General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

That is the fear in the gun owning crowd and one of the reasons some of them hold on to the 2nd Ammendment. They see an armed civilian population as the first defense against tyranny at home, as it makes sure the government knows that if they push the civilians (militia) can push back.

I'm not saying we should ban all guns and such, but I always found this whole thing (what you are talking about) to be so comical. Yeah, we'll stand up to the mightiest military in the world just fine. A rifle will do someone so much good when the government carpet bombs their cul-de-sac.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Part of the problem is that American culture is ill and troubled. The Colorado shooting, this Newtown shooting, yeah, American culture is ill and troubled. This illness is multifaceted.

There are many things that make America ill. You wanna know what is one way in which America is ill? We are infatuated with guns! Why, why are we like this? Of course not all of us are, but plenty of Americans just love their guns. America has a love affair with guns, so is it any surprise that we have out of control gun violence.

I agree that America is ill.
I don't agree that the gun itelf is the problem, nor ownership.
The problem is the public perception of guns being something other than a tool.
They view it as a status symbol, or a symbol of power/strength, and that is a problem.
I view it as a burden/responsibility that comes with being a US citizen who is bound by the constitution to own arms, train in their use, and be ready if congress calls us into service (via a draft).
Maybe reinstitution of the draft isn't such a bad idea?
Mandatory military service is done in many other countries of the world.
Perhaps that's the problem in the US?

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

It's also important to note that the function of the police is not to protect you. It is to investigate crime. The police are not your personal bodyguards and they never will be.

Of course, if they can help, they will, but their primary function is to investigate crime. If you don't want to fall victim, you have to protect yourself. I do this on a daily basis. There are parts of the city I actively avoid, parts of the city I won't go after dark, and if I have to go out somewhere after 11PM, I don't ever go alone.

Here is the SCOTUS case that supports that position.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I would argue that the infatuation is with violence rather than guns. The gun has always been a part of the American culture, yet it really isn't until recent history that these type of incidents starts to get out of control.

Good point. America has a history of violence and is infatuated with violence. I guess it is this combined with the wide availability of guns that has just been a recipe for disaster. It is like giving a bunch of arsonists a bunch of lighters and matches.

[Ithekro]

They also know if they start carpet bombing cul-de-sacs they will have worse problems than just civilians armed with pistols and rifles. That is the point were at least part of the military changes sides because these are their own families being bombed. Possibly one of the benefits of an all voluteer military that is sworn to protect the Constitution first, the ones issuing orders from Washington afterwords.

And the use of the military against civilians within US borders is against the Constitution. If it is a rebellion, than we'd already have the military splitting between the two sides just like we had the last time it happened (1861).

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

I'm not saying we should ban all guns and such, but I always found this whole thing (what you are talking about) to be so comical. Yeah, we'll stand up to the mightiest military in the world just fine. A rifle will do someone so much good when the government carpet bombs their cul-de-sac.

Please do not talk as if the military is some monolithic entity that would do anything and everything, least of all an all-volunteer force like in the US. Good luck trying to find a pilot that would have no problem carpet bombing US cities, at least I haven't run into any in nearly 10 years in the military.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

I'm not saying we should ban all guns and such, but I always found this whole thing (what you are talking about) to be so comical. Yeah, we'll stand up to the mightiest military in the world just fine. A rifle will do someone so much good when the government carpet bombs their cul-de-sac.

Urzu, I know you don't like violence, but a rifle is a means to acquire a rocket-launcher, grenades, and other heavy weapons from miltiary forces.

This is what happened to the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan, it is what is happening to our forces there as well (to a lesser extent).
Thus, the right to keep and bear arms is simply a sort of "first-line" defense and/or means of allowing the citizens the time to "acquire" other arms from regular forces.
That's assuming the US military would even go along with it (an attack on their own people), which I highly doubt.

[synaesthetic]

The military would split if there was a rebellion or civil war (again). They split last time. Soldiers aren't robots controlled by their political overlords, you know. They are humans like anyone else.

When the drones start replacing soldiers en masse, that's when you can start worrying.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I agree that America is ill.
I don't agree that the gun itelf is the problem, nor ownership.
The problem is the public perception of guns being something other than a tool.
They view it as a status symbol, or a symbol of power/strength, and that is a problem.
I view it as a burden/responsibility that comes with being a US citizen who is bound by the constitution to own arms, train in their use, and be ready if congress calls us into service (via a draft).
Maybe reinstitution of the draft isn't such a bad idea?
Mandatory military service is done in many other countries of the world.
Perhaps that's the problem in the US?

People at this forum were telling of some things that were some really good ideas. Form local militias all around the country. These militias could be great in emergency situations (as a bonus, it could give some citizens skills that they could use if they ever join the military or police force). Of course, they'd be trained in some firearms. Have people who go to get firearms be required to take responsibility and ethics courses, centered around gun owners (themselves) and guns. Also, maybe it'd be a good idea to not only to background checks/check mental health records on people who want to get guns, but also to keep tabs on gun owners. Maybe every year, they have to retake those courses I mentioned, something to that effect.

[Ithekro]

The drones, if I understand correctly, are still remote controlled by a human.

[synaesthetic]

My biggest problem with further restricting gun ownership is that the rules will only apply to poor people and the middle class. People with lots of money will just buy their way to gun ownership.

So draconian, very restrictive gun control--even outright bans--will only restrict ownership from people who are not rich.

In California, obtaining a concealed carry permit is very, very difficult. It takes a long time to process all the paperwork and even if you get approved, you'll be waiting for a long time before you can carry. Assuming you even get approved, which is unlikely.

This difficulty is null and void if you have lots and lots of money.

[Ithekro]

Feinstein has a concealed carry permit (or at least she did back in the 1990s).

Several of us have tried to vote her out of office since the late 1990s. No luck as of yet. I seem to recall some people in San Francisco don't care for her all that much either.

[synaesthetic]

Isn't she trying to get the assault weapon ban reintroduced?

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[Ithekro]

She was one of the ones would put the original one in place in 1994.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_Control,_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...lt_Weapons_Ban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent...nforcement_Act

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Also, maybe it'd be a good idea to not only to background checks/check mental health records on people who want to get guns, but also to keep tabs on gun owners. Maybe every year, they have to retake those courses I mentioned, something to that effect.

That's the bit which is indicated in the Japanese constitution for everyone owning or having access to a gun, one of the most important elements for civilians, military and police officers in Japan before they can even touch a gun. The procedure leading to own or be qualified in using a gun has to be a very lengthy one, and a huge lot of background checks have to be made in order to grant ownership.

What that would mean is that LE units would keep records on everyone asking for gun ownership, which is a good thing in itself. Unfortunately, there are some Americans who are so aversive to police and anything related to the government to even accept submitting themselves to such procedures. That's why I think the solution itself has to be more radical considering how radical and dangerous those "rebels" (can't find a better term, so enlighten me plz) already are.

[Traece]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Good point. America has a history of violence and is infatuated with violence. I guess it is this combined with the wide availability of guns that has just been a recipe for disaster. It is like giving a bunch of arsonists a bunch of lighters and matches.

I'm sorry but I have to reality check this.

The world has a history of violence and is infatuated with violence. I guess it is this combined with the wide availability of absolutely anything and everything that has just been a recipe for disaster.

The worst events, the biggest loss of human life and property destruction, DID NOT happen in the United States. In fact, the worst I've ever heard as far as a school-related event was some 200+ people dead in Russia.

Many of you don't seem to understand that these are not local events. This happens elsewhere in the world just as often and in a myriad of different ways. Bombs are just as common if not more so than guns. This will continue to be an issue until people realize that preventing these disasters before they happen is the only proper way to handle them.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

What do you want to do? Imprison everyone with those mental ailments?

Originally Posted by PzIVf3

There are many depression and mental disorder in the America even the strict gun control doesnt solve anything they eventually use in other method to sort out their anger.

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

Imprison them and give them each a gun and let's see the result in 1 minute... That way guns will be more helpful..

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Depending to what you put into yout list of mental aliments, of how loose the criteria are, you might end up with a rather large portion of the population into thoses jail of yours.

But then again there ''Jail for profit'' in the US so...

There was a time when the insane were committed to institutions in order to prevent them from harming themselves and others. Guess what... that is now sooo out of fashion (according to... liberals). The insane have the right to roam free, and refuse to take their meds if they don't like the way it makes them feel. At least 9 out of every 10 of the spree shooters in the last 3-4 decades had already been either diagnosed and was being treated, or was known to have psychotic and/or sociopathic tendencies, long before they went on their spree.

Much like the rights of criminals far outweigh the rights of their law abiding victims, the rights of the insane far outweigh the rights of their normal victims.

The insane are no more likely to obey the law and not purchase weapons than criminals are.

Killing children, or for that matter, spree killing of any group, pretty much requires a certain serious level of insanity. The insane have little or no regard for God or insanity.


I would like to credit the following for the current situation the U.S. is now in when it comes to unfortunate events as seen last week:

Hollywood
The movie "One flew over the coocoo's nest" really put the pressure on states to deinstitutionalize and poisoned public opinion on the mental health profession.

ACLU
Thanks to the ACLU you can't simply lock up anyone because they're crazy. They have to be adjudicated in a court... complete with a defense lawyer to protect the "rights" of the loon. The finding has to be made that the person is CLEARLY, and this means practically beyond any reasonable doubt, a danger to themselves or another. This also is not permanent should you succeed in getting said loon committed. They will be evaluated periodically for release in the fervent hope that they will continue to voluntarily take all of their meds and behave.

... and ACLU again
I remember afew years ago the ACLU was fighting for the the right of the mentally ill to own firearms (!!!)

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

Unfortunately, there are some Americans who are so aversive to police and anything related to the government to even accept submitting themselves to such procedures. That's why I think the solution itself has to be more radical considering how radical and dangerous those "rebels" (can't find a better term, so enlighten me plz) already are.

Continued stereotyping and generalizations adds nothing of value to the debate, nor would thinly-veiled name-calling.

Like it or not, the circumstances around the US's founding has led to a mindset that's against needless government intrusion. What a citizen of another nation may cast away without a second thought, someone in the US will balk at the mere mentioning of it. This extends to local law enforcement agencies as well, in some cases quite deservedly so.

And this is coming from someone who's very much pro-LE, you wouldn't want to hear the stuff the anti-LE crowd says about police.

Originally Posted by Traece

The worst events, the biggest loss of human life and property destruction, DID NOT happen in the United States. In fact, the worst I've ever heard as far as a school-related event was some 200+ people dead in Russia.

It's just easier to bash the US, nobody else's **** stinks

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Continued stereotyping and generalizations adds nothing of value to the debate, nor would thinly-veiled name-calling.

Like it or not, the circumstances around the US's founding has led to a mindset that's against needless government intrusion. What a citizen of another nation may cast away without a second thought, someone in the US will balk at the mere mentioning of it. This extends to local law enforcement agencies as well, in some cases quite deservedly so.

I'm merely stating the facts I've seen in several documentaries related to gun mentality in the US. Don't blame me when I look at those answering in front of the camera.

Part of the problem resides in how some people take the Constitution as the second coming of the Bible. If it wasn't for that, it shouldn't be difficult for a set of laws written by man to adapt itself with its time when assemblies should work on adapting the laws so they would protect the people from what is deemed wrong (including LE zealotry) at a given time.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

I'm merely stating the facts I've seen in several documentaries related to gun mentality in the US. Don't blame me when I look at those answering in front of the camera.

Really? this is what you form you opinions and plans around? especially when these days "documentaries" for the most part are little more than glorified op-eds with a clear agenda to push (and this goes for both sides).

And who else but you can I direct my rebuttal? wherever you may have sourced your information from, you're the one presenting them here.

Part of the problem resides in how some people take the Constitution as the second coming of the Bible. If it wasn't for that, it shouldn't be difficult for a set of laws written by man to adapt itself with its time when assemblies should work on adapting the laws so they would protect the people from what is deemed wrong (including LE zealotry) at a given time.

This is blatantly false. You're talking as if the Constitution is a document that cannot be changed. It can, and it has, 17 times as a matter of fact. If enough people wanted to abolish the 2nd amendment, it can be done.

You're literally saying "geez, if everyone agreed with what I think is best, then we wouldn't have had any problem doing what I think is best!"

It's not democracy if you simply disregard the opinions of everyone who disagrees with you.

[Ithekro]

The paranoia about government and police can also be traced in some respects to Hollywood. There were a lot....a whole lot, of anti-government films and films about the government becoming oppressive police states and the like since the 1960s and into the 1980s...especially around concepts like "1984". There were also TV shows about controlling governments and out of control government agencies ("The Prisoner" comes to mind). Be it the President, the CIA, FBI, or any number of departments that might have an agenda for something.

A lot of these have also lead to a fear of government. It might just be entertainment, but authors like sending out messages for the readers to ponder. Sometimes they are correct and other times they are just out there.