation. Because they're basically semiauto assault rifles, they're only really useful for aggressive purposes.

And then there's specialized sporting firearms that are made for competition which are more or less like dueling pistols and the like.

So you need to specify if you mean *all guns* or specific types of guns.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Goddamn I don't think I've ever seen so many fucking walls of text on this forum.  It's all pretty pointless considering that gun control is probably the most settled political issue in America ever since the Heller decision.  There really isn't a whole lot more to say than this:


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

We've already expressed that those in favor of gun ownership are the condorcet winners of this debate. It is a hollow victory though.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Winners of _the political process_, yes.  The debate is still unsettled, though there is no longer any practical value left in it.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

In all seriousness I'm probably going to end up buying a gun shortly because of this event. Partly for spite, and partly because it feels really weird advocating gun ownership without actually owning a gun.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Trying to change someone's mind on the Internet about anything they feel strongly about is throwing snowballs in hell to try and lower the temperature. 

I just want to point out that* Ayn Rand was fucking crazy* and pales in comparison to Karl god damn Marx any day considering that he has is own fucking -ism.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

This reminds me, some Libertarian economic think tank that operates out of my college sent me an unsolicited present in the mail.

It was a copy of _Atlas Shrugged_.

Not _The Road to Serfdom_, not _Economics In One Lesson_, not _Socialism_ or _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. _No, they sent me Ayn Rand.

Objectivism has NOTHING to do with conservative economic models.

I want to send them a copy of _The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money_ as a thank you :3


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

For the record, I didn't go into this debate thinking I was changing anyone's mind on this, or any other issue I've ever argued here on this forum.  Debating on the internet with the intent of trying to change the world is a bigger waste of time than just arguing for the sake of argument.



XVII1931 said:


> The problem with the reaction to mass shootings is that too many people automatically focus on the guns and not the actual cause of the problem. It's far too easy to blame the tool and not its user, and why? Maybe it's because it would be so much easier to blame and ban scary looking semi-auto rifles (and the one in question here wasn't even used in this latest shooting, btw) than it is to address the gunman's psychological problems, which really is more complicated, admittedly, but is always the REAL underlying cause in EVERY SINGLE ONE of these shootings.



I think any reasonable person shouldn't immediately turn towards guns as the singular issue in any of these cases.  There's a clear issue with how we've treated mental health in this country which is very much a contributing factor which unfortunately doesn't get as much airtime as the gun issue.

However it is disturbing when you consider that the weapons overwhelmingly used in these situations are ones which are legally purchased or are owned by someone who has a family member with some possible mental issues and gives them access to those weapons, either purposely or by negligence.  And the problem with guns is, negligence tends to lead to fatal accidents or worse.  it also becomes increasingly alarming when there are states in the US where purchasing a firearm for use is easier than getting a driver's license and is more akin to buying a cellphone.  "Responsible gun owners" recognize the inherent danger of firearms and that they need to be handled with the utmost care and respect, yet repeatedly states have shown a disinterest in getting involved and proposing simple legislation that likely should be a no-brainer like instituting waiting periods, restrictions on magazine size, etc.  The issues are highlighted for us when we realize where and how these weapons are obtained by mass murders with mental health issues.



> but an AR-15 with a thirty round magazine is not a demonic doomsday weapon of mass destruction any more than a bolt action .30-06 big game rifle is.
> 
> [...]
> 
> With an AR-15, just like any other rifle, the fundamentals of marksmanship still apply: aim, control breath, squeeze trigger, one shot, one accurate hit.



Well I don't think you'd be hearing about 20 kids not going home to their parents because a mentally disturbed 20-year-old showed up with a bolt-action rifle.  Just sayin'.

Likewise if you're going to wax poetic on the importance of "one-shot, one-kill" why is it necessary to have a 30-round magazine?  Where hunting is concerned, it's not like the deer or duck is shooting back at you and you need to put multiple rounds down-range not only in the effort of hitting something but to also keep the target at bay.  For "personal protection" I don't see why anything more than 10-15 rounds would be reasonable to stop a threat to you.  As mentioned by TA, sometimes just the sight of the weapon is enough.  I'm pretty sure how many rounds of ammo you have doesn't add to your chances of scaring off an intruder after the perceived "one" that is chambered is going to significantly increase.  It begs the question what are you doing with your weapons or planning on doing that requires that many rounds immediately available to you per-magazine, just as buying 30-boxes of Sudafed tends to raise an eyebrow or twelve.



> Many people posting on this thread, likely blinded by their prejudices and ignorance, will probably want to assume that I am some dumb, backwoods hick who jerks off to Sarah Palin, that I think that gun ownership should be a free-for-all with no strings attached, that I'm a teabagger, that I'm a paranoid, rightwing nutcase who will blast away at anything that moves, that I'm this, that I'm that, etc, etc.



Don't be so defensive.  No one's lumping you in as a "right-wing nutjob".  It's just that some of your points don't make rational sense, especially given other points you yourself have brought up.



> There are anywhere between 85 and 100 million gun owners in the US, but these mass shootings are committed by a very few people.



And unfortunately a good deal of those individuals likely shouldn't be legal gun owners because of oversights/private sales/negligence which should likely raise a red flag as to their ability to own firearms.  Something like "having a mentally unstable family member in the same house with firearms owned by another family member" may be something we need to start looking into.

You seem like a smart guy, which is why I'm sure you understand too that the stance of "just because a few people kill dozens of 5-10 year olds/teens shouldn't mean we should reexamine our current standards of gun purchasing and ownership" doesn't exactly help your argument.  85-million people is a big number.  100 million is even bigger.  If a handful of people in one year being responsible for mass shootings with legally acquired weapons isn't enough to cause you or someone else to think "maybe we need to talk about this some more" then what is?  About 70 innocent people have been killed since April by what is considered "mass shootings."  Those deaths in an 8-month window aren't compelling enough to warrant a discussion on how effective our gun laws are at preventing unsuitable individuals from owning firearms?  Then how many deaths would make you want our federal and state governments to seriously reconsider what we're doing?  And I'm not asking for changes, I'm asking at least for the discussion to happen.



> In the '50s and '60s, you could buy firearms from mail order catalogues and have them shipped directly to your door, no paperwork, no background checks, no questions asked, yet you weren't always turning on the TV or radio back then and hearing about some psycho shooting up his workplace, a school, a department store, or a movie theater, and you also didn't have rampant gang violence in big cities like we have today.



None of us were around in the 1950's and 60's.  At least I don't think so.  I'd imagine this was also the era where something like a 75-year-old white man shooting and killing an unarmed 13-year-old black kid based on suspicion of robbery or trespassing likely wasn't bound to end up in the news, especially in certain areas of the country.  Likewise national news media wasn't as all-encompassing back then as it is now.  Didn't exactly have a 24-hour news cycle until the late-80s into the 90s or an information tool like the internet where stories like the above that I posted could be seen nationally and on a global scale.

So using media coverage of the 50's and 60's compared to today to make some sort of point about fewer shootings of innocent people back then isn't exactly compelling.



> There is no easy solution to this problem



No one is claiming there is one easy fix to solve every issue pertaining to mass shootings.  However it's increasingly frustrating when we deny ourselves the ability to even discuss this difficult issue and attempt to make strides towards finding some sort of compromise for both sides, and instead go on an all-or-nothing tirade or get all defensive when someone dares ask "do you really think we should allow people to purchase weapons without a state permit?" or some similar question.  And then a common response to that question being some fear-mongering throw-away line about America turning into the Third-Reich.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> Again, I feel like pointing out that a Civilian Militia is in no position to counter any of the military branches through force of arms. In order to do so, the sort of equipment you would need to allow for private citizens would include military-grade drones, aircraft, armoured vehicles, etcetera.



In any case, from the perspective of any government - authoritarian or not - facing an insurrection, _taking up weapons against the state is illegal anyway_. If a government is THAT willing to stamp out opposition, the legalities of whether or not the constitution allows for "a militia" or "the people to bear arms" is pretty fucking moot by that point anyway. 
Similarly, patriotic resistance groups are hardly going to dither about with whether the Second Amendment covers the "right" to RPGs and Kaytusha rockets when facing oppression by a totalitarian government - they're going to try and lay their hands on such stuff anyway. 



Attaman said:


> Furthermore, there is no way for the President to seize control on their own. They have power, but - while not curbed to the same degree - they are essentially a figurehead, akin to the Royal Family in the UK. There is some importance to them in the political process, but we are nowhere near the point that we have to fear a sudden "President for Life" development.



And if by some chance the shit _does_ hit the fan and you have El Presidente-for-life Homer J. Simpson ordering out the SS-USA on their own people, the American people would have had to have let _every damn constitutional and democratic safeguard_ lapse in the process - and by that point, the presence or absence of armed citizens would be pretty much redundant.

In short, the Second Amendment justification of "preventing government tyranny through legal bearing of arms" is nothing but an idle self-justifying fantasy, as legality is the first thing that goes out the window when the slide to totalitarianism starts.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> We've already expressed that those in favor of gun ownership are the condorcet winners of this debate.


Today, perhaps.

But expect major turns in the foreseeable future. Just like the other first world states the US, too, is rapidly diversifying and secularizing. And that fucking _scares _the conserfascists, they fear loss of power, to not being able to push through modern concentration camps like Gitmo in which the Middle-Eastern untermensch is exterminated. That's why they've become even more knee-jerk. They saw at Election Day that the Southern Strategy _failed_, in other words god, gays and *guns*.


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

You're actually correct Attaman. I don't think the government has a right to provide any of those things, because it has to take from other people in order to provide them. Even its ideal functions (police, military, justice system) should be voluntarily funded. But that ideal is a long way off with how irrational our culture is.

I see we also have another misunderstanding that I need to elaborate on. When I say we have a right to guns, I don't mean we have a right for the government to provide us with guns. I advocate negative rights, not positive rights. The rights I advocate are freedoms from coercion. So when I say right to guns, right to property, etc, I mean a person's right to earn, purchase, whatever, that thing on his own. Not to have others provide it for them. The same goes for healthcare, schooling, wages, etc. Products and services should be paid for, and money should be worked for. Anything the government provides to someone was first taken from someone else whether they wanted to give it or not. "But what about those who can't afford the super expensive healthcare" I know someone is going to ask. Our healthcare industry is the most heavily regulated industry in, probably the history of America, if not the world. And medical consumers the most heavily subsidized. Regulation artificially lowers supply by making it harder to produce, and subsidies to consumers artificially raises demand by allowing anyone and their grandma to go to the emergency room for sore throats and sniffles. Healthcare would be much more affordable if the government had stayed out of it. But that's another topic entirely, haha.

When you speak of privilege, I think of a thing that we don't have the freedom to get on our own, that the government may deny us, and that goes against my concept of rights. (Your concept of rights seems to be entitlements.) I'm aware that a driver's license is considered a privilege, but ownership of a car isn't as far as I know. You're free to buy your own car, your own bow and arrow, etc. You just need a license to use the car.

And since you actually brought this up in one of your responses to me, I suppose I have to take it on. I'm not sure what I think about this idea of needing a license to use our own property. Since the government currently owns the roads, I could see them requiring licenses to use the roads. I could also see them demanding that people take classes before driving even on privately owned roads, because someone who doesn't know how to drive, driving, would be a threat to the rights of others. But there's a huge difference between moving down the road at 60 miles per hour in a several ton piece of equipment without knowing how to work it, and owning a gun. Practically everyone has to drive to get anywhere, so one person getting behind the wheel not knowing how is a threat. But possessing a gun and carrying it with you is not nearly as active of a thing. The gun remains passive until you draw it and pull the trigger (and load it if needed). I could see doing background checks and not allowing former violent criminals to own a gun, but I can't see requiring classes for innocent people to own a gun. That's a more private matter. Maybe they'll just display it in a display case on their wall. Maybe they'll go take their own classes because they want to know how to use it. Maybe they'll just practice on a range. Maybe they'll just go hunting. Maybe they'll carry it with them, maybe they won't. I think the government should only be forcing the matter when it involves people who have proved they have violent tendencies. Like criminals who've been arrested for violent crimes in the past.

I'm tempted to just leave Ayn Rand out of it, but, I gotta say. It doesn't surprise me that "She was batshit insane" is the only thing anyone here has to say about her. It's all I ever hear from anyone who disagrees with her ideas. Some people try to argue points with me, and I like that. It allows me to explain more. Get new ideas out there and get people thinking about them. I have yet to see an actual disagreement with Ayn Rand that isn't based on some misunderstanding of her philosophy. But most people don't even offer any specific criticisms. It's just "I heard she was an evil bitch." and that's it.

To the guy who got a copy of Atlas Shrugged, I was going to say I'm glad you're familiar with books by free market economists. Then I realized you were going to send them back a book by Keynes, and I kinda just lol'ed. The Austrians have been proving for decades that the free market works. But nobody listens because they think Capitalism is a selfish system. And they're right! The value in Rand's political ideas is that she defends the free market on moral grounds first rather than only practical grounds and letting the other side have the moral high ground. The Austrians can argue until they're blue in the face about the practicality of the free market. But until some Randians start stepping up and saying "Each individual's life belongs to himself", they aren't going to make any progress.

Which is basically my justification for gun ownership, to come back to the topic at hand. Your life belongs to you. You have a right to protect it. Thus you should be able to purchase a gun. But all context has to be taken into account of course. You don't have a right to build a nuclear bomb in your back yard, because you don't have the right to violate the rights of others, and something like that would be an undeniable threat to others. Whether assault weapons fall into the territory of being a necessary threat to others or not is debatable. But we do have the right to own firearms for self defense. The idea that you should risk your life to save the life of your attacker means that you have a moral duty to put your life at unnecessary risk to save the person who is trying to take yours. I do acknowledge that you said pretty much the same thing, that if you have to kill them, you should. But I add this last point in because I think the victim's right to defend himself is primary. If the guy just has his fists and you have a gun and he threatens to beat you up, then obviously it's going overboard if you just shoot him in the face rather than hold him up until the police arrive. But if your attacker also has a gun, I would say all considerations for his life must immediately go out the window. I remember reading somewhere that as a gun owner defending yourself, you're not even supposed to attempt headshots or limbshots anyway. You're supposed to aim for the chest and pop three shots in there at least. But the aim is still to kill, because if you don't kill him asap, he could kill you. And I fully support that idea.

If I owned a gun someday and I were put in a situation where I had to defend myself or loved ones from an attacker, if he were only carrying a melee weapon, I would make him keep his distance and try to disable him if he didn't. But if he lunged too close, or if he had a gun of his own, I would try to kill him quickly. In an uncertain situation like that, where the attacker forces my hand, I'd rather be safe than sorry. He should've thought about that before he forced a situation of my life against his.

Also, like someone else said, who cares if the military will have bigger guns. That doesn't mean we should just submit to tyranny. If we keep our guns, they'll be more afraid to try to oppress us openly. And I think you also discount the capabilities of guerrilla fighters. If they were evasive enough I think it would be really difficult to root them out. Armed citizens, even against a war machine, can be at least a big thorn in their side. Better that than to just surrender and be slaughtered or enslaved sooner or later anyway. The point is that our life belongs to us. If we don't have a right to own guns to at least attempt to overthrow a tyranny (when needed), then our life belongs to that tyranny and not to ourselves.


----------



## RetroOctane (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

What if we find out what all these mass murderers have in common and make a law or laws based on that?


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Also, one more thing to add. In the case that our government suddenly tries to openly oppress us, it wouldn't be just the citizens vs the whole military. The military is comprised of people who most likely joined to protect this great nation. There would probably be a schism and we'd have soldiers with training and weapons on our side too.

EDIT: Haha, I just saw this on facebook. I must add it.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4020052892030
I hope it works.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

It'd be hilarious if the government actually tried to pass anti-gun legislation because of this.

I mean seriously, do you guys have any idea how many kids have been killed by the trained government gun-arms we have in the middle east? Or how many weapons have been given to the drug cartels by the CIA?

And then Obama gets up there on TV and acts like he's upset. What a sham.


----------



## Azure (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Yeah, Obama on TV speaking about the shooting was a giant sham. I mean, the country is going to topple into the economic shitter in 14 days? And he's doing the fucking feelgood circuit? Fuck off. Also, the title for this thread is p apropos. Sure, we could rewrite the constitution lol, good luck! I agree with firearms being more tightly controlled, but I don't agree that them being gone really decreases murder or violent crime. As far as mass shootings, well there could have been bombs, knives, swords, chainsaws, and those kids would still be dead. And you would all still be here exploiting the emotions that arose from it for your own agendas. That all I have to say, you guys armchair away!

Actually no. I'd like to ask a general question. How many of you have been the victim of armed violence? Be it gun or knife/melee weapon? What happened? Because I see a lot of untenable shit being said about how you "ought" to defend yourself or wait on the police.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Here's something interesting I picked up along the way.

I don't agree with the premise that more guns reduce crimes though. It's flawed, because they leave out the third component, that the guns could be entirely unrelated to the crime rate.

I maintain it's a bad culture and the ridiculous psychotropic drugs we're pumping into folks these days. Ridiculous class stratification, quackery in the psychiatric industry, oppressive healthcare costs, a broken school system, a nation being fed on fear and lies from the religious institutions that seem to grip every facet of the government. But no, firearms are the problem.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Armed citizens aren't reliable moral agents, as people are keen to suggest they are. Organised militias are  known for protection racketeering, ideological attacks and vigilante  justice, not just over-throwing tyrants. 

Tyrany is not exclusive to the politically elite. Guns are not just weapons to 'defend us from coercision' but also tools that can be used _to_ coerce. This is particularly prevalent in sectarian cultures, such as 'FREE Derry'.

The idea of voluntarily funded police and fire services [it is unclear why other services such as health are not included in this raft of otherwise life-saving professions] is quite unrealistic.  Groups of individuals interested in eachothers' well being prosper, but selfish individuals stand to personally benefit within their respective groups, so there is an unfortunate incentive for some to ruine the cooperative ivory tower we live in without state coercion to pay to keep the lights on and hospitals open.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Amaroq said:


> You're actually correct Attaman. I don't think the government has a right to provide any of those things, because it has to take from other people in order to provide them.


 I think it's fairly alarming that in your world an armed, uneducated, "every man for himself"-healthcare society is superior to "unarmed, educated, every man for himself-healthcare", "unarmed, uneducated, community looks out for each other-healthcare", "unarmed, educated and community looks out for each other-healthcare", or even "armed, educated, community looks out for each other-healthcare" society. I will tell you right now that if I had the choice to make one of the above three readily available to all, firearms would be dead in last place with healthcare eeking out ahead because I'd rather an uneducated society that lived in good health than an educated society in poor health.



Amaroq said:


> Even its ideal functions (police, military, justice system) should be voluntarily funded. But that ideal is a long way off with how irrational our culture is.


 I also think it's rather telling how you keep resorting to "Free Market will provide", as though saying the mantra repeatedly makes it any more factual. I assume you are aware that policies such as Trickle-Down Economics have been proven (by non-Partisan studies) to have negligible positive economic impact, and that the last few times we tried "Freemarket Provides" in the US we had pesky things like "Slave labor loses arms thanks to non-existent safety regulations" and "Companies hire private armies to drop bombs on union workers" as two examples of common behavior?



Amaroq said:


> The same goes for healthcare, schooling, wages, etc.


 You do realize one of the very basic principles of Ayn Rand is "Only the strong of the will survive", and to base one's socio-economic / -political policies on hers is very literally supporting a system that thinks "Poor people die due to a lack of safety net" is a _good_ thing.



Amaroq said:


> Products and services should be paid for, and money should be worked for.


 A slight problem with this belief is you assume that income directly correlates to how hard someone works. I'm fairly certain that I could point you to a family household that does more work (in terms of time spent, importance to maintaining the nation, and energy used by participants) than someone who earns ten times as much as them, people who many refer to as "leeches" or state are only poor because they don't work hard enough.



Amaroq said:


> Healthcare would be much more affordable if the government had stayed out of it. But that's another topic entirely, haha.


 No, it's fairly related, partially because your discussion is "The less government involvement, the better", though in this case I'd honestly be more worried about private corporations trying to shove people into Ghettos than the United States government. 



Amaroq said:


> When you speak of privilege, I think of a thing that we don't have the freedom to get on our own, that the government may deny us, and that goes against my concept of rights. (Your concept of rights seems to be entitlements.)


 And you're referring to healthcare and an education as an entitlement. While, unironically, stating that the ability to own a firearm is not an entitlement. 

Okay, I guess.



Amaroq said:


> But there's a huge difference between moving down the road at 60 miles per hour in a several ton piece of equipment without knowing how to work it, and owning a gun.


 Yes, like the fact that a poorly accounted for gun can easily be used by a small child, hidden, brought someplace with a lot of people, and cause a heck of an accident (whether someone's injured or not). It's hard to sneak a car into a classroom and accidentally run over a friend, it's slightly less hard to sneak Mommy's self-defense pistol into a classroom and accidentally shoot a friend. 



Amaroq said:


> But possessing a gun and carrying it with you is not nearly as active of a thing. The gun remains passive until you draw it and pull the trigger (and load it if needed).


... My god, you don't even know basic firearms safety.

Look, I don't even own a firearm, and there's some basic things you assume about a gun. First off, a gun is always dangerous. Whether it's in your hands, in a holster, locked away in its chest, whenever. Even if you're carrying it, know you unloaded it, and have the safety on, you treat it as a dangerous tool. This is because guns can be finnicky. There have been plenty of instances of experts, those who know exactly what they're doing and should be trusted with firearms, suffering from incidents of accidental discharge. 

This isn't me arguing to say "You should take them away", this is me talking basic firearm safety. You never assume a firearm is a passive / "safe" weapon until you are ready to use it. 



Amaroq said:


> but I can't see requiring classes for innocent people to own a gun.


 Wait, so your "education is an entitlement" philosophy even extends to _basic firearms safety_?



Amaroq said:


> I'm tempted to just leave Ayn Rand out of it, but, I gotta say. It doesn't surprise me that "She was batshit insane" is the only thing anyone here has to say about her.


 Because it's true. 



Amaroq said:


> But most people don't even offer any specific criticisms. It's just "I heard she was an evil bitch." and that's it.


 And yet, oddly, "Liberals have an agenda" is enough for you to argue against them. Funny how that works.



Amaroq said:


> I'm glad you're familiar with books by free market economists.


 Free Market economists are _batshit too_. Or, more often than not, are disturbing rational and sane and realize that they can get people who _aren't_ rational and sane to eat their garbage hook, line, and sinker.

For fucks sake, have you even heard of the West Virginia Coal Wars? Fun fact: It's what happens when you abide by Free Market economy principles / philosophies.



Amaroq said:


> The Austrians have been proving for decades that the free market works. But nobody listens because they think Capitalism is a selfish system.


So, to sum you up:
+ Any education whatsoever is an entitlement, one that the Free Market should be able to set any price for as well as any curriculum.
+ The Free Market is awesome, despite many historical examples and pieces of evidence stating contrary.
+ Ayn Rand is an amazing philosopher, and the best argument most people can come up against her is "She's Evil" due to misunderstanding her.
+ Having access to lethal weapons is more important than training someone in how to safely manage them, providing medical care for anyone who is injured by said lethal weapons, or keeping a smart population.

You've, uh, got the philosophical stance there. I hope you'll excuse me if I vote against everything you believe, state Ayn Rand is batshit insane, and that Paul Ryan's economic theory is so bunk I would feel safer driving a car off a cliff than going four years under it.



Amaroq said:


> Also, like someone else said, who cares if the military will have bigger guns. That doesn't mean we should just submit to tyranny. If we keep our guns, they'll be more afraid to try to oppress us openly.


 No, they won't. Not at all. If militaries are perfectly willing to go up against indoctrinated / desperate fanatics who literally have nothing to lose by resisting with blackmarket-grade weaponry, they aren't going to be afraid of individuals who like living and have a weapon that might let them ambush a soldier before being shot dead by their comrades.



Amaroq said:


> And I think you also discount the capabilities of guerrilla fighters.


 Guerilla fighters "win" wars via breaking morale, and there's a better way to do that against the United States military. You know what that is? _Being a United States Citizen._ That you're so ready and willing to assume vast portions of the US military would gleefully turn on the United States population is rather alarming, and - combined with the earlier summary of your philosophy - I must repeat "Go see a professional psychiatrist."



Amaroq said:


> Better that than to just surrender and be slaughtered or enslaved sooner or later anyway.


That you feel there's even a risk of this from the United States Federal Government, but don't seem to acknowledge that the Free Market could do anything close to such, is outright horrifying.


----------



## KingNow (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I believe all actions done to harm another via firearm should be punishable by sodomy with the weapon they used.


----------



## Colonel Spigot (Dec 19, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

On a side note, wonder why _all _of the media attention has been shifted to the Sandy Hook Shooting and away from the Oregon mall shooting? I promise that you'll never hear the MSM report on this: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...n/clackamas-shooter-confronted-by-ccw-holder/

And people always ask where the concealed carriers are when shootings happen. Well, just like the cops, they're around, just not always in the right place at the right time.

Also: http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=school

Seems to be a pattern there.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 19, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> I don't agree with the premise that more guns reduce crimes though. It's flawed, because they leave out the third component, that the guns could be entirely unrelated to the crime rate.



Guns or no, crimes still happen. But that's usually because of the people, not the gear.

Take a look at Switzerland. Gun crime is _extremely_ low. Far, far, far lower than the US. And the funny part is, every house with an "able-bodied" man in it has a fully automatic assault rifle in it as well. The guns one can own privately with the use of permits and registration are insane - collectors are very common. 

Aside from the fact that almost everyone is required to act as militia when required, it's not that different from the US, isn't it?

But it is very different - in some US states one can buy a gun over the counter with no questions asked. Switzerland makes use of permits (only those who can prove themselves as responsible owners get a pass). The US culture involves a lot of glorifying of violence, where in Switzerland, its populace is taught from an early age that guns stand for defending the nation and are tools, not a personification of badassery like Hollywood suggests. Swiss society also heavily promotes the use of responsible, safe, gun ownership and there's a LOT of training and practise involved for gun owners. 

The US doesn't have that. Only at a range does one learn responsible gun ownership, whereas others can go buy a gun like it's a mobile phone or something and not be instructed on safety, usage, storage, maintenance, and stuff like that. And not every American gun owner goes to a range or seeks instruction.

So when we compare the US with Switzerland, we can see that it's a case of society and culture, not guns per se. And we can look at the UK and see how it still has a considerable amount of gun crime despite the extreme restriction. The fucked-up self defense laws make it even easier for criminals. We can also look at a lot of legal responsible gun owners who work with guns as a legitimate hobby. We could also look at serial killers who never used guns once. We could also look at a lot of criminals saying that they'd never want anything to do with an armed citizen.

So yep. People are the problem, not gun legislation. If anything, guns are beneficial *IF* the problems with the people and the lack of responsibility are dealt with first.


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I took one look at Attaman's response to me and I didn't want to be in this thread anymore. I don't feel like putting forth all the mental effort it would take to dissect the mess he left behind and the mess he made of everything I said. It must be nice being a statist. Not having to think before you speak. While free marketeers like me have to sigh in exasperation and set about dissecting and exposing all the economic, political, and logical fallacies. I'm not gonna do it this time. Not for someone who is just going to remain willfully ignorant and not listen to a thing I said.

So I'm just going to leave this here. An opinion piece written by someone who knows what he's talking about.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Amaroq said:


> I took one look at Attaman's response to me and I didn't want to be in this thread anymore. [...] It must be nice being a statist. Not having to think before you speak.



I guess that really means you don't have any actual counter-arguments to Attaman's points, so you're down to claiming that everyone who doesn't follow the "dog eat dog, devil take the hindmost, I've got mine so screw you" Randist philosophy is a "statist" (and through innuendo, presumably in bed with the likes of Stalin, Mao and any number of other dictators du jour).


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I have counter-arguments to all of his points. But it takes no effort to blurt out that Rand's philosophy is a "dog eat dog, devil take the hindmost, I've got mine so screw you" philosophy and I have to spend all the effort required to refute it and claims like his. And then after I've spent all that effort, you people just blurt out the next thing that pops into your head and I have to put forth all the mental labor all over again. Attaman is basically doing the same thing, except he's going to make his messy claims point-by-point and give me even more work to do. And my previous posts in this thread should have already covered every objection he blurted out here.

I mean. Did you even think when you were reading Atlas Shrugged and you came to those conclusions about Rand's philosophy? Or did you even bother to read even that much of her writing. She did not see society as some kind of Social Darwinism where the strong survive and the weak die in the streets. She did not see the rich as good and poor as evil. She saw the productive as good and parasites as evil. In Atlas Shrugged, she presented good, productive people of all income levels. There were good guys who were rich and good guys who were poor, and bad guys who were rich and bad guys who were poor. The difference is the good guys worked to earn what they had, and the bad guys were parasites who used the government or some form of instilling unearned guilt in order to get the productive to keep supporting them. But all you can come up with is "Rand loved the rich and hated the poor"? That's all the depth you could see in her ideas? That's it? How am I supposed to take you or Attaman seriously when you have no idea what you're arguing against?

This argument will never end. I'll continue to think and make logical arguments about what Rand's ideas really were, and Attaman and you and probably a bunch of others will continue to go on hearsay or just blurt out conclusions that don't have any logical basis, etc. I'll say something like "The individual's life belongs to him, he should do whatever he wants with it as long as he's not hurting anyone, and if anyone tries he has the right to defend himself", and then you people will just blurt out "But you want a society where people slaughter puppies and eat babies in order to beat each other to the punch and it's the law of the jungle and, and, and, Rand wasn't a real philosopher, and Marx really had some deep ideas that you need to consider, and the free market is all about murdering each other to get what you want, etc etc. (Never mind that it peacefully gave me internet and a computer so that I would have a means of posting this garbage online from the comfort of my capitalist-provided house with heating and electricity.)"

I don't watch Glenn Beckman. But I just saw this video that needs to be shared. Which is the primary purpose I bothered to post again. He had Penn Gillette on the show and the conversation that they have, particularly the things Penn says, are basically what I'm trying to get at.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc
This pertains to the freedom tangent we've been going on though, and has nothing to do with the gun conversation. For that, reference the link I posted in the post before this.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Amaroq said:


> While free marketeers like me have to sigh in exasperation and set about dissecting and exposing all the economic, political, and logical fallacies.


 I'm going to just ask you once more, then: What do you think really happened during the Battle of Blair Mountain?



Amaroq said:


> I'm not gonna do it this time. Not for someone who is just going to remain willfully ignorant and not listen to a thing I said.


 You call me willfully ignorant while at the same time praising a system that _literally led to big businesses attempting to bribe officials to put machine guns on the roofs of buildings near worker shanty-towns_, and whenever they couldn't resorting to _driving armed and armored trains through said neighborhoods_.

The belief that the Free Market is some benevolent force that truly cares for the people is such absolute crock that if theories were made tangible it'd be _worse than industrial waste_.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Guns or no, crimes still happen. But that's usually because of the people, not the gear.
> 
> Take a look at Switzerland. Gun crime is _extremely_ low. Far, far, far lower than the US. And the funny part is, every house with an "able-bodied" man in it has a fully automatic assault rifle in it as well. The guns one can own privately with the use of permits and registration are insane - collectors are very common.
> 
> ...



Actually the UK has some of the lowest gun crime in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

0.07 per 100,000 citizens were killed by guns in 2009. 

The american figure was 40 times higher

The swiss figure is around 0.52, which is still substaintially higher than the UK's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

This means your claim was not properlly founded and although you could claim that this disparity is absorbed in cultural attitudes or crime rates that exclude the ownership of guns these are incredibly vague measures which make room for speculation so that they can be rationalised in favour of _any_ cause.


----------



## Perception (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

My question is why does it matter if you arn't allowed some types of assult rifles? Its not like they are banning all weapons, you can still run around with a pistol in you pocket if you feel safer that way.

I mean its not exactly convinent to carry around an assult rifle for self defense (assuming thats you main argument), so whats the point of having them?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> Actually the UK has some of the lowest gun crime in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
> 
> 0.07 per 100,000 citizens were killed by guns in 2009.
> 
> ...



And the amount of knife crime? The amount of people who weren't able to properly defend themselves? What about when gun and especially knife crime INCREASED after 2009?

It's an issue about people not being able to defend themselves. They're hardly even ALLOWED to protect themselves. They can hardly protect themselves with a kitchen knife without facing charges.

The. 
Criminals.
 Have. 
The. 
Upper. 
Hand.

The frontline police don't have guns either. When some nut in London whips out an illegally-acquired revolver and starts shooting, he has all the time in the world to shoot people before cops that actually DO have guns finally show up, which is great for him, because neither cops on patrol or any citzens are packing. And don't forget, this is England, where you can rely on a pizza delivery to come faster than the police.

Criminals are fully aware that the law-abiding citizens they target will only try to defend themselves with their bare limbs. Criminals know people won't fight back. Hell, a man was having thugs throw rocks and bricks at his house for days, police didn't do fuck all, then he snaps and tries to chase him off. Guess what happens - he gets in trouble with the police and the thugs get off free. Hell, why do you think senior citizens and disabled people for example are popular targets for thugs in the UK?

BECAUSE THEY CANNOT FUCKING DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THE POLICE DO FUCK-ALL.

This is why the UK has higher violent crime rates compared to the rest of the EU. 

It's fucking simple.



Perception said:


> My question is why does it matter if you arn't  allowed some types of assult rifles? Its not like they are banning all  weapons, you can still run around with a pistol in you pocket if you  feel safer that way.
> 
> I mean its not exactly convinent to carry around an assult rifle for  self defense (assuming thats you main argument), so whats the point of  having them?



The weapons that the US are trying to ban right now aren't even assault rifles. They just look like them. Semi-automatic hunting rifles are just as effective as the weapons the school shooter used. The thing is, the weapons they're trying to ban just look scarier. That's literally the only difference.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Amaroq said:


> I have counter-arguments to all of his points. [...] *I have to spend all the effort required to refute it and claims like his*. And then after I've spent all that effort, you people just blurt out the next thing that pops into your head and *I have to put forth all the mental labor all over again.* Attaman is basically doing the same thing, except he's going to make his messy claims point-by-point *and give me even more work to do.*



Wait, we're making you _work_ at explaining your philosophies? The fact we're countering your intellectual philosophising with real-world examples of why they don't actually work in practice or their unintended adverse consequences?

Well cry me a river.

Oh, and I like the way you claim that the free market gave you internet access and a computer, given that the internet's predecessor ARPANET started off as a _government project_ during the Cold War, and that the first electronic computers such as ENIAC and Colossus were again built as government projects for military ballistics and cryptanalysis purposes. 
And as for your house, heating and electricity - you house was no doubt built to government-specified standards so it wouldn't collapse and would be weather-tight, your electrical wiring installed to government standards so that it wouldn't arc and burn your house down, and whatever form of heating you have is constructed to government safety standards so it a) works and b) won't burn your house down. And if by chance your house _did_ catch fire, you'd make the emergency call to the national standard emergency number 911 (instead of trying to remember what number your local carrier has for emergency services) and a publicly-funded fire service would arrive to put the fire out...

We've seen the kind of housing facilities where the free market is under no kind of control and makes houses available to people for the minimum quality they can get away with (as opposed to the minimum standard for basic liveability). They're called *"slums".*


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> And the amount of knife crime? The amount of people who weren't able to properly defend themselves? What about when gun and especially knife crime INCREASED after 2009?
> 
> It's an issue about people not being able to defend themselves. They're hardly even ALLOWED to protect themselves. They can hardly protect themselves with a kitchen knife without facing charges.
> 
> ...


Just skip over the fact you misrepresented gun crime in the UK and move onto something else then? 

If you carry a knife you are more likely to be stabbed yourself, unfortunately. 

We must consider that overall the detriment of thugs carrying knives is not as severe as the effects of guns meant to be owned by responsible citizens that we can observe in other nations- even in those which have stringent cultures. 

Shooting police officers is incredibly rare in the UK, so non-specialists carrying lethal weapons is not seen as necessary.

Furthermore we need to be aware that what a violent crime is varies from country to country, so some states in the EU report supiciously low rates of violent crime because their standard for what constitutes violence is high or their rate of reporting is low.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> And the amount of knife crime? The amount of people who weren't able to properly defend themselves? What about when gun and especially knife crime INCREASED after 2009?



At least you're just having to deal with KNIVES now, not tooled-up lunatics with semi-auto assault weapons who go shooting up schools.

Yes, it is possible to go on a "stabbing rampage" - in fact such things have been happening in China, one on the same day as the Newtown tragedy - but here's the difference: in the Chengping incident, _all 22 victims survived._



Gibby said:


> The [UK] frontline police don't have guns either. When some nut in London whips out an illegally-acquired revolver and starts shooting, he has all the time in the world to shoot people before cops that actually DO have guns finally show up, which is great for him, because neither cops on patrol or any citzens are packing.



Well the US is then obviously the model to follow, because concerned citizens that are packing heat always save the day when a shooter starts - oh, wait. We've already got the answer for THAT scenario from the Gifford shooting: not only did people present with concealed carry NOT take out the shooter, one  *nearly shot the person who had wrestled the shooters gun away from him*.



			
				MSNBC article said:
			
		

> That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person--a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> Just skip over the fact you misrepresented gun crime in the UK and move onto something else then?
> 
> If you carry a knife you are more likely to be stabbed yourself, unfortunately.
> 
> ...



You cannot deny that there is a massive issue with policing and self defense in this country.

And what the hell proves to you that carrying a knife makes you more likely to be stabbed? That reminds me of all that propaganda about knives aimed at teens. It didn't work obviously.

I support guns for civilians because they are an equalizer in one's natural right to defend themselves. I'm honestly surprised you don't, too, what with how you try to present yourself as sensible. Your fantastical utopia where everyone is nice to each other, abides by the law, and remains completely disarmed will never happen. History has proved that it can't. There was a time when the US and UK didn't have strict gun laws at all, and violent crime was pretty low, and the people's right to defend themselves was preserved. It increased since then, after stricter control was applied. You also have to look at Mexico, where citizens aren't allowed guns legally, but so many people get killed by them and parts of the country are run entirely by drug cartels. That carry shitloads of guns.

Also remember that time where police officers were shot and killed in manchester? Hey, if they had guns, would you reckon it would have happened? You know, do you reckon they would have just shot the offender down as soon as he pulled his gear out? Have you heard the phrase "just having a gun is its own best use"?



Mayfurr said:


> At least you're just having to deal with KNIVES  now, not tooled-up lunatics with semi-auto assault weapons who go  shooting up schools.
> 
> Yes, it is possible to go on a "stabbing rampage" - in fact such things  have been happening in China, one on the same day as the Newtown tragedy  - but here's the difference: in the Chengping incident, _all 22 victims survived._



Yeah, I have to deal with knives now. When I can't defend myself and the police won't do shit. HOW FANTASTIC. Or I could get stabbed and have a chance of being okay.

How about fuck you, I'd rather not get my ass stabbed.



> Well the US is then obviously the model to follow, because  concerned citizens that are packing heat always save the day when a  shooter starts - oh, wait. We've already got the answer for THAT  scenario from the Gifford shooting: not only did people present with  concealed carry NOT take out the shooter, one  *nearly shot the person who had wrestled the shooters gun away from him*.



Shooting up the schools was easy because it was illegal to have guns in there in the first place. That law worked so well at:



Virginia tech 
Arkansas state 
University of Arizona 
Lousiana tech 
San Diego state 
Penn state 
Sheperd University 
shitloads more 

You advertise a place as completely disarmed. What happens? Easy target. Place gets shot up. Lots of people die because nobody could defend themselves, cos it was already illegal to do so.

Also do you know about the Pearl River shooting? The shooter was stopped by one of the school staff, who retrieved his gun out of his car. The "gun free zone" didn't stop this happening. But the staff member with the gun sure as fuck did. But of course you didn't hear about it because there's not a mainstream media explosion over it. Because it didn't have a devastating result. I FUCKING WONDER WHY.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> You cannot deny that there is a massive issue with policing and self defense in this country.
> 
> And what the hell proves to you that carrying a knife makes you more likely to be stabbed? That reminds me of all that propaganda about knives aimed at teens. It didn't work obviously.
> 
> ...



Guns owned by civilians make their way to the hands of crooks because civilians don't just use weapons for self defense. Their weapons get stolen and sold or sometimes guns are sold directly to people with bad intentions. 
Criminals end up with better arms, so people wanting to defend themselves purchase even better arms and gun cultures become cemented, as is the case in countries like the USA, in which you may purchase a gun for fear that all the nasty people have guns so you need to level the playing field. 

The solution, in my view, is to not start indulging in that cycle. 

The UK isn't a utopia, but it is better without guns, in my view. 

The police authority in questions said that guns wouldn't help, but I presume you wouldn't take their word for it. These events are rare, but imagine the outrage if front line policemen accidentally shot the wrong people, how many times more fierce it would be than when they pushed down an old man or tazed a man with a walking stick. Police officers are fallible too, so they shouldn't carry lethal force- only the trained specialists should.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> Guns owned by civilians make their way to the hands of crooks because civilians don't just use weapons for self defense. Their weapons get stolen and sold or sometimes guns are sold directly to people with bad intentions.
> Criminals end up with better arms, so people wanting to defend themselves purchase even better arms and gun cultures become cemented, as is the case in countries like the USA, in which you may purchase a gun for fear that all the nasty people have guns so you need to level the playing field.
> 
> The solution, in my view, is to not start indulging in that cycle.
> ...



Have you ever been mugged or threatened, Fallowfox?

Have you ever asked the police for help, where they did nothing?

You obviously have not, with how you give the same old shit you hear from every cosy priveliged middle-class UK citizen.

Lets see you get mugged someday, and then wish to yourself "I wish I could defend myself right here". May something happen to you that leaves you completely shit-scared for your personal wellbeing/life, and then come back here and tell me you wish that you could defend yourself effectively without risking a jail sentence, like we get in Great Shitain.

Like I said, you have the picture of a safe weaponless utopia in your head. It's not working now. It's not ever going to work later.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Have you ever been mugged or threatened, Fallowfox?
> 
> Have you ever asked the police for help, where they did nothing?
> 
> ...



I've only been threatened when I was in school and I haven't been mugged. 

My family has asked the police for help before, because our house was being vandalised. They did try to help but it didn't prevent the vandalism much of the time. My neighbour beat the vandals up with a plank of wood, so the vandals came back with chainsaws and chopped down all the fences. 

What I may have experienced, that you have not, is knowing one of my neighbours was shot dead when he opened the front door. 

I don't want to cause violence to escalate, so I don't carry weapons and I avoid carrying valuable things. If I am carrying something valuable I'd rather lose it than start fighting, whether or not you think that's cowardly and pathetic. There's enough aggression and it doesn't ever seem to cancel itself out.


----------



## Ley (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

This entire thread is fucking stupid.

Drugs aren't legal, yet crooks still get them. Cigs and Alchohol can still be obtained by teenagers. This is the same with guns. Guns, like every other harmful thing we legalize, are used responsibly by those who responsibly get them.

Like gibby said, have any of y'all ever been mugged? Threatened by rape? The only reason my mother didn't get raped and I killed was because she had a 9mm that she got legally. We lived in New York, which is one of the more rough places I can think of. If it wasn't for that gun, we wouldn't be here now. She turned it in before we moved out to El Paso because of her own reasons. She still wishes she had it- when she was being repeatedly raped on a nightly basis by my little sister's father. 

None of you people have ever had your lives threatened to be taken away from you, I'd bet. And if you had, change that gun to a knife, or any sharp object. Or a club. Just because you take something away, violence will NOT disappear. The same day of the Sandy Hook shootings? 30 something Chinese kids god stabbed to death. Taking away guns does absolutely fucking nothing.



Fallowfox said:


> I've only been threatened when I was in school and I haven't been mugged.
> 
> My family has asked the police for help before, because our house was  being vandalised. They did try to help but it didn't prevent the  vandalism much of the time. My neighbour beat the vandals up with a  plank of wood, so the vandals came back with chainsaws and chopped down  all the fences.
> 
> ...




This could be a perfect rape analogy, if I could articulate myself well enough for it. A woman can dress provocatively and she can still be raped- just because you take your measures to not carry valuables and to not proceed with violence, does not mean you will never be mugged. Muggers chose their victims at random. The oh so valiant police won't do shit in exactly five minutes. Someone has you cornered, beating the shit out of you because you didn't have anything? And you're not going to do anything? Or you see a woman being raped on a corner, you're gonna continue walking because you don't want the violence to escalate? The police does not nor will it ever do anything that even remotely helps, unless you have a picture of the son of a bitch who defiled that woman, or you.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> I've only been threatened when I was in school and I haven't been mugged.
> 
> My family has asked the police for help before, because our house was being vandalised. They did try to help but it didn't prevent the vandalism much of the time. My neighbour beat the vandals up with a plank of wood, so the vandals came back with chainsaws and chopped down all the fences.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry for what happened. I've been witness to this kind of thing more than once, and I have been involved. I can sympathise with you.

It doesn't need to happen.

But I cannot _possibly_ fathom why you wouldn't choose a way to defend yourself. When you get held at knife-point to give up all your money, your mugger has all the power in the world. You are defenseless. Hell, you're a _witness._ He can kill you because he doesn't want to be reported. He may let you live, and you can't report him because you don't "have enough evidence". He and his mates do it again and again and you can't put a stop to it.

But you could defend yourself.

But no. You and people like you have absolutely no sense. They get all emotional and reactionary when they hear about a shooting. They then bend over backwards to let the government take away ones rights and methods of self-defense. You're not even allowed pepper spray or a tazer or a hitting stick.

People like you, are complete fucking morons. People like you let this happen because of a stupid belief that bans actually make things safer, rather than thinking logically and protecting their natural right to preserve their lives and property. 

Because of all the spineless fucks in this country like yourself that would rather give up all their worldly posessions rather than man up and defend themselves because they're "pacifists", I feel really fucking ashamed to be on this mass of soil. Because everyone who has a voice or a shred of power in this country lacks a spine, the country is slowly but surely devolving into shit.


----------



## Recel (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

After reading six pages through this thread, I realised this whole "gun" "no gun" argument is still as pointless and stupid as ever. The same shit is flung from both sides, both trying to bandage the same problem, instead of thinking how to remove the problem.

Tho I guess it's no surprise. Humanity has a good tendency to duck-tape broken things so they will work for a couple more years. Broke again? Duck-tape it some more! Because actually finding out how to fix the shit is hard, so we label it "impossibru!" and call it a day!

Guns aren't the problem. As usual people are. Guns or no guns. So why on earth would you care about guns, if they aren't the problem? Oh, yeah, I just said it above. We slapped the label "imposibru!" on "fixing" people. Oh and don't come with the "Well, than how to fix people then?" stupid question. I don't know. But I know, if people would actually put as much thought, research and thinking into the problem, as they do into duck-taping it, we just might find a solution!
But it's not like that's going to happen, since it's somehow burned into peoples brain, that it's not something to even think about, because of said label. Well... if you don't think about it... how do you wish to find an actual answer?


So to sum it up, fix people, not the guns.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

'I sympathise with you, you complete fucking moron'. 

Furthermore there are no 'natural' rights, baring the laws of physics that allow my brief existance...what on earth is 'natural' rights meant to mean? 

Thanks to spineless fucks like me the amount of people being shot in this country is relatively low, is our murder rate in comparrison to other nations and crime rates aren't exponentially soaring into the air either. 

The situation where I am brutally and concurrently mugged is an unlikely one, awful as it is, and the wide ownership of weapons would result in more overal horror- we may prevent some muggings but then again some muggings will be at gun point rather than with knives etcetera.

In interest of some facts, in China 22 people were stabbed but not killed, as far as I am aware. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> 'I sympathise with you, you complete fucking moron'.
> 
> Furthermore there are no 'natural' rights, baring the laws of physics that allow my brief existance...what on earth is 'natural' rights meant to mean?
> 
> ...



In this country, you have little to no right to defend yourself.

Do you not see this?

Answer me now, would you rather get your arse stabbed? Or would you gun the fucker down instead?

No other choices than this. Just answer the question.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> In this country, you have little to no right to defend yourself.
> 
> Do you not see this?
> 
> ...



Tell me gibby, will you stop beating your wife? Yes or no please

You're asking a loaded question and saying 'this is the only one question of importance'. 

If that was the only question there'd be no cause for discussion, just as if 'do you like walking or driving?' were the only question in the discussion on how to limit greenhouse gas emissions.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

A big part of the problem is there's all these tragedies and blaming the one who carried it out just isn't enough. We all wanna know it's going to be okay and that it'll never happen again. It's not the easy access to guns that's the issue, there's hundreds of thousands of people with guns across the US and almost every one of them will never use that gun against another human being. But there's always that one crackpot that takes whatever is available and carries out an atrocity. It's disturbing to think that right now there's over 350 million time bombs in American society who, if pushed too far, could go just as bonkers and inflict just as much damage.

It's not the guns, they're just machines, it's always the person pulling the trigger.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> Tell me gibby, will you stop beating your wife? Yes or no please
> 
> You're asking a loaded question and saying 'this is the only one question of importance'.
> 
> If that was the only question there'd be no cause for discussion, just as if 'do you like walking or driving?' were the only question in the discussion on how to limit greenhouse gas emissions.



Hypothetically, if I was an abusive husband and I was aware that my hypothetical wife would shoot me dead if I laid a finger on her, I wouldn't do anything.

Anyway if you're just gonna dodge the question, I'm gonna have to assume that you don't believe in the right to self-defense.

Whelp, in that case I'm going to hope for you that nothing bad ever happens to you and you and your family and friends stay safe and unharmed and never come into a situation where you would hope to be able to defend yourself.

And if you ever get stabbed, I hope you have the luck of the chinese and survive.


----------



## Azure (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> A big part of the problem is there's all these tragedies and blaming the one who carried it out just isn't enough. We all wanna know it's going to be okay and that it'll never happen again. It's not the easy access to guns that's the issue, there's hundreds of thousands of people with guns across the US and almost every one of them will never use that gun against another human being. But there's always that one crackpot that takes whatever is available and carries out an atrocity. It's disturbing to think that right now there's over 350 million time bombs in American society who, if pushed too far, could go just as bonkers and inflict just as much damage.
> 
> It's not the guns, they're just machines, it's always the person pulling the trigger.


There are 10's of millions of people with licensed firearms. And so very very few of them commit crimes with them it's almost a joke. Illegal weapons are by and large the overwhelming progenitors of murder and violence in this country(and many others). And tightening controls on legal weapons is all fine and dandy, sure why not, but it WONT STOP ILLEGAL ARMS TRADERS. THEY DONT CARE ABOUT THE LAW. IT WILL MAKE THEIR BUSINESS THAT MUCH MORE PROFITABLE THUS GIVING THEM MORE POWER. Or whatever. You may as well make the argument that people knowing martial arts are at a larger risk for beating people up, therefore people should all be padded and fat and docile because physically fit people are DANGEROUS MURDERS.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Hypothetically, if I was an abusive husband and I was aware that my hypothetical wife would shoot me dead if I laid a finger on her, I wouldn't do anything.
> 
> Anyway if you're just gonna dodge the question, I'm gonna have to assume that you don't believe in the right to self-defense.
> 
> ...



Of course I would prefer to kill than be killed, that's obvious to the point that the rhetoric is redundant. 

The problem is that you're trying to represent an entire matter through one piece of straw rhetoric.*

The same sloppy logic can be used in justification of _any _concern or cause, so why is it useful to explore this?

For example 'would you rather live next to a nuclear power plant or not?'
'would you rather die on a medical waiting list or not?


----------



## Calemeyr (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Are you expecting the Vietcong to come banging at your door in the middle of the night? No? Then you don't need that semi automatic assault rifle with a 100 round magazine. Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine for hunting, same with handguns for home defense. No conceal carry though, and guns should be kept in safes and not given to families with members with mental illness.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> Of course I would prefer to kill than be killed, that's obvious to the point that the rhetoric is redundant.



So then why the hell do you not back up the right to defend yourself? Ridiculous, I say.



Marcus Stormchaser said:


> Are you expecting the Vietcong to come banging at your door in the middle of the night? No? Then you don't need that semi automatic assault rifle with a 100 round magazine. Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine for hunting, same with handguns for home defense. No conceal carry though, and guns should be kept in safes and not given to families with members with mental illness.



Arguments for conceal-carry have already been posted so much it's not even funny.

Also if anyone makes it illegal for someone to own a very expensive sports car that can reach 250 MPH, then I'm sure everyone else will comply with not being allowed to own an expensive gun as part of their collection for when they go out for a day at the range.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> So then why the hell do you not back up the right to defend yourself? Ridiculous, I say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't treat the entire matter as if it's consolidated in just one question. 

I might feel more empowered carrying around a lethal weapon, but if large numbers of us could I might not like the culture that would emerge as a result.

Similarly I don't like the idea of living next to a nuclear power plant. It irks me eventhough I know a coal plant is actually more radioactive. 
However I support nuclear power because I understand the myriad benefits it has rather than the drawback a single question is designed to highlight.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I'm still waiting to hear an argument as to how one cannot even attempt to defend themselves with Chemical Mace, Tasers, Stunprods, Riot Prods, etcetera... that does not immediately apply to guns.

I find what's being said particularly alarming as many times the people arguing this won't even go half the yard to say "I think gun restriction is silly, but self-defense weapons should use rubber and other slightly-less-lethal munitions if meant purely to defend oneself". Nope, apparently - for a lot of people - it's only a valid self-defense if it has the risk of _instantaneously killing what you feel is threatening you_.

Half the arguments here against nigh-unregulated firearms have been "Dude, you can still defend yourself, just go for less lethal methods", though most of the counter-arguments I've seen thrown back are "SO YOU THINK WE SHOULD LET THE CRIMINALS WIN?! ROLL OVER AND DIE?" Hell, some of the people in here like to think themselves something of an entrepreneur. Idea: Start up a business that sells "less-lethal" firearm alternatives that generally have the same psychological impact (as I doubt a would-be mugger is going to bother to spend five minutes to evaluate the risk-reward ratio as to whether you have 9mm or rubbers), are just as good at putting people down (unless people want to say that their police and military forces are woefully under-equipped when issued such ammunition), but tend _not_ to rake a high body-count as easily.

The number of people arguing "Self defense is only self defense when you can immediately, with a single unconscious twitch of your finger, make anyone you feel threatened by cease to exist" is _terrifying_.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> I don't treat the entire matter as if it's consolidated in just one question.
> 
> I might feel more empowered carrying around a lethal weapon, but if large numbers of us could I might not like the culture that would emerge as a result.
> 
> ...



Compared to a culture where we have places in england where the police blatantly refuse to go to, what would be so bad about the change?

That everybody is carrying? Sure, people get ahold of guns easier. Bad stuff can come out of that, but people and the police are equipped to deal with it now.

People carry _openly_ in Switzerland, and people there are generally very polite and respectful to one another. The range shoots are social events that very many people take part in. Also people have job opportunities and a new skill set that's in demand that you don't get in most places. You can do things that are good, such as teaching and encouraging safety around firearms, fixing/restoring old/damaged equipment, organising social target shoots, competitions, that kinda thing.

An organised shoot is a _lovely_ thing. If you haven't been to one, I highly recommend it. People are extremely responsible with and safe around their gear. The people you see there are generally knowledgeable, helpful, and quite friendly.

It's not a bunch of nutters who demand bloodshed. It's a legitimate hobby with a lot of depth and fun involved.

But the criminals who get guns are using them to, well, help them in their crimes. And the people who have guns legally and snap is a problem not really related to guns at all, as TA has pointed out.

Of course you think guns are bad. After all, here, it's usually the "bad" people who are packing them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

In switzerland conscription is mandatory and their gun homicide rate is much higher than the UK's. Switzerland has it's _own_ problems.


----------



## Azure (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> I'm still waiting to hear an argument as to how one cannot even attempt to defend themselves with Chemical Mace, Tasers, Stunprods, Riot Prods, etcetera... that does not immediately apply to guns.


Because in most states, tasers, stunprods, knives OVER 3 INCHES, expandable batons and the like are also ILLEGAL to carry, or require a license. And many of them are much weaker versions than what the police use. And pretty much all of them are nothing compared to a gun being held on you and will not remove the threat nearly as effectively. You can't simply take guns out of the equation because it pleases you to do so, they are a real factor and happen ALL THE TIME. We can theorize about it all day long, but the fact remains that the gun will always be the final word in self defense as long as the remain legal to carry or are obtainable illegally. Also, getting maced is a joke and doesn't hurt very much.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> In switzerland conscription is mandatory and their gun homicide rate is much higher than the UK's. Switzerland has it's _own_ problems.



Gun homicides, yes.

Homicides overall, no. UK is in fact the highest in the EU. We're the violent crime capital of europe.

Also what about mass killings? We still have those in the UK. The last Swiss one was in 2001.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Gun homicides, yes.
> 
> Homicides overall, no. UK is in fact the highest in the EU. We're the violent crime capital of europe.
> 
> Also what about mass killings? We still have those in the UK. The last Swiss one was in 2001.



British population > swiss population

Frequency of horrific mass-crimes in britain > frequency of horrific mass-crimes in switzerland


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> British population > swiss population
> 
> Frequency of horrific mass-crimes in britain > frequency of horrific mass-crimes in switzerland



So you admit that murder is a problem in the UK still anyway.

So why not defend oneself?

Banning shit will make no change. It was tried with alcohol and drugs all over the place and it really does not work. 

Hell, germany has more lax gun laws than the UK (as in it's possible to conceal-carry and own a wider variety of firearms legally), has way more people living in it, and its homicide rate is still lower.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Azure said:


> Because in most states, tasers, stunprods, knives OVER 3 INCHES, expandable batons and the like are also ILLEGAL to carry, or require a license.


 Wouldn't this be an argument to replace firearm availability with tasers, stunprods, etcetera? Or, hell, even just decree "All firearms are chill, but for self defense purposes one may only use rubber bullets / beanbags / etc"? I mean, even in home defense, if you shoot someone in the sternum with a beanbag they aren't going to be in any position whatsoever to chase after you as you call the cops. And if they are sufficiently armored to protect against such things, just what sort of firepower are you expecting to leave sitting around at home that'll suddenly invalidate said armor? 



Azure said:


> And many of them are much weaker versions than what the police use.


 Again, this is arguments to _increase the availability of other, non-lethal defense weapons_, not to make firearms more readily available / prevent any sort of regulation.



Azure said:


> And pretty much all of them are nothing compared to a gun being held on you and will not remove the threat nearly as effectively.


 If you mean "permanently", then yeah. :V And again, why don't I see you arguing for rubber bullets then? I don't think most criminals are going to stop and ask you if the bullets in your gun are of the extra-lethal or probably-lethal flavor.



Azure said:


> You can't simply take guns out of the equation because it pleases you to do so, they are a real factor and happen ALL THE TIME. We can theorize about it all day long, but the fact remains that the gun will always be the final word in self defense as long as the remain legal to carry or are obtainable illegally.


 They are not, however, the only means. Or do people think that before the existence of handcannons the concept of defending oneself did not exist (and thus that the common response to being mugged in, say, 1300 CE was to hand over all your valuables, invite the mugger home, and hand them everything else you own)?


----------



## badlands (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

the general public here are paranoid about guns, partly due to the media that reports every other country's gun crimes as well as our own.

although i do think carrying guns on your person everyday would not be a good idea (particularly with our drinking culture), the gun laws over here are too strict.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> So you admit that murder is a problem in the UK still anyway.
> 
> So why not defend oneself?
> 
> ...



Of course murder is a problem here, it's a problem in all nations with significantly large populations. 

Banning weapons seems to have made a change to the number of gun crimes in the UK, which have been greatly diminished in comparison to other nations. 
Our overall murder rate is similar to comparable european countries- better than some and worse than others, within the usual degrees of deviation they have. 

By the way you earlier claimed the UK was the homicide capital of the eu. The map you posted says it's not. France, Romania, Poland, Finland etc all have higher homicide rates. Why did you make a claim that was* blatantly untrue?*


----------



## Azure (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> Wouldn't this be an argument to replace firearm availability with tasers, stunprods, etcetera? Or, hell, even just decree "All firearms are chill, but for self defense purposes one may only use rubber bullets / beanbags / etc"? I mean, even in home defense, if you shoot someone in the sternum with a beanbag they aren't going to be in any position whatsoever to chase after you as you call the cops. And if they are sufficiently armored to protect against such things, just what sort of firepower are you expecting to leave sitting around at home that'll suddenly invalidate said armor?


There are many varieties of bullet that will penetrate body armor, and in those sorts of cases you were obviously looking for trouble. I never made any arguments for rubber bullets or beanbags because those can be used to deal fatal damage if used in a sufficient manner. Just as a taser can be equally used to repeatedly shock a victim into cardiac arrest, all weapons can be used to kill, therefore invalidating the less than lethal argument quite easily in cases of murder or self defense. You may as well outlaw heavy rocks, or give them to everyone :v. And all the fake bullets, beanbags, stunguns, tasers, and gravity knives will never be able to take back a single real bullet, or replace its stopping power, lethal or no. When my life is potentially on the line, I'd not like to GUESS or HOPE that what I have will work, I want to KNOW it will. If you've ever been in even remote danger, you will appreciate the power of SURETY. If they didn't want to get shot, shouldn't have started shit to make me do it, right?



Attaman said:


> They are not, however, the only means. Or do people think that before the existence of handcannons the concept of defending oneself did not exist (and thus that the common response to being mugged in, say, 1300 CE was to hand over all your valuables, invite the mugger home, and hand them everything else you own)?


Before we had guns, we had swords and knives, and the victims usually died or were mauled terribly. It is an incompatible situation to compare the prowess with the blade to the relative ease of use of a firearm as a self defense weapon. No dice. The firearm has been invented. It can never be taken back. Until they invent something better or more destructive and easier to use, it will be a defacto item both for people to commit crime with and defend themselves with. Deal w/it.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> Of course murder is a problem here, it's a problem in all nations with significantly large populations.
> 
> Banning weapons seems to have made a change to the number of gun crimes in the UK, which have been greatly diminished in comparison to other nations.
> Our overall murder rate is similar to comparable european countries, within the usual degrees of deviation they have.
> ...



Oh pardon me, I was distracted by many other news headlines saying the same thing. _Apologies._

And yeah, there was a change in gun crime after the ban. An increase. Look it up.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Oh pardon me, I was distracted by many other news headlines saying the same thing. _Apologies._
> 
> And yeah, there was a change in gun crime after the ban. An increase. Look it up.



After the ban there was a momentary increase followed by a long term decline. 

You're doing the equivalent of arguing that the pole isn't melting because between september and december there was an increase in arctic sea ice.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> After the ban there was a momentary increase followed by a long term decline.
> 
> You're doing the equivalent of arguing that the pole isn't melting because between september and december there was an increase in arctic sea ice.



Yes, there was an increase, a slight decrease, and then a massive increase in knife crime.

Why?

Cos citizens can't defend themselves. Police can't deal with shit.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Lets see Im shooting rubber bullets and the other guy is shooting real bullets.  I pull my tazer, prod, etc. he has a gun.  Why bother.  Oh ya that's the whole agenda.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Azure said:


> There are many varieties of bullet that will penetrate body armor, and in those sorts of cases you were obviously looking for trouble.


 Which is something of my point. The average person preparing themselves for self-defense generally won't be looking to defend themselves from someone like the Aurora shooter. Hell, if using a firearm, they'll be lucky if the police show up and it turns out the robber / invader / mugger actually had a firearm on them instead of something like a switchblade (or, worse, only the tool they used to break-and-enter in the case of a home-invader / -robber).



Azure said:


> I never made any arguments for rubber bullets or beanbags because those can be used to deal fatal damage if used in a sufficient manner.


 This is true, yes. There is generally no non-lethal firearm alternative. However, there's a difference between going "I'm more focused on defending myself than anything else", and "Fuck it, I'm going Rambo, just try to mug me motherfucka". So far we've been hearing a lot of the latter in the thread more than the former (and I don't want to hear certain someones saying I'm twisting their words: If you feel the only way to defend yourself is via lethal force, you're already admitting that you're carrying the firearm around with the intent of ending someone with it, if pre-emptively before they might threaten you).



Azure said:


> therefore invalidating the less than lethal argument quite easily in cases of murder or self defense.


 "Well, you see, most self-defense methods can be lethal if used poorly / unfortunate. Ergo, we might as well skip the "used poorly / unfortunate" and escalate straight to "shoot to kill"." You don't see the problem with this?



Azure said:


> And all the fake bullets, beanbags, stunguns, tasers, and gravity knives *will never be able to take back a single real bullet*, or replace its stopping power, lethal or no.


 So you're arguing for the use of more of those real bullets... why?



Azure said:


> When my life is potentially on the line, I'd not like to GUESS or HOPE that what I have will work,


So you're saying "Yes, I do think Riot Squads, Military Forces, and Police Officers issued beanbag and rubber ammunition are woefully under equipped for their task". Good to know.



Azure said:


> I want to KNOW it will.


 Again we return to "I want to KNOW I will murder someone".



Azure said:


> If you've ever been in even remote danger, you will appreciate the power of SURETY. If they didn't want to get shot, shouldn't have started shit to make me do it, right?


 And if you shoot someone who, say, was innocent? Maybe waving an empty gun hoping you didn't call their bluff? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. Self Defense is intended to be the "Get out of murder free" card, and someone who is defending themselves would never make a mistake in the stress of the moment or escalate the situation. Only the attacker can ever be at fault for anything that goes wrong.

Oh, yeah, and inb4 "Blaming the victim!" is cried by someone who isn't even reading what the fuck is being said here (fun fact: You can't cry "Blaming the victim!" at the same time as arguing "He deserved it / had it coming!" without being a hypocrite).



Azure said:


> Before we had guns, we had swords and knives, and the victims usually died or were mauled terribly.


 Which never happens now, obviously. And obviously self-defense never worked back then either. 



Azure said:


> No dice. The firearm has been invented. It can never be taken back. Until they invent something better or more destructive and easier to use, it will be a defacto item both for people to commit crime with and defend themselves with. Deal w/it.


 ... You just explicitly said "more destructive and easier to use" equates directly to effectiveness at self-defense. _Get psychiatric help._

For fucks sake FAF, you're doing a terrible job of convincing me that a lot of you are sane, rational individuals and should be let anywhere near a lethal weapon.



cobalt-blue said:


> Lets see Im shooting rubber bullets and the other guy is shooting real bullets.  I pull my tazer, prod, etc. he has a gun.  Why bother.  Oh ya that's the whole agenda.


Dare I ask what you think this "whole agenda" is? I'm also, once more, keen on hearing why you think someone with a gun pointed at you won't try shooting if they think you're pulling out a gun of your own, but will if they think you're pulling out something less lethal. I mean, logically, wouldn't they be more likely to shoot you then?


----------



## Azure (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> Which is something of my point. The average person preparing themselves for self-defense generally won't be looking to defend themselves from someone like the Aurora shooter. Hell, if using a firearm, they'll be lucky if the police show up and it turns out the robber / invader / mugger actually had a firearm on them instead of something like a switchblade (or, worse, only the tool they used to break-and-enter in the case of a home-invader / -robber).


There is a reasonable expectation to be able defend your person or family. If the robber has a switchblade and I pull a gun on him, they aren't going to be in any position to negotiate anything away from my residence besides a police wagon. Nowhere did I say I was going to blast the fucker. However, if they have a firearm, and I have a knife, and they want to kill me, looks like I'm fucked. The same goes for guns with rubber bullets. It is not an equal playing field. And this isn't an argument to make firearms LESS AVAILABLE, because the laws of our country make that utterly impossible, and I don't indulge in impossibilities.


Attaman said:


> This is true, yes. There is generally no non-lethal firearm alternative. However, there's a difference between going "I'm more focused on defending myself than anything else", and "Fuck it, I'm going Rambo, just try to mug me motherfucka". So far we've been hearing a lot of the latter in the thread more than the former (and I don't want to hear certain someones saying I'm twisting their words: If you feel the only way to defend yourself is via lethal force, you're already admitting that you're carrying the firearm around with the intent of ending someone with it, if pre-emptively before they might threaten you).


So you agree that non-lethal is a misnomer. Thank you. And so what if people "go Rambo"? If a weapon is legal, then it is legal. At the end of the day, it's still just a gun. The person behind it and their intent to use it is what matters so much more. What makes you think I can't go around killing people with a taser and a knife in tandem, shocking them and then puncturing an artery? It'd be quite easy, in fact, and a lot quieter than a gun. And you want to make them widely available? You are a murderer for such thoughts. See how ASININE that argument is? 



Attaman said:


> "Well, you see, most self-defense methods can be lethal if used poorly / unfortunate. Ergo, we might as well skip the "used poorly / unfortunate" and escalate straight to "shoot to kill"." You don't see the problem with this?


There is NO OTHER WAY TO SHOOT. Ask any police officer. Nobody shoots to WOUND. Do you not grasp this? Or are you busy making up the escalation of force to suit your needs. Every situation is different, and the only tool that can address them all with the ultimate intent being perserving ones life is a gun. Do you want to risk your life on the malicious intentions of another person? 



Attaman said:


> So you're arguing for the use of more of those real bullets... why?


They are a de-motivator. If a criminal knows I only have rubber bullets, he's just gonna lock and load real ones and laugh in my face when I pull my gun because he knows its not gonna kill him. Ergo, FEAR that I can defend myself will make them think twice about doing it at all.



Attaman said:


> So you're saying "Yes, I do think Riot Squads, Military Forces, and Police Officers issued beanbag and rubber ammunition are woefully under equipped for their task". Good to know.


No, not at all, you are very good at shoving words in my mouth. The above issued are given out in strategic preparation for large scale efforts, not as personal defense weapons, and are used by people who are recognized as the authority of law against groups of UNARMED PEOPLE. And they still carry their regular firearms as a means of deterring people who have brought real weapons to the fight.



Attaman said:


> Again we return to "I want to KNOW I will murder someone".


Again with the word shoving. How do you know they won't MURDER YOU? Willing to stake your life on a rubber bullet? Of course this is all assuming there is sufficient provocation for me to discharge a weapon legally, which, with proper training, will be apparent to all firearm users. 



Attaman said:


> And if you shoot someone who, say, was innocent? Maybe waving an empty gun hoping you didn't call their bluff? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. Self Defense is intended to be the "Get out of murder free" card, and someone who is defending themselves would never make a mistake in the stress of the moment or escalate the situation. Only the attacker can ever be at fault for anything that goes wrong.


A person who pulls a gun that is not loaded and aims it at you has already created enough provocation to be shot by a police officer, so why not a private citizen. What a shitty example. Self defense has pretty stringent legal tenets, it's not as if you can just muck about in the street waiting for somebody to look at you funny and then shoot them claiming self defense. It simply doesn't work that way, and this line of argument holds no water logically.




Attaman said:


> Which never happens now, obviously. And obviously self-defense never worked back then either.


My point stands that TRAINING had everything to do with it back then. As it does now, as millions of firearms owners know in the courses they go through to obtain their permit and they are exposed to all the legalities of owning a firearm and their appropriate use and misuses. 



Attaman said:


> ... You just explicitly said "more destructive and easier to use" equates directly to effectiveness at self-defense. _Get psychiatric help._
> 
> For fucks sake FAF, you're doing a terrible job of convincing me that a lot of you are sane, rational individuals and should be let anywhere near a lethal weapon.


Yes, because convenience is king. It's simply the nature of the firearm to be destructive and easy to use, it was INVENTED THAT WAY. It doesn't make it evil. And nice ad hominem, but you aren't dazzling me with anything here besides your ability to create a bad argument. Anything can become a lethal weapon, it is the nature of the person who wields it that defines it lethality.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> How about fuck you, I'd rather not get my ass stabbed.



How about fuck you, I'd rather not get my ass stabbed OR shot by some criminal OR wanna-be vigilante who either made a genuine mistake in target identification or was deliberately aiming for my arse (like the Zimmerman guy who shot Trayvon Martin whose only apparent "crime" was "walking while black") and planned to wave "Self-defence!" as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

And as far as whether I've ever been mugged or not, the answer is no - and that INCLUDES living for six months in Manila, where not only are guns advertised as "a perfect Valentines Day present", _there's security guards with shotguns on every third shop doorway in Makati City_ and security guards at banks carry fucking _Armalites _(or equivalent). And before someone claims this as a justification for carrying guns, I want to point out that these are _professionals_ who were having to defend their property etc against _fucking armed civilians._

Frankly, I was less worried about my safety over six months in the Philippines then I was for one _hour_ in Watts County, Los Angeles.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Azure said:


> Self defense has pretty stringent legal tenets, it's not as if you can just muck about in the street waiting for somebody to look at you funny and then shoot them claiming self defense.



Yeah, right.



> While in his vehicle on a personal errand, Zimmerman noticed Martin walking inside the community. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's behavior as suspicious, stating that Martin was "cutting in-between houses...walking very leisurely for the [rainy] weather" and "looking at all the houses". *According to a police report, "there is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter". *While still on the phone with the police dispatcher, Zimmerman left his vehicle. After the phone call concluded, there was a violent encounter between Martin and Zimmerman. The encounter ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin once in the chest at close range.
> 
> When police arrived on the scene, Zimmerman told them that Martin had attacked him and that he had shot Martin in self-defense.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 23, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Azure said:


> There is a reasonable expectation to be able defend your person or family. If the robber has a switchblade and I pull a gun on him, they aren't going to be in any position to negotiate anything away from my residence besides a police wagon.


 The same generally applies if you have a baseball bat, mace (as in the club), sword, pointy stick longer than they can reach, etcetera. 



Azure said:


> Nowhere did I say I was going to blast the fucker.


 No, you just directly equated the immediate lethality of a weapon to its effectiveness as a self-defense tool. 



Azure said:


> However, if they have a firearm, and I have a knife, and they want to kill me, looks like I'm fucked. The same goes for guns with rubber bullets. It is not an equal playing field.
> [...]
> There is NO OTHER WAY TO SHOOT. Ask any police officer. Nobody shoots to WOUND. Do you not grasp this? Or are you busy making up the escalation of force to suit your needs. Every situation is different, and the only tool that can address them all with the ultimate intent being perserving ones life is a gun. Do you want to risk your life on the malicious intentions of another person?
> [...]
> See how ASININE that argument is?


Evidently you don't, as rubber bullets are in this quantum state wherein they're just "not lethal enough" to be a piss-poor defense weapon (and dramatically less effective for self-defense than non-rubber bullets), but are more than lethal enough to be considered a dangerous escalation and make someone to have equal intent at killing someone.

Oh, also, nice job _not reading my fucking posts_.



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Damn post skippy
> 
> ... My god, you don't even know basic firearms safety.
> 
> ...





			
				Also me said:
			
		

> Look for that Last Edited
> 
> "I think gun restriction is silly, but self-defense weapons should use rubber and other *slightly-less-lethal* munitions if meant purely to defend oneself"





			
				A third for good measure said:
			
		

> Obviously I edited these in after the fact
> 
> And again, why don't I see you arguing for rubber bullets then? I don't think most criminals are going to stop and ask you if the bullets in your gun are of the *extra-lethal or probably-lethal flavor*.


Evidently I always thought that rubber bullets and beanbags and the like were magical salves that cure all wounds, and the thought never even entered my mind that they could still very probably kill someone. :V

For fucks sake, how bad is it when your argument to defend guns is so win-at-all-costs that you're willing to vilify someone for suggesting _bullets marginally less likely to be murderous_. 




Azure said:


> The person behind it and their intent to use it is what matters so much more.


 Oh, alright. Then you admit that they purposefully want to murder someone because they specifically went out of their way to make sure they carried the most lethal varieties of ammunition they could, and would trade up to a more lethal weapon should it be feasible?



Azure said:


> They are a de-motivator. If a criminal knows I only have rubber bullets, he's just gonna lock and load real ones and laugh in my face when I pull my gun because *he knows its not gonna kill him*.


 Your inability to keep giving consistent answers would be *absolutely hilarious* if it wasn't so *terrifyingly horrific*.



Azure said:


> No, not at all, you are very good at shoving words in my mouth.


 Shown: A brave poster digging beneath the surface of Azure's post.



Azure said:


> And they still carry their regular firearms as a means of deterring people who have brought real weapons to the fight.


 It does me good to hear that police never, ever use anything less than 100% "Go in Hot" lethal force against someone armed with something more dangerous than a soda bottle. Oh, wait, no it doesn't. Hrm, something sounds funny here too. Now, it might just be me and my seemingly insane train of thought, but I don't think police are expected to immediately enact Order 66 the moment they hear someone's carrying a "real" weapon. In fact, I'm fairly certain there's an entire review panel dedicated to determining whether an officer was or wasn't justified whenever they use lethal force.



Azure said:


> Again with the word shoving. How do you know they won't MURDER YOU?


 "You brought this on yourself."



Azure said:


> Willing to stake your life on a rubber bullet? Of course this is all assuming there is sufficient provocation for me to discharge a weapon legally, which, with proper training, will be apparent to all firearm users.


 If only someone in here had been advocating proper training and firearm safety education since the very start of the thread... oh _wait a fucking minute_.



Azure said:


> A person who pulls a gun that is not loaded and aims it at you has already created enough provocation to be shot by a police officer, so why not a private citizen.


 Be the Hero, Walker.



Azure said:


> What a shitty example. Self defense has pretty stringent legal tenets, it's not as if you can just muck about in the street waiting for somebody to look at you funny and then shoot them claiming self defense. It simply doesn't work that way, and this line of argument holds no water logically.


 Remember folks, arguing that self-defense isn't worth the effort / a joke unless you go for maximum lethality (and compare an object's effectiveness for self-defense directly with how readily it is able to take someone's life in a short period of time) is a logical train of thought, but arguing that self-defense is predominantly about keeping yourself safe and defending oneself is an illogical one that holds no water.



Azure said:


> My point stands that TRAINING had everything to do with it back then. As it does now, as millions of firearms owners know in the courses they go through to obtain their permit and they are exposed to all the legalities of owning a firearm and their appropriate use and misuses.


 Which is why so many of these reasonable firearm owners clawed overtop one another to use Aurora as a rallying cry for the need of concealed carry, despite the fact that these rational individuals - in some cases separated from the incident by hundreds of miles, and with all the facts available to them post-fact - were essentially arguing for panicking, half-blinded people in a crowded theatre to start drawing and shooting at someone wearing body armor?



Azure said:


> And nice ad hominem,


 No, seriously, like I suggested a few pages back to another poster, get psychiatric help.


----------



## Azure (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> The same generally applies if you have a baseball bat, mace (as in the club), sword, pointy stick longer than they can reach, etcetera.


Prove it. Imagine a scenario in which a robber has a gun and you have a pointy stick. Win that one with just your wits, eh?



Attaman said:


> No, you just directly equated the immediate lethality of a weapon to its effectiveness as a self-defense tool.


And? 



Attaman said:


> Evidently you don't, as rubber bullets are in this quantum state wherein they're just "not lethal enough" to be a piss-poor defense weapon (and dramatically less effective for self-defense than non-rubber bullets), but are more than lethal enough to be considered a dangerous escalation and make someone to have equal intent at killing someone.


How bout that body armor, eh? Or maybe somebody who just doesn't respond to a single rubber bullet because to get any more than one downrange you'd need an automatic. Also, I didn't read your posts earlier in the thread, so fuck all that other shit you wrote, it's not what we're talking about.



Attaman said:


> Evidently I always thought that rubber bullets and beanbags and the like were magical salves that cure all wounds, and the thought never even entered my mind that they could still very probably kill someone. :V


Awesome, great job, your point?



Attaman said:


> Oh, alright. Then you admit that they purposefully want to murder someone because they specifically went out of their way to make sure they carried the most lethal varieties of ammunition they could, and would trade up to a more lethal weapon should it be feasible?


Once again, your point IS?



Attaman said:


> It does me good to hear that police never, ever use anything less than 100% "Go in Hot" lethal force against someone armed with something more dangerous than a soda bottle. Oh, wait, no it doesn't. Hrm, something sounds funny here too. Now, it might just be me and my seemingly insane train of thought, but I don't think police are expected to immediately enact Order 66 the moment they hear someone's carrying a "real" weapon. In fact, I'm fairly certain there's an entire review panel dedicated to determining whether an officer was or wasn't justified whenever they use lethal force.


Yes clearly all police are trained to kill everyone in the area with rubber bullets once the catch wind of somebody with a knife longer than 3 inches. Or are you just being purposefully obtuse in reading what I wrote?



Attaman said:


> Remember folks, arguing that self-defense isn't worth the effort / a joke unless you go for maximum lethality (and compare an object's effectiveness for self-defense directly with how readily it is able to take someone's life in a short period of time) is a logical train of thought, but arguing that self-defense is predominantly about keeping yourself safe and defending oneself is an illogical one that holds no water.


Yes, every single gun is a .50 caliber elephant rifle aimed directly at ones balls. Or are you ignoring my earlier argument about escalation of force and the reality of the situation that GUNS EXIST AND PEOPLE HAVE THEM. And that pulling out a knife or a taser in the face of a gun is gonna get you KILLED. And that staking your life on the mercy of another is a fools errand. Or anything else I didn't cover that is utterly unrealistic to expect people to place themselves in. You talk as if every single gun owner is a rabidly murderous person who is just  ready to kill anybody. Prove this without any anecdotal bullshit evidence or guff talk.



Attaman said:


> Which is why so many of these reasonable firearm owners clawed overtop one another to use Aurora as a rallying cry for the need of concealed carry, despite the fact that these rational individuals - in some cases separated from the incident by hundreds of miles, and with all the facts available to them post-fact - were essentially arguing for panicking, half-blinded people in a crowded theatre to start drawing and shooting at someone wearing body armor?


Sounds like some shit that didn't happen, so I've nothing to say. We can cherry pick any sort of situation we please to stack the odd and prove absolutely nothing at all. 


Attaman said:


> No, seriously, like I suggested a few pages back to another poster, get psychiatric help.


Get that sissy chip off of your shoulder and quit making assumptions by the actions of the vocal few speaking for a vast majority of people who own guns in peace and protection.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Azure said:


> Prove it. Imagine a scenario in which a robber has a gun and you have a pointy stick. Win that one with just your wits, eh?


 Haha, oh man. I explicitly refer to the scenario involving the robber having a switchblade, you tell me to prove that it works when the robber has a gun. Your ability to debate is _terrible_.



Azure said:


> And?


 The implication is rather strong, especially with future comments about how a gun is never safe and intent is what matters, that while you didn't explicitly _state_ you are going to shoot them, there's a favored course of action.



Azure said:


> How bout that body armor, eh?


 I'm sorry sir, but if we're going to have this debate you're going to have to make a consistent argument. Are you saying that rubber bullets are still more-than-lethal and that "in those sorts of cases you were obviously looking for trouble"? Are they (rubber bullets) back to being worth diddly with deadliest-gun being best-gun thanks to convenience?



Azure said:


> Or maybe somebody who just doesn't respond to a single rubber bullet because to get any more than one downrange you'd need an automatic. Also, I didn't read your posts earlier in the thread, so fuck all that other shit you wrote, it's not what we're talking about.


I can post a screenshot of you directly quoting both the more recent posts wherein I comment that I recognize rubber bullets and beanbags are less-than-safe. What is up with debaters on FAF the last few years forgetting that someone can _read old posts_ and that _there are time stamps_? This isn't rocket surgery. If you're trying to cover your ass, at least try to do so with a smidge of effort.

Also, I'm curious to hear about this mythical mugger who is just far enough away that you only have enough time to draw and shoot a single shot at random before they hit you... but suddenly against non-rubber bullets is defeated with you as Hero of Imperium / Free People.



Azure said:


> Awesome, great job, your point?


That if you're going to try discrediting my, try not to be so blatantly lying about what I'm saying. 



Azure said:


> Once again, your point IS?


 That it's no longer self-defense, by your own AND legal definitions no less, and that such a person should be tried for manslaughter / murder instead of written off as self-defense? Which also, kinda, kills a bit of your point that these are:
1) Reasonable firearm users (hint: Reasonable firearm users do not commit murder)
2) That murder is predominantly going to be done via illegally possessed firearms (since you're talking about people practicing legal self-carry)



Azure said:


> Yes clearly all police are trained to kill everyone in the area with rubber bullets once the catch wind of somebody with a knife longer than 3 inches. Or are you just being purposefully obtuse in reading what I wrote?


 You claim me to being purposefully obtuse, then when I answer "Police don't escalate to live ammunition and shoot-to-kill every single time they think there might be a weapon" you reply with... "LOL U THINK ALL POLICE ARE TRAINED TO KILL WIFF RUBBA BOOLETS / THAT WHAT I CLAIM?"

Again Azure, you trying to debate your point is like if a defense lawyer tried to protect their client by constantly shouting "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA".



Azure said:


> And that pulling out a knife or a taser in the face of a gun is gonna get you KILLED.


 Now if you start pulling out a gun when someone has a gun aimed at you, they're going to suddenly fail their Fear aura check, forget about their own weapon, drop it, and beg for mercy from Ubermensch Concealed Carrier. Unless it has Rubber Bullets, which they'll know automatically and then get +20 to their saving throw before pumping you with lead (or even rubber bullets, because while not scary enough to intimidate them they're still more than lethal unless being wielded by a responsible firearm owner in which case they're spitballs).



Azure said:


> And that staking your life on the mercy of another is a fools errand.


 Case in point: Trayvon Martin. :V You know what could have prevented that terrible incident? Conceal carry.



Azure said:


> You talk as if every single gun owner is a rabidly murderous person who is just  ready to kill anybody.


 No, I talk as if you're bugfuck nuts because you are and believe that the correct to response to "Mugger draws knife on you" is "Wave a loaded gun in their face, but don't worry it won't accidentally discharge because it never happens and obviously you don't intend to hurt them despite waving the lethal object in their face."



Azure said:


> Prove this without any anecdotal bullshit evidence or guff talk.


 Uh, prove what? The posts in this thread that people can (and, if up to this point, no doubt are / have) read _right now_? That reasonable firearm owners were clambering over Aurora, in which case I can pretty much scum any news article in relation to the shooting and Ctrl+F "Concealed Carry" in the comments / pull up some TV Interviews and Opinionaries? That every single gun owner is a rabidly murderous person, which is something that I never claimed and - much like your first comment - is basically an attempt at baiting me to debate something I never said? 



Azure said:


> Sounds like some shit that didn't happen,


 "Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?" You're at Karl Rove levels of denial right now. Just walk away Walker, there's another choice.



Azure said:


> Get that sissy chip off of your shoulder and quit making assumptions by the actions of the vocal few speaking for a vast majority of people who own guns in peace and protection.


"There's a slim chance that your mugger might be in a situation that rubber bullets are absolutely worthless, so we must escalate to the biggest and bestest weapons."
"There's a slim number of gun owners who are batshit nuts, but doing anything other than tolerating their existence is a heavy-handed overreaction and escalation."


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Ley said:


> This entire thread is fucking stupid.
> 
> Drugs aren't legal, yet crooks still get them. Cigs and Alchohol can still be obtained by teenagers. This is the same with guns. Guns, like every other harmful thing we legalize, are used responsibly by those who responsibly get them.


So, you say if we legalized meth somehow people would consume it in a "responsible" way? I can't really follow your reasoning here.

It's true, of course, that certain criminals can obtain said drugs, *BUT* only so in considerably less quantities by a considerably less number of criminals than if they were legalized. Same goes for guns.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> Dare I ask what you think this "whole agenda" is?



The abolition of private gun ownership.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> The abolition of private gun ownership.


"Hey dude, maybe it wouldn't be too bad replacing the bullets in your entirely-for-self-defense firearm with rubbers."
"THEY WANNA TAKE AWAY AND BAN ALL OUR GUNS!"


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Yes, there was an increase, a slight decrease, and then a massive increase in knife crime.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Cos citizens can't defend themselves. Police can't deal with shit.



As EU citizens, if we feel this passionately about the laws within one EU state we have the right to migrate to another. Wenn Deutschland ganz besser als Britanian ist...warum nicht?

Realistically you stand little chance of persuading people to adopt arms in the UK, because of the wide public opposition. Changes in the structure of policing would be a surer task to merit attention. If Germany is substantially better, as you have said, you are within your rights to migrate there and be sure of the differences in policy you're demanding. It's a near by state with a similar language and standard of living.


----------



## zanian (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> The abolition of private gun ownership.



*Don't take mah gunz! I reckon I can't live without mah gunz! Mah life would be pointless without them!*


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> As EU citizens, if we feel this passionately about the laws within one EU state we have the right to migrate to another. Wenn Deutschland ganz besser als Britanian ist...warum nicht?
> 
> Realistically you stand little chance of persuading people to adopt arms in the UK, because of the wide public opposition. Changes in the structure of policing would be a surer task to merit attention. If Germany is substantially better, as you have said, you are within your rights to migrate there and be sure of the differences in policy you're demanding. It's a near by state with a similar language and standard of living.



I don't think I can persuade a nation to change its view, but guns or no, I find it ridiculous that there doesn't seem to be any big push for allowing self-defense. From the way I see it, our government is far too involved in the idea of making britain "competitive" and working more on foreign matters and less stuff within its own borders. We have a lot of issues within the country. The issue of self-defense is one of them. Just look at the news, it's a mess.

I think I'd be more content with moving to the quieter parts of the US than Germany, anyway.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> "Hey dude, maybe it wouldn't be too bad replacing the bullets in your entirely-for-self-defense firearm with rubbers."


Or maybe stop selling higher calibur rounds that are capable of punching through body armor?


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> "THEY WANNA TAKE AWAY AND BAN ALL OUR GUNS!"


Simple as that.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



CannonFodder said:


> Or maybe stop selling higher calibur rounds that are capable of punching through body armor?



Goodbye, 7.62x54mmR.

Seriously though, a LOT of rounds are capable of penetrating body armour, and they're often typical hunting guns designed for stuff like grizzlies.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Goodbye, 7.62x54mmR.
> 
> Seriously though, a LOT of rounds are capable of penetrating body armour, and they're often typical hunting guns designed for stuff like grizzlies.


What I want to know is who the fuck wakes up one day and goes, "hmm I want to hunt a animal capable of slicing my head clean off like it was made of tissue paper"?


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



CannonFodder said:


> What I want to know is who the fuck wakes up one day and goes, "hmm I want to hunt a animal capable of slicing my head clean off like it was made of tissue paper"?



It makes me sad that some people get their jollies by killing things. 

I understand that some people in remote countries require weapons to defend themselves from big creatures...it's people who deliberately go looking to kill things for their enjoyment which make me want to vomit.


----------



## Lomberdia (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Instead of making another thread about this i'll just drop it here since we all talking about guns and such:

4 firefighters shot, 2 killed while responding to a burning house call. Shooter is dead. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...-fire_n_2358822.html?1356359675&ncid=phoenix1


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

In more fun gun news, turns out there are thousands of mental health records that have gone unreported to the FBI for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.  Around 11,000 in Colorado alone.  

Oh but let's not consider talking about "gun control" or how absolutely awful our standards are in regards to how we report those suffering mental illness, or how we provide avenues for gun sales to occur without said checks LEGALLY.  Because really, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1997, why should we make it a requirement for those records to be given to the FBI?

It's not like we're making it easier to empower a crazed man to set a trap for firefighters to blow them away with legally purchased weapons or anything.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Our mental health system is what is broken, not the background check or firearms laws.

Between  the 1950s and 1980s we released the vast majority of mentally ill  people from mental institutions.  We did so because some people felt it  was "unfair" to keep people with mental illness confined to  institutions that kept them clothed, housed, fed, and given a modicum of  medical care.

You can follow that trend by examining the corresponding increase in "homelessness."

What  we need is the ability to involuntarily confine those with serious  psychiatric and personality disorders and medical conditions that pose a  public health threat (e.g., antibiotic resistant tuberculosis) that are  refractive to treatment or where the sufferer refuses the medication to  treat their condition.

But that is "unfair," so we will continue  to follow the path of letting those with psychiatric and personality  disorders roam the streets, and instead attack and disarm the sane, law  abiding, people who own firearms.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> What  we need is the ability to involuntarily confine those with serious  psychiatric and personality disorders and medical conditions that pose a  public health threat (e.g., antibiotic resistant tuberculosis) that are  refractive to treatment or where the sufferer refuses the medication to  treat their condition.
> 
> But that is "unfair," so we will continue  to follow the path of letting those with psychiatric and personality  disorders roam the streets, and instead attack and disarm the sane, law  abiding, people who own firearms.


The irony in your posts is outright palpable. Just saying.


----------



## Recel (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

After another two pages of "I want my guns for self defence!" and "We don't want guns in murderers hands" I kind of question the sanity of you people. Both sides flung the same shit with different cover over and over and over and over andoverandoverandover again...

Tho I could also question why I'm even writing this, because it's rather obvious to me by now people don't care a bit about what I say, or maybe no one even reads it. Why am I even bothering... I don't even know.


----------



## Mani the Avian (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I'll just say- need some control over the types of available firearms.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 24, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I don't want to wade through full nine pages of text walls going back and forth between "Is it reasonable that practically every random person can own their personal Taliban outpost in this country?" and "I WANTS TO DEFEND MESELF!! ...AGAINST COALFACES AND COCKSUCKERS!!!" to check if that was already brought up, so here goes:

Gun violence kills nearly as many Americans in a month as died at 9 fucking 11. It's high time you show the gun psychos who has more pull. Demand a plan and put this scum in their place.

Seeing as firearms are routinely used by them to shoot any homo in the woods their good ol' boys pulled behind their trucks, half the fandom should participate.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gryphoneer said:


> Seeing as firearms are routinely used by them to shoot any homo in the woods their good ol' boys pulled behind their trucks, half the fandom should participate.



Yep.....http://pinkpistols.org/


----------



## xAngelStormx (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Okay.... well, firearms are illegal in the UK, not even the police have them, we don't need them and never will.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



xAngelStormx said:


> Okay.... well, firearms are illegal in the UK, not even the police have them, we don't need them and never will.



They're not entirely illegal and some police units have them. The specialist units with marksmen and bomb experts for instance.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I finally thought of a retort to those advocating non-lethal self defense measures.

What happens if the guy threatening you is further than arms length away?

Tasers are really hit-and-miss, especially if the person holding you up is wearing some kind of thick clothing, like a winter jacket. Pepper spray, as I've said before, is a cats game. Knives are just as lethal as firearms so there goes the non-lethal alternative idea.

Personally I'd carry a ballistic knife or throwing stars but those are illegal already.


----------



## xAngelStormx (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> They're not entirely illegal and some police units have them. The specialist units with marksmen and bomb experts for instance.


 I know, but those are special cases. My friend has a gun, but ONLY because she has a hunting license. I have a license too, but I use a bow :3 I hate guns... too noisy


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> I finally thought of a retort to those advocating non-lethal self defense measures.
> 
> What happens if the guy threatening you is further than arms length away?
> 
> ...



Didn't know you were trained in ninjitsu

I think the objective is to keep a threatening guy more than an arms' length away most of the time. If they already have a weapon trained on you that works further than that distance their response to you trying to draw your own weapon or shiruken seems pretty grim.



xAngelStormx said:


> I know, but those are special cases. My  friend has a gun, but ONLY because she has a hunting license. I have a  license too, but I use a bow :3 I hate guns... too noisy



Why do so many furries hunt? ._. seems paradoxical to me.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Throwing stars are pretty damn simple to operate. They're not like throwing knives, you just have to hit the guy.

That being said, from people working the less desirable jobs (property reclaiming, car towing, etc.) nothing beats a Judge in the coveralls.


----------



## xAngelStormx (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> Didn't know you were trained in ninjitsu
> 
> I think the objective is to keep a threatening guy more than an arms' length away most of the time. If they already have a weapon trained on you that works further than that distance their response to you trying to draw your own weapon or shiruken seems pretty grim.
> 
> ...


I do not hunt for the pleasure of killing, I never get pleased for that thing... I hunt because it's cheaper than store bought food, and because the deer population in my area is 25 times higher than most places... Not that I eat deer, I eat pig... + I've only ever killed 1 thing anyway... that was 3 years ago I think...


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Our mental health system is what is broken, not the background check or firearms laws.
> 
> Between  the 1950s and 1980s we released the vast majority of mentally ill  people from mental institutions.  We did so because some people felt it  was "unfair" to keep people with mental illness confined to  institutions that kept them clothed, housed, fed, and given a modicum of  medical care.



Yet again, the "care in the community and not in institutions" approach for treating the mentally ill is NOT something that is exclusive to the USA, and yet again the other Western nations like the UK, Australia and New Zealand don't have multiple gun massacres every year executed by the mentally ill. 

Frankly, the only way that you can class America's gun problem as "a mental health issue" is by classifying an obsession with gun ownership as a mental illness in itself...


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



xAngelStormx said:


> Okay.... well, firearms are illegal in the UK, not even the police have them, we don't need them and never will.



OK....

Film-maker Michael Winner, who is the chairman of the Police Memorial Trust, called for arming officers.

         "The police are not equipped and I have put up memorials to 44 slain police officers.
         "It is almost certain that at least 38 of those would be  alive had they been armed and they would not have wives without a  husband, children without a father or mother, [and] mothers without a  son."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12005886


----------



## xAngelStormx (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> OK....
> 
> Film-maker Michael Winner, who is the chairman of the Police Memorial Trust, called for arming officers.
> 
> ...



I feel like a dick head now :'(


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



xAngelStormx said:


> I feel like a dick head now :'(



That's the opinion of _one person_ in the police trust.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> I finally thought of a retort to those advocating non-lethal self defense measures.
> 
> What happens if the guy threatening you is further than arms length away?


 Rubber bullets still hurt dawg. 



TeenageAngst said:


> Pepper spray, as I've said before, is a cats game.


 Some models have a range of 20', and generally if someone is busy screening their face to keep the blinding pain out of it, they're also not looking in your direction (thus giving a chance to flee, close the range, or so-on).

Also, I find it rather alarming that you feel there's even a _need_ to challenge non-lethal self defense measures, and that you feel your argument is a case for _increasing the number of lethal methods_ versus, say, _improving the effectiveness of non-lethal methods_.

Seriously people, how fucking hard is it for you lot to make a convincing argument that doesn't make you sound like you want to play Judge Jury and Executioner? Because "We need to increase the availability of lethal weapons instead of try to increase the effectiveness of non-lethal methods" is very readily _not_ the argument of someone who thinks "I would go non-lethal, honest! But I have no choice!"


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Because I'm not necessarily concerned for the welfare of the person trying to rob/hurt/kill me. I just want to make sure they go down as quickly as possible. A gun is the most effective method of that.

It's the same reason I never get into fights. Because I know when I do I'm not going to stop until one of us is bleeding into the asphalt.

I have no pretensions about wanting to go non-lethal in a confrontation. If I'm in a situation where I'd be drawing a gun, it's because all other means are exhausted.

Plus, I'm a black belt (or at least I was), a non-lethal weapon isn't going to be much more effective than what I can do unarmed.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> That's the opinion of _one person_ in the police trust.



Because police officers with guns wouldn't be able to defend themselves from knives at all.

FUCKING LOGIC HOW DOES IT WORK, HUURRR

You're so stubborn about keeping guns outside of the country, you fail to grasp such simple concepts as this, and you shrug it off as a mere "opinion".

If a street thug can take out police officers with a household object and we have trained police officers put in place to uphold the law, and they clearly fail to do so, and die because they simply do not have the means of doing so, that means that the United Kingdom has a serious fucking problem.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Because police officers with guns wouldn't be able to defend themselves from knives at all.
> 
> FUCKING LOGIC HOW DOES IT WORK, HUURRR
> 
> ...



I didn't say that, gibby. 

Police aren't infallible people, they do use excessive force in some instances and in the UK, a place in which officers are not as frequently attacked as some other countries, the chance of excessive damage being done by an officer with a weapon isn't justifiable. 
These are trained individuals but never the less they do sometimes get the wrong people. This is why technologies such as tazers are more useful, because they reduce the impact of mistakes whilst still allowing officers to immobilise attackers. There's no rickochet or errant bullets which could hit unrelated people either.

I would never the less still be uneasy about arming _every_ single officer with a tazer, but arming all of them with lethal weapons is unnecessary in my view. 

A person might hold a view contrary to that and insist guns are necessary, but that is never the less an opinion about policy.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> I didn't say that, gibby.
> 
> Police aren't infallible people, they do use excessive force in some instances and in the UK, a place in which officers are not as frequently attacked as some other countries, the chance of excessive damage being done by an officer with a weapon isn't justifiable.
> These are trained individuals but never the less they do sometimes get the wrong people. This is why technologies such as tazers are more useful, because they reduce the impact of mistakes whilst still allowing officers to immobilise attackers. There's no rickochet or errant bullets which could hit unrelated people either.
> ...



I'll refer you to TA's post about defense from tazers and other useless crap.

And excessive force, yeah? I've never heard about excessive force from the cops on criminals that have any kind of weapons in their hands or none at all. It doesn't matter.

Anyway, even armed police officers carry tazers alongside their gun. They are supposed to use guns for people who are trying to kill them, and they use tazers on stubborn gits.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Lest we forget, arming cops with non-lethal alternatives means they basically use them whenever they feel like it. Look at the myriad cases in America when cops taser or pepper spray people instead of talking to them, even when they're cooperating, or when they're just pissed off. These are dangerous weapons that they use flippantly. A cop knows if he guns someone down he's better have a damn good excuse, but a taser? Not really.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 25, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Yep.....http://pinkpistols.org/


Those guys just thought there was no other option than to enter an arms race against the redneck hordes.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> OK....
> 
> Film-maker Michael Winner, who is the chairman of the Police Memorial Trust, called for arming officers.
> 
> ...



if anyone has to die im glad its cops


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Yep Demand a Plan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pItiypwjHx4


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> "Hey dude, maybe it wouldn't be too bad replacing the bullets in your entirely-for-self-defense firearm with rubbers."
> "THEY WANNA TAKE AWAY AND BAN ALL OUR GUNS!"



American politics in a nut-shell.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> Lest we forget, arming cops with non-lethal alternatives means they basically use them whenever they feel like it. Look at the myriad cases in America when cops taser or pepper spray people instead of talking to them, even when they're cooperating, or when they're just pissed off. These are dangerous weapons that they use flippantly. A cop knows if he guns someone down he's better have a damn good excuse, but a taser? Not really.




They should behave as if they have a damn good reason, since tasers can sometimes be lethal. 

We're sort of getting into the psychological territory of 'no cars should have safety belts so that drivers are more careful because they know mistakes will be deadly rather than believing they'll walk away'...

I think targeting the psychological dissonance is the way forward, rather than paradoxically introducing technology that's even more dangerous.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Lobar said:


> if anyone has to die im glad its cops



So if bad things are happening to you or a loved one you will step up and take care of it and not dial 911?


----------



## Recel (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> So if bad things are happening to you or a loved one you will step up and take care of it and not dial 911?



No, he means, he will call the cops, get them killed, THAN deal with the problem!


----------



## CrazyLee (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> The abolition of private gun ownership.



I find it amusing when reasonable restrictions and licensing of guns comes up the gun nuts are like "OMG THER GUNNA TAKE AWAY MA GUNZ AMERIKKKUA!!!!"

Earlier this year a gun designer and member of the NRA suggested a method that would stamp bullet casings with the gun's serial number when the gun's fired, to make it easier for cops to process crime scenes.

The gun lobby threw a fucking fit and claimed it was taking away their freedoms. And they were backed by the gun makers who only cared about the small increase in cost per gun.


Also, I've been mugged and robbed at gunpoint and oddly no one asks my opinon.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



CrazyLee said:


> Earlier this year a gun designer and member of the NRA suggested a method that would stamp bullet casings with the gun's serial number when the gun's fired, to make it easier for cops to process crime scenes.
> 
> The gun lobby threw a fucking fit and claimed it was taking away their freedoms. And they were backed by the gun makers who only cared about the small increase in cost per gun.



Oh you mean microstamping, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_microstamping .  Doesn't do a thing for the millions of guns already manufactured.  This is also a minor drawback "Unscrupulous individuals could collect discarded brass from a firing  range and salt crime scenes with microstamped cases, thereby providing  false evidence against innocent people and increasing the workload for  investigators."


----------



## Attaman (Dec 26, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Oh you mean microstamping, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_microstamping .  Doesn't do a thing for the millions of guns already manufactured.  This is also a minor drawback "Unscrupulous individuals could collect discarded brass from a firing  range and salt crime scenes with microstamped cases, thereby providing  false evidence against innocent people and increasing the workload for  investigators."


So what you're saying is improving regulation of what's already out is taboo, increasing regulation on new stuff is taboo, suggesting slightly-less-lethal alternatives is taboo (regardless of the type)...

Do you by any chance have any solution to the current issue besides either "Add more guns with similar-or-less regulation to the mix" or "Do absolutely nothing"? Because right now, those, uh, don't seem to be working.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

1.  Laws are followed by the the lawful, criminals and the criminally insane by definition and action don't.  A criminal is not deterred by gun free zones.  Gun laws usually just disarm the law abiding population leaving them to be preyed upon by criminals.

Get the violent criminals off the street for good.  
Identify and help the insane, get their info in the FBI data base for background checks.

2. The bill of rights (the first ten amendments) were seen by the founding fathers as rights given to a person upon their creation by their creator.  These rights are not given to a person by the state and the bill of rights forbids the state from infringing upon them.  

Change the constitution.

3. There has been much mention of the "gun culture".  Look around currently how many movies are showing that involve violence with guns?  How many games have violence with guns in them?  

Maybe we need to look here to start defusing this gun culture?

4.  Secure firearms from theft and unauthorized users.  

How about a tax rebate for the purchase of a gun safe, its been done for other things (solar etc).

5.  The media has created a platform for every nut job to be heard.  They  don't just report these incidents, they swim in the warmth of the  victim's blood and milk it for every advertising dollar they can. They  broadcast every little tidbit of information about these killers and  glamorize them to other broken and dysfunctional members of society.   The media helps create these killers.  They provide and barrage  them with ideas of fame  and notoriety.  

The media needs to stop and simply report the news.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Get the violent criminals off the street for good.


 I'm not liking the "final solution" terminology you're using here. Especially since it's implying the death of hundreds of thousands of individuals is a good thing.



cobalt-blue said:


> Identify and help the insane, get their info in the FBI data base for background checks.


 So your solution to "We cannot regulate guns!" is "We must regulate _everything else_"?



cobalt-blue said:


> 2. The bill of rights (the first ten amendments) were seen by the founding fathers as rights given to a person upon their creation by their creator.


 First, I find it funny that people live in this quantum state wherein the Federal Government is bad, but a purely Federal Government document is good. Second, The right to bear arms is generally not brought up in most statutes / lists / conventions in relation to basic Human Rights. Though to be fair, healthcare is, and a lot of Americans love to bitch and moan that basic health care is an _entitlement_ instead of common decency (due to, er, being absent from the Constitution). 



cobalt-blue said:


> Change the constitution.


 Good luck with that. Furthermore, there's no particular need to remove the 2nd Amendment. Even if for some reason you assume "Alright, gun control means absolutely no civilian firearms anymore", it does absolutely _diddly_ about the "Organized Militia" bit. It's alarming how many supposed legal experts don't even realize how deep the 2nd Amendment runs, and essentially think "Well the Bill of Rights allow us to have almost any weapon we want and anything that says otherwise might as well invalidate the whole amendment." This is roughly akin to saying "I dropped a piece of paper and it didn't accelerate at 9.8m/s^2, ergo Newton was a daft idiot and his scientific theory means nothing."



cobalt-blue said:


> 3. There has been much mention of the "gun culture".  Look around currently how many movies are showing that involve violence with guns?  How many games have violence with guns in them?
> 
> Maybe we need to look here to start defusing this gun culture?


 Oh, so now your argument to defend the _second_ amendment is to trample on the _first_?

Really people, your logic in these situations is questionable at best, alarming at worst.



cobalt-blue said:


> 4.  Secure firearms from theft and unauthorized users.
> 
> How about a tax rebate for the purchase of a gun safe, its been done for other things (solar etc).


 Um, you do realize this is the _exact sort of thing_ (secure firearms and keep them out of unauthorized / negligible hands) that _multiple_ people in this thread have been advocating, and you said are the same as "DEY TAKE ALL OUR GUNS!", yes?


----------



## Aleu (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> 1.  Laws are followed by the the lawful, criminals and the criminally insane by definition and action don't.  A criminal is not deterred by gun free zones.  Gun laws usually just disarm the law abiding population leaving them to be preyed upon by criminals.
> 
> Get the violent criminals off the street for good.
> Identify and help the insane, get their info in the FBI data base for background checks.



Guns are bought lawfully by both insane, violent, and the average joe. Perhaps, you know, just a psychological evaluation as well as training on how to use said gun would be more appropriate instead of waiting for someone to kill someone else and THEN act.

But don't mind me. I'm just applying thought after all.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> I'm not liking the "final solution" terminology you're using here. Especially since it's implying the death of hundreds of thousands of individuals is a good thing.
> 
> So your solution to "We cannot regulate guns!" is "We must regulate _everything else_"?
> 
> ...



If there are hundreds of thousands of violent criminals what do you propose?
The FBI instant check database already exists, it is only as good as the information entered.
Well our constitution and amendments specifically mentions arms, in fact in the second position, and the Supreme Court has agreed, sorry you don't like it.  
Yea changing the constitution is slippery ground, opens up all the amendments to change not always to the better.
Seems you have no issue trampling the 2nd, something in it says "shall not be infringed".
In the end you will find the "whole agenda" is eliminating the private ownership of firearms. It starts with OMG who needs (your most hated firearm here) and ends like in the UK, OMG who needs pointed knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> 5.  The media has created a platform for every nut job to be heard.  They  don't just report these incidents, they swim in the warmth of the  victim's blood and milk it for every advertising dollar they can. They  broadcast every little tidbit of information about these killers and  glamorize them to other broken and dysfunctional members of society.   The media helps create these killers.  They provide and barrage  them with ideas of fame  and notoriety.
> 
> The media needs to stop and simply report the news.



As someone who's worked in the media for several years allow me to respond with my feelings towards the "media should report the news" comment.

I'm sorry, maybe you can enlighten me how news reporting is supposed to be done, since you clearly have all the answers.

Here's a news flash (see what I did there?) for ya, no matter what the media does in how they report these stories people are going to be pissed.  Focus all on the victims?  You're making money off of destroyed lives.  Inform the public on what caused the mass murderer of the week to fly off the handle?  You're glorifying the killer.  And maybe you don't realize it, but "a bunch of kids died in an elementary school today" and leaving it at that isn't exactly "reporting the news" or even registers as journalism.  Damned if we do, damned if we don't.  So frankly, unless you're suddenly going to become the next Edward R. Murrow and change the landscape of journalism as we know it so that no one complains about how a story is reported, maybe start considering the points people are bringing up instead of trying to pass the buck like you're Wayne LaPierre's speech writer.

As to TA's comment earlier of "what if the mugger is X feet away from you?"  Well geeze you really got me there.  Totally blows the point of carrying pepper spray or a taser out of the water.  Such a great mind you have.

Oh wait, what if you had a gun on you and the mugger gets the drop on you from behind?  Shit.  What good is a gun now?  And he sees you have a gun and removes it off your person.  Now he has _two guns_.  That makes him twice the man.  :V

OH OH OH!  Or what if the guy's got a bullet-proof vest on!  Oh geeze.  I mean, here's what a .357 Magnum does to a vest at the magical distance of 20 feet, a good deal more than "an arm's reach away".

[yt]K9xYCwwqjFs[/yt]

Seriously we can go through "what if" scenarios all day, as if tallying up the number of hypothetical situations where a gun or a less-than-lethal weapon would be effective would somehow quantifiably prove that one is better suited for personal protection than the other and we wouldn't get anywhere.  But here's a kicker in all of this: you don't hear about people going on mass taser rampages or mass pepper spray rampages.

Will criminals find ways to get guns?  Yes.  But there's something to be said about making it more difficult for people to go through our system to legally purchase weapons when they are personally unfit or they have someone in their household who is unfit to have that weapon around them.  Time and time again we see how even the most "trained, responsible" gun owners manage to seriously injure or kill themselves or someone else because either they have a brief lapse of attention towards how the weapon should be handled or stored.

Then we get the "well cars kill people too" argument which is bullshit in and of itself.  Why?  Because unlike guns, cars aren't built for the purpose of causing catastrophic injury to flesh.  And cars are built with hundreds of safety measures so that even if a driver causes an accident, there are systems in place to at least hinder the amount of human injury caused by day-to-day collisions.  Guns don't have that kind of safety measure.  If a gun misfires who can't suddenly make it a nerf dart.  And unless you're planning on having people wear Kevlar vests 24/7 while in your home, or lock the weapon away in such a way that using it for "home defense" would be impractical, there's really no safety measure for guns aside from trusting that the owner won't fuck up.  And unless you're a recluse with no concept of what real people are like, people fuck up everyday.  And with guns, even a minor fuck up can become deadly, as is evidenced constantly with how many of these mass shooters acquire their weapons.


----------



## Attaman (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> If there are hundreds of thousands of violent criminals what do you propose?


 Well, for starters, rehabilitation versus permanent imprisonment and / or death penalty being default revenge?



cobalt-blue said:


> The FBI instant check database already exists, it is only as good as the information entered.


And again, apparently you're just fine with everyone _but_ firearm owners having to deal with more regulation / overwatch.



cobalt-blue said:


> Well our constitution and amendments specifically mentions arms, in fact in the second position, and the Supreme Court has agreed, sorry you don't like it.


 And sorry that you're so batshit insane you'd put firearm ownership as more important than _free speech, education, and a right to healthcare_.



cobalt-blue said:


> Seems you have no issue trampling the 2nd, something in it says "shall not be infringed".


 Ah, you see, this counterargument doesn't work that way. Despite the questionable claim you have of "Any sort of firearm regulation whatsoever = REMOVE 2ND AMENDMENT", I'm not the one who is claiming that their argument is all about respecting the spirit and word of the constitution... then suggesting to throw out Free Speech because I consider it less important than an AK in every home.



cobalt-blue said:


> In the end you will find the "whole agenda" is eliminating the private ownership of firearms. It starts with OMG who needs (your most hated firearm here) and ends like in the UK, OMG who needs pointed knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm


 In the end you'll find your belief that the UN wants to invade the US after taking all of our guns is _insane_.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Term says the press are 'damned if they do damned if they don't,' if I am to paraphrase. 

I am interested in your analysis of this video, term:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5uwAo8lcAC4


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> Term says the press are 'damned if they do damned if they don't,' if I am to paraphrase.
> 
> I am interested in your analysis of this video, term:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5uwAo8lcAC4



I've seen that BBC clip hundreds of times with the guy who starts listing off things the media shouldn't do in reporting these stories.  "Make it boring"  "Don't report x"  "Don't report y".

The issue with that is you're straying from what journalism at its core is supposed to be doing: ie informing the public as to what is going on.  There's a chain letter going around on Facebook which to me appears is the inspiration for cobalt's comment based on comments from Morgan Freeman where he's basically saying "act like it didn't happen" to the media.  Kinda contradicts the idea of "reporting the news" as cobalt mentioned when you're also saying in the same breath "but don't report this, that, or the next thing."

Since it appears this is centered around the reporting of the tragedy, then I ask what exactly is the point of news if we're suddenly going to say that they shouldn't report what is a national story?  This is a national conversation that's been going on for years in respect of guns, or as pointed out in your video, an international one given that BBC/The Sun also reports on this.  There's an old saying that "Media is the mirror of society" and I believe that also applies to what the public wants out of their media, including answering the questions of who, what, when, why, and how concerning the shooting.

The person in the video touches on the "it should all be about the victims" claim, which again, as I mentioned, making it all about the victims leads to the "profiting off of loss" complaint.  Hence why focusing on victims isn't an end all solution as he tries to make it out to be.

It's also clear that the guy in the video has his own agenda at heart, namely how passionately he tries to defend video games as something which couldn't possibly have a negative effect on someone or do many of the things he's claiming that the media is doing.  And I'm sorry to tell you but video games wouldn't even be in the discussion if numerous lobbies didn't bring it up themselves as a defense to why guns can't possibly be a problem, hence why the discussion is had because it bears examination, as I will admit the media does as well.  Though, if we're going to go off on how it's a "no brainer" that video games can't possibly be a factor in what causes a kid to fly off the handle one day, many of the same reasons listed I can easily turn around and use for the case of why "the media" isn't responsible, which is a nice meta phrase which doesn't exactly describe what you're talking about.

And of course this guy also neglects to mention the greatest information tool ever, the Internet.  Even if the traditional news media (Television/Radio/Print) didn't nationalize the story and is kept localized as was suggested by the dude being interviewed by BBC, it's still extremely easy for someone to do a basic search on "mass murderers" and a Lanza-esque shooting would be pretty damn easy to find, much as it was for me to find that story on the guy in his 70's killing a 13-year-old black kid a few pages back.  Lest we also forget there's a little thing called "Wikipedia" that exists that can easily display this kind of news as well detail official response and theories surrounding what caused someone to decide to kill 20-or-so people.  Thanks to things like the Freedom of Information Act, court documents which detail how a shooter went on their rampage if they were caught alive can also be easily researched.

So if the issue is that the media is at fault for detailing who the murderer is/posting his picture/what they had in their house/etc. then I ask that the denizens of the internet look at themselves for a minute.  Because people do seek out this information, whether or not it's being delivered in a journalistic context.  Do we have sensationalist media who start blaming everything under the sun?  Absolutely.  But it's alsowithout question that people want information about these killers, because whether or not they are given an in-depth background through "official" means, they are still very much instant celebrities in their own right which people who are more tech savy than I am will undoubtedly seek out and post information on.

I mean, if we're going to blame "the media" then why not also blame Encyclopedia Dramatica, 4chan, and the rest of the underbelly of the internet while we're at it?


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Will criminals find ways to get guns?  Yes.  But there's something to be said about making it more difficult for people to go through our system to legally purchase weapons when they are personally unfit or they have someone in their household who is unfit to have that weapon around them.  *Time and time again we see how even the most "trained, responsible" gun owners manage to seriously injure or kill themselves or someone else *because either they have a brief lapse of attention towards how the weapon should be handled or stored.
> 
> Then we get the "well cars kill people too" argument which is bullshit in and of itself.  Why?  Because unlike guns, cars aren't built for the purpose of causing catastrophic injury to flesh.  And cars are built with hundreds of safety measures so that even if a driver causes an accident, there are systems in place to at least hinder the amount of human injury caused by day-to-day collisions.  Guns don't have that kind of safety measure.  If a gun misfires who can't suddenly make it a nerf dart.  And unless you're planning on having people wear Kevlar vests 24/7 while in your home, or lock the weapon away in such a way that using it for "home defense" would be impractical, *there's really no safety measure for guns aside from trusting that the owner won't fuck up.  *And unless you're a recluse with no concept of what real people are like, people fuck up everyday.  *And with guns, even a minor fuck up can become deadly*, as is evidenced constantly with how many of these mass shooters acquire their weapons.



These are very good points, Term 

And as for the "people can massacre other people with homemade bombs / chlorine gas from swimming pool chemicals / exploding LPG canisters / etc" argument, building these things is not only significantly more complex (and hence more difficult) than waltzing down to the local gun shop and buying weaponry off the shelf, there's significantly more chance that such devices will either blow up in the perpetrator's face during construction or transport to the crime scene, or will fail to work at all (example: propane bombs set in Colombine failed to explode). Hence while the impact of such devices may be as significant as guns, the likelihood of them being successfully used is significantly lower.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> And as for the "people can massacre other people with homemade bombs / chlorine gas from swimming pool chemicals / exploding LPG canisters / etc" argument, building these things is not only significantly more complex (and hence more difficult) than waltzing down to the local gun shop and buying weaponry off the shelf, there's significantly more chance that such devices will either blow up in the perpetrator's face during construction or transport to the crime scene, or will fail to work at all (example: propane bombs set in Colombine failed to explode). Hence while the impact of such devices may be as significant as guns, the likelihood of them being successfully used is significantly lower.



And is even seen by people who consider themselves actual "terrorists" like what happened with the Underwear Bomber in 2009.

Or for something more domestic, a former employee trying to bomb the place that fired him.

Fallow, the second link goes back to how easy again it is for me to find "localized" stories and post about and perpetuate. ;D


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I've seen that BBC clip hundreds of times with the guy who starts listing off things the media shouldn't do in reporting these stories.  "Make it boring"  "Don't report x"  "Don't report y".
> 
> The issue with that is you're straying from what journalism at its core is supposed to be doing: ie informing the public as to what is going on.  There's a chain letter going around on Facebook which to me appears is the inspiration for cobalt's comment based on comments from Morgan Freeman where he's basically saying "act like it didn't happen" to the media.  Kinda contradicts the idea of "reporting the news" as cobalt mentioned when you're also saying in the same breath "but don't report this, that, or the next thing."
> 
> ...



I think if a crux is identifiable it's that media seeks to make money by appealing to popular demand. As in many cases popular demand is for an entertaining story and fast, rather than a well researched boring story that doesn't come in the form of round-the-clock 'breaking' coverage. 
It would also explain why some news corporations have vested interests in distorting news to appeal to particular political parties. This is particularly pronounced in british papers which have huge power to change votes even if the stories they publish turn out to be faked. 

Whilst averting this may then be attributed to us the consumers being able to vote with our feet or choose to continue deliberately consuming news we know is exaggerated or fabricated [as is the case with british newspapers] this is a 'blame society' option. I'm not quite sure of a solution, I was hoping you'd provide some opinion on that, but I don't feel outsourcing blame until it's spread thin across almost everybody will actually result in any good. 

I am more concerned about the BBC because this is an institution that runs on taxation and should have a substantially decreased incentive to sell more advert space, as it doesn't have any. 

I am frustrated that the BBC spends time on round-clock coverage of royal proposals and foreign massacres when there is lots of other news which I could benefit from being informed about.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> Ah, you see, this counterargument doesn't work that way. Despite the questionable claim you have of "Any sort of firearm regulation whatsoever = REMOVE 2ND AMENDMENT", I'm not the one who is claiming that their argument is all about respecting the spirit and word of the constitution... then suggesting to throw out Free Speech because I consider it less important than an AK in every home.



Essentially, he's saying that the Second Amendment trumps *all *other parts of the US constitution, including the First.

Maybe as guns are apparently more important than everything else in the US, the US should change its flag to be more like Mozambique and have a damn gun image where the fifty stars currently are 

Margaret Thatcher once said, "The Soviets put guns over butter, but we put almost everything over guns." Going by some of the comments on this thread from the pro-gun NRA types, one could replace "Soviets" with "Americans"...


----------



## Lomberdia (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

All this talk makes me thing the entire country should do what illinois is doing, force people to get FOID (firearm owner's identification ID) cards. Can't -legally- get a gun without one here in Illinois but....I personally have family with guns illegally and it was a pain in the ass getting my FOID.

For those who don't know how a FOID card works: you fill out an application and mail it (and $50 for 10 years I think, too lazy to look at my FOID) off to the state. they run a background check and fingerprint whatever check and after like 30-60 days you get a shiny new card assuming everything went right.

Personally I feel stricter rules only fuck over the good people. Sure it will stop the average impulsive homicidal/suicidal manic since there is a wait period with the FOID card and by then those feelings -hopefully- will be gone. However, people with the intent to get a gun can do so easily regardless how strict gun control is. 

My opinion on how to 'fix the problem' without screwing over the good law abiding people: be a LOT more strict about background checks, imprisoned for some violent act? no gun card for you! you been in the nuthouse at all? no gun card for you too! I'm sure gun sales will go down and since everything from food to safety and guns is all about making money not really about freedom, I think. Find a way to make the gun industry more money than they are now, and I'm sure they'll happily help....but the coffin seller won't be happy with less people being murdered...he needs money too!


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Lomberdia said:


> All this talk makes me thing the entire country should do what illinois is doing, force people to get FOID (firearm owner's identification ID) cards. Can't -legally- get a gun without one here in Illinois but....I personally have family with guns illegally and it was a pain in the ass getting my FOID.
> 
> For those who don't know how a FOID card works: you fill out an application and mail it (and $50 for 10 years I think, too lazy to look at my FOID) off to the state. they run a background check and fingerprint whatever check and after like 30-60 days you get a shiny new card assuming everything went right.
> 
> ...



Make the people fatter, he will be.


----------



## Lomberdia (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> Make the people fatter, he will be.


lol, seriously though...I've been looking about getting into the whole dead people business. Jobs are hard and people will ALWAYS be sick and dying...so hospital (yuck) or funeral home, cemetery, ect


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 27, 2012)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Fallowfox said:


> I think if a crux is identifiable it's that media seeks to make money by appealing to popular demand. As in many cases popular demand is for an entertaining story and fast, rather than a well researched boring story that doesn't come in the form of round-the-clock 'breaking' coverage.



The "breaking news" phenomenon is entirely a self-inflicted wound by not necessary the industry itself but of the people within the media.  Everyone wants to make a name for themselves and wants to be attributed as the "man on the scene" or a somewhat primary source as the person who broke the story.  This is partially why we had so much trouble with elections over the past couple of years, and even recently the Obamacare vote where news outlets were reporting decisions on the bill without getting the full story.  Why?  Because of the assumption that once one person says "MSNBC is reporting Obamacare is overturned" then the belief is everyone's going to flip over to MSNBC, as if that's going to drastically change actual viewership.  But it's something with which people can use to expand their own egos or possibly help justify the cost of ad space.

I've been a huge critic in the past of how certain journalists report the news or how they attempt to make themselves the story.  The "Breaking News" phenomenon is very much at the center of it, though it also extends to issues of journalistic integrity when a journalist is sent to report on a natural disaster and turns in a piece about how they were handing out meals to people or something to that effect, as Anderson Cooper did during Hurricane Katrina.  Other times some journalists attempt to take credit for breaking a story first when in actuality they didn't and something was up on Twitter nearly 15 minutes before they "broke the story" as what happened after Rick Reilly of ESPN was caught asking Stewart Scott to mention him as the person who broke a story on Twitter without realizing his mic was hot.

[yt]5PSwm73lCS4[/yt]

The only fix for that specific issue is for the industry to not put so much stock in the "first on the scene" mentality, but that's something that's been going on since local news affiliates started getting news vans and "Chopper 2/3/4/5/6/9001."  Likewise, once reporters found out they could get themselves a talk show like Anderson Cooper's, a book deal, or attempt to become a nationally recognized face like Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, etc., the benefits of getting their name attached to a huge story promises fame for themselves.

But at the end of the day "well researched" news concerning Adam Lanza will still likely touch on many of the things that are being criticized by people like the guy who made the video you posted.  Namely that we have this kid's picture, we find out his mom was a gun owner who taught her son how to shoot, that he was unpopular, that he had mental issues, that he had the AR-15 in his dead mother's car while he walked into school and started blowing away kids and adults, and so on.  That is what happened.  And what cobalt is saying is that the media should "report the news."  Well there it is.  That's what factually happened.  But because it was described what he did and who he was, the news is somehow not being reported.  By attempting to unravel what could have caused this kid to decide this was his only option, the media isn't doing proper investigative work to inform the public or at least lend information towards discussions such as this as to what can we do as a society to help curb these kinds of tragedies from happening.

What I feel was brought up by that guy interviewed on BBC and cobalt here is that they wish us to remain ignorant that mass shootings happen.  That if we suddenly decide to try to hide from the national public that this stuff happens then suddenly no more mass shootings will occur.  And that frankly is the very opposite of what journalism is supposed to be.  I have to wonder what "real news" is supposed to replace a mass shooting of this magnitude.  Likely something which doesn't cause certain people here and across the internet to have to start invoking Godwin's Law to prove that even considering addressing the very clear deficiencies in how we handle firearms in this country would put us on the fast track to becoming Nazi Germany.  Though I'd argue attempting to silence the media and purposely keeping the public ignorant of what goes on in their own country would be more likely to send us on that track than keeping people from having 30-round magazines with armor-piercing bullets or not allowing teachers or students to carry guns in classrooms or college campuses.

And as I previously mentioned, the blame game is unfortunately the result of lobbies themselves attempting to blame everything under the sun as to why their constituents can't possibly be at fault.  The media follows the national conversation, and short of political pundits who aren't actually journalists, you're not seeing a story being reported which specifically says "Call of Duty is at fault."  Video games have been blamed or violent behavior for years, with cases of kids claiming a game caused them to do something illegal.  So while certain studies suggest that video games may not play a role, it's still worthy of conversation, which is why the link is presented.  If someone is complaining that "Fox and Friends" is having a discussion about evil video games and it pisses them off, I have to question why they're watching "Fox and Friends" to begin with since they don't like the slant they present and they're not actually reporting news but offering opinions or asking other people for their opinions.  And the conversations these people have, surprisingly enough, aren't as far off base from what certain people in this country actually believe, with or without Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC in their lives.  If parents feel like they need to shelter their kids from those discussions, they can do so.

tl:dr on this part: Is the news media flawed?  Yes.  Are there things Term doesn't like?  Yes.  But if we're going to submit that it's ridiculous to blame certain media, ie video games/movies/music/books, for inspiring kids to commit mass murder it's a little two-faced to suddenly point the blame then on news media for doing it simply because they're reporting what happened.  "They're reporting it with sirens and flashing lights" and such is just as ridiculous since most often people who massively murder people in certain books/TV/Movies often "get the girl" or are presented as some sort of anti-hero themselves, in some cases one you can personally control.



> I am more concerned about the BBC because this is an institution that runs on taxation and should have a substantially decreased incentive to sell more advert space, as it doesn't have any.



I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  BBC does have advertising space and does have companies advertise on its numerous networks and across multiple mediums.  Outside of the UK, BBC.co.uk displays advertisements, as does BBC America.  In fact, BBC Advertising is their commercial arm that deals primarily with all worldwide BBC affairs, including advertising and licensing.  So while maybe in your home country there may be no ad space available for it, outside of the UK BBC is just as much interested in pulling in ratings as the next network to sell advertising space, by selling shows like Top Gear, Dr. Who, or selling the rights to produce shows based on their programs like The Office.



> I am frustrated that the BBC spends time on round-clock coverage of royal proposals and foreign massacres when there is lots of other news which I could benefit from being informed about.



Then I'd argue that if you'd want to get news which you feel will benefit you specifically then the place to look is the internet.  Because on the internet you can filter out what news you view as fluff and what you view is worth your time by choosing which stories you care to look at through BBC.  Or if BBC isn't doing it for you then try Al-Jazeera.  If you're still not satisfied, then go to Reuters.  Or if that's not your cup of tea then "like" The Associated Press on any number of social media outlets and get news from them.  Point being, this isn't the 1940s.  You aren't forced to get your news from a certain newspaper or sit in a movie theater to watch a news reel from a single company.  You have a multitude of news organizations at your fingertips, ones with more or less slant than others, and if you are that frustrated with the BBC, then stop bothering with them and move on to something more suitable for your needs.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

For those of you that don't know Gabriel Giffords the congresswoman that  was shot in the head, as well as several others including a child being  killed in arizona, has launched a new interest group meant to curb gun  violence called Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Her statement was


			
				Gabriel Giffords said:
			
		

> Dear fellow American,
> 
> Two years ago, a mentally ill young man shot me in the head, killed  six of my constituents, and wounded 12 others. Since that terrible day,  America has seen 11 more mass shootings â€“ but no response from Congress  to prevent gun violence. After the massacre of 20 children and six of  their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary though, itâ€™s clear: This time  must be different.
> 
> ...



I  don't know about you, but I'm sick of all these shootings as of late  while congress has their thumbs stuck up their asses with no plans on  trying to stop mass shootings.

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



CannonFodder said:


> For those of you that don't know Gabriel Giffords the congresswoman that  was shot in the head, as well as several others including a child being  killed in arizona, has launched a new interest group meant to curb gun  violence called Americans for Responsible Solutions.
> 
> Her statement was
> 
> ...



It's about time congress took their thumbs out of their asses and accepted their is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Guns don't need to be banned, we just need to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. I heard that Obama wants to ban automatic weapons. Go ahead and ban them it wont solve the problem because if someone wants to go on a shooting rampage they will do so with what they CAN get hold of. 

Prime example, hand guns were banned here in 1995 after the Dunblane massacre in Scotland. Fast forward to a couple years ago when that guy took a shot gun and went on shooting spree over here. Pint is hand guns were banned because of a mass shooting here yet many years later someone uses what they can get hold of easily and STILL causes havoc.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Randy, that has been addressed before in the thread. "Don't take any action and hope the problem goes away" is not working in the US, nor is "Well keep the same availability / increase availability then be tough on Criminals after the fact". Unfortunately, for a lot of people, the solution seems to be "Well then I guess we need to regulate everything else", and encourage absolutely no action against firearms (or, as mentioned above, to increase availability: I've seen it argued with a straight face before that the solution is to start giving firearms and training to US citizens starting _age five_). 

I guess that it makes a degree of sense, though. If someone doesn't even know the first rule of firearm safety (treat a firearm as if it is always loaded), they're not going to want the government to create a test that tells them there's more to firearms than "You buy it and, when bad people come, you point, click, then they go away". They similarly aren't going to want to go in for a psychiatric evaluation when their definition of Self Defense is something along the lines of "If someone breaks into your house you have full right to immediately pump them full of lead until they stop moving". Simpler to write up a list of dream regulations that conveniently there's no way they can fail and would only keep guns out of the hands of groups they distrust / make it even easier for them to get guns.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> Self Defense is something along the lines of "If someone breaks into your house you have full right to immediately pump them full of lead until they stop moving". Simpler to write up a list of dream regulations that conveniently there's no way they can fail and would only keep guns out of the hands of groups they distrust / make it even easier for them to get guns.



Yep

"Colorado has a castle law. The statute states that â€œany occupant of a  dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including  deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has  made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a  reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the  dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends  to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the  uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such  other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against  any occupant.â€"


http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Colorado-Gun-Control-Laws.htm


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Yep
> 
> "Colorado has a castle law. The statute states that â€œany occupant of a  dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including  deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has  made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a  reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the  dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends  to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the  uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such  other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against  any occupant.â€"
> 
> ...



I think this should be a standard right everywhere. We all should have the right to protect ourselves, our property and our family.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I think this should be a standard right everywhere. We all should have the right to protect ourselves, our property and our family.



Correct!!!


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I think this should be a standard right everywhere. We all should have the right to protect ourselves, our property and our family.



Unfortunately, our government disagrees.

We're not even allowed to carry pepper spray in the hopes of defense because it counts as "looking for trouble" and we should let the police deal with it.

It's a shame that those who set such laws do not fucking realise that the UK police force is far, far, _far_ from a squad of supermen, and they have no grasp of what calling cops during a mugging is like.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Unfortunately, our government disagrees.
> 
> We're not even allowed to carry pepper spray in the hopes of defense because it counts as "looking for trouble" and we should let the police deal with it.
> 
> It's a shame that those who set such laws do not fucking realise that the UK police force is far, far, _far_ from a squad of supermen, and they have no grasp of what calling cops during a mugging is like.



It nice to hear from people living in the UK under the laws that have disarmed them and been left defenseless.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> It nice to hear from people living in the UK under the laws that have disarmed them and been left defenseless.



pls liberate us


----------



## Recel (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> and they have no grasp of what calling cops during a mugging is like.



It's kind of sad that this is such a wide spread disease. Way more often than not, the people who make the calls, make laws and decide how you should live your life have no idea on the subjects they make said laws and rules about.

Here in Hungary for instance, the minimum money you can get is half the minimum wage, minus taxes. You can not live from that amount of money. Unless on the street only buying food. Yet the politicians who did it really believe you can keep up a household, buy food and the rest from it. 
Someone who makes fifty times more money a month, never has to even think about next months bills, sparing and pinching penny on food, and changes cars like others their socks cut the minimum wage (which is a MINIMUM for a reason) in half believing you can live from that.
How would he know anything about it may I ask?

And how would they know anything about self defense? Robberys, mugging, murder and theft... wait, they know a lot about the last one, never mind... but how would they know what's it like for regular folks, or the regular streets, when they never have to or even want to try that lifestyle out?

Why are we even electing people, who have no real idea about our problems in the first place?


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Recel said:


> Why are we even electing people, who have no real idea about our problems in the first place?



Right ON!!


----------



## Attaman (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Yep
> 
> "Colorado has a castle law. The statute states that â€œany occupant of a  dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including  deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has  made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a  reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the  dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends  to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the  uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such  other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against  any occupant.â€"
> 
> ...


I think you'll notice that what's included is "when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force,". The "no matter how slight" is a bit of crock depending on who you have arguing the case when it comes to legal-ese (In theory you could argue that an unarmed burglar who would try to push you away from the door to escape is physical force), but the point remains that there has to be some threat. You know, more than just "My god he's in my house I can now open up like it's a turkey shoot!"

Thank you though for showing you fail to have any real reading comprehension, though, and are indeed one of the people I was referring to in my post.


----------



## Ikrit (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

i wish i could resurrect good ol' ben frank to swat some government behind


----------



## Attaman (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Ikrit said:


> i wish i could resurrect good ol' ben frank to swat some government behind


>Bitches about Gubment
>Has holy reverence for Gubment document

Standard day. :V


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> I think you'll notice that what's included is "when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force,". The "no matter how slight" is a bit of crock depending on who you have arguing the case when it comes to legal-ese (In theory you could argue that an unarmed burglar who would try to push you away from the door to escape is physical force), but the point remains that there has to be some threat. You know, more than just "My god he's in my house I can now open up like it's a turkey shoot!"
> 
> Thank you though for showing you fail to have any real reading comprehension, though, and are indeed one of the people I was referring to in my post.



Wrong again bud.

"
*â€œMake My Dayâ€ Law: Castle Doctrine in Colorado*

                         In 2009, a Colorado Springs man avoided a potential homicide charge  as a result of 1) the reasonable actions he took when protecting  himself from an intruder at his home; and 2) Coloradoâ€™s Castle  Doctrineâ€”which permits peopleâ€”such as this Colorado Springsâ€™ manâ€”to use  self-defense and even deadly-force to protect their home from intruders who put them in danger.
 To sum-up the events, James Parsons and his girlfriend were at their  home one evening when a 22-year old assistant golf-pro at the Colorado  Springs golf course, Sean Kennedy, pulled into Mr. Parsonâ€™s driveway and  proceeded to enter the house.  Supposedly, Mr. Kennedy (whoâ€™s BAC was  reported to be three times over the legal limit for driving) thought he  had arrived at his own house and accidentally locked himself outside.   Prosecutors reported that Mr. Kennedy then proceeded to bang on the door  and yell until he eventually broke a window in an attempt to unlock a  door.  Mr. Parsons, having a reasonable belief that the intruder meant  to harm he and his girlfriend, procured his revolver and shot at Mr.  Kennedy three timesâ€”all while his girlfriend notified authorities"

He wasn't even in the house, he had broken the window of the door and was reaching in to unlock it when they shot and killed him.

I can find more if you wish.

http://www.libertylawcenter.com/2011/11/“make-my-day”-law-castle-doctrine-in-colorado/


----------



## Attaman (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> to use  self-defense and even deadly-force to protect their home from intruders who *put them in danger.*
> ...
> Mr. Parsons, *having a reasonable belief that the intruder meant  to harm he and his girlfriend*, procured his revolver and shot at Mr.  Kennedy three timesâ€”all while his girlfriend notified authorities"


Do you _really_ lack such basic reading comprehension? For fucks sake.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 8, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Like the article said and I reiterated, that person was not even in the house.

Somebody breaks into my house at 3AM I am going to have a reasonable belief harm is going to be meant to me and mine, and I sure as shit will not be asking the breakers intent. 

So yes if you break into a Colorado home it can be a "turkey shoot".

"*The Colorado Make My Day Law goes further than other forms of  self defense by providing for immunity from prosecution (as well as from  civil liability) rather than merely establishing an affirmative  defense. Section 18-1-704.5, C.R.S. provides that the occupant of a  dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force  against a person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling, if the  occupant reasonably believes that the intruder has committed, is  committing or is about to commit a crime in addition to the unlawful  entry and also reasonably believes that the intruder might use any  physical force against any occupant."

*http://www.colorado-criminal-lawyer-online.com/colorado-castle-doctrine/


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 9, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Remind me never to go to Colorado because it's full of trigger-happy morons who have been handed a licence to kill _by their own fucking government_ at the slightest provocation.

Oh, and guess what? Aurora CO has had a _second_ mass shooting within six months of the last one .

Way to fucking go, America. 

And once again we'll have the usual suspects like the NRA trotting out their mantras that basically try and lay the blame on anything else _other_ than easy access to heavy weaponry by all and sundry, claiming that because gun control won't fix _all_ gun crime there's no point in trying to fix _any_ gun crime, try and claim that the Second Amendment is some kind of licence to rise up in armed resistance to their own government if they see fit (which is meaningless, seeing as the lack of such a "right" in Syria hasn't stopped a full-scale rebellion and _civil war_ currently in progress), and generally put the right to own and carry in public weapons that most other sane Western countries have limited to _professionals_ like actual _soldiers and police officers_ over the right of everyone else _to not have to either be armed to the teeth or wearing a goddamn flack jacket_ to avoid being shot up by their own gun-toting neighbours.

I mean, bulletproof backpacks for kids?!? Is THIS the kind of price America has to pay - as well as in blood _every single year_ - to allow NRA types to own their toys with impunity?


----------



## kyfox (Jan 9, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.aspFound this, seems interesting.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 9, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.aspFound this, seems interesting.



Oh hell NO, your trying to bring FACTS into this?  Wheres the emotional response based upon half truths?  Wheres the name calling (morons, batshit insane)?  Wheres the "we have to DO SOMETHING" as long as it ban more guns and we can't discuss any other options?  Where do facts fit into this? :V


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Jan 9, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> *â€œMake My Dayâ€ Law: Castle Doctrine in Colorado*



Castle Doctrine leads to some crazy situations. I mean, it gives crazy people the idea that they're legally sanctioned to kill people on their own land. For instance:

http://www.examiner.com/article/flo...-steak-salesman-shoots-extra-round-for-effect


----------



## Attaman (Jan 9, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Um, looking at your "just facts" webpage, I'm finding that it treats Global Warming as something of a farce and makes extensive reference to "ClimateGate". They also admit to being Libertarian / Conservative in viewpoint, smear Warren Buffett about wanting to increase taxes on the upper income bracket, etcetera.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 9, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Oh wait someone referenced "Just Slant"? 

That's cute.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> Um, looking at your "just facts" webpage, I'm finding that it treats Global Warming as something of a farce and makes extensive reference to "ClimateGate". They also admit to being Libertarian / Conservative in viewpoint, smear Warren Buffett about wanting to increase taxes on the upper income bracket, etcetera.





Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Oh wait someone referenced "Just Slant"?
> 
> That's cute.



Yep like no one cherry picks their data to present their side.  But the  "facts" are cited and the cites have links to the original  documentation, I hear neither of you rebutting the facts presented.  I  guess when you can't attack the facts you fall back on discrediting the  presenters of the facts.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> I guess when you can't attack the facts you fall back on discrediting the  presenters of the facts.



Are you saying Attaman and Term are turning into republicans?


----------



## Attaman (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Yep like no one cherry picks their data to present their side.  But the  "facts" are cited and the cites have links to the original  documentation, I hear neither of you rebutting the facts presented.


 Because eight other committees already did it for us. So not only do you fail to have any reading comprehension, you either fail to do basic fact-check _or_ willfully misrepresent arguments in the hope nobody else will do basic fact-check.



cobalt-blue said:


> I  guess when you can't attack the facts you fall back on discrediting the  presenters of the facts.


 There's reports that say domestic abuse is split 50:50 between men and women. Go ahead, say those reports are perfectly factual, have no slant, and try to defend them. :V

Alternatively, I could pull up a few Mother Jones articles with facts that call for greater firearm regulation and present compelling arguments to do so. Your move, bucko, just remember that you can't dismiss it as from a biased site as "the "facts" are cited and the cites have links to the original documentation".


----------



## kyfox (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> Um, looking at your "just facts" webpage, I'm finding that it treats Global Warming as something of a farce and makes extensive reference to "ClimateGate". They also admit to being Libertarian / Conservative in viewpoint, smear Warren Buffett about wanting to increase taxes on the upper income bracket, etcetera.



Dont get me started on global warming. There's no evidence that indicates human-caused climate change.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> Dont get me started on global warming. There's no evidence that indicates human-caused climate change.


 Complete coincidence that when those dams redirected the river they created new deserts, no correlation I say! :V


----------



## Aetius (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> Dont get me started on global warming. There's no evidence that indicates human-caused climate change.



I bet Obama did it.


----------



## Machine (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



RetroOctane said:


> What if we find out what all these mass murderers have in common and make a law or laws based on that?


You can't outlaw delusional thought process or psychotic rage. I just had to reply because my brain was hurting from the start of this, then it was still hurting by the twelfth page.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but people with guns are just more efficient at it.

It doesn't matter how many people we psych. profile, some new one is going to come out of nowhere. Such is the case of Adam Lanza. Fuck, such is the case of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. It's near impossible to predict someone's intentions when it comes like this. 

And then, to make things even more complicated, these type of maniacs escape capture by shooting themselves. Those are the times where I hope a special place in Hell exists for them. 

Oh, and there was another shooting today. :/


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Machine said:


> You can't outlaw delusional thought process or psychotic rage.


Also just cause they all have something in common doesn't mean a individual is going to shoot someone.  If we did jail people on the sole premise of something is in common wouldn't that wind up with us eventually imprisoning children and such who have never committed crimes just cause we think they may become criminals?

It may be a slippery slope argument, but we used to do things like that in the past a fuckton.  Back in the day they thought if a parent is a criminal or murderer their offspring would become murderers and criminals.


----------



## Ikrit (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

every time there is a shooting, the gun control issue comes up again, both sides make the exact same argument as last time, and nothing actually gets done.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Ikrit said:


> every time there is a shooting, the gun control issue comes up again, both sides make the exact same argument as last time, and nothing actually gets done.


There's talks that obama may use a executive mandate to cockblock the sale of extended magazines.


----------



## Machine (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



CannonFodder said:


> Also just cause they all have something in common doesn't mean a individual is going to shoot someone.  If we did jail people on the sole premise of something is in common wouldn't that wind up with us eventually imprisoning children and such who have never committed crimes just cause we think they may become criminals?
> 
> It may be a slippery slope argument, but we used to do things like that in the past a fuckton.  Back in the day they thought if a parent is a criminal or murderer their offspring would become murderers and criminals.


I know. It makes my head spin a little bit.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Biden is probably going to make a recommendation on tuesday-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/politics/gun-control-battle/index.html?hpt=po_c1
Personally I'm for the ban of extended clips.  It'd be the easiest any sort of reform to get through.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



CannonFodder said:


> There's talks that obama may use a executive mandate to cockblock the sale of extended magazines.



Yep we elected a president that thinks he is a King and can rule by edict.


----------



## Saga (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Another school shooting happened today. A student came in with a shotgun and shot another student; a teacher then persuaded the shooter to drop the weapon.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Yep we elected a president that thinks he is a King and can rule by edict.


At this point I'm going to have to invoke Poe's Law. That or cobalt's batshit.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jan 11, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Guys, cobalt is right, tighter gun control isn't the solution!

This is.


----------



## Machine (Jan 11, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gryphoneer said:


> Guys, cobalt is right, tighter gun control isn't the solution!
> 
> This is.


Not sure if good idea or fucking insane...


----------



## Rasly (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

there is fun quote: â€œThe beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.â€ Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Attaman (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> there is fun quote: â€œThe beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.â€ Thomas Jefferson


 Ironically a lot of people here have been jumping through so many hoops so as to disproportionately gut the First Amendment so as to prevent any perceived change to the second.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Saga said:


> Another school shooting happened today. A student came in with a shotgun and shot another student; a teacher then persuaded the shooter to drop the weapon.



What's interesting is that according to the reports I've seen the teacher who talked down the student _wasn't armed_. That's one courageous teacher.

But good grief - can't you Yanks go at least one month _without _shooting up schools? "US school shooting" is getting to be as rare and newsworthy as "Dog bites man" or "Car crash"


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> What's interesting is that according to the reports I've seen the teacher who talked down the student _wasn't armed_. That's one courageous teacher.
> 
> But good grief - can't you Yanks go at least one month _without _shooting up schools? "US school shooting" is getting to be as rare and newsworthy as "Dog bites man" or "Car crash"


You think that's fucking crazy?  Some dude in texas pretended that he was going to shoot up the school to test the school's safety for his daughter not realizing he's going to fucking prison cause threatening to blow someone's head off even if you are unarmed is still a crime.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> Complete coincidence that when those dams redirected the river they created new deserts, no correlation I say! :V


The politicization of science is truly depressing. The scientists who gather and interpret the data which points to anthropogenic climate change have advanced degrees in the natural sciences. Yet conservative commentators think they can counter scientific data with fancy suits and big mouths.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Yet conservative commentators think they can counter scientific data with fancy suits and big mouths.


Remember that this is the same party that was clinging to "Clap your hands and disbelieve" being a viable interpretation of reality up until Romney lost the election not only Electorally, but by public majority as well. I think the expectation was something like 55-60% of the public vote to Romney in the more conservative polls, a few of the "out there" ones up to 70% or more.

Though I guess that could go in a Megathread of its own. It's not like there's been any shortage of things to stuff the megathread with, between kneejerk voting against a UN Disabilities Rights, US-based Protection of Women bill out of fear of helping "Teh gay", another US bill offering aid to Sandy victims (some officials going so far as to say "You've gone two months already, you can go another two"), having to put out what is basically a PSA to stop treating rape as a victim-orchestrated crime, threatening to drive gleefully off the Fiscal Cliff, etcetera.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> At this point I'm going to have to invoke Poe's Law. That or cobalt's batshit.



OK. 

"During his first term, President Obama issued executive orders in lieu of laws passed by Congress, signed executive agreements with foreign countries in lieu of treaties ratified by the Senate, and formulated burdensome regulations with little legislative justification."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/trying-to-nudge-the-constitution-out-of-place/


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> OK.
> 
> "During his first term, President Obama issued executive orders in lieu of laws passed by Congress, signed executive agreements with foreign countries in lieu of treaties ratified by the Senate, and formulated burdensome regulations with little legislative justification."
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/trying-to-nudge-the-constitution-out-of-place/



You DO realise that executive orders have been used by every US President since at least President Hoover?

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

And as far as the number of such orders signed, Obama's pretty consistent with previous US presidents... 138 for his first term compared roughly with George H.W Bush's  count of 166 for the latter's only term in office. The count of executive orders for Nixon, Reagan, Truman and Eisenhower is significantly above that for Obama OR Dubya Bush.

In other words, I'm calling bullshit on this along with Attaman.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I would think the content of these might be more important than the sheer volume.  Also to threaten to use them if he can't get his way with congress seems pretty dictatorial, not exactly the way the constitution lays out how laws are to be made.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> I would think the content of these might be more important than the sheer volume.



You _think_? You mean you don't _know_? 

Perhaps you can find some of these highly offensive Obama executive orders and share them with us. There will, of course, NOT be the ones already debunked on Snopes.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

You're absolutely right, Cob, Obama's at fault for executive orders and not, oh, the American people for vesting him with these powers.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> I would think the content of these might be more important than the sheer volume.


You want to make a context game for Obama using _less executive orders_ when in a political environment that is _literally willing to tank the national debt_ to _potentially hurt his re-election chances_?

You aren't going to win that game to try and slander Obama as some terrible tyrant out to take away our guns.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

You know guys I agree with you, we could get rid the pesky Senate and  House of Representatives and the Supreme Court too.   Look at the money saved and how streamlined everything could be. I would not have to  watch 10 months of political ads every couple of years:V  Hell he could  even close Guantanamo.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> You know guys I agree with you, we could get rid the pesky Senate and  House of Representatives and the Supreme Court too.   Look at the money saved and how streamlined everything could be. I would not have to  watch 10 months of political ads every couple of years:V  Hell he could  even close Guantanamo.


 If what you got from "Extremists in the Republican Party are batshit insane and refuse to practice bipartisanship" is "Lol President Obama for life let's just get rid of all those things in his way and have them all suffer", I must again invoke Poe's Law.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Not Poe's Law!!!!  Please Please PLEASE not Poe's Law!!!!!!! :V


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Awesome riposte, dude.

You sure showed us.


----------



## VGmaster9 (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

You know, part of me believes that this whole thing is just a way to go to war with gun owners, just like 9/11 was a way to go to war with muslims.


----------



## Aetius (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



VGmaster9 said:


> You know, part of me believes that this whole thing is just a way to go to war with gun owners, just like 9/11 was a way to go to war with muslims.



Yes, this is all a false flag operation. Please put your tinfoil hat back on before the Free Masons steal your freedom.


----------



## VGmaster9 (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Aetius said:


> Yes, this is all a false flag operation. Please put your tinfoil hat back on before the Free Masons steal your freedom.



There's already been growing proof that it is a false flag.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



VGmaster9 said:


> There's already proof that it is a false flag.


So, uh, you wouldn't mind sharing this proof that 9/11 was an inside job / the Aurora shooting and such were perpetuated by government plants?

Someone who is a rational advocate of US firearm ownership in its current format: Please, _please_ come in here. Right now the people you have present to make your case are "Global Warming is a Farce", "9/11 was an inside job", "Self defense's effectiveness is directly proportional to how easy it is for you to kill someone who scares you", and "Better to gut the First Amendment and increase the availability of bulletproof clothing than admit one concession towards firearm control". You literally _can't make a worse counter-argument_.


----------



## VGmaster9 (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> So, uh, you wouldn't mind sharing this proof that 9/11 was an inside job / the Aurora shooting and such were perpetuated by government plants?
> 
> Someone who is a rational advocate of US firearm ownership in its current format: Please, _please_ come in here. Right now the people you have present to make your case are "Global Warming is a Farce", "9/11 was an inside job", "Self defense's effectiveness is directly proportional to how easy it is for you to kill someone who scares you", and "Better to gut the First Amendment and increase the availability of bulletproof clothing than admit one concession towards firearm control". You literally _can't make a worse counter-argument_.



I was actually talking about the Sandy Hook shooting. Personally, I don't want to believe that it's real, but it sounds too convincing. It's either that or the media is just overpublicizing this just for gun control. But I found some pretty interesting stuff, if you go to InfoWars and Prison Planet.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



VGmaster9 said:


> I was actually talking about the Sandy Hook shooting. Personally, I don't want to believe that it's real, but it sounds too convincing.


 You're going to _InfoWars_. They are to unbiased political commentary what Stormfront is to unbiased racial commentary.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> You're going to _InfoWars_. They are to unbiased political commentary what Stormfront is to unbiased racial commentary.



But half as fun, unfortunately.


----------



## powderhound (Jan 13, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

It was mentioned above that no one should have to take a test to obtain a firearm. Wellâ€¦ I used to feel the same way until recently. Where I live you half to take a written test every few years in order to make certain firearm purchases. The test is a complete joke, everyone takes it on-the-fly at the time of purchase and spends most of their time chuckling to themselves because the answers and foils are so obvious. ("To check if your firearm is loaded you should: A)look down the barrel and squeeze the trigger B)...") I used to feel it's only purpose was to extract more money for the state. However I was recently at a shop in the inner-city and had some time to people watch due how busy it was. It was a pretty interesting experience actually. The Simpsons episode on the matter it's not too far off in some cases. To my surprise I watched about seven people fail the written exam over the course of 30 minutes. Listening to them trying to defend their reasoning as the answers were reviewed with them was pretty astounding. Those people certainly should not own a firearm and I was really thankful that that test existed. Even scarier was the thought that they probably had drivers licenses.


Most criminals are not going to be purchasing their firearms via the background check and registration route. It's purpose isn't to reduce gun crime. I also know that people feel gun ownership isn't a privilege but a constitutional right. However I have to concede that if you can't pass that test you have no business being around anything that is potentially dangerous. As painful as it is to take it and pay for it I now actually see that as money well spent. 

http://youtu.be/xIpLd0WQKCY


----------



## kyfox (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

*"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.*



"*Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
 --Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).*

By the very definition of the word, a criminal doesn't follow the law. That take advantage of those who do.
*
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341I
*
I pray I never face a situation where I must shoot someone, but I will prepare myself in the case that I must.


Every person I know who owns guns and some who don't can agree on these three statements. It is our right given by the constitution that we have the right to bear arms and those rights shall not be infringed.I am for reasonable restrictions on weapon sales that prevent sales of weapons to criminals or those with mental illness. However, we don't need magazine restrictions or assault weapon bans. All firearms are assault weapons. You can't shoot people with peace and happiness. The difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle? One is black. That's basically it, cosmetic differences.As for magazine restrictions I can fire the same amount of shots with 3 10-round mags than I can with 2 15-round mags.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



VGmaster9 said:


> I was actually talking about the Sandy Hook shooting. Personally, I don't want to believe that it's real, but it sounds too convincing. It's either that or the media is just overpublicizing this just for gun control. But I found some pretty interesting stuff, if you go to InfoWars and Prison Planet.



Given that sales of guns and bulletproof backpacks for children have (pardon the pun) shot up since Sandy Hook, as well as the NRA proposing armed guards in every school in the USA, a more plausible conspiracy theory would be that the gun manufacturers and NRA are engineering an increasingly more paranoid and violent culture just so they can shift ever-increasing numbers of product, thereby ensuring a nice fat profit for themselves


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> Every person I know who owns guns and some who don't can agree on these three statements. It is our right given by the constitution that we have the right to bear arms and those rights shall not be infringed.



Even if that means you have to put up with multiple school shootings per year _that no other developed country with proper gun control ever experiences_?

I'm with former Australian Prime Minister John Howard who, after the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, described American-style gun laws as a "disease". (Full quote: "_"I donâ€™t think people should have guns, unless they are police, or in the military or security industry. Ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia_." (emphasis added))



kyfox said:


> I am for reasonable restrictions on weapon sales that prevent sales of weapons to criminals or those with mental illness.



And if you happen to _develop_ mental illness while in possession of a stockpile of weapons - what then?



powderhound said:


> Where I live you half to take a written test every few years in order to make certain firearm purchases. The test is a complete joke, everyone takes it on-the-fly at the time of purchase and spends most of their time chuckling to themselves because the answers and foils are so obvious. ("To check if your firearm is loaded you should: A)look down the barrel and squeeze the trigger B)...")



I feel the same way about the questions on the back of the I-94W Visa Waiver Immigration form that I had to complete when passing through the USA several years ago - like anyone is really going to tick "Yes" to "Are you a drug smuggler" / "Are you a Nazi" / "Are you a spy" type questions? And WTF is "moral turpitude"? :roll:


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

"American historical figure wanted us to live in a Western, therefore it is unpatriotic to think otherwise".
"If anything with eyes looks at you the wrong way, it's your duty to blow its brains out."


----------



## kyfox (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> Even if that means you have to put up with multiple school shootings per year _that no other developed country with proper gun control ever experiences_?
> 
> I'm with former Australian Prime Minister John Howard who, after the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, described American-style gun laws as a "disease". (Full quote: "_"I donâ€™t think people should have guns, unless they are police, or in the military or security industry. Ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia_." (emphasis added))



That is Australia, the United States were founded with the idea of democracy and freedom of the people. Besides the data shows that gun violence lowers when gun restrictions are removed. 

As for developing a mental illness while owning guns, that should be handled by the guns being confiscated or given to a family member who doesn't live in the house.


----------



## soutthpaw (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Furries with Guns:-D   RAWR!
















BTW the only thing new gun laws will do is increase gun sales 10 to 20 fold!    Clinton was the best gun salesman in  American history.   Let's see if Obama tries to take that title away from him!!
Free access to mental health care not more gun laws is the best option to reduce the occurance of these violent events.    Look at the crime statistics in Australia since they made firearms illegal!  massive rise in gun crimes and robberies etc.   criminals now know their victims will be unarmed.. http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

The problem is as much the availability of firearms to dangerous hands as it is the existence of dangerous hands for firearms to fall into. I personally 'like' guns , but don't like the idea of being associated with 'gun nuts'. 
Is that an RPK?!


----------



## zanian (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> That is Australia, the United States were founded with the idea of democracy and freedom of the people. Besides the data shows that gun violence lowers when gun restrictions are removed.
> 
> As for developing a mental illness while owning guns, that should be handled by the guns being confiscated or given to a family member who doesn't live in the house.



Â«gun violence lowers when gun restrictions are removed.Â» and yet...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/


----------



## Attaman (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> That is Australia, the United States were founded with the idea of democracy and freedom of the people.


 Which is why you're generally an advocate of gutting the First Amendment for the sake of the Second? You'd rather people who literally are walking disasters waiting to happen be allowed to carry firearms rather than risk a single "responsible" owner risk failing a simple firearm safety test? You can't just wurble "Fweeedom!" and expect all the issues to go away. 

Also, minor notes: If you're a big fan of Jefferson, you're also _very_ big on the separation of Church and State. Something I find a lot of people who quote Jefferson suddenly forget five minutes later, or whinge about "Context!" Similarly if you're fine with the idea of Democracy you're saying you're perfectly fine with Obama's election as he won not only the Electoral vote, but public majority as well.

Lastly, you have to keep into context when the Second Amendment was written. At that time Jefferson couldn't even conceive of the existence of assault weapons (which do exist as a weapon category: For fucks sake firearm owners _how the hell do you keep making these simple mistakes and then expect us to consider you rational owners?_), armoured warfare, the scale of future warfare, etcetera. 



kyfox said:


> Besides the data shows that gun violence lowers when gun restrictions are removed.


 First, I'm having trouble finding scholarly sources that support this claim. The closest I've found is either some sources claiming that they don't have a significant impression either way, or that there are decreases in return for bumps in other categories (ex: Decrease in gun crime, Increase in knife crime), and most of these are under the context of _reasonable_ firearm owners, not Mister or Misses "My weapon won't function for self-defense unless it's pre-loaded and entirely unsecured in my nightstand" (which I have had told to me by supposed "reasonable" firearm owners). Second, you do realize you're essentially returning to the basic argument "Less regulation is fine, more guns for everyone!"?



kyfox said:


> As for developing a mental illness while owning guns, that should be handled by the guns being confiscated or given to a family member who doesn't live in the house.


 Because mentally ill persons never visit family, and everyone will magically know with no prompting that they've become ill and have a firearm? Generally you need some degree of regulation in order for this to work. If my eldest sister were to acquire a firearm, I'd likely be one of the last people to know, so if she were then to be later diagnosed as having some sort of mental illness it's not like I'd immediately think "Oh em gee, take dat quantum gun she may-or-may-not have away from her immediately". Nor is it likely she'd tell whoever diagnosed her with the illness "Oh bugger, I guess this means I shouldn't be packing a 9mm in my purse / dresser / gun chest now should I?"


----------



## Attaman (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



soutthpaw said:


> Free access to mental health care not more gun laws is the best option to reduce the occurance of these violent events.    Look at the crime statistics in Australia since they made firearms illegal!  massive rise in gun crimes and robberies etc.   criminals now know their victims will be unarmed.. http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html


Sorry to double-post, but copy pasting with the new forum software is a bitch.

Oh look, counterpoint!


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> Lastly, you have to keep into context when the Second Amendment was written. At that time Jefferson couldn't even conceive of the existence of assault weapons (which do exist as a weapon category: For fucks sake firearm owners _how the hell do you keep making these simple mistakes and then expect us to consider you rational owners?_), armoured warfare, the scale of future warfare, etcetera



I guess he didn't conceive of TV , radio and the internet either, but I'm sure you enjoy that the 1st has been expanded to cover them.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Hey guys, can one of you hold this for me a sec? Thanks.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Basically the story is that despite whatever the hell is going on at the time, a cop can shoot a guy if he has a weapon drawn towards them, but this extends to the scenario where if a cop catches a glimpse of someone's legally-carried weapon on their person regardless of whether they're drawn or not, the cop on duty is "in the right" to shoot that person dead immediately. So if a wrong'un starts shit, a legal carrier can draw their weapon and the cop can shoot the legal carrier following whatever assumption is pulled out of their arse, the cop would be in the right.

Imagine all the tradegies coming outta that.

The police are "trained" to handle such a situation without the needless deaths of civilians, but, you know, Chicago police.


----------



## kyfox (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I'll just get to the core of this. The point I really want people to understand.(more important than quoting Jefferson because I like guns) 

The reason that we had the second amendment put in place was to protect ourselves or to end a tyrannical government. The whole idea about having because police do not respond fast enough came later(but by no means less important.) Anyone who thinks that their government cannot become tyrannical is an idiot. That's it. The United States is no better than any other county. People like power, it is addictive. Without firearms, how will the people protect themselves from an oppressive government that does have them? That is why the second amendment is important. This is the main issue that people should be mad.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> I'll just get to the core of this. The point I really want people to understand.(more important than quoting Jefferson because I like guns)
> 
> The reason that we had the second amendment put in place was to protect ourselves or to end a tyrannical government. The whole idea about having because police do not respond fast enough came later(but by no means less important.) Anyone who thinks that their government cannot become tyrannical is an idiot. That's it. The United States is no better than any other county. People like power, it is addictive. Without firearms, how will the people protect themselves from an oppressive government that does have them? That is why the second amendment is important. This is the main issue that people should be mad.



Yeah. In places that ban guns, it's only the government figures that are truly allowed to properly protect themselves without making ridiculous improvisations, and those in power who try to get rid of guns happen to be fucking hypocrites e.g. Dianne Feinstein waving around an already-illegal weapon in a crowded room, and Arnold Schwarzenegger who has recently bought a fully-functional battle tank. If a gun ban does go in action, the only people who do carry guns are from the "highly trained police forces." 

And in America, that would be a recipie for disaster.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> snip


Gee, thanks for the update, kyfox! You can return to the Foundation now and keep us informed about what instructions the Founding Fathers gave us for the next Seldon Crisis...

But seriously, those guys lived +200 years ago. The deadliest handheld fireweapons of their time were muskets. You don't need to be Hawking to make an educated guess that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and consorts would be fucking horrified if they saw the prevalence and resulting bloodshed of weapons powerful enough to be used by various African tinpot dictators to routinely commit genocide. They would ban assault rifles _on the spot_.

Your bad habit of treating your constitution as fucking gospel and an universal answer to all problems regardless of socio-cultural progress is especially bewildering if you recall that its authors themselves didn't think of it this way and therefore created the possibility to _amend _it.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> The reason that we had the second amendment put in place was to protect ourselves or to end a tyrannical government. The whole idea about having because police do not respond fast enough came later(but by no means less important.) Anyone who thinks that their government cannot become tyrannical is an idiot. That's it. The United States is no better than any other county. People like power, it is addictive. Without firearms, how will the people protect themselves from an oppressive government that does have them? That is why the second amendment is important. This is the main issue that people should be mad.


You want to know what sort of things the average citizen would need to overthrow the US Government and its tyrannical military, as it stands now?

Private fighter jets. Community tank companies. Cornerstores stocking Carl Gustav's. The force necessary to properly engage _the most powerful military in the world_ rests well above "Well just hand every Joe Schmoe a 9mm and wish them luck" that it's another point towards "Jesus Christ you people _use what evolution gave you between your ears_".

Oh, and just to take a jab because I can: You're more likely to be oppressed by the Freemarket than you are the US Government. Fun game: Which, in the last 100-ish years of US History, has tried to bribe city officials to put machineguns on the roofs of peoples' homes to discourage the common masses from grouping together? Drove armed trains through towns to scatter the citizens because "How dare you care about personal rights!"? _Dropped live bombs on US citzens on US soil to break morale_? Hint: Its name begins with a B and almost rhymes with "Guiness".


----------



## VGmaster9 (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Here's an interesting video that's worth watching. It's kinda long but it has alot of great information on the flaws of gun control. Be advised that it contains graphic images.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgJg3L7VLxU


----------



## Attaman (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



VGmaster9 said:


> Here's an interesting video that's worth watching. It's kinda long but it has alot of great information on the flaws of gun control. Be advised that it contains graphic images.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgJg3L7VLxU


I'm finding a lot of these connect to Libertarian websites, so in addition to once more asking "Please provide a credible source", I'm also going to repeat my jab of "You have more to fear from big business than the government."


----------



## kyfox (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

You guys are missing the point. Violence is relative. A war with muskets is the same as a war with machine guns.
The point is that we must defend our democracy, that's why we have the Constitiution. The second amendment is a way to do it(albeit a violent one). 

Back to gun violence.
Banning guns will not lower crime. Again, criminals do not follow the law!! Why try to enforce laws on those who do not follow them? If the government tells me to turn in my guns, and I do, and my neighbor doesn't. He may know that I can't defend myself. What's to stop him from coming over and killing or robbing me? If he know I have a gun, he would be less likely to attack me.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Hey whats everybody's take on this.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/


----------



## Attaman (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> You guys are missing the point. Violence is relative. A war with muskets is the same as a war with machine guns.


 _You are not presenting a compelling case to trust you with a lethal weapon_.



kyfox said:


> The point is that we must defend our democracy, that's why we have the Constitiution. The second amendment is a way to do it(albeit a violent one).


 Actually, the constitution is less about defending Democracy as much as it is a framework and list of things to expect / be upheld within the nation. There's very, _very_ few interpretations that can turn "Well regulated militia" into "BANNING ME FROM OWNING A DOZEN HANDGUNS WITHOUT QUESTION MAKES JEFFERSON'S ANGEL CRY". 


kyfox said:


> Banning guns will not lower crime. Again, criminals do not follow the law!!


 Indeed. Why, as we all know, there is no such thing as a spontaneous crime, nor do criminals ever follow the law. Why, if you look back at most criminals, they were often comitting crimes as of their time in the womb!

Mind, this is something of a moot point as _no-one here has been mass advocating the removal of every single firearm in the US_. Generally what's been going on is "Hey dudes, maybe we could make a test that tries to see if someone knows basic firearm safety and is of able mind before giving them ready access to swathes of lethal weapons", which has been responded to with... er, "RAWR THEY WANNA TAKE ALL OUR GUNS!"



kyfox said:


> Why try to enforce laws on those who do not follow them?


 You can provide proof that 51%+ of all firearm crime is perpetuated by illegal firearm owners... yes?



kyfox said:


> If the government tells me to turn in my guns, and I do, and my neighbor doesn't. He may know that I can't defend myself.


 "I can't defend myself" strikes again! Remember people: Before firearms became commonplace it was standard practice to respond to mugging, thievery, and so-forth by bending over and hoping that they take you gently!


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Hmmm

The Sullivan Act  "it dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States." Oh by the way  "Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved  another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that  their victims sometimes shot back at them."

Sounds like people were defending themselves pretty well till they were disarmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act


----------



## Attaman (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Hmmm
> 
> The Sullivan Act  "it dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States." Oh by the way  "Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved  another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that  their victims sometimes shot back at them."
> 
> ...



"The Sullivan Act, also known as the Sullivan Law, is a gun control law in New York State. Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them was a felony. The possession or carrying of weapons such as brass knuckles, sandbags, blackjacks, bludgeons or bombs was a felony, as was possessing or carrying a dagger, "dangerous knife" or razor "with intent to use the same unlawfully". Named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician, it dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States."

So, seemingly, "required licenses to possess" and a spike in firearm homicides (assuming the second bit has a source somewhere) is "People were defending themselves pretty well till they were disarmed." Also disregard that one of the first persons arrested after the Act was passed was a mobster.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> Mind, this is something of a moot point as _no-one here has been mass advocating the removal of every single firearm in the US_. Generally what's been going on is "Hey dudes, maybe we could make a test that tries to see if someone knows basic firearm safety and is of able mind before giving them ready access to swathes of lethal weapons", which has been responded to with... er, "RAWR THEY WANNA TAKE ALL OUR GUNS!"
> 
> Before firearms became commonplace it was standard practice to respond to mugging, thievery, and so-forth by bending over and hoping that they take you gently!



Well may be No one here wants to but lets see.

 *Bans on Specific Classes of Weapons*
            The availability of specific classes of firearms where the evidence clearly demonstrates that such weapons present an unreasonable risk of death and injury should be severely restricted.  *(This is what firearms do)*

            Weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act--including silencers, "destructive devices" such as missiles used in grenade and rocket launchers and land mines--should be banned from future sale. *(Don't see many of these at Gander Mountain or Cabellas)
*
            Weapons that fall within the definition of assault weapons should be banned in the same manner as were machine guns in 1986, and no new versions of assault weapons should be made. *(The M-16 the musket of the times)
*
            Handguns should be banned from future sale except for military and law- enforcement personnel. 

            These are the primary components of the legislative model developed by the Violence Policy Center that would explicitly authorize the ATF to operate as a health and safety agency.

*Not many weapons left after they get their way.*

*They even want BB gu**ns in this*.

The ATF's jurisdiction should also be expanded to include nonpowder firearms (air and pellet guns).  Many adult shooters use air and pellet guns as target weapons, and many new nonpowder weapons more closely resemble traditional firearms.  Recognizing this, it would be logical to transfer jurisdiction over them from the CPSC to the ATF.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/cfstrat.htm

The Sullivan act made you a criminal without a permit and getting a permit was "may Issue" most were denied and as such honest citizens are still disarmed. Hand guns must have been pretty commonplace to need to enact the law.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> That is Australia, the United States were founded with the idea of democracy and freedom of the people.



Here we go, the usual arrogant "_The US is a special snowflake because hurrrrFREEEDOM!!!!_" argument. Do you seriously believe that the US is the ONLY country on the planet that was founded on the idea of "freedom", or that only the US is "free"?

Besides, for a country founded as a _penal colony_, Australia is doing a damn sight better than the US in several areas - like not having kids shot up in schools on a regular basis for starters.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Well may be No one here wants to but lets see.
> 
> *Bans on Specific Classes of Weapons*
> The availability of specific classes of firearms where the evidence clearly demonstrates that such weapons present an unreasonable risk of death and injury should be severely restricted.  *(This is what firearms do)*
> ...




Hmmm... sounds pretty much what we've got in place here in New Zealand - yet people still go out hunting with rifles and shotguns after pigs, deer, and game-birds. Not much point in using a rocket launcher for duck-shooting, there's not much meat left afterwards for eating. The only difference is that pistols here are legal, but can *only *be used on target ranges and you have to be a member of a pistol club. But then again, NZ _police_ don't routinely carry handguns.

Hunters and sportsmen still have their guns, the most dangerous types are strictly controlled and only available to trained professionals... sounds good to me.

Oh, and "[t]he M-16 the musket of the times"? That's a good joke, you should do stand-up comedy. Pure gold, that one.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I got a sneer out of that adorable Godwin the National Rednecks' Association just pulled. Fanatical gun nuts really are the best argument *for* gun control.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> Oh, and "[t]he M-16 the musket of the times"? That's a good joke, you should do stand-up comedy. Pure gold, that one.



I agree, the the world of the FN FAL and AK clones out there are so widely used and are labelled as "the people's weapon(s)" and used in many revolutions, after all. :v


----------



## powderhound (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

So, the majority of support for gun ownership here has focused on Second Amendment rights, self-defense or simply that people enjoy the shooting sports as a hobby.

I would like to bring up the point that for many people who do not live in cities firearm are an important tool that one uses every day. I grew up on a ranch. On large ranches people don't go anywhere without a rifle. Growing up, youth rifles which are small, compact and originally manufactured for kids seemed to be the most popular. Nobody wants to lug a full-sized rifle around when they've got other work to do. Most ranchers, although pro-gun, see pistols as useless and dangerous. Interestingly, there has been a shift in the rifle of choice for most ranchers. It started with the youth Bolt rifle being the favorite, then it was the Mini 14 and now the AR15 seems to be the favorite. 

When I first started seeing them being kicked around on the backs of ATVs I thought they were the ugliest, silliest looking things I've ever seen. I resisted the change for a long time telling myself you can't beat the accuracy of the small bolt rifle. However, I have now come to accept the ar15 is perhaps one of the best ranch rifles ever made. They collapse down, are extremely lightweight, compact, durable, reliable, and their modularity is incredibly useful. You can switch between lights, iron sites, scopes, night vision all in a matter of seconds. Their accuracy is impressive and I have come to appreciate having the follow-up shot the semi automatic centerfire rifle provides.

More importantly, they carry well and safely in the field. 

The civilian version ar15 has become a popular tool for farmers and ranchers across America. Functionally speaking, it is no different than any other semi automatic rifle. However I understand why people who have lived in cities all their lives feel that no one needs a Semi automatic rifle. On the flipside, most ranchers that never lived in cities don't understand why anyone would want to own a pistol either.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



powderhound said:


> So, the majority of support for gun ownership here has focused on Second Amendment rights, self-defense or simply that people enjoy the shooting sports as a hobby.


 No, the majority is based off a kneejerk reaction wherein "Yo dude, maybe we should do a basic competency check before trusting someone with a lethal weapon" is met with "HOAUVD JHV JA THEY GUNNA MAKE US UN DRONES!" Those who'd prefer lesser amounts of firearm regulation before more are going through the same crisis right now that Republicans in the US are, namely their talking heads and representatives tend to be _batshit insane_ to the point that every third press release is someone having to cover another speaker's ass. There are logical, reasonable arguments one can make for keeping firearm regulation as it is now, or even loosening it. But while such may exist, more often than not you're getting professionals who respond to "Mentally deranged person steals family member's gun and shoot up school" with "WELL MAYBE IF THOSE KIDS HAD BULLETPROOF BACKPACKS AND TEACHERS HAD GUNS WE'D HAVE AVOIDED THIS, HRM!?"



powderhound said:


> I would like to bring up the point that for many people who do not live in cities firearm are an important tool that one uses every day. I grew up on a ranch. On large ranches people don't go anywhere without a rifle. Growing up, youth rifles which are small, compact *and originally manufactured for kids* seemed to be the most popular.


 So, wait: You're saying that it makes sense to trust someone under the age of 13 with a lethal weapon, when at the same time it's generally agreed that they're too young to watch _Die Hard_ without parental supervision or buy a copy of _Final Fantasy_?

Do you have any idea how _insane_ that comes off to most other persons?


----------



## powderhound (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Sorry. The youth rifles mentioned are used by adults. Ranchers liked them as a working rifle because they are compact lightweight and accurate. They are originally designed for young kids though. To hour point though, I also think that kids brought up on farms around firearms, have excellent firearm sense and safety skills ingrained in them because it is something they are brought up around.


----------



## Rasly (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." 
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

then in year 1933, Hitler made a smart ass Law that allowed only real partiots to have guns, while Jews were fully disarmed, that resulted in them becoming slaves shortly after.

The second amendment is not made for normal self defense, it was made for the case the government fails to follow the first one.
Small guns may protect you from some drunk athlete, but i dont think it can protect you from corrupt government.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
> -- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788
> 
> then in year 1933, Hitler made a smart ass Law that allowed only real partiots to have guns, while Jews were fully disarmed, that resulted in them becoming slaves shortly after.
> ...


Hi Godwin.


I only really popped in this thread to talk about the new gun laws new york introduced.  I got to say I have to agree with them.  Background checks into all gun owners and sellers isn't setting the bar that high, nor is if someone has mental problems _and is a threat to others _they shouldn't have guns.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> The second amendment is not made for normal self defense, it was made for the case the government fails to follow the first one.



So your government has a law that explains how people can act when rebelling against the government? Does anyone else think this is... odd?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Hakar Kerarmor said:


> So your government has a law that explains how people can act when rebelling against the government? Does anyone else think this is... odd?



That interpretation is certainly... odd. Especially when rebels in countries without such a constitutional provision have no problems getting hold of weapons for their cause (e.g. Syria).

And let's face it: if Americans have been _that slack_ in their civic duties whereby the rest of the Constitution and laws have been blown past one after the other to get to the point where armed rebellion is the only option, they frickin' well _deserve _ a totalitarian tyranny. 

And it would seem that the NRA's vision for addressing gun crime - while allowing the most rabid of its member to retain practically any weapons they please and carry them anywhere they want - is pretty much one of the very police state they claim that the Second Amendment provisions are supposed to _prevent_...



			
				Slate said:
			
		

> This is the most extraordinary thing about the NRA's ideology and the climate it's created. By the time you read this, there will almost certainly be someone who has jumped to the comments to denounce gun regulations as an infringement of fundamental liberties. It is only the presence of uncounted millions of guns, in the hands of uncounted millions of Americansâ€”whether pointy-headed liberals recognize this as a "well-regulated militia" or notâ€”that secures our freedom against the encroachment of a totalitarian police state.
> 
> Yet today, LaPierre got up and described the gun lobby's vision of our future: "A police officer in every single school." "Armed security ... building design ... access control ... information technology." "An active national database of the mentally ill."
> 
> ...



Oh yeah, and the NRA lobbied the US Congress to prevent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding research into firearm injuries. Gosh, I wonder why?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I got a sneer out of that adorable Godwin the National Rednecks' Association just pulled. Fanatical gun nuts really are the best argument *for* gun control.



"Want a good reason for gun control? Look at the people telling you it's not needed."


----------



## Bambi (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> You guys are missing the point. Violence is relative. A war with muskets is the same as a war with machine guns.


No, that's just not accurate.

A war with muskets would look a little like this.

A war with "machine-guns" looks like this. NSFW

Now here's what we all would look like, grouped outside of our apartments with our twelve-gauge shotguns and AR15's, debating the overthrow of power, to power, and what we'd all turn into. NSFW

Technology changes a lot. As for the rest of your points, the question remains why revolt, and when? To "conservatives", the time to revolt is when gays are allowed to marry, the government begins to question gun culture, and our environment becomes more liberal as a whole. To "liberals", the time to revolt is whenever big government feeds it's money to corporations, evolves the police state, and begins to remove undesirables. However isn't it interesting to note that those who push for revolution, or the ability to launch one, never openly state who it is they'd like to remove from power?

It's because doing so means admitting that the person you'd like to be rid of is no more human than yourself, and that getting rid of them creates an environment of entitlement to violence. We can quote the biblical scripture of the United States all day long, what we forget is that the people behind the idea of revolution in modernity aren't intending to speak for everyone. It's just themselves.


----------



## Rasly (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."-- Mahatma Gandhi




Hakar Kerarmor said:


> So your government has a law that explains  how people can act when rebelling against the government? Does anyone  else think this is... odd?


No, we dont, that maybe the  reason why Nazi managed to take the control of our government. Yes, i am from Germany.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."-- Mahatma Gandhi
> 
> 
> No, we dont, that maybe the  reason why Nazi managed to take the control of our government. Yes, i am from Germany.


You do realize that firearm ownership sharply _increased_ on the way to the Third Reich as regulation decreased, yes?

Or is this another one of those vague wurblings of "Well something something bad not absolute firearm ownership freedom COINCIDENCE I THINK NOT?"


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> You do realize that firearm ownership sharply _increased_ on the way to the Third Reich as regulation decreased, yes?
> 
> Or is this another one of those vague wurblings of "Well something something bad not absolute firearm ownership freedom COINCIDENCE I THINK NOT?"



Well yea except for the JEWS.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Well yea except for the JEWS.


Which is why all the Jews were docile little lambs and there was no resistance on the way to the concentration camps. Oh, er, wait a minute. By the way, class act you lot, comparing _firearm competency tests_ with _being up-and-coming Holocaust victims_.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Why are we talking about the incarceration of Jews during WWII in Germany.

Every time I walk into this topic it's on some asinine tangent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY1kDi2htRQ

There, it's somewhat relevant at least. And the guy has a British accent so it's easy on the ears.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



TeenageAngst said:


> Why are we talking about the incarceration of Jews during WWII in Germany.
> 
> Every time I walk into this topic it's on some asinine tangent.
> 
> ...


The Jews are secretly in control of the Internet also :V


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

We Have already been there.

"Before the American Civil War ended, state slave codes prohibited slaves from owning guns. After slavery in the U.S. was abolished, states persisted in prohibiting Black people from owning guns under laws renamed Black Codes. The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment,  as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867,  are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied  blacks equal access to firearms.[SUP][83][/SUP]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

It was a civil right for blacks in 1866 and it not now?

You brought up the Nazis, can't take the heat?  

You may only want competency tests but there are many others out there want to take every firearm out of the hands of the civilian population.  May be you should read this.
http://www.vpc.org/aboutvpc.htm
They don't appear to like any firearms including BB guns.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> You brought up the Nazis, can't take the heat?
> 
> You may only want competency tests but there are many others out there want to take every firearm out of the hands of the civilian population.  May be you should read this.
> http://www.vpc.org/aboutvpc.htm
> They don't appear to like any firearms including BB guns.


I like firearms, including assault weapons; they're the only reliable way to control crazed primitives.


----------



## sunshyne (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Here's my only problem with the new round of proposed regulations: they refer to the need to ban "high capacity" magazines, when what they really do is mandate super-_low_ capacity magazines. Gabbie Giffords' shooter had a pistol with a 30-round magazine; I believe the Aurora shooter had drum magazines with over 100. THESE are "high-capacity" magazines. There is no reason anybody needs to have something like that - all they do is enable mass killing.

A handgun clip that holds 12 bullets, however, is NOT a high-capacity magazine by any reasonable standard. That's pretty standard. Yet now we have the President suggesting 10-round limits on all gun magazines, and New York has passed a law limiting it to just 7... You know, I don't buy into a lot of the crap that the NRA spew, but this is getting into unreasonable territory. If someone is breaking into your house, you probably are going to be scared and miss a couple of times. The difference between 7 bullets and 10 or 12 could be the difference between living and dying. If you're up against two or more people, you're pretty much screwed. I know the line has to be drawn somewhere, but drawing it at a measly 7 bullets is, to put it mildly, alarming.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> We Have already been there.
> 
> "Before the American Civil War ended, state slave codes prohibited slaves from owning guns. After slavery in the U.S. was abolished, states persisted in prohibiting Black people from owning guns under laws renamed Black Codes. The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment,  as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867,  are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied  blacks equal access to firearms.[SUP][83][/SUP]"
> 
> ...


 So, wait, you're bitching about kneejerk Slavery-sympathizer laws being overrode within _two years_ of the fact (or three, if you go by when the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted)? And now trying to cry that these laws are an attempt to _keep guns out of black peoples' hands_? You're literally going to resort to comparing yourselves to _victims of racial discrimination, hate crimes, and outright genocide_ because government officials are looking to mandate _competency tests before issuing a lethal weapon_? You have dragged the words "Persecution" and "Oppression" through so much mud that you'd be hard pressed to find anything that doesn't stick to your definition. Help, help, I'm being oppressed because _I had to take Driver's Ed before getting my license_.

Jesus fucking Christ.



cobalt-blue said:


> You brought up the Nazis, can't take the heat?


 You are really so determined to win as to blatantly lie? And before you try pulling any shit about the use of the word "nazi" earlier in the thread, also in response to another person, and dropped just as quickly.



cobalt-blue said:


> You may only want competency tests but there are many others out there want to take every firearm out of the hands of the civilian population.


 _And none of them are currently dictating Firearm Reform_. The difference between you and me is that whereas you're talking about people who have no relevance to what's being done right now, I _do_ as I can point to people who own firearms _right now_ who _by your own admissions and stated reform desires should not be in possession of a lethal weapon_.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Well you pushed the idea that guns were unregulated but you seemed to omit a big other piece of that history. I take it that the Third Reich in your mind is not the Nazis, ok so be it.

"The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book  basically does the opposite of what he says it did. â€œThe 1938 revisions  completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and  shotguns, as well as ammunition,â€ Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more  categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from  gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase  was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one  year to three years.The law _did_ prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general."

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

I"m sorry you can't understand what I wrote, the "Black Codes" mentioned did the same things(kept firearms out of the hands of a class of people), I am sorry you don't see gun ownership as a civil right, but it seems that in 1866 the congress did and enacted laws to block the "Black Codes".  Like I said it was considered a civil right in 1866 and its not now?

"_right now_ who _by your own admissions"  show me._


----------



## Attaman (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Well you pushed the idea that guns were unregulated but you seemed to omit a big other piece of that history.


 Since you are playing a very very broad semantics game of "Hah, you responded to this what I meant was this!", are you referring to Nazi Germany or United States policy here?

If you mean Nazi Germany, then _you're caught blatantly lying again you fucknugget_. My post, #352, near the top of Page 15 on standard layout, specifically mentions a decrease in regulation, but doesn't say _anything at all about a lack of regulation_. Something _the article you're reposting confirms_.

If you mean the United States, there is very little Federal mandate relating to what process a firearm owner must go through: Most of them are on a state-by-state basis. Furthermore, a number of these (such as the New York example) already have people bitching about oppression.



cobalt-blue said:


> I take it that the Third Reich in your mind is not the Nazis, ok so be it.


 _You're fucking insane_.



cobalt-blue said:


> I"m sorry you can't understand what I wrote, the "Black Codes" mentioned did the same things(kept firearms out of the hands of a class of people),


 Emancipation Proclamation (what you say triggered the Black Codes) was put out in 1863. 1866 repealed much of those, at least the Black Codes relating to firearm ownership. _How the fuck am I not getting what you're saying by stating basic math?_



cobalt-blue said:


> I am sorry you don't see gun ownership as a civil right,


 I'm sorry you'd rather arm _thousands of people who don't know the first thing about basic firearm safety_ before _making a simple test asking you which way the dangerous end of a gun should point_.



cobalt-blue said:


> but it seems that in 1866 the congress did and enacted laws to block the "Black Codes".  Like I said it was considered a civil right in 1866 and its not now?


 _You're fucking insane, seek psychiatric help_.


EDIT: As for the "prove it"?



cobalt-blue said:


> 1. Laws are followed by the the lawful, criminals and the criminally insane by definition and action don't. A criminal is not deterred by gun free zones. Gun laws usually just disarm the law abiding population leaving them to be preyed upon by criminals.
> Get the violent criminals off the street for good.
> Identify and help the insane, get their info in the FBI data base for background checks.



This looks fairly strongly to me like "people who have no right to own firearms".

Also, ironically, this is you five pages ago speaking of a "final solution" towards violent criminals, just before whining about how you're about to be part of a "final solution" yourself like the Jews in Nazi Germany.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I always like how when you get caught you start screaming "_You're fucking insane, seek psychiatric help_."  Bzzzzt you lose.


----------



## Aetius (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> I always like how when you get caught you start screaming "_You're fucking insane, seek psychiatric help_."  Bzzzzt you lose.



More of him losing all patience for your "logic".


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> I always like how when you get caught you start screaming "_You're fucking insane, seek psychiatric help_."  Bzzzzt you lose.


I've never  seen Attaman react like this before.


----------



## Machine (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> I always like how when you get caught you start screaming "_You're fucking insane, seek psychiatric help_."  Bzzzzt you lose.


With "logic" like yours, you shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun whatsoever. :I


----------



## Rasly (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

If you want a gun control like in china, then better be ready to work very hard for a 500â‚¬ month salary.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> I always like how when you get caught


 _What did I even get caught with_? Pointing out that you've lied, multiple times?

EDIT:


Rasly said:


> If you want a gun control like in china, then better be ready to work very hard for a 500â‚¬ month salary.


This doesn't even make sense. Stahp. You're being terrible and basically shooting your own side's feet.


----------



## kyfox (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> I always like how when you get caught you start screaming "_You're fucking insane, seek psychiatric help_."  Bzzzzt you lose.


That's when you know you've won.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> That's when you know you've won.


What have I missed? _What was I caught doing?_

Seriously, did I get roofied earlier? Have I been intoxicated? Are there invisible posts I posted in my sleep? _What year is it?_


----------



## sunshyne (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
> -- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788
> 
> then in year 1933, Hitler made a smart ass Law that allowed only real partiots to have guns, while Jews were fully disarmed, that resulted in them becoming slaves shortly after.
> ...



Fuck me, they better let us all have fighter jets, nukes and cruise missles then, too, because THE ENTIRE COUNTRY strapped with AR-15's wouldn't be more than a couple days' work for the United States military. NOT in any way a valid justification in any way, shape or form.

P.S. Oh yeah, how is it that people who whip out this argument are usually _against_ cutting defense spending? You know, spending money to arm that big, scary government you're supposedly afraid of?


----------



## Rasly (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



sunshyne said:


> Fuck me, they better let us all have fighter jets, nukes and cruise missles then, too, because THE ENTIRE COUNTRY strapped with AR-15's wouldn't be more than a couple days' work for the United States military. NOT in any way a valid justification in any way, shape or form.


I have see that argument. Youre wrong, because you will never use weapons like this in your own land. Jets and rockets or tanks cause ways too much damage, and you dont want to destroy your country, you want to rule it.

Destroyed infrastructure or tons of civilist casualties, may drag the whole country down, so if you will try to install a dictatorship (even if you call it something else), your only option will be soliders, but you cant afford casualties from both sides, so it is useless, unless you disarm people first.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> I have see that argument. Youre wrong, because you will never use weapons like this in your own land. Jets and rockets or tanks cause ways too much damage, and you dont want to destroy your country, you want to rule it.


 If only there were military drones that could attack precise targets, and an armed insurrection intended to grind a multi-million count military to a halt required more than 4-5 plucky individuals per city...


----------



## sunshyne (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> I have see that argument. Youre wrong, because you will never use weapons like this in your own land. Jets and rockets or tanks cause ways too much damage, and you dont want to destroy your country, you want to rule it.
> 
> Destroyed infrastructure or tons of civilist casualties, may drag the whole country down, so if you will try to install a dictatorship (even if you call it something else), your only option will be soliders, but you cant afford casualties from both sides, so it is useless, unless you disarm people first.



Ya that's what they said in Syria, then a legit revolution broke out.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

so i'll revive my activity on these forums by throwing in this discussion. instead of my typical(and non effective) method of spewing WAY too much shit out i'll post essentially bullet points. 

1: the colt 1911(designed by john moses browning) is still the most popular handgun in the country over 100 years after its birth. its standard magazine is seven rounds. the expediency of recharging the weapon really negates the "low capacity" of its magazine. this is an illustration that magazine capacity limits aren't effective in reducing violence. 

2: while studying violent crime between britain (a nation that has banned guns) and the united states one finds that crime has PLUMMETED in both nations since the year 2000. the fbi crime statistics indicated that the year 2009 marked the lowest violent crime rate in the past 100 years. britain's crime statistics indicate a similar tend. this then demonstrates that presence of firearms apparently have little effect on violent crime. Further, our awareness of violent crime seems to be exploding. finally 1929 actually marked the height of spree killings in the united states. 

3: according to fbi violent crime statistics the most deaths in a "spree killing incident" over the last century were rated as thus. 4: firearms(keep in mind fully automatic weapons were freely available for most of last century), 3: blunt objects and knives, 2: arson, 1: bombs. firearms may be the attention of the nation but they are not the leading killer in mass killings. in fact the largest school killing in history was done with a bomb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

4: the bulk of the children shooting schools have had a history of taking adult anti depressants that have been proven to cause suicidal or homicidal behavior in a small group of its users. harris, the "lead" columbine shooter had luvox still in his blood during the autopsy. that is an adult anti depressant that occasionally causes the side effects affore mentioned. 

5: many of those children whom were on adult anti depressants were on them because mounting evidence indicates that early use of ritalin causes manic depression and other mental disorders. Kip Kinkel, another school shooter(whom murdered his parents) was on both ritalin AND prozac at the time. in fact ritalin has been demonstrated to have similar effects on the growth of the human brain as cocaine. 
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/issues/ritalin.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ritalin-and-Cocaine-Have-Identical-Effects-on-the-Brain-103929.shtml

6: the last two points i think are most important. the united states(which has the most killings in school) accounts for 90% of the ritalin and similar drug prescription in the world. we are a nation that feels that locking our students in "school prisons" and trying to turn them into school zombies with drugs is simply ok. and somehow we blame the presence of firearms for our violent society.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> I have see that argument. Youre wrong, because you will never use weapons like this in your own land. Jets and rockets or tanks cause ways too much damage, and you dont want to destroy your country, you want to rule it.



Get on the phone to President Assad of Syria then, tell him he's doing it wrong. And tell Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel as well, his country has been using tanks and air-strikes on the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories for decades... 

Seriously, do some of you pro-gun types never look outside of your fucking country or something? There's rebellions and insurrections against governments happening RIGHT NOW that didn't need either a Second Amendment equivalent or any form of mass disarmament to get started - the entire "Arab Spring" is just one example! How many times does it need to be said that if you're ready to take up arms against what you perceive is a tyrannical regime, _you've just stepped outside your country's laws and any legality or otherwise of owning weapons becomes instantly irrelevant!_ And the lack of a Second Amendment equivalent hasn't ever stopped rebels / freedom fighters getting the kinds of weapons they want!


----------



## Rasly (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> Get on the phone to President Assad of Syria then, tell him he's doing it wrong. And tell Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel as well, his country has been using tanks and air-strikes on the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories for decades...



First, Israel is whole different story, they have thair land already well devided, its like watching two countries fight, not just one, but even they dont use heavy weapons, they just launch a couple of rockets once a year to scary palestinians away.

Second, people in Syria ALREADY HAD DICTATORSHIP, most likely because they had no second amendment. USA has supplied rebels in this country with guns, they go around killing every person they dont like and people dont even have guns to protect thair family against dicrator soliders or those rebels, exacly because of the lack of second amendment they are totaly screwed.



Mayfurr said:


> And the lack of a Second Amendment equivalent hasn't ever stopped rebels / freedom fighters getting the kinds of weapons they want!



First, "rebels" and "freedom fighters" are the same thing, those are just more pleasant synonyms for "crimminals".

Second, You probably think they grow thair guns on trees, but that is not correct, big countries supply rebels in small countries with guns, so they thow up thair government that they dont like.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> First, Israel is whole different story, they have thair land already well devided, its like watching two countries fight, not just one, but even they dont use heavy weapons, they just launch a couple of rockets once a year to scary palestinians away.


 They fucking use _White Phosphorous_ as their smokescreen of choice. _White Phosphorous_. This includes use as a smokescreen danger-close to places like _UN schools turned refugee shelter_. If you don't understand what WP does in terms of collateral, by all means _do some basic research_.



Rasly said:


> Second, people in Syria ALREADY HAD DICTATORSHIP, most likely because they had no second amendment. USA has supplied rebels in this country with guns,


 Yep, before good ol' Papa US got involved nobody in Syria had firearms. Nope, nosiree! Nada single firearm!



Rasly said:


> they go around killing every person they dont like and people dont even have guns to protect thair family against dicrator soliders or those rebels, exacly because of the lack of second amendment they are totaly screwed.


 So what you're saying is that when there's a huge group of people who attack people they don't like, even behind _military cordones_ (one of the biggest tragedies recently was a shelter being bombed right under the nose of their defenders), suddenly Joe Schmoe having a 9mm makes those missile strikes, IEDs, raids, and so-on all vanish?



Rasly said:


> First, "rebels" and "freedom fighters" are the same thing, those are just more pleasant synonyms for "crimminals".


 So you admit the US was founded by Criminals? Good to know.



Rasly said:


> Second, You probably think they grow thair guns on trees, but that is not correct, big countries supply rebels in small countries with guns, so they thow up thair government that they dont like.


 I hope by "they" you mean "big countries", not "the people". The US has been more than content to overthrow legitimate governments that the people like and literally replace them with foreign Nazis (secret-police and all) for cheaper oil.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> First, Israel is whole different story, they have thair land already well devided, its like watching two countries fight, not just one, but even they dont use heavy weapons, they just launch a couple of rockets once a year to scary palestinians away.


If you want to call the genocide of the palestinian people "scaring them away", you should do the world a favor and put one of your beloved guns to use against your head.



> First, "rebels" and "freedom fighters" are the same thing, those are just more pleasant synonyms for "crimminals".


So, you mean like the original 13 American colonies?


----------



## Rasly (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> So what you're saying is that when there's a huge group of people who attack people they don't like, even behind _military cordones_ (one of the biggest tragedies recently was a shelter being bombed right under the nose of their defenders), suddenly Joe Schmoe having a 9mm makes those missile strikes, IEDs, raids, and so-on all vanish?


What i was talking about are little groups of 2-3 of those rebels, that break into others people houses, killing, reaping and stealing stuff. They would not dare do that, if there were at least one 9mm in some ot those familys. And missile strikes? realy? i would wonder if they would afford even 10 of those.

Even in Iraq, do you think americans were running around checking houses with thair WOHE army? nope, there were like 3-5 people groups of soliders.



Gryphoneer said:


> If you want to call the genocide of the palestinian people "scaring them away", you should do the world a favor and put one of your beloved guns to use against your head.
> So, you mean like the original 13 American colonies?


First, i dont think that 500 dead every year can be considered genocide, stuff like this happen in other lands too, like afghanistan, nobody consider that genocide over there, actually, i dont care about religious psychos, they can just go kill each other, i dont care, they do that for more then 2000 years anyway.

Second, yes, america was created my criminals, but they liked to call themself revolutionaries, that dosn't sound so negative, even while that is the same thing.


----------



## Aetius (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> First, i dont think that 500 dead every year can be considered genocide, stuff like this happen in other lands too, like afghanistan, nobody consider that genocide over there


Seriously? Genocide is not based on bodycount, but the INTENT to wipe out another people. Please go repeat High School. 



Rasly said:


> actually, i dont care about religious psychos, they can just go kill each other, i dont care, they do that for more then 2000 years anyway.



Please be trolling.


----------



## Machine (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> First, i dont think that 500 dead every year can be considered genocide, stuff like this happen in other lands too, like afghanistan, nobody consider that genocide over there, actually, i dont care about religious psychos, they can just go kill each other, i dont care, they do that for more then 2000 years anyway.


Wow.



> Second, yes, america was created my criminals, but they liked to call themself revolutionaries, that dosn't sound so negative, even while that is the same thing.


_Wow._

You have to be fucking kidding me. You're really that much of an ignorant prick?

Did somebody not hug you enough or some shit like that?


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

why is it that nobody saw fit to respond to my six point post? makes me sad. did i make too much sense? too solid and intelligent of an argument? 



			
				 "Machine" said:
			
		

> Wow.
> 
> You have to be fucking kidding me. You're really that much of an ignorant prick?
> 
> Did somebody not hug you enough or some shit like that?



technically he is right. a traitor is a criminal. further many of the leaders were notorious tax dodgers. during the build up to rebellion british tax assessors were often beaten within an inch of their life, tarred and feathered or even outright murdered. coercion and outright violence was used by the soon to be revolutionaries, make no mistake. 

those facts however do not mean that their cause was not just. it does not mean that they were "evil". it means that they broke the laws of their current country as their greviences with it were not answered. eventually their small rebellions turned into a big one. 



			
				 "Mayfurr" said:
			
		

> Seriously, do some of you pro-gun types never look outside of your fucking country or something? There's rebellions and insurrections against governments happening RIGHT NOW that didn't need either a Second Amendment equivalent or any form of mass disarmament to get started - the entire "Arab Spring" is just one example! How many times does it need to be said that if you're ready to take up arms against what you perceive is a tyrannical regime, you've just stepped outside your country's laws and any legality or otherwise of owning weapons becomes instantly irrelevant! And the lack of a Second Amendment equivalent hasn't ever stopped rebels / freedom fighters getting the kinds of weapons they want!



in order for armed rebellion to form the people wishing to rebel must somehow acquire arms in the first place. if there are no arms present in the civilian population in the first place then any rebellion is likely to be VERY limited until they either gain sponsors or make a major successful raid on government supplies(either through force or using traitors in the government). 

one notes that the syrian population of 20 million had over 700,000 firearms before the outbreak of the civil war.
one notes that the lybyan population of 6.5 million had over 900,000 firearms before the outbreak of the civil war. 
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/libya
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/syria

one also notes that in syria most nations are concerned about donating arms to the rebels because the most powerful rebel factions are highly religious muslims. it is also interesting to note that these groups are the most powerful because they treat the local population the best and practice a great deal of charity(such as giving away much needed food)


----------



## kyfox (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



sunshyne said:


> Fuck me, they better let us all have fighter jets, nukes and cruise missles then, too, because THE ENTIRE COUNTRY strapped with AR-15's wouldn't be more than a couple days' work for the United States military. NOT in any way a valid justification in any way, shape or form.
> 
> P.S. Oh yeah, how is it that people who whip out this argument are usually _against_ cutting defense spending? You know, spending money to arm that big, scary government you're supposedly afraid of?


 Truly, I'd rather have a 1% chance of winning by fighting back than a 0% chance by not posing a threat at all. I understand that the government could probably wipe out an insurrection in a short time, but I'd rather have the ability to fight back, no matter how futile. :/


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> Truly, I'd rather have a 1% chance of winning by fighting back than a 0% chance by not posing a threat at all. I understand that the government could probably wipe out an insurrection in a short time, but I'd rather have the ability to fight back, no matter how futile. :/



consider the year 1776. washington's army hoped to prevent the british invasion of new york city. the largest fleet assembled in world history(until d day 1944) floated off the coast. washington faced a serious problem. he had lots of rifles but very few muskets. 

the problem with this is that rifles at the time loaded at a rate of one third the rate of a musket. loading one was so difficult mallets were used to get the bullet pushed down the first inch into the barrel. Riflemen were accurate but simply did not possess the firepower to push back the british version of tanks, cavalry. Problems were complicated further with the realization that these rifles could not mount bayonets and the troops who used them were not prone to the type of group discipline to close ranks and fight off a cavalry attack in hand to hand combat. 

*sumerized* our founding fathers faced a dilema directly similar to a partisan or rebel facing off a tank with an ar-15. what followed were a series of defeats. however that initial armament was necessary for any sort of a rebellion to exist in the first place. foreign financing(from france) as well as a series of daring raids by the united states marines finally allowed us the equipment we needed to win. much like the people of libya getting sent anti aircraft missiles.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Fun fact: France did a lot of the Heavy Lifting in the Revolution. When we had to fight against Britain again in the War of 1812, we, uh, kinda lost.

Don't get me wrong, almost every American you'll ask about it will tell you "it was a tie". But I don't think you can really call it a tie when one side accomplishes all their military objectives and the other, er, doesn't.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> Second, You probably think they grow thair guns on trees, but that is not correct, big countries supply rebels in small countries with guns, so they thow up thair government that they dont like.



No, I don't believe "guns grow on trees" But thanks for proving my point that you DON'T need a "Second Amendment" to get weapons to rebel against your government with, *because *"_big countries supply rebels in small countries with guns_". They _don't_ need permission or "rights" for weapons from the government they're rebelling against.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> one notes that the syrian population of 20 million had over 700,000 firearms before the outbreak of the civil war.
> one notes that the lybyan population of 6.5 million had over 900,000 firearms before the outbreak of the civil war.
> http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/libya
> http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/syria



And did either of these governments have a "Second Amendment" equivalent in their constitutions? No, they didn't. In fact, from the link you posted, in Libya _"... no civilians may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition"_, yet somehow _"[t]he estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Libya is 900,000"._

There's your proof that the US Second Amendment means diddly-squat in terms of "allowing" rebels to acquire arms to take up against their own government... and that the only possible use of such an argument by pro-gun types in the US is a self-justifying romanticism of their being somehow noble freedom-fighters-in-waiting.

EDIT: This cartoon is a somewhat more realistic assessment of the chances of an armed rebellion in the US.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> EDIT: This cartoon is a somewhat more realistic assessment of the chances of an armed rebellion in the US.



Can't beat them drones, man.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> And did either of these governments have a "Second Amendment" equivalent in their constitutions? No, they didn't. In fact, from the link you posted, in Libya _"... no civilians may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition"_, yet somehow _"[t]he estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Libya is 900,000"._
> 
> There's your proof that the US Second Amendment means diddly-squat in terms of "allowing" rebels to acquire arms to take up against their own government... and that the only possible use of such an argument by pro-gun types in the US is a self-justifying romanticism of their being somehow noble freedom-fighters-in-waiting.
> 
> EDIT: This cartoon is a somewhat more realistic assessment of the chances of an armed rebellion in the US.



actually the presence of those weapons demonstrates a cultural thing. in most of the middle east civilians have LONG chosen to acquire firearms with or without government consent. They do so because of the poor security government forces provide, and the "tribalism" nature of their environment. evidence of the poor security the government provides lies in the fact that the people were easily able to acquire such firearms. 

this cultural practice of owning weapons goes back FAR before the current regimes. in essence at one point most of these people could own firerams, they got a dictator that thought differently and they just sort of ignored his laws. 

of course the question is would those people have those arms if their government was actually competent and its security personnel(police and military) actually had the will to disarm the populous as a whole?


----------



## Aetius (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> actually the presence of those weapons demonstrates a cultural thing. in most of the middle east civilians have LONG chosen to acquire firearms with or without government consent. They do so because of the poor security government forces provide, *and the "tribalism" nature of their environment.*



:/ What?


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

tribalism refers to an environment that is highly fractured into different social groups with a "us versus them" attitude. as such one can argue that american football promotes tribalism. this was not meant to say that these people are backward. it just refers to a state of social division and conflict.


----------



## Calemeyr (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I reserve mah constertushonal right to own an Apache Hellocopper and depose the tyranny of the president I didn't vote for! But it ain't tyranny when my party wins. 

I also wanna make sure Al-Cader or the Vietcong ain't comin round my house, cause I got my FN P90 and my 50 caliber semi-auto sniper rifle with 100 round mags!

Remembur: 1776 will comments again if you take our guns!!! :V

Seriously people? What the hell is wrong with this country?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Marcus Stormchaser said:


> Seriously people? What the hell is wrong with this country?


Pigfuckers are the problem with this country.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



			
				Marcus Stormchaser said:
			
		

> Seriously people? What the hell is wrong with this country?



and what is wrong with allowing people to own a self loading rifle? is gun violence somehow more morally wrong than any other form of violence? 

is it the fear of spree killings? are you aware that spree killings make up less than 1% of the united states annual murders? are you unaware of the fact that violence in the united states has gone down since the expiration of the "assault weapons" ban? 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime

this is not because the weapons were freely available however. britian which has banned almost all firearms has had a similar trend. 

perhaps the problem is that we are doping our kids. perhaps the problem is that the anti depressants we dope them with(to counter the ill effects of ritalin) may cause homicidal behavior?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ers-children-prescribed-anti-depressants.html          -record numbers of kids precribed with anti depressants
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rules-antidepressants-cause-kids-to-kill.aspx       -the ill effects of those drugs
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9904/29/luvox.explainer/ -eric harris the columbine shooter was on luvox. he is actually rather typical in terms of spree killers.

added: seriously read my 6 point post.....

http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...-t-have-Nice-Threads-on-Bad-Stuff-quot/page15  -bottom of the page.


----------



## zanian (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> and what is wrong with allowing people to own a self loading rifle? is gun violence somehow more morally wrong than any other form of violence?
> 
> is it the fear of spree killings? are you aware that spree killings make up less than 1% of the united states annual murders? are you unaware of the fact that violence in the united states has gone down since the expiration of the "assault weapons" ban?
> 
> ...



Depression doesn't lead to murder; it can lead to suicide, not murder (*Depression* is a state of low mood and aversion to activity that can have a negative effect on a person's thoughts, behavior, feelings, world view, and physical well-being.[SUP][1][/SUP] Depressed people may feel sad, anxious, empty, hopeless, worried, helpless, worthless, guilty, irritable, hurt, or restless. They may lose interest in activities that once were pleasurable, experience loss of appetite or overeating, have problems concentrating, remembering details, or making decisions, and may contemplate or attempt suicide.) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(mood)

Nice try bringing a site that promote alternative medecine to try to say that anti depressants are evil; it's not that credible, sorry =P (Try finding a non biaised source next time, ok?)


----------



## Recel (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Marcus Stormchaser said:


> Seriously people? What the hell is wrong with this country?



The problem lies in the answers of this question. Every possible answer people will give you. Because everyone will say "That is wrong, they are wrong, they are bad!". Because pointing fingers is more easy and fun than to actually LOCATE the problem.

And it's not just that country, not even a continent. The whole fucking world works backwards. And humanity is stupid. Not because they don't know what the problems are, or how to solve them, but because they know all that, yet they always do something different.

We have all these trained professionals in all walks of life who gladly tell you what are the problems and what to do to counter them. Problem is, no one ever gives a damn about their advice, or research.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



zanian said:


> Depression doesn't lead to murder; it can lead to suicide, not murder (*Depression* is a state of low mood and aversion to activity that can have a negative effect on a person's thoughts, behavior, feelings, world view, and physical well-being.[SUP][1][/SUP] Depressed people may feel sad, anxious, empty, hopeless, worried, helpless, worthless, guilty, irritable, hurt, or restless. They may lose interest in activities that once were pleasurable, experience loss of appetite or overeating, have problems concentrating, remembering details, or making decisions, and may contemplate or attempt suicide.)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(mood)
> 
> Nice try bringing a site that promote alternative medecine to try to say that anti depressants are evil; it's not that credible, sorry =P (Try finding a non biaised source next time, ok?)



ok, so why is it on the comercial prozac for example claims "suicide" as one of the possible side effects

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/17/us-antidepressant-suicide-idUSTRE81G23I20120217
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/02/10/antidepressants-the-black-box-and-a-paradox/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121300452.html

so far i've quoted reuters, forbes, cnn, and the washington post. all legitimate news agencies with national weight. you have provided a link to wikipedia about depression and NOT a link to an article discussing possible side effects of drugs designed to fight depression. 

http://anxiety.emedtv.com/luvox/luvox-side-effects-p2.html

"side effects include.... Suicidal thoughts or behavior (see Luvox and Suicide) .... Hostility or aggressiveness ..... Engaging in unusual or dangerous activities .... Anxiety, *agitation*, or panic attacks"

luvox has been PROVEN to be associated with self destructive behavior such as homicidal tendencies and suicide in a very small number of the people whom use it. Prozac has been linked to such behaviors as well. its fact. its right in the side effect disclaimers of the drug.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/anti-depressants-linked-to-suicide-and-violence

"In June 2001, a jury in Wyoming determined that the antidepressant drug Paxil caused a man to kill his wife, daughter and granddaughter before killing himself. "

""It is also known that these medications increase brain levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which, in high concentrations, can also act as an excitotoxin." When antidepressant drugs raise serotonin to an excitotoxin level, the brain reacts in ways similar to mental illness."

the evidence indicates that these drugs CAN fuel dangerous behavior. its FACT.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> luvox has been PROVEN to be associated with self destructive behavior such as homicidal tendencies and suicide in a very small number of the people whom use it. Prozac has been linked to such behaviors as well. its fact. its right in the side effect disclaimers of the drug.


So, what you're saying is that if you have a problem (Depression), and there is a current solution / practice in effect (Provide / Increase access to medication) that has some undesirable side effects (suicidal thoughts and agitation), you must increase classification, observation, and regulation of these individuals?


----------



## zanian (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/anti-depressants-linked-to-suicide-and-violence
> 
> "In June 2001, a jury in Wyoming determined that the antidepressant drug Paxil caused a man to kill his wife, daughter and granddaughter before killing himself. "
> 
> ...



When I ask for studies, I ask the scientist based stuff =P

You know, stuff like that: http://www.erudit.org/revue/pv/2010/v10/n1/1005713ar.html
http://www.erudit.org/revue/crimino/2005/v38/n1/011485ar.html
https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/jspui/handle/1866/6005
http://www.archipel.uqam.ca/3063/

Oh, they can, but at what level and what pourcentage? You know, there more then simply serotonine involved in violent behaviors. (one cannot discard genes, the environnement and the others cause to simply focus on medication)


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> So, what you're saying is that if you have a problem (Depression), and there is a current solution / practice in effect (Provide / Increase access to medication) that has some undesirable side effects (suicidal thoughts and agitation), you must increase classification, observation, and regulation of these individuals?



interesting question. in all honesty i would prefer we at least stop prescribing them to people under the age of 20. alcohol is illegal before the age of 21 because of its effects on brain chemistry and growth. these drugs are much the same yet we find it acceptable for people with developing minds to take them. perhaps the problem is our addiction to an easy solution?  

based on feelings i feel that people on such drugs warrant further observation. preventing them from getting firearms just closes one avenue of possible violence that can be easily replaced with another. fixating on what they use to kill wont fix WHY they are killing and therefore such individuals will continue to kill.



zanian said:


> Oh, they can, but at what level and what pourcentage? You know, there more then simply serotonine involved in violent behaviors. (one cannot discard genes, the environnement and the others cause to simply focus on medication)



from the studies i've seen these adverse side effects are in less than 4% of users. however the current american discussion about firearms in our society is less than  1% of all of our violence(spree killings). so one notes that in the grand scheme the discussion is about a very minor problem. it is a highly emotional one however. 

i use evidence of the drugs relationships in these killings to demonstrate that presence of firearms is not why the killings occurred. i used them to demonstrate the potential for violence is from mental health concerns. i also point out that if we ban firearms to solve a problem this small these people may just resort to arson, sharp objects or bombs.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

hmm, cant find the delete button for this message


----------



## zanian (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

medication are in interaction with genes and the environnement; you can't simply take the statistic of the medication alone; you must look at the genes and the environnement, to fully understand and to have relevant data.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> interesting question. in all honesty i would prefer we at least stop prescribing them to people under the age of 20. alcohol is illegal before the age of 21 because of its effects on brain chemistry and growth. these drugs are much the same yet we find it acceptable for people with developing minds to take them. perhaps the problem is our addiction to an easy solution?
> 
> based on feelings i feel that people on such drugs warrant further observation. preventing them from getting firearms just closes one avenue of possible violence that can be easily replaced with another. fixating on what they use to kill wont fix WHY they are killing and therefore such individuals will continue to kill.


 So, put another way: We have a problem (high rate of firearm crime), and there is a current solution / practice in effect (concealed carry, generally rather loose regulation on firearms) that has some undesirable side effects (such as accidental shootings, unsecured weapons being taken by family members / friends, etcetera). Do you feel an increase in classification, observation, and regulation would work here?


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



> medication are in interaction with genes and the environnement; you can't simply take the statistic of the medication alone; you must look at the genes and the environnement, to fully understand and to have relevant data.



"you cannot look at the presence of firearms in a society alone. you have to look at the environment". its quite the same position i realize. 

anyway, the national debate right now seems to be how to prevent mass killing. i point out that the majority of the recent shooters have been on medications that CAN cause such behavior. I feel a dialogue about how we handle psychological problems will result in more than just simply outlawing whatever the next killer uses. its a knee jerk reaction. 



> So, put another way: We have a problem (high rate of firearm crime), and there is a current solution / practice in effect (concealed carry, generally rather loose regulation on firearms) that has some undesirable side effects (such as accidental shootings, unsecured weapons being taken by family members / friends, etcetera). Do you feel an increase in classification, observation, and regulation would work here?



actually yes i'd agree. thus the requirement to get a permit. one also notes that gun stores are REQUIRED to keep all firearms transfers on record. also, as time goes on states are slowly adding more stringent training requirements for such a permit. 

i also note that in order to hunt in most states you must undergo a firearms safety course. from time to time the content of these courses is reviewed and updated to help meet the concerns of firerams related accidents.

as a gunsmith i can tell you with certainty that any firearm that my shop has possession of for any amount of time is kept on paper record that the atf can demand to see at any moment. as a general rule for gunsmith shops these records are kept indefinitely. people complaining about lack of firearms registration are complaining that all this information isnt on a central computer system that the government can check at any time quickly.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> actually yes i'd agree. thus the requirement to get a permit. one also notes that gun stores are REQUIRED to keep all firearms transfers on record. also, as time goes on states are slowly adding more stringent training requirements for such a permit.


 Which is a good idea. Unfortunately, some people are crying that this is oppression (or, in a few users' cases, _one step away from Holocaust II: The Holocausting_).



ceacar99 said:


> i also note that in order to hunt in most states you must undergo a firearms safety course.


 It should be noted that not everyone who gets a firearm does so to hunt. One would think "Plans to own lethal weapon" is enough of a reason to mandate firearm safety courses, but a few areas don't seem to have got the memo.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

actually amongst the gunsmiths i know there is a fair bit of concern with how the recent firearms generation has had a decided lack of education on their function and safety. the promotion of safety courses is actually in many professionals minds. 

however due to the nature of politics there is a fear of letting there be legislation stating that one must undergo a safety course first. the fear is that it will open the door to actual restrictions on guns.

the reason behind this is that the ban on automatic weapons in the united states was actually supported by the nra in order to get a bill passed that would overall provide more "gun rights". in the 90's we learned to our horror how this actually hurt us. lawmakers(having been unsuccessful in banning pistols for the most part) now use the ban on automatic weapons as a springboard to attack "assault weapons", which really are just self loading rifles with pistol grips. the firearms community has learned how compromise can leave us open. this UNFORTUNATELY makes it difficult to compromise on tweaks to the system in the future, such as requiring a basic safety course to own a gun.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> The US has been more than content to overthrow legitimate governments that the people like and literally replace them with foreign Nazis (secret-police and all) for cheaper oil.


Y HALO THAR IRAN 1953! WE MEET AGAIN! (and people wonder why they hate us.)

I just got into a debate on guns on Facebook that turned stupid. An image comparing Obama to Hitler cropped up at one point (Godwin's law now in effect!!!). One guy started screaming about his faith in Jesus and saying his Faith is stronger than mine, because I said that some people blindly follow an ancient document (the Constitution, the Bible) without trying to study it or understand it, or why it was written and the goals of those who wrote it.

Another guy has started to say that guns have prevented the US from becoming a tyranny, that if we didn't have military-style guns, the US would have become like Russia and China ages ago. That's bullshit. The reason we haven't become a dictatorship is because of the way our government is designed, with checks and balances, and the attitude of our culture that supports ideas like freedom from oppression.
Ironically this guy linked me to GulagBound.com and said it was a great source of news. I won't link to it, but I think you guys should look at it. It's so tinfoil-hat right-wing paranoid it makes Fox News look leftist in comparison. GB tends to way overuse the term "Marxist" to an almost stupid level.

But it seems a similar argument is being played out on the previous page. I agree with Mayfurr. Even if there was no second amendment it would not prevent rebels from getting arms, as they'd be breaking the law just by rebelling. If you are pro-gun and believe that gun bans won't prevent criminals from buying guns on the black market, what's to stop rebels from buying those same guns from the same sources?

And the lack of a second amendment does not cause a country to turn into a dictatorship. Many countries without gun freedoms are secure and free. Look at Japan, with it's uber-strong gun laws. A safe, peaceful democracy.

And dammit, I want to fully jump in but 17 pages?! That will take me hours to read! ;_;


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

CrazyLee, i'd actually argue that the gun industry in the united states has been one of the keys to our economic prosperity and military supremacy but not why we dont "live under a tyranny" like most would suggest. 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

the second amendment is a clear message from our founding fathers that the bulk of our police forces strength came from private armed civilians acting on behalf of the government(and under the supervision of the government). most of our military units were formed out of armed civilians for a long time as well. a perfect example of this was that in 1775 a private citizen could not join the marines without providing his own rifle. Today this nation is riddled with firearms and it does provide a deterrent against potential enemies. 

the mass production industrial revolution was also due to firearms. machines for universal parts manufacturing were first developed for firearms. Samuel colt for example essentially designed one gun(and tweaked it SLIGHTLY during his lifetime) and worked himself to death designing manufacturing processes to make it universal and cheap. in fact 1870 colt pistols had tighter manufacturing tolerances than many today. oldsmobile (whom was the first true assembly line manufacturer) essentially used tools that the firearms industry designed. today the firearms industry is still on the leading edge of manufacturing tech. Ruger is world recognized for its casting technology. computer control is being widely used and experimented with and there is money being invested in 3d printing technologies in the hopes of producing cheaper prototypes.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



CrazyLee said:


> If you are pro-gun and believe that gun bans won't prevent criminals from buying guns on the black market, what's to stop rebels from buying those same guns from the same sources?



Speaking of the black market for guns, there's also the issue of HOW these guns get onto the black market in the first place - at some point between the weapon manufacturer and the criminal (who for the sake of the argument we shall assume is already one at the time of the black market purchase) there has to be a point where the weapon changes hands from "legal owner" to "illegal owner". The "legal owner" has become an irresponsible owner.

Now the pro-gun people are very vocal on how it's not the guns themselves that are the problem, but that the "real" problem is that they get into the wrong hands(1). So I would think that a very pro-gun thing would be to make sure that the boundary between the legal gun market and the black market is as watertight as possible, i.e. make damn sure that legal gun owners do not - either by active sale or passive neglect - allow their legally-held weapons to get into illegal hands. One way of doing this would be to have all firearms registered and have ALL changes of firearm ownership, regardless of whether it was through a gun store or a private sale between individuals, go through a central registration authority so that if a specific firearm was found to be in the wrong hands, the point of "leakage" between the legal-gun-owner-world and the criminal world would be discovered pretty quickly. An additional incentive for compliance would be that the registered gun owner would be held personally liable for ANY incident involving their firearm, so it would be in their interest to complete the change-of-owner registration upon a gun sale so that if the purchaser suddenly "went postal"(2) the seller wouldn't automatically be prosecuted or sued. It would also be in their interest for firearm owners to purchase a form of "firearm indemnity insurance" to protect themselves against being sued into bankruptcy if something DID go wrong, with the insurance premium being set based upon similar factors to driver insurance (e.g. age, gender, residence, training, civil/criminal record, , type of firearms, security of the firearms) so that the most responsible would pay lower premiums than the less responsible. And if you're convicted of a crime involving firearms (even if the weapons aren't your own) your insurance is void.

In other words, treat firearms similar to cars in terms of registration traceability. Hey, it seems to work for cars in most of the developed world! And in other countries, registration of both firearms and owners seems to work fairly well from what I've read. 

Unfortunately, it seems that such a pro-gun position that protects gun owners and assists the police in limiting access to firearms by criminals is opposed tooth and nail (most of the time) by... the NRA. Apparently in 2008, LaPierre proclaimed: _â€œThere is no element in the poisonous alchemy of the globalist gun ban crowd more dangerous to American freedom than the twin evils of gun-owner licensing and firearm registration. Never forget that they exist only as precursors to gun confiscation.â€"_ Yep, the NRA and fellow travellers talk up how the "wrong" type of firearm owners are the problem, but fight tooth and nail to block methods that would help prevent weapons from getting TO those "wrong" people in the first place.

In other words, the NRA's public position is (as Jon Stewart put it) "_Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present."_


(1) By implication, _their _hands are _always_ the "right" hands.
(2) Another charming phrase for a mass shooting spree given to the world by the USA.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> CrazyLee, i'd actually argue that *the gun industry in the united states has been one of the keys to our economic prosperity* and military supremacy



Yeah, because who ever bought American cars, trucks, ships, aircraft, food, computers,household appliances, Coca-Cola... the only things I've ever seen with "Made in USA" on them are guns. Americans don't make anything else in large numbers. The whole country is devoted to making guns.

/sarcasm


----------



## Jay-Hyaena (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

^Funny, all of what we got appears to be made in China.

Anyways, restrictions on guns and firearms here in America would be a huge waste of time - 3D printers can easily reproduce a weapon to great efficiency, an efficiency that will likely increase as 3D printing improves in the coming years. America isn't an island nation, and with so much drugs being trafficked south of the border, buying firearms from the same vendors wouldn't be too much of an issue, either. Ammunition restrictions would probably be more effective a measure - as ammunition require explosives to project, and thus is more costly to make. Mass killers can't operate with a gun alone: they need a high volume of ammunition as well.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Jay-Hyaena said:


> America isn't an island nation, and with so much drugs being trafficked south of the border, buying firearms from the same vendors wouldn't be too much of an issue, either.



Considering that most of the weapons in Mexico are made and readily available in the USA, it seems *Mexico *is the country that has to worry about cross-border arms smuggling from its northern neighbour rather than the other way around. 

I imagine that the North American country that has to worry most about illegal arms crossing their _southern _border is Canada


----------



## Jay-Hyaena (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> Considering that most of the weapons in Mexico are made and readily available in the USA, it seems *Mexico *is the country that has to worry about cross-border arms smuggling from its northern neighbour rather than the other way around.
> 
> I imagine that the North American country that has to worry most about illegal arms crossing their _southern _border is Canada



So then switch "buying firearms from the same vendors" to "buying firearms from the same folk that supply the cartel". My apologies, though.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

So what do people think of the part in the 23 executive orders where doctors are prescribed to ask their patients if they have guns in their household?  Like, not psychiatrists, but, just, doctors.


----------



## Recel (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



HipsterCoyote said:


> So what do people think of the part in the 23 executive orders where doctors are prescribed to ask their patients if they have guns in their household?  Like, not psychiatrists, but, just, doctors.



Ahahaha...

"You have a gun? Well, we'll leave that tumor in it seems. Better luck in your next reincarnation!"


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

HAHA

But no that's really like 

Fucking odd and really none of their business and doesn't have anything to do with like "Doctah I need an EKG" so what the fuck.   And how schools are to ask children if there are guns in the households.   You know, a tabs-keeping system, but, by doctors and teachers. D:


----------



## Jay-Hyaena (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I thought schools have already asked children if they were in a household with firearms in a survey, though it was anonymously done.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> Yeah, because who ever bought American cars, trucks, ships, aircraft, food, computers,household appliances, Coca-Cola... the only things I've ever seen with "Made in USA" on them are guns. Americans don't make anything else in large numbers. The whole country is devoted to making guns.
> 
> /sarcasm



lol. makes me think of the fact that even firearms manufacturing has been outsourced to china and japan. 

anyway the point mayfurr(since you apparently didnt read what i posted above) is mass production TECHNOLOGY came from the firearms industry, and it continues to do so. there would not have been a ford assembly line without samuel colt and john halls work. if you dont know john hall was the inventor of the FIRST production process to produce completely universal replaceable parts for any type of machine firearm or otherwise in the world. 

the cast aluminum in your passenger jet? technology from ruger, a firearms corporation. the presses that stamp out car doors? colt manufacturing. 

the fact is that most of the "ancestral" american firearms corporations (winchester, colt, remington, smith and wesson to name a few) have not only manufactured but designed the manufacturing processes to everything from pocket knives and shirts to washing machines. the fact is that america owes its industrial revolution to our arms industry, and our private arms industry continues to be some of our greatest leaders in research of industrial technology.



			
				Jay-Hyaena said:
			
		

> Anyways, restrictions on guns and firearms here in America would be a huge waste of time - 3D printers can easily reproduce a weapon to great efficiency, an efficiency that will likely increase as 3D printing improves in the coming years. America isn't an island nation, and with so much drugs being trafficked south of the border, buying firearms from the same vendors wouldn't be too much of an issue, either. Ammunition restrictions would probably be more effective a measure - as ammunition require explosives to project, and thus is more costly to make. Mass killers can't operate with a gun alone: they need a high volume of ammunition as well.



3d printers are not efficient for mass production. they are a very efficient means of producing one prototype however. using a 3d printer one doesnt need to carve out a prototype part by "hand" (using a lathe or a mill). 

also 3d printers cannot produce a complete firearm as of yet. they cannot print in hard enough metals to make the barrel and the bolt. also one questions the quality of the rifling in a barrel made by layering metal continuously. anyway the stories of the guy who printed a gun out are technically true. he printed the RECEIVER for a firearm, which by law is the firearm. however the bolt, and the barrel he bought. finally he chose a weapon which the bolt locks into the barrel, the printed material would not be strong enough for the bolt to lock up onto.

oh and finally i dont see a 3d printer capable of making a brass cartridge any time soon, even if ones that can print good strong metal do come out. cartridge making is an excruciating process that is only really possible in a full factory. so your right, ammunition restrictions may well be effective. though again i ask, what is preventing the killers from just using arson then? or a simple fire axe?


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

also on firearms registration;

a gunshop in america MUST keep records of ALL firearms that the store has possessed. by possessed i mean left in the store. so if a customer brings in a gun to a shop that does repair work, leaves the place for 30 seconds, comes back in and takes his firearm home instead that is a possession. that firearm's serial number(and owner) need to be on the books for that 30 seconds, and that record needs to be kept indefinitely. as such when a firearm is sold to a customer in the united states there is a record of it. the record indicates where the store got the gun in the first place and who it sold it to. 

the only thing keeping this from being complete "registration" is that these records are stored in each shop and checked up on by the atf. they are not put in a national register. 

if the government wished to initiate a confiscation program it would take a great deal of time to get the proper records from each local gunshop. this gives opponents of a buy back or confiscation program proper time to discuss their grievances with it in the government and possibly get the buyback repealed all together. this can be a very good thing because when you take something away from people they should possess the right to have their side of the argument heard in government, and not just legislated into the trash heap during one party's brief moment of power. 

the reason why the united states isnt a tyranny is that our system is designed for certain things to take long enough that everyone can be heard and we are not initiating a "tyranny of the majority" where people's concerns are not heard by the government like the colonists concerns were not heard by the british.


----------



## Jay-Hyaena (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> 3d printers are not efficient for mass production. they are a very efficient means of producing one prototype however. using a 3d printer one doesnt need to carve out a prototype part by "hand" (using a lathe or a mill).
> 
> also 3d printers cannot produce a complete firearm as of yet. they cannot print in hard enough metals to make the barrel and the bolt. also one questions the quality of the rifling in a barrel made by layering metal continuously. anyway the stories of the guy who printed a gun out are technically true. he printed the RECEIVER for a firearm, which by law is the firearm. however the bolt, and the barrel he bought. finally he chose a weapon which the bolt locks into the barrel, the printed material would not be strong enough for the bolt to lock up onto.
> 
> oh and finally i dont see a 3d printer capable of making a brass cartridge any time soon, even if ones that can print good strong metal do come out. cartridge making is an excruciating process that is only really possible in a full factory. so your right, ammunition restrictions may well be effective. though again i ask, what is preventing the killers from just using arson then? or a simple fire axe?



http://defensedistributed.com/ - I believe these fellows managed to create a working rifle that fired six shots successfully before breaking down. The price of 3D printing is going down and efficiency is still increasing as it stands.

That said, I understand your last sentence. People would like to think that gun control will prevent mass murders, but there are plenty of other weapons of choice. I believe Bath Consolidated School holds the highest death toll in school tragedies, where bombs were the weapon of choice.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



HipsterCoyote said:


> HAHA
> 
> But no that's really like
> 
> Fucking odd and really none of their business and doesn't have anything to do with like "Doctah I need an EKG" so what the fuck.   And how schools are to ask children if there are guns in the households.   You know, a tabs-keeping system, but, by doctors and teachers. D:



Considering that several of the pro-gun people in this thread have NO problem with a national screening of people for mental illness so that they don't flip out and start shooting, suddenly questioning why doctors should ask whether there's a firearm in the house seems a bit... inconsistent.


----------



## Jay-Hyaena (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> Considering that several of the pro-gun people in this thread have NO problem with a national screening of people for mental illness so that they don't flip out and start shooting, suddenly questioning why doctors should ask whether there's a firearm in the house seems a bit... inconsistent.



I think that's more because I don't see how that would provide a doctor with any useful information. Sexual activity or drugs they ask about because that'd actually physically effect your body.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Jay-Hyaena said:


> People would like to think that gun control will prevent mass murders, but there are plenty of other weapons of choice. I believe Bath Consolidated School holds the highest death toll in school tragedies, where bombs were the weapon of choice.



Ah, the old _"because people did mass killing in the past with non-gun weapons over fifty years ago we should do diddly-squat about restricting weapons that HAVE been used in massacres in just the LAST year alone"_ argument. Again. Regular as clockwork. Because bombs were used in most of last year's US massacres... oh, wait. They don't need to, because they all have GUNS they can obtain from their local Wal-Mart , while even gun shops don't sell bombs over the counter.

Why is the gun community in the US *mollycoddled* like a bunch of spoilt brats? Why are guns let off the hook time and time again when it comes to deaths caused by deliberate intent?

When an airliner crashes and people are killed, investigations are made as to the cause of the accident, and changes are made to the aircraft, crew training and whatever else is determined to be the source of the problem so that the same thing doesn't happen again.

When Al-Qaeda crashed planes into the WTC and Pentagon, significant changes were made to airline security (locked cockpit doors, passenger screening) _and_ the US government started _two wars_ to catch and/or destroy the perpetrators so that 9/11 wouldn't happen again.

Yet when US citizens shoot up schools, cinemas, and in one case _a frickin' US Senator, an elected member of the government_, hands are wrung about how this sort of thing is so so terrible... yet because of the actions of the gun lobby nothing gets done to stop this sort of thing happening again. All because a certain sector of US society are selfishly _addicted_ to guns with scant concern for the wellbeing of their fellow citizens, rating their "right" to own high-powered weaponry and the like over the right _of frickin' schoolchildren to not be treated like prisoners of their schools and to not need to wear frickin' bullet-proof backpacks to stop from getting killed!_


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Jay-Hyaena said:


> I think that's more because I don't see how that would provide a doctor with any useful information. Sexual activity or drugs they ask about because that'd actually physically effect your body.



Having high-velocity lead entering your body from an accidentally-discharged firearm will certainly affect your body


----------



## Jay-Hyaena (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> Having high-velocity lead entering your body from an accidentally-discharged firearm will certainly affect your body



I think the doctor could discern that they were shot without asking about firearms then, haha.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Jay-Hyaena said:


> http://defensedistributed.com/ - I believe these fellows managed to create a working rifle that fired six shots successfully before breaking down. The price of 3D printing is going down and efficiency is still increasing as it stands.
> 
> That said, I understand your last sentence. People would like to think that gun control will prevent mass murders, but there are plenty of other weapons of choice. I believe Bath Consolidated School holds the highest death toll in school tragedies, where bombs were the weapon of choice.




looked through the website. found that they in fact used a steel barrel and steel bolt. they printed the receiver for the ar platform out. i did not see printed trigger parts either, which surprised me. though they did print a magazine. 

see an ar-15 was designed with aircraft aluminum. the aluminum does get harder than steel but its tensile strength is not strong enough to really hold the whole thing together. So the steel barrel actually has the locking surfaces milled right into it. the bolt locks into those surfaces and so the stress on the aircraft aluminum upper receiver is minimalised. this design mechanic actually makes it quite easy to print both receivers out of plastic as well (however the people on the website only printed out the LOWER receiver, the one that takes the least beating). 

in truth it would simply be easier to make a sheet metal receiver. One could easily just take a few plates of sheet metal and even spray glue them together with some industrial strength glue(the stuff is awesome, i use it to glue small pieces of metal to big pieces so i can take it to the mill to make a trigger or something. then i just hit it with a blow torch to break the glue bond). you get a far more ugly product than that printed receiver but its cheaper and easier. lol. 



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> When Al-Qaeda crashed planes into the WTC and Pentagon, significant changes were made to airline security (locked cockpit doors, passenger screening) and the US government started two wars to catch and/or destroy the perpetrators so that 9/11 wouldn't happen again.



the reason is the scope of the problem and the social consequences. better screening at airports just means i have to get there more early. it is also a fairly easy thing for the government to do. 

however, lets imagine over the next six months a mass killer a month would get in a car, drive to the nearest crowded public mall and run over as many people as he could. thinking about the 6th street mall in denver i know a driver could quite easily get 20 or 30 people in a short spree. so imagine this happens time and time again. 

do you think the government not only would but could actually manage a background check system in order to drive a car? do you think they could actually get a ban through on vehicles most capable of causing a massacre? i really dont think so. public opinion aside it is FAR too mounting a task for a simple "pill for the problem" solution mentality. 



> All because a certain sector of US society are selfishly addicted to guns with scant concern for the wellbeing of their fellow citizens, rating their "right" to own high-powered weaponry and the like over the right of frickin' schoolchildren to not be treated like prisoners of their schools and to not need to wear frickin' bullet-proof backpacks to stop from getting killed!



edit: rant removed. i figured my post was too long. if you would like to hear the thoughts of someone who actually has experienced and knows something about those "prison schools" then i'll say it. however i figured the post was long enough that it was unreadable. 

anyway despite our "selfish" behavior violent crime in the united states has been PLUMMETING. 






this trend has been happening since the late 90s, and it has nothing to do with "assault weapons" which make up only about 2% of all violent crime offenses. further, this trend actually is quite similar to the trend in england. a nation that has outright banned firearms. this is evidence that our "selfishness" does not effect crime rates much at all.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> england. a nation that has outright banned firearms.



Actually, they're just heavily regulated and there's a buncha restrictions involved.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> Considering that several of the pro-gun people in this thread have NO problem with a national screening of people for mental illness so that they don't flip out and start shooting, suddenly questioning why doctors should ask whether there's a firearm in the house seems a bit... inconsistent.



National screening of people for mental illness regardless of what they're looking for, or why, is an invasion of privacy.  Because the USA (not to say that other countries don't) subscribes in general to the right to privacy, mandatory national screening of people for ANYTHING is fucking wrong on sheer principle.  We don't do national, mandatory drug tests (and we shouldn't).  We don't do national, mandatory inventory checks for like, what sort of food we have, and we shouldn't. 

This is an aspect of *anti, *not pro, gun legislation talking about having people recorded by doctors and schools whether they have guns.  This isn't pro gun legislation saying "You should be asked by your doctor if you have guns and the doctor should report this finding to the Government."  Even so I'd have a problem with it because that's a fucking uncalled for invasion of your privacy.

I am pro-gun and I'm also interested in investigating and changing the US attitude towards mental health issues, but not in a way that violates its citizens' right to privacy.  I don't even want a psychiatrist being federally mandated to ask his patients if they have guns, or if they have certain books, or subscribe to certain types of media, hang out with certain people, or really ANYTHING.  If the psychiatrist asks his patients a question of his own volition, fine.  That was his personal choice to do so.  But to be obligated by his federal government to ask his patients an aspect of their personal lives is a different, unacceptable story* regardless* of the veracity of the question or whether it'd be a contextually good idea to ask.   The federal government's place is in taxation and national defense.   The federal government has jurisdiction in matters that cross state lines or in locations where their jurisdiction is actually fucking established, such as when a State explicitly cedes land to the Federal government. If I go to my doctor in my State over a physical condition, it isn't the Federal government's fucking _business_ what is in my house or anybody's house, whether it's a gun or an inflatable giraffe.

Gun control in the sense of what gets imported and exported to/from the United States and with whom we enter treaties and what that suggests in regards to how we fall into possession and purchase of guns from other countries should be an issue that the Federal government has jurisdiction over in the same way that they should have jurisdiction over any other kind of trade (illicit or not).  Gun control in the territories that the States have given the Federal government is something that the Feds should have all the prerogative to perform because that territory is their jurisdiction.  But past that, fucking let gun control be a state-by-state issue.  It's not really a Second Amendment thing so much as it is a Ninth and Tenth Amendment thing and a "The Entire Rest Of The Constitution Says This Is An Enumerated List Of What You Can Do" thing and an "The Necessary And Proper Clause Doesn't Mean 'Because I Feel Like Doing It So I Can So Suck My Federal Dick'" thing. 

And to answer I think Jay Hyena, yes, schools anonymously pry into what isn't their business and go so far as to give medical injections to children without their parents' consent such as in California, and once almost in Texas.  That doesn't mean that it was ever right or ever will be.


----------



## Jay-Hyaena (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

^I am unsure how it is invading one's privacy if the survey is taken anonymously.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I missed the word anonymous, Hyena, sorry. The ones that I was required to take in school about drugs pissed me the fuck off because they were "anonymous but mandatory." What the fuck.  So, "You still have to tell us, we just won't pin your name on it, but, you're obligated to tell us anyway."


----------



## Attaman (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



HipsterCoyote said:


> Gun control in the territories that the States have given the Federal government





HipsterCoyote said:


> in the territories that the States have given the Federal government





HipsterCoyote said:


> territories that the *States* have *given* the *Federal*


You've done gone and slipped into full insanity.



HipsterCoyote said:


> But past that, fucking let gun control be a state-by-state issue.


 You want to leave states that publish books talking about how the _Loch Ness Monster is real and disproves evolution by its existence_ as an alternative to teaching Evolution (in some cases, removing Evolution from the equation entirely) and that the KKK weren't really bad guys (or, to return to the firearm subject, suggest "Second Amendment Solutions" in fiery rhetoric against their opponents) in charge of _policy relating to highly lethal weapons_?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> You've done gone and slipped into full insanity.
> 
> You want to leave states that publish books talking about how the _Loch Ness Monster is real and disproves evolution by its existence_ as an alternative to teaching Evolution (in some cases, removing Evolution from the equation entirely) and that the KKK weren't really bad guys (or, to return to the firearm subject, suggest "Second Amendment Solutions" in fiery rhetoric against their opponents) in charge of _policy relating to highly lethal weapons_?


We can take some consolation in the fact that no matter how heavily armed these lunatics are, the police and military are still better equipped and trained.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> You've done gone and slipped into full insanity.
> 
> You want to leave states that publish books talking about how the _Loch Ness Monster is real and disproves evolution by its existence_ as an alternative to teaching Evolution (in some cases, removing Evolution from the equation entirely) and that the KKK weren't really bad guys (or, to return to the firearm subject, suggest "Second Amendment Solutions" in fiery rhetoric against their opponents) in charge of _policy relating to highly lethal weapons_?




unfortunately what you are expressing the thought process of "well they are stupid so i have the right to control them absolutely and regulate their lives and tell them to do as i see fit". that sir is called fascism.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 19, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> unfortunately what you are expressing the thought process of "well they are stupid so i have the right to control them absolutely and regulate their lives and tell them to do as i see fit". that sir is called fascism.



So you're OK with state-mandated teaching of fairy tales and fabricated history to students because _"oh, telling them to teach actual FACTS is fascism"_?!?

And Americans wonder why the rest of the developed world laughs at them when this sort of thinking is standard practice in the US.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Er mah gerd, I doubleposted when I tried to include a quote I'm retarded. :V


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> You've done gone and slipped into full insanity.



Cute. 



			
				Article 1 said:
			
		

> To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;â€”And





			
				Article 1 said:
			
		

> To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,





			
				Article 1 said:
			
		

> by Cession of particular States



If you'll excuse me, you've done gone and slipped into "Can't Fucking Read."



Attaman said:


> You want to leave states that publish books talking about how the Loch Ness Monster is real and disproves evolution by its existence as an alternative to teaching Evolution (in some cases, removing Evolution from the equation entirely) and that the KKK weren't really bad guys (or, to return to the firearm subject, suggest "Second Amendment Solutions" in fiery rhetoric against their opponents) in charge of policy relating to highly lethal weapons?




Attaman, seriously? Of all the people who I thought I would never say, "That's insipid," to, ... It wasn't going to be you.  I'm actually kind of shocked.  Like, I don't want to personally insult you but, god damn, that was stupid. 

Yes, I do want to leave states that don't have the same views as you do in charge of policy relating to highly lethal weapons.  

A State should always be in charge of its own god damned laws because having the power to make laws is what makes a State fucking exist. Nobody goes, â€œI'm sorry, Queen, but you can't be Queen anymore because there's this random man in Dorsetshire who is a scientologist.â€ Maybe you're trying to say, if states are allowed to make their own laws what's to say that some state can't say something fucked up like, â€œabortionists are the devil and they should be shot on sight"?

Your governing document.  So long as a sovereign entity remains in power it has all the business in the world being sovereign and making laws as according to its governing document. That's what their Constitution establishes in the first place.  Sovereignty is not a moral or intellectual issue.  Many if not all sovereign nations have at least a few very fucked up laws.  Regardless, sovereignty is derived from the consent of its citizens, which restrict and empower it with a constitution.  And the Constitution of the United States of America does not say, â€œYou have to agree with certain ideas in order to make laws.â€  In fact, part of the Constitution prescribes there will BE no ideological requirements in order to hold office.

Come back to me when you've actually read the Constitution.  Let me help you.

Congress's powers are listed in Article I, section VIII, which you did not read if you got such a kick out of triple-over quoting me over summarizing a part of the document.   If you live in the USA, you should be ashamed of yourself for not getting past the FIRST PART of the Constitution.  If you do not live in the USA, then check yourself before you wreck yourself, girl. 

The Federal Government's power is to maintain the nation's defense, to collect taxes, and to establish post offices and post roads.  It also restricts the power of the States.  For instance, Texas could not, say, enter a treaty.  If you are somehow left confused by a *bullet point list* of things that the government can do and wonder, â€œGee, can we legislate about ____?â€ then you need not worry, because Amendment IX and X answer this for you.  
*Amendment IX:* The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

*Amendment X:* The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​ 
Now, the Legislative branch also has a limiting factor which is not just the Presidential veto.  It's the Supremacy Clause.  It is Article VI, Clause II: "_This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding_."   So, Congress (and other entities in the Federal government) can't pass laws saying, "Well then! Now we ALSO have the power to do X." 

This is a great time to mention the* Elastic clause.*  That is the very last Clause of Article I, Section VIII.  It does not exist to grant Congress the power to adopt more priveleges of a nature not described in the Constitution.  It exists to grant Congress the capacity to fulfill the enumerated powers.   Otherwise, Amendments IX and X would not exist.  So, regardless of whether the Federal government has passed legislation on issue XYZ or not, issue XYZ is none of the Federal government's business if the Constitution doesn't say, â€œthe Federal government can do XYZ.â€  The only clauses in which have potential regards to arming or disarming people is that we can regulate a militia, maintain a military, and enter treaties. 

Now, let's look at another branch: the Executive branch.  People seem to think executive orders are laws, or can be conducted as if they are.  They are not.  The President's power to perform an executive order is inferred in Article II, Sections 1 and 2 but not explicitly defined.  Regardless, according to_ *Youngstown Sheet And Tube Company V. Sawyer*_, when Truman tried to confiscate all of the US's steel mills for government use, SCOTUS said, "the executive branch is not the law-making branch, period."  An executive order can consolidate previous executive orders such as Obama's 13603 which put 10421 and 11490 together (those are fun reads and IMO 13603 was fucking unnecessary and scary). An executive order can also clarify laws, but it has no authority of law.  When any President signs an executive order to enact it as law he is kinging himself and wiping the Magna Carta with his ass; Truman should have been impeached and so should have other presidents.  If Obama's executive orders are supposed to be actual laws, then he needs to be impeached, too. 

Now, let's look at the* Bill Of Rights, *which, you must note, was written to restrict the Federal government. SCOTUS established in 1833 with* Barron V. Baltimore* that the Bill Of Rights does not apply to the States; when Barron appealed to the Supreme Court with a solid 5th Amendment case, he got shot down because it wasn't a Federal issue. The Bill Of Rights restricts the power of the Federal government.  If that is the case, how can the ACLU argue â€œFirst Amendment!â€ when public schools do things that they find untoward? Because of_* Gitlow V. New York:*_ The 14th Amendment extends the reach of certain limitations on government authority set forth in the 1st Amendment ot the governments of individual states. But the 14th Amendment is not in the Bill of Rights.   The Second Amendment (and curiously also the 8th Amendment, as far as I understand) have yet to be extended to something prohibited from the States.

The only context in which the Federal government should be able to infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms regardless of WHY is never, because it says in the Bill of Rights, â€œ_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed_.â€  I don't  care what you think about guns and I'm happy to let you think that they're evil.  I think you're being asinine, but hey, I'm sure the feeling is mutual, so let's agree to disagree.  What I need you to understand has nothing to do with whether or not you or me like or don't like guns.  It has to do with the law. 

If the Federal government issues a gun control law it is banking on that State and other local government don't actually DO anything in retaliation.  Federal gun control laws are enforced unlawfully and can be challenged and have in the recent past and still will be.    Here's a great example, Sheriff Richard Mack (Arizona) and Sheriff Jay Printz (Montana) in_* Printz V. The United States*_. He said "FUCK your Brady Law, I'm the Sheriff and I have more jurisdiction than you do, here.  Your gun registration laws are unconstitutional and I will NOT enforce them." And guess what? They won.  If there is a federal mandate for gun control you should oppose it even if you are a fan of gun control because you should  not let your government take advantage of ignorance and you should not  let your fellow citizens be ignorant of how your government works.  

Lastly, When a State sells land to the Federal Government, that land is in their jurisdiction. When an activity or crime crosses state lines or involves the US in an international manner, then that thing falls into their jurisdiction. It just gives them jurisdiction, though. It doesn't mean that they can magically say that they have the right to ignore the Bill of Rights and can poof powers out of nowhere (see "Supremacy Clause") just because they bought a parcel of land from a State which consented to the purchase. So, I was wrong: not even within THE TERRITORY THE STATES _GAAAAVE_ TO THEM can they do that. I'm sorry I forgot about that. I take it back.

So, *read the fucking manual. *If you want gun control, then push for it in a way that is lawful.

As long as our Constitution is not replaced by something else or amended, I am going to be a proponent of gun control not being within the Federal government's capacity.  And yes, to make you happy, you can dig up some fucked up law that happens to be constitutional and be like â€œLook at you, you're an asshole for thinking the Constitution should be adhered to because omg this law!â€ but it doesn't invalidate that the Constitution says what the fuck it says and that you're just going to have to deal with it or act within your capacity to have it changed.   You can say, "Yeah well with your argument then what's to stop all 50 states from adopting identically strict gun control laws? HAH! You're an asshole!"  Answer: Nothing, and state-by-state gun control is the way that it lawfully should be, so if it's all copy-and-paste much like different sections of penal code from state to state is, then whatever. It was lawfully done.


----------



## Aetius (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Got to love accidental discharges.

Better news that nobody was killed from the accidents. Hopefully they all make a recovery.


----------



## Golden (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> You've done gone and slipped into full insanity.   You want to leave states that publish books talking about how the _Loch Ness Monster is real and disproves evolution by its existence_ as an alternative to teaching Evolution (in some cases, removing Evolution from the equation entirely) and that the KKK weren't really bad guys (or, to return to the firearm subject, suggest "Second Amendment Solutions" in fiery rhetoric against their opponents) in charge of _policy relating to highly lethal weapons_?


  So America SHOULDN'T be a federation?


----------



## Aetius (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



RaichuOPs said:


> So America SHOULDN'T be a federation?



Love the Fox News logic.

Just because Attaman is for the central government's intervention (Where it is soundly needed), totally means that he supports the US not being a federation.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

The thing is, though, lawfully, the federal government does not actually have the _authority _to intervene here. That doesn't mean it won't try, because it has in the past and has been successful, but it's still not lawful and it doesn't make any past success any more legitimate, and relying on the states and counties to keep quiet about it on this and other issues is fucking crooked, even when the issue has to do with, say, money or food or television or products we can buy, like lightbulbs.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> So you're OK with state-mandated teaching of fairy tales and fabricated history to students because _"oh, telling them to teach actual FACTS is fascism"_?!?
> 
> And Americans wonder why the rest of the developed world laughs at them when this sort of thinking is standard practice in the US.



well different tangent than firearms now, lol.

anyway yes, taking an entire group of people and telling them point blank "you are too stupid to govern yourselves so i will be taking absolute control over your laws" is in fact fascism. in fact the european standpoint for their governance of the colonies throughout the world was EXACTLY that. "i'm sorry people of india but you are simply too stupid and backward to be trusted to govern yourselves, so we will continue to rule over you.". 

now the state in question requiring to teach creationism in a public institution is another matter. it is a LEGAL matter. those states agreed at one point to separate the church from government. providing a parochial education in a public state funded school is against that law. However, it is perfectly just and legal for the parents of those kids to raise them to believe in creationism. thats called practice of faith. of course these are all legal issues that are continuing to play out in the southern american states(and one by one the schools are being required to adhere to the laws that those states agreed to). 

i'm sorry, but the attitude of "i am right, you are stupid and i will govern you to ensure your safety" is the standpoint of every fascist institution in world history. it was the standpoint of european colonialism. it was the standpoint of the nazi autocracy and it was the standpoint of the communists in both russia and china. it is the moral justification for autocracy and absolute governance.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> anyway yes, taking an entire group of people and telling them point blank "you are too stupid to govern yourselves so i will be taking absolute control over your laws" is in fact fascism.



(Wikipedia)_Fascism (pron.: /ËˆfÃ¦ÊƒÉªzÉ™m/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, and physical training. Fascism utilizes a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation upon fascist principles. Fascism views direct action including political violence and war, as a means to achieve national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality._ 

Hmmm, I don't see anything in there about "you are too stupid to govern yourselves so i will be taking absolute control over your laws". If you are referring to _colonialism_, that's a whole different thing.



ceacar99 said:


> in fact the european standpoint for their governance of the colonies throughout the world was EXACTLY that. "i'm sorry people of india but you are simply too stupid and backward to be trusted to govern yourselves, so we will continue to rule over you.".



Of course, the US has NEVER colonised another country and run it on the basis of _"you are too stupid to govern yourselves so i will be taking absolute control over your laws"_ - oh wait, that's exactly what the US did with the Philippines from 1898 to 1946. And what was worse was that the Filipinos thought that the US was helping them to be liberated from Spanish rule, when what actually happened was the Filipinos simply wound up swapping colonial masters. And when the Filipinos resisted being colonised a _second_ time, the US went to war against the people it "liberated", committing many atrocities in the process. 

Does that make the US "fascist"?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Aetius said:


> Got to love accidental discharges.
> 
> Better news that nobody was killed from the accidents. Hopefully they all make a recovery.



Holy shit, people are fucking retarded.

If they wanna keep their guns, the least they could do is follow the most fucking basic safety guidelines.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Holy shit, people are fucking retarded.
> 
> If they wanna keep their guns, the least they could do is follow the most fucking basic safety guidelines.


But Gibby, the Federal Government saying such is fascism and oppression. :C

Seriously people, you've cheapened "fascism" to the point that "Schools should teach facts" is Government oppression and a Federal power-grab. What?


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> But Gibby, the Federal Government saying such is fascism and oppression. :C
> 
> Seriously people, you've cheapened "fascism" to the point that "Schools should teach facts" is Government oppression and a Federal power-grab. What?



technically mayfur is right. the dictionary definition is not the way i was using it so i will from now on use the word "dictatorship". 

and again. if you state that people do not have the authority to govern themselves, make their own laws and make their own decisions you are proposing an authoritarian government. i am not arguing that its right for them to teach creationism in public schools. in fact i specifically stated that they made an agreement at one point to do no such thing(they agreed to be bound by the us constitution). 

what i'm arguing against is the mentality you expressed. "well i think those people are stupid so its ok that they dont have the right to choose anything. we will just install a dictatorship over there to fix them". i am pointing this out because it seems a great many "liberal" minded people express it. they talk about human rights, social equality and all that and then propose a government that does the opposite. "its ok if we dictate everything to these people and leave them no choice, its for their own good."



> You want to leave states that publish books talking about how the Loch Ness Monster is real and disproves evolution by its existence as an alternative to teaching Evolution (in some cases, removing Evolution from the equation entirely) and that the KKK weren't really bad guys (or, to return to the firearm subject, suggest "Second Amendment Solutions" in fiery rhetoric against their opponents) in charge of policy relating to highly lethal weapons?



see? "they are stupid therefore they should not be allowed to choose important things for themselves such as what weapons are legal in their own communities". i point this out because this mentality should NEVER be considered acceptable. again thats the mentality of all the most evil actions committed since colonialism began. 



			
				Mayfur said:
			
		

> Of course, the US has NEVER colonised another country and run it on the basis of "you are too stupid to govern yourselves so i will be taking absolute control over your laws" - oh wait, that's exactly what the US did with the Philippines from 1898 to 1946. And what was worse was that the Filipinos thought that the US was helping them to be liberated from Spanish rule, when what actually happened was the Filipinos simply wound up swapping colonial masters. And when the Filipinos resisted being colonised a second time, the US went to war against the people it "liberated", committing many atrocities in the process.
> 
> Does that make the US "fascist"?



yes those actions were quite wrong. they were downright evil. now does the fact that those actions were performed in the past make it any more just to do it to anyone else in the future? no it doesnt.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> what i'm arguing against is the mentality you expressed. "well i think those people are stupid so its ok that they dont have the right to choose anything. we will just install a dictatorship over there to fix them".


 So, you feel that Lincoln was a dictator then? As I'm fairly certain that a fair deal of states didn't want his policies in effect, but he used Federal Authority to do so. Lookit, I can make crazy claims too!



ceacar99 said:


> "its ok if we dictate everything to these people and leave them no choice, its for their own good."


 If you routinely make bad choices, you probably shouldn't be trusted to make more until changes come into play. For fucks sake we have Florida _legalizing the ability to bribe local government officials_.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> But Gibby, the Federal Government saying such is fascism and oppression. :C
> 
> Seriously people, you've cheapened "fascism" to the point that "Schools should teach facts" is Government oppression and a Federal power-grab. What?



No, Attaman, the federal government just can't do that without constitutional authority.

Also, *yes*, Lincoln was a fucking dictator! He fucking waged war without Congress, he removed the nation from the gold standard and put forth the National Currency Act, he assembled an army by presidential decree, he fucking jailed any dissenters in the south, he imposed the federal income tax, and he had General Sherman, who was a fuck for doing it, burn and steal property and fucking murder the citizens in it across Georgia.  And that's just a little slice of what he did.  He fucking murdered 10% of the USA's adult male population.  And the badass guy John Brown who catalyzed violent opposition to slavery at Harper's Ferry? Yeah, he fucking hung.  For treason.  Lincoln didn't care about slaves.   He was a fucking dictator.

So was Harry Truman when he tried to take over all the US's steel mills by executive order without the consent of Congress, wartime or not! H.W. Bush was a fucking dictator,  James K Polk was a god damned dictator.  Governor Edmund J. Davis was a dictator.  Our House of Representatives is crooked and double-votes and walks around the fuckin' floor voting for people who aren't at their desks and should get thrown out for it. 

Attaman, if a state makes it legal to fucking, paint everybody yellow in order to fight off alien mind control the that's their authority to do so and if the people in that sovereign entity decide that they've had enough then replacing it with something else is their right and power to do so.  It's "You signed the contract, now deal with it or do something about it."  How do you not understand this?


----------



## Calemeyr (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Here's the thing: do you need military equipment, or are you just playing GI JOE and are afraid the president you didn't vote for is going to take your guns? What if Bush did it? Would you support it?

Also, anyone who thinks that they will revolt against the government if their guns are taken should not be allowed to own guns at all. Fuck, I could take a kitchen knife and kill a man if he was trying to harm my family. Also a handgun would be fine. People don't have ten thousand hit points in real life. Your military weapons are not needed and make this country more dangerous. The NRA consistently makes gun laws hard to pass and makes enforcement of existing ones watered down. You worry about a dystopic future run by liberals? You're creating a dystopic present. Besides, everyone knows big business is above the government. You should be worried more about losing your job when Mr Piggybank takes his bonus when the company is short on cash. Also, please explain to me why America is so fascinated in violence and war and not in educating our children so that we as a people will be more free?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Actually, they're just heavily regulated and there's a buncha restrictions involved.



Love how people in debates like this always claim England has a gun ban. They can quote exact articles of the US Constitution but they don't even get something basic like that right. 

Also currently there's a kid in Louisiana right now fighting against Creationism in public schools, his basis is that creationism is a veiled attempt by the religious crowd to introduce religion to kids in the place of actual science which leads to indoctrination rather than someone learning proper scientific theory and the scientific method. 

Why do I bring this up?  Because when it comes to things like education and guns the state doesn't always have the right answer. Remember it was, mostly southern, states which also enacted things like Jim Crow Laws.  Leaving certain things up to the states is fine, but when bringing up an issue of education or guns having some federal intervention there isn't a bad idea when it's not simply a difference of opinion but a difference of a blind political platform getting in the way of societal progress.  

Now this is just me, but I don't readily trust people with the power to easily take someone else's life in their hands. I know, crazy for me to think that people are prone to fucking up with firearms where that fuck up is magnified ten-fold by the very nature of what firearms do. As ironic as the accidental discharges on "Gun Appreciation Day" were, it's also not wholly surprising because these "responsible gun owners" are also human beings with the faults we all come to expect from human beings.  However, when you give that mildly irresponsible person a gun he then becomes not only a danger to themselves but to people around them. And even more so when you start championing this vigilantism philosophy of "pass judgement with a .45" for every indiscretion that is done onto you or that which is perceived to be done onto you. And as I've made mention in another thread, the "stand your ground/make my day" kind of legislation encourages the shoot first, ask questions later approach which has ended the lives of several innocent people, mostly family members of the gun owner. 

This is why we need some sort of federal intervention. Because I don't think any state that is vehemently pro-gun is ready to actually weigh the value of how many innocent people being seriously injured or killed by incompetence or insanity of the gun owner in things like mass shootings or "stand your ground" scenarios before they seriously consider "maybe we shouldn't make buying a gun as easy as getting beer."


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Marcus Stormchaser said:


> You should be worried more about losing your job when Mr Piggybank takes his bonus when the company is short on cash. Also, please explain to me why America is so fascinated in violence and war and not in educating our children so that we as a people will be more free?



And while we're at it, can someone please explain why in America there's more outrage shown over a split-second image of Janet Jackson's tits on national TV from a "wardrobe malfunction" than about people tooled up like Rambo wannabees?



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Now this is just me, but I don't readily trust people with the power to easily take someone else's life in their hands. I know, crazy for me to think that people are prone to fucking up with firearms where that fuck up is magnified ten-fold by the very nature of what firearms do. As ironic as the accidental discharges on "Gun Appreciation Day" were, it's also not wholly surprising because these "responsible gun owners" are also human beings with the faults we all come to expect from human beings.  However, when you give that mildly irresponsible person a gun he then becomes not only a danger to themselves but to people around them. And even more so when you start championing this vigilantism philosophy of "pass judgement with a .45" for every indiscretion that is done onto you or that which is perceived to be done onto you. And as I've made mention in another thread, the "stand your ground/make my day" kind of legislation encourages the shoot first, ask questions later approach which has ended the lives of several innocent people, mostly family members of the gun owner.



Exactly. Easy access to firearms encourages the "when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" syndrome with deadly effect. 

Think that someone's about to trespass on your property? Shoot them.
In a feud with your neighbour? Shoot them.
Don't like the way your government is run? Prepare to shoot them.
Disagree with your elected officials? Shoot them.
Don't like the way that black kid is walking in your neighbourhood? Shoot them.
Feeling bullied and outcast at school? Shoot them.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



			
				Term_The_Schmuck said:
			
		

> "stand your ground/make my day" kind of legislation encourages the shoot first, ask questions later approach which has ended the lives of several innocent people, mostly family members of the gun owner.



which is why i don't support it. also the problem with the law is that it is a legal safe haven for murderers who kill someone in public. 



> This is why we need some sort of federal intervention. Because I don't think any state that is vehemently pro-gun is ready to actually weigh the value of how many innocent people being seriously injured or killed by incompetence or insanity of the gun owner in things like mass shootings or "stand your ground" scenarios before they seriously consider "maybe we shouldn't make buying a gun as easy as getting beer."



and what makes the leaders in the federal government more competent than the officials in the states in question? they are elected by the same people. to believe that one tier of government is full of angels who can only do good and the other tier is full of evil is pretty silly.... 

also AGAIN i show actual fbi crime statistics concerning violent crime.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/june/crimes_061112/crimes_061112
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/crime_091911/crime_091911

violent crime rates going down as much as 4% annually is an amazing thing buddy. and may i point out that this is occurring WHILE people are allowed to own "military weapons". the correlation between firearms and violence is one entirely of emotion. 

and the british have effectively banned everything save for black powder pistols and "manual operation" rifles such as bolt actions. further these firearms that are not outright banned require a 5 year certificate to acquire. every five years the owner has to re apply. i believe the only exception to this is low capacity shotguns. as such they have law that effectively ends private firearms ownership much like the 200 dollar fee and requirement for government licence practically ended private ownership of automatic weapons in the united states until they were just outright banned in the 80's.



			
				Attaman said:
			
		

> If you routinely make bad choices, you probably shouldn't be trusted to make more until changes come into play. For fucks sake we have Florida legalizing the ability to bribe local government officials.



attaman you dont seem to see the problem. who gets to decide what "bad choices are"? Who gets to decide how many "bad choices" one can make before being denied their civic rights? 

think about the thought process here. if you can remove the rights of others for something as arbitrary as religious belief, or viewpoint on history then what is keeping you from just oppressing one group after another that you don't agree with? "i dont agree with these people, therefore they are stupid and their rights under the constitution are null". isnt that the attitude of every dictator in world history?

and on lincoln i'd say that wars for survival tend to generate dictators. however, i do note that lincoln up until his dieing day worked to ensure that the south re entered the union as equal brothers, though they would have to accept the end of slavery. with his death that did not quite work out and the kkk was originally formed in the hopes of overthrowing the radical and often autocratic governments that white southerners felt that the north forced upon them.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> and the british have effectively banned everything save for black powder pistols and "manual operation" rifles such as bolt actions. further these firearms that are not outright banned require a 5 year certificate to acquire. every five years the owner has to re apply. i believe the only exception to this is low capacity shotguns. *as such they have law that effectively ends private firearms ownership*...



Ahem.


> Fully automatic (submachine-guns, etc.) are totally prohibited from private ownership and self-loading (semi-automatic) weapons of calibre larger than .22 rimfire or shotguns are totally banned other than in Northern Ireland. *All other rifles and their ammunition are permitted with good reason, which may include target shooting, hunting, and historic and black powder weapons, *but not self-defence. Shotgun possession and use is controlled, and even low-power air rifles and pistols, while permitted, are controlled to some extent. A firearms certificate issued by the police is required for all weapons and ammunition except air weapons of modest power (of muzzle energy not over 12 ftÂ·lbf for rifles, and 6 ftÂ·lbf for pistols). *Shotguns with a capacity of three rounds or less (up to guns with a magazine holding no more than two rounds, in addition to one in the chamber) are subject to less stringent licensing requirements than other firearms; shotguns with higher capacity require a Firearms Certificate.*



What Term said - not to mention the pathetic bleating about how banning/restricting handguns and high capacity weapons "effectively ends private ownership" when it patently does not. You're not really helping your case.



ceacar99 said:


> who gets to decide what "bad choices are"? Who gets to decide how many "bad choices" one can make before being denied their civic rights?



By your logic, southern states should have been allowed to carry on with their segregation and "Jim Crow" laws with discrimination against black people because enforcing Civil Rights would have been the mark of a dictatorship. Yessirree, Alabama should have been left to pursue their "bad choice" of state sponsored discrimination against people for no more reason than their ethnicity and/or skin colour, even keep blacks as slaves because goshdarnit, the right of states to do whatever bad shit they want to trumps any human decency...
/sarcasm


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Marcus Stormchaser said:


> Here's the thing: do you need military equipment, or are you just playing GI JOE and are afraid the president you didn't vote for is going to take your guns? What if Bush did it? Would you support it?
> 
> Also, anyone who thinks that they will revolt against the government if their guns are taken should not be allowed to own guns at all. Fuck, I could take a kitchen knife and kill a man if he was trying to harm my family. Also a handgun would be fine. People don't have ten thousand hit points in real life. Your military weapons are not needed and make this country more dangerous. The NRA consistently makes gun laws hard to pass and makes enforcement of existing ones watered down. You worry about a dystopic future run by liberals? You're creating a dystopic present. Besides, everyone knows big business is above the government. You should be worried more about losing your job when Mr Piggybank takes his bonus when the company is short on cash. Also, please explain to me why America is so fascinated in violence and war and not in educating our children so that we as a people will be more free?




Anyone who thinks they will revolt against the governmentlt *because it's Wednesday and they felt like it* has all the constitutional rights to own guns if their governing document says that they can.  Government by consent is your *right* to which you are entitled as a *human being* and it doesn't _matter_ if you want to overthrow your government for "You have slaughtered my people," "Your laws are racist," "I will only consent to a vegan government," or "You wear striped pants."  

If Bush pushed for gun control?  I assume you mean W. and now H.W.?  Newsflash, he has and he only let the assault weapons ban expire in 2004 despite his wishes to renew it because the jackass was afraid to lose the Republican vote  -- I would oppose him and have in the past.  In fact, I wanted him impeached for a whole list of reasons, like the National Security And Homeland Security Presidential Directive.   I didn't even want the motherfucker _who is not a Texan for the fucking record_ to be my governor.  He was a fucking dictator. 

And in case you meant H.W. and now W.,  he has, and I would have opposed it if I were fuckin' alive in 89 when he halted the importation of semi-automatic firearms as a kneejerk reaction to the Stockton, California shooting and the motherfucker was like "Oh this is piggybacking off of the 1968 gun control act" and the bastard said that guns were for _sporting purposes _and he is a _fuck _on principle for cheapening the Bill of Rights into "for sporting purposes" just like the jackass Romney is a fan of guns "for sporting purposes." 

I *am* worried about losing my job when Mr. Piggybank appropriates money like a self-congratulating fuck.  It doesn't stop me from also worrying about how my government is getting away with murder. I can multi-task, you know.  I want so badly for the presidential elections to work as they used to: you voted for your State representatives and your State representatives voted for the President.   I want people to be interested in their State's politics.  I want people to think that their State representatives matter. I want them to understand and realize that their State is sovereign. 

I still stand behind that you should be against unconstitutional gun control as a subset of being against unconstitutional *anything* _regardless of whether you agree with the ideas behind the laws or not_ *because* you must be educated about your government and how it works and how to keep it in line and not exploit your ignorance of how it works *so that you can*â€‹ be free, and when your government acts in an unconstitutional manner you can combat it.  You can slather that fallacious generalization on someone who _doesn't_ put down a Ayn-Rand length post about the US Constitution and SCOTUS rulings and executive orders, sure, but don't pin this "You aren't interested in educating people so they can be free" bullshit on me.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> and what makes the leaders in the federal government more competent than the officials in the states in question? they are elected by the same people. to believe that one tier of government is full of angels who can only do good and the other tier is full of evil is pretty silly....



Because this current administration, I believe, has it right.  Making a mandate on examining effects of gun control as well as placing more emphasis on checking the mental competency of the person purchasing a firearms and forcing the issue of background checks on private gun sales are a good first steps.  I'd personally would like to see more, but it's a start.

Likewise making a federal regulation on guns simply makes more sense then going state-by-state.  As I've mentioned to Gibby in another thread, it's VERY easy for people in my home state of New Jersey to cross the border into Pennsylvania to buy something like fireworks and then truck it back into New Jersey with ease.  It stands to reason you could do something similar with firearms where I could go to a state where I could answer some dude's Craig's List ad to sell his WASR-10 and purchase it with cash and without anyone asking me to show as much as a driver's license.  Kinda defeats the purpose of my state's gun laws if you can just take a short drive in some cases to another to get whatever the hell you want.



> violent crime rates going down as much as 4% annually is an amazing thing buddy. and may i point out that this is occurring WHILE people are allowed to own "military weapons". the correlation between firearms and violence is one entirely of emotion.



It is an amazing thing.  You know what else is amazing?  During that same time gun ownership is declining along with crime.  Maybe it's because people realize guns give a rather brash option for figuring out life's problems?  Who knows?  It likely requires more time to study as opposed to looking at a couple of statistics briefly and claiming the issue no longer requires discussion.



> and the british have effectively banned everything save for black powder pistols and "manual operation" rifles such as bolt actions. further these firearms that are not outright banned require a 5 year certificate to acquire. every five years the owner has to re apply.



So firearms aren't outlawed in Britain then as people continually claim.  Thanks for proving my point.  Also that 5-year certificate seems pretty reasonable to me.  I have to get my driver's license renewed every so often.  Why shouldn't firearm owners for their weapons which are exponentially more dangerous given what they're designed to do?



> i believe the only exception to this is low capacity shotguns. as such they have law that effectively ends private firearms ownership much like the 200 dollar fee and requirement for government licence practically ended private ownership of automatic weapons in the united states until they were just outright banned in the 80's.



It hasn't "effectively ended" private firearms ownership.  According to Gunpolicy.org, England and Wales have a combined 3.4 million people who are registered gun owners.  That's hardly "no private firearm ownership" by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 20, 2013)

Then funny thing is that with respect to the "gun ownership (of whatever I want) makes you free" argument, countries in Europe and Australasia with tighter gun laws than the US are actually just as "free" as US citizens. Hell, my country routinely trumps the US in the "Least Corrupt Country" league.

In fact, I can argue that I'm more "free" than Americans because my government can't prosecute me for travelling to Cuba if I so desire to. 



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Likewise making a federal regulation on guns simply makes more sense then going state-by-state.  As I've mentioned to Gibby in another thread, i*t's VERY easy for people in my home state of New Jersey to cross the border into Pennsylvania to buy something like fireworks and then truck it back into New Jersey with ease.*  It stands to reason you could do something similar with firearms where I could go to a state where I could answer some dude's Craig's List ad to sell his WASR-10 and purchase it with cash and without anyone asking me to show as much as a driver's license.  Kinda defeats the purpose of my state's gun laws if you can just take a short drive in some cases to another to get whatever the hell you want.



Exactly. The only way that a state-by-state approach would work would be if you treated state borders in the same way as international borders with the whole border crossing customs inspection approach. But I can't see Americans wanting to get searched every time they travelled to and from (say) Pennsylvania and New Jersey  in the same manner they're searched travelling to and from Mexico or Canada.

The current Balkanisation of gun laws across the US doesn't make sense for exactly these reasons. Federal regulations are a pretty sensible approach.

Which is why the NRA and fellow travellers will oppose them. It'll affect gun company profitability, after all. Can't have that.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Yes, Mayfurr, the sad thing (for my end as a US citizen) is that you are more free than I am.  Not that this is a contest, but in the sense of that my government is fucked up and people have *let it* get that way. 



Mayfurr said:


> By your logic, southern states should have been allowed to carry on with their segregation and "Jim Crow" laws with discrimination against black people because enforcing Civil Rights would have been the mark of a dictatorship. Yessirree, Alabama should have been left to pursue their "bad choice" of state sponsored discrimination against people for no more reason than their ethnicity and/or skin colour, even keep blacks as slaves because goshdarnit, the right of states to do whatever bad shit they want to trumps any human decency...
> /sarcasm



The right of States to do whatever bad shit they want to do does not trump human decency.  The right of States to remain Sovereign because their governing document says that this is the case and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution that says "You can't contradict the US Constitution" trumps unconstitutional law.  The right of the people to retaliate against whatever bad shit their States want to do is guaranteed by the Constitution and a vested right granted by the merit of your existence regardless of whether it's in the Constitution at all. 

People should be let to revolt against their government because of their beliefs, be it their State or their Federal government, and be the belief amazing and heroic or stupid and crazy.  You can not draw the line in the sand between what beliefs are OK to revolt about and what beliefs are not OK to revolt about without denying a person's right to liberty regardless of if it's 'Murica or the Philippines or Tajikistan.  If a human has the right to be treated like a human being then saying "But you can't say 'no' to things that you feel are violating your rights because your beliefs happen to be unpopular" is not treating them like a human being.  Pragmatically speaking, if someone wants to revolt because of an unpopular reason, they might not be able to actually achieve it: John Brown was hanged for treason after Harper's Ferry.  He was a guy who said, "Slavery is wrong as hell," before the Civil War started and led a slave revolt.  But he and every single person still had and has the right to revolt for _any reason at all _and the opportunity must not be denied them if you are a person who does not subscribe to double standards. 

The Black Panther Party For Self Defense armed themselves from guns to knives to other weapons and performed demonstrations in neighborhoods and acted as vigilantes to combat the fucking awful racism that their State (sovereign, governing entity) was both imposing on them and turning a blind eye to. The point here does not revolve around the having of guns but the having the right to combat one's government whether by peaceful demonstration or white phosphorus.  They are just a small example of how the Civil Rights Movement wasn't a bunch of peace talks and cute, white picket signs.  It was a revolution, with assassinations and murders and riots.  They were revolting against their government because that was their *right* and this bullshit about how "You're too stupid to govern yourself" that Attaman and other people are subscribing to is denying this right.  Someone can say "You're too black to govern yourself," or "You're too womanly to govern yourself."  This is not a straw-man argument, this is, "You can not have double standards here. You can not say, "It's OK to revolt against your government for _these_ reasons but it's not OK to revolt against your government for _those_ reasons."


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



HipsterCoyote said:


> People should be let to revolt against their government because of their beliefs, be it their State or their Federal government, and be the belief amazing and heroic or stupid and crazy.  You can not draw the line in the sand between what beliefs are OK to revolt about and what beliefs are not OK to revolt about without denying a person's right to liberty regardless of if it's 'Murica or the Philippines or Tajikistan.  If a human has the right to be treated like a human being then saying "But you can't say 'no' to things that you feel are violating your rights because your beliefs happen to be unpopular" is not treating them like a human being.  Pragmatically speaking, if someone wants to revolt because of an unpopular reason, they might not be able to actually achieve it: John Brown was hanged for treason after Harper's Ferry.  He was a guy who said, "Slavery is wrong as hell," before the Civil War started and led a slave revolt.  But he and every single person still had and has the right to revolt for _any reason at all _and the opportunity must not be denied them if you are a person who does not subscribe to double standards.



For the umpteenth time, _revolting against your own government does not require the permission of that government in order to do it._ Armed revolt - regardless of the justification - is *illegal by the standard of the government being revolted against.*

Depending upon the rationale, a revolt against a government may be justified from a _moral_ perspective - but to claim that you have a _legal_ "right of revolt" for an act which by definition is putting you against the government that _set_ the law(s) and/or behaviours that caused you to revolt in the first place, especially when using this to justify ownership of firearms, is spurious logic at best and self-justifying romantic grasping at straws at worst. _You can't get a permit to do a thing that's illegal!_

(And once again we're on the subject of revolting Americans. Yep, heavily-armed Rambo wannabees who want to use a Second Amendment solution to their "gummint" problems instead of the First are pretty revolting  )


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I didn't say that it requires the permission of your government.   You never would get permission from your government.   That's why I even mentioned John Brown getting hanged, dude.  That's why the civil war even happened.  That's why any revolt had to happen. I'm just subscribing to that it's very ... Off, to say "You shouldn't own guns if you want to revolt against your government for your government not letting you have guns."  I know you didn't say it, Stormchaser said it, and somewhere in there I blended you two, but like, I didn't say you needed permission.  Texas can secede from the Union not because omg we weren't ratified in but because if they or any other State were capable of doing it and achieved it, then boom.  It's more feasible that a State break up its territory into other little States like "North California" and "South California" and troll the Electoral College than it is for a State to actually secede, but, a right to revolt is, again, "regardless of if it's in America or the Philippines or Tajikistan," something you can just *do* and it's really _odd_ to see that someone would actually think otherwise.  You weren't the one that said it, but I grabbed the civil rights thing you posted to try and further that point that it is very _odd_ someone thinks, "If you don't believe in something your government is doing you shouldn't be able to contradict it." 

You have this right to revolt not like "There's a law that says I can so I can," but like you are entitled to it as a human being no matter what the fuck anybody says or believes or does.

Our Constitution says that Congress can raise the militia against "insurrection" in section 8, like, no, we don't have "permission" to revolt and that's not a surprise because yes, you're right, your government is going to be like, "Fuck you."  But there's a difference between having a privilege because legislation says "You can ___" and having a _right._ I wasn't really countering you specifically, I just thought it was stupid Stormchaser said "If you want to revolt against your government for not letting you have guns you shouldn't have guns," because it's like, "Well, they're _going to anyway _if they are not going to follow their government soo..."


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



HipsterCoyote said:


> The right of States to do whatever bad shit they want to do does not trump human decency.  The right of States to remain Sovereign because their governing document says that this is the case and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution that says "You can't contradict the US Constitution" trumps unconstitutional law.  The right of the people to retaliate against whatever bad shit their States want to do is guaranteed by the Constitution and a vested right granted by the merit of your existence regardless of whether it's in the Constitution at all.



Sovereignty is a bit of a stretch honestly, given the fact that the Federal government by way of the Supremacy Clause not only had the Constitution be above all state laws, but all federal statutes are also above any state statutes.  Things like having a national currency or placing an age limit on the purchase of alcohol for instance.  Sure each state has its own idiosyncrasies as there are bound to be issues which not all states can have apply to them (laws concerning the catfish industry in Texas vs harvesting oysters and clams in New Jersey for instance) but big issues like civil rights and an effective base requirement on the hurdles you have to jump to have a gun are something which the federal government should absolutely be in charge of, and also help those states who are currently dealing with armed revolt because a state won't allow overfishing of catfish, and we can all call those people revolting backwater numbskulls as is our right guaranteed by the First Amendment.



> People should be let to revolt against their government because of their beliefs, be it their State or their Federal government, and be the belief amazing and heroic or stupid and crazy.  You can not draw the line in the sand between what beliefs are OK to revolt about and what beliefs are not OK to revolt about without denying a person's right to liberty regardless of if it's 'Murica or the Philippines or Tajikistan.  If a human has the right to be treated like a human being then saying "But you can't say 'no' to things that you feel are violating your rights because your beliefs happen to be unpopular" is not treating them like a human being.



And those people who attempt to revolt shouldn't be surprised that their great rebellion against the US because we believe that the mentally ill shouldn't have access to firearms will receive very little national support or sympathy and will likely be crushed before they even get a chance to take on their first US military installation.



> The Black Panther Party For Self Defense armed themselves from guns to knives to other weapons and performed demonstrations in neighborhoods and acted as vigilantes to combat the fucking awful racism that their State (sovereign, governing entity) was both imposing on them and turning a blind eye to. The point here does not revolve around the having of guns but the having the right to combat one's government whether by peaceful demonstration or white phosphorus.  They are just a small example of how the Civil Rights Movement wasn't a bunch of peace talks and cute, white picket signs.  It was a revolution. They were revolting against their government because that was their *right* and this bullshit about how "You're too stupid to govern yourself" that Attaman and other people are subscribing to is denying this right.  Someone can say "You're too black to govern yourself," or "You're too womanly to govern yourself."  This is not a straw-man argument, this is, "You can not have double standards here. You can not say, "It's OK to revolt against your government for _these_ reasons but it's not OK to revolt against your government for _those_ reasons."



No one denies that the Black Panthers existed or were part of the Civil Rights Movement.  But there's a reason that people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be mentioned more than they are; because their methods of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience spoke volumes more than people armed with knives and guns taking it to "The Man".  Dr. King also had some pretty poetic words regarding violence and it's ability to solve problems:



			
				Dr. Martin Luther King said:
			
		

> The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
> begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
> Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
> Through violence you may murder the liar,
> ...



Keep in mind this is the same guy that Larry Ward claimed would love having a "Gun Appreciation Day."   And before you go off on the "BUT DR. KING APPLIED FOR CONCEALED CARRY AND HAD ARMED GUARDS" he also wasn't fucking stupid.  He realized that he was delivering an unpopular message that was inciting certain individuals like the KKK to violence, repeatedly sending him death threats.  He was a public figure whose security needs were extremely evident, especially considering that he was FUCKING ASSASSINATED WITH A GUN.  In a perfect world where people aren't incited to kill another human being simply because he wants people to be judged by the content of their character and not of their skin, maybe he wouldn't have felt the need to have that kind of security.  The man was an idealist, but not stupid.  And he was also right as his quote would show.  Even though he was killed, his message lived on and the Civil Rights Acts of 1968 and 69 were enacted which effectively outlawed all state-sponsored Jim Crow Laws by the federal government.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Sovereignty is a bit of a stretch honestly, given the fact that the Federal government by way of the Supremacy Clause not only had the Constitution be above all state laws, but all federal statutes are also above any state statutes.  Things like having a national currency or placing an age limit on the purchase of alcohol for instance.  Sure each state has its own idiosyncrasies as there are bound to be issues which not all states can have apply to them (laws concerning the catfish industry in Texas vs harvesting oysters and clams in New Jersey for instance) but big issues like civil rights and an effective base requirement on the hurdles you have to jump to have a gun are something which the federal government should absolutely be in charge of, and also help those states who are currently dealing with armed revolt because a state won't allow overfishing of catfish, and we can all call those people revolting backwater numbskulls as is our right guaranteed by the First Amendment.



States are Sovereign.  Like, a private citizen in Montana or any other State can not just, like, "Hey, Federal Government, here's my property for $X, you want to buy it?"  Montana has to authorize that shit.   The Supremacy Clause shoots down unconstitutional acts by the State government and the Federal government and by treaties with foreign nations but the qualifications for what is constitutional and what is not for each level of government are different.  For instance, a County Sheriff has more authority than the President within his jurisdiction and can over rule him: it's not a linear hierarchy of "The Feds Rule The States."  That's a part of why Printz V. United States could be ruled in Sheriff Printz's favor.   The First Amendment Rights that you can expect your State government to honor are not because of the First amendment but because of the Fourteenth Amendment extending the Federal restrictions on abridging free speech to include the States and yes, you can say whatever you want so long as your statement passes the SCOTUS "Is It Pornography or Incitement To Violence?" litmus test with a "no" (and that thing in itself is hairy and funny, hurr).   The Federal Government should absolutely be in charge of the things that the governing document that describes how the Federal Government works, describes.  Otherwise you have no authority to enforce your laws and you may not be able to go through with what you need to do if someone challenges you.  So, if you want to amend the Constitution and have a receipt of how shit works, cool.




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And those people who attempt to revolt shouldn't be surprised that their great rebellion against the US because we believe that the mentally ill shouldn't have access to firearms will receive very little national support or sympathy and will likely be crushed before they even get a chance to take on their first US military installation.


This is true.  They shouldn't be surprised.  It's just stupid that anybody would think they shouldn't be capable of making the decision to act regardless of the consequences.  




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> No one denies that the Black Panthers existed or were part of the Civil Rights Movement.  But there's a reason that people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be mentioned more than they are; because their methods of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience spoke volumes more than people armed with knives and guns taking it to "The Man".  Dr. King also had some pretty poetic words regarding violence and it's ability to solve problems:
> 
> Keep in mind this is the same guy that Larry Ward claimed would love having a "Gun Appreciation Day."   And before you go off on the "BUT DR. KING APPLIED FOR CONCEALED CARRY AND HAD ARMED GUARDS" he also wasn't fucking stupid.  He realized that he was delivering an unpopular message that was inciting certain individuals like the KKK to violence, repeatedly sending him death threats.  He was a public figure whose security needs were extremely evident, especially considering that he was FUCKING ASSASSINATED WITH A GUN.  In a perfect world where people aren't incited to kill another human being simply because he wants people to be judged by the content of their character and not of their skin, maybe he wouldn't have felt the need to have that kind of security.  The man was an idealist, but not stupid.



That's cool, but I'm not saying who was better at collecting congratulations.  I'm subscribing to someone's right to retaliate in any way they see fit.   You can hug it out, you can love it out, you can fight it out, you can lobby it out.  "You shouldn't be allowed to retaliate if you don't believe in your government" is not something _you_ said, it's what Stormchaser said, but it _is_ asinine to say and since you're telling me, "Yes well, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King moved people and by the way, Dr. King got Malcolm Xed," then you're kind of just on a different part of the _exact same page _I'm reading from and his assassination is another example of "People can revolt for any reason at all in any manner at all and just because they will face consequences from other people's opposition does not invalidate their right to do so."

*ETA, Re "Sovereign": *You could hit me with that States can't enter foreign treaties, yes, but, the Federal government actually has to _yield_ to the State government in some contexts and is guaranteed in Amendments IX and X.


----------



## Calemeyr (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Look, it's not like I'm actively supporting _everything_ our government does. Hell, if some guy released documents showing how corrupt all those politicians are (namely congressmen and their front-row-seat ticket bribes) I would be really happy. But I also believe there are certain things civilians, without proper training maybe (ok, there's something to wonder about...maybe we can own certain military weapons, but only if you're certified up the wazoo or something) should not own. More important is the _access_ to these guns. Gun shows need background checks too and the mentally ill should not be allowed access to weapons. If we don't let someone drive, we shouldn't let them use guns either. Gun safes are important...though the counter-argument is if some guy is coming in your home, how do you get it out in time. I think, however, the amount of bullets civilians buy should be regulated, as well whether the weapon is too powerful for civilian needs. You can keep your hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns, but a concealable submachine gun with armor piercing rounds is kinda ridiculous. That's another thing. No civilian should have access to armor piercing rounds. The only reason someone would use those would be to kill cops or rob a bank. The problem with the "armed people save lives" argument is that those people might not be trained properly and may cause collateral damage. Still, I do think security guards/police officers at some schools may be necessary, background checks need to be stronger, and existing laws need to stop being watered down by congress. The ATF is almost completely useless due to previous legislation. Maybe it can regain it's old strength and do what it was meant to do.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

And just 'cause that post is long enough and there are like a billion people reading it as it keeps getting posted and added on to, 

I'm not trying to change anybody's mind about guns, I'm just trying to say "Hey, the Constitution works a certain way, could we just achieve what you want to achieve in terms of our regulations with authority so that our government doesn't get worse than it already is," and "Why would you say that someone's beliefs invalidates their ability to do something like revolt regardless of how the picture looks on a moral/pragmatic level, ever?  On the one hand, you can put down revolts but you're never going to eliminate the fact that people attempt them, and on the other hand, saying that XYZ are bad reasons to oppose your government and you're stupid for doing it is a double standard."  I don't understand how you could say "No" to "If you want laws to be enforced then be consistent so people don't shoot them down for inconsistency" or "No" to "People, in the great scheme of things, can not be stopped."  Maybe people are just distracted by that I mentioned that I am anti-gun control as a personal preference and unable to see that my contentions may be related to gun legislation but my *argument *has to do with, "laws are laws and you ought to respect the law to make the law work for you" and "by contrast, you can't eliminate someone's ability to have free will and retaliate regardless of if they can actually get away with it".


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



			
				in relation to firearms ownership in england said:
			
		

> Fully automatic (submachine-guns, etc.) are totally prohibited from private ownership and self-loading (semi-automatic) weapons of calibre larger than .22 rimfire or shotguns are totally banned other than in Northern Ireland



exactly what i said. aside for manual firearms(i didn't include .22 cal rifles in my earlier comment) they have banned firearms in their country. Further, the regulation of continual licencing has been a proven effective method of discouraging gun ownership and slowly eliminating them from society. as stated before similar programs were done with fully automatic firearms in the united states. by the time the outright ban occured the population owning such firearms was so low it was politically non existent. 

anyway, onto this...



			
				Term_the_Schmuck said:
			
		

> It is an amazing thing. You know what else is amazing? During that same time gun ownership is declining along with crime. Maybe it's because people realize guns give a rather brash option for figuring out life's problems? Who knows? It likely requires more time to study as opposed to looking at a couple of statistics briefly and claiming the issue no longer requires discussion.



your chart shows gun ownership steadily declining, which very well may be true. however if your assertion is to be accurate violent crime would have declined on a similar trend. this has not been true. violent crime rates since 1900 have steadily risen and then saw its height in the early 1990s. 
http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/cjtrendsthreedecades.pdf

flip down to page 5 figure 3. of course figure 1 and 2 as well demonstrate that violent crime went up DESPITE gun ownership going down. this is not some blip but a long term trend. the source material for this is the fbi website which one can easily look up these rates in raw numbers. however i felt it important to provide a series of quick and easy graphs(as you have done). 

so how does your argument account for the fact that the rate of violent crime in the united states over the past century does not follow the trends of firearms ownership?



			
				mayfur said:
			
		

> By your logic, southern states should have been allowed to carry on with their segregation and "Jim Crow" laws with discrimination against black people because enforcing Civil Rights would have been the mark of a dictatorship. Yessirree, Alabama should have been left to pursue their "bad choice" of state sponsored discrimination against people for no more reason than their ethnicity and/or skin colour, even keep blacks as slaves because goshdarnit, the right of states to do whatever bad shit they want to trumps any human decency...



again you miss the point. the southern states AGREED to certain laws called the united states constitution. in reality these states had done so again by 1870 after the end of the civil war. the constitution prohibits parochial education as well as segregation behavior. because these states agreed to this rule of law they must adhere to it. 

this is quite different than saying "well you guys believe in creationism thus you are too stupid to be allowed to participate in a democracy. your vote no longer matters and we will decide your laws for you", which is essentially was what was suggested to do about the south's opinions on firearms.

one end is forcing these people to adhere to the laws that they agreed to and the other is eliminating their right to agree to future laws and having someone of your choosing decide for them.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 20, 2013)

HipsterCoyote said:


> States are Sovereign.  Like, a private citizen in Montana or any other State can not just, like, "Hey, Federal Government, here's my property for $X, you want to buy it?"



As you'll note, I said "bit of a stretch" while sure you can keep the "sovereign" label in some respects, at the end of the day, you're still talking about a federal government whose various agencies outweigh the state.  The press release most local law enforcement will put out will say "we're pulling resources with the FBI to uncover the killer" which in all honesty means that the FBI will be running the show.  Their resources, their show.  Likewise federal regulations enacted by the Federal Reserve, FCC, FTC, DOA, ATF, and so on continually have their regulations outweigh state-by-state issues.  Gun ownership is but one of those things, as we've already made rulings and laws concerning who can and can't own a firearm regardless of what the Second Amendment says in the interest of things like public safety, including those convicted of misdemeanor criminal domestic violence offenses.  Guess you're not allowed to revolt against the government if you smack your wife around.  :V



> This is true.  They shouldn't be surprised.  It's just stupid that anybody would think they shouldn't be capable of making the decision to act regardless of the consequences.



If that decision to act is immediately putting a large mass of innocent people with no dog in the fight at risk for something as stupid as "maybe we should force the issue of reporting cases of mental illness to the national background check system", then yes, those people likely shouldn't be allowed to make that kind of decision or given the tools to carry it out.  And this sure as hell ain't 1776 where you can just waltz on out to the countryside and have a drawn out battle.  Armed revolt today is going to be a mostly urban affair.  Think more Chechnya, less Lexington and Concord.  Modern times also really negate the need for the whole "armed revolt" to begin with.  Though state constitutions still have "abolish by any means necessary" clauses, the fact that you're talking about a Democratic society where the actual sovereign is the people who choose their politicians who steer the country for better or worse, we have systems in place which ensures the ability to refresh and start over every few years.  



> That's cool, but I'm not saying who was better at collecting congratulations.  I'm subscribing to someone's right to retaliate in any way they see fit.   You can hug it out, you can love it out, you can fight it out, you can lobby it out.  "You shouldn't be allowed to retaliate if you don't believe in your government" is not something _you_ said, it's what Stormchaser said, but it _is_ asinine to say and since you're telling me, "Yes well, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King moved people and by the way, Dr. King got Malcolm Xed," then you're kind of just on a different part of the _exact same page _I'm reading from and his assassination is another example of "People can revolt for any reason at all in any manner at all and just because they will face consequences from other people's opposition does not invalidate their right to do so."



And those people who retaliate through violence are ultimately the jackasses who hurt a movement more than help.  And they cause a lot more unnecessary pain than what can actually solve an issue.  If the Civil Rights movement was entirely made up of the Black Panthers and their brand of vigilantism, I doubt we'd have seen the abolishing of Jim Crow, mostly because the message doesn't tend to get across easily in modern society when your first reaction is to shoot the guy who disagrees with you and figure things out later.  Dr. King understood this.  This isn't the Wild West or some Victorian romance novel where "pistols at dawn" solves problems.  We as a society have moved beyond that point, as many Western Civilizations have at this point.  Just because you enjoy exaggerating the role of certain Presidents as "dictators" doesn't mean that it's so, nor that anyone should have to stand for the bullshit notion that you or someone else would want to seize the local post office and stage a coup d'etat because of the injustice of having a 7-round magazine in a pistol.  That's a pretty ridiculous reason to throw your life away for some "perceived" freedom where if you're not killed in the ensuing gun battle, you're instead imprisoned and then force your fellow American citizens to foot the bill of paying for the mobilizing of local law enforcement and possibly national guard as well as your incarceration.  Sounds a bit selfish when you think about it.



ceacar99 said:


> your chart shows gun ownership steadily declining, which very well may be true. however if your assertion is to be accurate violent crime would have declined on a similar trend. this has not been true. violent crime rates since 1900 have steadily risen and then saw its height in the early 1990s.
> http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/cjtrendsthreedecades.pdf



I'd be speechless if not for the fact that your statistics there only go up to 1998 as violent crime was on the downswing.  In nearly every single one of your graphs you can see a trend in descending crime rates starting at or around 1994, the same year that the federal government instituted the "assault weapons ban."  As you can see in this table(you should only have to press the "Get table button as I made the relevant data Total US violent crimes from 1990 to 2010) violent crime peaks in 1993, close to 2 million reported violent crimes.  After 1994, violent crimes continually decrease post-assault weapons ban except for a slight upturn in violent crime in 2005, one year after the ban was removed.  After that, violent crime continues to fall till 2010 when, nearly 17 years after nearly 2 million violent crimes we're now looking at closer to 1.2 million annually.  Gun ownership continues to go down along with violent crime, with the sharpest declines coming after the assault weapons ban.  So yeah, there may be something to consider there, which as I mentioned REQUIRES MORE STUDY as opposed to both of us pointing at statistics and saying that either of us are right or wrong.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Dude, ... What?  Term, ... Did you just like, not read the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights and the Amendments,... again?  Like, do you _not_ get how it works?  I can explain it to y'all, again, but I can't understand it for you.  Maybe you'd have better luck reading the Federalist Papers?  Perhaps?  Sort of? Maybe?  Like, to get my point? Not to agree with it, but to get it? 

And since when did I ever say that I thought that it took us weeks to mobilize and we are all restricted to muzzle loading antiquities?  You're really good at shit that doesn't have anything to do with anything else, like,  saying,  "Gun ownership is declining, and crime is declining, so gun ownership declining has made crime decline."  That's seriously like saying, "Alcoholism is on the rise, and shoe sales for platform pumps are on the rise, so everyone who wears platform pumps are alcoholics."  Crime is a complex product of many factors which can not be generalized into one factor in an environment changing.  Gun ownership may have an impact of course, yes, but it isn't going to be the sole cause of crime rates going one way or another. 

Are you accusing me of oversimplifying the matter because you are such a fan of oversimplifying things, too? Like this "If there were all black panthers" noise and the "Violence never solves anything" noise.    When power overrules authority violence is sometimes one of the only things that will save you.  Do you need examples?  You can't say that love is the only answer and you can't say that violence is the only answer.   People and history and situations are too complex to be generalized like that.  One size does not fit all.  It doesn't matter which size fits more, it matters that one size doesn't fit all.

I also don't understand how naming presidents as dictators is exaggerating.  Lincoln waged war without congress and killed 10% of his adult male population and 2% of his entire population. His own population.   And HE called Polk a dictator for his justifications of his war with Mexico!  If you can kill your own people off en masse and use human beings as poker chips in your own campaign against your own nation, and YOU call someone else a dictator I would say that you probably know one when you see one.  Truman made two cities go POOF because he didn't want Stalin in Japan.  Bush suspended the Bill of Rights on U.S. soil as applied to U.S. citizens.  Edmund J. Davis was such an asshole our entire 200+ page Texas constitution exists with all of its mind numbing amendments because of shit that he did.  I'm not saying "Er mah Gerd, Obama is Hitler.   I ain't no LaRouche weirdo.   I'm saying "these guys assumed power without authority and I am aware that America isn't oh mah gerd Number One Nation Ever Never Does Anything Wrong." It's _really easy_ to be a dictator and the textbook definition for dictator does not include having an iconic moustache or a KGB or being Polpot.

Just so I can have some Fox News style fun, though, I'll throw you a bone in this whole "Exaggerating" thing: 

"That's a pretty ridiculous reason to throw your life away for some "perceived" freedom where if you're not killed in the ensuing gun battle, you're instead imprisoned and then force your fellow American citizens to foot the bill of paying for the mobilizing of local law enforcement and possibly national guard as well as your incarceration. Sounds a bit selfish when you think about it." -- That's awful Statist of you.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



			
				Term_the_Schmuck said:
			
		

> I'd be speechless if not for the fact that your statistics there only go up to 1998 as violent crime was on the downswing. In nearly every single one of your graphs you can see a trend in descending crime rates starting at or around 1994, the same year that the federal government instituted the "assault weapons ban." As you can see in this table(you should only have to press the "Get table button as I made the relevant data Total US violent crimes from 1990 to 2010) violent crime peaks in 1993, close to 2 million reported violent crimes. After 1994, violent crimes continually decrease post-assault weapons ban except for a slight upturn in violent crime in 2005, one year after the ban was removed. After that, violent crime continues to fall till 2010 when, nearly 17 years after nearly 2 million violent crimes we're now looking at closer to 1.2 million annually. Gun ownership continues to go down along with violent crime, with the sharpest declines coming after the assault weapons ban. So yeah, there may be something to consider there, which as I mentioned REQUIRES MORE STUDY as opposed to both of us pointing at statistics and saying that either of us are right or wrong.



lol, i wasnt going to go on a discussion about the crux of that data unless you caught it . 

the question of the relevance of an assault weapons ban is debatable in this situation. self loading rifles even before the ban were the least used weapons in violent crime. "assault weapons" (a particularly picked on type of self loading rifle) produce an estimated 2% of all the violent crime. with 5 million ar-15's in circulation alone this is a surprisingly low figure. Further we know that the assault weapons ban deterred the use of these firearms but did not actually end their sale. it just resulted in them being packaged differently, and the currently existing ones were still on the market. 

so the question is, could dramatically hurting the sales(but not eliminating the sale of completely) of a series of weapons that are used in less than 2% of all violent crimes could result in dramatic across the board reduction in violent crime? i doubt it. 

is this trend more likely relatable to the skyrocketing of police spending in america during the same period(and continued to skyrocket until the economic crash) and the massive nation wide efforts to prevent crack, meth and other such drugs from causing more damage? probably.

added: but your right it does warrant more study. the point i was trying to express entirely in this thread is that there really is no evidence indicating violence in the united states is proportional to the firearms in circulation. its a judgement leap at best, much like my theory that crime may have been reduced due to increased police forces and efforts to fight the damage that horrific drugs cause.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

What really is ridiculous is that you think it's actually effective to limit a marksman to a 7 round gun with your favorite mechanism of choice in the same post that you tell me that this isn't Lexington and that I should be reminded what combat is like.   I don't think you understand how guns operate if you think that limiting someone to only having a certain type of gun is somehow going to make better your world and is an appropriate reaction to mass shootings when you're still leaving a person with a gun at all period, and the ability for law enforcement to come and intervene in that shooting can not be measured in seconds.  How quickly that person can load and how many bullets they can have is potentially not going to save at least one life so long as the answer is "more than zero," and in this case threatens up to seven more, or however many more the guy has rounds in his pocket and can use before the police get there. 

It is easy to manipulate a magazine to hold more or, depending on the gun, load so as to make a firearm shoot appreciably faster.  Revolvers are more reliable than handguns in terms of how they don't stovepipe so if I'm going to want to shoot someone a lot and not be afraid of my gun jamming I'm going to WANT a revolver anyway and not really care that I can' t have over seven rounds because I know what the fuck I'm doing and can load a revolver as fast as I can load a handgun and not remove my aim from my target at all in the meantime and I don't have to be Bob Munden to do it and I can KEEP my hulls with me after I shoot my gun, leaving no cartridge and no primer.  Yes, loading something like an M1911 is easier than loading a SAA even with a speed loader but do you get the point here, that I'm still dangerous and also still fast? 

I don't need a scary rifle that scares a soccer mom because I don't need the small jump in muzzle velocity that the length of the barrel is going to give me. I need to get within range.  You shoot down range in excess of yards in non-combat situations.  Combat is within 50 yards and better measured in feet.  I don't need a scary little rifle in order to be lethal.  I need like five feet and a piss-ass single action revolver.  I don't need hollow point rounds, 

All that restricting what a citizen can buy in terms of firearms is just going to restrict what a citizen can use against fellow citizens equally and hinder his ability to retaliate against those who are not law abiding or those who have authority of law to have something "better".  It is not going to make children safer.  It is not going to lower crime. It's going to change it.   You can trumpet that gun deaths in Australia went down after all the buy-backs, but you also can mention that the rise in armed robbery is attributed to all the buy-backs.   It makes it harder for the citizen to retaliate against the person with the authority to have a faster weapon with more capacity, okay, cool, but, they're still... Fucking armed, so how is "Let's keep you armed but not AS armed" AKA "Let's keep you dangerous but slightly less dangerous" somehow an appropriate, logical reaction to school shootings, if the idea is keeping people from being dangerous? It's not.  

You don't NEED to register guns to know who has them. What you do is you tax guns, you offer liability and owner's insurance for guns, and you pay attention to bullet sales.  We already do that.  Registering guns is just a means for inventorying for the purpose of confiscation and buyback and not to 'save' children or 'lower crime rates'.  The lawmakers who know that just want to disarm their citizens, "we should revolt" or not.  If they were interested in actually keeping their citizens safe they would get rid of ALL guns, not fucking give YOU the short sword and THEM the long sword.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



HipsterCoyote said:


> Dude, ... What?  Term, ... Did you just like, not read the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights and the Amendments,... again?  Like, do you _not_ get how it works?  I can explain it to y'all, again, but I can't understand it for you.  Maybe you'd have better luck reading the Federalist Papers?  Perhaps?  Sort of? Maybe?  Like, to get my point? Not to agree with it, but to get it?



Do you always try to act condescending when discussing shit as debatable as Constitutional Law or are you just making this a special case to be melodramatic?



> And since when did I ever say that I thought that it took us weeks to mobilize and we are all restricted to muzzle loading antiquities?  You're really good at shit that doesn't have anything to do with anything else, like,  saying,  "Gun ownership is declining, and crime is declining, so gun ownership declining has made crime decline."  That's seriously like saying, "Alcoholism is on the rise, and shoe sales for platform pumps are on the rise, so everyone who wears platform pumps are alcoholics."  Crime is a complex product of many factors which can not be generalized into one factor in an environment changing.  Gun ownership may have an impact of course, yes, but it isn't going to be the sole cause of crime rates going one way or another.



Hey genius, next time you start putting on a production about how "people don't read my posts right" maybe you should pay a little more attention to what others write, specifically where I continually say "do these statistics necessarily mean correlation=causation?  I don't know, MORE STUDY IS REQUIRED" which I continually put in BIG BOLD LETTERS so you wouldn't miss them, but you still did.  So congrats on that, I suppose, we've someone managed to bring moar irony into this thread.



> Are you accusing me of oversimplifying the matter because you are such a fan of oversimplifying things, too? Like this "If there were all black panthers" noise and the "Violence never solves anything" noise.    When power overrules authority violence is sometimes one of the only things that will save you.  Do you need examples?  You can't say that love is the only answer and you can't say that violence is the only answer.   People and history and situations are too complex to be generalized like that.  One size does not fit all.  It doesn't matter which size fits more, it matters that one size doesn't fit all.



Well let's see, has making death threats and in one instance actually killing a doctor who performed abortions stopped abortion?  Has setting fire to state-university labs stopped animal testing?  Violence as a means of getting your point across in the first world doesn't get you anywhere.  You get labeled as an extremist and generally someone a certain side doesn't want to be associated with.  And this is all within the context of late 20th to early 21st Century Western Civ, as I've also previously mentioned and you seemed to willfully ignore.  This is not Revolutionary war or Civil War-era America.  This is not Chechnya.  This is not Tunisia.



> I also don't understand how naming presidents as dictators is exaggerating.  Lincoln waged war without congress and killed 10% of his adult male population and 2% of his entire population. His own population.   And HE called Polk a dictator for his justifications of his war with Mexico!  If you can kill your own people off en masse and use human beings as poker chips in your own campaign against your own nation, and YOU call someone else a dictator I would say that you probably know one when you see one.  Truman made two cities go POOF because he didn't want Stalin in Japan.  Bush suspended the Bill of Rights on U.S. soil as applied to U.S. citizens.  Edmund J. Davis was such an asshole our entire 200+ page Texas constitution exists with all of its mind numbing amendments because of shit that he did.  I'm not saying "Er mah Gerd, Obama is Hitler.   I ain't no LaRouche weirdo.   I'm saying "these guys assumed power without authority and I am aware that America isn't oh mah gerd Number One Nation Ever Never Does Anything Wrong." It's _really easy_ to be a dictator and the textbook definition for dictator does not include having an iconic moustache or a KGB or being Polpot.



Those young adults were also part of a rebellious army who, among other things, were fighting for the rights of their constituents to own other human beings as property.  Lincoln strong-armed people to get legislation passed to enact the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment.  It was a political power play, for sure.  But dictator?  I wouldn't go that far.  For starters he couldn't get the 13th Amendement passed without trying to play the political game.  If he was he would have just done it himself and said "this is how it is, deal with it."  Closest thing you can do to make him look like a dictator on that front would be the Emancipation Proclamation, but that was put out by invoking his war powers to tell the Union armed forces that any slaves they came across were to be considered free men and women and were to be treated as such.  

Truman utilizing the atom bomb doesn't make him a dictator.  He was Commander-in-Chief.  He has authorization to tell the armed forces to use that kind of power THROUGH OUR CONSTITUTION.  We can agree or disagree whether or not it was tactically sound decision, but you can't argue he didn't have that kind of power as EVERY PRESIDENT since the beginning of the atomic age has had their finger close to that button.  Seems more like your arguing the morals of the weapon, which really is a whole other discussion, but the point remains, you're exaggerating.  Executive Orders are part of the US government and a protected part under our Constitution.  Or have you not read the Constitution?  :V



> That's awful Statist of you.



The idea that every revolution is justified because "it just is" is awfully 13-year-old "I wear a Che Guevara shirt and listen to Bad Religion" of you.  :V



ceacar99 said:


> the question of the relevance of an assault weapons ban is debatable in this situation.



Which I've already admitted by saying "this needs study".



> self loading rifles even before the ban were the least used weapons in violent crime. "assault weapons" (a particularly picked on type of self loading rifle) produce an estimated 2% of all the violent crime. with 5 million ar-15's in circulation alone this is a surprisingly low figure. Further we know that the assault weapons ban deterred the use of these firearms but did not actually end their sale. it just resulted in them being packaged differently, and the currently existing ones were still on the market.



Yet we have some mass shootings where these were among the weapons used or were capable of being used.  Likewise it becomes increasingly difficult to argue the purpose of having an AR-15 for any other reason than taking a human life.  "I use it for hunting" is like a stoner saying "I'm smoking weed because of my glaucoma."  :V  And I've already been over in another thread about how "assault weapons" are pretty much awful/impractical for the purposes of home defense/hunting and other "lawful" uses outside of "I just wanna be able to shoot it."



> so the question is, could dramatically hurting the sales(but not eliminating the sale of completely) of a series of weapons that are used in less than 2% of all violent crimes could result in dramatic across the board reduction in violent crime? i doubt it.
> 
> is this trend more likely relatable to the skyrocketing of police spending in america during the same period(and continued to skyrocket until the economic crash) and the massive nation wide efforts to prevent crack, meth and other such drugs from causing more damage? probably.



Rifles weren't the only weapons that faced the Assault weapons ban.  You also deal with pistols and semi-auto shotguns.  Even then, that's a question you're answering on your opinion.  Perhaps the ban caused us to question the role of firearms in our lives and the escalation we're encouraging by getting "more gun" to protect against some vauge boogie man.  Who knows?  But oh look!  We have an executive order to get more studies on this matter.  JUST WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING MY PAST TWO POSTS THAT WE NEED MORE STUDIES ON THIS ISSUE.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> -Snip-



I listen to Rage Against The Machine /single tear. 

Anyways dude, alright, I got all righteous and shit and tittering back and forth on the Internet is me being asinine with my time and I failed to read parts of what you said.  I usually get into arguments of a different nature more often than I do politics and shouldn't've gone into DIS BITCH HERE ISN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT SHE DOES NO MORE, HEELS ARE OFF, YOU GOIN' DOWN mode.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



			
				Term_the_Schmuck said:
			
		

> Yet we have some mass shootings where these were among the weapons used or were capable of being used. Likewise it becomes increasingly difficult to argue the purpose of having an AR-15 for any other reason than taking a human life. "I use it for hunting" is like a stoner saying "I'm smoking weed because of my glaucoma." :V And I've already been over in another thread about how "assault weapons" are pretty much awful/impractical for the purposes of home defense/hunting and other "lawful" uses outside of "I just wanna be able to shoot it."



thats right... i jumped in that thread late and never addressed that issue. anyway going through your statements step by step..... i apologize for the length of this, i know that it is not easy to read. normally i really try to limit length. 

*1:* for the sake of this discussion we will use the terms "heat shield" and "fore grip" in the place of barrel shroud. 
*2:* the reason for the name change is that EVERY rifle and shotgun needs a grip surface for stability and to protect the hand from the hot barrel, and many weapons feature full coverage heat shields to protect the fingers from accidently slipping off the grip and burning on the barrel. 
http://randyrick.us/AustrianFirearms/photo/BNZAmberg1.jpg

even bolt action rifles often feature "heat shields"(note the wood on top of the barrel on that mauser 98k) because quite honestly it doesnt take much shooting before the barrel is too hot. i am using this name change because "barrel shroud" is a term invented to demonize basic features of any rifle. 

*3:*the tec-9(as specifically referenced in the other thread). it features a heat shield. arguments arose that this shield could be used as a foregrip as well. the truth is on such a weapons frame the position of its magazine well and the magazine length itself makes those two features far better fore grips. however, the only reason why the tec-9 has not been banned under pre assault weapons ban law is that the heat shield is full of holes and therefore barely passes as a "heat shield" but not a "fore grip". see under existing firearms law pistols are defined as lacking a forward grip. this means that if you design a small weapon with one it automatically gets classified as a "short barreled rifle" which requires local authorization to own and a 200 dollar federal tax. 

point is that the heat shield on that weapon only improves its safety(thus keeping the customers from suing the manufacturer). the real effectiveness of its grip surfaces is the shape of the weapon itself and not the presence of a cover of the barrel to protect the hand. 

*4:* eotech and other brand red dot and holographic sights. i believe you stated " These sights are marketed for that specific purpose, as being tactical additions to military weapons for a variety of medium range to close-quarters operations and skirmishes. This does not translate to any purpose that the civilian market could have.". that standpoint is false. First being designed for a close quarters fight they do improve the weapon's ability for expedient home defense. contrary to your opinion above in this thread.

in terms of sporting uses these sights are PERFECT for dangerous game rifles. these are highly expensive, HIGH powered rifles designed to hunt animals that are potentially dangerous. an example of this is that in safari hunt camps scopes of any form are banned these days because the shooter tends to get gored if he misses the first shot. the magnification of the optic prevents him from quickly aiming in on a rampaging close in target. for a while iron sight options like express sights were popular however red dot sights are becoming increasingly identified as the best sight for the situation. they are lightning quick and allow the shooter situational awareness so he can actually track the dangerous animal. 
(again here is a dangerous game rifle i built myself, note the red dot sight mounted on it) http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/3660/13295354.jpg

a common role for a dangerous game sight such as this is hunting boar. for a another complete argument on the subject check out my response in the other firearms thread. 
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/130776-What-Defines-an-quot-Assault-quot-Weapon/page5

*5:* collapsing and adjustable stocks. while commonly identified as "military stocks" they actually are fundamental to quality shooting with ANY inexpensive rifle.

what i will discuss is that for people who cannot afford a gunsmith(such as myself) to properly fit a rifle or shotgun to their body the adjustments are a nessesity for good sporting. the ability to collapse the stock down to different lengths of pull(the distance between the middle of the buttstock and the middle of the loop in the trigger) helps ensure that the shooter does not get hurt by recoil, and actually keeps the weapon controllable if the shooter sets the length to something that fits his(or her) body. 

cheek piece adjustment is increasingly common on military rifles as well. however its an incredibly important cost saving feature for sporting as well. it is quite common to see these adjustable cheek pieces on sporting shotguns designed for skeet and trap for example. this is because on a shotgun the stock IS the rear sight. if the stock doesnt fit right to the shooter, then the shooter will not only be feeling more perceived recoil but his gun wont be on target. again these adjustable pieces make it affordable for everyone to get into the sport, and not just people who can pay thousands for a gunsmith to fit the stock to them.

*6:* muzzle breaks. i believe the best argument against a ban on this is that a ban simply would cost money and would be meaningless. if someone wants such a thing on his or her rifle they just need to use a drill in their garage. there is nothing really magical about these screw on attachments. simple straight out to the side ports drilled on both sides can quickly and effectively kill the recoil caused by gas expansion underneath the bullet when it leaves the muzzle.

*7:* pistol grips; they provide NO advantage that a regular well made stock cannot. what they do perform is making it easier to mass produce a stock for "everyone". its easier to fit such a control scheme to a lot of people reasonably well than more traditional stocks. 

also if you notice even on a classic shotgun or rifle stock there is the beginnings of a pistol grip. the curvature and length from trigger guard housing to the grip cap is actually a feature that needs to be adjusted to the shooter for quality stock fit. having an outright pistol grip instead means you can make a grip longer than it needs to be just to ensure everyone gets a good grip.

*8:*magazine size limits; i have no problem with having ten round magazines. though i do point out that weapons are recharged so quickly that the limit is pretty much pointless.

edit: i do realize i did not address "the ar-15 and home defense" issue directly. however i feel that the length of this post is so long that i should hold off until you get a chance to read and respond.


----------



## Golden (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Aetius said:


> Love the Fox News logic.  Just because Attaman is for the central government's intervention (Where it is soundly needed), totally means that he supports the US not being a federation.


  You can't have a federation where the feds intervene with state affairs (even if "soundly needed", whatever that is supposed to mean). The feds have their jurisdiction, and the states have theirs.   Fuck. Fox. News.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



RaichuOPs said:


> You can't have a federation where the feds intervene with state affairs (even if "soundly needed", whatever that is supposed to mean). The feds have their jurisdiction, and the states have theirs. *  Fuck. Fox. News*.


Is this supposed to be a disclaimer of some kind?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 22, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Meanwhile, at "Gun Appreciation Days" organised by pro-gun groups, five people got accidentally shot by their own guns or by fellow gun fans.

And _these_ are the people who say "Trust us, we're responsible to have loads of guns"? _They can't even run some peaceful gun shows without someone getting injured at them!_ :roll:

Or as one blog post put it: "Message from Gun Appreciation Day â€” Duck!"


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 23, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> Meanwhile, at "Gun Appreciation Days" organised by pro-gun groups, five people got accidentally shot by their own guns or by fellow gun fans.
> 
> And _these_ are the people who say "Trust us, we're responsible to have loads of guns"? _They can't even run some peaceful gun shows without someone getting injured at them!_ :roll:
> 
> Or as one blog post put it: "Message from Gun Appreciation Day â€” Duck!"



unfortunately being a minority group its pretty easy to get stereotyped when something like this happens. it does demonstrate though the reason why a basic firearms safety course should be REQUIRED to purchase a gun. a few generations ago most men had served in the military. now instead we need a system to ensure that these people should at least not only know how to pass a gun to another person but how to receive that weapon as well. 

anyway, i guess its pretty apparent i debunked the "evil" of the "assault weapons features" that were banned in the 1994 bill. anyone else like to bring up "evil firearms features" that should be outright banned? i bet after expanding on the information you already have on these features you will realize that they are either typical of all firearms or b not as game changing as you believe.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 23, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> anyway, i guess its pretty apparent i debunked the "evil" of the "assault weapons features" [...]



Er, posting to summarily declaring yourself the "victor" is *not *how debates work. And it's rather rude.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 23, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> anyway, i guess its pretty apparent i debunked the "evil" of the "assault weapons features" that were banned in the 1994 bill. anyone else like to bring up "evil firearms features" that should be outright banned? i bet after expanding on the information you already have on these features you will realize that they are either typical of all firearms or b not as game changing as you believe.



I haven't really had time to address your post what with the return of hockey and the fact that I've been doing maintenance the past couple of days at the arena to check our comms, sound systems, and I/O panels, especially since we just had a nationally televised game last night.

Forgive me if arguing the destructive power of firearms hasn't really been my highest priority. As it stands I'm off to work again today to work a college basketball game so the earliest I'll get to your post is tomorrow. Keep your shirt on.

I will leave you with this story of a 15-year-old boy who shot and killed his entire family with an AR-15 because of "frustrations with his mother" and was taught to fire the weapon by his father.. Irony here being the house had a sign out front that said "Home Protect by Smith & Wesson."  Lot of good that did, huh?


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 23, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> Er, posting to summarily declaring yourself the "victor" is *not *how debates work. And it's rather rude.



*shrug* it certainly seemed that nobody had anything to say on the matter of assault weapons features because they simply had no counter argument. further, i felt that if people brought up features that they thought should be banned i could go through them one by one giving a full picture and dispelling the myths created by the partial knowledge in society. 

it does seem to be that the last thing to discuss is self loading rifles in general. 



> I haven't really had time to address your post what with the return of hockey and the fact that I've been doing maintenance the past couple of days at the arena to check our comms, sound systems, and I/O panels, especially since we just had a nationally televised game last night.
> 
> Forgive me if arguing the destructive power of firearms hasn't really been my highest priority. As it stands I'm off to work again today to work a college basketball game so the earliest I'll get to your post is tomorrow. Keep your shirt on.
> 
> I will leave you with this story of a 15-year-old boy who shot and killed his entire family with an AR-15 because of "frustrations with his mother" and was taught to fire the weapon by his father.. Irony here being the house had a sign out front that said "Home Protect by Smith & Wesson." Lot of good that did, huh?



definitely a tragedy, and one that is not unheard of. 

http://www.allamericanblogger.com/2...ipal-stops-school-shooting-with-personal-gun/

this boy beat and stabbed his mother to death, THEN he loaded a .30-30 rifle and took it to school. he did manage to rampage through the school, however he was stopped from driving to another by an assistant principal armed with a colt pistol. 

anyway, i'll be formulating an argument for self loading rifles, while i assume you will develop one against them in general.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 23, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I will leave you with this story of a 15-year-old boy who shot and killed his entire family with an AR-15 because of "frustrations with his mother" and was taught to fire the weapon by his father.. Irony here being the house had a sign out front that said "Home Protect by Smith & Wesson."  Lot of good that did, huh?



Not quite correct.

"Houston said the teen shot her as she slept at about 1 a.m. with a  .22-caliber rifle the parents kept in a closet. He said he killed his  siblings and then grabbed his parents' .223-caliber rifle and waited  downstairs to ambush his father as he returned from work around 5 a.m."

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/new-mexico-teen-planned-family


----------



## Golden (Jan 23, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Is this supposed to be a disclaimer of some kind?


  I'm against centralized government decisions, is all. Does that have to mean I'm an unenlightened zombie who hangs off every word of Ann Coulter?


----------



## Delta Fox (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

You know, if you take gang-related violence out of the American homicide rate, America has the same level of homicide that is normal for a country of its type. People are always going to be fuckheads and kill other people whether they do it with guns or not. Banning guns is going to do fuck all, and banning assault weapons makes no fucking sense seeing as assault weapon is an empty term that you can fill with any definition you want. ie: If a gun has black plastic furniture it is an assault weapon.


----------



## Clyde_Dale (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

My two cents:

The second amendment was originally done for three reasons:

1) So the nation would have a ready militia in the event the military was not sufficient to defend the nation

2) To protect the nation against a coup de main. 

As well as

3) For personal defense and hunting.

Now, for 1), that's theoretically still viable, but not too likely these days. About the only thing our military won't be able to repel is going to be nuclear or other weapon of mass destruction.  For 2), a bigger deterrent to a coup de main is that we are an entirely volunteer military force, and the military will tell any politician who tries to order them to do such a thing to go piss up a rope.

Now, 3) holds a lot more merit, although it has changed these days. Back then, you needed a pretty big gun if a bear came down on you. These days... not so much. Hunting I respect, as long as the hunter respects the kill and doesn't just trophy hunt. However, something I'd like to point out here...

A gun is a lethal weapon. It has one and only one purpose: to kill your target. That's it. If you do not have intent to kill, you shouldn't pick up and aim a firearm. And I personally see nothing wrong with this. It means you don't clear leather unless your life, or someone else's life, is at risk. 

The state I live in has very strong self defense and home defense laws. If an armed intruder breaks into my home, I am lawfully entitled to shoot him dead, which I fully intend to carry out. If it's a choice between my life, or the life of my family, or the life of an intruder... guess who gets the short end of the stick? Sorry, once you break into my home with a weapon, you're a target. Period. Any potential sob-story is irrelevant the moment you threaten my family. 

Of course, within 20', your gun is a greater danger to you than to your opponent, which is why my home defense weapon of choice is a Louisville Slugger, which is just as lethal a weapon when used properly. In close quarters, with blind corners, a gunman not explicitly trained in close-quarters invasion tactics from SWAT/military is at a bad disadvantage. 

Failing that, a 12 gague shotgun would be my home defense firearm of choice. Low penetration values so you don't risk blow-through and striking victims in the line of fire beyond your target, high lethality, and damn near impossible to miss at close range. Plus it makes one heck of a melee weapon. 

If you use a pistol for home defense, I strongly suggest Glaser submunition rounds. Like a shotgun, they have minimal blow-through so you don't risk striking victims downrange of your target, and are exceedingly lethal. In like a penny, out like a pizza. 

As far as gun control... use both hands. If that's not enough, go prone and brace. 

Here's the problem with gun control... criminals are going to get their hands on guns illegally anyways, since they don't want it traced back to them, and it is FAR too easy to trace a legally owned gun back to the owner. Mentally unstable people are going to be mentally unstable, be it with a gun they somehow obtained or through some other means. Having a law on the books to keep felons and mentally unstable individuals from purchasing firearms is probably a good thing, even though it really won't do much good. Maybe even require a class and certification to own firearms, much like a driver's license (such as some states have for their Carry and Conceal), just so that the person is more likely to hit what they aim at, and it can be used to weed out the felons and mentally unstable. But restricting all citizens from having firearms? Only disarms the people who are willing to follow the law, i.e. the ones who aren't a problem.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily say that there is such a thing as 'too much gun' for self defense as an absolute term, it depends on where you are. Heck, on the border of Mexico and Texas, the gangs have military hardware that many nations don't have for their military. RPG's, AK-74's, M-2's mounted on vehicles... it's a real war zone down there. The military probably OUGHT to be down there. But since they aren't, it's up to the citizens to defend themselves, since the cops are hopelessly and laughably out-gunned. So I guess it really depends on what kind of threats you expect. If you're in a quiet neighborhood where the only threat is an unarmed robber? Sure, you won't need much gun to scare them off. But if you've got open gang warfare with fully automatic weapons going off on both sides? You're gonna need something a little bigger to deter threats.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

^As I've said before, there are demographic and cultural problems that need to be solved for the cause to truly succeed^



RaichuOPs said:


> I'm against centralized government decisions, is all. Does that have to mean I'm an unenlightened zombie who hangs off every word of Ann Coulter?


  When backward States go out of their way to drag the country down by implementing regressive or immoral policies, a greater force is needed to keep them in check.


----------



## Cairn (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



> A gun is a lethal weapon. It has one and only one purpose: to kill your target. That's it. If you do not have intent to kill, you shouldn't pick up and aim a firearm. And I personally see nothing wrong with this. It means you don't clear leather unless your life, or someone else's life, is at risk.


So you disagree with sport shooting and shooting competitions?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Cairn said:


> So you disagree with sport shooting and shooting competitions?


'Saturday Night Special' comes to mind XD


----------



## Cairn (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Lynyrd Skynyrd apparently never went to a gun range.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



			
				Clyde_Dale said:
			
		

> The second amendment was originally done for three reasons:
> 
> 1) So the nation would have a ready militia in the event the military was not sufficient to defend the nation
> 
> ...



one also notes the fact that when massive police forces were required they incorporated "militias" (or deputes ) composed of armed private citizens. public funding was always so low that a permanent full time large police force was usually not possible, just like a full time standing army was not possible. (one also notes at this time taxes in the united states were near nil, and the federal government derived most of its income through tarrifs) 

a well known example of this is billi the kid whom was private citizen muscle tasked out with bringing some men to justice. of course instead of bringing them to court he murdered them and became a criminal himself and was hunted by both government officials and private armed citizens.



			
				Kit H. Ruppell said:
			
		

> When backward States go out of their way to drag the country down by implementing regressive or immoral policies, a greater force is needed to keep them in check.



thus the reason why the federal government's legislative and judicial bodies exist. the first is a forum for consensual national decisions and the latter is there to provide citizens wronged by a state ignoring the laws some sort of legal recourse. however, this power should NEVER be used for transient causes. The line between doing good and just plain being a bully is a razors edge. Bullying people no matter how "in the right" you may feel you are does create animosity and break down common bonds and degenerates the nation as a whole.

added: again the issue is who defines "regressive policies"? some people feel that continuing to allow unions to force other workers for a company to fund the union is a regressive policy. whereas some people feel "right to work" laws are regressive. morality, and the concept of freedom is not universal. keep that in mind when voicing for a new law on the federal level.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Alright, first free moment I've had in a while.  Time to bang this out.

To start though, I'd like to address that no one ever said anything about "evil" weapons.  Moreso the argument is that civilians shouldn't have military-grade weaponry or their own personal armory capable of waging war against the rest of their town and then the next couple over, especially when that person lives with a family member who has some mental illness or has a proven history of being an "at risk" youth.



ceacar99 said:


> thats right... i jumped in that thread late and never addressed that issue. anyway going through your statements step by step..... i apologize for the length of this, i know that it is not easy to read. normally i really try to limit length.



Probably should have brought it up in that thread but whatever.  I referenced the previous thread, which wasn't an invitation to continue it here. 



> *1:* for the sake of this discussion we will use the terms "heat shield" and "fore grip" in the place of barrel shroud.
> *2:* the reason for the name change is that EVERY rifle and shotgun needs a grip surface for stability and to protect the hand from the hot barrel, and many weapons feature full coverage heat shields to protect the fingers from accidently slipping off the grip and burning on the barrel.
> http://randyrick.us/AustrianFirearms/photo/BNZAmberg1.jpg
> 
> even bolt action rifles often feature "heat shields"(note the wood on top of the barrel on that mauser 98k) because quite honestly it doesnt take much shooting before the barrel is too hot. i am using this name change because "barrel shroud" is a term invented to demonize basic features of any rifle.



Though I have to wonder how much shooting you'd honestly need to do in a hunting/home defense scenario to get the job done.  Really, is it just me or does anyone else not know of a hunter who goes out and burns through half their ammunition to take down one animal?  I can understand the "skeet/trap" shooting argument as you have multiple targets, otherwise known as more than one or two.  So heat shields for sports firearms and rifles/shotguns?  Sure.  Pistols?  Little much.



> *3:*the tec-9(as specifically referenced in the other thread). it features a heat shield. arguments arose that this shield could be used as a foregrip as well. the truth is on such a weapons frame the position of its magazine well and the magazine length itself makes those two features far better fore grips. however, the only reason why the tec-9 has not been banned under pre assault weapons ban law is that the heat shield is full of holes and therefore barely passes as a "heat shield" but not a "fore grip". see under existing firearms law pistols are defined as lacking a forward grip. this means that if you design a small weapon with one it automatically gets classified as a "short barreled rifle" which requires local authorization to own and a 200 dollar federal tax.



Which was discussed with Gibby already when he suggested the Tec-9 be held as a normal pistol, which by design it doesn't lend itself to that.  It was a sub-machine gun turned semi-auto "pistol" which really it never was, but was marketed as such.  This was further proven when they were then illegally modified to be fully auto as they were originally intended to be.  Of course that brings up a whole other argument of how I think firearms that don't get military contracts shouldn't be then marketed to the civilian market, but that's a whole other deal.



> point is that the heat shield on that weapon only improves its safety(thus keeping the customers from suing the manufacturer). the real effectiveness of its grip surfaces is the shape of the weapon itself and not the presence of a cover of the barrel to protect the hand.



Point is why are you getting a pistol where having a shroud is required/encouraged?  What would be the purpose other than added "safety" when really, the bigger danger is having the pistol in the first place, not the possibility of getting burned after you potentially pumped your family member you confused as an intruder full of lead.  :V

No one is arguing their necessity with rifles or shotguns, given how both of those weapons are to be held.  But if you're marketing a "pistol" with the potential of a foregrip?  No, that's going down the road of reclassifying that weapon.  No matter how many PC words you try to nerf these kinds of attachments, you're not going to convince me that someone who owns a pistol that looks like this is strictly meant for home defense.  You might as well be arguing to me that you're buying a monster truck to pick up your kids from soccer practice.



> *4:* eotech and other brand red dot and holographic sights. i believe you stated " These sights are marketed for that specific purpose, as being tactical additions to military weapons for a variety of medium range to close-quarters operations and skirmishes. This does not translate to any purpose that the civilian market could have.". that standpoint is false. First being designed for a close quarters fight they do improve the weapon's ability for expedient home defense. contrary to your opinion above in this thread.



Sure if you're planning on your home being raided by the nearest paramilitary outfit, absolutely.  Then I'd ask you to send my condolences to your ruling African warlord, because you're clearly not living in America.  Even then, if you're being so overwhelmed by intruders to your home that you require sights, large capacity magazines, and barrel shrouds/foregrips to "stand a chance" I'd say you're already screwed.



> in terms of sporting uses these sights are PERFECT for dangerous game rifles. these are highly expensive, HIGH powered rifles designed to hunt animals that are potentially dangerous. an example of this is that in safari hunt camps scopes of any form are banned these days because the shooter tends to get gored if he misses the first shot. the magnification of the optic prevents him from quickly aiming in on a rampaging close in target. for a while iron sight options like express sights were popular however red dot sights are becoming increasingly identified as the best sight for the situation. they are lightning quick and allow the shooter situational awareness so he can actually track the dangerous animal.
> (again here is a dangerous game rifle i built myself, note the red dot sight mounted on it) http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/3660/13295354.jpg



I'm sorry but we're talking about DANGEROUS game after all.  I'd hope you wouldn't be stupid enough to go cougar hunting or bear hunting by yourself and certainly not if you weren't a VERY confident shot.  So what you're saying is, allow those sights for hunters so any yahoo will easily be able to throw more rounds down range for when they inevitably miss.  I'm sorry, I'm not sure how you're supposed to have a better chance of killing a cougar that's charging at you with a reflex sight as opposed to when it's standing still or slowly moving.  Besides that, "rifle" wouldn't be my first weapon option at that point.  I'd think it'd be "pistol".

Sorry if I don't really sympathize with the plight of the hunter who's purposely putting themselves in harm's way of a bear/bobcat/bison to be mauled for nothing more than the "sport" of it.  :V



> *5:* collapsing and adjustable stocks. while commonly identified as "military stocks" they actually are fundamental to quality shooting with ANY inexpensive rifle.
> 
> what i will discuss is that for people who cannot afford a gunsmith(such as myself) to properly fit a rifle or shotgun to their body the adjustments are a nessesity for good sporting. the ability to collapse the stock down to different lengths of pull(the distance between the middle of the buttstock and the middle of the loop in the trigger) helps ensure that the shooter does not get hurt by recoil, and actually keeps the weapon controllable if the shooter sets the length to something that fits his(or her) body.
> 
> cheek piece adjustment is increasingly common on military rifles as well. however its an incredibly important cost saving feature for sporting as well. it is quite common to see these adjustable cheek pieces on sporting shotguns designed for skeet and trap for example. this is because on a shotgun the stock IS the rear sight. if the stock doesnt fit right to the shooter, then the shooter will not only be feeling more perceived recoil but his gun wont be on target. again these adjustable pieces make it affordable for everyone to get into the sport, and not just people who can pay thousands for a gunsmith to fit the stock to them.



That second paragraph would be fine if not for the fact that the gun lobby is specifically referencing "home defense" and the vague criminal threat as the reason why they need x, y, and z attachment.  And in a home defense scenario, if your weapon of choice is a shotgun, I'm fairly certain that being deadly accurate isn't exactly a huge priority, unless you're firing a slug (why would you?) and the alleged intruder is moving around like a cheetah more than 10 feet in front of you (SPOILER: none of these things realistically happen during a home invasion).  

And again, you're asking me to sympathize with the plight of someone who wants an inexpensive rifle and be able to make sure that it can fit their specific body type without having to take a gun to a gunsmith.  Again, sorry, but then you're also telling me to support the idea that we need more affordable guns that everyone can use rather than less.  If you REALLY want a gun, then yeah, I think you should make a solid investment in that.  And if you need to make it custom fit to you, then fork over the dough.  If you have the money to buy the rifle, you can spend the extra $150-$200 to get a fitted stock put on by a gunsmith.  Hell, maybe you'll catch a deal and they'll polish the gun and give it a thorough cleaning while they're at it.  But yeah, again, I'm doubt you're really going to compel anyone to believe that the collapsible stock is absolutely necessary based on the "let everyone be able to shoot accurately and comfortably" mantra and that the alternative of taking it to a gunsmith is "too expensive".  If home defense is really that important to you, I'd think price would be no option.  Or do you place a limit on how much your family's safety is worth?  :V



> *6:* muzzle breaks. i believe the best argument against a ban on this is that a ban simply would cost money and would be meaningless. if someone wants such a thing on his or her rifle they just need to use a drill in their garage. there is nothing really magical about these screw on attachments. simple straight out to the side ports drilled on both sides can quickly and effectively kill the recoil caused by gas expansion underneath the bullet when it leaves the muzzle.



How would it cost money?  Can't really just make the claim of "it'll cost too much" without really backing up why it would.  You see some dude with a gun that's been drilled, that's an extra citation for illegally modifying the weapon while getting commercially available stuff illegal for all future sales.  It's easy for someone to saw off the barrel of a shotgun to make it a more compact.  That hasn't stopped anyone from making legislation on it.  The ease of someone being able to potentially illegally modify a weapon does not speak for whether or not a regulation should be put in place, just as how it's easy for people to drive over the speed limit doesn't mean that negates having laws against that.



> *7:* pistol grips; they provide NO advantage that a regular well made stock cannot. what they do perform is making it easier to mass produce a stock for "everyone". its easier to fit such a control scheme to a lot of people reasonably well than more traditional stocks.



Not exactly a comforting thought, especially when "everyone" tends to include those suffering from mental illness or less than responsible people who are championed as "responsible gun owners" up until the point where they become shunned from the pro-gun community faster than furrys shun anyone who speaks to reporters or goes on a talk show.  :V



> *8:*magazine size limits; i have no problem with having ten round magazines. though i do point out that weapons are recharged so quickly that the limit is pretty much pointless.



Then again not every legal gun owner right now in this country even has the basic training on how to handle a weapon, let alone perform proper speed reload technique.  The argument of "reloads are quick" really holds no ground for that clear segment of the population which is a lot larger than I care to even begin to estimate.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



			
				Term_the_Schmuck  said:
			
		

> To start though, I'd like to address that no one ever said anything about "evil" weapons. Moreso the argument is that civilians shouldn't have military-grade weaponry or their own personal armory capable of waging war against the rest of their town and then the next couple over, especially when that person lives with a family member who has some mental illness or has a proven history of being an "at risk" youth.



The argument being made is that these features actually are not really "military" and may have been around FAR longer than you'd believe. Further, some of these modifications may not be as game changing as you assert. so going down the list(for the sake of easy reading i'll avoid an endless list of quote bubbles.)

1: heat shields. when sighting in a rifle(so you can get that accurate shot in) you start by firing at least 3 rounds in at the same point at the target. five is a safer bet. Then seeing how your shots are landing you can adjust your sights and shoot another 5 shot pattern to see how your corrections worked. It is actually surprising how even 5 rounds fired can result in a barrel that is uncomfortably hot.

2: on the tech 9 and the image of a pistol you posted. the interesting thing is that under the law if that pistol you showed me was sold as an entire unit with those modifications it would be considered a "short barreled rifle", which many localities prohibit. Further, one must ALWAYS get permission from local authorities for such a weapon and the feds get a 200 dollar tax, which was quite a deterrent until the inflation really hit in the 70's and 80's. Why the atf does not deign to enforce the laws on the parts when they are sold separately i do not know, however the actual law already exists to limit ownership of such weapons. 

3: red dot sites. The argument for dangerous game sights is not even assuming that the shooter missed the animal the first time. its assuming that the animal took the shot, is not dead and is instead very, very angry. hunts for lion and cougar, bears, wolves, bison and boar are common dangerous game hunts in the united states. These same hunters also do go overseas to africa to legally hunt other dangerous game as well. This sight has an incredible number of sporting uses, and you pick on it because it looks "military".

in a personal defense situation you have a situation in which the shooter needs to get an ACCURATE shot in quickly and efficiently under adverse conditions(such as low light). no other sight and provide that. Whereas such a sight really provides little advantage to a shooter calmly hunting down helpless victims. the shooter is under no real duress and they can calmly aim in with any sight and pick off victims at will. its shooting fish in a barrel and the efficiency of a red dot sight over an iron sight in this i situation is marginal. Further one points out that with the number of rounds expended in shootings like the columbine massacre vs the number of wounded or killed we can see a picture that these shooters are usually not aiming all that much to begin with which will tie into my rate of fire argument at the end of this post. 

4: adjustable stocks. bump your figure up for a custom stock by A LOT. my shop charges $65 an hour for general work(which is cheaper than auto work sadly). We do not have a name built in stockmaking, nor do we have a specialist. As such we cannot charge a premium on that. 

-the FLOOR for a piece of wood: $150, and is more commonly at $500.
-the FLOOR for the labor: at least a 30 hour job. at $65 an hour that comes out to $1950. 
-general estimate for gunsmith work to fit a gun: $3,700 (tax included) 

tell a rancher that he needs to spend $5,000(the cost including buying the rifle itself) JUST for a rifle or shotgun that will fit his wife(and therefore wont hurt her)  and he needs to find another one for himself. just for the peace of mind of a functional farm gun that he and his wife can use. 

adjustable stocks were first made for civilian shotguns, FACT(though usually used by gunsmiths in the form of a try gun for customers). the military merely adopted well designed adjustable stocks because its a very inexpensive way of reducing injury and promoting firearm confidence(as opposed to forcing people to shoot rifles that hurt some of the shooters). 

4: muzzle break enforcement costs. it costs money to enforce any law. it costs money in the courts(fines rarely pay themselves), and it costs money to hire more employees to enforce them. Further that cost is raised by the tax money you will not receive for the sale of those attachments.

5; By your logic "we should ban checkering". after all checkering is used on many military weapons. it improves accuracy by enhancing one's grip over the weapon. the positive grip not only keeps the first shot on target but helps keep the following shots on target. Of course you'd make this assertion not knowing that checkering has been around for centuries and was first done in england for shotgun shooting. 

Just because something is a nice addition to a firearm does not make it "military" nor does it mean that firearm is instantly transformed into an all powerful tool of death, that is a myth. people will spend $25,000 dollars as a floor price for a skeet competition shotgun to hit more targets. However all those features are worth didly if he is a poor shot. Further the competition difference between a $2,000 dollar shotgun(that felt comfortable to the customer in the store when he picked it up) and a $25,000 dollar shotgun is likely around 3 more clay targets. in terms of competition the effectiveness is amazing, in terms of military standards or standards of a shooter on a spree its so negligible that it is not worth mentioning. 

6: the myth of firepower borne of rate of fire. Firepower is an effective tool in military practice. It does not kill the enemy, it controls them so that someone can get a decent shot, or a grenade in on an enemy that is under good concealment or cover. 

to accurately shoot a self loading weapon there is a general rule that the fire rate will be about one shot per second and no more. During my training in the marines i was trained that "rapid fire" in fact means "one shot per second". The reason for this rate of fire is that shooting faster will mean that the shooter is trying to muscle the gun on target(which is a big no no when trying to actually hit the target), the trigger is improperly pulled(pulling the muzzle to the left or right), and its almost impossible for the shooter to get a proper sight picture any faster than that. of course as with all things a truly exceptional shooter can perform despite these rules, but these are general rules for the situation. the stark gap between shots available and fired in massacres and the total hits and kills illustrates these facts. it is VERY easy to miss someone even at point blank range when you are just wildly squeezing the trigger. 

the reality is that a man armed with even antique weapons can take out an entire crowd or town if standing unnposed. 
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen...rincipal-with-a-gun-stopped-a-school-shooter/
i reference this shooting again to point out that he was using a lever action rifle(likely a winchester model 1894) and despite the slow reload time was quite effective. he was only stopped by an armed opponent.

simply there is a difference between feeling firearms are morally wrong, and having actual factual evidence that illustrates that they are a: required for massacres in society b: generate more violent crime, and c: certain features that are seen as "modern" have no role in the sporting market and are exclusively used by crazies and bad men.


----------



## Golden (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> ^As I've said before, there are demographic and cultural problems that need to be solved for the cause to truly succeed^     When backward States go out of their way to drag the country down by implementing regressive or immoral policies, a greater force is needed to keep them in check.


  Okay, but what counts as a regressive or immoral policy? or a backwards state? And how much power should this greater force have? I'm not trying to be rude, but your viewpoint is a tad too general for my tastes.


----------



## Rasly (Jan 25, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Anyone can tell me, wth "back ground check" mean?


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 25, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> Anyone can tell me, wth "back ground check" mean?



it is a system in which anyone wishing to buy a new firearm from a gunstore has to be checked for potential red flags. The system is computerized now and checks all available information on the potential buyer. Those with felonies within the past ten years, current proven drug use, demonstrated mental illness and similar flags are denied the purchase under this system.

unfortunately the federal government records are not updated by state authorities as much as they should, as such some people whom should not be buying firearms do get them because their dangerous behavior was never reported to the federal government.

some states such as california have their own background check database as well as using the federal one. They also have a waiting period to purchase that firearm as this background check is going through unlike many states where the customer can buy the gun as soon as there is a green light from the feds. 

essentially people are already being checked for warning signs when buying a gun. its just that the information in the system isnt as good as it should be.


----------



## Rasly (Jan 25, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Sounds kind of useless, they do it because of all the school shootings, but, kids don't realy have any backgroung story, any of those shooters would easily pass all those checks.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 25, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Rasly said:


> Sounds kind of useless, they do it because of all the school shootings, but, kids don't realy have any backgroung story, any of those shooters would easily pass all those checks.



actually they dont do it because of the school shooters. background checks have been around for a loooong time. its part of the gun control act of 1968.

also, you have to be eighteen to own a rifle, or twenty one for owning a pistol. excepting the senior class these guns are completely unavailable legally to school kids.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 26, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Delta Fox said:


> You know, if you take gang-related violence out of the American homicide rate, America has the same level of homicide that is normal for a country of its type.



And yet how many of these mass school shootings are carried out by gangs? 
Virginia Tech wasn't shot up by a gang member.
Sandy Hooks wasn't shot up by a gang member.
Colombine wasn't shot up by by gang members.
Aurora wasn't shot up by a gang member.
Fort Hood wasn't shot up by a gang member (unless you class members of the US military as "gang members").

Besides, your statement makes about as much logical sense as "...if you take gun-related violence out of the American homicide rate, America has the same level of homicide that is normal for a country of its type." Well DUH, if you deliberately exclude a major classification of something bad that you're trying to measure, of course you're going to have figures that look good.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Jan 29, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Umm, instead of trying to prevent guns from being used, ban smokeless gunpowder, wouldn't that be more effective?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



thoughtmaster said:


> Umm, instead of trying to prevent guns from being used, ban smokeless gunpowder, wouldn't that be more effective?



And what difference, pray tell, would the choice of powder in bullet cartridges make _when some jumped-up Rambo wannabee is shooting up a school or a Congresswoman?_

In case you hadn't noticed, these shooters aren't exactly using Napoleonic War-era muskets and flintlocks...


----------



## thoughtmaster (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> And what difference, pray tell, would the choice of powder in bullet cartridges make _when some jumped-up Rambo wannabee is shooting up a school or a Congresswoman?_
> 
> In case you hadn't noticed, these shooters aren't exactly using Napoleonic War-era muskets and flintlocks...


The difference is that, though you only need one gun to be able to shoot, you need large amounts of ammunition to cause such casualties. Also it you remove smokeless gunpowder, it would make to guns some murderer bought just an expensive club. As for why not gunpowder period, 1 black powder is easy to manufacture, and 2 black powder has less power than smokeless gunpowder. Also if they use black powder, they will make a cloud when shooting making it easy to spot a shooter so assassins using a sniper rifle won't work. Is that simple to understand?


----------



## Attaman (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



thoughtmaster said:


> Is that simple to understand?


I have a question: What makes you think that the more rabid firearm defendants will accept such a legislation? Arguably this would make things even harder on them than basic firearm regulation / safety testing, as whereas the former will only impact a minority this will effect _every_ firearm owner who doesn't use blackpowder weapons.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Attaman said:


> I have a question: What makes you think that the more rabid firearm defendants will accept such a legislation? Arguably this would make things even harder on them than basic firearm regulation / safety testing, as whereas the former will only impact a minority this will effect _every_ firearm owner who doesn't use blackpowder weapons.


But they would lose their defence that they use that "it is violating the second amendment." We wouldn't take away your guns but you won't have any ammo to shoot with and be unseen. Besides, they could adapt their guns to use black powder instead of gunpowder.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



thoughtmaster said:


> be unseen.



Just... I'm gonna facepalm on this part.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Gibby said:


> Just... I'm gonna facepalm on this part.


Well look on the bright side, it's not like there's historical precedent of loading up on large amounts of slow-reloading blackpowder weapons so as to avoid having to spend time to reload. :V


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 31, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



thoughtmaster said:


> The difference is that, though you only need one gun to be able to shoot, you need large amounts of ammunition to cause such casualties. Also it you remove smokeless gunpowder, it would make to guns some murderer bought just an expensive club. As for why not gunpowder period, 1 black powder is easy to manufacture, and 2 black powder has less power than smokeless gunpowder. Also if they use black powder, they will make a cloud when shooting making it easy to spot a shooter so assassins using a sniper rifle won't work. Is that simple to understand?



<facepalm> Sweet Buddha on a bicycle, the mental gymnastics and logic contortions that some go through to come up with a solution that means that no gun-owner shall ever be in the slightest way prevented from owning any type of weapon they damn well please...

Unbelievable. Just when I though the NRA's argument of putting guns in schools was lunatic enough.

What's next, mandatory body armour for schoolkids? Subsidies for purchasing handguns? Removal of firearm restrictions of commercial flights? Why not just go full-on Somalia and be done with it?



thoughtmaster said:


> But they would lose their defence that they use that "it is violating the second amendment." We wouldn't take away your guns but you won't have any ammo to shoot with and be unseen.



Right, because every school / theatre / Congresswoman shooting in the US was done by lunatics sniping their targets, and no-one has ever simply walked into a school / theatre / whatever and simply started firing with NO regard for cover... /sarcasm

Not to mention I've seen plenty of pro-gunners arguing that ammo restrictions WOULD violate that oh-so-precious Second Amendment.

<double-facepalm>


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 31, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

well note on that. Historically america was the first and only nation for a loooong time to primarily manufacture rifles. The reason was that during the colonial days there was massive shortages of gunpowder. expensive shooting lead the colonists to try out the german immigrant's firearms. Of course rifles of the day were incredibly slow loading even by standards of the time. Thats why the first double rifles were invented! many of the most successful "snipers" of the revolution carried a two barreled rifle. 

anyway, when obama was first elected i wasn't able to buy modern cartridge ammo for about six months. Rumors spread amongst the gun crazies that the new government was going to tax bullets out of existence, hoarding ensued. Course that never happened. Course it would be a silly idea for the government to do it, the number one buyers of large quantities of ammo(civilian buyers) are competitors. 

hurt decent people because a VERY VERY small minority want to do bad things? a little over the top lol.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 31, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



ceacar99 said:


> hurt decent people because a VERY VERY small minority want to do bad things? a little over the top lol.



That's exactly what the gun lobby is doing by refusing to man up and recognise that the US gun culture has gone too far - there's companies selling out of making _bulletproof backpacks for children_ because parents are so concerned about their kids being SHOT at SCHOOL and it's all because gun *addicts* equate any kind of sensible restriction on deadly weapon ownership as being a short slide to "fascism".

If decent people are being hurt because of a minority wanting to do bad things, the decent people in question _aren't exclusively gun owners._ The minority who want to do bad things are the gun fanatics who contrive to leap through ever more contorted self-justification for owning weapons that have no practical sporting applications but which are perfectly suited for killing people en mass.

Not to mention the climate of FEAR exploited by handgun-for-defence proponents, which has inevitable results like a young man being shot for accidentally driving into the wrong driveway while picking up friends. 

All gun owners are "suffering" is the possibility that some of their toys being prohibited for public safety reasons. Decent people every day in the US are already suffering in FAR more bloody and horrific ways.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 31, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> Unbelievable. Just when I though the NRA's argument of putting guns in schools was lunatic enough.



It seems Obama thinks it a good idea. Its one of the EOs he signed the other day.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.  Are not these Police officers with GUNS?


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 1, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> It seems Obama thinks it a good idea. Its one of the EOs he signed the other day.
> 
> 18. Provide incentives for schools to hire *school resource officers*.  Are not these Police officers with GUNS?



"Resource officers" is a generic term that covers a multitude of capabilities. A "resource officer" could equally be in charge of staffing, equipment, or other "resources".

Unless you can prove that "resource officers" = "armed security guards" or similar in that EO (and if that's what he meant, why didn't he just SAY so?), I can only conclude you're jumping to conclusions based on what you'd _like _to see instead of what's actually happening.

EDIT: And oh look, yet _another_ US school shooting. How many is it now in just one *month?*

What the feckin' hell is the matter with you America? Can't you go _one bloody month_ without some armed fuckwit murdering kids on school property?


----------



## cobalt-blue (Feb 1, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> "Resource officers" is a generic term that covers a multitude of capabilities. A "resource officer" could equally be in charge of staffing, equipment, or other "resources".
> 
> Unless you can prove that "resource officers" = "armed security guards" or similar in that EO (and if that's what he meant, why didn't he just SAY so?), I can only conclude you're jumping to conclusions based on what you'd _like _to see instead of what's actually happening.




http://www.nasro.org/class-training

Wrong as usual, lets look at this training page, it for police officers to be School resource officers.  The first picture has GUNS in it.  There is a SRO class for active shooter response.  Don't let the hate cloud your perception.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 1, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> http://www.nasro.org/class-training
> Wrong as usual, lets look at this training page, it for police officers to be School resource officers.  The first picture has GUNS in it.  There is a SRO class for active shooter response.



Fine. 

Though the fact that American society is so damn violent that *schools *have to have _armed security_ present _and police have to be trained specifically in how to deal with shootings at schools_ should make every American hang their head in shame. Is THIS the kind of society you really want?

But hey, as long as YOU get to keep your firearms with as little inconvenience or obligations to the rest of society as you can possibly get away with, I guess the rest of your fellow citizens will just have to pay for your rights with their blood. Over and over and over again. Without end.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> Fine.
> 
> Though the fact that American society is so damn violent that *schools *have to have _armed security_ present _and police have to be trained specifically in how to deal with shootings at schools_ should make every American hang their head in shame. Is THIS the kind of society you really want?
> 
> But hey, as long as YOU get to keep your firearms with as little inconvenience or obligations to the rest of society as you can possibly get away with, I guess the rest of your fellow citizens will just have to pay for your rights with their blood. Over and over and over again. Without end.


 "Naww it's dem vylint vidya gaems an' movin' pictures turnin' our young'uns evil! Y'all jus' need Jesus in y'all's lives!"


----------



## kyfox (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Wow, this STILL going on? 



Mayfurr said:


> Fine.
> 
> Though the fact that American society is so damn violent that *schools *have to have _armed security_ present _and police have to be trained specifically in how to deal with shootings at schools_ should make every American hang their head in shame. Is THIS the kind of society you really want?
> 
> But hey, as long as YOU get to keep your firearms with as little inconvenience or obligations to the rest of society as you can possibly get away with, I guess the rest of your fellow citizens will just have to pay for your rights with their blood. Over and over and over again. Without end.



Violence will not be stopped by taking away guns.
Just the same as shutting down abortion clinics will not stop abortions.

The only purpose taking away guns serves is to disarm the people, making the government stronger than the people. This is step one to a communist regime. 

Yup, I said the c-word. Somebody call the psych ward. 

Look at history, every communist government started with the abolishment of the citizens rights.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> Look at history, every communist government started with the abolishment of the citizens rights.



So how about my right not to be shot by some crazy guy with a gun?


----------



## zanian (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> Wow, this STILL going on?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hello McCarthy; I thought you were dead. How is the communist hunt these days? Is Hollywood really a nest full of communists like you said back in the days?


----------



## Attaman (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> Violence will not be stopped by taking away guns.


 Oh, okay. So for you even "Keep assault weaponry out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals who don't know any firearm safety" is a regulation that would have no effect.



kyfox said:


> The only purpose taking away guns serves is to disarm the people, making the government stronger than the people.


 You have the right effect, but for the wrong reason. It disarms _some_ the people not to make the government stronger, but because _those some people are generally people nobody would trust with their hands on a lethal weapon_. 



kyfox said:


> This is step one to a communist regime.


 Make up your mind, is it communist or fascist? They are on opposite sides of the political spectrum.



kyfox said:


> Look at history, every communist government started with the abolishment of the citizens rights.


 Look at at this thread's history, red herring arguments don't have a particularly high success rate.


----------



## kyfox (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Hakar Kerarmor said:


> So how about my right not to be shot by some crazy guy with a gun?


You have that right. You also have the right to bear arms.  You gotta realize that limiting sane people from owning guns will not keep the insane from getting them. Again, it's been proven that violence and crime rates are lower in regions with less gun violence.(Texas vs. Washington or Chicago.) [*PS: not sure what I was thinking here, pretty sure i wasn't] You'd be safer if people thought there was a possibility of you owning a firearm. 






zanian said:


> Hello McCarthy; I thought you were dead. How is the communist hunt these days? Is Hollywood really a nest full of communists like you said back in the days?


So, me making a statement about communism automatically relates me to McCarthy. I'm not supporting a witch hunt. I'm looking at what happened in the past. Give me a break.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not supporting everyone and their dog owning automatic weapons. I believe we need to have REASONABLE regulations on firearms (background checks, psychological disorder checks, safety lessons). However, magazine restrictions, pistol grips restrictions, and "assault weapon" bans are not reasonable. I can shoot 3 ten round mags just the same as 2 15 round magazines. Pistol grips have no effect on accuracy, they are there to look cool. Also, for crying out loud, people need to realize the an assault weapon is ANY weapon used to assault weapon, I could hit someone with a Louisville Slugger and it ca be called an assault weapon. Assault Rifle =/= Assault Weapon (assault *weapon* is a marketing term. That's it.)

You can enforce restrictions to keep weapons from the people, but you can't you enforce morals to keep people from pulling the trigger. 

If I could live in a world without violence, I wouldn't own guns, I don't hunt and I wouldn't need to protect myself; but face it, people are violent, people will try to hurt you, so I choose to protect myself.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> You have that right. You also have the right to bear arms.


 Via a Federal Document. You know, for complaining as hard as you are about the "GUBMENT!" making a power grab, you seem to have an almost religious worship of a Federal Government document.



kyfox said:


> You gotta realize that limiting sane people from owning guns will not keep the insane from getting them.


 Uh, but it can? It was found that approximately 57in % of all traced crime guns could be traced back to 1.2% of the gun dealers. By, I 'unno, _being able to actually do its job_ the ATF could probably do a fair bit to crack down on said "cracks" in the system. Unfortunately, the NRA specifically gutted the organization because "FWEEDOM!"

Also, I think you've got things wrong. You, for some godawful reason, seem to think that the Government's main focus is disarming sane citizens, and that the criminal / insane would be a unfortunate (if even impacted) minority who occasionally got hit too. Issue is, *that's blatantly false*. Let me tell you something: If you're listening to Glen Beck? Rush Limbaugh? LaPierre? Yeah, you need to realize that the first is a shock jock who bounces between batshit insane and preaching to the choir (in this case, a choir of paranoid gun nuts who want to hear they're vindicated), the second is just batshit insane (as in he makes up facts to tell himself when reality disagrees with him, to the point of refusing to concede on Obama's election for some time), and the third _helped to gut the ATF and basically leave it using Youtube videos to *politely encourage* following its policies_.



kyfox said:


> Again, it's been proven that violence and crime rates are lower in regions with less gun violence.(Texas vs. Washington or Chicago.)


 ... Uh, three things. First, you realize Chicago is a city, yes? Second: Texas is third for interstate gun crime supplying. It often puts out about 2,200+ guns a year that're carried across borders and used in other states for firearm-based crime. Lastly: You went full on herp-a-derp trying to argue that "more guns = no violence!" what with basically saying "Hey mang places that have less firearm violence tend to also have lower violence and crime rates in general". Between that being _kinda what lower violence and crime rates means_, you also have opened up the door for people to point out "Oh, alright. Norway. Sure is terrible with its tripled crime rate over the US courtesy of a third of the overall firearm ownership. Wait a second, nevermind."



kyfox said:


> You'd be safer if people thought there was a possibility of you owning a firearm.


 Not particularly, no. See, this is where a lot of peoples' arguments fall apart: You're never going to get close enough to pull out your riot prod and smack a bitch? Rubber Boolet won't even dissuade a mugger gunman before you're pumped full of lead? Question then: Since you're apparently fighting Quickdraw McGraw, _why_ is he / she going to stand there gaping like a fish going "oh em gee oh em gee oh em gee" when he believes / knows you to have a firearm? Let alone drawing it? Wouldn't it be more logical to just, I 'unno, pump you full of lead immediately? 

Escalation. It is a word, and a theory, and both exist.



kyfox said:


> Don't get me wrong. I'm not supporting everyone and their dog owning automatic weapons. I believe we need to have REASONABLE regulations on firearms (background checks, psychological disorder checks, safety lessons).


 Sorry, NRA has said we can't enforce that. Said it'd be like making firearm owners wear a Star of David. Also prevented the organization tasked with doing such / gathering information / enforcing such policies toothless.



kyfox said:


> Pistol grips have no effect on accuracy, they are there to look cool.


 Hint: Most of these things you claim are "just there to look cool" are a fairly good indication that you _aren't_ aware of their function. Lethal weapons generally aren't designed / given attachments just to look extra sexy: They're made to increase effectiveness.



kyfox said:


> Also, for crying out loud, people need to realize the an assault weapon is ANY weapon used to assault weapon, I could hit someone with a Louisville Slugger and it ca be called an assault weapon.


 No, it's not. Unless you want to tell the Military that its own definitions are wrong.



kyfox said:


> Assault Rifle =/= Assault Weapon (assault rifle is a marketing term. That's it.)


 ... Yes, you are going to tell the military that their own definitions are wrong.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> You have that right.



Awesome! I can go outside and *is shot by a crazy gunman*



kyfox said:


> You gotta realize that limiting sane people from owning guns will not keep the insane from getting them.



"Hey mommy! What's that?"
"It's a Nirvana fallacy dear."
"Can we keep it?"
"No dear, it's not house-trained."



kyfox said:


> I don't hunt and I wouldn't need to protect myself; but face it, people are violent, people will try to hurt you, so I choose to protect myself.



That's what all crazy gunmen say.


----------



## kyfox (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Attamam, I went back and addressed in my last post. Kinda went derp there.

"Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms.
 It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles." -Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson writing the Stanford Law and Policy Review
---

Read this: http://www.assaultweapon.info/?fb_a...52430652420545":"og.likes"}&action_ref_map---
I'm not proclaiming to be a gun expert(I'm not), but from what I understand, pistol grips are more comfortable. 

If someone breaks in my house, I'd probably tell them to get out; if they pulled a weapon, why shouldn't I?
I figure you aren't going to scare off muggers on the streets, but people are less likely to break in to a house if they believe the owner has guns.

I honor the Constitution, because It set up a government with the people rights in mind. Nowadays, our incumbents don't have any care for it at all.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> [...]
> The only purpose taking away guns serves is to disarm the people,* making the government stronger than the people.*
> [...]


You do know the government IS already stronger than the people?
You know: Army, FBI, NSA and so on?


----------



## Gryphoneer (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

And, regular as clockwork, we're back to the hoary, far-from-reality, whiny "They want to take all our guns awaaahahaayyy!!1ELEVENTY" absolute claim.

For the exty time, sane people propose sane policies that are intended to stop random civilians from building up an African warlord arsenal by banning firearms indistinguishable from military gear so that homicidal maniacs can't raid their folks' or use their own stash to shoot little kids or whoever dead. How hard can it possibly be to wrap your thick skulls around that?

Or are gun nuts the multidrug-resistant pathogens of the fanaticism archipelago? Particularly vicious germs with a broad spectrum resistance to antibiotics families A, B, C.../logic, reason, facts, common sense...


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

The antics of fanatical gun nuts, and the organizations they support, are the best argument* for *'assault weapon' ownership that I've ever heard.


----------



## Golden (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Don't you know, Moonclaw? Assault Rifles > Harriers, Javelin Missiles, and Reaper Drones :V


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



kyfox said:


> Violence will not be stopped by taking away guns.



Yeah, because violent people will resort to... using lawn chairs, or something. Holy shit. Lawn chair massacres on every street corner if heavy weaponry isn't available for Jo Blow Gun-Enthusiast to let off steam with. Oh the calamity. 

Either that, or  you could kill a bunch of people by throwing them in a bath along with a toaster, therefore toasters should be banned before a single gun is touched...
/sarcasm



kyfox said:


> The only purpose taking away guns serves is to disarm the people, making the government stronger than the people.



You're saying this kind of bullshit about a country that holds thousands of NUCLEAR WEAPONS? The country that fields more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world PUT TOGETHER? The country that fields large numbers of the most advanced tanks on the PLANET?

Yeah, that there government is sure quakin' in its boots as it realises that thousands of aircraft, ships, tanks and general military might is STILL less than a bunch of gun-enthusiasts with a private arsenal playing soldiers.



Gryphoneer said:


> And, regular as clockwork, we're back to the hoary, far-from-reality, whiny "They want to take all our guns awaaahahaayyy!!1ELEVENTY" absolute claim.



That'll be the standard NRA misdirection, followed by the ever-popular (as pointed out by Hakar Kerarmor) "Nirvana fallacy".

Not to mention that (like the linked cartoon points out), _"Nothing says 'responsible gun owner' like the threat of armed insurrection."_


----------



## cobalt-blue (Feb 3, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



Mayfurr said:


> _"Nothing says 'responsible gun owner' like the threat of armed insurrection."_



Hmmmm....

"Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed  insurrection in the Second Amendment because clearly the founding  fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of  democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists.[SUP][51][/SUP][SUP][52][/SUP] Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds,  contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed  insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 "the Right of the People to...institute new Government") and the New Hampshire Constitution  (stating in 1784 that "nonresistance against arbitrary power, and  oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and  happiness of mankind").[SUP][53]"

[/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


----------



## thoughtmaster (Feb 3, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

I don't see why there is any arguement. The verdict of this site says that all guns should be banned, why is there still arguement about it?


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Feb 3, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



thoughtmaster said:


> I don't see why there is any arguement. The verdict of this site says that all guns should be banned, why is there still arguement about it?


Reality, this is thoughtmaster
Thoughtmaster, this is reality

now off you two go and learn to know each other. :V(Even if calling the exact topic of the discussion reality seems a bit of a stretch)


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 4, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



cobalt-blue said:


> Hmmmm....
> 
> "Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed  insurrection in the Second Amendment because clearly the founding  fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of  democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists.[SUP][51][/SUP][SUP][52][/SUP] Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds,  contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed  insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 "the Right of the People to...institute new Government") and the New Hampshire Constitution  (stating in 1784 that "nonresistance against arbitrary power, and  oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and  happiness of mankind").[SUP][53]"
> 
> [/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution



All you've pointed out is that debate still exists on this topic. It's not proven either way.

Regardless of this, *as I've pointed out ad infinitum,* oppressed peoples don't need Second Amendment-type laws to rise up in revolt against their governments... and governments tend to not worry about Second Amendment-type laws when a revolt DOES get underway. I don't see, for example, Timothy McVeigh's actions in the Oklahoma City bombing being held up as "legal" under the Second Amendment, even though in his eyes he was striking back against "oppression"...


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 4, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*



thoughtmaster said:


> I don't see why there is any arguement. The verdict of this site says that all guns should be banned, why is there still arguement about it?



What site are you reading?


----------



## VGmaster9 (Feb 4, 2013)

*Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf*

Alex Jones will debate with Piers Morgan again soon.


----------

