General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Vexx

A large point of the value of a CCW is that the perp doesn't *know* who has a weapon. An armed guard (some poor schmuck given a few day's of orientation and handed a gun) is just painted with a target that says "shoot me first".

Hmmm, how about just putting up signs that saw, "CCW holders on campus, for your protection." If every school does this, and only a few schools have weapons, there is no way for a perp to know.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Hmmm, how about just putting up signs that saw, "CCW holders on campus, for your protection." If every school does this, and only a few schools have weapons, there is no way for a perp to know.

"These premises are guarded by a vicious attack dog four days a week. Guess which."

[Archon_Wing]

Ah, I came across this and realized that once again realized that American politics always skirts away from what's truly at stake here... last 20 seconds, lol

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Hmmm, how about just putting up signs that saw, "CCW holders on campus, for your protection." If every school does this, and only a few schools have weapons, there is no way for a perp to know.

Actually not a bad idea. Most of these massacre twits seem to be terrified at the idea someone else will shoot them (but it is okay for them to shoot themself o.O)

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by willx

Thought I'd pop in here on a purely legal and constitutional slant -- I'd recommend everyone to have a read of the last 200 years or so of constitutional law and interpretations and the Supreme Court rulings on the 2nd Amendment with regards to Individual Rights, Collective Rights and States' Rights.

Already have, and the collective rights model is no where in the SCOTUS rulings over the last 200+ years.

It is absolutely fascinating and interesting that the landmark ruling on Heller v. D.C. and the subsequent cases McDonald v. Chicago were passed 5-4. A slightly different SCOTUS composition could have changed things greatly.

Why is it facinating?
They simply upheld the meaning of the 2nd amendment that has been used by every supreme court since Chief Justice John Marshall took the bench in 1801 as the first chief justice of the United States.

The primary court cases cited in DC vs. Heller were these:
Nun vs State:

It is true, that these adjudications are all made on clauses in the State Constitutions; but these instruments confer no new rights on the people which did not belong to them before. When, I would ask, did any legislative body in the Union have the right to deny to its citizens the privilege of keeping and bearing arms in defense of themselves and their country?? The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State Governments—nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning… [D]oes it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an unalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures…. If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the State of Georgia and of the United States, it is competent for the General Assembly to take way this security, by disarming the people? What advantage would it be to tie up the hands of the national legislature, if it were in the power of the States to destroy this bulwark of defense? … The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of free State.”

Presser vs Illinois:

“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”

U.S. v. Cruikshank:

“The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

US vs. Miller:

“The signification 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.”

“…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less that 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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense…”

Pretty clear, the collective rights model is not correct and is simply a corruption of the intent of the 2nd amendment.
The SCOTUS cases support the individual rights model, and have consistently since the early 1800s. So the Heller and McDonald cases are in harmony with 200+ years of SCOTUS decisions.

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

The NRA must be so pissed.... There is no way for them to avoid gun control legislation now.

Sugetsu, you're excitment over the possible deaths of others at a school shooting is rather disturbing.

And no, this will not effect the NRA nor the attitude of most Americans who support the unalienable rights protected by the 2nd amendment.
Also, according to the Texas local news outlets (CBS news 12) this was simply a fight between two individuals.
No one was killed, and of the three wounded, two were the people involved in the fight (the shooter and the person attacking him).
That's hardly the kind of "mass shooting" that you were hoping for Sugetsu.
Also, according to Lone Star's website they prohibit anyone from "knowingly, intentionally or recklessly" setting foot on school property with a firearm.
It is a "Gun Free Zone."

The media needs to stop hyping this shit.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Give me one.

No, seriously. I am honestly asking for this, because if you can produce it, I'll immediately start making use of it.

Give me a method of self-defense that will protect me from an assailant with a gun, that is superior to my own gun. Something that has equal range, power, reliability and accuracy to an automatic pistol.

There is no other method Syn.
Not yet anyway.
Perhaps when energy weapons become standard issue to the military, if the 2nd amendment still stands, then we will have a better means of self defense.

Originally Posted by Vexx

A great many of the "college shooting" incidents turn out to be between people who are not related to the college but simply happen to be on campus. Any major university in a large city has this problem with gangs playing turf games, or outside disputes being acted out on campus. It is misleading of the media (sensationalism for the lose). I'm getting really really tired of this media meme of "constructing a narrative and sticking to it even when the facts contradict it"). I'd like to slap whoever it is teaching this "narrative" thing. It seems to be mostly American (well, statist/communist is where else I see it - China, for example).

Agreed.
The way the media fell over backwards for this Texas shooting story in an effort to try and continue the emotional hype behind the other shootings is disgusting.
The media has played a part in all of this.
I'll repost what Dr. Park Dietz said about them sensationalizing these events:

[Ithekro]

Effective energy based stun weapons would be viable, but I don't think sonic and blinding are all that good presently (blinding either has to be very precise to the eyes or has the chance of blinding innocents around the intended target, depending on the style used. Sonics seem like they would be area effect type weapons that could hurt a lot of people along the frontal area of the weapon.) Sure sonics and blinding weapons might not kill them, but in the lawsuit crazy world we are in, I can imagine damages being filed, and if the damage caused by the weapons is permanent, some might have rather have been killed (never see again. Never hear again. Those kinds of things.)

Depending on just what one means by sonic and blinding weapons.

[Kyuu]

Now here's an interesting idea on the mass/school shooting problem:

A British company called Concept Smoke Screen is now offering up its Security Smoke Screen as a solution to gun violence in schools. Push a button, and thick, non-toxic smoke fills the room, obscuring potential victims from a shooter's gaze. The product was developed to protect bank vaults, and has been used for more than 30 years, but this is the first suggestion that we install it in classrooms.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...chool-shooters

Of course. Who'd be willing to pay for that?

[GundamFan0083]

Coil guns look to be the next step to me.

Like in this video.

[Kyuu]

Of all the guns in this entire discussion and debate. There really is only one that impresses me:

Spoiler:

And I'm not kidding.

Though, a real life version? It'd be very practical for military use. In order for civilians to have an equivalent type of weapon, they'd have to have access to massive amounts of electrical charge.

So, on that note, to anyone who said there's no such thing as "military grade", that's BS.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Sugetsu, you're excitment over the possible deaths of others at a school shooting is rather disturbing.

And no, this will not effect the NRA nor the attitude of most Americans who support the unalienable rights protected by the 2nd amendment.
Also, according to the Texas local news outlets (CBS news 12) this was simply a fight between two individuals.
No one was killed, and of the three wounded, two were the people involved in the fight (the shooter and the person attacking him).
That's hardly the kind of "mass shooting" that you were hoping for Sugetsu.
Also, according to Lone Star's website they prohibit anyone from "knowingly, intentionally or recklessly" setting foot on school property with a firearm.
It is a "Gun Free Zone."

You need to stop trying to hide behind the second amendment excuse, nobody is taking your right to bear arms. You need to start taking responsibility as a citizen of this country and understand that society is interconnected and special measures won't be put in place to suit your fancy. Laws are made for everyone. I get it, owning a gun gives a sense of power, it is an ego booster, but you don't need to carry guns with a lot of fire power to go hunting or defend yourself at home unless you are fighting a war.

Open your eyes and see that all you are doing is defend the interest of the of the gun industry, which is the 2 second most profitable trade in the world. It all boils to money.

PS. Yeah... It sucks for me and my evil wishes that there wasn't a bigger tragedy in Texas. Fortunately, for me and my evil socialist ways, given the level of stupidity and the number of high powered guns flowing around the country another tragedy is bound to happen.

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Now here's an interesting idea on the mass/school shooting problem:



http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...chool-shooters

Of course. Who'd be willing to pay for that?

And of course it will conceal the shooter from first responders too.
And no law biding CCW person would dare carry their weapon in a gun free zone either, that would be breaking the law!

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

So, on that note, to anyone who said there's no such thing as "military grade", that's BS.

If you're talking about railguns? sure.

If you're talking about conventional semi-auto firearm? no there isn't.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

And of course it will conceal the shooter from first responders too.

First responders need Ninja training -- as they are capable of navigating through that.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

You need to stop trying to hide behind the second amendment excuse, nobody is taking your right to bear arms. You need to start taking responsibility as a citizen of this country and understand that society is interconnected and special measures won't be put in place to suit your fancy. Laws are made for everyone. I get it, owning a gun gives a sense of power, it is an ego booster, but you don't need to carry guns with a lot of fire power to go hunting or defend yourself at home unless you are fighting a war.

Open your eyes and see that all you are doing is defend the interest of the of the gun industry, which is the 2 second most profitable trade in the world. It all boils to money.

PS. Yeah... It sucks for me and my evil wishes that there wasn't a bigger tragedy in Texas. Fortunately, for me and my evil socialist ways, given the level of stupidity and the number of high powered guns flowing around the country another tragedy is bound to happen.

It's not about boosting my ego... it's about not being killed. I live in a shitty neighborhood because I'm poor. I can't afford to live in a safe place where the police respond quickly to emergencies.

I can't carry a gun in CA, though, so I have to basically only go outside during the day. If I'm out somewhere late at night, I get pretty worried. Late at night I hear gunshots and glass breaking outside, nearby, on a fairly regular basis.

I'm flexible and open-minded. If someone can point me toward a method of self-defense that works better than a gun, I'll gladly take it. Personally I'd rather just have some way to be immune to bullets, then I wouldn't have to worry about being killed or being forced to kill someone else to avoid being killed myself. But such a thing doesn't exist.

I oppose the obvious gun control laws not because I think they're going to ban guns, but because I think they're stupid and they don't work. I don't think banning high-capacity magazines will do anything. I don't think banning folding stocks will do anything. I don't think banning bayonet lugs or flash suppressors will do anything. This will not stop violence--it will have virtually no effect.

I don't give two shits about the Second Amendment, personally. I really don't. I just would prefer to live my life without being killed, robbed or raped at gunpoint. If that means keeping a gun, so I can at least fight back if I'm attacked, then that's what I want to do.

[Vexx]

And that's the sort of argument Sugetsu tends to ignore because it doesn't fit her mental narrative about anyone who disagrees with her. The sweeping snotty comments about "ego boosting" and other nonsense that implies someone lives in a nice safe location to make pronouncements.

Sorry but that just made it hard to be nice about it when someone thinks personal dismissal wins points.

[Kyuu]

And for more humor:

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by Vexx

The sweeping snotty comments about "ego boosting" and other nonsense that implies someone lives in a nice safe location to make pronouncements.

Thing is: does any of that fall under false representation?

The most difficult thing about people with a problem -- it's admitting that they have a problem in the first place. When it comes to guns, there exists some kind of "gun addiction" tied to the gun culture.

If I'm wrong, then I better take another look at the nature of addiction. For the most part, I am correct as there exists the classic response to the object of addiction being taken away from them. Infuse the notion that guns are being taken away. People of gun addiction react to that.

And the funniest fact about that -- guns are not being taken away.

By the way, I do live in a nice, safe location.

[Vexx]

I won't deny there is a certain percentage for whom the epithets are correct, just as there *are* gun-ban fans that think eliminating all legal guns will fix the problem and view anyone with a gun as crazy. Just as there are "gun nuts" (lets use Ted Nugent as the poster child), there are "anti-gun nuts" who do want to completely disarm the citizenry (which simply won't work -> see Prohibition, see War on Drugs. It is more likely to make the public even more unsafe.).

Painting everyone who owns a gun as some kind of self-stroking ego type is neither a true assessment nor likely to win fans. Human beings have the right to self-defense using the tools of the age. Force equalization is one of the better achievements of the modern age, allowing a small slight person some chance against a larger, stronger person intent on doing violence to them.

Substitute "electricity" for "gun" in the sentence. Are you "addicted" to electricity?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

First responders need Ninja training -- as they are capable of navigating through that.

There is this often-mocked technique taught to special forces nicknamed KIV. When a smoke grenade is thrown, a target is marked and soldier attempts to follow and track it.

Not very useful since it requires one to close in on the target, and without body armour, it is as good as suicide, so mainly it is used for withdrawal by "suppressing " the target's last known position - assuming the person is dumb enough to chase you through the smoke.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

You need to stop trying to hide behind the second amendment excuse, nobody is taking your right to bear arms. You need to start taking responsibility as a citizen of this country and understand that society is interconnected and special measures won't be put in place to suit your fancy. Laws are made for everyone. I get it, owning a gun gives a sense of power, it is an ego booster, but you don't need to carry guns with a lot of fire power to go hunting or defend yourself at home unless you are fighting a war.

Excuse? I didn't realize the Constitution, also known as the highest law in the land, was an excuse, and one of the duties of the citizens is to understand and uphold the principles of what it stands for. And society is interconnected, which means that we do not impose ourselves on certain subsections over the population.

It's fine if you seek to amend it, but please, you don't seem to understand this country's laws at all.

PS. Yeah... It sucks for me and my evil wishes that there wasn't a bigger tragedy in Texas. Fortunately, for me and my evil socialist ways, given the level of stupidity and the number of high powered guns flowing around the country another tragedy is bound to happen.

You are giving Socialism a bad name; what does have to do with that at all-- I really doubt you understand that as well. Since even as a joke, the idea that you wish for something like that just to prove yourself right doesn't reflect well on you either. I would be more inclined to oppose that line of thought, for I find it extremely dangerous.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

You need to stop trying to hide behind the second amendment excuse, nobody is taking your right to bear arms. You need to start taking responsibility as a citizen of this country and understand that society is interconnected and special measures won't be put in place to suit your fancy. Laws are made for everyone. I get it, owning a gun gives a sense of power, it is an ego booster, but you don't need to carry guns with a lot of fire power to go hunting or defend yourself at home unless you are fighting a war.

Defending our unalienable rights is not even remotely hiding, Sugetsu.
Meeting your obligation to train (self-regulate in 18th century terminology) is taking responsibility as a citizen of this country.
As I've said repeatedly, I don't think training should be optional, I think it should be mandatory for anyone ages 17-45.
In fact I'd go one step further and push John F Kennedy's idea of mandatory ownership of a firearm if you are a male citizen age 17-45 and are able bodied, because you have an obligation to this country as a member of the militia.
JFK's exact quote was as follows:

“Today we need a nation of Minute Men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort.” – John Kennedy January 29, 1961

And another prior to that in 1960:



Your gross mischaracterization of those of us who wish to preserve our freedoms shows the weakness of your position.
The fact that you view arms as some sort of "ego trip", "symbol of power", or other nonsense shows your total lack of understanding of the responsibility of choosing to own a firearm.
It is that kind of lack of integrity with regards to this issue that has allowed the level of infringement of our basic human right to self defense that currently exists in the US.
Hunting and sport shooting have absolutely nothing to do with the right to own military arms as I've already proven in this thread.
That argument is over, moot, finished, fini.
We do not have a "bill of needs" we have a "bill of rights" and I caution you about this path you and your fellow gun control advocates are treading down.
This kind of "who needs this" argument can be easily applied to abortion, marriage, and other issues that you may hold dear.
It is for this reason that classical liberals and libertarians like myself oppose any form of prohibition on these things.
Freedom isn't about picking and choosing which ones you want to keep and which ones you want to do away with.
Freedom is about being responsible for your own life and by extension actions.
Therefore, it is reprehensible to someone like me to punish 80-100,000,000+ people who own firearms for the actions a less than 200 people over a 100 year period.
That isn't reasonable, that's persecution if you want to get right down to it since these bans harrass, punish, and intimidate anyone not wiling to give up their rights to make a minority feel safer.

Open your eyes and see that all you are doing is defend the interest of the of the gun industry, which is the 2 second most profitable trade in the world. It all boils to money.

Why don't you?
You are so close minded on this issue that you don't even realize the same President who claims to want to "save just one life" pushed for increased arms sales exports to Saudi Arabia and other countries in 2011.
Mr. "we need to protect our children" authorized UAV strikes in Pakistan and Yemen that have reportedly killed between 474-881 innocent civilians including some 176 children (Stanford Law School study).
On top of that, this President's ATF is responsible for Operation Fast & Furious that armed Drug Cartels in Mexico.
In 2010, one such Cartel killed 13 people at a Birthday Party of high school students in Villas de Salvarcar, Ciudad Juarez.
So don't try the guilt card on me, because it doesn't work.
This administration and this President have a lot of innocent blood on their hands already.
I'm not so blinded by the media as to believe for one minute they aren't interested in confiscating firearms for their own agenda.

PS. Yeah... It sucks for me and my evil wishes that there wasn't a bigger tragedy in Texas. Fortunately, for me and my evil socialist ways, given the level of stupidity and the number of high powered guns flowing around the country another tragedy is bound to happen.

I'm glad you admit your bloodthirsty ways Emperor Palpatine.

Define a "high powered" gun, because I'm willing to bet you don't know what one actually is...hint, an AR-15 is not high-powered.