PDA

View Full Version : An article on gun laws



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Roam
July 23 2012, 09:23:57 AM
In before the lock and all that, but after the raging discussion we had about this, there was one specific article that I wanted to share with Nicho, Jason, Frug, elmicker, Fenrial, Ophichius etc etc. So mods, before you lock this: I'd like to argue that the inherent intent of a forum is to be able to share information with your fellow forumites, and that's exactly what I'm doing. If it gets out of hand, by all means lock it.

Anyway, I've been reading a lot of articles from both sides of the debate, and this one is so far the most balanced and eloquent one I've read, so I wanted to share it.

Link here (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht)

Copy paste of entire article:

I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
"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."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"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."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill - people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes --- a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Finally, Tl;dr for those not inclined to read it before knowing the general gist:
-Focus on constitution, and how it's being misused by people who didn't actually read that the second amendment clearly specifies the right to bear arms "while in a well regulated Militia".
-Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.
-Why the argument "this wouldn't have happened if someone in the theater had a gun" is ludicrous and offensive to the victims
-Why even a simple compromise of at least letting it be regulated (instead of denying people the right to bear arms) might have prevented this because somebody buying 5 guns, 6000+ rounds of ammo and full body kevlar would have shown up as being highly irregular and suspicious.

Anyway, I just wanted to share this. Hopefully some people might find it an interesting article.

Chakrai
July 23 2012, 09:38:09 AM
This thread would never have happened if you had a gun.

evil edna
July 23 2012, 09:46:04 AM
nah you could post on your phone while shooting up a school these days

: progress:

Cortess
July 23 2012, 10:00:44 AM
Guns are fine, people are not.

So don't give guns to people.

Me
July 23 2012, 10:22:55 AM
Guns don't kill people, Jaws kills people.

http://i564.photobucket.com/albums/ss90/captain_kerker/Guns_Don_t_Kill_People.jpg

Smuggo
July 23 2012, 10:49:56 AM
-Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.


I'd say hanguns are just as bad.

In the UK, since we banned handguns following the Dunblane massacre, we basically have a policy that people would never own a gun for the purpose of firing it at a person or as a form of defence unless they're police/army. Guns are generally owned by people in rural areas for shooting animals, which is how it should be.

If Americans want evidence of why their gun laws are stupid you just have to look at many nations with very tightly regulated gun ownership to see that we have far fewer incidences of this kind.

Ralara
July 23 2012, 11:01:34 AM
-Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.


I'd say hanguns are just as bad.

In the UK, since we banned handguns following the Dunblane massacre, we basically have a policy that people would never own a gun for the purpose of firing it at a person or as a form of defence unless they're police/army. Guns are generally owned by people in rural areas for shooting animals, which is how it should be.

If Americans want evidence of why their gun laws are stupid you just have to look at many nations with very tightly regulated gun ownership to see that we have far fewer incidences of this kind.

well of course you'll have less gun crime if guns are banned.

But why are guns used for?

to murder people

so...

look at murder rates instead. The gun is a weapon, it doesn't make you kill people. No gun? They'll use a knife.

Smuggo
July 23 2012, 11:17:25 AM
-Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.


I'd say hanguns are just as bad.

In the UK, since we banned handguns following the Dunblane massacre, we basically have a policy that people would never own a gun for the purpose of firing it at a person or as a form of defence unless they're police/army. Guns are generally owned by people in rural areas for shooting animals, which is how it should be.

If Americans want evidence of why their gun laws are stupid you just have to look at many nations with very tightly regulated gun ownership to see that we have far fewer incidences of this kind.

well of course you'll have less gun crime if guns are banned.

But why are guns used for?

to murder people

so...

look at murder rates instead. The gun is a weapon, it doesn't make you kill people. No gun? They'll use a knife.

I'd say it's much harder to kill as many people with a knife before being subdued. The power of gun is many orders of magnitude higher than a knife and its far easier to just lose it for a second with a gun and it will be fatal. Additionally, knives are a common household item that people need so its much less justifiable to prevent their sale, wheras guns are not.

I say this as someone who had a very good friend lose his younger brother to knife crime last year.

Roam
July 23 2012, 11:20:12 AM
You didn't read the article, did you Ralara? ;p

The "If someone wants to kill someone and can't find a gun, they'll use a knife/pickaxe/tomato" argument was discussed already, and is utterly ludicrous. The Denver guy had an assault rifle (that luckily jammed and he couldn't fix it), but resorted to a handgun for the killings. Result? 12 dead. The argument of "he'd have used a knife" doesn't hold up, because it is based on the assumption that the same amount of damage can be done with different equipment.

A guy with an angry disposition and a tomato: No deaths but one high drycleaning bill.
A guy with a knife and no body armour: Maybe one fatality.
A guy with a knife and full kevlar: Maybe a few.
A guy with a handgun and full kevlar: 12 dead.
A guy in full kevlar with a working assault rifle: Look at Breivik. We could have been looking at 5x the amount of fatalities.

Zeekar
July 23 2012, 11:23:05 AM
-Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.


I'd say hanguns are just as bad.

In the UK, since we banned handguns following the Dunblane massacre, we basically have a policy that people would never own a gun for the purpose of firing it at a person or as a form of defence unless they're police/army. Guns are generally owned by people in rural areas for shooting animals, which is how it should be.

If Americans want evidence of why their gun laws are stupid you just have to look at many nations with very tightly regulated gun ownership to see that we have far fewer incidences of this kind.

well of course you'll have less gun crime if guns are banned.

But why are guns used for?

to murder people

so...

look at murder rates instead. The gun is a weapon, it doesn't make you kill people. No gun? They'll use a knife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

Scroll down to homicide rates. As you can see easy access to firearm can be directly linked to higher homicide rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

A more comprehensive list can be found on this page with never statistics but its not differentiated between gun violence and any other violence.

Joshua Foiritain
July 23 2012, 11:41:37 AM
-Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.


I'd say hanguns are just as bad.

In the UK, since we banned handguns following the Dunblane massacre, we basically have a policy that people would never own a gun for the purpose of firing it at a person or as a form of defence unless they're police/army. Guns are generally owned by people in rural areas for shooting animals, which is how it should be.

If Americans want evidence of why their gun laws are stupid you just have to look at many nations with very tightly regulated gun ownership to see that we have far fewer incidences of this kind.

well of course you'll have less gun crime if guns are banned.

But why are guns used for?

to murder people

so...

look at murder rates instead. The gun is a weapon, it doesn't make you kill people. No gun? They'll use a knife.

Murders per 100.00 people with any weapon;
North America
2004: 6.5
2010: 4.7

West and Central Europe
2004: 1.5
2010: 1.2

Most people can barely drive a car or operate an oven, how on earth can it be a good idea to let them use weapons?

Ralara
July 23 2012, 11:46:14 AM
You didn't read the article, did you Ralara? ;p

nope :)


EDIT: oh you're on about mass shootings specifically?

Nordstern
July 23 2012, 11:57:27 AM
If firearms had never reached the point of the self-contained cartridge, I sincerely doubt there would be as much gun violence (or ownership) as today.

You didn't read the article, did you Ralara? ;p

The "If someone wants to kill someone and can't find a gun, they'll use a knife/pickaxe/tomato" argument was discussed already, and is utterly ludicrous. The Denver guy had an assault rifle (that luckily jammed and he couldn't fix it), but resorted to a handgun for the killings. Result? 12 dead. The argument of "he'd have used a knife" doesn't hold up, because it is based on the assumption that the same amount of damage can be done with different equipment.

A guy with an angry disposition and a tomato: No deaths but one high drycleaning bill.
A guy with a knife and no body armour: Maybe one fatality.
A guy with a knife and full kevlar: Maybe a few.
A guy with a handgun and full kevlar: 12 dead.
A guy in full kevlar with a working assault rifle: Look at Breivik. We could have been looking at 5x the amount of fatalities.

More or less. Guns have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 1900 and see how many were killed by firearms.

Roam
July 23 2012, 11:57:54 AM
Can you read it then please? ;p No real point posting in a thread discussing an article when you haven't read said article.

Edit: Aimed at ralara, obv.

Kanv
July 23 2012, 12:00:12 PM
Can you read it then please? ;p No real point posting in a thread discussing an article when you haven't read said article.

Edit: Aimed at ralara, obv.

This issue will be debated, but no one will be listening to facts or the other side

Sparq
July 23 2012, 12:09:51 PM
More or less. Guns have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 1900 and see how many were killed by firearms.More or less. Swords, Bows, Spears, Axes, Poison, etcetera have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 0091 and see how many were killed by Swords, Bows, Spears, Axes, Poison, etcetera.

Ralara
July 23 2012, 12:14:51 PM
Can you read it then please? ;p No real point posting in a thread discussing an article when you haven't read said article.

Edit: Aimed at ralara, obv.

This issue will be debated, but no one will be listening to facts or the other side

im actually an anti-gun advocate btw :D

Smuggo
July 23 2012, 12:16:21 PM
Can you read it then please? ;p No real point posting in a thread discussing an article when you haven't read said article.

Edit: Aimed at ralara, obv.

This issue will be debated, but no one will be listening to facts or the other side

im actually an anti-gun advocate btw :D

Don't you live in the UK gun crime capital?

Fortior
July 23 2012, 12:18:34 PM
More or less. Guns have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 1900 and see how many were killed by firearms.More or less. Swords, Bows, Spears, Axes, Poison, etcetera have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 0091 and see how many were killed by Swords, Bows, Spears, Axes, Poison, etcetera.
Excellent retort sir, you are an inspiration to us all!

(No really, that's a retarded argument.)

Guns are lethal no matter your training. All your other examples require a decent amount of training. Guns have range - swords and axes don't. Bows have range but no rate of fire to speak of - guns have serious rate of fire.

Comparing medieval weapons to moderns weapons is retarded. For instance, how many kids have been killed by accident after they found their dads bow or sword with the safety off?

Ralara
July 23 2012, 12:19:24 PM
Can you read it then please? ;p No real point posting in a thread discussing an article when you haven't read said article.

Edit: Aimed at ralara, obv.

This issue will be debated, but no one will be listening to facts or the other side

im actually an anti-gun advocate btw :D

Don't you live in the UK gun crime capital?

and that makes me pro gun because... ?


actually i dont really care about guns one way or another.

Nordstern
July 23 2012, 12:29:10 PM
More or less. Guns have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 1900 and see how many were killed by firearms.More or less. Swords, Bows, Spears, Axes, Poison, etcetera have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 0091 and see how many were killed by Swords, Bows, Spears, Axes, Poison, etcetera.
1/10, you list no names and the argument was to point out technological changes since the signing of the US Constitution.

Also, when you can shoot multiple arrows per second, let me know.

Smuggo
July 23 2012, 12:34:15 PM
Can you read it then please? ;p No real point posting in a thread discussing an article when you haven't read said article.

Edit: Aimed at ralara, obv.

This issue will be debated, but no one will be listening to facts or the other side

im actually an anti-gun advocate btw :D

Don't you live in the UK gun crime capital?

and that makes me pro gun because... ?


actually i dont really care about guns one way or another.

Not saying it does ralalrlalrlalrla, just asking.

Sparq
July 23 2012, 12:39:43 PM
http://onebit.us/x/i/ccd45ba03e.png

http://onebit.us/x/i/241ba50e14.jpg




More or less. Guns have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 1900 and see how many were killed by firearms.More or less. Swords, Bows, Spears, Axes, Poison, etcetera have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 0091 and see how many were killed by Swords, Bows, Spears, Axes, Poison, etcetera.
Excellent retort sir, you are an inspiration to us all!

(No really, that's a retarded argument.)

Guns are lethal no matter your training. All your other examples require a decent amount of training. Guns have range - swords and axes don't. Bows have range but no rate of fire to speak of - guns have serious rate of fire.

Comparing medieval weapons to moderns weapons is retarded. For instance, how many kids have been killed by accident after they found their dads bow or sword with the safety off?You forgot to address the matter of poison in your rebuke, but I suppose if we continue to ignore the human capacity for violence and place the blame squarely on firearms as the root of evil this "discussion" can proceed merrily along its intended route.



Personally, I'm automatically suspicious of any thread opened as soon as the last was locked, especially for a reason as spurious as "I just want to share this article" - which, I'd like to add, could have easily been done via private message.

Lettuce be cereal, this isn't going to be a discussion about an article, it's going to be a discussion about the subject matter of the article.

Roam
July 23 2012, 12:40:23 PM
Let's try and leave the "Fuck you"'s and stuff till page 3, so the mods have no reason to infract me for making a gun control thread so quickly after the next one.~

That being said, I too agree with the clear fact that medieval weapons are far superior to modern firearms in terms of lethality. It's the reason why in that one french movie where a few medieval guys timetravel to modernity, they subsequently take over the world with the sheer power and magnificence of chainmail and a sword.

On a more serious note, I am looking to understand the opposition's perspective and arguments, which is why I think this can be a good thread and discussion.

In the last thread, we established the following arguments:
1) This wouldn't have happened if everyone had a gun. (disproven, by the simple notion that a pitch black room with reverberating walls, lots of noise, flickering lights, mass hysteria, screaming, panic and uncertainty probably isn't the best place for untrained people to try and fight off a kevlar armoured lunatic)
2) It's our constitutional right to bear arms, and therefore it would be infringing about our freedom (a founding concept for America) to restrict guns. (disproven, unless you are in a "well regulated militia". Constitution says no such thing.)
3) You can't stop madmen if they want to go on a rampage, if he didn't have guns he'd have used a knife (Disproven, because a) it assumes all weapons have equal killing force, which they don't and b) by simple statistics that 95% of gun casualties are not by mad rampaging lunatics but temper incidents that escalated due to presence of a gun and the fact that countries who DO have restrictions available have not even the tiniest fraction of the US's gun homicide figures.)
4) Restricting of Assault Rifles could be seen as a compromise that would benefit everyone, but it isn't really because again it infringes upon constitutional right (Again, disproven, because there is no such constitutional right, and because Assault Rifles are far far more lethal than a common handgun. It's very purpose is nothing more and nothing less than to kill better, and more efficiently.)
5) If guns kill people, spoons made Rosie O'donnel fat and cars kill people. (Logical fallacy, because it chooses to ignore context and simplify an already simplified statement to the point of nonsensical ridiculousness. A spoon of carrots is less likely to make Rosie o'donnel fat than a spoon of Ben and Jerry's. A drunk person riding a bicycle is less likely to kill someone after a collision than the same person driving a tank. In the same trend, a man wielding a tomato with the intent to kill is less likely to be successful than an assault rifle using fully kevlar armored mad man.)

So the above are the 5 most mentioned arguments in the global debate and the last thread. All of them have been disproven, so I'd like to hear from proponents what their current arguments are.

Edit: Sparq, so you are saying that the human capacity for violence will have equal casualties regardless of the tools made available to them, and ignoring the possibility for a) accidents and b) the increase of collateral damage from said accidents with higher lethality of weapons.

If you truly believe that, then why aren't you a proponent for making Tanks or nuclear weaponry accessible to the common people? Why do you draw an arbitrary line at firearms?

ctrlchris
July 23 2012, 12:43:24 PM
http://onebit.us/x/i/7ff5941e7c.jpg

inb4 :lock:

Kransthow
July 23 2012, 12:45:20 PM
-Focus on constitution, and how it's being misused by people who didn't actually read that the second amendment clearly specifies the right to bear arms "while in a well regulated Militia".
http://onebit.us/x/i/10cca71475.png

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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Not the militia, the people.

Why the people? Because the people that wrote this had just been fighting a war for two years against a state militia so they made the possession of firearms a right that the militia could not take away from them so they could revolt again if they needed to.

l2historical context
l2not be bad

I'm not even american and I know this.

Varcaus
July 23 2012, 12:45:31 PM
I like me guns you can get your hands off k thanks.

For those wondering this was not an entirely serious post when I made it.

Sparq
July 23 2012, 12:50:28 PM
Also, when you can shoot multiple arrows per second, let me know.

It's the reason why in that one french movie where a few medieval guys timetravel to modernity, they subsequently take over the world with the sheer power and magnificence of chainmail and a sword.Since Roam has elected to cite film as evidence,

http://onebit.us/x/i/a34667b7cc.jpg

Check.

Roam
July 23 2012, 12:51:14 PM
-Focus on constitution, and how it's being misused by people who didn't actually read that the second amendment clearly specifies the right to bear arms "while in a well regulated Militia".
http://onebit.us/x/i/10cca71475.png

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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Not the militia, the people.

Why the people? Because the people that wrote this had just been fighting a war for two years against a state militia so they made the possession of firearms a right that the militia could not take away from them so they could revolt again if they needed to.

l2historical context
l2not be bad

I'm not even american and I know this.

Actually, if you do your research you'll come to terms with the fact that both interpretations have their proponents and have been verified in the past. The latest interpretation by the Supreme court (somewhere in 2000's) does agree with your statement that it should not be interpreted as only militias, so you're right on that point. However, it has gone back and forth before.

The validity of the second amendment's interpretations aside, there's also of course the simple matter that it was adopted in 1790, when there was no such thing as fully automatic assault rifles with massive killing potential.

Thanks for coming in here just to troll though, because you could have thought of/looked up these things yourself. =\

Nordstern
July 23 2012, 12:55:35 PM
Also, when you can shoot multiple arrows per second, let me know.

It's the reason why in that one french movie where a few medieval guys timetravel to modernity, they subsequently take over the world with the sheer power and magnificence of chainmail and a sword.Since Roam has elected to cite film as evidence,

http://onebit.us/x/i/a34667b7cc.jpg

Check.
Was wondering how long it would take you to do that. Not long at all, apparently! come back to the thread when you've rejoined reality and have a logical argument.

Sparq
July 23 2012, 01:11:49 PM
http://onebit.us/x/i/714becf384.jpg

If you felt so strongly about defending Roam's soap box, Phrixus, why not just post about it?

imo, this thread was predestined to descend into shit. The last one certainly did, but it appears we're obligated to ignore it.

That's my immediate problem with it.

ctrlchris
July 23 2012, 01:17:59 PM
I frequently neg rep people rather then post my disagreement in public.

lubica
July 23 2012, 01:19:20 PM
A thread is only as shit as the posters posting posts in it.

So, hi.

Sparq
July 23 2012, 01:21:02 PM
I frequently neg rep people rather then post my disagreement in public.Well, I'm a bit of a prick sometimes mate.

So, there's that.

Kransthow
July 23 2012, 01:35:04 PM
-Focus on constitution, and how it's being misused by people who didn't actually read that the second amendment clearly specifies the right to bear arms "while in a well regulated Militia".
http://onebit.us/x/i/10cca71475.png

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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Not the militia, the people.

Why the people? Because the people that wrote this had just been fighting a war for two years against a state militia so they made the possession of firearms a right that the militia could not take away from them so they could revolt again if they needed to.

l2historical context
l2not be bad

I'm not even american and I know this.

Actually, if you do your research you'll come to terms with the fact that both interpretations have their proponents and have been verified in the past. The latest interpretation by the Supreme court (somewhere in 2000's) does agree with your statement that it should not be interpreted as only militias, so you're right on that point. However, it has gone back and forth before.

The validity of the second amendment's interpretations aside, there's also of course the simple matter that it was adopted in 1790, when there was no such thing as fully automatic assault rifles with massive killing potential.

Thanks for coming in here just to troll though, because you could have thought of/looked up these things yourself. =\
http://onebit.us/x/i/a9de8e5739.jpg

Yeah it's a statement that can be interpreted in different ways...

So let's interpret it that it means that the militia has a right to bear arms.

This means that after spending two years fighting against the state militia using guns, they win, due to having guns, and then proceed to write a constitutional right saying the state militia has a right to bear arms, and not them, the people, who had just fought against a state militia, USING GUNS. Just be honest, that shit does not make any sense.

Yes, they statement can be interpreted such that it's the militia's right to bear arms. But to do so involves flat out ignoring the historical context in which the statement was made and therefore loses the intention of the right.

And regarding fully automatic assault rifles and the second amendment, seeing as it was to give the people the right to posses weapons with which to be able to revolt against the state militia, it would make sense for the people to have the right to posses weapons equivalent to those that the militia posses.

Nartek
July 23 2012, 01:38:27 PM
I'll just leave this here: It was one of the last posts before the lock in the other thread about this... I wrote it. I live in the UK, and have lived outside of the U.S. since 1996. So educated hate, please.


I'm sick and tired of the double fucking standard around here. You assholes need to seriously stop being such hypocrites.

When this happened:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HZ_9zgUVA-g/Titkeivkx-I/AAAAAAAAKrI/bxFdxjyKN4Y/s1600/Norway%2Bshooting%2Bbodies%2Bby%2Bshoreline.jpg

And the Mayor of Oslo responded with, and I quote...
I donít think security can solve problems. We need to teach greater respect.
We neckbeards and armchair quarterbacks cheered them on. And cheered even louder when Jens Stoltenberg talked about responding to extremism with democracy, openness, and freedom.

However, because this thing happens in "LUL 'MERCA" again, we fucktards and miscreants have the audacity to pull up some standard that is in effect "over here" and we think that it needs to be enforced "over there". Then we fuck off to some other thread where we collectively bitch about America/NATO/Group X trying to apply their standard to some country full of brown people in it.

What the fuck is wrong with all of you? Where has your memory gone? Your internal monologue that is supposed to occur before you press the "submit" key? Does the hate run that deep for an entity that lives, and operates by different rules? Things happen differently in different countries, and they have different customs and practices.

Christ on a cracker, I got more intellectual discussion on the matter from a heavy equipment operator, and a pipe cutter.

I love you guys, but damn you fucking suck sometimes.

America doesn't want to be like everyone else. It's that simple. If it did, then the democratic processes in place would be hard at work to make it exactly like that. It hasn't happened yet.

So, you can all wring your hands, and cry out in earnest all you want. But IT (America) is probably NEVER going to be a europeanized nation. The sooner you get that wrapped around your european nuggets, and just learn to stop trying to fix shit and bask in the superiority you already have... the better off Europe itself will be.

Let me lay it out for you real softly:

Countries don't have versions. Which means your version of it (whatever is rolling around that head of yours) don't mean fuck all.

You're not in power to make changes. If you were, you wouldn't be here on FHC wringing your hands about it; you'd be somewhere nicer, with an oak desk or some shit.

Your opinion of America doesn't mean fuck-all to the majority of Americans. Stop deluding yourself that they really care. Most of them don't even know where your country is on a map. That should educate you on how much of a fuck they give about you.

Take a deep breath. It's a nice day here in the U.K. It'll be all right.

Stop thinking some breath-taking run-through of a 200 year old document is going to somehow change things. The arguments aren't new, aren't genius, and certainly aren't eye-openers. Like the phrase in Battlestar Galactica--All of this has happened before, and will happen again. They've been coming up since probably two weeks after the documents were signed. We've come a long way. Now we can re-post that shit on the internet.

Sparq
July 23 2012, 01:39:14 PM
Krans, stop trolling.

Kransthow
July 23 2012, 01:46:50 PM
Krans, stop trolling.
http://onebit.us/x/i/c69d04baea.jpg
You can't crush my nippon spirit

Sofia Roseburn
July 23 2012, 06:52:37 PM
Considering the locale I think we can give this another go. I hope you saved those long posts.

GiDiYi
July 23 2012, 09:44:10 PM
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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Not the militia, the people.

Why the people? Because the people that wrote this had just been fighting a war for two years against a state militia so they made the possession of firearms a right that the militia could not take away from them so they could revolt again if they needed to.

l2historical context
l2not be bad

I'm not even american and I know this.

First off: Let's keep the discussion in the bounds of the article that was quoted in the OP. This is not about banning firearms or something, but it's about banning what are basically arms designed for modern warfare and nothing else.

Now on topic and the quoted post: Krans, you're correct in this statement. And it really makes sense of some sort. When you have to fight an oppresive government, it helps if your constitution enabled you to get a proper armament on an equal level in comparison to your opponent to fight of the oppressor.

But: This isn't even close to what is the reality in the US today. You're not allowed to own any kind of the more serious armaments needed to fight against the army of the United States of America in its current state as an american citizen no matter where you live. And if we're thinking about it, it's probably a good idea, that the regular John Doe doesn't have access to nuclear strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles.

So, I guess, this argument falls short when compared to the existing reality, but even in a hypothetical "what if" universe it doesn't stand.

Let's say, Obama is a communist spy, who's been secretely inserted by the KGB (who still exists, because that whole downfall of CCCP was just a really well disguised plan to distract the enemy), to turn the US over to Russia. Finally the populace of the US realize this and rise up against their leaders. Obama, being the commander in chief of the US military immediately deploys his troops to suppress the population while he's handing over the daily administration to Stalin (who still lives, because cunning plan etcetc.).

Well, guess what. Your average GI Joe is a citizen of the United States and probably has a family living in this country of some sort. I am not saying, that GI Joe is an intelligent person (haha, US educational system), but he's got family and friends living in this country. So, when GI Joe gets told by Comrade Obama to get in his A-10 and bomb the living shit out of site A with his 30 mm's of death, while site A happens to be in Aurora, Colorado (picked for no particular reason), the city he grew up in, it'll almost certainly generate second thoughts in Joe.

And I am not making this up. Look at Northern Africa in the last two years. Those rebels had almost nothing to start with, but suddenly they were all riding around in (stylish) Toyota Pick-Ups with mounted Heavy Machine Guns and shit. A little later they had sophisticated rocket launchers. Before you go :tinfoil: and say, they got it from the US or the EU, I'd say it might be true in some cases, but the largest parts of it by far came directly from the libyan, egyptian or syrian military (i.e. deserters).

So, it really is a nonargument.

It has been said several times in this thread, but to sum my post up: People have the freedom to own and bear arms in the US. Fair enough. But, do we have to give every John Doe out there the ability to generate a massive massacre at a whim?

It's unavoidable in some cases (the latest case with a seemingly really motivated lunatic might be such a case), because you really can't make it impossible. But it would be pretty easy to make it a lot harder without giving up a single dime of :freedom:, that the US and its citizens have fought for about 240 years ago.

Happy posting.

helgur
July 23 2012, 10:41:37 PM
On a very related note on gun control. In the country I am from, 25 of the country's 27 police commisioners are against arming the police with sidearms. As it stands today, the cops go out to do their everyday job without a firearm. They do have a gun locked inside the squadcar, but you have to get special permission to unlock the case and gain access to the weapon.

Study done by the Police themselves show that police with lethal sidearms will only increase incidents with fatalities involving guns. On a yearly basis, the Norwegian police use firearms between 0 and 6 times, since 2002 we have had 25 situations where the cops have used live ammunition.

My neighbouring country, Sweden which I often go to visit, have had cops with firearms since the 60'ies. Walking down the street in a city right by the border, observing police with guns holstered feels weird. On a side note they also have a lot more incidents involving gun related fatalities then we have. To the point where it is disproportional.

Now, in a country where you gain easy access to all kinds of semiautomatic weapons I can understand why the police want to arm themselves for their personal protection. Even if it is statistically counterproductive in the long term. I do however wonder why the cops carry sidearms in countries like Sweden. I am not familiar with the debate on gun control over there and how this in particular have been discussed but I would like to know.

Before the time of the biggest bank robbery (also known as the NOKAS raid), and the terrorist incident of 22/7, gun incidents in this country where so rare, you could walk along the sidewalk with a fully automatic assault rifle and no one would bother.

Digression:

When I was in the military, and had a weekends leave like we did almost every weekend I felt a bit adventurous (and stupid. I know, it was very very stupid but I was also very bored) so I figured I would try to smuggle my service weapon out and see if anyone would notice. I dissasembled it, packed it in a sleeping bag and went away. The staff sargeant found out about this by the next day and phoned me, and I assured him I would go right down to the police station with it, to lock it down there untill I got back to the camp.

So I assembeled the gun, and walked downtown. Upon entering the station, the officer behind the bulletproof glass was a bit reluctant to talk to me offcourse seing an unfamiliar face in front of him with a rifle like that. But I removed the magazine and cocked it to show the chamber was empty. I explained to him that I needed to store the rifle safely there untill my weekends leave was up and I would be back to get it.

I got it back on sunday, to my surprise no questions asked. They just handed the damn rifle over to me. I didn't tell the police I had smuggeled the weapon out offcourse, and no details about my superiors either (I didn't want the police to begin asking questions, which would raise avareness of this and by implication get my staff seargant in a lot of trouble - and by proxy me aswell offcourse).

Just goes to show how little on edge the Police was back then. Today, I suspect if I pulled something off like that, all hell would break loose

sarabando
July 23 2012, 10:45:31 PM
"why do you need a bigger magazine and a pistol grip and a more powerful round doesnt a regular hunting rifle not do everything you want?"

well why do people buy a car that can do more than the national speed limit?
because they fit either what they want or need.
an AR-15 is a more fuel efficient and economical machine basically and some people like it for its aesthetic and some people like it for its function.

large capacity magazine - why not you dont tell people that they should all have gastric bands so they can't over eat do you?

pistol grips - are a comfortable way to hold a firearm that allows for safe handling of a weapon (ever tried firing from the hip with an ar15 is really uncomfortable)

high power rounds - the 223/5.56 round is bullet so is a .22 if it hits you its going to do damage.

i had written out a huge post but i think i can sum it up with this.

look at the gun community you will find people there who take their kids and familys shooting who safly practice target shooting or hunting, compete in competitions and generally have a great time. but you will also find weirdos who are very anti social who are often in the public eye (think those NRA open carry types) who abuse firearms and give the community a bad name.

but then look at the driving comunity you will find people who take their kids and familys to drift days or to watch races or even just for a sunday drive and have a great time, then you can see the twats who
drive at 120mph down the motorway and act like wankers on the roads. upgrading their cars with parts that offer no "transportation" benifits just make it go faster and louder.

and then look at the drinkers among us who go out with friends and have a few drinks and have a great time and the wankers who abuse the alchol and drink too much and cause trouble especially when combined with
either of the other groups.

in my opinion the ownership of firearms is very important as it goes hand in hand with the basic human right to defend yourself, how can i defend myself if legally i am unable to own anything that even remotely evens the playing field (just look at the uk atm) BUT we do need to adress how people get them, mental health checks, finance checks, police checks ect are all really important a firearms dealer should be able to access (or have it done for him) that flags up a person who has a history or alcohol abuse and domestic violence ect so they can refuse the sale. (not saying that would stop murder because he could just use a hammer or his car or hands)

you can not stop someone who is dead set on causing violence by restricting access to weapons they will adapt. all we can do is give people the rights and abilities to defend themselves and also educate people more and try to spot the signs that some one is going that way in advance.

i hope this made sense and is ok for the srsbsns section this topic is very close to me living in the uk and being a firearms enthusiast means i often have to deal with alot of bull crap and it annoys me at the misinformation and lies that are often used as fact.

Roam
July 23 2012, 11:15:19 PM
Booyah, I got in. Right, so as the unlikely instigator of this here shindig, I'll try and maintain some structure to this debate. On a personal level, I would like some of the pro-gun proponents to respond to my previous post regarding the condensed arguments from the first thread, now edited with contributions from Sarabando, Krans and GiDiYi in this thread.


On a more serious note, I am looking to understand the opposition's perspective and arguments, which is why I think this can be a good thread and discussion.

In the last thread, we established the following arguments:
1) This wouldn't have happened if everyone had a gun. (disproven, by the simple notion that a pitch black room with reverberating walls, lots of noise, flickering lights, mass hysteria, screaming, panic and uncertainty probably isn't the best place for untrained people to try and fight off a kevlar armoured lunatic)

2) It's our constitutional right to bear arms, and therefore it would be infringing about our freedom (a founding concept for America) to restrict guns. (Still an ongoing discussion!) EDIT: Changed this from "disproven" to "ongoing" due to krans's contribution that can be found here (http://www.failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?7483-An-article-on-gun-laws&p=516866&viewfull=1#post516866) and GiDiYi's response found here (http://www.failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?7483-An-article-on-gun-laws&p=517361&viewfull=1#post517361).

3) You can't stop madmen if they want to go on a rampage, if he didn't have guns he'd have used a knife (Disproven, because a) it assumes all weapons have equal killing force, which they don't and b) by simple statistics that 95% of gun casualties are not by mad rampaging lunatics but temper incidents that escalated due to presence of a gun and the fact that countries who DO have restrictions available have not even the tiniest fraction of the US's gun homicide figures.)

4) Restricting of Assault Rifles could be seen as a compromise that would benefit everyone, but it isn't really because again it infringes upon constitutional right (Again, disproven, because there is no such constitutional right, and because Assault Rifles are far far more lethal than a common handgun. It's very purpose is nothing more and nothing less than to kill better, and more efficiently.) EDIT: See Sarabando's response as to why he thinks ARs are necessary. Post found above me, link here (http://www.failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?7483-An-article-on-gun-laws&p=517410&viewfull=1#post517410) for the truly lazy.

5) If guns kill people, spoons made Rosie O'donnel fat and cars kill people. (Logical fallacy, because it chooses to ignore context and simplify an already simplified statement to the point of nonsensical ridiculousness. A spoon of carrots is less likely to make Rosie o'donnel fat than a spoon of Ben and Jerry's. A drunk person riding a bicycle is less likely to kill someone after a collision than the same person driving a tank. In the same trend, a man wielding a tomato with the intent to kill is less likely to be successful than an assault rifle using fully kevlar armored mad man.)

So the above are the 5 most mentioned arguments in the global debate and the last thread. All of them have been disproven, so I'd like to hear from proponents what their current arguments are.

Ophichius
July 23 2012, 11:59:35 PM
Now, I don't really have a horse in this race legislation-wise, as the only two viable parties seem to be 'ban all the scary murderguns' and 'fuck you commie pinko scum', neither of which is a camp I want to put myself in. However, the lack of factual points with regards to the weapons themselves is grating on my nerves.

I'm going to go over some quotes, then post a whole bunch of education on guns. I'm tired of seeing people debate guns without knowledge of the topic.


In before the lock and all that, but after the raging discussion we had about this, there was one specific article that I wanted to share with Nicho, Jason, Frug, elmicker, Fenrial, Ophichius etc etc. So mods, before you lock this: I'd like to argue that the inherent intent of a forum is to be able to share information with your fellow forumites, and that's exactly what I'm doing. If it gets out of hand, by all means lock it.

Anyway, I've been reading a lot of articles from both sides of the debate, and this one is so far the most balanced and eloquent one I've read, so I wanted to share it.

I'm not sure I'd call that balanced. What with all the glaring factual inaccuracies and all. To say nothing of the framing. It's very much a piece of anti-gun screed, complete with rhetorical hammers and breathless hyperbole.


-Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are selective-fire weapons (This means both fully-automatic and semi-automatic fire modes.) The AR-15 is a semi-automatic only rifle.

And now some choice bits from the article:


What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload?

Capacity is magazine-dependent, not an intrinsic property of the rifle, you can get low capacity magazines for AR-15s just as easily as you can get high-cap magazines for .30-06 rifles. There is nothing special about the AR-15 in that regard.


Does it fire farther and more accurately?

5.56 NATO/.223 Remington is an intermediate rifle cartridge. It retains less energy down range and has lower effective range than hunting rifle cartridges such as the .30-06 or .308 Winchester. So the answer is no.


Does it accommodate a more lethal payload?

For the same reasons that it has less effective range, the 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington cartridge also has significantly less energy delivery downrange (terminal wound ballistics are a tricky and hotly-debated field, but in general more energy = more damage = higher chance of lethality on any given hit.) So again, the answer is no.


So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away.

Except that a hunting rifle has a higher probability of single-impact incapacitation or kill and a greater effective range.


These weapons are military weapons.

No, they really aren't. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle firing a small, relatively light cartridge. It meets the definition of 'scary black rifle', but is not a military firearm.


They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles.

The AR-15 is the very definition of a sporting rifle. It's a rifle whose primary use does not extend to hunting large game, as it doesn't have enough stopping power to produce reliable and humane kills. Hence its primary use is restricted to sport shooting.

----

And now on to the education portion.

Here's an excellent video on the differences between semi-automatic, fully-automatic, hunting and sporting rifles:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

It was made for the debate around the Assault Weapons Ban, but is equally relevant today, as the same argument has been going for decades. The misuse of the term 'assault rifle' and the weaselly use of the related term 'assault weapon' or 'assault-style weapon' is disingenuous at best.

Now, for some power comparisons. Here's an AR-15 firing .223 at a watermelon:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBwesKTG6L0

Now here's a .30-06 (Common deer hunting round) fired at a watermelon:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bj2LRGzJ6U&t=45s

When it comes down to it, the AR-15 is a low-powered, semi-automatic rifle. It is not particularly powerful, nor is it outstandingly accurate compared to other rifles, nor is it capable of firing on full auto.

Whatever your views on the subject, please educate yourselves on firearms before continuing to debate.

-O

Roam
July 24 2012, 12:08:48 AM
As I said in the plusrep: Thanks for posting that. I'm embarrassed by my lack of knowledge on guns, so thanks for educating me. Found the videos useful as well. :)

Nicho Void
July 24 2012, 12:16:03 AM
In the last thread, we established the following arguments:
1) This wouldn't have happened if everyone had a gun. (disproven, by the simple notion that a pitch black room with reverberating walls, lots of noise, flickering lights, mass hysteria, screaming, panic and uncertainty probably isn't the best place for untrained people to try and fight off a kevlar armoured lunatic)

Both sides of this particular point rely on conjecture. I can just as rationally argue that a trained conceal and carry citizen could stop the attack as you could argue the panic, dark room, hysteria point. Neither of those things actually happened.



2) It's our constitutional right to bear arms, and therefore it would be infringing about our freedom (a founding concept for America) to restrict guns. (Still an ongoing discussion!) EDIT: Changed this from "disproven" to "ongoing" due to krans's contribution that can be found here (http://www.failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?7483-An-article-on-gun-laws&p=516866&viewfull=1#post516866) and GiDiYi's response found here (http://www.failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?7483-An-article-on-gun-laws&p=517361&viewfull=1#post517361).

GiDiYi's post is excellent.



3) You can't stop madmen if they want to go on a rampage, if he didn't have guns he'd have used a knife (Disproven, because a) it assumes all weapons have equal killing force, which they don't and b) by simple statistics that 95% of gun casualties are not by mad rampaging lunatics but temper incidents that escalated due to presence of a gun and the fact that countries who DO have restrictions available have not even the tiniest fraction of the US's gun homicide figures.)

You've disproven the second half of the statement (rightfully so), but not the first...because the counter argument is that you CAN stop madmen if they want to go on a rampage. Madmen kill everywhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Notable_school_shootings), regardless of control measures. I can agree that it would be less likely, but not preventable.



4) Restricting of Assault Rifles could be seen as a compromise that would benefit everyone, but it isn't really because again it infringes upon constitutional right (Again, disproven, because there is no such constitutional right, and because Assault Rifles are far far more lethal than a common handgun. It's very purpose is nothing more and nothing less than to kill better, and more efficiently.) EDIT: See Sarabando's response as to why he thinks ARs are necessary. Post found above me, link here (http://www.failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?7483-An-article-on-gun-laws&p=517410&viewfull=1#post517410) for the truly lazy.

I don't really have a stance on this.



5) If guns kill people, spoons made Rosie O'donnel fat and cars kill people. (Logical fallacy, because it chooses to ignore context and simplify an already simplified statement to the point of nonsensical ridiculousness. A spoon of carrots is less likely to make Rosie o'donnel fat than a spoon of Ben and Jerry's. A drunk person riding a bicycle is less likely to kill someone after a collision than the same person driving a tank. In the same trend, a man wielding a tomato with the intent to kill is less likely to be successful than an assault rifle using fully kevlar armored mad man.)

You can't call one side of this stance a logical fallacy and uphold the other. The entire premise is stupid. My gun has shot nothing but paper targets down range. Is that gun a killer? Of course not. Context.

Edit: I use "you" generally, not aimed at Roam in particular.

Roam
July 24 2012, 12:50:28 AM
First off, good post. Sorry if I seemed dismissive in the past, I was under the impression you were more interested in trolling than actual debating, but this was a solid post.

Responding to a few things, it's getting very late and I've been up about 20 hours, so I'll keep it brief to prevent major tiredness-induced herpderping.




In the last thread, we established the following arguments:
1) This wouldn't have happened if everyone had a gun. (disproven, by the simple notion that a pitch black room with reverberating walls, lots of noise, flickering lights, mass hysteria, screaming, panic and uncertainty probably isn't the best place for untrained people to try and fight off a kevlar armoured lunatic)

Both sides of this particular point rely on conjecture. I can just as rationally argue that a trained conceal and carry citizen could stop the attack as you could argue the panic, dark room, hysteria point. Neither of those things actually happened.

I understand why you'd argue both sides are based on conjecture, but I disagree with your assumption that comparing the situation with a lone, trained, concealed gun carrying citizen is relevant to this particular point. Unfortunately, the inherent nature of this statement was polarizing: According to the Texas representative (who, regardless of mockery aimed at his state, is still given some influence and representational power), this tragedy would never have occurred if the proliferation of weaponry had been further encouraged, and laws preventing guns to be brought into places like a movie theater to be eased, thereby giving everyone in the audience the (potential) access to a gun.

I agree hypothetically that a single trained citizen could have shot the shooter (ignoring for the moment the issue of head-to-toe kevlar), but the discussion is not about placing single, trained individuals at strategic locations for the sake of potential tragedies. The issue is a binary one: Would more people have died if no one, or almost everyone (this therefore also includes UNtrained and INexperienced citizens) had been carrying a gun.

To me it seems very straightforward that anyone not specifically trained to deal with a situation like that (confusion, sensory deprivation, adrenaline from fight or flight) would be a much larger risk than a possible beneficial factor in a crowded movie theater like that, which is what the issue was about.





2) It's our constitutional right to bear arms, and therefore it would be infringing about our freedom (a founding concept for America) to restrict guns. (Still an ongoing discussion!) EDIT: Changed this from "disproven" to "ongoing" due to krans's contribution that can be found here (http://www.failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?7483-An-article-on-gun-laws&p=516866&viewfull=1#post516866) and GiDiYi's response found here (http://www.failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?7483-An-article-on-gun-laws&p=517361&viewfull=1#post517361).

GiDiYi's post is excellent.
I agree. Nothing more to add here, really. Well, apart from the fact that I think the entire debate on right to bear arms based on the need to defend yourself from government interference, and it needing to be comparable to equipment that the military has access to is a ludicrous one. It's no longer culturally relevant, nor is it even viable due to the advancement in weapon technology that allows the US military to nuke a specific location with a massive missile guided by satellite. Unless we make that technology available to the common man, we can't argue that the right to bear arms is in ANY way justifiable by "but I need it to defend from the possibility of the military going dictatorship". If that were to happen, a few handguns would do absolutely nothing.




3) You can't stop madmen if they want to go on a rampage, if he didn't have guns he'd have used a knife (Disproven, because a) it assumes all weapons have equal killing force, which they don't and b) by simple statistics that 95% of gun casualties are not by mad rampaging lunatics but temper incidents that escalated due to presence of a gun and the fact that countries who DO have restrictions available have not even the tiniest fraction of the US's gun homicide figures.)

You've disproven the second half of the statement (rightfully so), but not the first...because the counter argument is that you CAN stop madmen if they want to go on a rampage. Madmen kill everywhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Notable_school_shootings), regardless of control measures. I can agree that it would be less likely, but not preventable.
I think we misunderstood each other here, or we're discussing semantics. Clearly, under the right circumstances (again: fully trained special ops man that just so happens to be at the scene of the crime at the right time, with a clear shot etc etc), a crazed gunman can be stopped.

My point, however, was to argue that, unfortunately, if a psychotic person were to plan meticulously enough, there would be very little chances of preventing them from making ANY casualties. Breivik being the prime example here. The disproven in the quoted statement refers specifically to the second part (Ie: "if a madman wanted to kill 50 people, he'd be able to do it with both a knife or a gun, so why ban guns?") but I never tried to disprove that it's nigh on impossible to stop an armed, prepared and trained psychotic. A later argument of "but it's not those insanely rare psychotic but capable and scheming shooters that do 90%+ of the killings, it's everyday arguments escalating, accidents and other such related incidents" hinges partially on the fact that the Breiviks of the world can't be stopped, so gun control laws shouldn't be there to chiefly discourage those lunatics, but rather to prevent the 90% of gun casualties that CAN be prevented.

This point became somewhat unintelligible near the end, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say. I'm fucking tired.




4) Restricting of Assault Rifles could be seen as a compromise that would benefit everyone, but it isn't really because again it infringes upon constitutional right (Again, disproven, because there is no such constitutional right, and because Assault Rifles are far far more lethal than a common handgun. It's very purpose is nothing more and nothing less than to kill better, and more efficiently.) EDIT: See Sarabando's response as to why he thinks ARs are necessary. Post found above me, link here (http://www.failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?7483-An-article-on-gun-laws&p=517410&viewfull=1#post517410) for the truly lazy.

I don't really have a stance on this.
Not much to add here either.




5) If guns kill people, spoons made Rosie O'donnel fat and cars kill people. (Logical fallacy, because it chooses to ignore context and simplify an already simplified statement to the point of nonsensical ridiculousness. A spoon of carrots is less likely to make Rosie o'donnel fat than a spoon of Ben and Jerry's. A drunk person riding a bicycle is less likely to kill someone after a collision than the same person driving a tank. In the same trend, a man wielding a tomato with the intent to kill is less likely to be successful than an assault rifle using fully kevlar armored mad man.)

You can't call one side of this stance a logical fallacy and uphold the other. The entire premise is stupid. My gun has shot nothing but paper targets down range. Is that gun a killer? Of course not. Context.

I admit I don't fully get what your argument is here. Are you saying that because your gun has only shot paper targets that the premise is therefore stupid, and should always be judged based on individual case by case basis? Because that makes little sense to me. The premise by the NRA is that Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Which is just as idiotic as the "guns kill people" statement, except that the latter is a simplified oneliner from a much earlier debate about the fact that guns legality does, in fact, increase crime, homicide and gun casualties rate. The argument, which has been verified by numerous scientific studies from all across the world and by objective agents, is that having a gun available seems to statistically correlate to a LOWER level of safety, rather than a HIGHER value of safety. This being due to the nature of escalation, accidents and other such fun stuff. These are facts that can easily be verified, so aren't really subject to the inherent bias of either side of the fence. In short: I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, and I aplogize for that. Maybe you can explain more what your point is.

Anyway, that's it for me for now, will spellcheck and do some formatting, then go to bed. Much Roamy <3 for you all, keep the posts coming.

Ophichius
July 24 2012, 01:39:11 AM
I thought I'd go a bit more in-depth on firearms, since my prior post was a bit shallow. We'll start with the very basics, so this is going to be long (and fairly boring) if you already know about firearms.

At the most basic level, a firearm is just a tube with gunpowder in it that's closed at one end,has a projectile at the other end, and some way to ignite the powder. This describes everything from the most ancient Chinese firearms to your grandfather's rifle and pistol, to the most modern of cannons. However, through the ages, various advances have been made.

Colonial-era black-powder rifles were muzzle-loaders. What this means is that you loaded the ammunition from the front (the muzzle) of the gun. This was a slow and time consuming process, as you had to pour the black powder down the barrel, then ram a piece of cloth or paper (the wadding) down the barrel to sit on top of the powder, then ram the bullet down the barrel after the wadding. Then you brought your gun up, put a dash of priming powder in the pan, and started looking for a target.

The first major change to firearms was the introduction of the revolving action. Now instead of loading a single chamber at a time, you could load multiple chambers, each rotated into line with the barrel as you needed it. The first revolvers were crude, manually-advanced things, but they let you pre-load four or five shots in an era where everyone else was still shooting one shot and reloading. Unfortunately, revolvers did have some nasty problems, such as occasionally having the flame flash over from one chamber to the next and consequently blowing the entire front of the gun off. This limited their use in long guns, where you'd have your other hand in front of the cylinder supporting the barrel.

The next really big invention was the metallic cartridge. The metallic cartridge eliminated the need to separately load each component of the charge, as well as removing the need for an external ignition source. It was a metal tube (usually brass) that contained a pre-measured charge of gunpowder, with a bullet sealed tightly atop it. At the base was a primer, a small ampoule of sensitive explosive which would detonate when crushed, and ignite the gunpowder. This whole contraption could be inserted into the chamber of a gun and fired. This meant you could now load guns from the back (breech-loading), something firearms designers had been after for years. It was much faster than muzzle loading, and could be done without having to swing a fairly long chunk of iron around a great deal, thus making it quite a bit easier.

Metallic cartridges breathed new life into revolvers, allowing them to be reloaded faster, as well as reducing the flashover problem. At the same time, a crop of inventors were busy working away at making a rifle that could hold multiple shots. Two separate inventions were realized at similar times, the bolt action and the lever action. The bolt action is so named because it resembles working the bolt to lock a door. The user grasps a handle on the outside of the rifle, rotates it upwards, and pulls back to eject the spent cartridge, then pushes forward to chamber a fresh cartridge, and rotates the handle down to lock the bolt.

Lever actions are more complicated in their inner workings, but even easier to operate. One simply swings the lever down and out away from the weapon, then back in and up in a single fluid motion. Suddenly, rapid fire becomes as easy as moving your hand a few inches and then pulling the trigger again.

Simultaneous with this, people were inventing new ways to store the rounds, as a repeating action was no good without a way to store the cartridges. Hence the internal magazine (Basically a space inside the gun with a spring in it to push the stacked cartridges where you wanted them to go), the tubular magazine (a tube under the barrel, each cartridge loaded nose-to-tail, pushed down the tube by a spring), and eventually the removable box magazine (what we think of as a magazine most often these days, little more than a box with a spring in it.). 'clips' are distinct from magazines, and bear special mention as the two are often confused. A clip is a small piece of metal used to 'clip' several rounds together. The two most common varieties are stripper clips and en bloc clips. Stripper clips are used to hold ammunition for transport, and are not meant to be put into the firearm, rather they are set against the magazine, and one pushes their thumb down on the rounds to strip them from the clip and into the gun, hence 'stripper clip' En bloc clips are loaded entirely into the gun, and the firing mechanism is adapted to remove the rounds one by one from the clip, typically ejecting the clip once all the rounds are expended (The M1 Garand is the most famous example of a weapon which used an en bloc clip. The distinctive 'ping' of an empty Garand ejecting the clip is nigh-unmistakeable.)

The next big jump in technology was the self-loading, or semi-automatic rifle. These come in two sub-types, gas-operated and recoil-operated. A gas-operated semi-automatic rifle works by tapping a small portion of the high-pressure gas generated when a round is fired, and using that pressure to push the bolt back against a spring, which then pushes the bolt closed. (As an aside, the AR-15 and the AK-47 variants featured in the video I linked are both gas operated. You can see the gas tube on the AKs, it's the skinny tube above the barrel that attaches to the barrel out past the end of the foregrip). Recoil-operated rifles use the force of the recoil to throw the bolt backwards against a return spring.

After that jump came automatic fire, which is really not so much a jump as a small step, but the impact it had was huge. Automatic weapons were a simple evolution of the semi-automatic principles, tied to a mechanism that would fire the weapon as soon as it finished loading itself. Coupled with a magazine capable of holding many rounds this led to the first machine guns. Later machine guns would feed ammunition from massive belts, initially canvas belts with loops on them to hold the individual cartridges, later metal belts as feed rates became higher.

Everyone still with me so far? Good.

I haven't talked about calibers or powder types yet. Just how the guns actually get the ammunition into the chamber to fire it. Not what they're actually firing.

The biggest innovation to date in propellants was smokeless (nitro) powder. Using nitrocellulose as part of the mixture, it cut down on the smoke from gunfire, as early black powder rifles would release choking clouds of thick white smoke upon firing. Without smokeless powder, an automatic weapon would be a smoke screen generator that blinded the firer within a few shots.

When it comes to projectiles...well, lead has always been the preferred metal. It's dense, malleable, and easy to cast. The shapes it's been cast into, and what metals it's been covered with have changed pretty drastically however.

Initially, round shot was the standard ammunition type, in relatively huge calibers, 0.9 to 1.0 caliber (0.9-1.0 inches in diameter) was not uncommon. One of the first major changes was the introduction of the semi-conical Minie ball. Resembling a cylinder with a point at one end, it was remarkably close in approximate shape to what we commonly think of as a bullet. A bit shorter relative to width, but firmly recognizeable. After this came the slow evolution of shapes and sizes, and the invention of coating a bullet with a harder metal in order to reduce fouling (bullets leave lead on the barrel as they rub against it, and this fouls the barrel, necessitating frequent cleaning to maintain accuracy.), As more energetic powders were introduced, smaller calibers of bullets were used, as the recoil of a fast-moving gigantic bullet was too much to handle, and a faster projectile spends less time travelling to the target, improving accuracy.

By the outbreak of world war I, bullet calibers for rifles were hovering around .30-35 caliber, with pistols at around .45-.50 caliber, firing larger but slower rounds. During WWII, virtually every side fielded weapons firing some variant on a .30 caliber projectile, from 7.92x57mm Mauser, to .303 British, to 7.62x54R. The amount of powder behind the bullet varied, but the caliber itself was remarkably similar on all sides. During the war, German experience with SMGs firing pistol cartridges, and battle rifles firing full-power hunting cartridges convinced them of the need for something in between. Something that had the range and punch of a rifle, but the controllable fully automatic firing capability of an SMG. And in the waning days of the war, they produced the Sturmgewehr 44. Quite literally the world's first assault rifle, and in fact the rifle from which that type gets its name, as Sturmgewehr translates to 'assault rifle' (or 'storming rifle', as in 'to storm a position'.)

The StG 44 used an unusual cartridge. Too powerful to be a pistol cartridge, not powerful enough to be a full rifle round, it was the first of the intermediate rifle cartridges. A cartridge designed for medium to short ranges and fully automatic fire. Following this development came the 7.62x39 Soviet, and the 5.56x45 NATO round. Lightweight, low-recoil rounds intended for use in lightweight, full-auto weapons. (Technically the 5.56x45 NATO is actually a varmint rifle round, rather than a purpose-built man-stopper like the 7.62x39 Soviet was intended to be.).

Now, I've glossed over a lot of little fiddly bits and odd historical digressions and dead ends, if you go digging you'll find the history of firearms is much more complicated, interesting, and intricate. But hopefully this has been a solid primer on them.

And finally, because it should put some of the 'semi-auto rifles are so much faster than any other kind of rifle' nonsense to rest, here's a video a friend of mine shot, showing a bolt-action rifle being cycled at high speed:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC_eA-A35Cg&feature=plcp

-O

Daco
July 24 2012, 02:16:55 AM
So I was chatting with chris and jason last night about gun control and it was very interesting to hear what Jason did to get his gun licence.

I never really thought people in America could just walk in and buy a machine gun and walk out but I was under the impression it was very easy to get firearms over there. From what he said if you want a hand gun you need to go through a lot of channels and paper work to try and get one and that you can't just buy an automatic weapon anymore. Only the people that had an automatic weapon before that certain law came through got to keep them.

Over here in NZ you read a book on gun safety etc then you sit a written test and then you have your firearms licence. There is no restriction on semi-auto or manual but you can't get Automatic weapons, you aren't even allowed automatic paintball guns. Also you need to go through a lot of paper work to try and get a licence for a hand gun and even then you're only allowed to keep the hand gun at a shooting range in a locked safe.

Our way of getting a gun licence sounds very similar to how you get it in America which tbh I think is fine. I think the problem is the saturation of firearms over in America/Canada/Alaska. I don't think you could really get anymore gun control than there is without going down the no one is allowed a firearm unless you're a soldier road.

pratell
July 24 2012, 03:52:13 AM
So I was chatting with chris and jason last night about gun control and it was very interesting to hear what Jason did to get his gun licence.

I never really thought people in America could just walk in and buy a machine gun and walk out but I was under the impression it was very easy to get firearms over there. From what he said if you want a hand gun you need to go through a lot of channels and paper work to try and get one and that you can't just buy an automatic weapon anymore. Only the people that had an automatic weapon before that certain law came through got to keep them.

Over here in NZ you read a book on gun safety etc then you sit a written test and then you have your firearms licence. There is no restriction on semi-auto or manual but you can't get Automatic weapons, you aren't even allowed automatic paintball guns. Also you need to go through a lot of paper work to try and get a licence for a hand gun and even then you're only allowed to keep the hand gun at a shooting range in a locked safe.

Our way of getting a gun licence sounds very similar to how you get it in America which tbh I think is fine. I think the problem is the saturation of firearms over in America/Canada/Alaska. I don't think you could really get anymore gun control than there is without going down the no one is allowed a firearm unless you're a soldier road.
i brought my driver's license in to the gun store and walked out with my driver's license and a beretta 92fs. gun control is a joke.

Don Pellegrino
July 24 2012, 05:08:50 AM
I really like how civil this discussion is for the most part. This post isn't an argument, it's my personal opinion (always prone to change if you can convince me), see it as a story.

As Nartek said earlier, I think this is entirely a cultural issue. All that issue can be debated ad nauseum on different points as Roam is doing, but it really all depends on how and where you were brought up. If you were taught that guns keep you safe, even the best arguments won't be able to get rid of that "what if" feeling in the back of your head, even if you were to entirely agree with the other side. It's really just a matter of "what makes me feel safe?". "Feel" being the keyword here.

Here I'm taking Quebec as an example, because it's the only place that I can accurately talk about. Basically no one has guns and in my entire (and rather short so far) life, I've only known one person who has a gun license (only hunting rifles are allowed) and he doesn't own one right now. I live in a city with a bit over 1 million people, around 3.4 million if you count the metropolitan area. There have been 31 murders in that 3.4 million people in 2009, 37 in 2010. Compared to cities of the same size, it's nothing. I can walk back to my appartment after a night out alone, clearly drunk, at 4 AM and it's totally safe. I've never heard of anyone being mugged and the feeling of safety was even greater before I moved here almost a year ago. I used to live in almost perfectly uniform white middle class cities of 150k-700k people. There are basically no guns out here, I don't feel the need to own one to be safe. We have no street crime to speak of and the mafia/organized crime don't care about the average citizen. We don't have 15+ various secret services and in general our government is a lot less powerful and intrusive. You could meet the prime minister at the bathroom in Ottawa. The prime minister before our current one had a cream pie perfectly thrown at his face and the guy spent 8 days in prison. If I remember correctly he also helped the police immobilize the guy (our PM was in his 60s when it happened), but that might be another incident. Patriotism is the exception, not the norm. Our government is a joke, not a threat and that's how we like it. Things like that shape the amount of trust and fear towards the government a lot. All these things indirectly affect the perception of guns to a different degree.

If you or your parents grew up in an area where there's a larger income disparity, or is more multicultural, or more violent or simply where guns are a tradition, I can totally understand that one would feel naked and vulnerable without a gun. I can totally understand that the talk of restricting guns more (wheter it works or not) makes you uneasy. If I lived somewhere that >75% of the people owned at least a gun I'd probably get one, too. And this is just conjonctures, but if all of a sudden there was a strong anti-gun movement in the US, it would probably take decades of very slow changes making it less relevant and more of a nuisance to own a gun for the gun culture and the feeling of armed safety to go away. You don't need a PhD of american sociology to realize that in some areas it's an inherent part of the cultural identity. Traditions can't be broken overnight with a law, but for now if the people in that area want it that way, let them deal with the consequences of it, wheter they are mostly positive or mostly negative. As a side note, I think that for issues like that the individual states should have more control and the federal government less, the difference between some states is greater than between canadian provinces and most european countries.

Finally, as I said: it's all cultural differences and I'm not trying to promote one point of view over the other, this is probably a case of whatever makes people happy. From a logical point of view, ONE method has to be better than the other in an absolute way, but no place compares to the US, so all we can do is discuss and argue back and forth and vote for the side of the debate that will make the local population happier.

That was just some semi-drunken rambling, and I hope someone will find it interesting or insightful, but all I have to say is: I'm glad I don't have to live in fear all the time and I like the way it is here.


So, you can all wring your hands, and cry out in earnest all you want. But IT (America) is probably NEVER going to be a europeanized nation. The sooner you get that wrapped around your european nuggets, and just learn to stop trying to fix shit and bask in the superiority you already have... the better off Europe itself will be.
I think you missed the point, most people are discussing which system is the best in an absolute way, while some others are discussing which is the best for the US, no need to throw insults.

Kransthow
July 24 2012, 05:20:09 AM
First off: Let's keep the discussion in the bounds of the article that was quoted in the OP.
My post was, it was a retort to this:

...Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
"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."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"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."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no...


But: This isn't even close to what is the reality in the US today. You're not allowed to own any kind of the more serious armaments needed to fight against the army of the United States of America in its current state as an american citizen no matter where you live. And if we're thinking about it, it's probably a good idea, that the regular John Doe doesn't have access to nuclear strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles.
You don't need an intercontinental ballistic missile to fight against the united states army, a bunch of sandniggers in Idon'tgiveafuckistan seem to do well enough with rusty AKs and RPGs


Let's say, Obama is a communist spy, who's been secretely inserted by the KGB (who still exists, because that whole downfall of CCCP was just a really well disguised plan to distract the enemy), to turn the US over to Russia. Finally the populace of the US realize this and rise up against their leaders. Obama, being the commander in chief of the US military immediately deploys his troops to suppress the population while he's handing over the daily administration to Stalin (who still lives, because cunning plan etcetc.).

Well, guess what. Your average GI Joe is a citizen of the United States and probably has a family living in this country of some sort. I am not saying, that GI Joe is an intelligent person (haha, US educational system), but he's got family and friends living in this country. So, when GI Joe gets told by Comrade Obama to get in his A-10 and bomb the living shit out of site A with his 30 mm's of death, while site A happens to be in Aurora, Colorado (picked for no particular reason), the city he grew up in, it'll almost certainly generate second thoughts in Joe.

And I am not making this up. Look at Northern Africa in the last two years. Those rebels had almost nothing to start with, but suddenly they were all riding around in (stylish) Toyota Pick-Ups with mounted Heavy Machine Guns and shit. A little later they had sophisticated rocket launchers. Before you go :tinfoil: and say, they got it from the US or the EU, I'd say it might be true in some cases, but the largest parts of it by far came directly from the libyan, egyptian or syrian military (i.e. deserters).
Yeah sure, at the moment one could make a reasonable case that the army is fairly likely to side with the public good.

You could make the exact same reasonable case back when they wrote the constitution itself. However they knew that they had no way to ensure that the government would always look out for the public good and that the army would always side with the people.

You simply cannot honestly say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the army will always side with the public forever. If you take away the ability for the people to posses effective arms with which they could mount a reasonable threat to the government with then the government no longer fears the will of the people.

You bring up north africa as an example, yes a lot of soldiers deserted. And just as many if not more so stayed loyal to the government. You seem to be certain that if the time comes for revolution that enough soldiers will desert and shower the people with sufficient arms with which they will be able defend their own freedoms and you just can't guarantee that it will play out like that. The most certain way to ensure that the people are able to defend their freedom is for them to have the freedom to equip themselves with means of protecting those freedoms.


It has been said several times in this thread, but to sum my post up: People have the freedom to own and bear arms in the US. Fair enough. But, do we have to give every John Doe out there the ability to generate a massive massacre at a whim?

It's unavoidable in some cases (the latest case with a seemingly really motivated lunatic might be such a case), because you really can't make it impossible. But it would be pretty easy to make it a lot harder without giving up a single dime of :freedom:, that the US and its citizens have fought for about 240 years ago.

Happy posting.

So tell me more about this pretty easy way to make it a lot harder to commit gun crime, gun control? Legal gun ownership has virtually no correlation with gun crime, internationally or in America. Almost all mass murders are committed with illegally obtained weapons, and on top of that many were committed in "gun-free" zones. And surrendering your freedom to self defense seems like a dime of freedom to me. To restrict legal access to certain kinds of guns which are deemed effective at causing bodily harm to others will not reduce gun deaths and will serve only to reduce the ability of the people to protect their own rights and :freedom:.

The thing is America doesn't have a gun violence issue, America has a violence issue. It's quite easy to point at guns and go "LOOK, THE CULPRIT" but all that serves to do is distract from the real causes of the culture of violence that exists in America.

You want to reduce gun violence? Try sensible drug laws, an effective education system and improved living conditions for the impoverished for starters.

http://onebit.us/x/i/706ac65032.jpg
It'll actually do something other than strip your rights.

e: don't edit my posts hast

F*** My Aunt Rita
July 24 2012, 06:51:31 AM
I read this thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/

1. America is an unusually violent country. But weíre not as violent as we used to be.

http://onebit.us/x/ut/AuntRita/5f00a35390.png (http://1bi.us/39u5)

2. The South is the most violent region in the United States.

http://onebit.us/x/ut/AuntRita/b345c6f29f.png (http://1bi.us/39u7)

3. Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall.

http://onebit.us/x/ut/AuntRita/2b5842abe0.png (http://onebit.us/x/u/AuntRita/2b5842abe0.png)

4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

(NO PICTURE)

5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

http://onebit.us/x/ut/AuntRita/da4817802a.jpg (http://onebit.us/x/u/AuntRita/da4817802a.jpg)

6. Gun control is not politically popular.

http://onebit.us/x/ut/AuntRita/1b0038a532.gif (http://onebit.us/x/u/AuntRita/1b0038a532.gif)

ry ry
July 24 2012, 10:29:29 AM
The thing is America doesn't have a gun violence issue, America has a violence issue. It's quite easy to point at guns and go "LOOK, THE CULPRIT" but all that serves to do is distract from the real causes of the culture of violence that exists in America.

You want to reduce gun violence? Try sensible drug laws, an effective education system and improved living conditions for the impoverished for starters.

..and yet that doesn't change the fact that gun crime, something generally considered bad, typically involves a gun of some description. I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of women and children shot to death would have survived if the shooter wasn't armed.

Calm down, the content is coming.

I'm not enough of a hypocrite to sit in a leather chair eating my bacon sandwich, and tell you i don't approve of hunting - if a dude want to hunt delicious cuddly animals then that is entirely his business. Similarly the cat is very much out of the bag as far as guns in the US go. There are enough guns floating around to arm several small armies and at this point banning them would not stop people getting hold of some. Obviously the extremely political and polarising nature of any discussion about gun control goes without saying.

Not an ideal scenario but an unfortunate reality. For me the issue is one of responsible gun ownership and ease of access and this seems to differ wildly from one country (and in the case of the US, state) to another.

They just need to have one set of relatively sensible rules to ensure that people who want to own guns can, but have do so responsibly.

Guns should not be easy to obtain. They really shouldn't. If i want to drive a car i need a license, i need to meet some basic medical criteria, i need to insure and register my vehicle. It is not governmental meddling, it is not an erosion of my civil liberties. It just means that if somebody runs me over their details are recorded somewhere, or if they have incurred enough points on their license by using their vehicle dangerously it will be taken off them.

It also make the DVLA oodles of cash but in my survivalist underground bunker i've been stockpiling fiat 500s and petrol, so when the revolution comes i'll be able to drive down to Dixons for the looting.

Guns should not be mundane. Last time i was in the states i was down in florida we stopped in a walmart and there was a Sporting Goods department sandwiched between Consumer Electronics and Toys. Round my way sporting goods consists of footballs, swimming goggles and sweatbands, here there were a variety of pump action shotguns.

Guns shouldn't be treated as something you'll decide to pick up whilst popping down to the shops to buy a pallet of mountain dew, and there should be a legal obligation to ensure they are not accessible to minors. There are not many occasions in life where you *need* to buy a gun in the next 24 hours, certainly there might be times when it'd be convenient or desirable, but its important not to confuse those with requirement.

Guns are a privilege, not a right. You can have a hunting rifle, sure no worries - prove you're not medically blind and don't have a string of firearms convictions and you're golden, but why on earth do you need that 30mm anti-aircraft cannon? You do not have the divine right to own everything that is physically capable of propelling metal through the air at lethal velocity, similarly my driving license does not permit me to drive a lorry or a 747.

There is a bunch of ancillary detail, but that's pretty much the crux of it imo. Guns for everybody!*


*providing they are capable of owning one sensibly.





FULL DISCLOSURE: i'm mainly ambivalent, leaning slightly towards anti-gun.

Ophichius
July 24 2012, 10:31:25 AM
Keep in mind that looking at gun-related deaths and attempted homicides in a vacuum is poor statistics. You should really be comparing gun-related violence vs total violence. If halving gun ownership halves the total incidence of violent crime, then it's actually something reasonable. If halving gun ownership halves the incidence of gun-related crime, but the slack is taken up by improvised weapons, knives, etc, then there really is very little point to it, as it restricts freedoms without a measurable impact on societal ills.

There's also a question of chicken-and-egg going on with the oft-quoted 'more guns = more homicide' statistic. People purchase guns often times in order to feel safe. It's quite possible that there are higher per-capita rates of gun ownerships in areas -because- of the violent crime, rather than that there is a higher violent crime rate because of the per-capita gun ownership. Remember statistics 101: Correlation does not imply causation.

-O

ry ry
July 24 2012, 10:37:28 AM
Unfortunately the only accurate way to profile that is to ban guns and see what happens, in the case of america i'd hazard a guess the reaction would be somewhere between political suicide and armed rebellion.

Its the main reason tighter controls is the only reasonable 'anti-gun' stance - anything else is naive posturing.

Ophichius
July 24 2012, 10:44:06 AM
..and yet that doesn't change the fact that gun crime, something generally considered bad, typically involves a gun of some description. I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of women and children shot to death would have survived if the shooter wasn't armed.

That very much depends on what weapon was used instead. You're ignoring the proper question, which is "Would they have been attacked had a gun not been available." You're also loading the discussion by invoking 'women and children' specifically. Please don't do that.




Guns should not be easy to obtain. They really shouldn't. If i want to drive a car i need a license, i need to meet some basic medical criteria, i need to insure and register my vehicle. It is not governmental meddling, it is not an erosion of my civil liberties. It just means that if somebody runs me over their details are recorded somewhere, or if they have incurred enough points on their license by using their vehicle dangerously it will be taken off them.

Gun availability varies by state in the US. Handguns of any description require a background check already, and there is a fairly strong movement (And equally strong backlash) to get rifles covered under similar provisions.


Guns should not be mundane. Last time i was in the states i was down in florida we stopped in a walmart and there was a Sporting Goods department sandwiched between Consumer Electronics and Toys. Round my way sporting goods consists of footballs, swimming goggles and sweatbands, here there were a variety of pump action shotguns.

Guns shouldn't be treated as something you'll decide to pick up whilst popping down to the shops to buy a pallet of mountain dew, and there should be a legal obligation to ensure they are not accessible to minors. There are not many occasions in life where you *need* to buy a gun in the next 24 hours, certainly there might be times when it'd be convenient or desirable, but its important not to confuse those with requirement.

Why not? For many people, a gun is a sporting good. Talk to all the IPSC shooters, the the folks who shoot clays, or even just your typical paper-target shooter on the range. What purpose does the vague statement "Guns should not be mundane." serve? And how would you go about it anyways? Put them behind an adults-only curtain, like porn in movie stores? That just adds to the mystique of it.


Guns are a privilege, not a right. You can have a hunting rifle, sure no worries - prove you're not medically blind and don't have a string of firearms convictions and you're golden, but why on earth do you need that 30mm anti-aircraft cannon? You do not have the divine right to own everything that is physically capable of propelling metal through the air at lethal velocity, similarly my driving license does not permit me to drive a lorry or a 747.

You can't get a 30mm anti-aircraft cannon inside the US without jumping through some incredibly impressive hoops, including having a federal firearms dealer's license (A $5000 fee by itself, and a hell of a background check required.) And even then you couldn't have the radar for it (Owning/operating it would require a small mountain of paperwork from the FCC and a shitton of training. I've never heard of privately-owned fire control radar, ever.), private ownership of a cannon of that magnitude is basically non-existent. To extend your vehicle license analogy, these people have their pilot's license rated for both IFR, VFR, and commercial flight. And now they're finally getting the 747 to go with it. It's not like Joe Sixpack can walk down to wal-mart and pick up a GAU-8 and a crate of 30mm HEI.

-O

Ophichius
July 24 2012, 11:01:38 AM
I agree hypothetically that a single trained citizen could have shot the shooter (ignoring for the moment the issue of head-to-toe kevlar), but the discussion is not about placing single, trained individuals at strategic locations for the sake of potential tragedies. The issue is a binary one: Would more people have died if no one, or almost everyone (this therefore also includes UNtrained and INexperienced citizens) had been carrying a gun.

Two things. First, the shooter was not wearing armor.

CNN showed his gear purchase:

http://gunmart.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/120720105633_tactical-gear-receipt.jpg

Tracking down that vest, we find that it is this:

http://www.blackhawk.com/product/Urban-Assault-Vest,275,86.htm

Which is very clearly not a bulletproof vest, nor even close. It actually leaves the most vulnerable part of the torso completely uncovered. It's a tactical vest meant to keep equipment close at hand (mostly magazines).

Secondly. It's not a binary issue, you're framing it as one. CCW shooters tend to be very aware that they need to be well-trained, due to the high-stress environments that would necessitate actually drawing and firing. That said, I would fully support mandated training and evaluations for CCW, similar to certifying/recertifying CPR or EMT qualifications. There is no logical reason why the only two options are 'lots of untrained people with guns' or 'nobody with guns'. You're deliberately ignoring any middle ground or nuanced approach in favor of knee-jerk extremism.

-O

ry ry
July 24 2012, 11:28:35 AM
Clearly the first bit was loaded, i worded it so very obviously in the hope of eliciting a wry smile, but was still no more loaded than Kransthow suggesting that people getting shot was not at all linked to gun ownership. I'm also aware gun availability varies wildly from state to state - the whole point of what i posted was that there should be some standardised rules for all firearms, background checks being part of that.

As far as vague statements like "guns should not be mundane" go what i mean specifically is that they should not be stacked on racks in the supermarket like any other household item. I don't believe putting them behind a counter would add to their 'mystique', and similarly i don't think taking that further putting them out of sight would have any negative side effect.

The point of that is to make firearms less ubiquitous, if they cease to be something so commonplace you don't give them a second thought i'd anticipate that would - over a period of years - hopefully erode the sense of necessity/entitlement attached to them.


Interestingly a number of UK retailers have recently put covers over cigarette counters displays, in a few years we'll know if this actually reduces the number of cigarettes sold in the longterm (i know this has nothing to do with guns, it was just an interesting aside)

sarabando
July 24 2012, 12:24:14 PM
every time some one goes off with a gun all we get is "ban guns k" instead of tackling the real issues of "why they did it" and "how they got firearms" the last few shootings the world have seen brevik,moat,and holmes have all clearly been mentally unstable but still been able to gain access to firearms this is the bigger issue imo. in the uk banning guns didnt reduce the gun crime that much because there wasnt that much to begin with also imo.

Nartek
July 24 2012, 12:50:22 PM
So, you can all wring your hands, and cry out in earnest all you want. But IT (America) is probably NEVER going to be a europeanized nation. The sooner you get that wrapped around your european nuggets, and just learn to stop trying to fix shit and bask in the superiority you already have... the better off Europe itself will be.
I think you missed the point, most people are discussing which system is the best in an absolute way, while some others are discussing which is the best for the US, no need to throw insults. .

Apologies if that sounds insulting. The problem is that a significant portion of the debators in the other (now locked/closed/etc...) threads on this were attempting to overlay their own countries policies onto the U.S. and exclaim how everything would be better. Your turn of phrase is quite accurate in stating that gun control in a country with a rich history of ownership is something that will take considerable time, if it ever happens at all. You're not just talking about bringing guns in off the street; but changing the mindset of many Americans into something more social. I.E. Americans have a huge DIY streak in them, and are very much anti "It takes a village". That means that they are willing to accept the risk that an ownership freedom provides them, because it allows them to not be reliant on someone else.


every time some one goes off with a gun all we get is "ban guns k" instead of tackling the real issues of "why they did it" and "how they got firearms" the last few shootings the world have seen brevik,moat,and holmes have all clearly been mentally unstable but still been able to gain access to firearms this is the bigger issue imo. in the uk banning guns didnt reduce the gun crime that much because there wasnt that much to begin with also imo.

The problem with why they did it: In a large enough event to make it over the Atlantic; it's fairly easy to chalk it up to "because... craaaazy" The how they got firearms is simple. A background check does not include a psych profile, because of time, personnel, and stigma associated with it. The answer really isn't here. Crazy people are going to do crazy shit.

ry ry
July 24 2012, 12:56:12 PM
every time some one goes off with a gun all we get is "ban guns k" instead of tackling the real issues of "why they did it" and "how they got firearms" the last few shootings the world have seen brevik,moat,and holmes have all clearly been mentally unstable but still been able to gain access to firearms this is the bigger issue imo. in the uk banning guns didnt reduce the gun crime that much because there wasnt that much to begin with also imo.

The counterpoint being: There isn't much guncrime in the UK because lesser criminals have a harder time getting hold of reliable, working guns. Guns just happen to create opportunities to kill people that a knife may not

It's such an emotive subject, and lots of people get quite passive-agressive arguing about it - in a way i feel like i'm cheating a little bit joining in a discussion that i really don't feel *that* strongly about, but at the same time i genuinely don't think guns should be something we all carry round with us and 100% believe that by having a gun available at any given time the chances of that gun being fired are higher.

Kransthow
July 24 2012, 01:49:32 PM
Clearly the first bit was loaded, i worded it so very obviously in the hope of eliciting a wry smile, but was still no more loaded than Kransthow suggesting that people getting shot was not at all linked to gun ownership. I'm also aware gun availability varies wildly from state to state - the whole point of what i posted was that there should be some standardised rules for all firearms, background checks being part of that.
http://onebit.us/x/i/f3a4e86cc0.jpg
Let's get something clear, I did not claim that people getting shot was not at all linked to gun ownership, obviously people can't get shot if there aren't any guns to shoot them with.

I claimed that legal gun ownership has no correlation with gun crime.

Which it doesn't. (http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/78/4/1461.short)

ry ry
July 24 2012, 02:19:48 PM
The bit i quoted - if you'll permit me to paraphrase - was something along the lines of "there isn't a gun problem, america is inherently violent. we can reduce the number of people shot with better schooling, relaxed drug laws and better living conditions for the poor"

To play devil's advocate - perhaps the more obvious first response would be "Since america is so violent, perhaps taking the guns away whilst they try to sort the other stuff out is a good idea?" Haven't even considered people shooting themselves for whatever reason.

I can't read the article through that portal and am too cheap to pay for access to read an undoubtably fairly dull paper, but from the abstract the gist seems to be that legal gun ownership had no noticeable correlation with gun crime in South Dakota (pop: ~750k in 2000 when that paper was published, lower when it was composed http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=state:46000&dl=en&hl=en&q=south+dakota+population). Based off the only fatal-shooting-per-capita stats i could find on the first page of google which were from 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) puts the averaged out pool size at around 100 fatal shootings per year tops?

From the wikipedia thing, over half of US fatal shootings are suicide so that puts the total sample size closer to 40 people shot per year? I'm honestly not convinced a little over (a hypothetical since i've extrapolated from one wikipedia article and the pop of south dakota in 2000!) 160 fatal shootings in one state over 4 years, and given the paper itself is over 12 years old, is conclusive proof.

Presumably legal gun ownership does not also cover legally owned guns that were then sold illegally or stolen, or guns legally bought using falsified details. etc.

But that's all supposition since i can't read the article. *shrug*

Nicho Void
July 24 2012, 02:52:45 PM
First off, good post. Sorry if I seemed dismissive in the past, I was under the impression you were more interested in trolling than actual debating, but this was a solid post.

When in Roam...



I agree hypothetically that a single trained citizen could have shot the shooter (ignoring for the moment the issue of head-to-toe kevlar), but the discussion is not about placing single, trained individuals at strategic locations for the sake of potential tragedies. The issue is a binary one: Would more people have died if no one, or almost everyone (this therefore also includes UNtrained and INexperienced citizens) had been carrying a gun.

To me it seems very straightforward that anyone not specifically trained to deal with a situation like that (confusion, sensory deprivation, adrenaline from fight or flight) would be a much larger risk than a possible beneficial factor in a crowded movie theater like that, which is what the issue was about.
The only problem with this argument is that it's an all or nothing scenario. You presume that if the theatre had eased restrictions on carrying guns, everyone trained or untrained would be armed and shooting in a mass hysteria situation. You've chosen to leave out the people who don't like guns, can't afford one, choose not to carry, left it home, etc etc etc which allows you to infer increased risk. I say the opposite. I think the type of person likely to be carrying in a theatre is more likely to be trained than not. But again, conjecture.



A later argument of "but it's not those insanely rare psychotic but capable and scheming shooters that do 90%+ of the killings, it's everyday arguments escalating, accidents and other such related incidents" hinges partially on the fact that the Breiviks of the world can't be stopped, so gun control laws shouldn't be there to chiefly discourage those lunatics, but rather to prevent the 90% of gun casualties that CAN be prevented.

Yeah, my point was pretty unclear. I'm trying to argue that the prevalence of gun related crime in all countries (with out without controls) shows that people intent on killing with guns will always find a way to get said guns. I guess I'm of the opinion that disarming a populace on the assumption that most (some?) of gun related crime will decrease at the expense of allowing people the chance to defend themselves is antithetical to a free society. I think it's also important to note that, in America at least, the genie is already out of the bottle. Gun ownership is so widespread that any realistic measures to remove the availability of guns to the people responsible for "everyday arguments escalating, etc" would be nigh on impossible.



I admit I don't fully get what your argument is here. Are you saying that because your gun has only shot paper targets that the premise is therefore stupid, and should always be judged based on individual case by case basis?
No, my main point is that the thing responsible for killing is the shooter himself. The secondary point: If we look at this from a purely statistical perspective, it's clear that the vast majority of guns owned in the United States have never killed anyone. (Some numbers (http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828)). I don't think that's a point of contention, so accepting that only a fraction of guns have actually done any killing, stating "guns kill people, therefore ban them" is about as logical as "sugar kills diabetics, ban it", or "cars kill pedestrians, ban cars".

GiDiYi
July 24 2012, 08:43:45 PM
First off: Let's keep the discussion in the bounds of the article that was quoted in the OP.
My post was, it was a retort to this:

...Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
"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."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"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."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no...

I know. My "first off"-statement wasn't directed at you but more of a general statement. Sorry, if that was misplaced (I should have put the sentence above the quote).



But: This isn't even close to what is the reality in the US today. You're not allowed to own any kind of the more serious armaments needed to fight against the army of the United States of America in its current state as an american citizen no matter where you live. And if we're thinking about it, it's probably a good idea, that the regular John Doe doesn't have access to nuclear strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles.
You don't need an intercontinental ballistic missile to fight against the united states army, a bunch of sandniggers in Idon'tgiveafuckistan seem to do well enough with rusty AKs and RPGs

Yeah, that bunch of sandniggers with rusty AK's and RPG's did a splendid job in fighting off the US and Allies out of their country.

Oh wait, they didn't. Afghanistan has been under military control of the US and Allies for 10 years now and the Taliban can do pretty much fuck all against this.

What they do is some sort of guerilla warfare and they do this with some "success", I'll admit this. But the result of this are 3103 dead soldiers in total linked to Afghanistan (all over the world from all participating countries, source: http://icasualties.org/oef/). The other "success" are an unknown number of civilian casualties within Afghanistan.

Those numbers are a very bad thing for the coalition, don't get me wrong here, but it certainly didn't help the Taliban to free their country from the occupation.

To really defeat an oppressive government with a military backup in the shape of the US military you need a lot more than AK's and RPG's.

In regards to the second amendment there would be an urgent requirement for a massive rearmament of the US Citizens.

Now, since we basically agreed upon the point, that handing out ICBM's to everyone probably isn't a good idea, the question is:

Where do you draw the line? I'd say a proper sam site in everyone's garden and a main battle tank in the garage are unavoidable if you want to stand a chance. Because otherwise they'll simply have total air superiority and an RPG is not really a very promising chance against a tank, especially if you have no proper training. Assault rifles are just useless in this scenario.

I think you can guess where I am going with my post. You simply can't implement the second amendment how it was meant by the founding fathers into a modern day world, because it would turn the USA into a permanent warzone. This was absolutely not intended by the constitution and I feel bad to type this out expressively.



It has been said several times in this thread, but to sum my post up: People have the freedom to own and bear arms in the US. Fair enough. But, do we have to give every John Doe out there the ability to generate a massive massacre at a whim?

It's unavoidable in some cases (the latest case with a seemingly really motivated lunatic might be such a case), because you really can't make it impossible. But it would be pretty easy to make it a lot harder without giving up a single dime of :freedom:, that the US and its citizens have fought for about 240 years ago.

Happy posting.

So tell me more about this pretty easy way to make it a lot harder to commit gun crime, gun control? Legal gun ownership has virtually no correlation with gun crime, internationally or in America. Almost all mass murders are committed with illegally obtained weapons, and on top of that many were committed in "gun-free" zones. And surrendering your freedom to self defense seems like a dime of freedom to me. To restrict legal access to certain kinds of guns which are deemed effective at causing bodily harm to others will not reduce gun deaths and will serve only to reduce the ability of the people to protect their own rights and :freedom:.

The thing is America doesn't have a gun violence issue, America has a violence issue. It's quite easy to point at guns and go "LOOK, THE CULPRIT" but all that serves to do is distract from the real causes of the culture of violence that exists in America.

You want to reduce gun violence? Try sensible drug laws, an effective education system and improved living conditions for the impoverished for starters.

You most certainly have a point there. An example for a country with a truly massive assault rifle per resident-ratio is Switzerland. Unfortunately I don't have exact numbers, but every soldier in Switzerland has the right to buy his rifle and take it home after finishing his service (and Switzerland is still drafting for their military if I am not mistaken).

They have an unusual drafting system and you get called in every year for a certain amount of days until you get 35 iirc (?). During this time you take your rifle home anyway. And they even handed out ammo in order to enable immediate response in case Switzerland gets invaded again, like on so many occasions in the last 100 years. I think they've stopped handing out ammo at some point in the last 10 years, but I am not sure about it (maybe Fara can clarify on this point).

Yet Switzerland doesn't have a gun crime problem that is anywhere close to the levels of th USA.

So, I agree. Gun control isn't the solution to solve the problem, because the problems have their origin in a multitude of reasons, of which you listed some in your post. But it's a start. One has to start somewhere. A solution for the causing problems, that you threw in the ring, aren't exactly solvable on a short term scale, unfortunately.

tl;dr: Gun control isn't the cure, but it's a drug to fight the symptoms, thus buying time to find a cure.

Hast
July 24 2012, 09:39:10 PM
You most certainly have a point there. An example for a country with a truly massive assault rifle per resident-ratio is Switzerland. Unfortunately I don't have exact numbers, but every soldier in Switzerland has the right to buy his rifle and take it home after finishing his service (and Switzerland is still drafting for their military if I am not mistaken).

They have an unusual drafting system and you get called in every year for a certain amount of days until you get 35 iirc (?). During this time you take your rifle home anyway. And they even handed out ammo in order to enable immediate response in case Switzerland gets invaded again, like on so many occasions in the last 100 years. I think they've stopped handing out ammo at some point in the last 10 years, but I am not sure about it (maybe Fara can clarify on this point).

Yet Switzerland doesn't have a gun crime problem that is anywhere close to the levels of th USA.



They do however have a higher rate of gun related incidents then a country without such a system. Which is why Norway changed a similar system so that people might have their service weapons at home if they were part of the national guard, but the firing pin is removed (or another integral part of the weapon). Yes, you can probably get a firing pin, but chances are that if you wanted to use the weapon because you caught your wife cheating you have probably calmed down by the time the weapon is usable. And it is first and foremost these kind of gun related incidents that we can and want to prevent.

Daco
July 24 2012, 10:06:47 PM
The comment about a single trained shooter being in crowds encase a shooting happened I just wanted to comment on.

I remember some group doing research on if someone in a classroom had a gun encase a student came bursting in and shooting the place up so he could defend himself and everyone else didn't weld very good results. With all of the subjects the tried they all couldn't pull the gun and shoot mostly because of how fear overcame them. Half of them couldn't even get their gun out just because their arm/hand wasn't working properly because of adrenalin and well fear not allowing them to function properly and the ones that could get it out couldn't even fire the gun because again they couldn't do it due to the previous reasons.

Granted they were not trained, but this group doing the research did go into what gun training would take and it showed what police officers have to go through each week to make sure they can pull their gun. They're pretty much at the gun range every couple of days drawing their guns and shooting them and doing various other exercises to make sure they can actually pull their gun if they have to.

Now I am not saying having someone in a crowd with a gun encase shootings happen is a bad thing but I can't see it being a practical thing either, when you take into account what they have to do to keep their "wits" about them and also there is the factor of you have 100+ people all running around scream and scrambling to get out which will make it stupidly hard to actually see where the shooter is and then hit him without hitting some innocent citizen.

Just my thoughts really.

inora aknaria
July 24 2012, 11:52:30 PM
I fucked up on my cell, will make post at home

Zeekar
July 25 2012, 12:11:11 AM
The comment about a single trained shooter being in crowds encase a shooting happened I just wanted to comment on.

I remember some group doing research on if someone in a classroom had a gun encase a student came bursting in and shooting the place up so he could defend himself and everyone else didn't weld very good results. With all of the subjects the tried they all couldn't pull the gun and shoot mostly because of how fear overcame them. Half of them couldn't even get their gun out just because their arm/hand wasn't working properly because of adrenalin and well fear not allowing them to function properly and the ones that could get it out couldn't even fire the gun because again they couldn't do it due to the previous reasons.

Granted they were not trained, but this group doing the research did go into what gun training would take and it showed what police officers have to go through each week to make sure they can pull their gun. They're pretty much at the gun range every couple of days drawing their guns and shooting them and doing various other exercises to make sure they can actually pull their gun if they have to.

Now I am not saying having someone in a crowd with a gun encase shootings happen is a bad thing but I can't see it being a practical thing either, when you take into account what they have to do to keep their "wits" about them and also there is the factor of you have 100+ people all running around scream and scrambling to get out which will make it stupidly hard to actually see where the shooter is and then hit him without hitting some innocent citizen.

Just my thoughts really.

Even trained military men can panic when faced with a surprise situation let alone untrained horde of people.

FourFiftyFour
July 25 2012, 12:24:04 AM
This post is in response to those discussing the feasibility of an armed revolution against a corrupt or tyrannical government in the U.S.

One very crucial error you are making is assuming that the military of the United States would obey any order that involved hostile action against their fellow citizens. In fact, such an order would have to be given by act of congress in keeping with Posse Comitatus.

So assuming you could get congress to pass that act and that the revolution is popular you are left with the fact that you are asking the Armed Forces to kill their own kind. People from the same nation they are sworn to protect.

Many will not obey that order. It could happen at the command level or individual soldiers choosing to desert. That leaves you with those in the National Guard, Air Force, and non-deployed personnel from the Navy/Marines/AF/Army who have chosen to obey that order. A vastly diminished force from what the world is used to seeing out of the U.S.

A guerrilla action against them would be very feasible especially because of the large and urban nature of the country.

Shiroi Okami
July 25 2012, 12:38:23 AM
Back to the constitution itself for a second, correct me if I am wrong but the part about the right to bear arms was made at a time when muskets, roundshot field guns and cavalry were the pinnacle of military technology, and has not been changed since then. Back then it would have made sense because the only kind of firearm available to fight an oppressive government with would have been a musket. And it would certainly have levelled the playing field as battle like that tended to be fought with swords and vollies of rifle fire. However today when the field is so much changed, should the same rules from the 18th Century still apply?

In the hypothetical event that the populace of the USA needed to bring down it's own government and once again fight for their freedom, having a fully automatic assault rifle or a simple hunting rifle is not going to make a huge difference when your opponents are mechanised. Now as far as I'm aware US citizens aren't allowed to purchase tanks, APCs, helicopters, and other sorts of attack craft, so why should they be able to purchase military grade small arms? In general laws change as new technology becomes available, or are invented to suit new technology. As I imagine there is a law somewhere that prohibits Wal-Mart selling M1A1 MBTs, why has the (2nd amendment?) not been changed to accommodate the fact that small arms have changed drastically over the last 250 years?

You don't need an AR-15 or an MP-5 to defend yourself or your home, you could argue you don't need any kind of firearm to do that much unless you like to leave all your doors unlocked in the dead of night. At most you could argue that a pump action shotgun or small caliber rifle could do the job. Automatic and semiautomatic weapons should be extremely tightly regulated, because of the danger they pose to the population. And pistols should probably be banned entirely, as they are in many countries, because they are the weapon of choice for criminals and far too easy to conceal. And someone who said earlier 'I like my guns to shoot fast and big like I like my cars to go fast and be big', what a retarded argument. Guns are very clearly designed to kill things, and even if you make the argument about self defence and your right to bear arms, neither of those are a valid reason in my opinion to be able to purchase a fully automatic combat rifle under the guise of 'self defence', what are you going to defend yourself from, an army of liberal democratic church burning muslim zombies?

If an american would like to enlighten me as to why you need firearms for self defence in a (relatively) peaceful country as a civillian I would be much obliged.

And I'm aware it is a minority spoiling everything for the majority as far as guns enthusiasts go, but that is all the more reason for tighter restrictions on guns, so those that are responsible enough to use them can do so after jumping through the required hoops, and those that should never ever possess any kind of lethal weapon should find it significantly harder to come into possession of their tool of murder than just walking into a supermarket and buying a 12 gauge shotgun.

erichkknaar
July 25 2012, 02:15:07 AM
That leaves you with those in the National Guard, Air Force, and non-deployed personnel from the Navy/Marines/AF/Army who have chosen to obey that order. A vastly diminished force from what the world is used to seeing out of the U.S.


I seriously doubt many of those guys would follow that kind of order either.

Reed Tiburon
July 25 2012, 02:27:43 AM
B]Guns are a privilege, not a right[/B]. You can have a hunting rifle, sure no worries - prove you're not medically blind and don't have a string of firearms convictions and you're golden, but why on earth do you need that 30mm anti-aircraft cannon? You do not have the divine right to own everything that is physically capable of propelling metal through the air at lethal velocity, similarly my driving license does not permit me to drive a lorry or a 747.
Nice strawman. No one is arguing that you should be able to waddle down to Harris Teeter and toss a GAU-8 onto your motorized scooter. To even bring it up is to argue dishonestly. Also:

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.
I hope you see the contradiction between your gut reaction to scary guns and the tenets upon which this country are based. Each state has its own laws, if you think the laws are crap you are welcome to move there and agitate against them. The only thing I ask is that you educate yourself on firearms beforehand - we don't need another Assault Weapons Ban (whatever the fuck an "assault weapon" is, if I put a retractable stock on a potato does that make it an assault potato?) nor do we need more knee-jerk legislation.


I'm also aware gun availability varies wildly from state to state - the whole point of what i posted was that there should be some standardised rules for all firearms, background checks being part of that.
As O said, you are arguing for things that are already true, and that no one is arguing against.


As far as vague statements like "guns should not be mundane" go what i mean specifically is that they should not be stacked on racks in the supermarket like any other household item. I don't believe putting them behind a counter would add to their 'mystique', and similarly i don't think taking that further putting them out of sight would have any negative side effect.

The point of that is to make firearms less ubiquitous, if they cease to be something so commonplace you don't give them a second thought i'd anticipate that would - over a period of years - hopefully erode the sense of necessity/entitlement attached to them.
So your real problem is that Americans aren't uncomfortable enough with guns? And here we come back to the "America is not Europe, nor does it want to be" point.

Back to the constitution itself for a second, correct me if I am wrong but the part about the right to bear arms was made at a time when muskets, roundshot field guns and cavalry were the pinnacle of military technology, and has not been changed since then. Back then it would have made sense because the only kind of firearm available to fight an oppressive government with would have been a musket. And it would certainly have levelled the playing field as battle like that tended to be fought with swords and vollies of rifle fire. However today when the field is so much changed, should the same rules from the 18th Century still apply?

In the hypothetical event that the populace of the USA needed to bring down it's own government and once again fight for their freedom, having a fully automatic assault rifle or a simple hunting rifle is not going to make a huge difference when your opponents are mechanised. Now as far as I'm aware US citizens aren't allowed to purchase tanks, APCs, helicopters, and other sorts of attack craft, so why should they be able to purchase military grade small arms? In general laws change as new technology becomes available, or are invented to suit new technology. As I imagine there is a law somewhere that prohibits Wal-Mart selling M1A1 MBTs, why has the (2nd amendment?) not been changed to accommodate the fact that small arms have changed drastically over the last 250 years?
The rationale behind the Second Amendment has not aged too well, but you clearly don't care about that, you're just seizing on whatever you can to support your anti-gun bias.

You don't need an AR-15 or an MP-5 to defend yourself or your home, you could argue you don't need any kind of firearm to do that much unless you like to leave all your doors unlocked in the dead of night. At most you could argue that a pump action shotgun or small caliber rifle could do the job. Automatic and semiautomatic weapons should be extremely tightly regulated, because of the danger they pose to the population. And pistols should probably be banned entirely, as they are in many countries, because they are the weapon of choice for criminals and far too easy to conceal. And someone who said earlier 'I like my guns to shoot fast and big like I like my cars to go fast and be big', what a retarded argument. Guns are very clearly designed to kill things, and even if you make the argument about self defence and your right to bear arms, neither of those are a valid reason in my opinion to be able to purchase a fully automatic combat rifle under the guise of 'self defence', what are you going to defend yourself from, an army of liberal democratic church burning muslim zombies?
Psst, your bias is showing. Buying fully auto weapons is not easy anywhere in the US, so nice strawman again. If there are loopholes that you know about, please do educate me. As for what guns are designed for - guns are very clearly designed to accelerate small projectiles to high speeds. Whether those projectiles hit a clay pigeon, a real pigeon, or a pigeon-headed individual is up to the shooter, not the gun. Just because you've never gone skeet shooting or down to the range does not mean no one has.

I've never even fired a gun in my life, but just for once I'd like to hear a gun control debate in which people actually have concrete solutions and a familiarity with the laws instead of "why aren't you like us"

Reed Tiburon
July 25 2012, 02:41:58 AM
copypasting from my post on another site

1. One thing that you guys don't get is that guns are already everywhere in this country. It isn't like the UK, where you lot can get away with a gun ban because the level of gun ownership is so low. We have 270 million registered firearms. That's 9 guns for every 10 people. And people think a ban (even a targeted one) is going to stop criminals from getting their hands on them? There's a reason they say: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Seriously, what in the fuck are you going to do with all the weapons? (That is politically feasible? Because if you're not thinking of a workable solution, you're basically jerking off to the sight of your own posts.) Short of throwing all the guns into the ocean, we're stuck with them.

2. People confused about why the US "needs guns". Well, Second Amendment "well regulated militia" shitfest aside, we don't need guns. We also don't need: hamburgers, steaks, cars that can drive faster than the speed limit, fireworks, bungee jumping, roller coasters, etc, etc. It's a stupid and juvenile argument, and if the Constitution can be said to be solidly against any one thing, it's about granting freedoms on the basis of "need". It's a culture thing, Americans like guns, deal with it.

3. It's striking how little people who want more gun control generally know about firearms. They're scared of the AR-15 because it's big and black and scary looking - except it's locked on semi-auto. People think things like pistol grips somehow increase a weapon's ability to kill people. People think magazine size is a function of the weapon, not realizing you can buy whatever size magazine you want (and states have restrictions on that). People don't know what the fuck they're talking about. For the same reason, they seem to have a poor grasp on what the procedure actually looks like for obtaining weapons. (Which this thread has been a great example of.) Like my daddy always told me, if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't post. And you definitely shouldn't get on your high horse and preach.

I'd say we don't need knee-jerk legislation; we should be looking at the holes in the existing process and making sure that it's broadly the same level of safety across states. So if you want to talk about specific changes that should be made to existing law, I'd fucking love to hear them.

Honestly, if the NRA put half as much money into firearms education as they did into lobbying, I think we'd be off to a decent start. Because as this thread shows, nobody seems to know anything about guns.

FourFiftyFour
July 25 2012, 03:46:06 AM
If an american would like to enlighten me as to why you need firearms for self defence in a (relatively) peaceful country as a civillian I would be much obliged.



I live in Chicago where there are at least 5 murders a day. We have some of the worst gang violence anywhere unless you count sectarian violence in the Middle East. I live in a nice part of the city right next a major tourist attraction and a police station. Even in that nice neighborhood I've seen a drive by and several armed robberies.

Saving for a hand gun and lessons as we speak.

Don Pellegrino
July 25 2012, 05:09:05 AM
I don't understand why you guys arguing against guns always fall into the trap of discussing premeditated crimes. OF COURSE, anyone with dedication will find a way to get a gun. OF COURSE, anyone that plans to have someone dead will use another weapon to reach his goal. I would love to see a chart of the non-premeditated murders, basically the in the heat-of-the-moment extreme emotional responses. The gun turns the assault/battery into homicidal attempts*. Having a gun ready to shoot when that person has lost all judgement and basically turned into an animal is the point most people in this thread should focus on.

"Caught my wife cheating on me with a coworker, I will fucking kill him"
"That kid RIGHT THERE IN MY HOUSE admitted he got my daughter pregnant, I'm gonna fucking kill him"

These kind of murders^. I'd love to see how frequently they happen per 100,000 people in different states and countries.


*Those stats would help show if there's some correlation and if my conjecture holds.

Reed Tiburon
July 25 2012, 05:25:24 AM
I don't understand why you guys arguing against guns always fall into the trap of discussing premeditated crimes.

maybe because gun control advocates always seem to multiply every time a major premeditated crime occurs? (see: this, VT, etc, etc)

Don Pellegrino
July 25 2012, 05:32:13 AM
I don't understand why you guys arguing against guns always fall into the trap of discussing premeditated crimes.

maybe because gun control advocates always seem to multiply every time a major premeditated crime occurs? (see: this, VT, etc, etc)

It's a conspiracy to turn more people into gun control advocates? Or are you implying that it's what sensationalist media claims? As far as I can tell it goes both ways because they seem to pull the "more gun control!!!" card about as often as the "wouldn't have happened if everyone had guns!!!" card. Please explain, I'm not getting what you're trying to say.

erichkknaar
July 25 2012, 05:48:37 AM
I don't understand why you guys arguing against guns always fall into the trap of discussing premeditated crimes.

maybe because gun control advocates always seem to multiply every time a major premeditated crime occurs? (see: this, VT, etc, etc)

I'm not sure I'm understanding that sentence correctly. It's a conspiracy to turn more people into gun control advocates? Or are you implying that it's what sensationalist media claims? As far as I can tell it goes both ways because they seem to pull the "more gun control!!!" card about as often as the "wouldn't have happened if everyone had guns!!!" card. Please explain, I'm not getting what you're trying to say.

I think, basically, that every time a bad, high profile crime committed with a gun (or guns) happens, political forces (for or against) come out and say gun caused/did not cause this tragedy.

There is certainly a knee-jerk media cycle to events like this. We get the "rambo-citizen" angle. We get the "this wouldn't have happened if no-one had guns" angle.

My personal thoughts on the specific event that initiated all of this is that no amount of training, CWP, etc, would have helped here. The guy had a plan. He executed it (besides being caught, and rifle jamming (thankfully)) perfectly. Bad situation for the good guys. He got the element of surprise, and leveraged it. Based on personal training and experience, I don't think everyone having guns would have done a bit of good. This may be different in other locations/situations. I don't think the actions of one individual should affect gun law, I really don't see any reason to go there, other than a knee jerk reaction to the fact that the crime was perpetrated with a gun.

SAI Peregrinus
July 25 2012, 06:10:32 AM
I'm just going to post my thoughts for the moment.

First, on the Constitution:
People often mention muskets as being the firearms of the time when the constitution was written. While muskets were important, they pale in comparison to the proper guns (cannons are guns, muskets, rifles, and pistols are too small to be called guns in the terminology of the time), howitzers, and mortars. The smallest of these were the two pound guns, which meant they fired a ball weighing two pounds. The most common were 3, 4, and 6 pound guns, with a few up to fifty pounds. They could also be loaded with grape shot (lead balls the size of grapes wrapped in a cloth bag, effective to about 200 yards), canister shot (smaller lead balls in a metal canister, effective to about 600 yards), and a wide variety of other ammunition. A single cannon could decimate huge numbers of infantry at long range. Howitzers fired shells, hollow shot filled with gunpowder that exploded on impact.

At the beginning of the war the American militias used what guns they could smuggle in and keep from being taken by the British. Later they captured British weaponry, bought guns from France and Spain, and cast their own guns (primarily in Springfield, MA).

The right to bear arms as set down in the Constitution of the USA was added in part because the British took away cannons to try to prevent rebellion. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, including howitzers, mortars, and cannon, was considered important enough to amend the Constitution.

(I have fired an 18 pounder, which is privately owned. It is LOUD.)

Second, on gun laws:
In District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to individuals.

I do think that gun licenses should require passing a background check and two tests:
Written:
State the four rules of firearms safety.

All firearms are loaded.
Never let the muzzle of a firearm point at anything you are not willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger unless your sights are on the target.
Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
Practical:
Demonstrate basic proficiency with the firearm type on a shooting range.

Anyone incapable of controlling a gun should not be using a gun, just as anyone incapable of controlling a car should not be using a car. If you can't hit your target the gun is useless to you anyway, so this should not add a significant burden. Testing should not take significant time, and thus not require large fees from an instructor to certify the testee. EG the Rifle Ten shouldn't take more than 5 minutes.



Rifle Ten description, J. C. Schaefer, "Courses of Fire," Fr. Frog's Web Site, 2012-05-26, http://www.frfrogspad.com/courses.htm, 2012-07-24

This is one of the classic drills used by Jeff Cooper. The shooter starts with the rifle loaded and slung on the shoulder or at port arms, with the bipod, if any, closed. A single IPSC "option " target is placed at 300 yards. There are five firing points, one each at 300, 275, 250, 225, and 200. The shooter stands clear of his firing point at 300 yards.

On signal the shooter moves to the firing point, assumes any position he chooses and engages the 300 yard target with two rounds. He immediately moves to the 275 yard position firing two more shots, then advances to the 250 yard position, fires two more rounds, and then to the 225 yard position where a 2 foot high baffle precludes prone or supine position and fires two more rounds. He the moves to the 200 yard position where a 3 foot high screen eliminates any position but off hand or standing and fires two rounds.

Score is based upon the hit values divide by your time in minutes, with a par time of 2 minutes. To prevent someone throwing away the two 200 yard shots you can use a separate target for the 200 yard stage. The option target is scored 5, 4, 2. A score of 40 in two minutes is considered very good.

Reed Tiburon
July 25 2012, 07:11:29 AM
I think, basically, that every time a bad, high profile crime committed with a gun (or guns) happens, political forces (for or against) come out and say gun caused/did not cause this tragedy.
This, except in my view the cries for gun control generally come first. Guy shoots people, politicians and interest groups cry "no more guns! think of the children!", THEN pro-gun people say "wouldn't have happened if he had a gun!" It's a kneejerk reaction to a kneejerk reaction.


There is certainly a knee-jerk media cycle to events like this. We get the "rambo-citizen" angle. We get the "this wouldn't have happened if no-one had guns" angle.
Well, first we always have the: "What could have driven him to do such a thing?" angle. Which inevitably fails, because understanding the mind of a killer is not a task for public discourse, at least not if you want to approach it with any nuance. Then (and here's where it all goes wrong) we don't stop and figure out what, if anything, we did wrong. This would entail closing loopholes, tightening up legislation, rewriting or scrapping old legislation, which would mean we'd have to act like sane and rational people. Instead, we retreat to our pre-tragedy stances and seize the opportunity to jump up on our soapboxes ("Guns are good!" "Guns are evil!"). Which is how we get this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban).

Also, a tragedy will always get more airtime than a successful home defense / thwarted robbery / etc.

Basically, the news in this country is a shitfest, more entertainment than education, and every issue is a sporting contest between two sides. It's been a pet peeve of mine for a long time.

Shiroi Okami
July 25 2012, 07:13:12 AM
Back to the constitution itself for a second, correct me if I am wrong but the part about the right to bear arms was made at a time when muskets, roundshot field guns and cavalry were the pinnacle of military technology, and has not been changed since then. Back then it would have made sense because the only kind of firearm available to fight an oppressive government with would have been a musket. And it would certainly have levelled the playing field as battle like that tended to be fought with swords and vollies of rifle fire. However today when the field is so much changed, should the same rules from the 18th Century still apply?

In the hypothetical event that the populace of the USA needed to bring down it's own government and once again fight for their freedom, having a fully automatic assault rifle or a simple hunting rifle is not going to make a huge difference when your opponents are mechanised. Now as far as I'm aware US citizens aren't allowed to purchase tanks, APCs, helicopters, and other sorts of attack craft, so why should they be able to purchase military grade small arms? In general laws change as new technology becomes available, or are invented to suit new technology. As I imagine there is a law somewhere that prohibits Wal-Mart selling M1A1 MBTs, why has the (2nd amendment?) not been changed to accommodate the fact that small arms have changed drastically over the last 250 years?
The rationale behind the Second Amendment has not aged too well, but you clearly don't care about that, you're just seizing on whatever you can to support your anti-gun bias.

How do you figure that? I'm not even anti-gun biased, I am perfectly fine with people owning weapons and even intend to myself when I can afford the license and the firearm itself. Admittedly toward the end of my post is go off on a bit of a tangent (Religious warmongers annoy me to no end). I brought it up because I do actually wish to know why the laws haven't been adjusted to suit modern society, and if the idea has come up before in the gun debate, what was done or suggested? And also because the entire concept of walking into a supermarket and buying a gun, from my perspective, seems entirely stupid.



You don't need an AR-15 or an MP-5 to defend yourself or your home, you could argue you don't need any kind of firearm to do that much unless you like to leave all your doors unlocked in the dead of night. At most you could argue that a pump action shotgun or small caliber rifle could do the job. Automatic and semiautomatic weapons should be extremely tightly regulated, because of the danger they pose to the population. And pistols should probably be banned entirely, as they are in many countries, because they are the weapon of choice for criminals and far too easy to conceal. And someone who said earlier 'I like my guns to shoot fast and big like I like my cars to go fast and be big', what a retarded argument. Guns are very clearly designed to kill things, and even if you make the argument about self defence and your right to bear arms, neither of those are a valid reason in my opinion to be able to purchase a fully automatic combat rifle under the guise of 'self defence', what are you going to defend yourself from, an army of liberal democratic church burning muslim zombies?
Psst, your bias is showing. Buying fully auto weapons is not easy anywhere in the US, so nice strawman again. If there are loopholes that you know about, please do educate me. As for what guns are designed for - guns are very clearly designed to accelerate small projectiles to high speeds. Whether those projectiles hit a clay pigeon, a real pigeon, or a pigeon-headed individual is up to the shooter, not the gun. Just because you've never gone skeet shooting or down to the range does not mean no one has.

I've never even fired a gun in my life, but just for once I'd like to hear a gun control debate in which people actually have concrete solutions and a familiarity with the laws instead of "why aren't you like us"

This is just ridiculous semantics and a poor argument in itself, to be accused of using a strawman again, it is not dissimilar to saying that a nuclear missile is just a machine designed to fly really fast and make an area really really hot. Whether there are people or forests or buildings or whatever in the area it makes hot, is up to the person with the target coordinates.

Instead I'd like someone to tell me why exactly concealable weapons like pistols and sawn off shotgun should be allowed for civillians (Of which the former seems remarkably easy to come by in the US)

And as for the automatic weapons, I'm not claiming to be an expert, all I know is that they are obtainable, and it doesnt appear to be incredibly difficult. And I have yet to see a valid reason why such weapons should be obtainable at all to civillians, to point to your bad argument above again, as far as I am aware people don't go hunting with automatic rifles, nor do they go skeet shooting with such.

TO use my local laws as an example, I think Australia's system of gun ownership is quite good;
- Automatic weapons of any kind may not be owned or carried by civillians. Same deal for military grade weapons like rocket launchers, flamethrowers, anti-materiel rifles, anti-tank rifles, etc
- Pistols may be owned by civillians but require 6 months membership of a pistol club, as well as relevant firearms licensing, background checks, and an interview before you can buy a pistol. A further 3 months of club attendance is required before you may buy a pistol larger than .22 in caliber. The pistol must also be stored in a safe in the gun club at all times it is not in use, you may not take it home or anywhere outside of the club's approved range
-As for other weapons:
Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:
Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart of "Genuine Reason" a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
The weapon must be registered with the state and the relevant licensing must be acquired.

Now if someone could explain to my why the application (In theory, I know due to the gun saturation already present in the USA implementation of this would be a monumental task) of a set of laws like this would infringe on the 2nd amendment and be disagreeable to gun advocates I'd be much obliged.

JForce
July 25 2012, 07:30:15 AM
So I was chatting with chris and jason last night about gun control and it was very interesting to hear what Jason did to get his gun licence.
Over here in NZ you read a book on gun safety etc then you sit a written test and then you have your firearms licence.

Actually Daco that's not entirely correct.

To get a firearms license in NZ you apply, and have to meet certain criteria - obviously background checks are done, and any issues or offenses can be used to deny you a license.

After that, a member of the police will interview 2 referees - a spouse/next of kin, and a friend who knows you well. In both cases these interviews will be conducted without the applicant present. My mum would get a visit from the police at work, and they would talk to her about dad's mental state - his attitude towards guns, whether he was prone to violence, his drinking habits, anything and everything relevant to responsible gun control.
Even a relationship with someone else who may be unsuitable for a firearms license can be grounds to not issue one.

Only when satisfied about the applicant's mental state and history would they then visit the house to make sure that any firearms could be/were stored correctly - locked away, ammo separate, etc. Then they'd issue a license.

Also:

There is no restriction on semi-auto or manual
is incorrect as well.

A firearms license only entitles you to own a rifle or shotgun.

Access to a semi-automatic requires an "E" endorsment on your license, which requires a whole separate application process, and you basically have to prove why the hell the police should let you have one.

As far as gun control goes - I am a realist, in that it will never work in the US. We have a high-rate of gun ownership in NZ, but like other non-US countries the rate of gun violence is low. Which controlling the guns would obviously cut down on gun violence, it's never going to happen.

Do I think people need access to AR-15s? No. However if that's what the US wants then I'm ok with it. Unlike lots of other US policies than DO impact on me (and other parts of the world), this one is purely an internal affairs issue.
I would fight hard here if people wanted to relax our gun laws, but again it's a contextual argument.

Therefore what the US needs is acceptance. Acceptance that these massacres, and the death of tens-of-thousands of people every year are the price of having the guns laws/access the way you want them. If it's considered part of the culture of America that gun access is the way that it is at present, then the consequences should be acknowledged, and then everyone can get on with their lives.

Daco
July 25 2012, 07:36:01 AM
Lots of words

Eh I just remember when my old man got his it took barely any effort at all. Obviously it has changed a hell of a lot since then.

Although tbh what you have said there isn't really much effort for yourself it is more of an effort for the guys having to do the checks etc.

JForce
July 25 2012, 07:41:17 AM
Lots of words

Eh I just remember when my old man got his it took barely any effort at all. Obviously it has changed a hell of a lot since then.

Although tbh what you have said there isn't really much effort for yourself it is more of an effort for the guys having to do the checks etc.

Yeah the "old way" was indeed like buying a Lotto ticket pretty much - my dad said the same thing.

Reed Tiburon
July 25 2012, 07:42:44 AM
How do you figure that? I'm not even anti-gun biased, I am perfectly fine with people owning weapons and even intend to myself when I can afford the license and the firearm itself. Admittedly toward the end of my post is go off on a bit of a tangent (Religious warmongers annoy me to no end). I brought it up because I do actually wish to know why the laws haven't been adjusted to suit modern society, and if the idea has come up before in the gun debate, what was done or suggested? And also because the entire concept of walking into a supermarket and buying a gun, from my perspective, seems entirely stupid.

This is just ridiculous semantics and a poor argument in itself, to be accused of using a strawman again, it is not dissimilar to saying that a nuclear missile is just a machine designed to fly really fast and make an area really really hot. Whether there are people or forests or buildings or whatever in the area it makes hot, is up to the person with the target coordinates.

Instead I'd like someone to tell me why exactly concealable weapons like pistols and sawn off shotgun should be allowed for civillians (Of which the former seems remarkably easy to come by in the US)

And as for the automatic weapons, I'm not claiming to be an expert, all I know is that they are obtainable, and it doesnt appear to be incredibly difficult. And I have yet to see a valid reason why such weapons should be obtainable at all to civillians, to point to your bad argument above again, as far as I am aware people don't go hunting with automatic rifles, nor do they go skeet shooting with such.
1. Right because nuclear weapons have sporting uses, or hunting uses, both of which I explicitly cited. And you wonder why I accused you of using a strawman.
2. Why would you call for revamping US gun law without actually knowing what gun laws there are in this country? Who cares how things "seem" to you? This is the equivalent of me bitching about Australia's wildlife protection laws, because it "seems" to me that you should kill all the animals, because they're dangerous. FYI: No, automatic weapons are not easy to get legally (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html), and please don't make this argument again.
3. Again: You are operating on a mental model of the state having to expressly "allow" certain rights, while by default withholding others. That is not how this country's laws work, nor is it how this country's culture works. Reread the Tenth Amendment.

TO use my local laws as an example, I think Australia's system of gun ownership is quite good;
- Automatic weapons of any kind may not be owned or carried by civillians. Same deal for military grade weapons like rocket launchers, flamethrowers, anti-materiel rifles, anti-tank rifles, etc
- Pistols may be owned by civillians but require 6 months membership of a pistol club, as well as relevant firearms licensing, background checks, and an interview before you can buy a pistol. A further 3 months of club attendance is required before you may buy a pistol larger than .22 in caliber. The pistol must also be stored in a safe in the gun club at all times it is not in use, you may not take it home or anywhere outside of the club's approved range
-As for other weapons:
Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:
Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart of "Genuine Reason" a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
The weapon must be registered with the state and the relevant licensing must be acquired.

Now if someone could explain to my why the application (In theory, I know due to the gun saturation already present in the USA implementation of this would be a monumental task) of a set of laws like this would infringe on the 2nd amendment and be disagreeable to gun advocates I'd be much obliged.
Please explain to me which part of this contradicts or is massively better than American gun law (federal or state, I'm not picky). Oh wait, you don't know, because you don't know US gun law. And, to be fair, I'm not too up on the minutiae in every state myself. Then again, I don't get on my high horse and tell everyone they're doing it wrong, and my laws are better.

Reed Tiburon
July 25 2012, 07:48:14 AM
Do I think people need access to AR-15s? No. However if that's what the US wants then I'm ok with it. Unlike lots of other US policies than DO impact on me (and other parts of the world), this one is purely an internal affairs issue.
I would fight hard here if people wanted to relax our gun laws, but again it's a contextual argument.

Therefore what the US needs is acceptance. Acceptance that these massacres, and the death of tens-of-thousands of people every year are the price of having the guns laws/access the way you want them. If it's considered part of the culture of America that gun access is the way that it is at present, then the consequences should be acknowledged, and then everyone can get on with their lives.

FWIW, more people die from swimming pools.

JForce
July 25 2012, 07:50:00 AM
Also, on the constitution - my view is actually similiar to what I posted about gun control in the US.

I personally think the constitution is retarded - not because of what it WAS, but because of what it's BECOME.

The US has built up such a cult-of-personality around "the founding fathers" that they could do-no-wrong, that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, which are the product of a time, and a unique situation, are infallible documents that answer all questions and solve all problems.

Because of this it's become a document that's so holy, to question it's nature or intent is like arguing with a religious zealot. They're unable to see past "but the constitution" and view it as merely another part of the context of the discussion, another reference to core principles that can be considered but shouldn't necessarily be taken as The Word of God.

Again though I think this comes back to the nature of US culture vs the rest of the developed/western world. Here in NZ, we don't have a constitution, but of course when the time comes to abolish the monarchy we will put one in place - carefully - but when something is wrong with our law we change it.

Slavery was "right" a few hundred years ago - now it isn't, and our laws reflect that.
Women's rights were "unecessary" a few hundred years ago - now they aren't, and our laws reflect that.

My point is that US constitutional discussions are almost pointless as regardless of the discussion as it's "perfect" because the men who wrote it "are the smartest people ever" and therefore why change it?

JForce
July 25 2012, 08:02:07 AM
Do I think people need access to AR-15s? No. However if that's what the US wants then I'm ok with it. Unlike lots of other US policies than DO impact on me (and other parts of the world), this one is purely an internal affairs issue.
I would fight hard here if people wanted to relax our gun laws, but again it's a contextual argument.

Therefore what the US needs is acceptance. Acceptance that these massacres, and the death of tens-of-thousands of people every year are the price of having the guns laws/access the way you want them. If it's considered part of the culture of America that gun access is the way that it is at present, then the consequences should be acknowledged, and then everyone can get on with their lives.

FWIW, more people die from swimming pools.

See here we have rules about fencing pools. In the US would that be viewed as a reduction in freedom, or a sensible suggestion?

In some ways it's a bit like seatbelt laws - that this is opposed because it infringes upon civil liberties - in the face of amongst other evidence "common sense" says a lot I feel.

Shiroi Okami
July 25 2012, 08:02:14 AM
Why are you so angry? I'm not getting on a high horse and saying my country is better, you just are reading what you want to read from my posts so you can get mad and spout more nonsense.

1. As exaggerated as my post may have been you are still clinging onto semantics like it is a proper argument, which it is not.
2. I never said they were easy to get, all I said was that you can get them.
3. The state does indeed allow and disallow it's populace certain rights, as does every sane state. For example you are well within your rights to decide your own actions, however if these actions conflict with the rules (laws) of the state or risk lives or property the state will try to stop you, thereby restricting your right to freedom. That aside I fail to see where in my argument I said that 'by default' the state should be restricting people's rights, unless you believe gun control itself impinges on people's rights. In which case you must also believe prison, courts, road rules, ROE etc also impinge on people's rights.


And because you didn't read it I'll post again the main differences between american and australian gun law;

- Automatic weapons of any kind may not be owned or carried by civillians. (No exceptions that I know of)
- Pistols may be owned by civillians but require 6 months membership of a pistol club, as well as relevant firearms licensing, background checks, and an interview before you can buy a pistol. A further 3 months of club attendance is required before you may buy a pistol larger than .22 in caliber. The pistol must also be stored in a safe in the gun club at all times it is not in use, you may not take it home or anywhere outside of the club's approved range.
- Categories B through D are not as restricted in the US as they are in australia

In addition to actual accessibility to firearms in that gun shops are not as common and you can't buy guns from anywhere other than a gun club (gun shop).

JForce
July 25 2012, 08:06:18 AM
Do I think people need access to AR-15s? No. However if that's what the US wants then I'm ok with it. Unlike lots of other US policies than DO impact on me (and other parts of the world), this one is purely an internal affairs issue.
I would fight hard here if people wanted to relax our gun laws, but again it's a contextual argument.

Therefore what the US needs is acceptance. Acceptance that these massacres, and the death of tens-of-thousands of people every year are the price of having the guns laws/access the way you want them. If it's considered part of the culture of America that gun access is the way that it is at present, then the consequences should be acknowledged, and then everyone can get on with their lives.

FWIW, more people die from swimming pools.

More people die from gun violence than swimming pools? Or from my posting?

Only one of these seems plausable :D

Ophichius
July 25 2012, 08:13:21 AM
In the hypothetical event that the populace of the USA needed to bring down it's own government and once again fight for their freedom, having a fully automatic assault rifle or a simple hunting rifle is not going to make a huge difference when your opponents are mechanised. Now as far as I'm aware US citizens aren't allowed to purchase tanks, APCs, helicopters, and other sorts of attack craft, so why should they be able to purchase military grade small arms? In general laws change as new technology becomes available, or are invented to suit new technology. As I imagine there is a law somewhere that prohibits Wal-Mart selling M1A1 MBTs, why has the (2nd amendment?) not been changed to accommodate the fact that small arms have changed drastically over the last 250 years?

Actually, it's perfectly legal to buy decomissioned attack helicopters, APCs, and tanks. I'm not sure of the civilianizing requirements for attack helos, but for APCs and tanks it simply requires disabling the guns. M1 Abrahms tanks aren't available due to being current generation (i.e. not decomissioned), but it's possible to pick up soviet hardware pretty easily.


You don't need an AR-15 or an MP-5 to defend yourself or your home, you could argue you don't need any kind of firearm to do that much unless you like to leave all your doors unlocked in the dead of night. At most you could argue that a pump action shotgun or small caliber rifle could do the job.

Pardon me, but the AR-15 is a low-powered, small-caliber rifle. It fires 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington, which is a varmint rifle round. The H&K MP5 fires an even less potent round, firing 9x19 Parabellum. Civilian ownership of MP5s is heavily restricted due to the fact that they are fully automatic weapons, so in general they aren't available as home defense guns anyways. Please take the time to read my prior posts and educate yourself on firearms. Thank you.


Automatic and semiautomatic weapons should be extremely tightly regulated, because of the danger they pose to the population.

How exactly do semi-automatic rifles pose any increased danger over bolt-action rifles? Both can be cycled faster than you can acquire the target again.


And pistols should probably be banned entirely, as they are in many countries, because they are the weapon of choice for criminals and far too easy to conceal.

You do realize that pistols have legitimate uses in the US right? One of the major uses of firearms that people overlook is that they are actually used to defend against wildlife in some states. Most notably Alaska, where grizzly bear attacks are a real danger. Banning pistols means you've just banned emergency safety equipment for every outdoorsman in Alaska.


And someone who said earlier 'I like my guns to shoot fast and big like I like my cars to go fast and be big', what a retarded argument. Guns are very clearly designed to kill things, and even if you make the argument about self defence and your right to bear arms, neither of those are a valid reason in my opinion to be able to purchase a fully automatic combat rifle under the guise of 'self defence', what are you going to defend yourself from, an army of liberal democratic church burning muslim zombies?

Please quit loading the discussion. And once again, automatic firearms are incredibly difficult and expensive to acquire. Invoking 'automatic combat rifle' is a fallacy. It's not possible for the average person to buy an automatic weapon. Buying an automatic weapon is not trivial. Yes they're available, but only automatic weapons which were registered pre-1984, which means there is a limited pool of them, they're very well known to the authorities, and it is expensive as hell to buy one -if- you can find a seller who's interested in parting with theirs.


If an american would like to enlighten me as to why you need firearms for self defence in a (relatively) peaceful country as a civillian I would be much obliged.

Already posted above, but wildlife defense. Moose and grizzly bears are both capable of killing people quite fast, and are often unpredictable. It simply isn't possible to avoid confrontations with them at all times, and it's better to have the option to shoot them than have your only options be hoping that you go unnoticed, or dying.

-O

Diicc Tater
July 25 2012, 08:21:02 AM
I've done some self-educayshun.

Gun law and control in the US... fascinating and extremely complex. It just feels like it was left too long to do much about it.

I am a firm believer that the correct training, resulting in a license, is the safest way to go.
That guns and rifles (and their ammunition) are designed to kill (people and/or animals) and therefor cannot be compared to cars, spoons or other things without the same design goal.


So, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right in the USA. But why is the fact that it was to uphold a militia so overlooked?
If I'm not mistaken the militia of the old days (armed villagers) was in part replaced by the National Guard, Naval Militia (which are grouped as 'organized militia') and the State Defense Force.

To me it feels like someone forgot/overlooked to review and renew the definitions, but that's perhaps the usual way to do it sometimes. Laws and legislature must keep with the current times.

The 10 USC ß 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES still defines militia as both National guard members and the oldschool

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

More IMHO incoming
First of all, it seems a bad idea to have an "unorganized militia". Not only are there a lot of untapped resources but the "unorganized militia" groups could just as easy be a bunch of KKK members as well as the members of the Sarasota Gun Club.
It's meant to be the citizen.
It doesn't mean extreme groups can't go by this anyway. They will after all claim it's for the best of the homeland.


There are a good number of organized "unorganized militia", they mostly follow the NMS (National Militia Standards) that contain a quite excellent statement of ethics followed by a in many parts quite sad mission statement. There is a lot to say about the rest of the NMS when it comes to a lot of things but I'm not going further into that.

Anyway, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf says it's individuals.
While the right to bear arms may seem to be written as individual, to me the text says that it is so because of the need for a militia and those who volunteer to call them self "militia". If you are not labeling yourself as part of the militia, you don't need a gun kinda deal. It is however very easy to just say 'I'm part of the militia'...

I can't seem to find anything hinting to people suggesting that the part of Organized Militia should be expanded and highlighted. Encouraging more people to join for that seems to be a path of low resistance. It'll educate them and it would register them as well.

Wouldn't it be a quite nice thing to get the organized 'unorganized' groups to get some recognition? Make use of the skills and man/woman power. Place at least some responsibility on the people who fight furiously to keep their rights.

Good thread, fun to read. +rep.

Aramendel
July 25 2012, 08:26:41 AM
As far as gun control goes - I am a realist, in that it will never work in the US. We have a high-rate of gun ownership in NZ, but like other non-US countries the rate of gun violence is low. Which controlling the guns would obviously cut down on gun violence, it's never going to happen.

Do I think people need access to AR-15s? No. However if that's what the US wants then I'm ok with it. Unlike lots of other US policies than DO impact on me (and other parts of the world), this one is purely an internal affairs issue.
I would fight hard here if people wanted to relax our gun laws, but again it's a contextual argument.

Therefore what the US needs is acceptance. Acceptance that these massacres, and the death of tens-of-thousands of people every year are the price of having the guns laws/access the way you want them. If it's considered part of the culture of America that gun access is the way that it is at present, then the consequences should be acknowledged, and then everyone can get on with their lives.

That last paragraph is what I think most people here are really arguing about.

That a more stricter control of guns (!= banning all guns!) does result in fewer deaths. Not only fewer gun related deaths (because that is kinda obvious) but fewer deaths period. Or, in other words, that the "people, not guns kill people", "It would have happened no matter what", etc arguments are first grade bullshit.

These are (unsurprisingly) also the main arguments of the pro-gun lobby and dismanteling them would certainly help the gun control movement, but there is a certain distinction between saying "Hey, that argument makes no sense and is plain out wrong" and "I want your country to have the same rules as my country because I hate America and Freedom!".

I frankly do not give a shit if the US wants to be gun-crazy because it doesn't effect me. I do think however that the arguments of the pro-gun lobby are fallacious and will argue against them. Not because I want to "force my way" on them , but because what they say is wrong. I would have the same reaction if someone would claim "Fast Food does not make you fat".

Shiroi Okami
July 25 2012, 08:39:51 AM
In the hypothetical event that the populace of the USA needed to bring down it's own government and once again fight for their freedom, having a fully automatic assault rifle or a simple hunting rifle is not going to make a huge difference when your opponents are mechanised. Now as far as I'm aware US citizens aren't allowed to purchase tanks, APCs, helicopters, and other sorts of attack craft, so why should they be able to purchase military grade small arms? In general laws change as new technology becomes available, or are invented to suit new technology. As I imagine there is a law somewhere that prohibits Wal-Mart selling M1A1 MBTs, why has the (2nd amendment?) not been changed to accommodate the fact that small arms have changed drastically over the last 250 years?

Actually, it's perfectly legal to buy decomissioned attack helicopters, APCs, and tanks. I'm not sure of the civilianizing requirements for attack helos, but for APCs and tanks it simply requires disabling the guns. M1 Abrahms tanks aren't available due to being current generation (i.e. not decomissioned), but it's possible to pick up soviet hardware pretty easily.

Aye, similar rules apply in australia, the point I was making though is you can't buy fully functional military hardware, a tank without the gun(s) is just a really heavily armoured vehicle




Automatic and semiautomatic weapons should be extremely tightly regulated, because of the danger they pose to the population.

How exactly do semi-automatic rifles pose any increased danger over bolt-action rifles? Both can be cycled faster than you can acquire the target again.

In regards to the kind of incidents that spark these debates, firing at random into a throng of people with a semiautomatic rifle and a bolt action rifle are going to have drastically different amounts of casualties. The assumption that these people are going to be acquiring specific targets is a poor one, they are just firing in the general direction of people and hoping things die.




And pistols should probably be banned entirely, as they are in many countries, because they are the weapon of choice for criminals and far too easy to conceal.

You do realize that pistols have legitimate uses in the US right? One of the major uses of firearms that people overlook is that they are actually used to defend against wildlife in some states. Most notably Alaska, where grizzly bear attacks are a real danger. Banning pistols means you've just banned emergency safety equipment for every outdoorsman in Alaska.


I'm aware there are parts of the US and canada where carrying a gun is a legal requirement due to threats from the wildlife, I'm not sure that justifies pistols in general though. In addition, of the 52 states, in how many is the wildlife a legitimate concern? I can't imagine at all that it is the majority.




And someone who said earlier 'I like my guns to shoot fast and big like I like my cars to go fast and be big', what a retarded argument. Guns are very clearly designed to kill things, and even if you make the argument about self defence and your right to bear arms, neither of those are a valid reason in my opinion to be able to purchase a fully automatic combat rifle under the guise of 'self defence', what are you going to defend yourself from, an army of liberal democratic church burning muslim zombies?

Please quit loading the discussion. And once again, automatic firearms are incredibly difficult and expensive to acquire. Invoking 'automatic combat rifle' is a fallacy. It's not possible for the average person to buy an automatic weapon. Buying an automatic weapon is not trivial. Yes they're available, but only automatic weapons which were registered pre-1984, which means there is a limited pool of them, they're very well known to the authorities, and it is expensive as hell to buy one -if- you can find a seller who's interested in parting with theirs.


Fair enough



If an american would like to enlighten me as to why you need firearms for self defence in a (relatively) peaceful country as a civillian I would be much obliged.

Already posted above, but wildlife defense. Moose and grizzly bears are both capable of killing people quite fast, and are often unpredictable. It simply isn't possible to avoid confrontations with them at all times, and it's better to have the option to shoot them than have your only options be hoping that you go unnoticed, or dying.

-O

As above, in how many areas of the USA is this a legitimate concern?

Reed Tiburon
July 25 2012, 08:40:35 AM
Do I think people need access to AR-15s? No. However if that's what the US wants then I'm ok with it. Unlike lots of other US policies than DO impact on me (and other parts of the world), this one is purely an internal affairs issue.
I would fight hard here if people wanted to relax our gun laws, but again it's a contextual argument.

Therefore what the US needs is acceptance. Acceptance that these massacres, and the death of tens-of-thousands of people every year are the price of having the guns laws/access the way you want them. If it's considered part of the culture of America that gun access is the way that it is at present, then the consequences should be acknowledged, and then everyone can get on with their lives.

FWIW, more people die from swimming pools.

See here we have rules about fencing pools. In the US would that be viewed as a reduction in freedom, or a sensible suggestion?

In some ways it's a bit like seatbelt laws - that this is opposed because it infringes upon civil liberties - in the face of amongst other evidence "common sense" says a lot I feel.
State or federal? I think it's just a topic that doesn't get much attention tbh. Apparently many states have no regulations. Won't change unless someone starts a "save the kids" campaign tbh


Why are you so angry? I'm not getting on a high horse and saying my country is better, you just are reading what you want to read from my posts so you can get mad and spout more nonsense.
Because you have a lot of opinions without a lot of knowledge (as shown by how you keep bringing up things that are already banned here), and yes you are basically saying your country is better, because after disparaging our laws you posted your country's laws and wondered why we didn't do the same thing. And I'm spouting nonsense? Please.

1. As exaggerated as my post may have been you are still clinging onto semantics like it is a proper argument, which it is not.
And you are clinging to the idea that guns are only for killing people, because you just can't accept that there are other uses which are not only common but culturally entrenched in this country. You think there is only one reason for guns to exist, when in fact there are several in evidence. That's not semantics.

That aside I fail to see where in my argument I said that 'by default' the state should be restricting people's rights, unless you believe gun control itself impinges on people's rights.
...Yes? Specifically, gun control modifies and restricts the right to bear arms, which if it wasn't already assumed by the Tenth Amendment, is explicitly named as one not to be infringed in the Second. While you can modify any of the rights in the Constitution, you can't just ignore the intent of the document. Here's the President of the ACLU, no fan of guns: "it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance."


And because you didn't read it I'll post again the main differences between american and australian gun law;

- Automatic weapons of any kind may not be owned or carried by civillians. (No exceptions that I know of)
So you're arguing the difference between "no exceptions" and "very few exceptions"? That's going to stop all the gun deaths? Hardly "narrowly tailored". Read the link I posted about automatic weapons.

- Pistols may be owned by civillians but require 6 months membership of a pistol club, as well as relevant firearms licensing, background checks, and an interview before you can buy a pistol. A further 3 months of club attendance is required before you may buy a pistol larger than .22 in caliber. The pistol must also be stored in a safe in the gun club at all times it is not in use, you may not take it home or anywhere outside of the club's approved range.
firearms licensing and background checks - already in place, notwithstanding loopholes
interview - don't think this is a thing in most states, although I think interviews / psych exams should be considered by individual states. Best way to stop crazies from killing people with guns is to check if they're crazy before selling them guns. Background checks do a little bit of that, but maybe not enough. (Of course, if they're sufficiently crazy, they'll go black market - that's hardly rare here.)
Pistol club membership - While I think this is kind of a weird one (gun clubs don't really seem to be a phenomenon here like they are in Australia, or from cursory examination, Germany), a thorough safety course is a no-brainer to implement at the state level. Don't know if it's already in place in some states.

- Categories B through D are not as restricted in the US as they are in australia
Again, culture. Sport shooting is a lot bigger here than you think. Don't see how it'll stop crime.

In addition to actual accessibility to firearms in that gun shops are not as common and you can't buy guns from anywhere other than a gun club (gun shop).
Culture thing, don't see why it matters. Would serve more to annoy legal gun owners than stop crime, IMO.

SAI Peregrinus
July 25 2012, 08:42:37 AM
http://www.docsmachine.com/nonPB/mortar.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQdf_J9MgxI

Civilians can design and build some pretty impressive weaponry without too much difficulty.
Black powder can be made at home with little difficulty. (Be very careful with it, I don't endorse making explosives without proper training.)
Making anything beyond musket/rifle and cannon/howitzer level tech takes a significantly better machine shop, but it can be done.
Australia's Category A is actually harder to make (and thus obtain without a license) than Category B.
As for why people build these things, well, there are target shooting competitions with them. And with old cannon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYWcBILxgk

The reason I bring this up is cultural. Attempts to take away existing weapons in the US will lead to a significant portion of the population manufacturing their own weaponry, not just hiding the existing weapons.

Reed Tiburon
July 25 2012, 08:54:39 AM
http://www.docsmachine.com/nonPB/mortar.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQdf_J9MgxI

Civilians can design and build some pretty impressive weaponry without too much difficulty.
Black powder can be made at home with little difficulty. (Be very careful with it, I don't endorse making explosives without proper training.)
Making anything beyond musket/rifle and cannon/howitzer level tech takes a significantly better machine shop, but it can be done.
Australia's Category A is actually harder to make (and thus obtain without a license) than Category B.
As for why people build these things, well, there are target shooting competitions with them. And with old cannon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYWcBILxgk

The reason I bring this up is cultural. Attempts to take away existing weapons in the US will lead to a significant portion of the population manufacturing their own weaponry, not just hiding the existing weapons.

Not to mention, 270 million weapons, where the fuck would they go? Police breaking down doors, seizing guns? Gun buyback programs (yeah, that'll work)? Throw em all into the sea? Still haven't heard an answer to that one.

Nartek
July 25 2012, 09:39:18 AM
[QUOTE=JForce;518877]I frankly do not give a shit if the US wants to be gun-crazy because it doesn't effect me. I do think however that the arguments of the pro-gun lobby are fallacious and will argue against them. Not because I want to "force my way" on them , but because what they say is wrong. I would have the same reaction if someone would claim "Fast Food does not make you fat".

The arguments of just about every lobby are going to be fallacious, and wrong in some way. Think about it like politics (Since Lobbying groups are politics).

You have a group that represents people interested in something.

75-80% of that group are going to stick with you so long as you meet their core interest. (I.E. We protect gun ownership rights.)

The other 20-25% are the "fringe" groups. They may want some sort of change in the law to provide more restrictions, they may be ok with trigger locks, etc... They also may want something on the other end of the fringe like open carry laws in every state, the right to have drum magazines, the right to own a mortar, etc...

Bringing one side of the fringe into the fold won't really upset the applecart too much, but will alienate the other side. So, it's time to bring in some marketing and math guys to figure out the bigger percentage of people included vs forced away; and play to them via the message you portray.

So your message sounds radical enough to continue to attract the fringe group you select. At the same time, you effectively force the folks in the other camp to find a new group to attach themselves to.

Why do it at all? If you already have, say, 80% of a group behind you on something, you don't really need the other guys, you could keep plugging away with what you're doing, and keep ahead, right?

Wrong - Any time you alienate a fringe group, and they head off to form their own lobby/Political committee, you run the risk that they will start leeching members from the core of what you represent. This is because of message, and momentum. Example: Say of that 80% "core" you have, another 30% of them hear something they like from the new group, and decide to switch over. Now you don't have a fringe group competing for the scraps, you have a core group with a similar message, and that means you start splitting association, because most people won't join two groups with a similar message. That's the momentum bit.

That's why the pro-gun lobby is going to argue the "Crazy" points. They're sitting pretty on the main ones, and almost everyone agrees with them on those. They're trying to harvest/maintain the fringe so that they don't get fractured by it.

Presidential candidates use this phenomena for the same purpose. They already have the core, they're just trying to get the swing.

Aramendel
July 25 2012, 01:10:16 PM
That's why the pro-gun lobby is going to argue the "Crazy" points. They're sitting pretty on the main ones, and almost everyone agrees with them on those. They're trying to harvest/maintain the fringe so that they don't get fractured by it.

I am not sure we speak about the same thing here. I am not talking about placating fridge groups, I am talking about lying and spreading misinformation. Those points I am speaking about (which essentially boil down to "The availability of guns has no effect whatsoever on the amount of murders") are not their crazy points, they are their main ones.
Saying they are their "crazy points" would be like claiming the tobacco lobby used their "Smoking does not cause cancer" argument as "crazy point". Except that it was their central (and patently false) core argument.

What are their points "almost everyone agrees with"? I simply do not see those.

Nartek
July 25 2012, 02:02:56 PM
I am not sure we speak about the same thing here. I am not talking about placating fridge groups, I am talking about lying and spreading misinformation. Those points I am speaking about (which essentially boil down to "The availability of guns has no effect whatsoever on the amount of murders") are not their crazy points, they are their main ones.
Saying they are their "crazy points" would be like claiming the tobacco lobby used their "Smoking does not cause cancer" argument as "crazy point". Except that it was their central (and patently false) core argument.

What are their points "almost everyone agrees with"? I simply do not see those.

It does not have to be true. It has to be enough to sway a populace to give you money, support your cause, etc...
Points almost everyone agrees with:
1. The right to respond with deadly force if warranted.
2. The right to defend ones property from predation.
3. The right to hunt, and the right for specific individuals to remove specific wildlife from their property even if it isn't the "season for it".
4. The right to procure, maintain, and practice with a weapon.
5. The right to sell personally owned weapons the same way as other property. (There are actually limits on this in most states.)

That's just a few.

You're getting a knot in your underwear over talking points from a lobbying group. That's like getting upset that you gave money to a self-proclaimed ponzi scheme, and the guy ran off with a bag of cash... Lobbying Group=They are going to lie. They are going to push the boundaries of the truth. They are going to establish a "line" somewhere well beyond where they want to be, so that if it comes time for them to make a compromise, they can do so, and maintain the status quo, or soften the blow as much as possible by stacking bullshit in the way of it. So yeah, they're going to speak falsely. They're there to protect THEIR interests, not necessarily your interests; nor are they there to represent the truth on some grand fact-finding mission.

Reed Tiburon
July 25 2012, 06:44:16 PM
I frankly do not give a shit if the US wants to be gun-crazy because it doesn't effect me. I do think however that the arguments of the pro-gun lobby are fallacious and will argue against them. Not because I want to "force my way" on them , but because what they say is wrong. I would have the same reaction if someone would claim "Fast Food does not make you fat".

...But that's a bad example, because fast food doesn't make you fat. Eating more calories than you expend makes you fat. You could easily lose 20 lbs eating nothing but Twinkies. (You'd have to eat very few of them, but...)

Aramendel
July 25 2012, 08:07:08 PM
[COLOR=#C0C0C0]Points almost everyone agrees with:
Oh hell no. I would disagree with all of them there. If you want to know why I can send you a PM, but that doesn't really matter here because these are not the "points" I am talking about. Those are rights the gun lobby "defends" or wants to introduce.

Points are for me arguments, logic, reasoning. Not the statement, but the "why".


You're getting a knot in your underwear over talking points from a lobbying group. That's like getting upset that you gave money to a self-proclaimed ponzi scheme, and the guy ran off with a bag of cash... Lobbying Group=They are going to lie. They are going to push the boundaries of the truth. They are going to establish a "line" somewhere well beyond where they want to be, so that if it comes time for them to make a compromise, they can do so, and maintain the status quo, or soften the blow as much as possible by stacking bullshit in the way of it. So yeah, they're going to speak falsely. They're there to protect THEIR interests, not necessarily your interests; nor are they there to represent the truth on some grand fact-finding mission.

That is like saying "Why trying to stop mass murderers killing people, that's what they do." Bad people do bad things. So it is pointless to try to counter these things because that is what bad people do??

I am not surprised in the least that a lobbying group acts like that.
But the problem is that people listen to them and believe them blindly because it affirms their world view. And then start parroting their phrases. If everyone would just ignore them it would be fine and dandy, but...



...But that's a bad example, because fast food doesn't make you fat. Eating more calories than you expend makes you fat. You could easily lose 20 lbs eating nothing but Twinkies. (You'd have to eat very few of them, but...)

And if you own a gun you also have a chance to save your wife from rabid rapists which break into your home. The chance of you accidently or intentionally killing her with it is higher, though. Mind, both chances are rather small. I am *not* accusing every gun owner of being a killer.

Nothing has for sure a certain effect. Even if you eat uranium only only have a very high likelihood of getting cancer (or just dying right away, it might be toxic), but it is not 100%. Likewise fast food does not make you fat with a 100% chance, but you eating it increases your chance of getting fat.

So if you say "x does y" you do not mean that x always under any circumstances does y, but that that it has a very high chance of causing y. Seriously, that should be glaringly obvious :p

Nicho Void
July 25 2012, 08:32:41 PM
Points are for me arguments, logic, reasoning. Not the statement, but the "why".

Could you expand upon or rephrase this statement? It sounds to me like you rejected a perfectly reasonable and, as Nartek stated, a widely accepted list of freedoms many Americans agree with. Simply saying "those aren't points" doesn't make them go away, or disprove them in any way.



So if you say "x does y" you do not mean that x always under any circumstances does y, but that that it has a very high chance of causing y. Seriously, that should be glaringly obvious :p
No, what opponents to your viewpoint are saying is that you have no way of knowing whether a hypothetical gun owner, in a hypothetical home invasion, will be less safe or more safe because of the gun. That, in my opinion, is where this particular anti-gun argument falls flat. You can look at all the data you would like, but in the end, no two situations will ever be the same, meaning therefore that the outcome can not possibly be predicted. This leaves you with the question, do citizens in a free society have a right to defend themselves with deadly force (point 1 in the list you dismissed)?

Aramendel
July 25 2012, 08:52:57 PM
Could you expand upon or rephrase this statement? It sounds to me like you rejected a perfectly reasonable and, as Nartek stated, a widely accepted list of freedoms many Americans agree with. Simply saying "those aren't points" doesn't make them go away, or disprove them in any way.

Most Americans also agree that global warming is a communist lie. Or that Elvis still lives. Or that aliens landed in Area 51.
How many people believe X has no indicator whatsoever that the reasoning behind it is also right. The argumentation and proofs for them make a point, not what people want to believe.

Also, as I said already, if to the majority of the US citizenship having no restrictions on gun ownership is more important than reducing the number of violent deaths in the country then they are very free to implement it that way. My argument isn't and never was which "freedoms" America should have.

It is about the consequence of these freedoms. For the discussion of those it is utterly irrelevant if most people want those freedom or if they were granted to them by founding fathers or God wills it. Nor is it about if those freedoms should be granted or not.


You can look at all the data you would like, but in the end, no two situations will ever be the same, meaning therefore that the outcome can not possibly be predicted.

So if you walk across a busy street with your eyes closed it is impossible to say that you are likely to run over?

You basically just said that statistics are useless. You might want to phone CERN and tell them they cannot possibly say that they found the Higgs Bosom because guess what the only proof of it was: statistics.

GiDiYi
July 25 2012, 09:42:36 PM
This post is in response to those discussing the feasibility of an armed revolution against a corrupt or tyrannical government in the U.S.

One very crucial error you are making is assuming that the military of the United States would obey any order that involved hostile action against their fellow citizens. In fact, such an order would have to be given by act of congress in keeping with Posse Comitatus.

So assuming you could get congress to pass that act and that the revolution is popular you are left with the fact that you are asking the Armed Forces to kill their own kind. People from the same nation they are sworn to protect.

Many will not obey that order. It could happen at the command level or individual soldiers choosing to desert. That leaves you with those in the National Guard, Air Force, and non-deployed personnel from the Navy/Marines/AF/Army who have chosen to obey that order. A vastly diminished force from what the world is used to seeing out of the U.S.

A guerrilla action against them would be very feasible especially because of the large and urban nature of the country.

Very true and basically one of my core arguments in my first post. But it was immediately countered. The counter argument was that it is in no way guaranteed, that vast parts of the military would simply disobey orders and desert, hence there is still the necessity to keep citizens under arms.

That caused me to step over the line and raise the question: Where do you draw the line?

My hypothetical scenario limited the needed machinery to the bare minimum. In my opinion proper AA and MBT's are unavoidable. Everything below this, will just be a sorry excuse.

By posting this, I wanted to illustrate the absurdity of the second amendment, when translated to modern days.

Nicho Void
July 25 2012, 10:20:16 PM
Most Americans also agree that global warming is a communist lie. Or that Elvis still lives. Or that aliens landed in Area 51.
No. I don't even know how else to address this statement.



So if you walk across a busy street with your eyes closed it is impossible to say that you are likely to run over? You basically just said that statistics are useless. You might want to phone CERN and tell them they cannot possibly say that they found the Higgs Bosom because guess what the only proof of it was: statistics.
You're missing the point. I'll try again, using your example.

If you walk across a busy street with your eyes closed, will you or will you not get run over? You have no way of knowing for certain. Now apply the same logic to a life or death scenario. Will a gun save your life, or end it? You don't know. It COULD save your life.

Diicc Tater
July 26 2012, 05:32:23 AM
Think you can stop with the weak analogies?
Cars were designed to move, with passangers inside it, from A to B etc.
Guns were designed to propel metal projectiles through things as accurately as possible.

Aramendel
July 26 2012, 07:15:41 AM
You're missing the point. I'll try again, using your example.

If you walk across a busy street with your eyes closed, will you or will you not get run over? You have no way of knowing for certain. Now apply the same logic to a life or death scenario. Will a gun save your life, or end it? You don't know. It COULD save your life.

You do not seem to understand statistics.

NOTHING can be known for certain. NOTHING. This makes "But we cannot know for certain" an utterly pointless argument. Because it can be applied on everything.

The point is that statistical analysis shows pretty clearly that the probability of guns (of your own) ending your life is higher than saving it. Answering to that "But you cannot know for certain" is completely missing the point because the job of statistics isn't to prove this (which is impossible too because exceptions exists for everything (which is also a paradox, btw. Can you figure out why?)). Their job is to calculate the likelihood of something to happen.

You can use exactly the same "You cannot know for certain." answer for "Smoking causes cancer", "Seatbelts save your life" or "The sun rises tomorrow" with exactly the same reasoning. It is a non-argument.

Reed Tiburon
July 26 2012, 10:02:00 AM
The point is that statistical analysis shows pretty clearly that the probability of guns (of your own) ending your life is higher than saving it. Answering to that "But you cannot know for certain" is completely missing the point because the job of statistics isn't to prove this (which is impossible too because exceptions exists for everything (which is also a paradox, btw. Can you figure out why?)). Their job is to calculate the likelihood of something to happen.

Yeah, but it's a pretty poor statistic when it doesn't differentiate between people with different levels of training, familiarity with weapons, etc. I'd be interested to see what happens if you had a more detailed breakdown. Cause I'll bet it's the idiots who don't know the rules of gun safety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety#Rules_and_mindset) that account for the vast majority of those cases.

Aramendel
July 26 2012, 11:20:33 AM
Cause I'll bet it's the idiots who don't know the rules of gun safety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety#Rules_and_mindset) that account for the vast majority of those cases.

Only for accidents. And since those obviously happen those idiots can get access to said guns. "But that does not apply to trained/skilled persons" is only an argument against banning guns altogether*, but not against controlling guns stricter that said idiots cannot get them as easily. It is if anything an argument for a better gun control.

*Which I do not really see argued by the anti-gun side, it usually only appears as "They want to ban guns!!111" outrage from the pro-gun side whenever someone says "gun control".

And it does nothing about situations like finding your wife with someone else with your gun at hand and your emotions on overdrive. Or the other guy having instead a gun nearby when you want to beat the living shit out of him (in which case it would even fall under self-defense).

Nicho Void
July 26 2012, 02:31:07 PM
Think you can stop with the weak analogies?
Cars were designed to move, with passangers inside it, from A to B etc.
Guns were designed to propel metal projectiles through things as accurately as possible.
And yet there are numerous cases of cars being plowed through crowds of people (relates to argument of effective killing potential), sometimes accidentally (relates to gun accidents), and sometimes maliciously (relates to gun crime). The analogy is far from weak.




The point is that statistical analysis shows pretty clearly that the probability of guns (of your own) ending your life is higher than saving it.
This is absolute bullshit and I'm calling you on it. Please provide said statistics that show that my gun has a higher probability of ending my life. I expect a description of my gun training, the type of weapon I have, where I keep it (gun case? night stand? fingerprint lock?). Is it loaded? Do I maintain it? Then I'd like actual data relating to cases where the gun has saved my life and where the gun has ended it (hint: those situations do not exist).

This is the point you're not understanding. There is no statistical evidence that correlates to my unique situation. You have conjecture and data from situations that are nothing alike, excepting the fact that there was a gun involved. Nothing more. If you consider that to be logically equivalent to denying the sun rising tomorrow, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

sarabando
July 26 2012, 03:20:50 PM
look at places like Switzerland and Finland with conscription who then keep their rifle after service that means 90% of the population has DUN DUN DUUUUN an "assualt rifle" in their homes now look at the violent crime rate ...

Aramendel
July 26 2012, 07:27:06 PM
The point is that statistical analysis shows pretty clearly that the probability of guns (of your own) ending your life is higher than saving it.
This is absolute bullshit and I'm calling you on it....

*sigh* THAT is your issue?

Consider all "you"s replaced by "average joe". I am using "you" as general term. That is rather obvious if you take the context into account. It would be able utterly pointless to argue about your personal situation. Even if I could "win" that argument it would be of zero use to prove my point because that one is about the big picture, not a single specific situation.


look at places like Switzerland and Finland with conscription who then keep their rifle after service that means 90% of the population has DUN DUN DUUUUN an "assualt rifle" in their homes now look at the violent crime rate ...

Switzerland has a higher amount of guns deaths than the rest of the EU and Finland make them unuseable after service (firing pin gets removed I think) so they are essentially only ornaments.

Diicc Tater
July 26 2012, 07:43:21 PM
I think he ment 'provide data'... I've heard the same stats but have been unable to find any yet.

Keorythe
July 27 2012, 01:21:29 AM
It's a correlation. They take they CDC stats for firearm related injuries and deaths and correlate the chance of injuring or killing yourself or a loved one. You take the number of firearm related deaths and injuries and subtract it from other deaths. Run your average based on that. The problem is that by the same formula, the chance of injuring yourself with a powertool is higher than if you don't have any in the house. On top of that, suicide is always added which triples the ratio.

Example: Stats taken from Washington 1978-1983 "A total of 743 firearm-related deaths occurred during this six-year period, 398 of which (54 percent) occurred in the residence where the firearm was kept. Only 2 of these 398 deaths (0.5 percent) involved an intruder shot during attempted entry. Seven persons (1.8 percent) were killed in self-defense. For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms."

The article "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home: Kellerman" generalizes the chances of you or house occupants being killed from a negligent discharge, use a gun to commit suicide rather than hanging or other method, killing or being killed during a violent event in a home (whether or not you deployed a gun). Thus the conclusion is that you are 43x more likely to die if you have a gun in the house. These kinds of arguments are disingenuous as they ignore complex situations. It’s a fact of life that having something potentially dangerous on your premises increases the chance that you or another occupant is at an increased risk of injury, however all too often the stats used by proponents of gun control and/or restrictions are extremes and are meant to have shock value.

It's hard to determine if one would change their mind at a suicide attempt if there was no gun in the house. In 2009, there were 36,909 suicides total in the US, with 18,753 from firearms and exactly 9000 (but not more) from suffocation (hanging would by the guess). Firearms doubled the rate vs. hanging but did the convenience from ease of use contribute to the number? Compare the ratios. In the UK as of 2011, 2.5% of all suicides 15-24yr are from firearms. They hold a 3.4 per 100,000 suicide rate with hanging as the predominate method (drugs coming in second); meanwhile the US has a 4.5 per 100,000 average with firearms accounting for 50.8% of suicides in the same age range.


You can find the relevant data here:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_gen_rat-health-suicide-rate-gender-ratio
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/suicides-in-the-united-kingdom/2010/stb-statistical-bulletin.html#tab-Suicide-rates---Tables
http://www.samaritans.org/pdf/Samaritans%20Suicide%20Statistics%20Report%202011. pdf - note: this also addresses the UK’s habit of under reporting their rates and the reasons


Oh, and if you want to get racist: Homicides 15-34yr 2009
Black: 5139
Latino: 1982
White/Non-Hispanic: 1685

Diicc Tater
July 27 2012, 06:35:34 AM
It's hard to determine if one would change their mind at a suicide attempt if there was no gun in the house. In 2009, there were 36,909 suicides total in the US, with 18,753 from firearms and exactly 9000 (but not more) from suffocation (hanging would by the guess). Firearms doubled the rate vs. hanging but did the convenience from ease of use contribute to the number? Compare the ratios. In the UK as of 2011, 2.5% of all suicides 15-24yr are from firearms. They hold a 3.4 per 100,000 suicide rate with hanging as the predominate method (drugs coming in second); meanwhile the US has a 4.5 per 100,000 average with firearms accounting for 50.8% of suicides in the same age range.


You can find the relevant data here:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_gen_rat-health-suicide-rate-gender-ratio
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/suicides-in-the-united-kingdom/2010/stb-statistical-bulletin.html#tab-Suicide-rates---Tables
http://www.samaritans.org/pdf/Samaritans%20Suicide%20Statistics%20Report%202011. pdf - note: this also addresses the UK’s habit of under reporting their rates and the reasons


Oh, and if you want to get racist: Homicides 15-34yr 2009
Black: 5139
Latino: 1982
White/Non-Hispanic: 1685

Good post and I'm quite convinced it wouldn't stop suicides. It would of course be fewer where guns where used, but it would probably just increase the numbers for other "tools". Perhaps some would feel that the inconvenience is to much and think twice...
My uncle was one of the statistics in 2009. Terminal cancer vs. gun. He would have done it anyway, it was just the simplest solution.

Aramendel
July 27 2012, 06:42:03 AM
Thus the conclusion is that you are 43x more likely to die if you have a gun in the house. These kinds of arguments are disingenuous as they ignore complex situations.

I think 43x is an exaggeration, too.

But I really really doubt that that number *isn't* larger than 1.


It's hard to determine if one would change their mind at a suicide attempt if there was no gun in the house.

There was a similar study, but with IIRC sleeping pills or something like that instead of firearms. Household which had them had higher suicide rates.

For me, it makes sense. I do not think committing a suicide is something you plan ahead in a meaningful way, it is more a "spur of the moment" thing, some temporary phase of ultra-depression*. An easier & faster way out should reduce the inhibitions - a death by suffocation would definitely be a pretty large inhibition for me, it is gruesome to die that way. A gun or pills on the other hand are essentially painless. It is basically a question of "Do I want to die" and "Do I want to die in agony".

/edit: *Well, mostly, see Diicc Tater's example. But I do not think people with terminal illnesses are the majority of suicides.

Lallante
July 27 2012, 10:31:21 AM
1. Does the Government have the right to ban objects or practices that cause significant risks to third parties.
In certain situations, of course.
2. Should "sporting use" of handguns ever override significant 3rd party risks?
No
3. Are handguns effective at self defence?
Overwhelmingly the opposite.
4. Do legal handguns present a significant 3rd party risk?
Very significant.
5. Should anyone really give a shit about some outdated line in a several hundred year old document which definitely did not envisage the modern situation and was not designed to protect the modern use of firearms?
No

Therefore ban personal ownership of handguns. Allow clubs under very strict storage and membership conditions.

FourFiftyFour
July 27 2012, 02:25:04 PM
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/images/graphicsmatter/americanpopulationfirearmsdeaths2008.png


For your consideration.

Cue1*
July 27 2012, 02:51:28 PM
5. Should anyone really give a shit about some outdated line in a several hundred year old document which definitely did not envisage the modern situation and was not designed to protect the modern use of firearms?

Right, great idea. While we're at it, I hate it when people bash the military, they're giving so much to the nation, why should they have to endure hate from the people they protect? We should make that illegal too. Oh and I find rape to be a particularly heinous crime, I think we should use waterboarding on rapists to discourage rape. While we're at that, let's use it for police interrogation too. I bet if we gave the police free use of waterboarding and didn't require they charge people with a crime to hold them we could easily reduce crime 50%, maybe even more!


Most Americans also agree that global warming is a communist lie. Or that Elvis still lives. Or that aliens landed in Area 51.
How many people believe X has no indicator whatsoever that the reasoning behind it is also right. The argumentation and proofs for them make a point, not what people want to believe.

How many people believe in X has every indicator and is the most important factor when it comes to civil liberties. If the people believe they have the right to do X, and the people who believe in it number in significantly large numbers, enough to change the polls at an election, then clearly the number of people who believe in X very much so does matter.

Lallante
July 27 2012, 02:54:51 PM
5. Should anyone really give a shit about some outdated line in a several hundred year old document which definitely did not envisage the modern situation and was not designed to protect the modern use of firearms?

Right, great idea. While we're at it, I hate it when people bash the military, they're giving so much to the nation, why should they have to endure hate from the people they protect? We should make that illegal too. Oh and I find rape to be a particularly heinous crime, I think we should use waterboarding on rapists to discourage rape. While we're at that, let's use it for police interrogation too. I bet if we gave the police free use of waterboarding and didn't require they charge people with a crime to hold them we could easily reduce crime 50%, maybe even more!


Most Americans also agree that global warming is a communist lie. Or that Elvis still lives. Or that aliens landed in Area 51.
How many people believe X has no indicator whatsoever that the reasoning behind it is also right. The argumentation and proofs for them make a point, not what people want to believe.

How many people believe in X has every indicator and is the most important factor when it comes to civil liberties. If the people believe they have the right to do X, and the people who believe in it number in significantly large numbers, enough to change the polls at an election, then clearly the number of people who believe in X very much so does matter.

Your first response is so weak I'm not going to even bother.

Your second response, only marginally less weak, is confusing whether something matters IN PRACTICE with whether it SHOULD matter.

Cue1*
July 27 2012, 03:17:54 PM
5. Should anyone really give a shit about some outdated line in a several hundred year old document which definitely did not envisage the modern situation and was not designed to protect the modern use of firearms?

Right, great idea. While we're at it, I hate it when people bash the military, they're giving so much to the nation, why should they have to endure hate from the people they protect? We should make that illegal too. Oh and I find rape to be a particularly heinous crime, I think we should use waterboarding on rapists to discourage rape. While we're at that, let's use it for police interrogation too. I bet if we gave the police free use of waterboarding and didn't require they charge people with a crime to hold them we could easily reduce crime 50%, maybe even more!


Most Americans also agree that global warming is a communist lie. Or that Elvis still lives. Or that aliens landed in Area 51.
How many people believe X has no indicator whatsoever that the reasoning behind it is also right. The argumentation and proofs for them make a point, not what people want to believe.

How many people believe in X has every indicator and is the most important factor when it comes to civil liberties. If the people believe they have the right to do X, and the people who believe in it number in significantly large numbers, enough to change the polls at an election, then clearly the number of people who believe in X very much so does matter.

Your first response is so weak I'm not going to even bother.

Your second response, only marginally less weak, is confusing whether something matters IN PRACTICE with whether it SHOULD matter.

More than likely, you don't have a response. Just because you claim that the Second Amendment wasn't meant for modern firearms doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you. Obviously everyone doesn't since I'm currently an owner of two pistols.

I only suggest that since today's world is so different that clearly the founding fathers could have never understood the world as it is today that maybe we need to just throw the entire thing out the window. In the 18th century wars were fought over land and resources and for all the wars the US saw in the 18th and 19th centuries they were all on US soil(save for parts of the Mexican American war) and I doubt that the founding fathers could have ever envisioned a world with so much media coverage.

Obviously I don't actually believe that. I think the founding fathers were quite certain where their liberties might lead people. I seriously doubt that they didn't understand that technology can advance since some of them created some of the greatest advancements of their field. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" I think Ben Franklin knew exactly what he was talking about with that. I think he knew that as technology advances that the law he helped lay down might change in meaning but he still paved the way and wrote that law.

If you can't understand that the Bill of Rights protects all of your civil liberties and to infringe upon one or to just casually toss to the side part of that document only invites us to infringe upon all of them. I belive John Adams(oh look another founding father!) found that one out the hard way.

Aramendel
July 27 2012, 03:19:07 PM
How many people believe in X has every indicator and is the most important factor when it comes to civil liberties. If the people believe they have the right to do X, and the people who believe in it number in significantly large numbers, enough to change the polls at an election, then clearly the number of people who believe in X very much so does matter.

You seem to have to incorrect impression that I wrote "How many people believe X does not matter". But I didn't.
I wrote How many people believe X has no indicator whatsoever that the reasoning behind it is also right.

Do I really need to explain to you the difference?

Of course is telling lies loud and often enough that a lot of people, who are too lazy to check them, believe them an effective political strategy to get people to vote for you* (Exhibit A: The Republican party), but no matter how many blindly believe what you* say, it does not make it true or your* fallacious arguments flawless facts.

*And before we get a 'Nicho Void' here again, no, I do not mean YOU personally here.


I think the founding fathers were quite certain where their liberties might lead people. I seriously doubt that they didn't understand that technology can advance since some of them created some of the greatest advancements of their field.

I do not really know if I should go :lol: because that statement is so rediculous or :ohnoes: because you apparently believe it (pleasebeatrollpleasebeatrollpleasebeatroll).

Basically all predictions from 50 years ago about "the world of tomorrow" fell pretty much flat, but the supermen-genius-founding-fathers (or sgff) could reliably predict the future in 200 years? Rrrrrrright.

Cue1*
July 27 2012, 03:39:07 PM
*And before we get a 'Nicho Void' here again, no, I do not mean YOU personally here.

Heh, the whole point to this forum is to debate things intelligently. I think it's fair to say that unless you say something along the lines of "Cue is a massive faggot and retard and I think we should burn him at the stake" I'm not going to take it personally. ;) That's part of intelligent discussion.


You seem to have to incorrect impression that I wrote "How many people believe X does not matter". But I didn't.
I wrote How many people believe X has no indicator whatsoever that the reasoning behind it is also right.

Do I really need to explain to you the difference?

Of course is telling lies loud and often enough that a lot of people, who are too lazy to check them, believe them an effective political strategy to get people to vote for you* (Exhibit A: The Republican party), but no matter how many blindly believe what you* say, it does not make it true or your* fallacious arguments flawless facts.

Right and wrong mean nothing for civil liberties. This very discussion is an excellent argument. Americans believe that gun ownership is a right granted by the very founding document of our government. Europeans believe that gun ownership is something terrible and that the government should have a monopoly on violence(obviously these are sweeping generalizations, both areas have proponents to either side). These are two very different schools of thought but neither the US or Europe as a whole would have anywhere near the power they do if one was wrong and one was right. If gun ownership was completely wrong then the US would have a population of 4 and a GDP of $2 because we'd all be too busy killing each other for the sport of it to actually make money. Likewise, if it was the way to go, then Europe would just be a totalitarian middle-of-no-where-no-one-gives-a-fuck-land.

The fact is that for civil liberties who and how many believe it IS a civil liberty does make it right. You're completely right that in any other given situation who believes something doesn't make it right. There are 1.6billion Muslims in the world, that doesn't make them right, and likewise there are more than 2billion Christians in the world, that still doesn't make them right. However, if a vast majority of a country believes that they have the right to do something then they do. If that wasn't true then white, male, land owning citizens of the US would be the only ones with the power to vote.


I do not really know if I should go :lol: because that statement is so rediculous or :ohnoes: because you apparently believe it (pleasebeatrollpleasebeatrollpleasebeatroll).

Basically all predictions from 50 years ago about "the world of tomorrow" fell pretty much flat, but the supermen-genius-founding-fathers (or sgff) could reliably predict the future in 200 years? Rrrrrrright.

That's funny. No seriously, it is. Gun technology from the 17th century forward was always focused on attempting to make guns fire faster. Time and time again people tried to figure out ways to make guns fire faster and faster. Shorting the reload process, compacting more and more of the needed ingredients together so as to be easier to put down the barrel and eventually self-containing it all. That was the goal of modern firearms manufacturers of the time. 200 years later, guess what, guns fire faster. You can't seriously believe that since all the technological development in firearms was focused in a faster rate of fire that they expected guns to continue to fire at a rate of one shot per 60 seconds?

Lallante
July 27 2012, 03:41:58 PM
"if personal handgun ownership was wrong, EVERYONE WOULD BE DEAD. Everyone ISNT dead, so therefore personal handgun ownership CANT BE WRONG"

:facepalm:

All you've shown is that gun control or lack thereof wont end civilisation, it doesnt mean it isnt (morally/politically) right or wrong.

Aramendel
July 27 2012, 04:13:01 PM
Right and wrong mean nothing for civil liberties.

The thing you still miss is that I am not talking about civil liberties. As in "should they be granted or not".

I am perfectly neutral there. If I would have to pick a side there I would go with the anti-gun side because their arguments are not bullshit, but I do not care what happens in the US. It does not effect me. I am not arguing if there should be a change.

I am arguing about the validity of the arguments used by the pro-gun side. If they would go "Guns have some 'bad' effects, but we think they are worth them because of liberty, lifestyle and crying eagles" I would be perfectly fine with them. The have an opinion, they do not twist the truth about their reasoning or spread misinformation and give people an unmanipulated choice which side to choose.

However they don't. They go "Guns have no effect whatsoever in certain death rates, if anything they prevent them. USA! USA! USA!". With that, I have issues. I see it morally in no way less reprehensible as the "There is no evidence whatsoever that smoking causes cancer" misinformation campaign of the tobacco lobby of a few decades ago.


That's funny. No seriously, it is. Gun technology from the 17th century forward was always focused on attempting to make guns fire faster. Time and time again people tried to figure out ways to make guns fire faster and faster....

Guns do not exist in a vacuum. 200 years ago a unit with guns could beat even the most hightech device at that time, the cannon. Now this is another story however. You want to claim that the founding fathers could foresee jet planes (or even just a 1st world war bomber), tanks and tomahawk missiles, nevermind the atom bomb?

If you would have limited the civilian population 200 years ago to bow and arrows they would then still have been better armed for a "freedom fight" against the government than the population is today with firearms.

Ophichius
July 27 2012, 04:50:50 PM
Guns do not exist in a vacuum. 200 years ago a unit with guns could beat even the most hightech device at that time, the cannon. Now this is another story however. You want to claim that the founding fathers could foresee jet planes (or even just a 1st world war bomber), tanks and tomahawk missiles, nevermind the atom bomb?

If you would have limited the civilian population 200 years ago to bow and arrows they would then still have been better armed for a "freedom fight" against the government than the population is today with firearms.

This is an incorrect perception of war. War, ultimately, is won and lost by the infantry. Everything else, artillery, air support, tanks, are all in support of the infantry. A populace armed with rifles represents a large, albeit poorly-equipped infantry. The purpose of all the high-tech tools of war you mentioned is to blunt the infantry, to attack them asymmetrically, to kill them before they reach their effective range. However, in the end all war is around the footsoldier. Aircraft need airfields, tanks need maintenance and supply lines for both fuel and ammunition. Any mechanized unit is orders of magnitude more vulnerable to having their supply lines cut than an infantry unit.

Arming the populace does present a moderate, albeit bloody, chance at victory in a revolt against the government, even without the legalization of heavy anti-armor muntions, MANPADS, or other specialized weaponry.

-O

Aramendel
July 27 2012, 05:34:32 PM
Any mechanized unit is orders of magnitude more vulnerable to having their supply lines cut than an infantry unit.

It is. But still we use it. And spend very large amounts of money for it.

Yes, ultimately, war is won and lost by the infantry. However, infantry without that support is extremely vulnerable. Which is why we have it, despite it being vulnerable and expensive.

The independence war wasn't exactly a easy pushover of the enemy forces and there the revolutionary side had the home advantage and a far smaller power difference between population and military.

And you say now they have a chance to defeat a military which has the same home advantage and which is far better equipped? You, sure, about as much as the Taliban has a chance to throw the US troops out of their own country. Or like the rebels in Libya were able to do anything but retreat till they got air support from Europe and the US.

A war is ultimately won by the infantry. But only if you keep it alive. Which you cannot do without all these little toys which civilians cannot own.

Nicholai Pestot
July 27 2012, 05:47:00 PM
Any mechanized unit is orders of magnitude more vulnerable to having their supply lines cut than an infantry unit.

It is. But still we use it. And spend very large amounts of money for it.

Yes, ultimately, war is won and lost by the infantry. However, infantry without that support is extremely vulnerable. Which is why we have it, despite it being vulnerable and expensive.

The independence war wasn't exactly a easy pushover of the enemy forces and there the revolutionary side had the home advantage and a far smaller power difference between population and military.

And you say now they have a chance to defeat a military which has the same home advantage and which is far better equipped? You, sure, about as much as the Taliban has a chance to throw the US troops out of their own country. Or like the rebels in Libya were able to do anything but retreat till they got air support from Europe and the US.

A war is ultimately won by the infantry. But only if you keep it alive. Which you cannot do without all these little toys which civilians cannot own.

In a modern context, I believe the primary benefit of civilians owning guns is that it would force the army to engage them in a fight, producing a violent conflict against American civilians that most American solders are unlikely to obey orders to engage in.

Without said weapons, there would be no fight. The army would gain control with little more than a very large policing action.

It's the reverse of the gun regulation argument (which I support). The idea is to make it difficult to do, not impossible to do. The more bloody and difficult, the more likely the solders are to say "fuck this, I'm siding with mum and dad"

Aramendel
July 27 2012, 06:16:13 PM
In a modern context, I believe the primary benefit of civilians owning guns is that it would force the army to engage them in a fight, producing a violent conflict against American civilians that most American solders are unlikely to obey orders to engage in.

Without said weapons, there would be no fight. The army would gain control with little more than a very large policing action.

A policing action only works if your targets comply. You can threaten to shoot them and do so if they do not stop, but then you have your fight.
It isn't really different to what would happen if everyone had a gun. Do you think they would let a gun wielding horde en route to lynch the president travel till they can use their weapons? Artillery and rockets would disperse them before they can even use their rifles if they do not react on calls to turn away.

Even if a population had only fists they could force the military rather quickly into firing on them. What would you do as garrison commander if half the city (or even only 1/10th of it) is driving towards you to throw you out of town? Even if their biggest weapon is a crowbar you have realistically only 2 options - get out or open fire.

Nicholai Pestot
July 27 2012, 06:32:33 PM
In a modern context, I believe the primary benefit of civilians owning guns is that it would force the army to engage them in a fight, producing a violent conflict against American civilians that most American solders are unlikely to obey orders to engage in.

Without said weapons, there would be no fight. The army would gain control with little more than a very large policing action.

A policing action only works if your targets comply. You can threaten to shoot them and do so if they do not stop, but then you have your fight.
It isn't really different to what would happen if everyone had a gun. Do you think they would let a gun wielding horde en route to lynch the president travel till they can use their weapons? Artillery and rockets would disperse them before they can even use their rifles if they do not react on calls to turn away.


An unarmed mob can be dealt with via water-cannon, rubber bullets and ketteling. All of which are non-lethal and well within the boundaries of an extended policing action. These are likely to be met with little more than light condemnation.

An armed mob needs to be dealt with through deadly force. As you said, Rockets and Artillery. Once this happens we are at the point of American soldiers being ordered to kill American civilians en masse. American solders are required to disobey orders of this nature.

I would also ask that you read posts a little more closely. Your rebuttal actually reinforces my point, which makes me think you didn't actually read it and instead just saw someone disagreeing with you, then cherry picked a few words out of it so that you could regurgitate an argument you were having with someone else.

Aramendel
July 27 2012, 06:52:59 PM
An unarmed mob can be dealt with via water-cannon, rubber bullets and ketteling. All of which are non-lethal and well within the boundaries of an extended policing action. These are likely to be met with little more than light condemnation.

I think you grossly underestimate the volume of people. If a sizable amount of your population rebels even if you put every single military person on a water cannon you won't be able to suppress it. You won't have that many water cannons, of course.

With reserves the US has 3 million military personnel. If 20% of the population was rebelling and noone in the military would switch sides that would have a 20:1 disadvantage. Good luck suppressing that with non-lethal means.

Also, accusing someone not to have read 3 lines of text. Seriously?


American solders are required to disobey orders of this nature.

They are also required to disobey orders to attack unarmed civilians. So what will you do when your small stock of non-lethal bullets runs out and your water cannons do not work because the water supply to your base has been cut days ago by the population?

Nicholai Pestot
July 27 2012, 06:57:13 PM
An unarmed mob can be dealt with via water-cannon, rubber bullets and ketteling. All of which are non-lethal and well within the boundaries of an extended policing action. These are likely to be met with little more than light condemnation.

I think you grossly underestimate the volume of people. If a sizable amount of your population rebels even if you put every single military person on a water cannon you won't be able to suppress it. You won't have that many water cannons, of course.

With reserves the US has 3 million military personnel. If 20% of the population was rebelling and noone in the military would switch sides that would have a 20:1 disadvantage. Good luck suppressing that with non-lethal means.

Also, accusing someone not to have read 3 lines of text. Seriously?

I chose the least insulting option.

The alternative was that you did read it and posted a counter argument that actually reinforced my point. I prefer not to assume stupidity in others. It runs counter to good debating.

Aramendel
July 27 2012, 07:13:50 PM
The alternative was that you did read it and posted a counter argument that actually reinforced my point.

And I prefer if people avoid circular reasoning and not write a response which is basically "You are wrong, it happens like I said it it does, what you wrote just reinforces my point. Because, you know, you are wrong.".
If you think "Artillery and rockets would disperse them before they can even use their rifles" reinforces your point then you should take your own advice and read the posts you quote. What do you think "A war is ultimately won by the infantry. But only if you keep it alive." means? The military hugging the revolting civilian infantry?

Of course armed civilians will get shot at. How is repeating what I already said "reinforcing your point"?

But the issue is - so will unarmed ones. At least if you do not want to retreat, but that is also an option against armed civilians. Your problem is that you assume that any amount of people can just be dispersed magically by non-lethal means. Except we are not talking about a smallish 1000 (or 10.000) people demonstration getting "a little violent".

FourFiftyFour
July 28 2012, 12:02:58 AM
Again, when thinking about an armed revolution within the United States you cannot frame it in terms of normal warfare.

Any order to engage American civilians would be met with serious resistance amongst the regular army and would probably fall on deaf ears for the national guard and the reserves. That cuts pretty far into your combat ready troops available immediately domestically as well as logistics.

If that order is fulfilled by some portion of the army big or small you are most likely looking at an armed revolution lead by military unit who no longer recognize either the legislative branch, executive branch, or both.

But lets forget about that. Lets say the entirety of the military drinks the koolaid. Even then their hands are tied. They wont fulfill orders that endanger their own families. They can't bomb city's because the country will go broke. They can't kill many people because they need the income tax.

All any armed revolution in the US needs to do is trade time for power. Every day conditions worsen for the neutral regular citizen the revolutions numbers swell. They dont even have to fire many shots. All they have to do is not pay their taxes. Not go to work at their government jobs. Sabotage from the inside. Inspire some nice civil disobedience in our nice shiny red tape jungle and everything grinds to a halt.

I don't know where you guys are getting these grandiose skirmishes and battles from. Nothing of the kind would ever happen. You simply can't have American soldiers engaging in those kinds of fights much less get them to do it in the first place.

However, the weapons are needed in case something or someone needs to be attacked, blown up, or otherwise violenced.

Keorythe
July 28 2012, 02:43:55 AM
For your consideration.

I like how they included the spike in "Shall Issue" States right around the beginning of the decline. Shame they're almost transparent grey and almost unnoticed. Also find it interesting that the AWB and Brady Act didn't even speed bump the number of owned firearms.

Image was taken from a cite showing the correlations between the deaths and firearm ownership and so on. Interestingly, this chart starts just as violence was increasing. It had been in a major decline just before.

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/07/graphics_matter.html
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/06/graphics-matter-year-the-second.html
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/12/graphics-matter-year-the-second-part-two.html

Also, another long term chart. You'll notice a spike in the mid 90's but overall a general reduction over time. Note that these are HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides. You'll also notice rifle and shotgun decreases long before the AWB which specifically targeted long rifles.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11561/c-g/E-11561-chart6.jpg
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11561/c-g/E-11561-chart7.jpg

Effectiveness of Brady Bill = Poor: http://www.guncite.com/JAMABradysurvey.pdf
Peer reviewed study on the Gunshow Loophole or rather why it's fluff: http://closup.umich.edu/research/workingpapers/oldpapers/gunshows-sept08-final.pdf

Ophichius
July 28 2012, 06:41:33 AM
For your consideration.

I like how they included the spike in "Shall Issue" States right around the beginning of the decline. Shame they're almost transparent grey and almost unnoticed. Also find it interesting that the AWB and Brady Act didn't even speed bump the number of owned firearms.

Image was taken from a cite showing the correlations between the deaths and firearm ownership and so on. Interestingly, this chart starts just as violence was increasing. It had been in a major decline just before.

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/07/graphics_matter.html
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/06/graphics-matter-year-the-second.html
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/12/graphics-matter-year-the-second-part-two.html

Also, another long term chart. You'll notice a spike in the mid 90's but overall a general reduction over time. Note that these are HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides. You'll also notice rifle and shotgun decreases long before the AWB which specifically targeted long rifles.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11561/c-g/E-11561-chart6.jpg
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11561/c-g/E-11561-chart7.jpg

Effectiveness of Brady Bill = Poor: http://www.guncite.com/JAMABradysurvey.pdf
Peer reviewed study on the Gunshow Loophole or rather why it's fluff: http://closup.umich.edu/research/workingpapers/oldpapers/gunshows-sept08-final.pdf

Yeah, that graph linked by FourFiftyFour is incredibly biased. Between the use of color selection (Human eye sensitivity peaks at green, using that color for the trend you want to emphasize is an old trick) to the placement of labels (Helpfully also placed on the trend you want to emphasize) and the fact that it doesn't even start at 0 (Amplifying the apparent magnitude of the changes presented), it's doing everything it can to point a giant neon sign at 'look here see legislation works!' without even touching the steady decline in per-capita gun deaths since the beginning of the chart, the sharp drop at/around 1993 (Which coincides with but may not be caused by the increase in shall-issue states.), or pointing out how incredibly minor those changes actually are compared to the total.

-O

Adolith
July 28 2012, 11:53:48 AM
My 2 germancents on the "guns are needed to overthrow a government":

If the population starts to use armed force against government forces (police/military) it will not help their cause. Attacking an unarmed civilian population with lethal force is an entirely different thing than attack armed rebels who are wanting to:
a) shooting you and your comrades
b) ambushing you and your comrades
c) blowing you and your comrades up with IEDs

If the population uses lethal force, there is no more black and white, innocents on both sides will get killed, the military is less likely to side completely with the population, resulting in civil war.

Civil disobiediance, strikes, demonstrations might be the better way to overthrow a western government.

Lallante
July 30 2012, 12:42:57 PM
In the modern era arguably unarmed or lightly armed rebellion is more effective than armed insurgency. Moral high ground is everything, internationally.

dpidcoe
July 30 2012, 06:20:14 PM
In the modern era arguably unarmed or lightly armed rebellion is more effective than armed insurgency. Moral high ground is everything, internationally.
Yep, it worked out pretty well for egypt at least.

FourFiftyFour
August 1 2012, 01:38:27 PM
That graph was just something I found on the net while reading up on the topic. If you read the sources cited on the bottom of the image you can get an idea of where that bias came from.

Don Rumata
August 26 2012, 12:01:50 AM
Surprised no-one posted it yet.

Aug. 24 (yesterday). Mass shooting in NYC, near Empire State Building. 10 people shot, media goes apeshit as per usual. Details Emerge: Disgruntled worker who was fired goes back to office, opens fire, kills boss. NYPD arrives, cops kill the guy in the ensuing shootout.

Here is the kicker. All bystander victims are shot by cops. Out of 16 shots fired, 9 bystanders were shot.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/

Video of the shootout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYWgrHwrlf8&feature=youtu.be

Obligatory "if only those bystanders had guns"...

Varcaus
August 26 2012, 02:56:27 PM
Gun control wouldn't have changed anything. Better training for the cops might have.

Varcaus
August 26 2012, 06:28:14 PM
Just out of interest what do people have guns for?

Mosty for shooting for fun a few people hunt and even fewer still get it from there dead grandparents/parents and just dont want to/know how to get rid of it.

Ophichius
August 27 2012, 12:08:19 AM
Surprised no-one posted it yet.

Aug. 24 (yesterday). Mass shooting in NYC, near Empire State Building. 10 people shot, media goes apeshit as per usual. Details Emerge: Disgruntled worker who was fired goes back to office, opens fire, kills boss. NYPD arrives, cops kill the guy in the ensuing shootout.

Here is the kicker. All bystander victims are shot by cops. Out of 16 shots fired, 9 bystanders were shot.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/

Video of the shootout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYWgrHwrlf8&feature=youtu.be

Obligatory "if only those bystanders had guns"...

So, Bad Guys: 1, Cops: 9 Looks like the cops are winning.

That footage really shows the cops bungling it. I have a sneaking suspicion that the shooter's choice of garb had something to do with how they approach. If you watch them on the approach, they've got weapons holstered and are not in combat-ready stances or positions, despite having been informed that the guy shot and killed someone less than a block away. If he'd been dressed like a crazy hobo, they'd have treated him with much more caution than a guy in a nice suit with a briefcase. Instead they bunched up, got in each other's line of fire, and weren't generally in a combat state.

As far as the bystanders with guns comment, from the interviews it sounds like the people close enough to actually respond weren't mentally capable of it (If you're close enough to consider 'kicking the gun out of his hand' you're close enough to tackle the shooter anyways.), so bystanders with guns wouldn't have improved anything unless they also had the training and awareness to respond correctly.

-O

Cue1*
August 27 2012, 12:34:30 AM
Surprised no-one posted it yet.

Aug. 24 (yesterday). Mass shooting in NYC, near Empire State Building. 10 people shot, media goes apeshit as per usual. Details Emerge: Disgruntled worker who was fired goes back to office, opens fire, kills boss. NYPD arrives, cops kill the guy in the ensuing shootout.

Here is the kicker. All bystander victims are shot by cops. Out of 16 shots fired, 9 bystanders were shot.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/

Video of the shootout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYWgrHwrlf8&feature=youtu.be

Obligatory "if only those bystanders had guns"...

3 bystanders were shot, 6 injured by sharpnel. Let's keep the facts straight at the very least.

Keorythe
August 28 2012, 07:18:21 AM
Cardinal rule of shooting #3

Always know your target, backstop, and beyond
It's always important to know what your target is but itís just as important to know what lies beyond your target - and whatís going to stop the bullet. Remember - a bullet can travel a considerable distance (up to 1 mile) and YOU are responsible for the actions of that bullet. It's important to get familiar with your ammunition. Some have more power or velocity than others even when used in the same firearm.

Lallante
August 28 2012, 10:07:30 AM
Guys guns dont kill people, lack of guns does

Don Rumata
September 1 2012, 02:09:06 PM
Looks like there is an actual workable solution for gun control in the US:


Horry County police say a Conway man shot himself in the head with a revolver while watching a movie Friday morning, according to the report.

It happened about 2:50 a.m. at 3140 Wayside Road.

Witnesses told police James Gagum, 43, was sitting in the recliner when he put the gun to his head after watching a scene in the movie and said, "That's not how it's done." He began pulling the trigger and on the third pull, the gun went off, according to the report.

EMS was called and pronounced Gagum dead at the scene.

We previously interviewed James Gagum in connection with this story. Gagum shot and killed an intruder in his home in April 2010.

http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=795324#.UEIV9MFmS8B

Varcaus
September 1 2012, 02:44:34 PM
Looks like there is an actual workable solution for gun control in the US:


Horry County police say a Conway man shot himself in the head with a revolver while watching a movie Friday morning, according to the report.

It happened about 2:50 a.m. at 3140 Wayside Road.

Witnesses told police James Gagum, 43, was sitting in the recliner when he put the gun to his head after watching a scene in the movie and said, "That's not how it's done." He began pulling the trigger and on the third pull, the gun went off, according to the report.

EMS was called and pronounced Gagum dead at the scene.

We previously interviewed James Gagum in connection with this story. Gagum shot and killed an intruder in his home in April 2010.

http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=795324#.UEIV9MFmS8B

Well I'm glad someone enjoys fapping over corpses on here :roll: were would we be without you.

Spaztick
September 2 2012, 08:20:01 PM
BUT WHAT MOVIE WAS HE WATCHING?

erichkknaar
September 3 2012, 12:31:39 AM
BUT WHAT MOVIE WAS HE WATCHING?

The Deer Hunter?

Lallante
September 3 2012, 08:46:02 AM
No it was Lion King

Dark Flare
September 3 2012, 08:54:48 AM
Guns are great, and never cause confusion, and are always the way to solve problems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting

Cue1*
September 3 2012, 06:04:24 PM
Guns are great, and never cause confusion, and are always the way to solve problems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting
Guns are terrrible, can never be used properly, and always cause more harm than good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings#New_Life _Church_shooting
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

(Sorry, I couldn't decide which was better evidence)

Keorythe
September 4 2012, 03:11:58 AM
Guns are great, and never cause confusion, and are always the way to solve problems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting

Wait, so you're using an example where police were executing a search warrant against an individual who they knew was both armed, had military training, owned body armor, and was believed to be involved in drug trafficking? The confusion being on the part of the guy who got shot because he thought the cops were home invaders? I know there have to be much better examples out there than that. You can do better...

Also find it odd that Wikipedia has this listed as a murder when the AG ruled it as a good shoot and reasonable force.

Dark Flare
September 4 2012, 10:48:56 AM
Guns are great, and never cause confusion, and are always the way to solve problems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting

Wait, so you're using an example where police were executing a search warrant against an individual who they knew was both armed, had military training, owned body armor, and was believed to be involved in drug trafficking? The confusion being on the part of the guy who got shot because he thought the cops were home invaders? I know there have to be much better examples out there than that. You can do better...

Also find it odd that Wikipedia has this listed as a murder when the AG ruled it as a good shoot and reasonable force.

Yes, let's do a no-knock on a guy who's likely to defend his home, and likely to submit to police if they just asked him to.

Let's shoot him because we think he's shooting us because we're retarded and can't aim worth fuck.

Let's not allow an ambulance to help him for an hour and 15minutes because fuck it right.

Oh woops he had the safety on because he was less of a complete moron than the police. Nevermind, definitely a "good shoot".

Also "Believed to be involved in drug trafficking"


A computer search revealed Guerena had no history of criminal convictions.[4] Guerena had been arrested in January 2009 after being involved in a traffic stop with two other individuals where a gun and a small amount or marijuana were found, but was not charged.

Sure looks like he was the big time drug trafficker right. Let's shoot people because we think there's a chance that maybe they have pot. We definitely need to SWAT raid their house because they might have a small amount of pot.

Cue1*
September 4 2012, 05:52:05 PM
Don't worry about me, I'm just going to point out the retards in both of you.


Sure looks like he was the big time drug trafficker right. Let's shoot people because we think there's a chance that maybe they have pot. We definitely need to SWAT raid their house because they might have a small amount of pot.


Ten months after the raids and the killing, on 2 March 2012 Guerena's 2 brothers Alejandro Guerena, 28, and Gerardo Guerena, 24, along with Alejandro's wife, Pauline Guerena, his sister-in-law, Denise Ruiz, and his father-in-law, Jose Celaya were indicted alleging they imported and sold at least $4.9 million worth of marijuana between 2005 and the time of the fatal raid.
Yup, no way he could have been involved in that at all, it was only his wife, brothers, and all of his family on his wife's side. Also, where the fuck do you get the idea he's just going to submit to the police if they ask?



Guns are great, and never cause confusion, and are always the way to solve problems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting

Wait, so you're using an example where police were executing a search warrant against an individual who they knew was both armed, had military training, owned body armor, and was believed to be involved in drug trafficking? The confusion being on the part of the guy who got shot because he thought the cops were home invaders? I know there have to be much better examples out there than that. You can do better...

Also find it odd that Wikipedia has this listed as a murder when the AG ruled it as a good shoot and reasonable force.

Yea, because the AG ruling it a good shoot doesn't seem like a cover up at all. And what all the different SWAT officers said doesn't sound like they were covering each others asses. Most likely situation, one guy decided to fire, or had a sympathetic trigger squeeze and everyone else followed suite.

Frug
September 4 2012, 08:01:57 PM
When talking to Keorythe, one must always consider the fact that police and the military never lie, but civilians are full of shit at all times.

Cue1*
September 4 2012, 08:17:21 PM
When talking to Keorythe, one must always consider the fact that police and the military never lie, but civilians are full of shit at all times.

As prior military, and working on being police, I like his trust in me, but I have made mistakes before.

Frug
September 4 2012, 09:04:21 PM
When talking to Keorythe, one must always consider the fact that police and the military never lie, but civilians are full of shit at all times.

As prior military, and working on being police, I like his trust in me, but I have made mistakes before.
Bias is different from trust.

Obviously if he hadn't fired his gun, but they claimed to have killed him because he did, someone made a mistake. Good thing he had a gun and was trained to use it safely oh wait.

Cue1*
September 4 2012, 11:04:08 PM
When talking to Keorythe, one must always consider the fact that police and the military never lie, but civilians are full of shit at all times.

As prior military, and working on being police, I like his trust in me, but I have made mistakes before.
Bias is different from trust.

Obviously if he hadn't fired his gun, but they claimed to have killed him because he did, someone made a mistake. Good thing he had a gun and was trained to use it safely oh wait.

The use of the word trust was sarcastic.

As far as the situation, I would have shot him in the situation of the SWAT officers. He was pointing a firearm at them. That said, the SWAT officers testimony on it was pretty questionable.

Keorythe
September 5 2012, 01:58:13 AM
When talking to Keorythe, one must always consider the fact that police and the military never lie, but civilians are full of shit at all times.

I could spin that around to others like you very easily. Am I biased? Sure. Fog of war isn't just for military, it extends to police and civilians as well. There are many who are quick to jump the shark on knee jerk reactions and say XXX acted to harshly. I'll point out how the other side might see things or what might have caused what. I've even admitted to being wrong. That's not a problem. In this case I easily pointed out the situation and the cause for everyone to be keyed up. Police and military are human too and shit gets really scary, really confused, and generally fucked up when your targets are (or think they are) shooting at you. Someone thought they saw a shot fired. They reacted. Bad deal.

Having been on both ends....why yes. Civilians are full of shit waaay too often. I still get shocked at some of the pants on head retarded responses in this forum alone for various subjects like "unarmed people can't kill you" or "they should have flown in close and see if those insurgents have PRESS written on their shirts". Cue1, when you get picked up by a department, you will get to experience some awesome excuses, blame games, and outright lying on a daily basis.


The entire point of my original post was that Dark Flare was using a poor example to make his point. You went all drama queen over it. Maybe you should invite Don in here and really shit up this thread.

Cue1*
September 5 2012, 02:54:48 AM
Cue1, when you get picked up by a department, you will get to experience some awesome excuses, blame games, and outright lying on a daily basis.

Already hear them often, got a few friends in and I hear it all from there. Hence, I suspect those SWAT guys are full of shit. Sympathetic trigger squeeze plus everyone following suite.

Keorythe
September 5 2012, 03:11:37 AM
Cue1, when you get picked up by a department, you will get to experience some awesome excuses, blame games, and outright lying on a daily basis.

Already hear them often, got a few friends in and I hear it all from there. Hence, I suspect those SWAT guys are full of shit. Sympathetic trigger squeeze plus everyone following suite.

LOL, I meant the civilians. In the department you'll get the usual dramas and be amazed at how cheap a cop can be when he has to spend his own money on a piece of life saving gear. Keep in touch with non-LEO friends regularly. You don't want to turn into one of those overly cynical "the world is out to get me" types. You'll be dealing with the dregs of society often and you'll slowly become a misanthrope if you not careful. Some of the "means well" or "white knights" are almost as bad.

Frug
September 5 2012, 04:53:50 PM
You went all drama queen over it.
Uh huh.

Lallante
September 5 2012, 07:54:38 PM
Don't worry about me, I'm just going to point out the retards in both of you.


Sure looks like he was the big time drug trafficker right. Let's shoot people because we think there's a chance that maybe they have pot. We definitely need to SWAT raid their house because they might have a small amount of pot.


Ten months after the raids and the killing, on 2 March 2012 Guerena's 2 brothers Alejandro Guerena, 28, and Gerardo Guerena, 24, along with Alejandro's wife, Pauline Guerena, his sister-in-law, Denise Ruiz, and his father-in-law, Jose Celaya were indicted alleging they imported and sold at least $4.9 million worth of marijuana between 2005 and the time of the fatal raid.
Yup, no way he could have been involved in that at all, it was only his wife, brothers, and all of his family on his wife's side. Also, where the fuck do you get the idea he's just going to submit to the police if they ask?



Or you could learn to parse basic grammar and realise it was his two brothers , his brother's wife, and her family not his wife and had absolutely nothing to do with him or his wife.

Dark Flare
September 6 2012, 04:31:50 PM
Don't worry about me, I'm just going to point out the retards in both of you.


Sure looks like he was the big time drug trafficker right. Let's shoot people because we think there's a chance that maybe they have pot. We definitely need to SWAT raid their house because they might have a small amount of pot.


Ten months after the raids and the killing, on 2 March 2012 Guerena's 2 brothers Alejandro Guerena, 28, and Gerardo Guerena, 24, along with Alejandro's wife, Pauline Guerena, his sister-in-law, Denise Ruiz, and his father-in-law, Jose Celaya were indicted alleging they imported and sold at least $4.9 million worth of marijuana between 2005 and the time of the fatal raid.
Yup, no way he could have been involved in that at all, it was only his wife, brothers, and all of his family on his wife's side. Also, where the fuck do you get the idea he's just going to submit to the police if they ask?


Are people not innocent until proven guilty anymore? Since when is "oh well his family are drug dealers even if we can't prove it about him" a valid reason to shoot someone?

Cue1*
September 6 2012, 08:18:52 PM
Are people not innocent until proven guilty anymore? Since when is "oh well his family are drug dealers even if we can't prove it about him" a valid reason to shoot someone?

Right, because, like I said, they shot him because he was potentially dealing drugs, not because he had a loaded AR-15 pointed at them. Oh wait...



Or you could learn to parse basic grammar and realise it was his two brothers , his brother's wife, and her family not his wife and had absolutely nothing to do with him or his wife.

Yup, you're right, I read it wrong. My fault. Still stands, he could have very well been involved, making the no knock warrant worth doing.

Dark Flare
September 6 2012, 08:20:02 PM
Are people not innocent until proven guilty anymore? Since when is "oh well his family are drug dealers even if we can't prove it about him" a valid reason to shoot someone?

Right, because, like I said, they shot him because he was potentially dealing drugs, not because he had a loaded AR-15 pointed at them. Oh wait...

They shot him because someone on their team was an idiot and fired for no reason.

He had every right to have an AR-15 pointed at them, they'd broken into his home without identifying themselves as the law.

Cue1*
September 6 2012, 08:45:06 PM
They shot him because someone on their team was an idiot and fired for no reason.

He had every right to have an AR-15 pointed at them, they'd broken into his home without identifying themselves as the law.

You're Monday morning quarterbacking it. The cops shot him because he was pointing an AR-15 at him. That's absolutely every reason to use deadly force; for fuck's sake it's written directly into the use of deadly force. Pointing a weapon at an officer is considered a direct danger to the life of the officer and grants the officer the right to use deadly force under the first directive of the use of deadly force, the preservation of life and right of self defense. This right is even granted to civilians in the US.

"a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony" (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html)

"The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to (1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or (2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury, and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force." (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0074.htm)

" d. Deadly force is authorized under the following circumstances:
(1) Inherent Right of Self-Defense. When there is reasonable belief that a person(s)
poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to DoD persons. Self-defense includes
defense of other DoD persons in the vicinity." (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf)

The DoD right to use deadly force is specifically the right of DoD personnel NOT IN A COMBAT ZONE to use deadly force, IE, when they're filling the role of law enforcement, aid to the public, or security of DoD property(while in a combat zone, the ROE is the ruling doctrine and the use of deadly force is not applicable). Read these laws in their entirety though, as I only listed the applicable parts.

Now, I will admit, the Monday morning quarterback view paints a different picture. Apparently, the victim was unable to hear or they officers did not announce their presence as law enforcement. That is not good, and that plus the fact that the statement by the officers was that he opened fire, not that they used deadly force because he was a direct threat to them, really makes me wonder. They had every right to shoot him because he was pointing a weapon at them, loaded, unloaded, safety on or off, hell even a bright orange tip or not, that gives them every right to use deadly force. An officer is held responsible for what he can understand and perceive in the situation, not what the facts reveal after the fact. If there's reasonable understanding that what was in the hands of the offender looked to be a weapon, the officer is cleared to use deadly force. The fact was, the SWAT officers were looking at the muzzle of a weapon, and used deadly force, as was their right. They fucked up by saying they shot because they were fired on though. There are very serious wrongs in this situation. I suspect, that the shoot was ruled a good shoot because it was a reasonable belief that the officer who fired first believed himself to be in imminent danger. There's something fishy going on with the story, but that's always the case. Put 10 people around a hit and run car accident and you'll get 5 different car descriptions, 2 different plate numbers, and one guy will say the driver was Jesus Christ in the flesh.

Dark Flare
September 6 2012, 09:20:22 PM
I'm not saying the shots fired themselves were wrong, but given the police behaviour and set up there was never going to be any other result. They royally fucked up everything up until that moment, and the guy was ALWAYS bound to be there trying to defend his house as he had no idea.

The first he'd have known that it was the police and not a burglar, is when they kicked in his door, saw him holding a gun, and filled him with holes. There was zero opportunity for him to register who they were and drop the weapon, and that is entirely the police's fault.

They never should have got to the stage of needing to fire the shots.

Cue1*
September 6 2012, 10:15:23 PM
I'm not saying the shots fired themselves were wrong, but given the police behaviour and set up there was never going to be any other result. They royally fucked up everything up until that moment, and the guy was ALWAYS bound to be there trying to defend his house as he had no idea.

The first he'd have known that it was the police and not a burglar, is when they kicked in his door, saw him holding a gun, and filled him with holes. There was zero opportunity for him to register who they were and drop the weapon, and that is entirely the police's fault.

They never should have got to the stage of needing to fire the shots.

Let's work on the assumption that the SWAT team were professionals, and this wasn't their first rodeo. Seems a fair assumption, at least to me. Now, with that in mind, they should have declared themselves to be law enforcement AS they broke down the door. Now, some of the facts known of the situation can paint a bit of a picture for us. SWAT usually operates in two elements of five, totaling ten SWAT team members. Since the official report states that five officers were making entry, that means that 5 others were doing something else. Guarding the back, securing the perimeter, or what I suspect to be most likely, breaching other areas of the house, meaning they had already made entry into the house, and were starting room to room when Guerena was found with a weapon. A really professional entry is very very quick. Chances are, Guerena had five to ten seconds to understand that he was being breached in upon by a SWAT team with a no-knock warrant. That's a lot of info to take in, and not a lot of time to understand it.

Chances are, he was teeming with adrenaline and worried for the safety of his family, so he processed this info very slow. I suspect, that he wasn't even finished understanding all of this when he was found by the SWAT team, so he was likely still crouched, rifle at the ready, and sighted into where he expected hostiles to come in from. I have no real proof to prove this, but I suspect he had understood it was police and was making the decision to surrender or fight when they found him and opened fire, since he was still in a ready position.

This is a serious problem with a no-knock warrant, but honestly, I've never heard of a better idea for it. A no-knock warrant is basically a requirement in situations where either the evidence could be destroyed quickly or the served could setup a defense against officers. Tactically, the best answer is a combination of dynamic entry(IE, door's locked so let's make our own) and a series of flash bangs. That, combined with a really well trained breach team means that you can minimize casualties and increase non-lethal options. Even highly trained individuals will still be stunned by a flash bang. A series of them is likely to provide a lasting stun allowing officers to use non-lethal options on potential defenders(kicks, butt strikes, etc). The problem is, dynamic entry isn't exactly cheap, and it can cause injuries without needing trigger happy SWAT team members. Flash bangs can still be fatal if you decide to jump on them(has happened before). There's also a big issue in problems where that no-knock warrant doesn't turn anything up. Who pays for all the repair?

Keorythe
September 7 2012, 08:34:10 AM
The first he'd have known that it was the police and not a burglar, is when they kicked in his door, saw him holding a gun, and filled him with holes. There was zero opportunity for him to register who they were and drop the weapon, and that is entirely the police's fault.


While LaWall's office did find the deputies were "mistaken" when they said initially that Guerena had fired at them before they shot him, it was determined that they felt they were in danger when he raised his weapon "in their direction."

Once the shooting started, an officer fell to the ground. Other officers thought he had been shot and believed they were returning fire.

The findings said the SWAT team also clearly identified themselves before they moved in.

Two days before the operation detectives gave a briefing that said the Guerena family was suspected of being a well-organized, large scale drug trafficking organization, and that the suspected "muscle" of the organization lived at Guerena's home.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/14901148/swat-shooting-of-guerena-ruled-reasonable-and-justified


Also, please go to page 8 of the affidavit. Jose Guerena had a pretty decent history of run in's with law enforcement. Arrested once one five felony counts involving marijuana and firearms misconduct. Charges dropped. Became a person of interest by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigators for Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana. Income checks showed that he made $41,000 a year but owned a 100k house and 6 vehicles which totaled another 100k in estimated value. Two of which were involved in actual drug busts. This was collated after a 20 month probe into him and his relatives.

Affidavit below
http://www.kvoa.com/files/Scanned%20Document0582_000.pdf

Then there's the issue of the no-knock itself.


Vanessa Guerena says she heard noise outside their home about 9 a.m. Thursday and woke her husband who had just gone to bed after working a 12-hour shift at the Asarco Mine, she said. There were no sirens or shouts of "police," she said.

Guerena told his wife and son to hide inside a closet and he grabbed the AR-15 rifle, his wife said.

"The department says SWAT members were clear when identifying themselves while entering the home.

Tucson is notorious for home invasions and we didn't want to look like that," said Lt. Michael O'Connor of the Pima County Sheriff's Department. "We went lights and sirens and we absolutely did not do a 'no-knock' warrant."

When five SWAT members broke through the front door Guerena was crouched down pointing the gun at them, said O'Connor.

"The suspect said, 'I've got something for you,' when he saw them," O'Connor said. Guerena's wife denied he said that.

Deputies began shooting.

The crowning jewel is that there was a sex tape...err raid tape made.


The Sheriff's Department investigation documents and raid video show that the raid began with the deployment of several SWAT officers at the front of the house and two officers to the east side of the house. Officers at the front sounded a siren for about eight seconds, then began knocking on the door, continually shouting commands and identifying themselves in English and Spanish.

As to the delay in medical aid, it appears that SWAT pulled out when the shooting started. They deployed robots into the house after Jose's wife and son exited.


Guerena collapsed at the entrance to the kitchen, which opened off of the hallway in which he'd been standing. After officers removed Vanessa Guerena from the home, her young son came to the front door by himself. Officers then deployed two robotic surveillance devices. A SWAT doctor pronounced Guerena dead via telephone conference, based on observations obtained via the robot and relayed to him by officers on the scene. That pronouncement came about an hour after the shooting.

You can also compare the two interviews they did with her. One right after the shooting and another later after they read her Miranda rights. Notice the sudden denials especially about seeing the police.


So, uh, I, I was here in this, like, to close to me, like, to close, when I saw this people like in the house, like you can see, the blinds are open, and, and, they were like, with all these ____, so I got, like, oh my God. I, got my kid, and I put him in the closet, and I, I yell, Jose, like, with all my, like, loud, loud. So, he wake up, and I saw him like, naked, well, like, in boxers, I saw him. What, what's, he's all, what's going on? And, and, and, and he's all, stay here. But, ___ __, Um, wait, he said, what happened? Get down because of the bullets. The, the, shooting. And, I thought they were gonna shoot, in the window. And, I told him, I have a kid, I have a baby. So, I put the baby in the closet, and I went into the closet, and I saw him, when, he went, like, run into the kitchen...



[Detectives question Ms. Guerena repeatedly about whether she ever heard sirens, whether she could see markings on the police uniforms, and so on.]

Officer: ...do you remember the ...

Vanessa Guerena: I don't remember anything.

Officer: ... the police coming to the door and saying anything?

Vanessa Guerena: No, no, no, no.

Officer: Did you remember?

Vanessa Guerena: I don't remember. I was in the closet. The house is very long.

Officer: Vanessa?

Vanessa Guerena: You could just hear.

Officer: Vanessa?

Vanessa Guerena: Ooo, ooo, ooo. And then, a siren. I didn't hear voices, I just heard that they screamed... And, my son was also crying...

http://www.webcitation.org/5zuTCDuuW




TL;DR: Cops use sirens and yell a lot. Mexican wife saw cops. Told husband. Husband got shot. Cops use robots. Wife admits. Wife suddenly get amnesia. Lawyers say good shoot. Family busted for drugs and stolen property sue cops and make shitty wiki page.

Dark Flare
September 7 2012, 08:53:39 AM
Well, perhaps I was underinformed about the happenings then.

I am, however, interested in why you bolded this bit:


Once the shooting started, an officer fell to the ground.

Since we know he didn't fire any shots, did you bold this just to highlight that not only were they incapable of aiming, they were also incapable of basic human motion - which personally I've been pretty okay at since I was 3?

Keorythe
September 7 2012, 12:03:39 PM
Well, perhaps I was underinformed about the happenings then.

I am, however, interested in why you bolded this bit:


Once the shooting started, an officer fell to the ground.

Since we know he didn't fire any shots, did you bold this just to highlight that not only were they incapable of aiming, they were also incapable of basic human motion - which personally I've been pretty okay at since I was 3?

No one knew that he had not fired shots. That wasn't known until long after the event took place. The entire sentence is pretty clear. Shooting starts. An officer falls down. Other officers think they're taking fire. They open fire themselves.

Incapable of human emotion? Would that be the human emotion when they're thinking "fuck fuck fuck man down, Bob's down, my good friend might be dead!" or the emotion where they're thinking "fuck fuck fuck I might die too unless I smoke this dude".

Dark Flare
September 7 2012, 12:05:45 PM
Well, perhaps I was underinformed about the happenings then.

I am, however, interested in why you bolded this bit:


Once the shooting started, an officer fell to the ground.

Since we know he didn't fire any shots, did you bold this just to highlight that not only were they incapable of aiming, they were also incapable of basic human motion - which personally I've been pretty okay at since I was 3?

No one knew that he had not fired shots. That wasn't known until long after the event took place. The entire sentence is pretty clear. Shooting starts. An officer falls down. Other officers think they're taking fire. They open fire themselves.

Incapable of human emotion? Would that be the human emotion when they're thinking "fuck fuck fuck man down, Bob's down, my good friend might be dead!" or the emotion where they're thinking "fuck fuck fuck I might die too unless I smoke this dude".


I didn't write emotion. I wrote motion.

I also said WE know he didn't fire any shots. I was pointing out that that officer was NOT shot, and yet he fell over for fuck knows what reason - presumably because as well as being unable to aim, he was also unable to walk properly.

Lallante
September 7 2012, 12:13:48 PM
If you arent capable of keeping your cool in a pre-planned operation as a firearms specialist, and make enormous mistakes like "imagining" gunfire or falling over while walking across a lawn then frankly you shouldnt be allowed a weapon.

Dark Flare
September 7 2012, 12:30:10 PM
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was meandering towards.

Cue1*
September 7 2012, 06:57:33 PM
More realistically than "they're all stupid cops" he dropped to prone or urban prone or maybe even supine to be a smaller target and a more stable shooting position. I do it on reflex at this point, even in training exercises. Smaller target, low on the ground, better shot at vitals and a much smaller and harder target to acquire, let alone shoot.

Dark Flare
September 7 2012, 07:16:06 PM
More realistically than "they're all stupid cops" he dropped to prone or urban prone or maybe even supine to be a smaller target and a more stable shooting position. I do it on reflex at this point, even in training exercises. Smaller target, low on the ground, better shot at vitals and a much smaller and harder target to acquire, let alone shoot.

So he's either stupid because he fell over, or the others are stupid because they can't tell the difference between falling over and deliberately getting on the floor.

Pick.

Cue1*
September 7 2012, 07:56:07 PM
Now that I'm not on my phone. If you've never been shot at, then you really don't have much right to complain about other peoples reactions in a combat scenario. I've had ops with just training weapons that have been planned and practiced 400 times, but once you put live targets on the other side it's a whole different ballgame. Being a professional under fire is not about never having emotions, it's about setting them aside long enough to get the job done. It's about not sitting down under cover and crying, and instead actually putting your neck out on the line to look down your rifle and pull the trigger. Even the "smooth operators" out there are still thinking the same thing when someone goes down, prone or hit, "fuck fuck fuck man down, Bob's down, my good friend might be dead!" and "fuck fuck fuck I might die too unless I smoke this dude". Guns are loud and disorienting. The muzzle flash on your own weapon can easily look like muzzle flash off of other guns. When rounds start flying, it can feel like they are coming in from every direction. Being a professional means sticking to training adapting to the changing combat situation. Sometimes, that means going prone, and saying fuck the plan.



More realistically than "they're all stupid cops" he dropped to prone or urban prone or maybe even supine to be a smaller target and a more stable shooting position. I do it on reflex at this point, even in training exercises. Smaller target, low on the ground, better shot at vitals and a much smaller and harder target to acquire, let alone shoot.

So he's either stupid because he fell over, or the others are stupid because they can't tell the difference between falling over and deliberately getting on the floor.

Pick.

How about option 3. Officer falls to the ground as quickly as possible(I kick my legs right out from under me and fall hitting with all my weight falling directly on my chest) to go into prone. Officers who aren't going to the ground, and are being the professionals they are(the same professionals you're accusing them of not being) so they don't look at their buddy, they first take care of the threat directly in front of them. They're looking straight down their optics, and cannot see anything, other than the fact that Bob is no longer visible in their peripheral vision, or that their rifle is no longer resting near his shoulder. Because they are being a professional and are doing their job right, they don't know what happened to Bob, just that he's no longer standing on his feet.

Frug
September 8 2012, 03:34:20 PM
How about option 3. Officer falls to the ground as quickly as possible(I kick my legs right out from under me and fall hitting with all my weight falling directly on my chest) to go into prone. Officers who aren't going to the ground, and are being the professionals they are(the same professionals you're accusing them of not being) so they don't look at their buddy, they first take care of the threat directly in front of them. They're looking straight down their optics, and cannot see anything, other than the fact that Bob is no longer visible in their peripheral vision, or that their rifle is no longer resting near his shoulder. Because they are being a professional and are doing their job right, they don't know what happened to Bob, just that he's no longer standing on his feet.

Professionals that they are, they open up without hearing any shots. So that should one of them go prone or trip, their impulse is to lay waste to the guy they're looking at? And you're justifying this for the police? Really? Are you fucking joking? I can understand the military busting into a terrorist house spraying people inside by mistake because they're not supposed to be protecting and serving, but this is fucking police.

My question is whether or not he actually knew they were police. If they announced themselves properly so that there was no reasonable way he couldn't know that they were the cops, he should have surrendered. My question is whether they did that, or if they rushed in there in a manner that made things happen too quickly for anyone to know what the fuck was going on (including them). He did have time to tell his family to go hide in the closet, which sounds to me like they had more than enough time to identify themselves. Once he knows who they are, if he's still being hostile toward them like that, it's starting to be a standoff situation and his own fault.

Cue1*
September 8 2012, 07:03:59 PM
Professionals that they are, they open up without hearing any shots. So that should one of them go prone or trip, their impulse is to lay waste to the guy they're looking at? And you're justifying this for the police? Really? Are you fucking joking? I can understand the military busting into a terrorist house spraying people inside by mistake because they're not supposed to be protecting and serving, but this is fucking police.

Holy fucking shit Frug. Did you ever learn to read? They shot him because he was pointing a weapon at them. That alone gives them every right to shoot him. Wait, you know what? I've said this before. Maybe like a page ago. Here, I'll just quote it for you.


The cops shot him because he was pointing an AR-15 at him. That's absolutely every reason to use deadly force; for fuck's sake it's written directly into the use of deadly force. Pointing a weapon at an officer is considered a direct danger to the life of the officer and grants the officer the right to use deadly force under the first directive of the use of deadly force, the preservation of life and right of self defense. This right is even granted to civilians in the US.

"a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony" (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html)

"The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to (1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or (2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury, and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force." (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0074.htm)

" d. Deadly force is authorized under the following circumstances:
(1) Inherent Right of Self-Defense. When there is reasonable belief that a person(s)
poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to DoD persons. Self-defense includes
defense of other DoD persons in the vicinity." (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf)

The DoD right to use deadly force is specifically the right of DoD personnel NOT IN A COMBAT ZONE to use deadly force, IE, when they're filling the role of law enforcement, aid to the public, or security of DoD property(while in a combat zone, the ROE is the ruling doctrine and the use of deadly force is not applicable). Read these laws in their entirety though, as I only listed the applicable parts.


My question is whether or not he actually knew they were police. If they announced themselves properly so that there was no reasonable way he couldn't know that they were the cops, he should have surrendered. My question is whether they did that, or if they rushed in there in a manner that made things happen too quickly for anyone to know what the fuck was going on (including them). He did have time to tell his family to go hide in the closet, which sounds to me like they had more than enough time to identify themselves. Once he knows who they are, if he's still being hostile toward them like that, it's starting to be a standoff situation and his own fault.

If you knew how to read, you'd have discovered Keo's post with quite a bit of evidence on the subject. The cops identified themselves, were running their lights and knocked on the door. Wait, you know what? Why don't I, again, just quote the post?



The findings said the SWAT team also clearly identified themselves before they moved in.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/14901148/swat-shooting-of-guerena-ruled-reasonable-and-justified


"The department says SWAT members were clear when identifying themselves while entering the home.

Tucson is notorious for home invasions and we didn't want to look like that," said Lt. Michael O'Connor of the Pima County Sheriff's Department. "We went lights and sirens and we absolutely did not do a 'no-knock' warrant."

When five SWAT members broke through the front door Guerena was crouched down pointing the gun at them, said O'Connor.

"The suspect said, 'I've got something for you,' when he saw them," O'Connor said. Guerena's wife denied he said that.

Deputies began shooting.

The crowning jewel is that there was a sex tape...err raid tape made.


Officers at the front sounded a siren for about eight seconds, then began knocking on the door, continually shouting commands and identifying themselves in English and Spanish.

You can also compare the two interviews they did with her. One right after the shooting and another later after they read her Miranda rights. Notice the sudden denials especially about seeing the police.


So, uh, I, I was here in this, like, to close to me, like, to close, when I saw this people like in the house, like you can see, the blinds are open, and, and, they were like, with all these ____, so I got, like, oh my God. I, got my kid, and I put him in the closet, and I, I yell, Jose, like, with all my, like, loud, loud. So, he wake up, and I saw him like, naked, well, like, in boxers, I saw him. What, what's, he's all, what's going on? And, and, and, and he's all, stay here. But, ___ __, Um, wait, he said, what happened? Get down because of the bullets. The, the, shooting. And, I thought they were gonna shoot, in the window. And, I told him, I have a kid, I have a baby. So, I put the baby in the closet, and I went into the closet, and I saw him, when, he went, like, run into the kitchen...



[Detectives question Ms. Guerena repeatedly about whether she ever heard sirens, whether she could see markings on the police uniforms, and so on.]

Officer: ...do you remember the ...

Vanessa Guerena: I don't remember anything.

Officer: ... the police coming to the door and saying anything?

Vanessa Guerena: No, no, no, no.

Officer: Did you remember?

Vanessa Guerena: I don't remember. I was in the closet. The house is very long.

Officer: Vanessa?

Vanessa Guerena: You could just hear.

Officer: Vanessa?

Vanessa Guerena: Ooo, ooo, ooo. And then, a siren. I didn't hear voices, I just heard that they screamed... And, my son was also crying...

http://www.webcitation.org/5zuTCDuuW

TL;DR: Cops use sirens and yell a lot. Mexican wife saw cops. Told husband. Husband got shot. Cops use robots. Wife admits. Wife suddenly get amnesia. Lawyers say good shoot. Family busted for drugs and stolen property sue cops and make shitty wiki page.

I cut to just the important stuff, but you can just read a page back to get the entire post.

Varcaus
September 8 2012, 11:42:03 PM
How did they know he was pointing a weapon at them, through a closed door? They just sprayed the whole area with no visibility. Frankly its incredibly lucky the wife and kid survived.

Frankly this is a shit troll

Cue1*
September 9 2012, 02:17:44 AM
what gunfire, retard
71 rounds fired. If that's not gunfire, I don't know what is. Relevant:

Guns are loud and disorienting. The muzzle flash on your own weapon can easily look like muzzle flash off of other guns.


How did they know he was pointing a weapon at them, through a closed door? They just sprayed the whole area with no visibility. Frankly its incredibly lucky the wife and kid survived.
Can you read? He was standing in a fucking hallway.

Guerena collapsed at the entrance to the kitchen, which opened off of the hallway in which he'd been standing

Varcaus
September 9 2012, 02:30:10 AM
Stop feeding lall

Lallante
September 10 2012, 08:34:17 AM
what gunfire, retard
71 rounds fired. If that's not gunfire, I don't know what is. Relevant:

Guns are loud and disorienting. The muzzle flash on your own weapon can easily look like muzzle flash off of other guns.


How did they know he was pointing a weapon at them, through a closed door? They just sprayed the whole area with no visibility. Frankly its incredibly lucky the wife and kid survived.
Can you read? He was standing in a fucking hallway.

Guerena collapsed at the entrance to the kitchen, which opened off of the hallway in which he'd been standing

So the reason the police started shooting was that they were disorientated from the 71 rounds that they had already fired?

:roll:

Sofia Roseburn
September 10 2012, 08:57:38 AM
http://onebit.us/x/i/dlW6ElVAoJ.jpg

Keep this up Lallante and you won't make it to Season 2.

Dark Flare
September 10 2012, 09:35:10 AM
In fairness there's a point buried under that last troll. "They heard/saw shooting" isn't really an excuse for opening fire when it was only them shooting.

Frug
September 10 2012, 03:41:58 PM
Professionals that they are, they open up without hearing any shots. So that should one of them go prone or trip, their impulse is to lay waste to the guy they're looking at? And you're justifying this for the police? Really? Are you fucking joking? I can understand the military busting into a terrorist house spraying people inside by mistake because they're not supposed to be protecting and serving, but this is fucking police.

Holy fucking shit Frug. Did you ever learn to read? They shot him because he was pointing a weapon at them. That alone gives them every right to shoot him.

Not if he thought they were home invaders, as has been claimed. Maybe if you stopped blowing steam out of your ears for a second to synthesize the two short paragraphs I wrote you would conclude that they are related quite coherently. If they didn't properly identify themselves, the fact that he was pointing a gun at them while they were in his home probably shouldn't give them the right to blow him away. That would be, basically, what I was concluding. I thought it was pretty clear.

You can quote the law all you want. My point was that if they hadn't identified themselves, and you believe a guy has a right to keep a weapon to protect himself, you must be pretty mentally deficient to conclude that him having that weapon constitutes an excuse for shooting him.

Even if they did, I still would say to Keyorthe that it's a little funny that their knowledge of his legally obtained firearm constitutes some justification for more hostility on their part. I realize that that's life, there's no way you can tell cops to not use that knowledge, but it's a little funny to me that his possession on the one hand supposedly makes him "safer" unless, of course, the cops want in.



If you knew how to read, you'd have discovered Keo's post with quite a bit of evidence on the subject. The cops identified themselves, were running their lights and knocked on the door. Wait, you know what? Why don't I, again, just quote the post?
Please accept my profound apologies for not noticing that post.

Cue1*
September 10 2012, 06:22:37 PM
In fairness there's a point buried under that last troll. "They heard/saw shooting" isn't really an excuse for opening fire when it was only them shooting.

I seem to be a broken record here. They fired because he was pointing a weapon at them.

Apparently there's a need for a bit more detailed explanation, I guess this should have been said earlier. They went in, turned a corner, and he's standing there with rifle in hand, pointed at the officers. He says "I've got something for you" and the cop with the quickest trigger finger and brain shoots. The officers around follow suit, but their own gunfire confuses the officers, who continue firing as they think their own rounds are incoming fire. After the dust settles, the officers who fired after the first think they've fucked up for shooting so much. They begin the drill of CYA. It's not perfect, but it IS justified.


Professionals that they
are, they open up without hearing any shots. So that should one of them go prone or trip, their impulse is to lay waste to the guy they're looking at? And you're justifying this for the police? Really? Are you fucking joking? I can understand the military busting into a terrorist house spraying people inside by mistake because they're not supposed to be protecting and serving, but this is fucking police.

Holy fucking shit Frug. Did you ever learn to read? They shot him because he was pointing a weapon at them. That alone gives them every right to shoot him.

Not if he thought they were home invaders, as has been claimed. Maybe if you stopped blowing steam out of your ears for a second to synthesize the two short paragraphs I wrote you would conclude that they are related quite coherently. If they didn't properly identify themselves, the fact that he was pointing a gun at them while they were in his home probably shouldn't give them the right to blow him away. That would be, basically, what I was concluding. I thought it was pretty clear.

You can quote the law all you want. My point was that if they hadn't identified themselves, and you believe a guy has a right to keep a weapon to protect himself, you must be pretty mentally deficient to conclude that him having that weapon constitutes an excuse for shooting him.

Even if they did, I still would say to Keyorthe that it's a little funny that their knowledge of his legally obtained firearm constitutes some justification for more hostility on their part. I realize that that's life, there's no way you can tell cops to not use that knowledge, but it's a little funny to me that his possession on the one hand supposedly makes him "safer" unless, of course, the cops want in.

Ok, IF, really big IF, they didn't announce themselves, then it's a really big cluster fuck. Legally speaking, it's still justified and the cops take a fall only for not announcing themselves, which is basically where the system falls apart. It's the responsibility of the gun owner and shooter to confirm his target and what's beyond it. But if he had shot a cop who didn't announce his presence, it'd still result in his death(shoot a cop, get every cop after you for revenge and whatnot). I will admit, it's a serious failure, but in this situation, the cops did announce themselves, so this is all moot.

Keorythe
September 11 2012, 02:12:49 AM
Professionals that they are, they open up without hearing any shots. So that should one of them go prone or trip, their impulse is to lay waste to the guy they're looking at? And you're justifying this for the police? Really? Are you fucking joking? I can understand the military busting into a terrorist house spraying people inside by mistake because they're not supposed to be protecting and serving, but this is fucking police.

Holy fucking shit Frug. Did you ever learn to read? They shot him because he was pointing a weapon at them. That alone gives them every right to shoot him.

Not if he thought they were home invaders, as has been claimed. Maybe if you stopped blowing steam out of your ears for a second to synthesize the two short paragraphs I wrote you would conclude that they are related quite coherently. If they didn't properly identify themselves, the fact that he was pointing a gun at them while they were in his home probably shouldn't give them the right to blow him away. That would be, basically, what I was concluding. I thought it was pretty clear.

You can quote the law all you want. My point was that if they hadn't identified themselves, and you believe a guy has a right to keep a weapon to protect himself, you must be pretty mentally deficient to conclude that him having that weapon constitutes an excuse for shooting him.

It's already been pretty well established that they did identify themselves. Even the wife at one point admitted it then changed her story twice. To be honest, it was his cunt of a wife who probably go him killed. I can imagine the conversation, "Aye mija! Hay hombres afuera con escopetas y rifles!" (there are men outside with shotguns and rifles) and missing the part about uniforms or police.


Even if they did, I still would say to Keyorthe that it's a little funny that their knowledge of his legally obtained firearm constitutes some justification for more hostility on their part. I realize that that's life, there's no way you can tell cops to not use that knowledge, but it's a little funny to me that his possession on the one hand supposedly makes him "safer" unless, of course, the cops want in.

The "safer" aspect comes when you are defending your home, family, or property. You take the steps to ensure your safety instead of waiting for a response authority of some type. The fact of the matter is that these crimes don't get reported until after they've already been committed. Firearms give you either an advantage over the assailant or put you on par. That gives a 90lb woman the opportunity to fend off a 250lb rapist or you versus more than one assailant. This right doesn't stop with law abiding citizens either. The local crack dealer around the corner also has the same rights (assuming he has never been arrested and still has the right to own a firearm) and can legally defend his "legal" property. Several major court cases popped up in the 90's over this in California when cops were finding stolen and illegal property during call outs.

When cops "want in" as in a raid of some sort, they do so understanding that many people are armed and have to work under those parameters. It's a necessary risk and they go in prepared. In the case of Guerena, they knew that he was training in the military and was believed to be "the muscle" of the organization. That was taken from the articles. Had they believed he might be some regular joe or caught him with the rifle pointed at the ground, things might have gone differently. But they saw him as trained and potentially violent. So when confronted with a raised rifle the split second decision was:
1) risk taking a bullet to scream announce yourself
2) take the first shot(s) and neutralize the threat

Considering the efforts they went through to announce themselves beforehand only to be looking down the barrel of a rifle it's not hard to see why they went for option 2.

SWAT teams plan really well ahead of time and try to note as many possibilities. But well thought out plans often fail when they make contact with the enemy.

The following can easily show how things might have gone the other way. How solid is your opinion of option 1?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQvDn9MEtNo

Synapse
September 11 2012, 07:20:58 AM
Keorythe, I know you're trying to make a point, but posting the maricopa county SWAT as an example of normal SWAT behavior isn't a good baseline. They have been cited as unprofessional and overly violent even when the force wasn't called for, although it clearly was in your video.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-08-05/news/dog-day-afternoon/full

My point is, I'm not sure that's a good example of how a SWAT team's plans might go badly, so much as how a bad SWAT Team can have things go badly because they are bad.


Edit: If any of you are willing to indugle me on a small tangent. I'm curious whether you think enforcing the "regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment (which we love to ignore in this country, or at least love to define as "everyone") would result in fewer gun fatalities.

For more clarity, if you could sign up for a militia force run by the state government, I guess something like the national guard lite, and through that have rights to buy guns of your choice, but none otherwise, would that be acceptable to you as a method of access and control?

I'm reminded as I write this that switzerland has a similar and notably successful system.

Ophichius
September 11 2012, 07:37:25 AM
Keorythe, I know you're trying to make a point, but posting the maricopa county SWAT as an example of normal SWAT behavior isn't a good baseline. They have been cited as unprofessional and overly violent even when the force wasn't called for, although it clearly was in your video.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-08-05/news/dog-day-afternoon/full

My point is, I'm not sure that's a good example of how a SWAT team's plans might go badly, so much as how a bad SWAT Team can have things go badly because they are bad.


Edit: If any of you are willing to indugle me on a small tangent. I'm curious whether you think enforcing the "regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment (which we love to ignore in this country, or at least love to define as "everyone") would result in fewer gun fatalities.

For more clarity, if you could sign up for a militia force run by the state government, I guess something like the national guard lite, and through that have rights to buy guns of your choice, but none otherwise, would that be acceptable to you as a method of access and control?

I'm reminded as I write this that switzerland has a similar and notably successful system.

Hell. Given that track record I wouldn't be surprised if everyone in Maricopa County shoots at SWAT teams instinctively. Seems like the safe thing to do.

With regards to the tangent, keep in mind that Switzerland has mandatory service and most importantly -does not issue ammunition or magazines- with the issued rifles.

-O

Frug
September 11 2012, 03:12:15 PM
Ok, IF, really big IF, they didn't announce themselves, then it's a really big cluster fuck. Legally speaking, it's still justified and the cops take a fall only for not announcing themselves, which is basically where the system falls apart. It's the responsibility of the gun owner and shooter to confirm his target and what's beyond it. But if he had shot a cop who didn't announce his presence, it'd still result in his death(shoot a cop, get every cop after you for revenge and whatnot). I will admit, it's a serious failure, but in this situation, the cops did announce themselves, so this is all moot.

And I'll admit that it looks as though the cops were almost certainly in the right. The guy sounds like he was asking for it. The question remains why he would leave the safety on.



The "safer" aspect comes when you are defending your home, family, or property...
So when confronted with a raised rifle the split second decision was:
1) risk taking a bullet to scream announce yourself
2) take the first shot(s) and neutralize the threat

Considering the efforts they went through to announce themselves beforehand only to be looking down the barrel of a rifle it's not hard to see why they went for option 2.
In your fervor to defend them you've missed the point. Cue had it right. I didn't need a Barth post on the (incredibly simple) logic behind why people believe they're safer having firearms to blast away villains who enter their homes. I said I found it ironic only because, as a proponent of personal firearms, you inadvertently acknowledge that when the good guys come into your home, the things make everyone less safe.

But really I'm only kidding when I compare your post to a Barth post.

If you think this is somehow offset by their knowledge that he was trained, the irony is that much thicker because one of the big "musts" about firearms advocacy is training.

IMO the relevant information supporting their plugging him was whether they announced themselves adequately at the start, and whether he has a history of violence. You're the one mentioning his training and legal possession and I find that funny. Of course I acknowledge that it's going to give them more impetus to open fire because they're scared of what he can do. Obviously they were told that information and obviously it will make people jumpy. However, were I defending gun ownership, I would never use that information to excuse their accidentally killing him.

Varcaus
September 12 2012, 01:19:12 AM
Keorythe, I know you're trying to make a point, but posting the maricopa county SWAT as an example of normal SWAT behavior isn't a good baseline. They have been cited as unprofessional and overly violent even when the force wasn't called for, although it clearly was in your video.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-08-05/news/dog-day-afternoon/full

My point is, I'm not sure that's a good example of how a SWAT team's plans might go badly, so much as how a bad SWAT Team can have things go badly because they are bad.


Edit: If any of you are willing to indugle me on a small tangent. I'm curious whether you think enforcing the "regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment (which we love to ignore in this country, or at least love to define as "everyone") would result in fewer gun fatalities.

For more clarity, if you could sign up for a militia force run by the state government, I guess something like the national guard lite, and through that have rights to buy guns of your choice, but none otherwise, would that be acceptable to you as a method of access and control?

I'm reminded as I write this that switzerland has a similar and notably successful system.

Hell. Given that track record I wouldn't be surprised if everyone in Maricopa County shoots at SWAT teams instinctively. Seems like the safe thing to do.

With regards to the tangent, keep in mind that Switzerland has mandatory service and most importantly -does not issue ammunition or magazines- with the issued rifles.

-O

Not much use then is it?

Ophichius
September 12 2012, 04:35:19 AM
Not much use then is it?

Quite a bit of use actually, from a national defense standpoint. Making a few assumptions, the largest of which is that the regular military will buy enough time to call up the militia, it's far easier to distribute ammunition in bulk than rifles in bulk. One five ton truck full of palletized ammo can supply several magazines per person to quite a large number of citizens, whereas the same truck having to issue both ammunition and rifles will be taking a drastic hit to the number of citizens it can supply. Additionally, if the militia has to resort to partisan tactics in case of occupation, magazines of ammunition are far easier to conceal, steal, smuggle, or otherwise deal with. It's really an elegant civil defense solution on the whole. It also helps that Switzerland has excellent terrain for partisans and is a small country, facilitating ease of ammunition distribution as well as placing a sizable portion of the citizen militia within a reasonable distance of the borders.

-O

Cue1*
September 12 2012, 06:16:31 AM
And I'll admit that it looks as though the cops were almost certainly in the right. The guy sounds like he was asking for it. The question remains why he would leave the safety on.

Right handed Marines are trained to switch their weapons off of safe and pull the trigger of their first shot simultaneously. He was following training, which is a bit hard to understand unless you've had it. On an AR-15, you can place the pressure required to fire the weapon on the trigger, THEN switch it off of safe and it will fire. I know a few people who shoot like this, because they trust safeties so much. I however, never put weapons on safe personally. I hate safeties.

Lallante
September 12 2012, 08:50:22 AM
I love how we have "concluded" the "fact" that he was pointing a gun at the police when the majority of the SWAT accounts recorded immediately after the events say no such thing (3 say they started shooting due to seeing muzzle flashes inside the house and one says he saw splintering from bullets passing through the door jam (later shown to be from other SWAT members)).

Noone has claimed that they are sure he "targetted them" or aimed at them. Why are we inventing shit?

Oh look heres some analysis by an actual ex-SWAT entry team member
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/316833.php

The relevant bits are from about 1/3 of the way down where he begins analysing the video.

Looks like people in this thread are talking complete shit as usual - the guy who fell didn't do so until approximately 2/3 of the way through the shooting!

Dark Flare
September 12 2012, 11:16:11 AM
I take back what I said about me possibly being wrong.

What a lucid and incredibly damning report (which incidentally almost entirely matches the suspicions of those in this thread who don't appear to drink the "SWAT are highly trained and always right" kool-aid).

I'd be incredibly interested to read what the people in the surrounding houses heard and thought. The only reports we've really had so far are the SWAT members (who ofc are going to say they did it right) and this link from Lall of an analysis of the video. I'd love to read more.

Cue1*
September 12 2012, 06:06:20 PM
I love how we have "concluded" the "fact" that he was pointing a gun at the police when the majority of the SWAT accounts recorded immediately after the events say no such thing (3 say they started shooting due to seeing muzzle flashes inside the house and one says he saw splintering from bullets passing through the door jam (later shown to be from other SWAT members)).

http://kold.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/webdocs/SWAT%20justified.pdf

Page two, second paragraph. The AG report states he had a rifle, and raised it at the officers. Continue reading to the third paragraph, it has a pretty good breakdown of what happened, as pieced together by evidence. Basically, the first officer feared for his life because a rifle was pointed at him, so he fired. Everyone else followed suit. More specifically in the fifth paragraph, it states that there was damage to Guerena's rifle from incoming fire, damage that could have only been caused to the rifle if it was pointed at the officers.

Glad someone found the video, I am apparently blind since I looked for it, but couldn't find it, despite it being linked on the wiki page.

I got a few things wrong. I was under the impression, the shooting occurred farther inside the house. The officers seem disorganized, and very unprofessional, although the SWAT guy in the Confederate-Yankee(MikeM) article seems to be either deaf, dumb or both. The lights are turned on by command. Someone says "lights, brake" then says "lights" again. Clearly asking for the driver to turn on the lights. He blares them on and off with a slight break between because the later part of the siren is not as loud as the beginning(this is by design). It's pretty standard practice for officers who are attempting to make noise to blare their siren like that. He turns it off when someone says "kill it" meaning the siren. "bang, bang, bang" is obviously their code word for go, since it comes over the radio so specifically, and immediately after, someone says "do it". You can also hear before and after taking the door down(although it's hard to hear over the radio) an officer, not pictured, shouting "police, Guerena, we have a warrant" then something I can't understand, which I suspect is Spanish.

They breach the door with a kicker(why did they bring the bar out then?) right after a bang that I suspect is a flashbang(why was it in the backyard and not going in the door?) and MikeM wonders why the breacher didn't get out of the way. He actually didn't have a good way to get out of the way, other than curling into a ball in the corner, or pulling away like he did. I'm not sure which way I'd have gone if I was him, but I don't see a reason he shouldn't have pulled off like he did, other than the fact he put his back to a now open door(very big no-no). The team doesn't have any stack or any real setup for breaching(there are tactics other than a stack for breaching into a room), although they at least use their shield guy as pointman. They still lack a real stack of any kind as well as any defined lanes of fire, everyone is walking through the lanes that should be kept clear for the officers behind them.

Careful watch of the shield guy suggests he sees the gun(you can see his helmet go out of view just before the shots start, obviously ducking behind his shield). It looks like the officer on the right opens up, seeing the same thing the pointman does. Everyone else then opens up following Officer Garcia. This is not uncommon. The gunfire that Officer Garcia produces looks like incoming fire to the other officers. I mentioned this earlier, and it still holds true. It looks like the point man is either pushed by the guy on the left who's using his pistol with a shotgun(looks like a Benelli M4) slung across his back. He's also being pressed down by the officer who's attempting to shoot right over his head(another no-no), so I think he was just pushed in so many directions he tripped, so yea, he didn't go prone like I earlier thought(up until now I thought it was a standard rifleman that went down, not the shield bearer). MikeM criticizes the rear guy for moving backwards, but really he's moving out of what he thinks is an incoming lane of fire and moving to a better cover situation. The guy on the far right move entirely out of the action, since there's not anywhere for him to go since the entire doorway is taken up by officers at this point. He's wrong for moving away like that(AKA running), although I don't see what he could have changed in this situation by not running.

The officers' shooting is pretty standard, although unprofessional. That's a lot of ammo put out, and not a lot of hits to show for it. The shooting I was involved in had a similar amount of firing, however, I'm told there were no misses(damned well better not have been, we were all about 4 feet from the target). I emptied my clip of 8(AND dealt with a failure to fire), as did everyone around me, including a shotgun bearer who fired all 5 round of buckshot he had in the plug(that's 54 round of 9mm just between me and the shotgun guy). It's part of the stress reaction. The last round fired at Guerena was clearly fired by the guy closest to the house on the left(not the guy with a slung shotgun), although I have no idea why. You can see him put his weapon down, then bring it back up and if you look extremely closely you can see the slide return on his pistol.

Overall, the officers seemed pretty unprofessional, although they seem to follow training once the shooting starts, as well as moving correctly. An officer moves to pull the shield bearer out of fire after he's falling, assuming that he's hit and needs medical attention. It seems that they weren't expecting anything to happen so they were dicking about, but once shooting started, they put on some form of game faces.

Lallante
September 12 2012, 07:47:28 PM
Ask yourself this - if you were in your house asleep, awoken by a short blast (sub 10 seconds) of noise and then less than 20 seconds later your front door is kicked down, is it unreasonable for you to be holding your legitimately owned weapon and pointing it towards the door?

Is a 10 second siren blast, 2 - 3 second knock and then breach all within 30 seconds really reasonable to identify yourself to the people inside?

What should Guarana have done? What could he have done? It was amazing he managed to get hold of his gun within 20 seconds of waking up, let alone get together enough to work out that that short blast of siren means that the guy kicking down your door 20 seconds later is probably not a home-invader like the one that killed your brother-in-law.

Dark Flare
September 12 2012, 09:01:21 PM
He did exactly what all the pro-gun americans would have wanted him to, "use his legitimately owned firearm to defend his home." After all, that's what we're repeatedly told they're for.

Anyone else in the same situation would have been doing the same thing, which is exactly why all my critiscism has been directed at the way they went into the house. Sure when they got to him and saw him pointing the gun their way they basically had to open fire, but it should never have gotten to that point.

Cue1*
September 12 2012, 09:50:11 PM
Ask yourself this - if you were in your house asleep, awoken by a short blast (sub 10 seconds) of noise and then less than 20 seconds later your front door is kicked down, is it unreasonable for you to be holding your legitimately owned weapon and pointing it towards the door?

Is a 10 second siren blast, 2 - 3 second knock and then breach all within 30 seconds really reasonable to identify yourself to the people inside?

What should Guarana have done? What could he have done? It was amazing he managed to get hold of his gun within 20 seconds of waking up, let alone get together enough to work out that that short blast of siren means that the guy kicking down your door 20 seconds later is probably not a home-invader like the one that killed your brother-in-law.


You can also hear before and after taking the door down(although it's hard to hear over the radio) an officer, not pictured, shouting "police, Guerena, we have a warrant" then something I can't understand, which I suspect is Spanish.

He should have put his gun down and put his hands in the air. I'll give you that he might not have known from the flash bang and siren. However, the shouts of "police, Guerena, we have a warrant" should have given it away.


Anyone else in the same situation would have been doing the same thing, which is exactly why all my critiscism has been directed at the way they went into the house. Sure when they got to him and saw him pointing the gun their way they basically had to open fire, but it should never have gotten to that point.

No, your criticism has been directed at a no-knock warrant, which THEY DIDN'T USE. What exactly do you suggest instead of a siren and shouts of the fact they're police?

Dark Flare
September 12 2012, 11:35:23 PM
Anyone else in the same situation would have been doing the same thing, which is exactly why all my critiscism has been directed at the way they went into the house. Sure when they got to him and saw him pointing the gun their way they basically had to open fire, but it should never have gotten to that point.

No, your criticism has been directed at a no-knock warrant, which THEY DIDN'T USE. What exactly do you suggest instead of a siren and shouts of the fact they're police?

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or choosing to ignore the statement from the ex-swat guy who said that they did a bad job of both of those things?

Keorythe
September 13 2012, 12:58:20 AM
Anyone else in the same situation would have been doing the same thing, which is exactly why all my critiscism has been directed at the way they went into the house. Sure when they got to him and saw him pointing the gun their way they basically had to open fire, but it should never have gotten to that point.

No, your criticism has been directed at a no-knock warrant, which THEY DIDN'T USE. What exactly do you suggest instead of a siren and shouts of the fact they're police?

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or choosing to ignore the statement from the ex-swat guy who said that they did a bad job of both of those things?

Ex-SWAT guy is kinda failing in his analysis. States the he was an ex-SAC security officer (security guard). Goes on a rant about small city SWAT teams being unfunded and untrained only to point out that he was one of the same. He does fail to know the actual law on use of lethal force. He did question why they said "Bang bang bang" but ignores the flashbangs being heard in the background. He cites lack of discipline from music. But ever since the iPod, music is often used by police but subdued to not drown out the radio.

Now, I do agree with you up to a point Dark Flare. They definitely went in too casually. The chief did say they didn't want it to look like a home invasion hence why they were knocking sounding sirens, etc. But they lack of a stack wasn't an issue. They had the 4 corners taken up covering the windows and side like they should. Stacking in a doorway leaves no egress if someone started to shoot out of the window or door itself. Hence why everyone was out of the doorway and behind the concrete side to the right or behind shield #2 at the window. Ex-SWAT guy should have know that. Getting out of the doorway is the first thing they teach you. Even regular patrol guys know not to stand right in front of it.

*Team commander and backup are in the car.
1. Siren and yelling "Sheriff dept. Search warrant! Open up"
2. Bang bang bang, flash bangs go off. Yelling continues.
3. Door gets hammered, rammer gets out of the way.
4. Shield goes in with 1 support physically touching his back.
5. Shield goes down and entry stops.
6. Ram and Haligan (why ex-SWAT guys calls a pry bar and ought to know better) fall in behind with long guns shouldered as they should be.
7. Shooting starts, "oh shit" moment starts.
8. Dogpile in the door to cover guy on ground.

The casualness of their entry makes me wonder if they thought the extended announcement of who they were made them think there wasn't going to be much resistance.


the guy kicking down your door 20 seconds later is probably not a home-invader like the one that killed your brother-in-law

That's funny that you mention that. One of the articles happens to acknowledge that all of the members above were under suspicion for having a hand in that homicide.



While Lallante is just trolling, I can see where you're trying to go with this Dark Flare. It's just that your point took the extra long way around.

Guns in the house might lead to something like this. Yeah, it's true. They might. I agree. I'm not giving up mine on the chance that this would happen. I'll call it an acceptable risk. Should legislation take that choice away from me? Nope.

orcane
September 13 2012, 03:46:17 AM
With regards to the tangent, keep in mind that Switzerland has mandatory service and most importantly -does not issue ammunition or magazines- with the issued rifles.
Actually we do get magazines. Until about five years ago we even got so-called "pocket ammo" cartridges to keep at home for mobilization (shooting your way to your unit from home, through lots of dirty communists, eg.), but after a few too many suicides and domestic violence incidents with service weapons, they collected that ammo again.

It's still not hard to get ammo, with the mandatory annual shooting exercise being one of the easier sources for a handful of rounds.

Dark Flare
September 13 2012, 10:57:03 AM
While Lallante is just trolling, I can see where you're trying to go with this Dark Flare. It's just that your point took the extra long way around.

Guns in the house might lead to something like this. Yeah, it's true. They might. I agree. I'm not giving up mine on the chance that this would happen. I'll call it an acceptable risk. Should legislation take that choice away from me? Nope.

I was actually attempting to avoid suggesting tighter gun control, because we all know how that discussion ends.

I think my point is more that if you're going to allow people to have guns, there has to be a MUCH greater opportunity for surrender prior to forced entry than was seen in this case. From the minute they kicked the door in there was never going to be any other conclusion, and that is what's wrong.

Ophichius
September 13 2012, 05:19:20 PM
With regards to the tangent, keep in mind that Switzerland has mandatory service and most importantly -does not issue ammunition or magazines- with the issued rifles.
Actually we do get magazines. Until about five years ago we even got so-called "pocket ammo" cartridges to keep at home for mobilization (shooting your way to your unit from home, through lots of dirty communists, eg.), but after a few too many suicides and domestic violence incidents with service weapons, they collected that ammo again.

It's still not hard to get ammo, with the mandatory annual shooting exercise being one of the easier sources for a handful of rounds.

Ah, my mistake. Good to know.

-O

OrangeAfroMan
September 26 2012, 08:29:50 AM
This scenario is one that has made me stop and think on more than one occasion. I know what I would do if I heard somebody breaking into my house, but what if it was SWAT for some reason? I am a law abiding citizen but mistakes get made.

Basically your only hope is that they identify themselves clearly enough for you to hear and process so you can surrender in time. These cases are not what the second amendment is referring to.

Also, I'd like to mention RE: the OP that the rounds fired by AR-15s and AKs are not really considered high powered rounds. Especially 5.56 (AR-15). Rounds like .243, .270, 7,5x55 Swiss, .30-06 and up are exponentially more powerful than 5.56x45. I also find the rifles chambered for these rounds to be much more practical (nothing catches on sagebrush and shrubs quite like piccatinny rail -.-) so I have no real desire for an AR.

That said, I think people should have the option to own them. Despite their stigma, hunting rifles in capable hands are more dangerous, IMO.

ccpl_fisher
October 16 2012, 03:29:19 AM
-Focus on constitution, and how it's being misused by people who didn't actually read that the second amendment clearly specifies the right to bear arms "while in a well regulated Militia".
http://onebit.us/x/i/10cca71475.png

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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Not the militia, the people.

Why the people? Because the people that wrote this had just been fighting a war for two years against a state militia so they made the possession of firearms a right that the militia could not take away from them so they could revolt again if they needed to.

l2historical context
l2not be bad

I'm not even american and I know this.

Actually, if you do your research you'll come to terms with the fact that both interpretations have their proponents and have been verified in the past. The latest interpretation by the Supreme court (somewhere in 2000's) does agree with your statement that it should not be interpreted as only militias, so you're right on that point. However, it has gone back and forth before.

The validity of the second amendment's interpretations aside, there's also of course the simple matter that it was adopted in 1790, when there was no such thing as fully automatic assault rifles with massive killing potential.

Thanks for coming in here just to troll though, because you could have thought of/looked up these things yourself. =\
When the 2nd Amendment was written, the militia, and the US Army were primarily armed with muskets that had a max effective range of 100 yards. The civilian population was armed with rifles, which had a max effective range of 300 yards. that was massive killing potential compared to the military weapons of the time.

SAI Peregrinus
October 17 2012, 07:19:13 PM
-Focus on constitution, and how it's being misused by people who didn't actually read that the second amendment clearly specifies the right to bear arms "while in a well regulated Militia".
http://onebit.us/x/i/10cca71475.png

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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Not the militia, the people.

Why the people? Because the people that wrote this had just been fighting a war for two years against a state militia so they made the possession of firearms a right that the militia could not take away from them so they could revolt again if they needed to.

l2historical context
l2not be bad

I'm not even american and I know this.

Actually, if you do your research you'll come to terms with the fact that both interpretations have their proponents and have been verified in the past. The latest interpretation by the Supreme court (somewhere in 2000's) does agree with your statement that it should not be interpreted as only militias, so you're right on that point. However, it has gone back and forth before.

The validity of the second amendment's interpretations aside, there's also of course the simple matter that it was adopted in 1790, when there was no such thing as fully automatic assault rifles with massive killing potential.

Thanks for coming in here just to troll though, because you could have thought of/looked up these things yourself. =\
When the 2nd Amendment was written, the militia, and the US Army were primarily armed with muskets that had a max effective range of 100 yards. The civilian population was armed with rifles, which had a max effective range of 300 yards. that was massive killing potential compared to the military weapons of the time.

Also, as I've pointed out above, there were good numbers of civilian owned cannons. With grapeshot. "They didn't have assault rifles, so they didn't have weapons with massive killing potential." is totally ignoring the weaponry of the day.

ccpl_fisher
October 18 2012, 01:26:50 AM
-Focus on constitution, and how it's being misused by people who didn't actually read that the second amendment clearly specifies the right to bear arms "while in a well regulated Militia".
http://onebit.us/x/i/10cca71475.png

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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Not the militia, the people.

Why the people? Because the people that wrote this had just been fighting a war for two years against a state militia so they made the possession of firearms a right that the militia could not take away from them so they could revolt again if they needed to.

l2historical context
l2not be bad

I'm not even american and I know this.

Actually, if you do your research you'll come to terms with the fact that both interpretations have their proponents and have been verified in the past. The latest interpretation by the Supreme court (somewhere in 2000's) does agree with your statement that it should not be interpreted as only militias, so you're right on that point. However, it has gone back and forth before.

The validity of the second amendment's interpretations aside, there's also of course the simple matter that it was adopted in 1790, when there was no such thing as fully automatic assault rifles with massive killing potential.

Thanks for coming in here just to troll though, because you could have thought of/looked up these things yourself. =\
When the 2nd Amendment was written, the militia, and the US Army were primarily armed with muskets that had a max effective range of 100 yards. The civilian population was armed with rifles, which had a max effective range of 300 yards. that was massive killing potential compared to the military weapons of the time.

Also, as I've pointed out above, there were good numbers of civilian owned cannons. With grapeshot. "They didn't have assault rifles, so they didn't have weapons with massive killing potential." is totally ignoring the weaponry of the day.
Very good point. Which reminds me, since I own a trebuchet, why not a muzzle loading cannon? That is next up on the things to own list. (and yes it is legal to own a muzzle loading cannon in the states)

Xiang Jiao
October 18 2012, 04:57:11 AM
Welp:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/killed-arson-homicide-denver-bar-article-1.1185488

Police are not yet releasing specific forensic information except that the five victims did not burn to death and were killed by "some trauma". I'm hoping katana, but we all know it will probably turn out to be firearms.

Varcaus
October 18 2012, 01:39:02 PM
Welp:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/killed-arson-homicide-denver-bar-article-1.1185488

Police are not yet releasing specific forensic information except that the five victims did not burn to death and were killed by "some trauma". I'm hoping katana, but we all know it will probably turn out to be firearms.Amazingly on topic?

Xiang Jiao
October 18 2012, 06:49:42 PM
Armed robbery. Grow some brain cells and read, cunt. For some reason, the police still refuse to comment on whether guns were used in the slayings or not which is very odd.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/police-no-suspects-yet-in_n_1978612.html


The medical examiner didn't release the cause of death. Police haven't said how they died and wouldn't discuss whether any weapons were found.

spasm
October 18 2012, 10:38:38 PM
Armed robbery. Grow some brain cells and read, cunt. For some reason, the police still refuse to comment on whether guns were used in the slayings or not which is very odd.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/police-no-suspects-yet-in_n_1978612.html


The medical examiner didn't release the cause of death. Police haven't said how they died and wouldn't discuss whether any weapons were found.

Not only are you adding nothing to the discussion, you're being unnecessarily rude. I suggest you stop.

Xiang Jiao
October 18 2012, 10:41:51 PM
How so?

spasm
October 18 2012, 10:45:50 PM
They're not commenting on the case because it's an open investigation.

Xiang Jiao
October 18 2012, 11:41:42 PM
They're not commenting on the case because it's an open investigation.

My intent was to editorialize that perhaps the police are hesitant to reveal the cause of death until the case blows over due to a couple of high profile shootings that occurred over the Summer (Holmes in Aurora, and the cop killing that happened at the Jazz festival in Denver). Of course, the explanation could turn out to be that the bodies were burned too badly to identify the fatal trauma, yet all the victims were identified right awa, so that's unlikely. The first article I linked, which apparently Varcaus didn't even read, states:


Results from the autopsy are still pending, but the cornoer has ruled the deaths homicides. And Fero's brother, Tae Moon Park, said his sister was shot before the fire started, according to police.

Yet another article mentioned pools of blood at the crime scene: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/17/police-id-5-persons-killed-in-denver-bar-homicide-arson-seek-suspect/#ixzz29hHNln7W


Red stains that appeared to be blood were visible on the sidewalk in front of the bar. Some of the stains were in trails on the sidewalk and others appeared to have been where blood had pooled.

Tell me again how my post is irrelevant in this thead.

CastleBravo
October 19 2012, 04:28:02 PM
There are a number of reasons why the police might not know or might not want the public to know the exact cause of death.

Aramendel
December 14 2012, 07:23:48 PM
A reply to a post in the Elementary school shooting thread in General Chat. Didn't want to shit that one up, but neither could let that one stand as it is.


As I've probably said numerous times before when this has been brought up, what will a ban actually achieve? just look at the laws here in the UK they are miles stricter than in the US and yet we still have similar incidents here. The only people seemingly affected by stricter laws are the law abiding majority. Anyone with any criminal intent will soon find a weapon from some other illicit source.

I agree that a ban wouldn't work, but your argumentation why is nonsense.

Illicit sources do not get their weapons from illicit factories, which produce them with illicit raw materials. Illicit sources get weapons in the end from legal sources by faking credentials or coming to an "understanding" with someone in the supply chain. With a stricter control there would be more credentials to fake and nicking them from the supply chain would be harder due to an higher level of oversight.

In other words, the price of illegally sold weapons would rise. And just like everyone criminals do not have unlimited funds (well, obviously, otherwise they would likely not be criminals). Higher prices would cause some to get a handgun instead of a semiautomatic or a knife instead a handgun. It certainly *would* effect criminals. Not all of them, of course, but an action which would effect all does not exist nor does an action need to effect every criminal in existence to have an effect.


A ban would have a good effect - if it would work. Which it won't because it doesn't have the support of the majority of the population. You have to have to reeducate the population so they realize that "X is bad", THEN you will eventually be able to pass something to restrict X.
I. e. the continually rising restrictions on smoking (limited areas where you can smoke, limitations how you can advertise, pictures of the effects of smoking on cigarette packages). That smoking is bad was clear 30 years ago, but policies like those wouldn't have worked then because they would have met massive resistance from the population.

Cue1*
December 14 2012, 07:49:15 PM
A reply to a post in the Elementary school shooting thread in General Chat. Didn't want to shit that one up, but neither could let that one stand as it is.


As I've probably said numerous times before when this has been brought up, what will a ban actually achieve? just look at the laws here in the UK they are miles stricter than in the US and yet we still have similar incidents here. The only people seemingly affected by stricter laws are the law abiding majority. Anyone with any criminal intent will soon find a weapon from some other illicit source.

I agree that a ban wouldn't work, but your argumentation why is nonsense.

Illicit sources do not get their weapons from illicit factories, which produce them with illicit raw materials. Illicit sources get weapons in the end from legal sources by faking credentials or coming to an "understanding" with someone in the supply chain. With a stricter control there would be more credentials to fake and nicking them from the supply chain would be harder due to an higher level of oversight.

In other words, the price of illegally sold weapons would rise. And just like everyone criminals do not have unlimited funds (well, obviously, otherwise they would likely not be criminals). Higher prices would cause some to get a handgun instead of a semiautomatic or a knife instead a handgun. It certainly *would* effect criminals. Not all of them, of course, but an action which would effect all does not exist nor does an action need to effect every criminal in existence to have an effect.


A ban would have a good effect - if it would work. Which it won't because it doesn't have the support of the majority of the population. You have to have to reeducate the population so they realize that "X is bad", THEN you will eventually be able to pass something to restrict X.
I. e. the continually rising restrictions on smoking (limited areas where you can smoke, limitations how you can advertise, pictures of the effects of smoking on cigarette packages). That smoking is bad was clear 30 years ago, but policies like those wouldn't have worked then because they would have met massive resistance from the population.

The problem is guns are already in the US. Ban guns today and tomorrow there'd be a thousand dead cops in the streets and only maybe a million less guns in the country. I don't pretend to have all the answers but a ban would only get more people killed. If you want to 'do something' about guns in the US, then educate. Teaching proper gun handling will reduce a lot of accidental deaths from improper gun handling. The problem is you can't stop the crazies. If you figure out how to stop the crazies, I'm all ears, but until then, there's little you can do.


EDIT: oh and thanks for not shitting up the elementry thread.
the thing from the buzz buzz

dpidcoe
December 14 2012, 08:11:13 PM
And just like everyone criminals do not have unlimited funds (well, obviously, otherwise they would likely not be criminals).
Stealing something usually doesn't cost all that much.

Warpath
December 14 2012, 08:11:32 PM
but your argumentation why is nonsense.

Illicit sources do not get their weapons from illicit factories, which produce them with illicit raw materials. Illicit sources get weapons in the end from legal sources by faking credentials or coming to an "understanding" with someone in the supply chain. With a stricter control there would be more credentials to fake and nicking them from the supply chain would be harder due to an higher level of oversight.



Depends what type of weapons we are talking about here? not sure about what it is like in your part of the world? but here in the UK a lot of the handguns that are used in crime are deactivated weapons or replicas that have been converted by someone who owns a few basic engineering tools (lathe etc) as it isn't exactly rocket science to get them working again. Those that do not come from this source and the heavier duty weapons that get used, often come from eastern European and former soviet states. and just driven through customs hidden in the back of a car/lorry. Due to the fact there is far laxer border checks now thanks to the European open borders policy.

CastleBravo
December 14 2012, 08:11:53 PM
The problem is guns are already in the US. Ban guns today and tomorrow there'd be a thousand dead cops in the streets and only maybe a million less guns in the country. I don't pretend to have all the answers but a ban would only get more people killed. If you want to 'do something' about guns in the US, then educate. Teaching proper gun handling will reduce a lot of accidental deaths from improper gun handling. The problem is you can't stop the crazies. If you figure out how to stop the crazies, I'm all ears, but until then, there's little you can do.


EDIT: oh and thanks for not shitting up the elementry thread.
the thing from the buzz buzz

I agree, but would point out that teaching safe driving would save exponentially more lives than teaching safe gun handling. I don't know anyone who has been shot, but I know few people over the age of 50 that haven't been seriously injured in auto collisions at some point in their lives.

Aramendel
December 14 2012, 08:14:51 PM
Ban guns today and tomorrow there'd be a thousand dead cops in the streets and only maybe a million less guns in the country.

"Ban guns" does not mean "Noone should have guns", but "The general population shouldn't have guns". The police in countries with gun control is still very much armed.


If you want to 'do something' about guns in the US, then educate. Teaching proper gun handling will reduce a lot of accidental deaths from improper gun handling.

Or, even better, teach people that they do not need guns to be safe. That at least is slowly creeping into the population, gun ownership has a downward trend in the last decades. Give it a generation or two (and a couple few hundred more incidents like the current one and gun control won't be something which causes protest, even in the US.



And just like everyone criminals do not have unlimited funds (well, obviously, otherwise they would likely not be criminals).
Stealing something usually doesn't cost all that much.

Actually it does - effort. Something whose distribution is more regulated is also more secured, aka more difficult to steal. And if you think most illegal guns are stolen you are living in fairy land.


Depends what type of weapons we are talking about here? not sure about what it is like in your part of the world? but here in the UK a lot of the handguns that are used in crime are deactivated weapons or replicas that have been converted by someone who owns a few basic engineering tools (lathe etc) as it isn't exactly rocket science to get them working again. Those that do not come from this source and the heavier duty weapons that get used, often come from eastern European and former soviet states. and just driven through customs hidden in the back of a car/lorry. Due to the fact there is far laxer border checks now thanks to the European open borders policy.

And in the US you can just buy them in a store or divert them from a regular shipment. It is easier. And it shows. The US has a HUNDRED times higher death rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) by guns in homicides than the UK. A hundred times! If the UK has for you "a lot of gun crimes" then the US must be for you practically at war.

Cue1*
December 14 2012, 08:38:38 PM
"Ban guns" does not mean "Noone should have guns", but "The general population shouldn't have guns". The police in countries with gun control is still very much armed.

Ban guns means dealing with the 270 million guns that already exist. Somehow you're going to have to collect them, that means cops collecting guns. That will mean a lot of dead cops.

CastleBravo
December 14 2012, 08:52:19 PM
People shouldn't be comparing statistics between the US and other countries that have stricter gun control. People should be looking at statistics in a specific country before and after guns were banned. Take the UK for instance; how has violent crime changed in the UK after gun control compared to violent crime change in other countries that haven't been banning guns? And no I'm not talking about the number of people getting shot ( which obviously goes down when people don't have guns) but the total amount of violent crime and homicide.

If violent crime in the UK has increased after the handgun ban while violent crime has been trending down in other "civilized" nations, then what could be reasonably expect to happen in the US when law abiding citizens are forced to disarm and face a criminal population that will continue to have easy access to firearms for the foreseeable future?

Aramendel
December 14 2012, 09:01:38 PM
"Ban guns" does not mean "Noone should have guns", but "The general population shouldn't have guns". The police in countries with gun control is still very much armed.

Ban guns means dealing with the 270 million guns that already exist. Somehow you're going to have to collect them, that means cops collecting guns. That will mean a lot of dead cops.

Why? Because everyone will go "OVER OUR DEAD BODIES!!!"? I said already in the very post you originally quoted that gun control will only work when the majority of the population supports it.
And if you refer to criminals - if they are willing to shoot cops in a "gun raid" then would have used the guns against them - or worse: against the general population - eventually anyway. So getting them before that is better.

Nevermind that the notion of cops going house to house collecting guns is silly.

Aramendel
December 14 2012, 09:15:11 PM
People shouldn't be comparing statistics between the US and other countries that have stricter gun control. People should be looking at statistics in a specific country before and after guns were banned. Take the UK for instance; how has violent crime changed in the UK after gun control compared to violent crime change in other countries that haven't been banning guns? And no I'm not talking about the number of people getting shot ( which obviously goes down when people don't have guns) but the total amount of violent crime and homicide.

If violent crime in the UK has increased after the handgun ban while violent crime has been trending down in other "civilized" nations, then what could be reasonably expect to happen in the US when law abiding citizens are forced to disarm and face a criminal population that will continue to have easy access to firearms for the foreseeable future?

The homocide rate in the UK has by now fallen below the levels from 1980 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9411649/Graphic-how-the-murder-rate-has-fallen.html) actually.

The last major gun control laws were 1997 and 2006. Homicides kept rising in the next 6 years after the 97 ruling, but laws do not show their effect instantaneously (because, among other things, policemen do not go around searching every house for now illegal items). They do eventually come into effect, though, especially if the thing they govern needs stuff like "spare parts", "maintenance" and/or "ammunition", which all also get harder to get due to it.

Xiang Jiao
December 14 2012, 10:33:43 PM
Shit, there must have been another shooting, huh?

Xiang Jiao
December 14 2012, 11:10:20 PM
... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." , "infringed" is the key word here, it means "to limit".
That right there closes the argument in my opinion. While the founding fathers may not have had gay marriage, and school shootings on their minds while writing the Constitution they've done us a solid so far.

As I've always said, the more freedom people have, the better. Life is about taking personal responsibility, not hiding behind your government and letting them dictate your every choice. You can't legislate for stupid because you'll never stop writing laws. The answer is to educate and inspire, not infringe, ban, and deny. I said the same thing when Mayor Bloomberg came out and banned +16 oz soft drinks. Make people learn for themselves. Freedom will out eventually. Marijuana is getting legalized slowly but surely, and gay unions are being recognized. The authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights may have not foreseen exactly how our lives would be 220 years later, but they understood the philosophy behind the inalienable rights of man: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Keorythe
December 15 2012, 01:11:46 AM
People shouldn't be comparing statistics between the US and other countries that have stricter gun control. People should be looking at statistics in a specific country before and after guns were banned. Take the UK for instance; how has violent crime changed in the UK after gun control compared to violent crime change in other countries that haven't been banning guns? And no I'm not talking about the number of people getting shot ( which obviously goes down when people don't have guns) but the total amount of violent crime and homicide.

If violent crime in the UK has increased after the handgun ban while violent crime has been trending down in other "civilized" nations, then what could be reasonably expect to happen in the US when law abiding citizens are forced to disarm and face a criminal population that will continue to have easy access to firearms for the foreseeable future?

The homocide rate in the UK has by now fallen below the levels from 1980 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9411649/Graphic-how-the-murder-rate-has-fallen.html) actually.

The last major gun control laws were 1997 and 2006. Homicides kept rising in the next 6 years after the 97 ruling, but laws do not show their effect instantaneously (because, among other things, policemen do not go around searching every house for now illegal items). They do eventually come into effect, though, especially if the thing they govern needs stuff like "spare parts", "maintenance" and/or "ammunition", which all also get harder to get due to it.

Homicide rates shouldn't be confused with gun related homicide rates otherwise you include all deaths from other weapons or vehicles. In the case of the UK, gun related homicides have gone up since the 97' firearms act. The BBC did an article on it a few years ago which showed the difference over a 10yr span. Knife related crime and youth is also mentioned. Overall firearm offenses did go down. However, this is misleading as a firearm offense does not constitute a violent act nor a discharge of the weapon.

"Overall firearms offences, including air guns, fell 14% in 2006-07 from 21,527 incidents to 18,489."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44075000/gif/_44075309_f_arms_recorded_gra203.gif

Even before the 1997 Firearms act the numbers were ridiculously low. With 55 deaths in 1995 but 50 in 2007. The Act was a knee jerk response to the Dunblane shooting which saw 12 dead with only a double barrel shotgun and a .22 target pistol. What I find really fascinating is how hard it is to find gun homicide rates pre-1997 published by the UK.

Then you might want to compare to Switzerland who have widespread firearm use but very low gun crime. This really points to large differences in culture rather than availability.

" It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialized countries like drugs or urban deprivation.
Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

Maybe this stuff has already been posted. I'm too lazy to go and check.

Ort Lofthus
December 15 2012, 01:33:37 AM
Then you might want to compare to Switzerland who have widespread firearm use but very low gun crime. This really points to large differences in culture rather than availability.

" It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialized countries like drugs or urban deprivation.
Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility. "


I was thinking something along these lines today. People often point to crime rates in Canada or Sweden or Germany or some such, but then those nations have different and far more homogeneous cultures with a greater sense of "collective responsibility". The US, but its very nature as an immigrant society will always be in cultural flux and there will always be a greater degree of the societal friction that drives violence.

Smuggo
December 15 2012, 09:56:09 AM
This kind of talk about gun control comes up every time one of these tragedies occurs. While the arguments for control certainly have merit, I think the real reason for the foot dragging on this issue is one of national psyche.
The Bill of Rights went into effect in 1791. The American people have proven more than willing to add in additional rights for themselves over the years, and on the question of gay marriage rights I certainly hope they continue to do so. The problem however, stems with "whiting out" parts of the Constitution. That, is not going to happen. The second amendment stands alongside amendments that secure our right to fair trial, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. The wording of the amendment itself is key in fact, "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." , "infringed" is the key word here, it means "to limit".
That right there closes the argument in my opinion. While the founding fathers may not have had gay marriage, and school shootings on their minds while writing the Constitution they've done us a solid so far.

This might all seem quaint to our friends on the other side of the lake, but I don't think many of you appreciate the rationale our more conservative members use. The Constitution is the basis of our government, and effectively removing one of the rights guaranteed within is basically impossible.

Fun Fact: The US military swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not the people, or government.

Dude, the idea that the way your country is run is completely dictated by a 200 year old piece of paper is tragicomic. Do people not think that what may have been relevant back then might not be today?

Also, the right to bear arms surely shouldn't mean whatever lethal weaponry you want. I mean, can you have an RPG and call constitution on it? Let people have a shotgun or a hunting rifle and that's it. No need for handguns or any of the other ridiculous stuff some people seem to think its their right to hold onto.

Adolith
December 15 2012, 10:43:55 AM
The constitution also said nothing against slavery~

And the thing about individual responsibility is: It does not apply at deadly weapons (and the most effective weapons are guns). The victim is dead. No way to change that, no way to be responsible about it. The only way to be responsible is preventing it from happening in the first place.

And I enjoy my "freedom" to walk around knowing that not every nutter is able to get a gun here.

edit: Would it be against the constitution to say: "You are allowed to own guns but have to do X for it?"

X being gun license similar to a drivers license, a safe for said guns etc etc.

cheeba
December 15 2012, 11:50:13 AM
As much as I would love guns to be better controlled, I just don't see any way at all that it will happen. Too much lobby money, too much entrenched culture. Conservative americans will continue to hold onto their right to arms, even more fiercely as they lose control of abortion, same sex marriage as the usa liberalizes.

Also, and this is just me ruminating... wouldn't it be almost too late. Say they banned all guns tomorrow - arent there like 10 guns for every american kicking around the usa? the country is so full of guns its silly.

Cue1*
December 15 2012, 04:01:47 PM
I don't feel like quoting everyone on my phone. If it seems like a response to what you said, then chances are it is.

I understand that the fact that The Constitution is still the ruling power in the US is hard for some people to understand looking from the outside. However, we're quite proud of that specific document since it's basically the only thing holding the country together. Unlike a country like say Sweden who are held together by a common heritage, the US lacks that, being the mixing pot we are. The Constitution is the only thing that keeps the country together. Without it, there would be no US, more likely there'd be something close to 50 countries in North America. So yes, we kind of are stuck on that 200 year old document.

The Constitution does say quite a bit about slavery. It says it's illegal and that slaves count for 5/8ths of a person in the counting of population.

The last static I saw on guns in the US was 270million. Population last I saw was 330million. Not quite one to one, but close.

the thing from the buzz buzz

Reed Tiburon
December 15 2012, 04:08:07 PM
the ratio is something like 1 gun per person

everything thinks "something" should be done, nobody knows what that "something" is, and the people who think they do are wrong because their solutions are either unworkable or don't fix the problem ("ban guns silly amerifats")

until you do something with 310 million guns you have no solution

e: also if you are arguing in such vague terms as "assault weapons" or arguing for blanket bans on certain types of guns a la smuggo above, you basically come off as not knowing a whole lot about guns, which, if you are discussing legislation requiring precise terminology and subject matter expertise, is a bad thing™

xanral
December 15 2012, 05:35:30 PM
I live in the US. I own a rifle for the specific purpose of killing predators before they'd get us or our animals when my family used to own a farm. Still own it but it is boxed up now that I live in a city. Currently I don't even need a license for that in my state.

I'd be perfectly fine having to take a mental health test every 2 years (one form of control used in some other countries) to keep my license active if it helped reduce mass killings by crazies. There would be such a huge resistance to that though because people with enough political power would be afraid that test would be unfairly performed.

Which always makes me laugh, Americans trust our gov't enough to possess the means to wipe out all life on earth several times over, take our property simply because they want it, spy on us, and detain us indefinitely without trial as long as we can keep some small arms to prevent them from doing what they wan.... oh wait shit.

Xiang Jiao
December 15 2012, 06:29:02 PM
Conservative americans will continue to hold onto their right to arms, even more fiercely as they lose control of abortion, same sex marriage as the usa liberalizes.

What conservatives don't seem to understand is these three issues are cut from the same cloth and not mutually exclusive. You can't fight abortion and homosexual unions while sticking up for gun ownership. They are all basic rights that Americans should have. You should be able to protect yourself and your family, you should be able to dictate what happens your body, and you should be allowed find happiness in marrying whomever you want. It's that simple. On the flip side, the idea of banning all guns while holding strong in favor of abortion and marriage rights is equally retarded.

GeromeDoutrande
December 15 2012, 07:18:25 PM
Of course one can do that.

SAI Peregrinus
December 15 2012, 09:38:29 PM
Guns should require licenses.
Licenses should not be issued to people who have been convicted of violent crimes.
Licenses should require annual renewal.
Licenses should include a test on gun safety practices, required practice hours, and a reasonable marksmanship test (hitting somewhere on the target at appropriate ranges for the weapon, not missing the target entirely.) Similar to a pilot's license.

This would reduce accidental shootings, while allowing anyone who can reasonably use a gun to still own one. As many gun advocates say, "gun control means hitting your target."

Keorythe
December 15 2012, 10:27:36 PM
Conservative americans will continue to hold onto their right to arms, even more fiercely as they lose control of abortion, same sex marriage as the usa liberalizes.

What conservatives don't seem to understand is these three issues are cut from the same cloth and not mutually exclusive. You can't fight abortion and homosexual unions while sticking up for gun ownership. They are all basic rights that Americans should have. You should be able to protect yourself and your family, you should be able to dictate what happens your body, and you should be allowed find happiness in marrying whomever you want. It's that simple. On the flip side, the idea of banning all guns while holding strong in favor of abortion and marriage rights is equally retarded.

Errr...no. And it gets to me how badly people either intentionally or ignorantly obscure what is a "basic right".

The FDA has been restricting what we can and can't do to our bodies for a very long time now. The argument that it's our body is somewhat moot based on that and abortion easily falls into that category as you're harming a fetus whose definition as a "human being" or "cluster of cells" is still debateable.

Gay marriage isn't about marriage equality either but privileges (I don't see polygamy or polyandry being discussed). It's not criminalized like the interracial marriages that resulted in jailtime from anti-miscegenation laws and if you're married in another state, you won't be arrested in a non-recognizing state. Gay marriage is about states recognizing and providing benefits, tax breaks, and power of attorney to a partner. And it's crazy how little we know about the causes or the fuzzy classification of homosexuality but are willing to bend over backwards based on popularity.

Firearms aren't a "basic right" either and you'll be hard pressed to find any other country that supports that notion. It's a right given through the constitution but can easily be taken away as many have done through bannings or attempts to make licenses outlandishly expensive/jump through hoops.


Guns should require licenses.
Licenses should not be issued to people who have been convicted of violent crimes.
Licenses should require annual renewal.
Licenses should include a test on gun safety practices, required practice hours, and a reasonable marksmanship test (hitting somewhere on the target at appropriate ranges for the weapon, not missing the target entirely.) Similar to a pilot's license.

First, criminals with any type of felony are already banned from owning or purchasing firearms. Penalties for doing so are extremely harsh. As to the rest, why? They have more strict rules in the UK but that didn't stop the Cumbria shootings. Maybe you're intending to increase gun safety awareness?

The biggest fear that gun owners have of licenses is that the criteria can be changed without a vote. In the past, $200 gun stamps were required to purchase certain firearms or items which was an exuberant amount of money. The logic being that it will be too expensive for people to purchase said weapons or accessories (sound suppressors and the ability to own a SBR/SBS still require the stamp). We really don't want to have a repeat of someone abusing that system in an attempt to wave off any potential buyers. On top of that, a firearm is an expensive piece of property. Ranging from $300-$5000 easily. If you lapse a year, then what? Mandatory collection? Fines? Jail time?

CastleBravo
December 16 2012, 02:53:19 AM
Guns should require licenses.
Licenses should not be issued to people who have been convicted of violent crimes.
Licenses should require annual renewal.
Licenses should include a test on gun safety practices, required practice hours, and a reasonable marksmanship test (hitting somewhere on the target at appropriate ranges for the weapon, not missing the target entirely.) Similar to a pilot's license.

This would reduce accidental shootings, while allowing anyone who can reasonably use a gun to still own one. As many gun advocates say, "gun control means hitting your target."

Going through that much effort in an attempt to reduce accidental shootings would be an incredible waste of resources that could be put to far better use. For the most part, people understand that guns are pretty dangerous and therefore treat them with respect. Strict motor vehicle laws would be far more effective at reducing accidental deaths.

http://extranosalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008gunacc.gif


If we want to significantly cut down on homicides in the US, we need to do something drastic about organised crime. I think a good first step would be ending drug prohibition to, among other things, massively erode the criminal underworld's base of power.


Does anyone have any statistics for homicide rate in the UK by ethnic race? I'm curious how much more likely or unlikely a white American is to murder someone than a white Englishman.

Nicho Void
December 16 2012, 05:30:01 AM
Dude, the idea that the way your country is run is completely dictated by a 200 year old piece of paper is tragicomic. Do people not think that what may have been relevant back then might not be today?

Yes. The writers of the Constitution were intelligent enough to lay down procedures for adaptation of our nation's rules. We call it the amendment process. If gun control measures had as much support as some of you believe, Congress would have it well within their power to enact them.



Also, the right to bear arms surely shouldn't mean whatever lethal weaponry you want. I mean, can you have an RPG and call constitution on it? Let people have a shotgun or a hunting rifle and that's it. No need for handguns or any of the other ridiculous stuff some people seem to think its their right to hold onto.
At the time of the writing, having just finished a revolutionary war against an oppressive government, I would say yes, that's exactly what the proponents of this amendment intended. It's supposed to be a fail-safe against a government's military might. Whether that's possible or not in today's age (hint: I can't buy a Nuclear sub) is an entirely different conversation.