The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: tooqk4u22 on January 16, 2013, 11:11:38 AM
-
For guns, against guns, somewhere inbetween but why is everything Washington does involve some big cost. Why are they so F'in stupid. It costs nothing to put bans and controls in place because already have departments/resources that are doing it
I guess I shouldn't be surprised as this is what Washington does best - spend our money in as ineffecient way possible to support their viability.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130116/NEWS/130116010/?odyssey=nav%7Chead (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130116/NEWS/130116010/?odyssey=nav%7Chead)
-
It costs nothing to put bans and controls in place because already have departments/resources that are doing it
Unfortunately that simply isn't true. Want to ban something? Paperwork has to be filled out; legal documents of all sorts need to be modified (if only to include the line ", and magazines of capacity greater than 7"). All that paper work takes time of government employees, those employees cost money.
And, since you can't make something happen by simply including a new line in a legal document, you need to educate people (that may be as simple as sending out notices to all affected manufacturers, middle-men, and retail sellers), and you need to enforce it (and that means sending out personnel to speak with and inspect all of the above). Again, more time.
Yes all these resources are already employed by the government, but those people are already doing work (one hopes), this is new work, and has to be accounted for as such.
Going slightly deeper, the increased demand on back-ground checks will require additional resources to handle.
I haven't read the details of the package, and since, as a Canadian, it doesn't directly affect me, I probably won't. But one thing I won't do is underestimate how much work it takes to change the course of a massive industry, such as the US firearms industry, even just a tiny bit.
-
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .
- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment
Frankly, 500 million is so little of the US yearly budget I'm surprised that anyone would be upset about that. Especially considering that the US spends 666.2 billion dollars in discretionary military spending every year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending)). 500 mil is a drop in the bucket.
-
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .
- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment
I have to disagree with your second one. Large magazines actually help defensive shooters much more than they help offensive shooters.
I definitely agree with the third though.
-
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .
- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment
I have to disagree with your second one. Large magazines actually help defensive shooters much more than they help offensive shooters.
I definitely agree with the third though.
I have no knowledge on the subject of how large of a magazine one needs, but can this be backed up in any quantifiable way?
-
Yes all these resources are already employed by the government, but those people are already doing work (one hopes), this is new work, and has to be accounted for as such.
Yes there may be some more work but not as much as you would imagine to change some forms, ban a few things and do some more background checks, which are already being done for a lot of gun sales and when applied to private sales will not add that much to the costs because the infrastructure is already there and a number of those private sales won't actually happen. The private sale thing is targeted at gun shows and to be honest it is offensive that gun shows are allowed with private sellers
- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment
#1 - see above - won't cost that much extra and some of it will be offset by reduced sales. BTW why can't the answer be to increase the background check/permit fees? For those people who want guns then they pay for and not those who don't.
#2 - no real pracitcal way to enforce this. Clips are in circulation and not registered so the only thing you can do is make it extremely punitive if used or sold.
#3 - While this is a worthwhile cause it should not be in this bill as it is not related to gun control. Neither is providing funds for 1,000 new school resource officers/counselors and money for additional police officers in cities (not to mention that in theory if gun control is increased then wouldn't we need less officers).
And for enforcement for all this, we already have an FBI, ATF, local police officers that do this very thing - so now they are
Frankly, 500 million is so little of the US yearly budget I'm surprised that anyone would be upset about that. Especially considering that the US spends 666.2 billion dollars in discretionary military spending every year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending)). 500 mil is a drop in the bucket.
This comment is offensive and is exactly the problem with washington as usual - eh, what is a half a billion dollars, how the fuck do you think the defense budget go so bloated - it's only a billion dollars per joint strike fighter jet, no big deal - just a pittance compared to the total budget.
-
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .
- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment
I have to disagree with your second one. Large magazines actually help defensive shooters much more than they help offensive shooters.
I definitely agree with the third though.
I'm interested in your reasoning, want to expand on that?
-
it's only a billion dollars per joint strike fighter jet, no big deal - just a pittance compared to the total budget.
You're off by an order of magnitude, and looking at only the purchase price rather than the lifecycle cost is kinda a case of missing the forest for the trees.
-
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .
- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment
I have to disagree with your second one. Large magazines actually help defensive shooters much more than they help offensive shooters.
I definitely agree with the third though.
Bahahahahaha!
Defensive shooters! Good one!
-
it's only a billion dollars per joint strike fighter jet, no big deal - just a pittance compared to the total budget.
You're off by an order of magnitude, and looking at only the purchase price rather than the lifecycle cost is kinda a case of missing the forest for the trees.
I am not sure I understand your comment....but in case you didn't get it mine was laced with sarcasm and a deptiction of this shit happens......and it does for every aspect of government because it is so easy for politicians to say to people that it is ok as it is "only 0.1% or 1% or whatever of the budget" and for us sheep to say "well ok then, then it really doesn't matter" - and that is how they get a strike fighter ok'd and the extra $10 billion it will cost to maintain over the next decade will be an afterthought.
Why is the bare minimum standard to increase always - I don't care if it is $1 or $1,000,000 or $1,000,000,000 - they treat it like it is money growing on trees, it has to stop.
The reality is that Obama's proposal probably includes some of those extras because some senator from somewher said if you give my state $x then for police then I will support the bill. Enough already.
-
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .
- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment
I have to disagree with your second one. Large magazines actually help defensive shooters much more than they help offensive shooters.
I definitely agree with the third though.
I'm interested in your reasoning, want to expand on that?
I assume the argument is that an offensive shooter is typically going to attack unarmed people, where there's plenty of time to reload as the victims are all trying to run away. Whereas a defensive shooter is only in the position of shooting defensively due to the fact that they're under an active attack and do not have spare time to reload. There's a pretty common misconception that 1 shot instantly kills someone as well. The reality is that it can take many shots to even slow 1 persons down (with some police shootouts requiring 20+ rounds to stop just ONE criminal intent on bad deeds). Today's reality is that home invasions are increasingly being done by *multiple* assailants, thereby making large capacity magazines more desirable for defense.
-
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .
- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment
I have to disagree with your second one. Large magazines actually help defensive shooters much more than they help offensive shooters.
I definitely agree with the third though.
I'm interested in your reasoning, want to expand on that?
I assume the argument is that an offensive shooter is typically going to attack unarmed people, where there's plenty of time to reload as the victims are all trying to run away. Whereas a defensive shooter is only in the position of shooting defensively due to the fact that they're under an active attack and do not have spare time to reload. There's a pretty common misconception that 1 shot instantly kills someone as well. The reality is that it can take many shots to even slow 1 persons down (with some police shootouts requiring 20+ rounds to stop just ONE criminal intent on bad deeds). Today's reality is that home invasions are increasingly being done by *multiple* assailants, thereby making large capacity magazines more desirable for defense.
Pretty much this exactly this.
Ask someone in the military as well and odds are they'll back this up as well.
-
Canadian fire arm owner here. When they implemented a long gun registry here it started at a reasonable cost but ended up costing nearly 2 billion for a database. The initial estimate wasn't 10% of that.
They recently scrapped that registry but we still have the restricted firearms registry. Those guns are "special" and to take them anywhere you need a piece of paper saying you can move them. I seriously doubt anyone going to commit a crime with a gun is going to give up because they don't have permission to take their gun somewhere. In the mean time if I want to take my handgun anywhere other then the 1 range specified on my piece of paper I call the nice lady who fills a form out and faxes it to me. when I get it I can then move the gun. I got to get 1 of these when moving houses, 1 when I bought a new gun and wanted to bring it home and 1 when I decided to go with friends to their range... I also get to ask for a new long term one every 2 years saying from my house to my range. No range membership? no piece of paper. Completely useless waste.
I also don't understand the point of restricted magazines. it takes less then 2 seconds to drop a mag and slam another one in and the guys that practice IPSC are way faster then I am. like was pointed out above, what are you going to do about the millions already out there? From what I'm hearing large cap magazines have been selling as fast as they can make them for the last month. Same with the dreaded assault rifles. Ammo in specific calibers is also sold out or going for insane prices. Last weekend was the first time I've ever heard of people in the US paying twice what I would pay for ammo.
All that these changes and the hysteria has done is driven people that are worried they won't be able to get these guns into a buying frenzy.
-
All that these changes and the hysteria has done is driven people that are worried they won't be able to get these guns into a buying frenzy.
The buying frenzy is part of the marketing campaign.
The primary reason the gun lobby doesn't want restrictions on firearms is because they make money off of making and selling firearms. Threats of firearms regulation spurs the frenzy, and they sell even more, and make even more money. I feel this is the primary reason why so much attention has been heaped on gun control, with so little gun control actually resulting. Both sides benefit from the threat, if not the execution of it.
-
I agree with that. Buy guns to protect your self from bad guys with guns or buy guns before they take away your ability to buy guns. Those that are never going to buy a gun are a lost cause from a marketing perspective so they're completely removed from the equation.
-
I assume the argument is that an offensive shooter is typically going to attack unarmed people, where there's plenty of time to reload as the victims are all trying to run away. Whereas a defensive shooter is only in the position of shooting defensively due to the fact that they're under an active attack and do not have spare time to reload. There's a pretty common misconception that 1 shot instantly kills someone as well. The reality is that it can take many shots to even slow 1 persons down (with some police shootouts requiring 20+ rounds to stop just ONE criminal intent on bad deeds). Today's reality is that home invasions are increasingly being done by *multiple* assailants, thereby making large capacity magazines more desirable for defense.
I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing - home invasions, multiple assailants, generic robberies, etc. - the reality is people with guns are not sitting there on guard with guns in hand waiting for these moments so when these moments happen the gun owners go to reach for their guns and either get shot by the assailants gun or shot by the assailant with their own gun - and now you have another gun on the street for nefarious uses. Nevermind the increased likelihood of a house with a gun in it being used in an unintended way such as suicide or depressed kid shooting up a school. And please if the defense to this is "well no, I sleep with the gun next to me or I keep it next to the door" then you would not be a responsible gun owner.
As for the constitutionality, the 2nd amendment was established at a different time.
(1) it was intended to protect the sovereignty of the nation and ensure there was the ability to have a militia of some kind in the event of an attack by some other nation (we had afterall recently broken away from England), law enforcement, detering the potential for an oppressive governmental regime and self defense if the expecation is that you will be killed otherwise. Whereas today we clearly have a well established, well funded forceful military and police forces, there may be some argument to the population having guns to keep the governemnt honest pers se, and the self defense argument still stands but I think it has expanded beyond the being killed part.
(2) guns were far different back then with a single shot (gun powder, lead ball, rod) vs. what they are today.
Again I am not for or against guns but there definitely needs to be some thought put into this and compromise (there is that dirty word again) between both sides and recognition that things may be different and/or not working as they want them to.
-
All that these changes and the hysteria has done is driven people that are worried they won't be able to get these guns into a buying frenzy.
The buying frenzy is part of the marketing campaign.
The primary reason the gun lobby doesn't want restrictions on firearms is because they make money off of making and selling firearms. Threats of firearms regulation spurs the frenzy, and they sell even more, and make even more money. I feel this is the primary reason why so much attention has been heaped on gun control, with so little gun control actually resulting. Both sides benefit from the threat, if not the execution of it.
I found the hysteria to buy more guns and magazines dispicable and in some regards it altered my thinking from guns should be controlled but open to they should be more controlled than they currently are.
-
I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing - home invasions, multiple assailants, generic robberies, etc. - the reality is people with guns are not sitting there on guard with guns in hand waiting for these moments so when these moments happen the gun owners go to reach for their guns and either get shot by the assailants gun or shot by the assailant with their own gun - and now you have another gun on the street for nefarious uses. Nevermind the increased likelihood of a house with a gun in it being used in an unintended way such as suicide or depressed kid shooting up a school. And please if the defense to this is "well no, I sleep with the gun next to me or I keep it next to the door" then you would not be a responsible gun owner.
Many states allow the open or concealed carry of loaded firearms at all times with various restrictions and requirements. Most people that carry every day will have gone through training classes and be proficient at drawing, aiming and firing quite quickly. I agree that a gun leaned up by the door is a bad idea but most people serious about self defence don't do that for exactly the reasons you stated.
-
I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing - home invasions, multiple assailants, generic robberies, etc. - the reality is people with guns are not sitting there on guard with guns in hand waiting for these moments so when these moments happen the gun owners go to reach for their guns and either get shot by the assailants gun or shot by the assailant with their own gun - and now you have another gun on the street for nefarious uses. Nevermind the increased likelihood of a house with a gun in it being used in an unintended way such as suicide or depressed kid shooting up a school. And please if the defense to this is "well no, I sleep with the gun next to me or I keep it next to the door" then you would not be a responsible gun owner.
Many states allow the open or concealed carry of loaded firearms at all times with various restrictions and requirements. Most people that carry every day will have gone through training classes and be proficient at drawing, aiming and firing quite quickly. I agree that a gun leaned up by the door is a bad idea but most people serious about self defence don't do that for exactly the reasons you stated.
I appreciate that and beleive that there are very disciplined, well trained gun owners out there but like anything else in life I would better the 80/20 rule applies - with only 20% falling into this category.
I would also add that the best gun for home defense is a shotgun because the need for accuracy is muted. Ever watch a real shoot out with cops (who are well trained and practice regularly) - there is a reason why they fire off 20 rounds and miss even though they are only 20 feet away from the intended target - because when someone is firing back it is difficult to focus - so it would be even worse for person who may be trained but does not live or die by it every day.
-
I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing - home invasions, multiple assailants, generic robberies, etc. - the reality is people with guns are not sitting there on guard with guns in hand waiting for these moments...
You've pretty much missed the point, though. Which is not for you, the gun owner, to successfully defend yourself against a home invasion. It's for the people thinking about doing a home invasion to know that there is a significant risk of getting shot if they do, and so be deterred from even trying. It's like getting vaccinated to keep from getting a disease, rather than trying to treat the disease after you catch it.
Another thing I worry about in this context is why the people promoting gun control only want to discuss gun violence. It's as though they really believe that guns are exerting some sort of sinister mind control, causing people to want to go out and commit mass murders. Now if you look at history, you'll discover that the the largest mass murders in US (and world - other countries have them to) were done with things other than guns - aircraft, improvised explosives, poisons, arson...
PS: Why isn't anyone calling for legislation to address subway violence?
A Philadelphia man has been arrested for allegedly throwing a woman onto the tracks of a subway in the third recent incident of underground violence on a major metropolitan mass transit system.
William Clark, 36, was arrested Thursday in connection with an attack earlier this week on the woman. who is seen on a security video being dragged across the passenger platform and hurled onto the tracks, police said. The woman, who was not identified, was able to get up and walk across the tracks and climb up onto the platform on the other side.
The attack comes in the wake of two incidents in New York City where riders were killed after being thrown in front of oncoming subway trains.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-man-arrested-in-subway-assault-in-philadelphia-20130118,0,2712387.story
-
The reality is that Obama's proposal probably includes some of those extras because some senator from somewher said if you give my state $x then for police then I will support the bill. Enough already.
If you really want to get angry look at how much complete nonsense pork was attached to the fiscal cliff bill.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16334798-fiscal-cliff-deal-includes-at-least-679-billion-for-special-interests?lite
-
You've pretty much missed the point, though. Which is not for you, the gun owner, to successfully defend yourself against a home invasion. It's for the people thinking about doing a home invasion to know that there is a significant risk of getting shot if they do, and so be deterred from even trying. It's like getting vaccinated to keep from getting a disease, rather than trying to treat the disease after you catch it.
Maybe, but I am not completely sold on that idea. But wouldn't a shotgun have that only holds 2-5 rounds accomplish the same thing. The notion that you need a assault rifle with 120 rounds is ludicrous.
Another thing I worry about in this context is why the people promoting gun control only want to discuss gun violence. It's as though they really believe that guns are exerting some sort of sinister mind control, causing people to want to go out and commit mass murders. Now if you look at history, you'll discover that the the largest mass murders in US (and world - other countries have them to) were done with things other than guns - aircraft, improvised explosives, poisons, arson...
I agree with this too - decisions/legislation about gun control or loosening for that matter should not be had or decided based on recent tragic events. And your right there are other means of murder, mass or otherwise.....which is why I am supportive of the 2nd amendment but that does not necessarily mean additional gun control shouldn't be evaluated and passed.
OK and because you referenced Philadelphia - there have been 3700+ murders in the last ten years (btw that is more than the number of people that died on 9/11 and not far from te number of soldiers that died during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) and of that about 3100 were from guns - and this is just one city - clearly there is an issue. And jsut because there are other issues or means to deliver death doesn't dismiss discussing ways to improve a single one of those things. Guns get bought and sold privately, illegally, stolen, etc - they get on the streets some how and every one of these deaths means a gun was in the hands of someone it shouldn't have been.
I don't have the answer but I do believe there needs to be some change, and minimally it needs to be discussed in a thoughtful way.
-
The reality is that Obama's proposal probably includes some of those extras because some senator from somewher said if you give my state $x then for police then I will support the bill. Enough already.
If you really want to get angry look at how much complete nonsense pork was attached to the fiscal cliff bill.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16334798-fiscal-cliff-deal-includes-at-least-679-billion-for-special-interests?lite
I saw that too when the bill was passed and at first I honestly thought it was joke - like something from the Onion - and when it was apparent that it was not I realized how doomed we are fiscally.
-
You've pretty much missed the point, though. Which is not for you, the gun owner, to successfully defend yourself against a home invasion. It's for the people thinking about doing a home invasion to know that there is a significant risk of getting shot if they do, and so be deterred from even trying. It's like getting vaccinated to keep from getting a disease, rather than trying to treat the disease after you catch it.
Maybe, but I am not completely sold on that idea. But wouldn't a shotgun have that only holds 2-5 rounds accomplish the same thing. The notion that you need a assault rifle with 120 rounds is ludicrous.
Another thing I worry about in this context is why the people promoting gun control only want to discuss gun violence. It's as though they really believe that guns are exerting some sort of sinister mind control, causing people to want to go out and commit mass murders. Now if you look at history, you'll discover that the the largest mass murders in US (and world - other countries have them to) were done with things other than guns - aircraft, improvised explosives, poisons, arson...
I agree with this too - decisions/legislation about gun control or loosening for that matter should not be had or decided based on recent tragic events. And your right there are other means of murder, mass or otherwise.....which is why I am supportive of the 2nd amendment but that does not necessarily mean additional gun control shouldn't be evaluated and passed.
OK and because you referenced Philadelphia - there have been 3700+ murders in the last ten years (btw that is more than the number of people that died on 9/11 and not far from te number of soldiers that died during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) and of that about 3100 were from guns - and this is just one city - clearly there is an issue. And jsut because there are other issues or means to deliver death doesn't dismiss discussing ways to improve a single one of those things. Guns get bought and sold privately, illegally, stolen, etc - they get on the streets some how and every one of these deaths means a gun was in the hands of someone it shouldn't have been.
I don't have the answer but I do believe there needs to be some change, and minimally it needs to be discussed in a thoughtful way.
I have no way of checking this, but I would bet good money that of those 3100 gun deaths, a very significant number were from guns acquired in an illegal manner, thus passing more laws would do little to nothing.
-
Additional gun control won't solve all issues but its a funny thing how legally acquired guns can easily become illegally acquired guns....they come from somewhere don't they. Many come from straw purchases and some are stolen guns. I would also wager that most of those were from hand guns and not assault rifles - so maybe the argument would be better served to maintain the status quo on assault rifles and ban the manufacture and sale of hand guns - not what I want but based on stats that would seem logical.
Again, I am not saying to take away all guns or prohibit sales entirely but that doesn't meant things shouldn't change.
Ok so lets say additional gun control wouldn't solve anything then there are really only two options if change must happen - ban them outright and require that all guns be remanded (this is not an acceptable option IMO) or work from the bottom up and top down to make it more of a commitment to get a gun and to make the responsibility of owning a gun more explicit such that penalties are very severe for malfeasance. To be honest I think the manufactures and NRA should bear greater responsibility in monitoring, the sale and permit process should be far more stringent and lengthy that requires signifcant training and psych evaluations over the course of a year, costly with increased upfront and ongoing fees (similar to owning a car), and gun owners should be required to certify at least annually the guns that they own (would reduce the "Oh it was stolen and I didn't know until now" part of private sales).
-
Additional gun control won't solve all issues but its a funny thing how legally acquired guns can easily become illegally acquired guns....they come from somewhere don't they. Many come from straw purchases and some are stolen guns. I would also wager that most of those were from hand guns and not assault rifles - so maybe the argument would be better served to maintain the status quo on assault rifles and ban the manufacture and sale of hand guns - not what I want but based on stats that would seem logical.
Again, I am not saying to take away all guns or prohibit sales entirely but that doesn't meant things shouldn't change.
Ok so lets say additional gun control wouldn't solve anything then there are really only two options if change must happen - ban them outright and require that all guns be remanded (this is not an acceptable option IMO) or work from the bottom up and top down to make it more of a commitment to get a gun and to make the responsibility of owning a gun more explicit such that penalties are very severe for malfeasance. To be honest I think the manufactures and NRA should bear greater responsibility in monitoring, the sale and permit process should be far more stringent and lengthy that requires signifcant training and psych evaluations over the course of a year, costly with increased upfront and ongoing fees (similar to owning a car), and gun owners should be required to certify at least annually the guns that they own (would reduce the "Oh it was stolen and I didn't know until now" part of private sales).
I am glad you know that hand guns are much more commonly used.
And I would agree that gun ownership should require more training and such. Someone earlier mentioned that when criminals know there is a chance someone owns a gun, they are less likely to commit a crime against them. I'd have to believe that would be doubly(triply) true if they knew that the gun owner was also exceptionally proficient.
The only thing we brush up against at that point is putting serious restrictions on what is a fundamental right. Granted, you have to be 18 to vote, must register, can't be a felon. So it wouldn't be the first time a right is somehow limited, but it would likely be the MOST restricted right, which I don't know how I feel about that.
There is obviously no simple solution.
-
I assume the argument is that an offensive shooter is typically going to attack unarmed people, where there's plenty of time to reload as the victims are all trying to run away. Whereas a defensive shooter is only in the position of shooting defensively due to the fact that they're under an active attack and do not have spare time to reload. There's a pretty common misconception that 1 shot instantly kills someone as well. The reality is that it can take many shots to even slow 1 persons down (with some police shootouts requiring 20+ rounds to stop just ONE criminal intent on bad deeds). Today's reality is that home invasions are increasingly being done by *multiple* assailants, thereby making large capacity magazines more desirable for defense.
I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing ....
As for the constitutionality, the 2nd amendment was established at a different time.
(1) it was intended to protect the sovereignty of the nation and ensure there was the ability to have a militia of some kind in the event of an attack by some other nation (we had afterall recently broken away from England), law enforcement, detering the potential for an oppressive governmental regime and self defense if the expecation is that you will be killed otherwise. Whereas today we clearly have a well established, well funded forceful military and police forces, there may be some argument to the population having guns to keep the governemnt honest pers se, and the self defense argument still stands but I think it has expanded beyond the being killed part.
(2) guns were far different back then with a single shot (gun powder, lead ball, rod) vs. what they are today.
....Again I am not for or against guns but ...
You start by saying you're not for or against guns, but then you make some pretty anti-gun statements.
Also the 2nd amendment was not put in place so that the people could protect the country from other countries. It was put in place so that the people would be armed against it's own govt (similar to how our country was formed) in case of a tyrant. This explanation can be found in all 4 corners of the internet so I wont get into an arguement about it. This exact arguement has probably been played out on the internet 5 times just today.
I just dont like seeing someone dismissing what's in the constitution because "well now we have an army to defend us", because that's not the point at all. I agree that the constitution was written in a different time, and that some things need to be adjusted based on the current time. I just dont happen to believe that the 1st or 2nd should be changed a bit.
-
I assume the argument is that an offensive shooter is typically going to attack unarmed people, where there's plenty of time to reload as the victims are all trying to run away. Whereas a defensive shooter is only in the position of shooting defensively due to the fact that they're under an active attack and do not have spare time to reload. There's a pretty common misconception that 1 shot instantly kills someone as well. The reality is that it can take many shots to even slow 1 persons down (with some police shootouts requiring 20+ rounds to stop just ONE criminal intent on bad deeds). Today's reality is that home invasions are increasingly being done by *multiple* assailants, thereby making large capacity magazines more desirable for defense.
I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing ....
As for the constitutionality, the 2nd amendment was established at a different time.
(1) it was intended to protect the sovereignty of the nation and ensure there was the ability to have a militia of some kind in the event of an attack by some other nation (we had afterall recently broken away from England), law enforcement, detering the potential for an oppressive governmental regime and self defense if the expecation is that you will be killed otherwise. Whereas today we clearly have a well established, well funded forceful military and police forces, there may be some argument to the population having guns to keep the governemnt honest pers se, and the self defense argument still stands but I think it has expanded beyond the being killed part.
(2) guns were far different back then with a single shot (gun powder, lead ball, rod) vs. what they are today.
....Again I am not for or against guns but ...
You start by saying you're not for or against guns, but then you make some pretty anti-gun statements.
Also the 2nd amendment was not put in place so that the people could protect the country from other countries. It was put in place so that the people would be armed against it's own govt (similar to how our country was formed) in case of a tyrant. This explanation can be found in all 4 corners of the internet so I wont get into an arguement about it. This exact arguement has probably been played out on the internet 5 times just today.
I just dont like seeing someone dismissing what's in the constitution because "well now we have an army to defend us", because that's not the point at all. I agree that the constitution was written in a different time, and that some things need to be adjusted based on the current time. I just dont happen to believe that the 1st or 2nd should be changed a bit.
I've always been amused by that argument.
Back when The Constitution was written there was no internet, or TV, but we haven't drastically altered freedom of speech to accommodate these new things.
Seems like a similar argument to me.
-
Unitnc, you quoted my whole post, but I think you only meant to quote that last sentence - correct?
To be clear, i'm against changing the constitution unless something is glaringly wrong w/ how things have progressed. The supreme court interprets what the consitution means and how it can be applied to current times very often - 1st amendment probably moreso than any other.
-
Maybe, but I am not completely sold on that idea. But wouldn't a shotgun have that only holds 2-5 rounds accomplish the same thing. The notion that you need a assault rifle with 120 rounds is ludicrous.
A rifle with 120 rounds would be pretty ludicrous. Biggest I've ever seen are 100 round drums before and it's downright silly. The only thing it's good for is for poking holes in paper from a benchrest. In anything other than perhaps the small caliber low power stuff, it makes the gun so incredibly bulky and heavy that handling it is quite awkward!
There's variation with caliber/power of the round as well. The standard AR-15 is the .223/5.56mm that is talked about on the news, but that's just one particular configuration of the AR-15 platform. On the upper end, 10 rounds of .458 SOCOM is pretty heavy (but each round would be very effective). Whereas the one I own is chambered in the 9mm pistol cartridge and comes standard with 25 round magazines, but has a total firepower/effectiveness less than the .458 SOCOM does with 10... Compounded by the fact that the ".458 SOCOM 10 round" magazine is the exact same magazine as a ".223 30 round" magazine... Magazine limitations *purely* by count seem like a good idea until one does the research and sees the problems. Something along the lines of a formula involving power and capacity might be more effective (I'm against such regulations myself, but whenever I see failed arguments towards a goal, even one I don't believe in, I try to find something that would suit the *intended* goal better).
-
Unitnc, you quoted my whole post, but I think you only meant to quote that last sentence - correct?
To be clear, i'm against changing the constitution unless something is glaringly wrong w/ how things have progressed. The supreme court interprets what the consitution means and how it can be applied to current times very often - 1st amendment probably moreso than any other.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to the argument that you quoted, not the one that you used.
-
So, um, about this Second Amendment business. Canadian here. I don't mean to offend, but why does "the right to bear arms" always get taken as a blanket permission, when the full text of the amendment starts with the phrase "a well regulated militia"? Doesn't that sorta imply... I dunno, regulation? And militias? Can anyone enlighten me?
-
Compounded by the fact that the ".458 SOCOM 10 round" magazine is the exact same magazine as a ".223 30 round" magazine... Magazine limitations *purely* by count seem like a good idea until one does the research and sees the problems. Something along the lines of a formula involving power and capacity might be more effective (I'm against such regulations myself, but whenever I see failed arguments towards a goal, even one I don't believe in, I try to find something that would suit the *intended* goal better).
Here in canada we're 5 round limit in rifles 10 round in handguns. there of course are guns that can use the same magazine in a rifle as in a handgun. You can legally own both but if you ever put the handgun mag in the rifle you've broken a law and if prosecuted would lose all rights to firearms for quite awhile as well you could very well go to prison. Truly stupid law.
of course they've decided that the .22 rimfire isn't dangerous at all and I believe there is no limit to capacity in them since it's basically for plinking. I have a couple of 50 rnd magazines for my 10/22 and I freely admit It's way nicer then constantly reloading a mag when you punching paper.
-
A rifle with 120 rounds would be pretty ludicrous. Biggest I've ever seen are 100 round drums before and it's downright silly. The only thing it's good for is for poking holes in paper from a benchrest. In anything other than perhaps the small caliber low power stuff, it makes the gun so incredibly bulky and heavy that handling it is quite awkward!
I can't really see the point of arguing over magazine size, from either direction. Granted that it's been a good many years since I've done it, but IIRC I could swap an empty clip for a full one on either an M-16 or AK-47 in a second or two.
But the point of any regulation is that it's the camel's nose under the tent.
-
So, um, about this Second Amendment business. Canadian here. I don't mean to offend, but why does "the right to bear arms" always get taken as a blanket permission, when the full text of the amendment starts with the phrase "a well regulated militia"? Doesn't that sorta imply... I dunno, regulation? And militias?
No, it sorta doesn't, at least as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In 2008's D.C. v Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision), the court held that the specific wording of the amendment -- "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" -- is not a grammatical foible, but is worded such that the first clause does not limit the scope of the second clause and merely provides context for interpretation. That is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is a blanket permission. The linked section provides some good context for why it was interpreted that way, if you're interested.
-
You start by saying you're not for or against guns, but then you make some pretty anti-gun statements.
Also the 2nd amendment was not put in place so that the people could protect the country from other countries. It was put in place so that the people would be armed against it's own govt (similar to how our country was formed) in case of a tyrant. This explanation can be found in all 4 corners of the internet so I wont get into an arguement about it. This exact arguement has probably been played out on the internet 5 times just today.
I just dont like seeing someone dismissing what's in the constitution because "well now we have an army to defend us", because that's not the point at all. I agree that the constitution was written in a different time, and that some things need to be adjusted based on the current time. I just dont happen to believe that the 1st or 2nd should be changed a bit.
[/quote]
Actually one of the purposs of the 2nd amendment was to help protect against invasions, but not solely that purpose as I clearly laid out. You are wrong that the sole purpose was to protect against tyrany from government, but it was one of the reasons.
-
So, um, about this Second Amendment business. Canadian here. I don't mean to offend, but why does "the right to bear arms" always get taken as a blanket permission, when the full text of the amendment starts with the phrase "a well regulated militia"? Doesn't that sorta imply... I dunno, regulation? And militias?
No, it sorta doesn't, at least as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In 2008's D.C. v Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision), the court held that the specific wording of the amendment -- "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" -- is not a grammatical foible, but is worded such that the first clause does not limit the scope of the second clause and merely provides context for interpretation. That is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is a blanket permission. The linked section provides some good context for why it was interpreted that way, if you're interested.
Yup, that clearly determined that the right to bear arms couldn't be infringed upon but that did not mean the types of arms, ammunition, and capacity couldn't be.
-
You start by saying you're not for or against guns, but then you make some pretty anti-gun statements.
Your right, and as much as I hate to say it the more discuss this topic the more I think gun control matters - it seems that anyone who has a gun sees no value in any regulation and it would be perfectly normal to own a cache of weapons the size of a small country because a rodent might scurry across the floor.
Not to mention - the OP was really about issue with the government spending more money to do this and about gun control. You people are pissing me off because I dispise big government and more regulation but in my typical fashion (pragmatic) I realize that there can be middle ground and some regulations do make a difference.
As I said, I don't have an answer but there does seem to be an issue and not just because of the mass shootings that have occurred.
-
Yup, that clearly determined that the right to bear arms couldn't be infringed upon but that did not mean the types of arms, ammunition, and capacity couldn't be.
I agree. I hadn't interpreted the "regulation" part of the question that way; it's an interesting aspect that I hadn't thought of.
-
Another Canadian here.
I guess I just don't understand US gun culture. My Dad, uncles and grandfather (and most of my male relatives) and both my aunts, grew up hunting deer (and the occasional goose/turkey/what have you). They were all rifles. No one I know, owns a handgun. No one owns anything, other than a hunting gun. All these handguns and assault rifles, that some Americans seem to be so in love with, are designed for primarily one thing: To shoot people. But, when someone actually shoots a person with one of these guns, everyone acts so shocked!
I just don't get it, I guess.
The issue with the long gun registry was a tough one. I think that the government and the police ought to know where every legal gun in the country is. It is just too bad that it turned into such a political disaster.
-
... I think that the government and the police ought to know where every legal gun in the country is....
Wow I could not disagree with any statement more than I do this one
Really, any statement? how about, ''everyone you love should be sodomized by elephants and pecked to death by emus.''
-
... I think that the government and the police ought to know where every legal gun in the country is....
Wow I could not disagree with any statement more than I do this one
I unconditionally support your right to own a car, but I still support vehicle registrations and licensing.
I unconditionally support your right to have casual sex, but I still think we should prosecute pedophiles and rapists.
I see lots of middle ground for additional firearms restrictions that in no way would infringe on the second amendment.
-
... I think that the government and the police ought to know where every legal gun in the country is....
Wow I could not disagree with any statement more than I do this one
I unconditionally support your right to own a car, but I still support vehicle registrations and licensing.
I unconditionally support your right to have casual sex, but I still think we should prosecute pedophiles and rapists.
I see lots of middle ground for additional firearms restrictions that in no way would infringe on the second amendment.
This is becoming someone of an addictive habit - like other discussions here we are again two people who seem to be at different locations of the liberal/conservative spectrum and yet we seem to be saying similar things. I think we need to figure a way to spread this to other people.
-
... I think that the government and the police ought to know where every legal gun in the country is....
Wow I could not disagree with any statement more than I do this one
I unconditionally support your right to own a car, but I still support vehicle registrations and licensing.
Vehicles and drivers operating a vehicle on a public road are licensed. Similarly (in many states), those wanting to carry a concealed weapon in public are licensed. Those wanting to keep cars/weapons in their garage or home, should not be required to register.
I unconditionally support your right to have casual sex, but I still think we should prosecute pedophiles and rapists.
We have many laws and restrictions on the misuse of firearms already. Similarly, we have laws regarding sexual behaviors. We don't require registration of sexual organs for law abiding citizens of whom a small % might eventually commit crimes of a sexual nature, why should we require registration of firearms for law abiding citizens?
I see lots of middle ground for additional firearms restrictions that in no way would infringe on the second amendment.
Registration might be an option in my book if government and the press hadn't already demonstrated a complete and utter disregard for privacy rights of gun owners. Given what just happened in New York, I am completely against registration.
-
What happened in New York?
-
What happened in New York?
2 things:
1. Newspaper posted online personal information (on a google map) of thousands of permit holders in several counties.
2. Completely over reaching (in my opinion) law recently passed which makes illegal possession of personal property (magazines of a certain size) that was previously legal. I believe (although would need to confirm) that it also banned transfer of certain types of weapons. Again, this tramples on the property rights of gun holders.
Just to clarify, I oppose registration which IMO serves no purposes. I have no opposition to all transfers being subject to background checks (including private transfers).
-
OK and because you referenced Philadelphia - there have been 3700+ murders in the last ten years (btw that is more than the number of people that died on 9/11 and not far from te number of soldiers that died during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) and of that about 3100 were from guns - and this is just one city - clearly there is an issue.
OK. And now tell me, how many of those 3100 killings were the result of disputes in the illegal drug trade? (Probably more than half.) If you seriously want to reduce the number of gun-related killings, the answer is not more gun control, it''s legalizing drugs.
There's another point that ought to be considered here, too, which is exactly how effective any gun control legislation would be. The US government has been prosecuting its insane "War on Drugs" for about 40 years now. Probably well over a trillion dollars has been spent, millions of people arrested and imprisoned... And for what? Drugs are more readily available now that when the war started.
So if the government follows the example of this outstandingly successful policy, and starts prosecuting a "War on Guns", exactly what do you suppose the effect will be?
-
I don't want criminals getting guns, so I also support background checks :)
-
There's another point that ought to be considered here, too, which is exactly how effective any gun control legislation would be. The US government has been prosecuting its insane "War on Drugs" for about 40 years now. Probably well over a trillion dollars has been spent, millions of people arrested and imprisoned... And for what? Drugs are more readily available now that when the war started.
So if the government follows the example of this outstandingly successful policy, and starts prosecuting a "War on Guns", exactly what do you suppose the effect will be?
Huge black market for illegal guns with related increase in crime and violence, just like the drug market. Huge burden on the justice system just like the war on drugs. The war on guns and war on drugs are both well intentioned for the most part, just very misguided. (And a big dose of pure politics thrown in on both sides to muddy the waters)
-
With regard to drugs, guns, crime, etc - My philosophy is more laws create more criminals. More criminals translates into other crimes that a party wouldn't have participated in.
For example, during alcohol prohibtion we saw violence between parties fighting for control of an illegal trade. Since alcohol has been legalized, we don't typically see liquor store owners and distributors shooting it out in the streets. I believe the same holds true for drugs and potentially guns.
Our lawmakers need to begin carefully considering the effects of the laws they make rather than responding in knee jerk fashion to a crisis or a special interest group.
-
The war on guns and war on drugs are both well intentioned for the most part...
Yeah, and we all know which road is paved with good intentions, don't we?
-
There's a war on guns?
Wow. Only in America could someone seriously argue that. In any civilised country citizens realise that limiting combat weapons to the military and police makes people safer because it is much harder for bad people to have weapons. No, an AR15 is not a hunting rifle, not unless deer in the US are packing uzis.
-
There's a war on guns?
Wow. Only in America could someone seriously argue that. In any civilised country citizens realise that limiting combat weapons to the military and police makes people safer because it is much harder for bad people to have weapons. No, an AR15 is not a hunting rifle, not unless deer in the US are packing uzis.
Is there something in the 2nd amendment about hunting? We can argue all day long about the limits of the 2nd amendment, but it has nothing to do with hunting.
-
Nope, nothing in the second amendment about hunting. Hunting is just the main legitimate reason I see a civilian needing a firearm.
-
Richard, it's just super that that's your opinion, but that's not the way the US works and that's not a value that all Americans share. It is a democracy, so the fact that you think something is fair does not make it a sensible law. In addition, there's a significant amount of evidence for as well as against your view. Perhaps it's possible that public policy experts and social scientists don't have it all figured out, and that your opinion isn't pure fact up on a pedestal above all the views of inferior creatures.
It's not that it's that unreasonable -- certainly you could be a perfectly reasonable person and believe that weapons can only legitimately be used by civilians for hunting. It just seems like you are quick to discard the validity of any view that disagrees with yours.
Oh, and reading comprehension fail -- they're talking about a possible future event, not the current state of things.
-
Nope, nothing in the second amendment about hunting. Hunting is just the main legitimate reason I see a civilian needing a firearm.
Well, you could likewise argue (and people have) that "civilians" should only have drugs prescribed by physicians, that alcohol should only be used as a solvent or motor fuel... and we only have to look at history to see how well those arguments play out in real life.
Now the US Constitution being what it is, and the opinions of a very large segment of the American public being what they are, effective (that is, anything beyond pointless for-show things like limits on magazine size) gun control measures likely won't be passed. (Look at the number of states that have removed various anti-gun measures in recent years.) But if the government ever made a serious attempt... Well, the best case would be something similar to the drug war. Worst would be armed revolution, and a LOT of dead bodies.
-
There's a war on guns?
Wow. Only in America could someone seriously argue that. In any civilised country citizens realise that limiting combat weapons to the military and police makes people safer because it is much harder for bad people to have weapons. No, an AR15 is not a hunting rifle, not unless deer in the US are packing uzis.
What makes an AR15 more dangerous than a semi auto hunting rifle? Do you really think the only thing needed to stop these massacres are guns that operate identically but simply look like a hunting rifle? No civilized military in the world would operate with the AR15 sold to the general public, it can't even shot bursts of fire, it's purely semi auto. If you outlaw the AR15 people will just buy the identical gun in the "hunting" version, modify and paint the stock black, and have a "combat weapon" as you call it. And if you are calling for the outlaw of all semi auto guns, then you certainly aren't talking about "combat weapons" anymore. The AR15 is a red herring...
-
Nope, nothing in the second amendment about hunting. Hunting is just the main legitimate reason I see a civilian needing a firearm.
I think most Americans have much more than they "need." The question is why do some feel the need to limit freedoms of others(ie the right to own certain objects and perform certain activities). This need to control is how we ended up with marijuana and alcohol (at one point) being llegal.
It's interesting you bring up hunting, AR-15's (in .223) are commonly used to hunt ground hogs, coyotes and wild hogs. I believe, however, that the AK-47 is legal to hunt deer in some jurisdictions. It's ironic that many try to justify banning a rifle because it isn't used for hunting when the reason it isn't used for hunting certain game is that it's not deadly enough.
-
The question is why do some feel the need to limit freedoms of others(ie the right to own certain objects and perform certain activities
You're right. I don't understand why some people feel the need to limit the freedoms of others.
I don't understand why some people cling to their right to own weapons that are best suited to military or police purposes despite the fact that this right has significant negative effects on the whole of society.
My objection to the AR-15 isn't that a single shot from it is really deadly (personally I wouldn't use it to hunt hogs because I'd want more stopping power). It's mostly that it has high capacity magazines, a little that it can relatively easily be converted to fire pseudo-fully-automatic, and a little that its design is very suitable for urban combat. It's nothing to do with how deadly a single round is (in fact, I am OK with the idea of civilians owning M82s which are about the deadliest per-shot rifle I can think of). It's everything to do with how effective a given weapon can be if someone decides they want to kill a lot of people in a short period of time.
You won't be surprised to know that I don't think the AK-47 should be legal for civilian use either for pretty much the same reasons but thanks for pointing that out, I'll use it as my example in future. :)
What makes an AR15 more dangerous than a semi auto hunting rifle?
Let's compare it to a Remington 700 since that's pretty much my definition of a semi auto hunting rifle.
Magazine capacity
AR15 = 20 or 30 (theoretically more, but let's go with this).
Remington 700 = up to 5.
You can kill or wound a lot more people with 20 rounds than 5. You're also spending a lot less time changing magazines.
Length:
AR15 = Barrel can be as short as 6.5 inches. Let's say 10.5 inches. They tend to be about 30 inches long
Remington 700 = Barrel 20-26 in about 41.5 in total
Shorter weapons are more maneuverable in close combat situations (like shooting people in a theater or a pre-school).
I'm not against people owning firearms, I've owned them in the past and will again in the future (I'm traveling at the moment so have no need or legal right to own one so I don't). I am against civilians owning weapons that are particularly suited to committing massacres.
Oh, and reading comprehension fail... they're talking about a possible future event, not the current state of things.
And I quote "The war on guns and war on drugs are both well intentioned for the most part..." I trust you know what the word "are" means. At least one person in this thread seems to believe there is currently a war on guns.
But you know, it's just super that you think ad hominem attacks are the best way to discredit someone you disagree with.
-
The question is why do some feel the need to limit freedoms of others(ie the right to own certain objects and perform certain activities
You're right. I don't understand why some people feel the need to limit the freedoms of others.
I don't understand why some people cling to their right to own weapons that are best suited to military or police purposes despite the fact that this right has significant negative effects on the whole of society.
The rifle locked in my basement (note locked) has zero impact on society. If others wish to limit my freedoms, it seems reasonable for them to demonstrate how my actions or ownership impact them and/or how the limit they wish to impose will improve society. Given the complete failure of banning weapons in several major US cities, the failure of the assault weapons ban tried before, the lack of involvement of so called "assault weapons" in most major crimes, it seems like the proposed ban would have little impact on society.
My objection to the AR-15 isn't that a single shot from it is really deadly (personally I wouldn't use it to hunt hogs because I'd want more stopping power).
Agreed on the stopping power. ;)
It's mostly that it has high capacity magazines, a little that it can relatively easily be converted to fire pseudo-fully-automatic, and a little that its design is very suitable for urban combat. It's nothing to do with how deadly a single round is (in fact, I am OK with the idea of civilians owning M82s which are about the deadliest per-shot rifle I can think of). It's everything to do with how effective a given weapon can be if someone decides they want to kill a lot of people in a short period of time.
10 shot mags can be easily switched out. If a homicidal maniac wants to do want was done in Connecticut or Colorado, magazine restrictions will have little if/any impact. In Connecticut he attacked a bunch of 6 year olds. An armed guard or trained staff with a weapon OTOH, could have signifcantly changed the outcome. Please note the use of the word trained BTW. I'm not referring to arming every teacher.
With regard to the automatic comment, the ATF has ruled that a shoestring tied to a trigger and used to bumpfire a rifle is conversion to auto. Given that, I think we have abundant laws regarding conversion to full auto. It's already a felony, put a fork in in it that issues done.
Length:
AR15 = Barrel can be as short as 6.5 inches. Let's say 10.5 inches. They tend to be about 30 inches long
Remington 700 = Barrel 20-26 in about 41.5 in total.
Shorter weapons are more maneuverable in close combat situations (like shooting people in a theater or a pre-school)..
AR (without add'l filings), must have a 16" barrel or a law has already been broken. I believe it's a felony to possess a short barrel rifle under most circumstances.
I'm not against people owning firearms, I've owned them in the past and will again in the future (I'm traveling at the moment so have no need or legal right to own one so I don't). I am against civilians owning weapons that are particularly suited to committing massacres.
Finally, since you are not totally afraid of weapons. Have you looked at Feinsteins' bill? She doesn't just ban AR's. She bans most semi-autos with a detachable magazine. If I understand correctly, this includes 22's. If you think that's where they will stop with the bans, you're mistaken. When someone shoots up a school with a remington 700 or a pump shotgun, they'll want a ban on those too.
I actually have a proposal that congress should look at. If these gun bans are going to as effective as claimed, let's all give up our guns. Civilians, police, secret service. Everybody except the miltary. We'll see how far that goes because everyone knows the criminals are keeping theirs.
-
Eh I'll just agree to disagree, this is going no where. I've been shooting as far back as I can remember. Where I'm from you can buy fully automatic weapons (which are a friggin ton of fun), explosive targets(even more fun), suppressors, and a load of other fun stuff. I've checked my gun with security before I've entered my work place and retrieved it when I left. I've travelled on planes with my firearms, given and received them as gifts for years. I've been pulled over for speeding and let the officers know I had a firearm in my back seat to which the officer said what good is it back there? Put it where you can reach it. I have no fear of guns, I respect them. A respect that was taught early and only grew with time. What happened to the concept of personal responsibility, especially on a forum like this. If parents taught young boys to be men and girls to be women this discussion would be moot. I'm done ranting, I just got a shipment notification from ProMag that my 42 round 5.56 mags are on their way and the bulk Tannerite I ordered will be here next week.
Matt: I was in Houston a couple of months ago and went running in Bush park. Is that range as nice as it looks (and sounded). Out to 200 yards?
-
I don't understand why some people cling to their right to own weapons that are best suited to military or police purposes despite the fact that this right has significant negative effects on the whole of society.
Because many of us who own guns don't hunt. Our reasons for owning guns are political. (FWIW, I haven't even fired any of mine since early in the Clinton administration.)
My objection to the AR-15 isn't that a single shot from it is really deadly (personally I wouldn't use it to hunt hogs because I'd want more stopping power). It's mostly that it has high capacity magazines, a little that it can relatively easily be converted to fire pseudo-fully-automatic, and a little that its design is very suitable for urban combat.
It's easy to make magazines for just about any rifle that's not bolt action, and (as I noted earlier) you can just get a bunch of 10-round (or whatever) clips which can be swapped in seconds. So this is just a feel-good act that would have no real effect on anyone that was seriously interested in killing people.
It's likewise fairly easy to convert most rifles (other than bolt action) to full auto. Heck, building your own isn't exactly rocket science, and is well within the capability of anyone with access to a decent machine shop.
You are right about the urban (and jungle) combat aspect of the AR-15/M-16, which is why I wouldn't use it as a hunting weapon (if I hunted). But as above, lots of us don't own guns for hunting purposes.
It's everything to do with how effective a given weapon can be if someone decides they want to kill a lot of people in a short period of time.
But if someone decides they really want to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, they wouldn't use a gun. Just for instance, here are the largest (non-government) mass killings in US history, none of which were commited with guns:
9/11 – 2977 victims, box cutters and aircraft.
Jonestown Massacre – 909 victims, cyanide. (I include this because the perpetrator & victims were all Americans, even though it didn't happen in the US)
EgyptAir Flight 990 – 215 victims, intentional aircraft crash.
Oklahoma City Federal building – 168 victims, fertilizer bomb.
Happy Land Fire - 87 victims, arson.
For comparison, the largest US mass shooting I can find (the Virginia Tech incident) claimed only 32 victims. Which (unless you're into believing that guns cause people to kill) suggests that we might limit the death toll from such spree killers by giving them ready access to guns, so they won't use more deadly means.
But you know, it's just super that you think ad hominem attacks are the best way to discredit someone you disagree with.
You really should look up the definition of an ad hominem attack. Telling you that you're wrong about something is not one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
-
Thanks for the link, Grant. I didn't read it that way but I am no lawyer.
I can't say your country's gun fetish makes any more sense now, but at least I know the laws.
For instance:
What is political gun ownership, Jamessqf?
This phrase means nothing to me.
Perhaps America should adopt Swiss gun laws.
-
Let's compare it to a Remington 700 since that's pretty much my definition of a semi auto hunting rifle.
Remington 700 is bolt action. They have numerous other models that are semi auto. Assuming the magazine is detachable and it would interfere with anything you can always just make a larger capacity version. You can already download the model for a #D printed 30 round AR magazine. If you own a 3D printer ( I know 2 people so they're not ultra rare) you can just load the model hit go. A short time later insert a spring and you're done. For the barrel length issue a hacksaw will deal with it in a crude fashion. Accuracy would still be more then enough for a preschool or theater.
If it's not looking "assault rifle" enough at that point swap the stock out. They're not the hardest things to make from scratch. If needed paint the entire thing black and there you go. grandpa's hunting rifle to evil black gun.
I honestly believe we're less then a decade from having a machine in the carport that costs less then $3,000 that you can feed a model of a gun and get a working 100% metal product out the other end. laws banning these guns are going to do nothing to stop a person who really wants one.
-
What is political gun ownership, Jamessqf?
This phrase means nothing to me.
As embodied in the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. The only way (AFAIK) to keep a government that respects the rights of individuals is for the people to be armed.
-
I'm not going to say too much because I'm new and still feeling my way, as Bill said to Monica, but there are lots of good points here regarding regarding the nonsense that is being spouted about the need to control access to guns in the US.
Let me say from an aussie perspective, as someone who grew up using guns, was given his first, a .22, at age 8, and then was disarmed along with the rest of the law-abiding population here following a massacre in Tasmania by a nutcase, ""gun control"" is a disaster.
Before aussies were forced to hand back most of their firearms the opinion in the general population was that only criminals would have guns and a decade on that is exactly the situation.
-
Thanks for the link, Grant. I didn't read it that way but I am no lawyer.
I can't say your country's gun fetish makes any more sense now, but at least I know the laws.
It's important to remember that suspicion of government and anti-authoritarianism are deeply held American values. I think many Americans of all ideologies start from a perspective of "is there a compelling reason to give the government the power to regulate XYZ?", and for gun control conservatives and the right tend to think "hell no" (given that Australia shares this pedigree, it's curious how much gun control the nation has). It seems to me that European democracies, on the other hand, tend to start from their ideal society and then legislate every aspect that they think is attainable, with much less fear of government power and authority. Violence is bad? Then the government will ban guns.
-
Let's compare it to a Remington 700 since that's pretty much my definition of a semi auto hunting rifle.
Remington 700 is bolt action. They have numerous other models that are semi auto. Assuming the magazine is detachable and it would interfere with anything you can always just make a larger capacity version. You can already download the model for a #D printed 30 round AR magazine. If you own a 3D printer ( I know 2 people so they're not ultra rare) you can just load the model hit go. A short time later insert a spring and you're done. For the barrel length issue a hacksaw will deal with it in a crude fashion. Accuracy would still be more then enough for a preschool or theater.
If it's not looking "assault rifle" enough at that point swap the stock out. They're not the hardest things to make from scratch. If needed paint the entire thing black and there you go. grandpa's hunting rifle to evil black gun.
I honestly believe we're less then a decade from having a machine in the carport that costs less then $3,000 that you can feed a model of a gun and get a working 100% metal product out the other end. laws banning these guns are going to do nothing to stop a person who really wants one.
Good points. Just wanted to add that it will stop some people who really want them from having them, responsible people who follow laws and are no risk to others.
I like the comments by Jamesqf. Having guns for hunting and protection are very good and valid reasons, but the 2nd Amendment is primarily about tyranny. And just like the 1st Amendment it should be afforded great respect and deference, not considered an annoyance to be sidestepped.
-
Canadian here ... I've also been fascinated by America's gun debate. It seems to boil down to a personal liberty versus collective/societal benefit argument.
I wonder why many other 1st world democracies have decided that guns are meant for hunting, sport shooting and collectors (and should be regulated as such) versus as a means of protection or preservation of freedoms. In Canada, we have much lower per-capita gun ownership, much less access to "military/police/handgun" grade weapons and also much lower per-capita gun deaths rate. This is not to say that other factors aren't involved, but I would not ignore the lack of gun proliferation.
Personally, I believe that an educated, involved and vigilant society is the true "protection", so I've never bought the "my gun protects my/society freedom" argument. However, I do see some value in the "<insert law> inhibits my personal liberty" argument. For me the question is: Are the group/societal benefits worth the decreased personal liberty.
For you "pro-gun" people, are there any gun ownership or gun industry changes you think would help? Are there any that you think would be accepted by your "anti-gun" neighbors?
-
For you "pro-gun" people, are there any gun ownership or gun industry changes you think would help? Are there any that you think would be accepted by your "anti-gun" neighbors?
1) NCIS Background checks on all gun sales, but no gun registry.
2) Enforce existing laws including those about lying when trying to purchase a firearm
Those are 2 easy ones that most people agree on and might actually work. Note that they infringe very little on the law abiding citizen, but very much on the criminal element.
-
Canadian here ... I've also been fascinated by America's gun debate. It seems to boil down to a personal liberity versus collective/socitial benefit argument.
I wonder why many other 1st world democracies have decided that guns are meant for hunting, sport shooting and collectors (and should be regulated as such) versus as a means of protection or perservatiion of freedoms. In Canada, we have much lower per-capita gun ownership, much less access to "military/police/handgun" grade weapons and also much lower per-capita gun deaths rate. This is not to say that other factors aren't involved, but I would not ignore the lack of gun profiliration.
Personally, I believe that an educated, involved and vigilant socity is the true "protection", so I've never bought the "my gun protects my/society freedom" argument. However, I do see some value in the "<insert law> inhibits my personal liberty" agrument. For me the question is: Are the group/socitial benefits worth the decreased personal liberity.
For you "pro-gun" people, are there any gun ownership or gun industry changes you think would help? Are there any that you think would be accepted by your "anti-gun" neighbors?
Prevention of tyranny is very much a collective benefit, not just a personal liberty issue.
I think the primary residence of a mental health patient should not have unlocked guns, and I think the government should mandate the level to which those guns need to be secured. (a glass fronted cabinet is not "locked up". Liability of people who break such a law is tricky, but there would need to be some punishment or liability for breaking it to be taken seriously. I think there should be a debate in general on the liability of individuals who do not lock their guns allowing access to individuals who commit crimes with those guns. Gun owners should put reasonable effort into securing their guns, which needs much better attention even if no new laws are put in place. These are meaningful areas the media could play a part in, much more meaningful than simply feeding off the current gun control rhetoric.
-
Before aussies were forced to hand back most of their firearms the opinion in the general population was that only criminals would have guns and a decade on that is exactly the situation.
Regardless of your opinion of the way that Australia democratically enacted gun control legislation, exactly how many mass shootings have there been in Australia since they did so?
Exactly zero?
-
Personally, I believe that an educated, involved and vigilant socity is the true "protection", so I've never bought the "my gun protects my/society freedom" argument. However, I do see some value in the "<insert law> inhibits my personal liberty" agrument. For me the question is: Are the group/socitial benefits worth the decreased personal liberity.
I think this would be a more productive line of reasoning for me if I saw any convincing enumeration of the societal benefits to increased gun control. Scumbags are scumbags, and if they have to kill people with trucks, knives, or lightbulbs full of sarin, they'll do so. To me violent crime is much better explained by desperation, need, lack of education, and other social ills than by the fact that the world has guns in it.
-
Regardless of your opinion of the way that Australia democratically enacted gun control legislation, exactly how many mass shootings have there been in Australia since they did so?
Exactly zero?
Nope, not exactly zero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
Besides, it's the wrong question: you should instead ask how many mass killings there have been. As I've said previously, if people who want to do mass killings can't get guns, they will use something else, for exmple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Fire You can find similar instances in just about every country where access to firearms is severely restricted.
-
1) NCIS Background checks on all gun sales, but no gun registry.
2) Enforce existing laws including those about lying when trying to purchase a firearm
Those are 2 easy ones that most people agree on and might actually work. Note that they infringe very little on the law abiding citizen, but very much on the criminal element.
I disagree. A background check is very much an infringement on my right to privacy.
-
For you "pro-gun" people, are there any gun ownership or gun industry changes you think would help? Are there any that you think would be accepted by your "anti-gun" neighbors?
Mandatory training class. Having been around lots of firearms for decades I still learned a couple of things taking my PAL course (basic safety/rules training for you non canadians)
-
I disagree. A background check is very much an infringement on my right to privacy.
So is the terrorist watch list, and the no-fly list. Do you object to those for the same reason?
Right now in America, a known terrorist can walk into a gun show and purchase weapons without anyone knowing who he is, but he would have to drive to the gun show instead of fly because we restrict the rights of known terrorists to board airplanes. We require you to provide ID, and for that identity to be cross-checked with lists of people who are forbidden from flying. I don't think implementing the same kind of system for gun purchases is so outlandish.
-
1) NCIS Background checks on all gun sales, but no gun registry.
2) Enforce existing laws including those about lying when trying to purchase a firearm
Those are 2 easy ones that most people agree on and might actually work. Note that they infringe very little on the law abiding citizen, but very much on the criminal element.
I disagree. A background check is very much an infringement on my right to privacy.
Could you elaborate? As I understand it, with the NCIS there is no central clearing house of people with guns. I oppose any sort of registry, but am not opposed to a backgournd check without a registry because without a registry I don't feel my privacy is invaded. Obviously you percieve it differently.
-
I disagree. A background check is very much an infringement on my right to privacy.
So is the terrorist watch list, and the no-fly list. Do you object to those for the same reason?
Yes. And for a lot of other reasons, not least among which is the ridiculous idea that the government has some magic spell that can accurately paste a "terrorist" label on people before they actually go out and commit a "terrorist" act. Then there's also the fact that, thanks to that idiot Bush, we've spent a dozen years fighting "terrorism" when the real problem is jihad.
We require you to provide ID, and for that identity to be cross-checked with lists of people who are forbidden from flying. I don't think implementing the same kind of system for gun purchases is so outlandish.
Well, I disagree. I think having to provide any form of ID to any government official is about half a goose-step away from the classic Gestapo demanding "papers" of everyone.
-
the ridiculous idea that the government has some magic spell that can accurately paste a "terrorist" label on people before they actually go out and commit a "terrorist" act.
I'm not even talking about a suspected terrorist. I mean a known terrorist, a self-professed mass-murdering jihadist nutjob, can walk into a gun show and legally buy an AR-15 because nobody is allowed to verify his identity. You're really okay with that?
Well, I disagree. I think having to provide any form of ID to any government official is about half a goose-step away from the classic Gestapo demanding "papers" of everyone.
Do you have a social security card? You know that's a government-issued identification number required for every citizen. Like Hitler.
How about a driver's license? I hear a police officer can throw you in jail for driving without one. Like Stalin.
Do you use a library card? The government requires you get one of those to use your public library. Like Mao.
My point is that providing your ID to government officials is part of life in America today, and we all accept that as the price of receiving the benefits of being Americans, like the ability to earn a paycheck, drive a car, and read library books. Doesn't seem that onerous to me, but you clearly must not do any of those things because you think they mean we're about to set up concentration camps.
Your hyperbole is misplaced and tiresome. There are real injustices in the world for you to get all riled up about. Government ID registrations would not be at the top of my list.
-
Your hyperbole is misplaced and tiresome. There are real injustices in the world for you to get all riled up about. Government ID registrations would not be at the top of my list.
That's you. You're entitled to your own opinions. But you might care to use that same argument with guns. They're a part of American life. so why should you get all riled up about them. Your hyperbole is misplaced and tiresome.
-
Perhaps he thinks that it's a real injustice?
-
But you might care to use that same argument with guns. They're a part of American life. so why should you get all riled up about them.
Me? I'm not riled up at all. I'm not calling for impeachment, I'm not marching in the streets, I'm not outraged about anything. As a gun owner myself, I quietly support our current national dialog about how to reduce our appalling rate of gun violence.
I don't even claim to know the answers, but I'm at least willing to acknowledge that this is a uniquely American problem that has been ignored for far too long.
-
this is a uniquely American problem that has been ignored for far too long.
Not really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The US is #15 on that list of homicides by gun per capita.
-
Not really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The US is #15 on that list of homicides by gun per capita.
Oh sorry, I meant unique among first world nations. I don't dispute that Columbia and Swaziland have an even bigger gun problem than we do.
Did you mean for that to make my point for me, or was that just coincidence?
-
well yes, the US is a first world country but within it there are some small pockets that are absolutely miserable hell holes. I wouldn't be surprised if the maps of gun violence,drugs and poverty are pretty much identical. Same things in those other countries just their drug and poverty issues are more widespread.
-
The question is why do some feel the need to limit freedoms of others(ie the right to own certain objects and perform certain activities).
I'm not sure you've thought this line of reasoning out to its logical conclusion. Why should any weapon be limited in any way to the average person? That's destroying freedom!
This is why I advocate for over the counter nuclear weapons to be sold in every corner store. There's no better deterrent to an attack than mutually assured destruction - they're a SAFETY device. Want to protect schools? Put nukes in every school! Remember, nukes don't kill people, only those crazy enough to use nukes kill people.
Laws and regulation exist in society for general safety. They're not the boogeyman. You tacitly agree to limit your freedom via social contract with whatever society you live in. You're not free to rape people, you're not free to drive your vehicle down the wrong lane of the highway, you're not free to own nuclear weaponry . . . why should you be free to purchase weaponry with huge magazines and no background check?
-
well yes, the US is a first world country but within it there are some small pockets that are absolutely miserable hell holes.
Unfortunately, those are our big cities. Chicago, LA, Houston, NY City, Detroit. The very places that *should* be the safest (higher population density *should* be easier to protect) are the very worst places to live. Obviously we're doing something terribly wrong here in the USA. Every hoodrat having a gun certainly doesn't help, but that sure isn't the root cause.
-
The question is why do some feel the need to limit freedoms of others(ie the right to own certain objects and perform certain activities).
I'm not sure you've thought this line of reasoning out to its logical conclusion. Why should any weapon be limited in any way to the average person? That's destroying freedom!
This is why I advocate for over the counter nuclear weapons to be sold in every corner store. There's no better deterrent to an attack than mutually assured destruction - they're a SAFETY device. Want to protect schools? Put nukes in every school! Remember, nukes don't kill people, only those crazy enough to use nukes kill people.
Nuclear weapons have only been used in combat 2x. Given their apparent side effects (fallout, etc), storage danger, and massive destructive power, I think we can agree that no one should possess except for certain governments.
Similar (but not nearly as dangerous) to nuclear weapons, tnt, plastic explosives, hand grenades, rocket launchers should not be possessed by civilians. Again storage danger and massive destructive power are the issue.
Interestingly, police typically don't have the weapons described above due to the dangers described above. Police do, however, commonly possess firearms including semi-auto and even auto weapons.
Police possess weapons for many of the same reasons citizens do including self defense.
If we ban firearms from common usage, people will use knives, bows, etc. We've tried an assault weapons ban. It failed. Let's try something that might actually work.
Laws and regulation exist in society for general safety. They're not the boogeyman. You tacitly agree to limit your freedom via social contract with whatever society you live in. You're not free to rape people, you're not free to drive your vehicle down the wrong lane of the highway, you're not free to own nuclear weaponry . . . why should you be free to purchase weaponry with huge magazines and no background check?
I'm not advocating no background checks. Quite the opposite in fact.
-
Nuclear weapons have only been used in combat 2x. Given their apparent side effects (fallout, etc), storage danger, and massive destructive power, I think we can agree that no one should possess except for certain governments.
Sure . . . that's my whole point. The gun debate has little to nothing to do with 'freedom'. We regulate things that are dangerous for the benefit of society . . . it's part of the social contract.
Similar (but not nearly as dangerous) to nuclear weapons, tnt, plastic explosives, hand grenades, rocket launchers should not be possessed by civilians. Again storage danger and massive destructive power are the issue.
Firearms have massive destructive power, and ammunition requires proper storage. That's why there are safe storage procedures for weapons, explosives, etc. (BTW . . . you can legally purchase grenades and grenade launchers that attach to your assault rifle in the US.) Storage concerns are not the reason that we tend to limit access to these weapons.
Interestingly, police typically don't have the weapons described above due to the dangers described above. Police do, however, commonly possess firearms including semi-auto and even auto weapons.
Police possess weapons for many of the same reasons citizens do including self defense.
This is a nonsensical comparison.
Police posses firearms as a way to defend themselves from expected armed attackers. Their job routinely puts them in life or death situations where usage of a firearm is necessary. They are required to undergo routine training for proficiency, and safety. There is little to no comparison between a police officer and your average person who walks into a store and buys a weapon.
Despite all that, typical police issue firearms consist of a handgun. Not an assault rifle with high capacity magazines.
If we ban firearms from common usage, people will use knives, bows, etc. We've tried an assault weapons ban. It failed. Let's try something that might actually work.
So, following your logic . . . If we ban nuclear weapons as a method of defence, people will just use guns to kill each other. Why ban nukes?
Clearly, some weapons are much more deadly and can do much more harm in a short period of time.
-
Nuclear weapons have only been used in combat 2x. Given their apparent side effects (fallout, etc), storage danger, and massive destructive power, I think we can agree that no one should possess except for certain governments.
Sure . . . that's my whole point. The gun debate has little to nothing to do with 'freedom'. We regulate things that are dangerous for the benefit of society . . . it's part of the social contract.
Are you planning on banning assault bows next and high capacity hammers? There will always be danger in the world and there is a right to self defense.
There is no reason a law abiding citizen should not possess a firearm.
Cars kill a lot more people than guns. Any plan to ban those?
Similar (but not nearly as dangerous) to nuclear weapons, tnt, plastic explosives, hand grenades, rocket launchers should not be possessed by civilians. Again storage danger and massive destructive power are the issue.
Firearms have massive destructive power, and ammunition requires proper storage. That's why there are safe storage procedures for weapons, explosives, etc. (BTW . . . you can legally purchase grenades and grenade launchers that attach to your assault rifle in the US.) Storage concerns are not the reason that we tend to limit access to these weapons.
Explosives are unstable and can level city blocks in large quantities. Ammunition, absent a weapon, is fairly safe in a fire or other situation. Firearms aren't nearly as dangerous as explosives (see Oklahoma city bombing) or even aircraft (9/11).
The common person cannot purchase explosive grenades. That is a felony. You may be able to purchase a grenade launcher which shoots smoke grenades, but you cannot in the US purchase explosive grenades. I have never seen grenades or grenade launchers for sale anywhere in the US. If your local Walmart or gun show has either, please let me know where so I can see this phenomenon.
Interestingly, police typically don't have the weapons described above due to the dangers described above. Police do, however, commonly possess firearms including semi-auto and even auto weapons.
Police possess weapons for many of the same reasons citizens do including self defense.
This is a nonsensical comparison.
Police posses firearms as a way to defend themselves from expected armed attackers. Their job routinely puts them in life or death situations where usage of a firearm is necessary. They are required to undergo routine training for proficiency, and safety. There is little to no comparison between a police officer and your average person who walks into a store and buys a weapon.
Despite all that, typical police issue firearms consist of a handgun. Not an assault rifle with high capacity magazines.
Its a perfectly valid comparison. Citizens have every bit as much the right to self defense as the police and although citizens aren't routinely exposed to the same threats, their lives are every bit as valuable as those of an officer.
Many departments are moving to the AR-15 or even surplus M-16's in addition to their sidearm. I'm sure they don't use 10 round mag's.
If we ban firearms from common usage, people will use knives, bows, etc. We've tried an assault weapons ban. It failed. Let's try something that might actually work.
So, following your logic . . . If we ban nuclear weapons as a method of defence, people will just use guns to kill each other. Why ban nukes?
Clearly, some weapons are much more deadly and can do much more harm in a short period of time.
As discussed above, nuclear weapons aren't in common usage by law enforcment, criminals or citizens and possess a destructive power exponentially higher than that of any firearm.
Any ban on firearms in the US will only impact one group, law abiding citizens. Criminals and law enforcement will still be armed by the same weapons they are trying to restrict.
One last question, given certain spellings and your lack of knowledge regarding US firearms laws - Are you from the US?
-
Me? I'm not riled up at all. I'm not calling for impeachment, I'm not marching in the streets, I'm not outraged about anything. As a gun owner myself, I quietly support our current national dialog about how to reduce our appalling rate of gun violence.
Well, I did tell you how to significantly reduce gun violence*: end the War on Drugs. That would, I think, do far more than any of the proposed regulations, and instead of costing the taxpayers money (as any new regulation will) would save the large amounts now being wasted, and provide a potential new source of revenue.
*And as I keep asking, why is it only gun violence that seems to matter to you? If - hypothetically - you could wave a magic wand that made all guns disappear, and found that the same number of people were being killed with knives, baseball bats, arson, cars, improvised explosives, and all the myriad other ways people have found to kill other people, would that be a great achievement?
-
well yes, the US is a first world country but within it there are some small pockets that are absolutely miserable hell holes.
Unfortunately, those are our big cities. Chicago, LA, Houston, NY City, Detroit. The very places that *should* be the safest (higher population density *should* be easier to protect) are the very worst places to live. Obviously we're doing something terribly wrong here in the USA. Every hoodrat having a gun certainly doesn't help, but that sure isn't the root cause.
Yeah, what we're doing wrong is having big cities in the first place. Confine almost any animal in too-crowded conditions, and it will go insane and turn on other members of its species.
-
Are you planning on banning assault bows next and high capacity hammers? There will always be danger in the world and there is a right to self defense.
There is no reason a law abiding citizen should not possess a firearm.
Cars kill a lot more people than guns. Any plan to ban those?
You misunderstand me. I have never said that guns should be banned. They should be regulated. Just like cars. Weapons that are deemed too unsafe for the general public should be prohibited (in much the same way that you can't drive an F1 car down to the shopping mall).
There are perfectly valid reasons to own and operate a weapon . . . hunting and target practice. You might be able to argue defence in some rare cases too. I've been hunting many times, usually with bolt action rifles. If you can't hit your target with two (or in some freakish case) three shots . . . you really have no business being hunting. High capacity magazines are not needed. If you're shooting at a range for target practice . . . there's no real reason that you can't take a few seconds and reload your magazine. High capacity mags - still not needed. It's exceedingly rare that you would need a weapon for defence as an average person . . . I'm willing to bet that it's infinitesimally rare that you would need more than a couple shots in such a situation. This is one regulation that does make a lot of sense.
Explosives are unstable and can level city blocks in large quantities. Ammunition, absent a weapon, is fairly safe in a fire or other situation. Firearms aren't nearly as dangerous as explosives (see Oklahoma city bombing) or even aircraft (9/11).
The common person cannot purchase explosive grenades. That is a felony. You may be able to purchase a grenade launcher which shoots smoke grenades, but you cannot in the US purchase explosive grenades.
Are you really going to argue that because people on a shooting spree only tend to be able to kill 20 - 30 people that guns are safe and shouldn't have regulations imposed? Let's not forget that after 9/11 there were tremendous changes in policy at airports and around airplanes that were implemented due to the hijackings intended to make people safer. Similar to what people are trying to do in the wake of so many shootings . . .
What, smoke, and tear grenades don't count as grenades any more? I didn't say you could purchase of HE rounds.
Its a perfectly valid comparison. Citizens have every bit as much the right to self defense as the police and although citizens aren't routinely exposed to the same threats, their lives are every bit as valuable as those of an officer.
Many departments are moving to the AR-15 or even surplus M-16's in addition to their sidearm. I'm sure they don't use 10 round mag's.
Citizens absolutely do have the right to defend themselves. The lives of a citizen is as absolutely as valuable as the life of a police officer. The problem is when you assert that weapons are guaranteed defence of that life . . . or that an untrained citizen firing wildly in a panic situation is in any way reacting as a trained police officer.
Please provide the names of a few police departments that issue assault rifles as standard equipment to all officers. That sounds pretty unusual. I realize that special forces (those going on raids where armed weapons are expected) might be issued heavier fire-power, but can't see how that translates over to anything that any average citizen would run into.
Clearly, some weapons are much more deadly and can do much more harm in a short period of time.
Right. That's what I've been saying. A handgun is much more dangerous than a hammer. Or a crossbow. I have no experience with the 'assault crossbows' that you alluded to earlier. :P
Any ban on firearms in the US will only impact one group, law abiding citizens. Criminals and law enforcement will still be armed by the same weapons they are trying to restrict.
Three points here . . .
1. These crimes aren't committed only by illegal weapons. The Connecticut school shooting was committed by a guy after shooting and stealing his mother's legally owned weapons. Lower capacity magazines would have slowed him down.
2. Constant seizure of illegal weapons over a long period of time makes access to them more difficult as production dries up.
3. There are laws against manufacturing bombs, but people still make them and blow up buildings (as you pointed out earlier). That doesn't mean that you need to get rid of the explosives laws.
One last question, given certain spellings and your lack of knowledge regarding US firearms laws - Are you from the US?
Exactly which 'lack of knowledge' are you referring to? I'm Canadian.
-
You misunderstand me. I have never said that guns should be banned. They should be regulated. Just like cars. Weapons that are deemed too unsafe for the general public should be prohibited (in much the same way that you can't drive an F1 car down to the shopping mall).
There are perfectly valid reasons to own and operate a weapon . . . hunting and target practice. You might be able to argue defence in some rare cases too. I've been hunting many times, usually with bolt action rifles. If you can't hit your target with two (or in some freakish case) three shots . . . you really have no business being hunting. High capacity magazines are not needed. If you're shooting at a range for target practice . . . there's no real reason that you can't take a few seconds and reload your magazine. High capacity mags - still not needed.
First of all, the 2nd amendment says nothing about hunting. It's about the right to bear arms. Secondly, as you alluded above, magazines can be switched in seconds. In Connecticut, the lunatic was kiling little kids and could have done that with almost any weapon, in Colorado the high capacity mag jammed and he switched weapons. High cap mag bans solves nothing.
Explosives are unstable and can level city blocks in large quantities. Ammunition, absent a weapon, is fairly safe in a fire or other situation. Firearms aren't nearly as dangerous as explosives (see Oklahoma city bombing) or even aircraft (9/11).
.
Are you really going to argue that because people on a shooting spree only tend to be able to kill 20 - 30 people that guns are safe and shouldn't have regulations imposed? .
I'm indicating that people will be slaughtered with or without AR-15's. If you ban those weapons, they'll use other weapons. We tried an assault weapons ban in the US. Columbine happened during the ban. Connecticut still has a ban. They don't work.
We have several major US cities with extensive retrictions on guns. Bad people still kill with guns. If they can't get guns they use other means.
What, smoke, and tear grenades don't count as grenades any more? I didn't say you could purchase of HE rounds.
Either purposefully or through ignorance of the law, you alluded to the fact that grenades could be purchased in the US. To most people, grenade would be the explosive type not a smoke bomb.
Its a perfectly valid comparison. Citizens have every bit as much the right to self defense as the police and although citizens aren't routinely exposed to the same threats, their lives are every bit as valuable as those of an officer.
Many departments are moving to the AR-15 or even surplus M-16's in addition to their sidearm. I'm sure they don't use 10 round mag's.
Citizens absolutely do have the right to defend themselves. The lives of a citizen is as absolutely as valuable as the life of a police officer. The problem is when you assert that weapons are guaranteed defence of that life . . . or that an untrained citizen firing wildly in a panic situation is in any way reacting as a trained police officer.
Please provide the names of a few police departments that issue assault rifles as standard equipment to all officers. That sounds pretty unusual. I realize that special forces (those going on raids where armed weapons are expected) might be issued heavier fire-power, but can't see how that translates over to anything that any average citizen would run into..
I realize you feel that citizens are much less responsible than police officers, but recent events would indicate otherwise
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html
With regard to police carrying assault rifles:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/15/tennessee-police-personal-assault-rifles/1835381/
Our local police actually managed to get one stolen off his trunk. Another local officer had an unsecured MP-5 stolen from his house. Oh and another left a loaded 9mm in a rental car.
Three points here . . .
1. These crimes aren't committed only by illegal weapons. The Connecticut school shooting was committed by a guy after shooting and stealing his mother's legally owned weapons. Lower capacity magazines would have slowed him down.
2. Constant seizure of illegal weapons over a long period of time makes access to them more difficult as production dries up.
3. There are laws against manufacturing bombs, but people still make them and blow up buildings (as you pointed out earlier). That doesn't mean that you need to get rid of the explosives laws...
1. the only thing that would have slowed him down was a bullet fired by someone else.
2. Mexico, Chicago, New York, DC all have massive gun violence problems despite restrictive laws. Despite the fact that Mexico likes to blame us for their problems, the majority of their illegal guns come from sources other than the US.
3. We have laws against many types of weapons already. Unless you plan to ban and confiscate all firearms in the US, new laws are mostly useless as we have 300 million firearms out there already.
One last question, given certain spellings and your lack of knowledge regarding US firearms laws - Are you from the US?
Exactly which 'lack of knowledge' are you referring to? I'm Canadian.
Your lack of knowledge regarding the 2nd amendment, firearms laws in the US, types of firearms held by police, and your insinuation that we could by high explosive grenades.
-
First of all, the 2nd amendment says nothing about hunting. It's about the right to bear arms.
We weren't discussing the constitution, but "because it's in the constitution" isn't a very well reasoned argument. I'm well aware of the 2nd amendment . . . and the fact that it was drafted during a period that the US was concerned with foreign invasion and a lack of military power. That hardly seems to be a concern any more. Section 9 of Article I of the constitution prohibited congress from preventing the importation of slaves. Sometimes when an old document doesn't make sense any more, it should be amended (as happened with the 13th amendment).
Secondly, as you alluded above, magazines can be switched in seconds. In Connecticut, the lunatic was kiling little kids and could have done that with almost any weapon, in Colorado the high capacity mag jammed and he switched weapons. High cap mag bans solves nothing.
Seconds of fumbling around give a crucial few moments of opportunity for people to escape, or to attempt to fight back. It comes at no disadvantage to someone who wants to use their weapon for hunting, target practice, or defence. Seems like potential benefit for minimal trade-off to me . . .
I'm indicating that people will be slaughtered with or without AR-15's. If you ban those weapons, they'll use other weapons. We tried an assault weapons ban in the US. Columbine happened during the ban. Connecticut still has a ban. They don't work.
You seem to have forgotten that the Connecticut shootings happened with a legally owned AR-15 assault rife.
We have several major US cities with extensive retrictions on guns. Bad people still kill with guns. If they can't get guns they use other means.
Nobody's saying that banning some guns and high capacity magazines will solve all gun violence across the country. Nobody's saying that it will prevent murder of any kind forever. It should make it slightly more difficult to perform mass shootings though, and at minimal discomfort to people who enjoy using guns for recreational purpose.
I'd suggest that if you can go to the neighbouring town or state to get heavy duty firepower . . . then banning a weapon is bound to fail because the ban is too easy to circumvent. It needs to be well enforced, and nationwide to actually start to clean up weapons.
Either purposefully or through ignorance of the law, you alluded to the fact that grenades could be purchased in the US. To most people, grenade would be the explosive type not a smoke bomb.
Ah . . . so you are ignorant of what a grenade is. OK.
I realize you feel that citizens are much less responsible than police officers, but recent events would indicate otherwise
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Here you have police who are well trained, with well maintained weapons responding to a high pressure situation by making mistakes all over the place. Now imagine how badly it would have turned out if untrained private citizens started spraying their weapons all over the place. Not a very safe or defensive scenario there . . .
With regard to police carrying assault rifles:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/15/tennessee-police-personal-assault-rifles/1835381/
Our local police actually managed to get one stolen off his trunk. Another local officer had an unsecured MP-5 stolen from his house. Oh and another left a loaded 9mm in a rental car.
Well that's just sad.
Three points here . . .
1. the only thing that would have slowed him down was a bullet fired by someone else.
2. Mexico, Chicago, New York, DC all have massive gun violence problems despite restrictive laws. Despite the fact that Mexico likes to blame us for their problems, the majority of their illegal guns come from sources other than the US.
3. We have laws against many types of weapons already. Unless you plan to ban and confiscate all firearms in the US, new laws are mostly useless as we have 300 million firearms out there already.
1. Sure. Or a nuke. The only way to be sure that everyone is safe of course, is mutually assured destruction.
2. A ban doesn't work unless it's country wide. 70% of the illegal guns in mexico recovered from drug cartels would seem to indicate the the problem is, in fact, largely due to weapons from the US (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guv1zxttoSAF-NOJzZkAJV2R93mg (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guv1zxttoSAF-NOJzZkAJV2R93mg)).
3. This is a very valid point. It will take a long time to clean up the problem that is currently in place. I just don't think that the answer to a problem is saying "well, it's too big . . . we should just give up".
-
GuitarStv:
Common definition of the word grenade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade - Note the word explosive in the 1st paragraph.
With regard to Mexico, "Given the lack of hard data from Mexico, we can't calculate a precise figure for what portion of crime guns have been traced to the U.S. Based on the best evidence we can find so far, we conclude that the 90 percent claim made by the president and others in his administration lacks a basis in solid fact. But we also conclude that the number is at least double what Fox News has reported, based on its reporters' mistaken interpretation of ATF testimony" http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html
You're convinced gun bans work despite evidence to the contrary. I respectfully disagree. I would prefer to try another direction (such as background checks and enforcement of existing laws) rather than scapegoating lawful gun owners.
You keep referring to the Connecticut shooters gun as legal. It wasn't legal. It was stolen from his mother, who he killed. I would agree she should have secured the firearm given his mental state.
The constitution is an entirely valid argument. It, and several court cases, have established the rights of citizens in this nation. As a non US citizen, you may not want or need to respect our laws, constitution or history, but they do exist.
Finally, "Reasonable" restrictions on ownership will only be reasonable until some other crazy uses a bolt action actions to slaughter innocents. Then those "high powered weapons" will be the next target and on and on. Recently we had a case where a son killed the father with a "high powered bow." There is no end to the restrictions some of our do-gooder politicians would like to put in place. Bloomberg put a soft drink ban in for God's sake.
-
70% of the illegal guns in mexico recovered from drug cartels would seem to indicate the the problem is, in fact, largely due to weapons from the US...
Sorry, but that's just an absolutely astounding exercise in ignoring the obvious. The problem is not guns, it is drug cartels. (Drug cartels build their own effing submarines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine fer gawdsakes, so they'd be perfectly capable of running their own armaments factories if it wasn't possible to buy guns more cheaply.) So instead of trying to get rid of guns (nearly impossible), just get rid of the drug cartels (easy), and that will eliminate the associated violence.
-
With regard to guns and Mexico, it's interesting that while Mexico with its tight laws on guns is awash with violence which they blame on the US supply of firearms. Our neighbors to the north, on the other hand, don't typically have gun violence, beheadings and wholesale slaughter despite their shared border with the US. Maybe it's not the guns causing the problem.
-
Which is why Berlin and Tokyo have horrible gun violence problems like East Cleveland.
-
Which is why Berlin and Tokyo have horrible gun violence problems like East Cleveland.
Once more, why the !$@ are you so hung up on gun violence? You're saying that it's ok to kill people with trucks & knives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre or nerve gas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway
PS: You come across interesting things poking around the internet. For instance, this article: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#
...the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns...
-
Regardless of your opinion of the way that Australia democratically enacted gun control legislation, exactly how many mass shootings have there been in Australia since they did so?
Exactly zero?
Nope, not exactly zero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
2 dead and 5 injured by a guy with a bunch of handguns. That's your 'mass' shooting? And unarmed citizens were able to tackle him and take him down when he tried to switch weapons... That seems like a pretty damn good argument that banning 'assault' rifles and high capacity magazines makes it harder to carry out a mass shooting.
-
Though not commonly cited in the American gun control debate because its not an option that's really on the table, Australia's solution to gun violence was popular, broad, severe, and very effective. They used to have regular mass shootings like the US, they basically banned firearms, and they've gone 15 years without any significant gun violence.
Someone will undoubtedly chime in to say that even these draconian firearm restrictions won't stop all gun crime, and they'll be right. And air bags haven't eliminated traffic fatalities. But they do make a big difference, and delaying their mandatory installation in new cars cost us thousands of lives that could have been saved had we acted sooner. I see the current gun control debate in the same way; the longer we delay putting in place some kind of regulations, at least for the mentally ill or criminally convicted, the more people who could have been saved will die.
I know you don't like the idea of the government looking over your shoulder, but resisting regulation of weapons that are commonly used to kill people is just advocating on behalf of killers.
-
...resisting regulation of weapons that are commonly used to kill people is just advocating on behalf of killers.
This is rich coming from the "Your hyperbole is misplaced and tiresome" guy...
-
Australia's solution to gun violence was popular, broad, severe, and very effective. They used to have regular mass shootings like the US, they basically banned firearms, and they've gone 15 years without any significant gun violence.
Sure, because the people who would once have used guns now use e.g. containers of gasoline. I fail to see how this is an improvement.
-
So, second amendment. Is it really relevant anymore? Yes, it's law. Got it, and yes, you're very fond of your constitution regardless of 200 years of social and technological change. That's fine, I understand the sentiment: don't fix what isn't broken.
BUT.
When it was written, American citizens actually had better muskets, on the whole, than British regulars. There was an equivalence in arms between the people and the state which really doesn't exist today.
Assume your democratic experiment breaks down, and you feel you must stand against the tyrannical State. The state can track all unencrypted communications-- well, e-mail, phone and SMS, anyway-- and so probably already knows you to be armed and freedom-loving. They have total air superiority, total superiority in armour, and, odds are, the tacit support (or at least lack of opposition) of most of the populace (because how else did the tyrants get into power?).
Aside from letting you go out in a blaze of glory, what does your "right to bear arms" afford you in this situation?
-
So, second amendment. Is it really relevant anymore? Yes, it's law. Got it, and yes, you're very fond of your constitution regardless of 200 years of social and technological change. That's fine, I understand the sentiment: don't fix what isn't broken.
BUT.
When it was written, American citizens actually had better muskets, on the whole, than British regulars. There was an equivalence in arms between the people and the state which really doesn't exist today.
Assume your democratic experiment breaks down, and you feel you must stand against the tyrannical State. The state can track all unencrypted communications-- well, e-mail, phone and SMS, anyway-- and so probably already knows you to be armed and freedom-loving. They have total air superiority, total superiority in armour, and, odds are, the tacit support (or at least lack of opposition) of most of the populace (because how else did the tyrants get into power?).
Aside from letting you go out in a blaze of glory, what does your "right to bear arms" afford you in this situation?
While I'm still pretty pro second, I've always pictured this scenario too when I think of an armed revolution.
-
So, second amendment. Is it really relevant anymore? Yes, it's law. Got it, and yes, you're very fond of your constitution regardless of 200 years of social and technological change. That's fine, I understand the sentiment: don't fix what isn't broken.
BUT.
When it was written, American citizens actually had better muskets, on the whole, than British regulars. There was an equivalence in arms between the people and the state which really doesn't exist today.
Assume your democratic experiment breaks down, and you feel you must stand against the tyrannical State. The state can track all unencrypted communications-- well, e-mail, phone and SMS, anyway-- and so probably already knows you to be armed and freedom-loving. They have total air superiority, total superiority in armour, and, odds are, the tacit support (or at least lack of opposition) of most of the populace (because how else did the tyrants get into power?).
Aside from letting you go out in a blaze of glory, what does your "right to bear arms" afford you in this situation?
I think we could debate better armed colonists. They colonists did however, poseess better tactics and local knowledge as well as the help of the French which enabled them to defeat the British.
More recently, several super powers (including the US) have had significant issues quelling insurgents (ie Iraq, Afganistan, and Vietnam).
I support the 2nd amendment and believe it to be an individual right. That being said, I don't think you can discount an armed populace given the recent experience our armed forces have faced.
All that being said, we had a civil war in the US with hundreds of thousands of deaths. I don't know any gun owners who are clamoring for a repeat. If they are, they are nuts.
-
Aside from letting you go out in a blaze of glory, what does your "right to bear arms" afford you in this situation?
While I'm still pretty pro second, I've always pictured this scenario too when I think of an armed revolution.
This is probably one of the best questions asked as it relates to changing times and the 2nd amendments, which among other things was enacted to allow defense against a tyranical government.
Today we have well trained and armed police and military forces that protect against foreign and domestic threats at all levels; however, they are part of the government and their training and standard operating protocol is based on hierarchical structure that emphasizes following orders and de-emphasizes independent thought. So on this basis these forces could quickly and easily be used to repress a population - we do allow for martial law don't we and that could be abused - and those that initially fight will likely lose - but in this case it still supports that argument for arms as even if they are grossly inferior they are better than nothing.
But then the reality will set in that the truth will get out and there will be a rebellious contingent including those in the police and military and the weapons from those factions will be transferred to the rebellious as a result and other nations will send weapons to support the rebellion (the US does it all the time) so then maybe arms are not necessary for the people.
-
Aside from letting you go out in a blaze of glory, what does your "right to bear arms" afford you in this situation?
While I'm still pretty pro second, I've always pictured this scenario too when I think of an armed revolution.
This is probably one of the best questions asked as it relates to changing times and the 2nd amendments, which among other things was enacted to allow defense against a tyranical government.
Today we have well trained and armed police and military forces that protect against foreign and domestic threats at all levels; however, they are part of the government and their training and standard operating protocol is based on hierarchical structure that emphasizes following orders and de-emphasizes independent thought. So on this basis these forces could quickly and easily be used to repress a population - we do allow for martial law don't we and that could be abused - and those that initially fight will likely lose - but in this case it still supports that argument for arms as even if they are grossly inferior they are better than nothing.
But then the reality will set in that the truth will get out and there will be a rebellious contingent including those in the police and military and the weapons from those factions will be transferred to the rebellious as a result and other nations will send weapons to support the rebellion (the US does it all the time) so then maybe arms are not necessary for the people.
Good points. I think arms of a significant sort would be required to create the spark of resistance to tyranny, which is what the second amendment continues to provide. Without an armed populace it might never get to the point of a "rebellious contingent".
Having said that, I don't think anyone supposes that an armed populace is going to simply throw off a tyrannical government and start fresh. We don't know how tyranny might form, how resistance would develop, what use guns would be, and what path (successful or not) the fight for freedom could take. But I honestly think it's the very nature of our government in that it allows that sort of thought and has enshrined that idea in the constitution that limits the chances of it coming about. Hopefully that will continue, I have no reason to think that it won't.
-
...resisting regulation of weapons that are commonly used to kill people is just advocating on behalf of killers.
This is rich coming from the "Your hyperbole is misplaced and tiresome" guy...
Do as I say, not as I do? Is that a valid defense for hypocrisy? I'm never really sure, and I have kids so it comes up once in a while.
Assume your democratic experiment breaks down, and you feel you must stand against the tyrannical State...
Aside from letting you go out in a blaze of glory, what does your "right to bear arms" afford you in this situation?
This situation is even worse than you've stated. I doubt there is a single civilian force in the country that could fend off 8 marines in an armored vehicle, and the military has thousands of those things. Your AR-15s might as well be pop-guns. If you put up a really good fight, they'll shell you with artillery, level your building with a precision guided missile, or (worst case scenario) turn your entire state into a radioactive wasteland for the next ten thousand years. Civilians arming themselves against the tyranny of the state has been an outdated idea since about WWI.
Read up on Ohio-class submarines and then get back to me on how you're going to take on the United States. We have a largish fleet of these subs in constant stealth deployment, and each one carries 24 Trident IIs, potentially each carrying 8 nuclear warheads. Doing the math on that, each individual submarine is capable of delivering 192 mushroom clouds.
The thought that your personal firearm collection, however illicit and awesome it may be, is going to defend your liberty against that kind of technological superiority is kind of funny, really. And the same logic applies all the way down the list, from satellites to handguns. You cannot fight the military and win, regardless of your Constitutionally protected right to try.
-
Do as I say, not as I do? Is that a valid defense for hypocrisy? I'm never really sure, and I have kids so it comes up once in a while.
The older my kids get the more hypocrisy they catch me at.
-
"Civilians arming themselves against the tyranny of the state has been an outdated idea since about WWI."
- Said Muammar to Hosni, as they sipped tea with Bashar
-
"Civilians arming themselves against the tyranny of the state has been an outdated idea since about WWI."
- Said Muammar to Hosni, as they sipped tea with Bashar
I think he was referring to the US.
When Syria and company get the military that the US has, then maybe it would be an accurate comparison.
-
"Civilians arming themselves against the tyranny of the state has been an outdated idea since about WWI."
- Said Muammar to Hosni, as they sipped tea with Bashar
I think he was referring to the US.
When Syria and company get the military that the US has, then maybe it would be an accurate comparison.
Civilians w/simple arms have managed to cause our military some issues in Afganistan and Iraq. Obviously we have killed a lot more of them than they have killed of us, but I wouldn't say they have been completely quelled.
Also, given the fact we haven't used a nuclear weapons since 1945 (other than testing) I seriously doubt our govt would attack US soil with one.
With regard to a large scale US uprising referenced above, no sane person hopes for any of the above to happen.
-
This situation is even worse than you've stated. I doubt there is a single civilian force in the country that could fend off 8 marines in an armored vehicle, and the military has thousands of those things.
The question, though, is whether, once things start, those Marines are going to be fighting on the government's side, refuse to take up arms against their fellow Americans, or join the revolution? Best case, it could come down to FBI/DEA/BATF and similar against the rest of us.
-
"Civilians arming themselves against the tyranny of the state has been an outdated idea since about WWI."
- Said Muammar to Hosni, as they sipped tea with Bashar
In Lebanon, Western air strikes leveled the playing field; they took out most or Mummar's forces.
In Egypt, they didn't have to fight the army; the army abandoned the Hosini.
In Syria, the army split, and they're mired in civil war; Bashar remains, tenuously, in power.
What about Bahrain? There the army (and the more powerful armies of the neighbouring Saudis) has stayed unanimously behind the throne, and the revolution was pretty much drowned in its own blood.
The premise that civilians cannot fight the state by themselves seems hold in these examples. It looks to me like you need military intervention, from outside or inside of the state to have any hope of making a dent. And note that none of these Arab regimes were anything nearly as well armed and organized as the US military.
Now, the US military is very unlikely to want to go in for the wholesale slaughter of civilians on US soil. Again, though, tyranny doesn't happen in a vacuum. Italy, Germany, Hungary all elected their fascist regimes. If it happens in America, it will because your neighbors want it to. In which case it's not a wholesale slaughter of American civilians but a few "terrorists"/"patriots" being quietly (or not so quietly) disappeared. I do not see how your guns help you, then.
I can't see how it would be FBI/DEA/BATF against "the rest of you" -- the FBI is also made up of Americans same as the Marines. If it comes to armed revolt, why are they more likely to stand with the regime than the oath-sworn military officers? Maybe they are, but I don't see it. Our military would certainly side against its people; they have a very "them and us" mentality which I suspect the powers that be deliberately cultivate. Perhaps America is different. Regardless, don't police forces in your country now also find themselves armed and armoured on the federal dollar? I keep hearing in the news that Sheriff's offices can pick up
In any case, you're talking about being part of a widescale revolution, however. For that to occur, the United States would have to (with the tacit approval of its populace) fall into tyrrany, and THEN the tyrants would have to bungle the job and lose that approval to the point of triggering a general revolt. That is a process that can take decades. (In my reading of history, the masses are usually less concerned about freedom than having full stomachs. The French, Russian, and Arab Spring revolutions were fundamentally bread riots at heart.)
Probably, in the meantime, they're going to outlaw your guns, sift cyberspace, and come a knockin'.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbuQ6APGYnQ
WOLVERINES!!!
-
I can't see how it would be FBI/DEA/BATF against "the rest of you" -- the FBI is also made up of Americans same as the Marines. If it comes to armed revolt, why are they more likely to stand with the regime than the oath-sworn military officers?
Because cops are cops. They are not "of the people", they are a self-proclaimed elite, self-selected to make war against civilians, scumbags, and other enemies of the regime (depending on country), and so they are automatically on the side of the government which allows/encourages them to do this.
(Of course this is a generalization: there are individual cops who feel and act differently, but those are fairly rare.)
-
I can't see how it would be FBI/DEA/BATF against "the rest of you" -- the FBI is also made up of Americans same as the Marines. If it comes to armed revolt, why are they more likely to stand with the regime than the oath-sworn military officers?
Because cops are cops. They are not "of the people", they are a self-proclaimed elite, self-selected to make war against civilians, scumbags, and other enemies of the regime (depending on country), and so they are automatically on the side of the government which allows/encourages them to do this.
(Of course this is a generalization: there are individual cops who feel and act differently, but those are fairly rare.)
Ah, well, yes. This is true, up to a point. What interests me is that you think your military does not share this attitude. Is this from experience or just due to the general reverence most Americans feel towards those in uniform?
I only ask because all of the military personnel I have encountered in the Canadian Forces do have an attitude problem. I remember the bloodlust when a relative told the story of a fellow who was badly beaten for (when off duty, as a private citizen) protesting a _provincial_ government policy. In a different province. That the anglo military types mostly don't like. (Quebec, just in case you're wondering.) Or the fellow who thought he could get away scott free with beating civilians to a bloody pulp because he was too far from base to make having the MPs fetch him worthwhile (ergo no charges, in his mind).
Speeding limits and other 'nuisance' laws are waived for military personnel the same as cops ignore them for other cops, apparently.
So I have no illusions that, if push came to shove, our "valiant heroes" would quite willingly put me to the wall if I gave them even the slightest excuse. I also suspect that the powers-that-be carefully maintain this attitude in their hired muscle in case of times of need.
-
Coming from a family of cops, fbi, and military I will kindly disagree with the last two comments.
+1
-
To anyone who feels that military and police are self-selected elitest whatevers... Go hang out with some. Seriously.
You know the Mark Twain quote "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." Well, I have found it to be very very true. Everytime I go some place, my negative stereo types have been washed away.
I think you may need to 'travel' down the street and hang out with some police officers or military memebers (active or retired). You'll find they are people who on the whole, in my direct personal experience, are good people.
-
To anyone who feels that military and police are self-selected elitest whatevers... Go hang out with some. Seriously.
You know the Mark Twain quote "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." Well, I have found it to be very very true. Everytime I go some place, my negative stereo types have been washed away.
I think you may need to 'travel' down the street and hang out with some police officers or military memebers (active or retired). You'll find they are people who on the whole, in my direct personal experience, are good people.
My comments stem from unfortunately having hung out with active military personnel. On the whole, good people. Just with a god awful entitlement problem. Again, I am not in the US and the proportionately larger percent of service folk in your country could make a big difference; or it could be that I'm generalizing from a bad apple or 3.
-
My comments stem from unfortunately having hung out with active military personnel. On the whole, good people. Just with a god awful entitlement problem. Again, I am not in the US and the proportionately larger percent of service folk in your country could make a big difference; or it could be that I'm generalizing from a bad apple or 3.
On the whole I've found that the local police and all the military that I've met are very down to earth, friendly types. Basically as long as you're not causing a ruckus they're cool. Staties and feds seem to be much more power hungry/the people don't matter though. Probably due to the more extensive indoctrination they go through.
-
To anyone who feels that military and police are self-selected elitest whatevers... Go hang out with some. Seriously.
Sorry, but no. I've been military, and have known cops. They're entirely different. Of course there are individual variations, but the typical cop is fundamentally a bully. Yes, they'll usually leave you alone if you're not "causing a ruckus" or "acting otherwise than expected", but that just means that you're being a good serf and kowtowing to their authority.
-
To anyone who feels that military and police are self-selected elitest whatevers... Go hang out with some. Seriously.
Sorry, but no. I've been military, and have known cops. They're entirely different. Of course there are individual variations, but the typical cop is fundamentally a bully. Yes, they'll usually leave you alone if you're not "causing a ruckus" or "acting otherwise than expected", but that just means that you're being a good serf and kowtowing to their authority.
So let me kid this right - if you commit crime or minimally are acting like a f'in stupid d-bag a-hole and causing a disruption to others and you taken to the mat for it then the cops are being the assholes.
Sorry - you really need to rethink your perspective on this.
-
To anyone who feels that military and police are self-selected elitest whatevers... Go hang out with some. Seriously.
Sorry, but no. I've been military, and have known cops. They're entirely different. Of course there are individual variations, but the typical cop is fundamentally a bully. Yes, they'll usually leave you alone if you're not "causing a ruckus" or "acting otherwise than expected", but that just means that you're being a good serf and kowtowing to their authority.
So let me kid this right - if you commit crime or minimally are acting like a f'in stupid d-bag a-hole and causing a disruption to others and you taken to the mat for it then the cops are being the assholes.
Sorry - you really need to rethink your perspective on this.
I disagree with Jamesqf, I think he overstates the case, but he is certainly not saying what you are suggesting. Maybe this isn't a rabbit trail worth being followed?
-
It's an ingroup/outgroup thing. If you have uniformed friends/relatives that automatically put you in the ingroup, you're not going to notice a problem, because they only act that way to the outgroup. It makes a huge difference. For instance, plunk me in 1940s Canada, and I'd notice little difference: as a white, heterosexual male, I would be in-group to those in power. I'd be treated very well, thanks.
Change _any_ of those three, and you're no longer in-group, and suddenly you're going to see society has an attitude problem.
It's not even their fault, really. It's just a problem of group dynamics. Cops are prone to viewing the world in black and white: either you're a victim or a bystander, or you're a perp. And spending all day everyday looking through that lens, is it any wonder that they might have trouble putting it down, off-duty?
Hell, to a lesser degree, Canadian engineering students have the same problem; some view it as elitist, self-selected jerks, but it's just an offshoot of the deliberate cultivation of a strong sense of pride and group-image.
When you create an in-group, you automatically create an out-group, and it can be difficult to manage that. It doesn't automatically mean everyone in uniform is going to be a jerk-- a soldier may define the in-group as "Americans" and be fine with civilians; a cop, the same. Or maybe not. The in-group for members of the Canadian Forces I have interacted with has been... other members of the Canadian Forces. Now, any military HAS to instill a sense of pride in its service people, and they are set apart from the civilian population. A certain sense of superiority is natural. (In the US, from what I've seen, the rest of the country goes along with this; the Canadian government wants us to go the same way, I think. Only if you don't follow the script of service-person superiority would you then notice anything wrong.) It can, however, lead to a dangerous disconnect between those in uniform and those without, if not well managed and/or the powers that be desire it.
Of course, my experience is almost exclusively with (again, Canadian, and YMMV in the US) officers, and I have been informed that officers are all assholes, and I need to have a beer with some real soldiers.