2012-07-24, 23:54 | Link #1 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread
Because moderator CrowKenobi requested we start a new thread about the effect of the shooting in Colorado on gun control, I am starting this thread.
We don't need to clutter the gun-thread with this discussion since that thread is used mostly by gun-enthusiasts and might degenerate into a flame war. Continued from the Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater Shooting (July 20, 2012) : Oh yes you are, you fibber.. Quote:
Because the founding fathers were too stupid to foresee multishot snaplock revolvers of the 1400s being improved as science advanced. That one is an 8-shot .63 caliber by the way. Or maybe you were thinking of the Puckle gun of the 1600s that had a 64 shot drum magazine. See Sugetsu, the fact is Handgun Control, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Shumer, all the hoplophobes have one thing in common, they don't know the real history and/or truth about firearms and they don't care. They have an agenda of disarmament and they're sticking to it no matter how much they have to lie to do so. Quote:
I think Aristotle said it best: "Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
__________________
|
||
2012-07-25, 00:11 | Link #4 | |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 47
|
Quote:
THe short range is an advantage as shooting into the air to take out a bird won't land on someone's head a mile or two away. For home defense it have advantages. One you don't have to aim as carefully. Two, if it is a pump action shotgun, just working the action can be enough to scare an intruder away as most people have head that sound before. Third, the blast won't generally go through your walls and accidently kill your neighbor.
__________________
|
|
2012-07-25, 00:14 | Link #5 | ||
Kurumada's lost child
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
You seem to be quite knowledgeable about guns, so I am sure I'll learn a lot from you. I am not against banning guns all together!. In fact, I believe they are actually useful for the following reasons:
- Self defense, which translates into saving your life or the life of your loved ones. - Hunting, because killing ducks, deer and rabbits with your bare hands is kinda hard That being said, I don't think shotguns and "maybe" (my knowledge on guns is very limited) semi automatic weapons are practical for these purposes. Automatic guns, bazookas and rocket launchers are obviously over kill. Why are shotguns effective for hunting and self defense? Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't shotguns low on range? Wouldn't a manual rifle be more effective with its long range to hunt fast moving targets? Why would you want a shotgun for self defense? If you fire it at close range it deemed to cause massive damage and it is most likely to kill than to injure? Unless your idea of self defense is to kill the person attacking you. They are also hard to conceal, so what self defense purposes can they serve to a lady walking down a dark alley all by herself? I realize I don't know about semi automatic weapons, as long as they comply with regulations I don't see any harm in them. I am under they impression that they can be reloaded very quickly and can fire many rounds at once though. But again, how does my knowledge of weaponry, or lack thereof, be in conflict with the regulations I outlined? If I were the law maker drafting the law and if I gun expert tells me that some kind of semi automatic weapons can be safely made public because they comply with the self defense and hunting premises, then I would have no problem agreeing with him. Again, I don't need to be gun savvy to realize that many weapons are overkill for self defense and hunting purposes and need to be taken off the shelves. Hell, if you are a gun guru and can prove to me that certain machine guns are perfectly fine for personal use then I would agree with you. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2012-07-25, 00:43 | Link #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
That being said, if a person really wants to kill someone, they will kill them (or at least try to kill them). The presence of guns may make the possibility of murder easier, but the underlying motivation is not created by the culture of guns that America possesses. Truthfully, I think the underlying question of this thread should be: Do Guns really protect people? Last edited by james0246; 2012-07-25 at 00:58. |
|
2012-07-25, 01:00 | Link #7 |
一刀繚乱
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: アッバス
Age: 33
|
Actually, for me, it ultimately comes down to 'Is the gun the dangerous thing, or the one wielding it'. A gun is not a living thing. It's designed not to shoot on its own unless it's an accidental discharge when somebody forgets to turn the safety on. I'm not against gun rules since my country forbids them for civilian use, so I don't have the experience of a gun culture, but the culture is nothing compared to the people wielding them.
__________________
|
2012-07-25, 01:11 | Link #8 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
If you are between the ages of 17 and 45 you have an obligation under the "Dick Act of 1903" to train with military arms of your era so that you are "regulated" as a member of the unorganized militia. There in lies the problem, as James said, we shouldn't be debating whether or not guns are legal or illegal, we should be debating whether or not training should be mandatory or not. I say it should be. The Department of Civilian Marksmanship was created to force young men (in high school) to become proficient in the use of military arms for the benefit of the Federal Government. That should never have ended. Quote:
What weapons are best to meet the requirements of Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution? That section states that the militia is used to "put down insurrections, repel invasions, and uphold the laws of the union." Okay, can a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon be used for any of those effectively. Answer, no. Can a tank, jet fighter, or warship be used effectively for those missions? NO. Can a machine gun, rocket launcher, or grenades be used for those missions effectively. Machine gun...maybe for repelling invasions but not the other two (which is why SWAT teams SHOULD NOT have machine guns, yet they do). Can a real assault rifle be used for those (i.e. select-fire, semi-auto/auto-loading and full-auto/machine gun)? Yes, a real assault rifle would be useful for all three missions and is better suited to those missions than a field-rifle/GPMG or heavy machine gun. Rocket launchers, good for invasions, but not the other two missions. Grenades: tear and smoke yes, frag, or incendiary? NO way. Also in US verses Miller the SCOTUS determined that "hunting guns" are not protected by the 2nd Amendment and my opinion is based on their decision which was as follows: The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion. 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. Quote:
Shotguns are a food hunting weapon. Sadly they are also an excellent people hunting weapon as James Holmes proved in Aurora. Quote:
Shotgun slugs are best for home defense since they don't scatter and damage to your stuff is limited. They have more knock-down power than a pistol, but lack the penetration of a rifle. Quote:
The 2nd amendment exists for the benefit of the people (as a last defense against tyranny) and as a last defense for the Federal Government (in the form of Article 1 Section 8). Semi-automatic weapons ARE militia weapons which is why military forces no longer use them. A semi-automatic miltiary rifle is sometimes refered to as a battle rifle and while bolt-actions are also classified that way, semi-autos are best described this way. Quote:
The reasons for these weapons in the hands of citizens is because under the US constitution there are no civilians in the US. We are all supposed to be citizen-soldiers. Quote:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it." So yes, they want ALL guns banned, which by it's very nature is an anti-government sentiment since our government benefits from having an armed population. [/QUOTE] @James Do guns actually protect people? Yes they do: There are many more like her, but the media ignores most of the stories (except local media) because it doesn't fit the narrative they want.
__________________
|
|||||||
2012-07-25, 01:11 | Link #9 | |||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
The vast majority of all firearms are at least semi-auto, the only exceptions are some shotguns, revolvers, and hunting rifles. Quote:
As for self-defense, shotguns are ideal for home-defense because the relative wide spread does not demand as much precision from the operator, the low penetrating power means you won't have to worry about bullets penetrating the wall and hit someone unintentionally, like your family or your neighbor, and it packs a whole lot of stopping power while doing so. Quote:
Also, when you're using a firearm in self defense situations, your only goal is to stop/incapacitate your attacker. Whether your attacker lives or dies is not, and should not be a part of your decision making process at this point - If you're not ready to shoot to kill, then don't bring out the weapon at all, as that only serves as an escalation of force (ie. the attacker see you pull a gun, and decided to pull his too, except while he's ready to use his, you're not willing to pull the trigger). Quote:
Quote:
A firearm is both less, and more deadly than you realize. A tiny .22 peashooter can kill a human with one shot if it hits the right spot, yet there are plenty of examples of criminals who did not go down even after taking dozens or more pistol rounds in them. |
|||||
2012-07-25, 01:36 | Link #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 38
|
I regularly visit MediaMatters.org, a progressive media watchdog site. They had this article pertaining to John Lott, who they called a "discredited gun researcher", for falsehoods he made on CNN about gun violence in the aftermath of the shootings: clicky clicky
So is their analysis flawed or what? I'm asking because I'm no expert on guns and I don't want to get my head cut off because the issue is sensitive to many and can cause knee-jerk responses. Also, what sites do you recommend for accurate and reliable information on gun laws and gun violence in the U.S? I don't really care if they're partisan, (MediaMatters is openly liberal) as long as they're right. |
2012-07-25, 01:45 | Link #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
That MediaMatters article is flawed BTW, and here is why. It is working from the premise that gun ownership is the reason for violence in the US and the high murder rate. It isn't as evidenced by Switzerland having mandatory ownership of actual military assault rifles and having one of the lowest murder rates in the world. So what's the difference between the Switzerland and the US? Gangs. We've got far more drug gangs than most any other civilized country in the world. This is also why Mexico is a war zone (which mangamuscle can attest to I'm sure). Gang violence accounts (depending on the study) for 38-43% of all gun-related homicides in the US. Stop the gangs and you stop the violence. http://health.usnews.com/health-news...oung-males-cdc
__________________
Last edited by GundamFan0083; 2012-07-25 at 01:59. |
|
2012-07-25, 02:26 | Link #12 |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
@ sikvod00
It also annoys me to no end when they continue to refer to the AR15 as an "assault weapon". It is not, and will never be considered an assault weapon by anyone who actually knows what the term means. The M16s and M4s with burst fire mode that we use in the military is an assault weapon, civilian AR15s with only semi-automatic fire mode is NOT an assault weapon. The media's classification is so broad and worthless they'll probably classify our bayonets as "assault knifes". The main issue with that MediaMatters article is that it uses correlation as causation, while discarding every other factor that influences violent crime rate while concentrating solely on number of gun ownership. Social-economic issues is the main driver behind violent crime rates. Will greater availability of firearms lead to more gun-homicides in a violent-prone nation? absolutely, as it is the most efficient tool for the purpose. That being said, if you ban guns in the same nation, will it reduces the number of gun-homicies? probably. But will it reduces the total number of homicides? not likely. People who are driven to kill will continue to do so, whether by illegal firearms or other tools and instrumentation. Humans have been killing each other since the stone age, did guns cause the cavemen to kill each other? |
2012-07-25, 03:25 | Link #13 |
Onani Master
|
I'm a big shooter and I can't get enough trigger time to satisfy my needs but personally I don't see why civilians need semi-automatic centre fire rifles. Rimfires I can see them being a little bit of fun but from the hunting perspective if you can't drop or even hit your target with the first round, go home.
But the on the subject of complete gun control I always liked that NRA poster, "free men own firearms, slaves don't" or similarly quoted.
__________________
|
2012-07-25, 04:39 | Link #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
If you remove gangs, gun violence will certainly drop, but gangs are a symptom of larger social issues which still create a fertile soil for gun violence. Also drugs and alcohol abuse in any part of society make a dangerous combination with gun access. |
|
2012-07-25, 07:19 | Link #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
That's kind of a backwards argument. You're more or less saying that guns are bad and dangerous, so everyone should have one. Additionally, the 2nd amendment is not really about personal safety against thugs, ruffians, ne'er-do-wells and singular or small groups of monsters. The 2nd Amendment is about stocking and supporting a well-trained militia. |
|
2012-07-25, 07:32 | Link #17 |
Banned
|
In general, guns has one purpose, that is to kill. Yes, you protect yourself when you have a gun. But having a gun requires a high responsibility.
How many times have I heard and watched on TV, child killed his playmate with a gun, son killed his parents with a gun, guy killed girlfriend with a gun, funny that the shooter either owns the gun or he's parents do. Guns are for law enforcers to use and not civilians. Guns mentally has a hidden effects to its user, the feeling of having power and superiority. They scare people they have grudge with, with a gun... they either just point or just pull the trigger, "who cares, no one's here except us?" The lack of security causes these people to arm themselves or that what they insist. Guns should be banned if necessary to protect ourselves and our family not only from the criminals but from ourselves... when we go out of our mind that is... |
2012-07-25, 07:45 | Link #18 | ||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
And even if you could, I still don't think it's a good idea. As I said, it's big equalizer, and it allows those who choose to do so the ability to protect themselves. Quote:
Maybe sometime in the future the SCOTUS will re-interpret the 2nd Amendment again, and maybe Congress and the States will ratify another amendment to alter it, but until then, the whole militia thing is irrelevant. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've yet to see anyone who can explain how banning guns will keep them out of the hands of criminals. Also, if you need the government to ban guns to protect you from yourself... you've got way bigger issues, especially since it won't protect you from yourself anyway, 'cause you're still crazy. Last edited by james0246; 2012-07-25 at 08:48. Reason: double post... |
||||||
2012-07-25, 08:06 | Link #19 | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
2012-07-25, 08:22 | Link #20 | |||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yea, we should all so be proud to still be British Quote:
The fact of the matter is that banning gun in the hope of getting rid of violent crimes is about as naive and will work about as well as if a country decide to unilaterally disarm itself and expect world peace to follow. You're doing nothing other than tackling one of the symptoms instead of the core problems while burying your head in the sand. Also, I like how you just ignored and skirted around all the points I made If you want to have an actual intelligent debate on the issue, at least have the courtesy to actually respond to the counter points the other side is making. |
|||
|
|