I am surprised it's taken this long

[Wildeybeast]

So apparently America has finally had enough and plans are afoot to deport (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20838729) Piers Morgan. As I understand they now have enough signatures for the White House to have to respond. Well, I'm sorry, but you can't. We don't want him back. You took him in full knowledge of what, an obnoxious, odious, lying, manipulative and morally bankrupt excuse for a human being he is and as such you are stuck with him. Frankly, I doubt you'll find anywhere willing to take him.

[Fizzybubela]

I definitely don't want him back in Britain.

[White Tiger88]

We don't want him in North America........So i say lets reach an agreement and send him to France.......He will fit right in!

[Deadlift]

Lets get Jeremy Clarkson to punch him in the face again :)

[SotonShades]

Nah, he'll just hire a dingey and sail over...

Maybe somewhere in africa? See how far his smarmy 'charms' get him there?

[Verilance]

anyone who has watched QI knows that Piers Morgan is a man "with three outs" lol as long as they don't send him to Canada we are cool :D

[Kirsten]

much as morgan is a total idiot, he is still better than the people who signed the petition, how dare he utilise his freedom of speech, protect the second amendment by trampling the others!

[DarkLink]

Short story is this: he had a 'fair and unbiased debate' on gun control, and because the gun expert that was invited on the show didn't agree to ban all the guns EVAR he spent the show calling the guy a stupid baby-killer basically.

Edit:


much as morgan is a total idiot, he is still better than the people who signed the petition, how dare he utilise his freedom of speech, protect the second amendment by trampling the others!

Wait, are you saying that being an ******* is fine because he was being an ******* to people who like guns, or because that despite being an ******* he has freedom of speech so they shouldn't fire him just for being an *******? Because one of those is reasonable, and the other would speak very poorly to your character as a human being. I assume you're referring to the latter rather than the former.

[Kirsten]

what said is that you cannot demand somebody be deported because they said something you don't like, that is unbelievably stupid and pathetic, what a bunch of childish tossers. you cannot rant and rave about your legal right to own a gun whilst demanding other people not have the their legal right to freedom of speech

[DarkLink]

So a third option, then? Even *******s have free speech, and gun owners are *******s:p?

It's actually a little more complex than that. For one thing, backlash for making an unfortunate comment, gun related or not, is pretty common, and often as not actually does violate our principles of free speech. Hypocrisy is far from limited to one particular group, and your use of labels becomes even less convincing when you paint them as psychos for ranting and raving. Secondly, he's a British citizen, right? Entry and exit from a country are controlled based on a wide range of very arbitrarily assigned rules that have little to do with individual rights.

Not that the deportation threat should be taken seriously, but you seem particularly vitriolic for a thread filled jokes up until you commented.

[Psychosplodge]

One, we don't want him back, you choose to take him, you keep him :p
Two, Which amendment is is most important the first or the second?

[Wildeybeast]

what said is that you cannot demand somebody be deported because they said something you don't like, that is unbelievably stupid and pathetic, what a bunch of childish tossers. you cannot rant and rave about your legal right to own a gun whilst demanding other people not have the their legal right to freedom of speech

Given the amount of times he has unnecessarily invaded the privacy of others in pursuit of a 'story' or just his own personal vendettas, I find it highly amusing to hear him whining about his rights being trampled all over just because he voiced an opinion. Two wrongs don't make a right, but those in glass houses and all that jazz....


Secondly, he's a British citizen, right? Entry and exit from a country are controlled based on a wide range of very arbitrarily assigned rules that have little to do with individual rights.

Don't remind us, definitely one of our worst export products!

[DarkLink]

Two, Which amendment is is most important the first or the second?

That's a bit of a loaded question, because fundamentally they're both rights from the same source, that is the freedom to act in your own interest. You can practice your religion, express your opinions, work together for a cause of your choice, and you can act in self defense (which necessitates owning the means to defend yourself, as demonstrated by mass murders as a matter of fact).

If you will, the first amendment is the rights you use every day. The second gives you the means to defend your other rights. Which is more important is kind of missing the point, both are vital. Though to be frank, if you have the second then the first comes naturally, so if I had to pick one it would be that, usually.

Anyways, if peirs' proposed gun control measures weren't the same ignorant, naive, and unfounded crap about 'assault weapons' (seriously, if you actually think 'assault weapons are in any way, shape, or form relevant to crime control, you're either ignorant, stupid, or both) instead of something that might actually do something (like cleaning up federal databases so mentally ill actually show up on the already mandatory background checks), I'd care more about his opinion. As a gun owner, I'm tired of people who don't know what they're talking about.

[Uncle Nutsy]

so I had a quick skim of this thread and I think it was enough to get the gist of it. I guess he said some things you people don't like.

okay. whatever. that's your bag. But the fact is, if these people don't like it, they need to get over themselves. It doesn't give them any right to submit a petition for a DEPORTATION.

There was once a time when people understood that. This really is some Grade A retard soup here. What's the world coming to these days?

[Mr Mystery]

Now, let us remind ourselves just what an odious little worm this man is.

During his time as Editor, the Daily Mirror (gutter press) ran a front page story on abuse of prisoners by the. British Army, a story they knew all along to be false and malicious, complete with staged photos. He is sacked/quits and becomes persona non grata, until he appears as a judge on a tedious talent show.

I think the only person quite as vile is Paul Burrell. To use a description from Viz, Paul Burrell shown slightly more trustworthy than actual trustworthiness of not very trustworthy.

[eldargal]

Definitely don't want him back.

But Kirsten is right, whether or not he should have expressed his opinion in a debate he was supposed to be hosting aside his right to express himself is protected by the First Amendment. So in effect they are trying to ignore the First to protect the Second, which is moronic on many levels.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Oh America, you so silly.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BF6j9-shQdE/TG16VEemmCI/AAAAAAAAAkM/S_lqKOwD7eU/s1600/40610_511449277023_263200405_443985_3502932_n.jpg

[Denzark]

Surely oh surely the right to bear arms, is supposed to be there to protect all the other freedoms of the constitution - such as freedom of speech... So therefore as an enabler it (2nd) is subordinate to or less important than, 1st. Or are we arguing that the NRA (4.3 million members - source wikipedia) represents 314 million americans - a ratio of less than 2% by my dodgy maths?

America - F*CK YEAH!

[Wildeybeast]

What I find curious is that this is even news. Apparently it's now hit 60,000 signatures. Out of 300 odd million. Not exactly many is it? The amusing thing is that it's only him being mean to gun owners which makes them want to deport him rather than than the fact that he is an odious, obnoxious, lying, manipulative toad. People sure have some interesting priorities.

Out of curiosity, this isn't a thing which can happen right? Surely America can't deport people simply because they don't like them right?

[DarkLink]

I think he has to break the law, normally. If the White House was really inclined, though, we can pretty much do what we want I think, not that they'll actually do anything. Not that anyone probably expects anything to actually happen, this is more of a statement than anything else.


@Denzark
That number is only active members, the people dedicated enough to donate a significant amount of money to the group. Saying the NRA only represents them is like saying that the Democrats only represent a few hundred thousand people because there are only a few hundred thousand that act as organizers for the party. Never mind that the Democrats get roughly 50% of the vote each election, give or take, or that the NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in US politics.

There is approximately one firearm per person in America (it's really hard to keep track of, though), slightly less than half of all households have a firearm in them, and about one in three adults own a firearm. Gun ownership, thanks to political threats to ban firearms over the last few years, is on the rise. Obama has sold more guns than anyone since Bill Clinton. More and more states are introducing Concealed Carry permits, to the point that there are only a few holdout states. That's why the NRA has so much political power.

[Denzark]

Darky I'll reckon you'll find those figures are pro rata per head of population. The reality is that some households have 8 firearms and some none. If I recall some figures I have read. Don't get me wrong - I don't have a dog in this fight and have been handling firearms since I was 8. But Piers Moron just exercised free speech and this vendetta against him is ironic seeing as the weapons are supposed to be borne under the constitution to stop the big bullying influences swamping the under dog.

[Wildeybeast]

Darky I'll reckon you'll find those figures are pro rata per head of population. The reality is that some households have 8 firearms and some none. If I recall some figures I have read. Don't get me wrong - I don't have a dog in this fight and have been handling firearms since I was 8. But Piers Moron just exercised free speech and this vendetta against him is ironic seeing as the weapons are supposed to be borne under the constitution to stop the big bullying influences swamping the under dog.

I thought they had guns to stop the King of England coming back and billing them for all that tea?

[DarkLink]

That's taken into account. That's what the "half of all households" thing means. Something like 45% of households in America have one or more firearms in them. One in three adults own one or more firearms. Some have multiple, some have none, but nothing changes the fact that a significant percentage of Americans own firearms, a significant percentage of Americans grew up with and are comfortable with firearms even if they don't own one, and that some gun manufacturers' businesses are booming to the extent that they have backorders for months or sometimes even a year or more. Not that that has anything to do with Piers, but those are the numbers.


I thought they had guns to stop the King of England coming back and billing them for all that tea?

In the Cold War, I guess Russia decided they would never, ever actually invade the USA because there were so many guns that it would make Afghanistan's rebels look like one big welcoming party.

[Denzark]

As a small digression but on the subject of billing... I read a letter in the telegraph that said when the act of Union was passed and Scotland was brought into the fold, the Bank of England paid some £300,000 to pay off their national debt. It has been suggested that should they become independent, they should pay it back - inflation has only made it into the hundreds of billions....

[Wildeybeast]

As a small digression but on the subject of billing... I read a letter in the telegraph that said when the act of Union was passed and Scotland was brought into the fold, the Bank of England paid some £300,000 to pay off their national debt. It has been suggested that should they become independent, they should pay it back - inflation has only made it into the hundreds of billions....

Since we all know they can't afford to, I think they should have to take Piers Morgan instead.

[Psychosplodge]

But only if the yanks deport him. Don't encourage it.

[Wildeybeast]

Oh no, I'd never encourage it. Perhaps they could send him to Afghanistan to 'entertain' the troops.

[Wolfshade]

Oh no, I'd never encourage it. Perhaps they could send him to Afghanistan to 'entertain' the troops.

Isn't that in contravention of the Gineva Convention?

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah what have they done wrong?

Maybe he could be put to a good use as A single use IED detection device

[Mr Mystery]

Hand him over to the Queen.

She probably kicks all sorts of arse!

[Denzark]

Yeah what have they done wrong?

Maybe he could be put to a good use as A single use IED detection device

I like... - just remember if he sets off a small one, there may be big enough parts left to set off other small ones - its just the user will have to work on manual rather than let the idiot do it himself.

[Psychosplodge]

Whatever works best to keep our troops safe...

[Wildeybeast]

Yeah what have they done wrong?

Maybe he could be put to a good use as A single use IED detection device

That was what I was implying. if I were a soldier I'd find that quite entertaining to watch.

[Psychosplodge]

Sorry I assumed you meant so they could give him a kicking for his previous actions, I just thought the media might twist that...

[Wildeybeast]

And they wouldn't twist using him as a human minesweeper? ;)

[Psychosplodge]

Not if he volunteered.

[Wildeybeast]

I'm sure he would be happy to take the King's Shilling.

[Psychosplodge]

Well he clearly is the public spirited type.

[eldargal]

There is now a petition to keep in America (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/keep-piers-morgan-usa/cbpHr9R2?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl), well away from British soil.

[Psychosplodge]

Do you have to be a US resident to sign it?

[eldargal]

Nope. Which leads me to suspect most of the pro-deportation supporters are actually Frenchmen hoping to inflict Morgan on us as revenge for Waterloo.

[Psychosplodge]

Sounds a reasonable assertion.

[Build]

As much as I dislike Piers, these videos had me in stitches.

http://www.upworthy.com/angry-gun-advocate-loses-it-live-on-cnn-in-the-most-bizarre-interview-ever?g=2

[DrLove42]

Uh....

God Bless America

Oh dear lord.

Dear Americans. Can you understnad why we take our views on your sometimes? This guy managed to make Piers Morgan look like the most intelligent, tolerant person in the room, which is not easy

[Psychosplodge]

So it's games, gays, anti-depressants and pirates apparently...

Oh gods he's a conspiracy nut job

[DrLove42]

And Bush ordered 9/11

[eldargal]

So in America one of Britains most ammoral, arrogant and despicable journalists is the very face of reasoned, intellectual debate. Just splendid.

[DrLove42]

As I said, you managed to make Piers Morgan the most intelligent and tolerant person in the room.

Thats takes some doing

[Build]

So in America one of Britains most ammoral, arrogant and despicable journalists is the very face of reasoned, intellectual debate. Just splendid.

This sums up my feelings nicely

EDIT: should make this clear, it's not aimed at what Eldargal said in terms of content, but the reality of the statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA

[eldargal]

As I said, you managed to make Piers Morgan the most intelligent and tolerant person in the room.

Thats takes some doing
I didn't see you reply, I was too busy watching the videos.:p

[DarkLink]

Dear Americans. Can you understnad why we take our views on your sometimes? This guy managed to make Piers Morgan look like the most intelligent, tolerant person in the room, which is not easy

Because I'm sure your radio hosts never do anything stupid either.

[Wildeybeast]

Because I'm sure your radio hosts never do anything stupid either.

Some of them (allegedly) molest children from time to time, does that count?

[Mr Mystery]

Because I'm sure your radio hosts never do anything stupid either.

Well. Apart from Jimmy Saville, who despite being quite dead is under suspicion of kiddy diddling.....not really no.

Though Chris Moyles did seem to think constantly talking about himself and playing tedious jingles made for excellent breakfast listening....

[Deadlift]

Because I'm sure your radio hosts never do anything stupid either.

Well there was that Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand fiasco that got blown out of all proportion. But I do genuinely believe that the BBC Radio Service is superior to anything I have heard on the airwaves on your side of the pond :).


Oh but do please listen to this, a very respectable BBC radio presenter getting his words jumbled and pronouncing the then culture secretary Jeremy Hunts name incorrectly live on air. The gaff is funny, but so is his inability to stop laughing afterwards. Seriously he was only saying what we all thought he was anyway.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YS5mVoqJpUk

[eldargal]

Because I'm sure your radio hosts never do anything stupid either.
They say stupid things all the time, but nothing on this level. Have you seen the videos? The mans level of stupidity is nothing short of awesome, literally. I am in awe of his stupidity and I am not being hyperbolic. I've never seen anything like it, it was like watching every stereotype of the idiot redneck American rolled into one and magnified. This man not only reached the depths of stupidity required to make Piers Morgan look like a rational intellectual, but he punched through those depths into hitherto uncharted realms of pure, pure idiocy.

[Uncle Nutsy]

As much as I dislike Piers, these videos had me in stitches.

http://www.upworthy.com/angry-gun-advocate-loses-it-live-on-cnn-in-the-most-bizarre-interview-ever?g=2

I just watched this and I sat there asking: where are these people coming from? why are they cobbling together so many unrelated pieces of information into their "positions"?

I think the biggest lynchpin (and the funniest part) was the "suicide mass murder pills".

[DarkLink]

Have you seen the videos?

No, but I'm not surprised. While various gun control advocates (including Morgan) routinely make me facepalm with their stunning lack of understanding and insight, there are more than a few gun people who do more harm than good.

[eldargal]

This chap blows any silly gun-control advocates out of the water, trust me. You should watch them, its very amusing in a tragic kind of way.

[Psychosplodge]

I'm surprised there's anyone left alive in the western world considering the adundent access to mass suicide pills and computer games...

[eldargal]

The suicide pills bit was very amusing, as was his faux British accent at the end. Sounded better than most comedians mocking RP all the same, so kudos.

[Psychosplodge]

Maybe he's practising for a comedy career incase the conspiracy whack job thing doesn't work out?

[DrLove42]

But Hitler took the guns! And it didn't stop Shark attacks according to FBI statistics....

[Psychosplodge]

If the FBI are compiling statistics like that I'd question their budget if I was a US tax payer...

[Build]

But Hitler took the guns! And it didn't stop Shark attacks according to FBI statistics....

Was this before or after the study in Hawaii killed 292 million people?

[Wildeybeast]

This chap blows any silly gun-control advocates out of the water, trust me. You should watch them, its very amusing in a tragic kind of way.

I liked the bit where the man from the country whose police are allowed to shoot people accused us of having a police state. I found that rather amusing.

A question for our American brethren, what sort of radio station is he on? Is it a big commercial one or is he some local community hack?

[DarkLink]

If the FBI are compiling statistics like that I'd question their budget if I was a US tax payer...

We have plenty of other reasons to complain about our government's budget. If any of you wonder why so much of America voted for Romney, Obama's (and Congress) utter inability to understand that spending more than you earn is not an economically viable solution to fiscal and economic woes is one of the main reasons. Who cares if we collapse economically, so long as we pour enough money down the drain into propping up failing banks and fundamentally flawed state benefit programs.

[Mr Mystery]

Or funding utterly pointless wars just to make a dumbass president look good to rednecks....

[DrLove42]

Hey look t that!

There was another school shooting in America. What a suprise

Oh and its was stopped by being rational human beings and talking, not arming every teacher in the building.

[Kyban]

I think this one was pretty different, just one student shooting one other. Still tragic but not the same type of thing.

[Wildeybeast]

We have plenty of other reasons to complain about our government's budget. If any of you wonder why so much of America voted for Romney, Obama's (and Congress) utter inability to understand that spending more than you earn is not an economically viable solution to fiscal and economic woes is one of the main reasons. Who cares if we collapse economically, so long as we pour enough money down the drain into propping up failing banks and fundamentally flawed state benefit programs.

You mean like this (http://www.theonion.com/video/in-the-know-should-the-government-stop-dumping-mon,14289/)?

I'm also amused by the Onions take (http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/) on the response to the pro-gun stance.

[DarkLink]

Yup, pretty much. And see the article I posted at the very bottom. The author at one point owned a gun shop, and had a sign with a picture of Obama that said #1 Salesman. Clinton and Obama have sold more guns than anyone, like, ever. And I like gorillas. I even have enough of a backyard to build a really big cage to fit a bunch of different gorillas in. Maybe I'm stretching the metaphor too far now. The gorilla article did fall into some logical fallacies, though, satire can only go so far.



There was another school shooting in America. What a suprise

What, you think because the media loves sentimentalization that school shootings are common or something? Oh, right, it's because we own more guns than anyone else. Since guns cause crime, we obviously have a lot more of it than, say, Syria (117th in the world, and since it's so low in ownership there obviously isn't much violence there). And we obviously have more crime than in Europe, even though England has significantly higher victimization rates than we do. And since Australia banned most firearms in, what, 1996, the gun laws obviouslyhad a significant effect (http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/455.abstract). And obviously where there aren't any guns, there aren't any dead schoolkids (http://news.ca.msn.com/world/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=255161963).



Oh and its was stopped by being rational human beings and talking, not arming every teacher in the building.

Yeah, because talking totally would have stopped sandy hook, or virginia tech, or columbine. That was sarcasm, by the way. The idea that you can talk that type of shooter out of, well, shooting is nonsensical to anyone who pays a little attention to history. This kid didn't come to school to kill a bunch of people, he came to scare off a couple of alleged bullies. He had a specific target, and the teacher was able to talk him out of harming anyone else. Very different from the far more dangerous active shooter scenario, where the shooter is generally looking to go out with a bang while getting revenge for perceived sleights and just wants to do as much damage as possible. After columbine, police started looking at ways to deal with active shooters, and found that the only way reliable to to actively provide resistance. Most shooters (and we're talking about the ones who actually try to kill people) will keep shooting up to the point where someone shoots back, at which point they either surrender or commit suicide. Whereas it had been police procedure to wait for backup and overwhelming force, but that only gave the shooter more time to shoot people who couldn't defend themselves. So now you don't wait, as soon as you've got a partner to watch your back you move to confront the shooter.

Oh, and guess what. Suck on this: http://tnsmartgirl.com/2013/01/06/school-shooting-in-tennessee-that-national-media-did-not-report/

I'm tired of people who don't know what they're talking about mouthing off. In fact, here's some more sarcasm for you. I'm glad that all the existing gun laws banning firearms on school campuses were so effective in stopping someone from walking a shotgun onto campus. Highly effective, and I'm glad that there's a massive clamor to ban guns on campus even though guns are already banned on campus, but obviously guns on campus aren't banned enough, so let's ban them some more because that will totally make a difference.

So, here. Educate yourself: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/, because this guy actually knows what he's talking about.


Edit: BTW, I'm not saying crazy radio guy is right. I'm saying that the reality of the situation doesn't fit into your narrow-minded preconceived notions nearly as cleanly as you're convinced they do.

[Gotthammer]

Dark, firstly, being Australian I should refer you to this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders). Notice how the difference in mass shootings either side of the Port Arthur shootings. We've had exactly one. And that resulted in more changes to gun laws and we've had zero since then.
As someone living with these laws I can say that, yes, they have had an effect and I, like most Australians, are glad we have them.

Secondly, saying "suck on this" when making a point can work, but when the point is "someone got shot to death possibly whilst planning to replicate a horrific massacre" jubilation makes it seem you're more intent on winning the argument than arguing your case.

Also:


and obviously where there aren't any guns, there aren't any dead schoolkids

From the article you linked:


China stabbing spree hurts 22 schoolchildren

A knife-wielding man injured 22 children and one adult...

A doctor at Guangshan's hospital of traditional Chinese medicine said that seven students had been admitted, but that none were seriously injured.


So, yeah...

[Kyban]

The problem is in America it is a lot harder to prevent guns making it in illegally and banning them probably won't be as effective as it is in other countries. While knives are much less dangerous, explosives are not and would be the next big concern if we even managed to cut down on instances of gun violence. America also has a much larger gun community and is covered under the bill of rights so gun laws are very questionable here.

[DarkLink]

Right, there's not only the questionable effectiveness of gun control, but there's the practical issues as well. There are already about 300 million firearms in America. How are you going to track down all of them? How are you going to convince gun owners to actually hand them over, considering that there are more gun owners in America than police officers, and that a huge percentage of aforementioned police officers (as well as military personnel are some of those gun owners. Are the police officers going to disarm themselves? Before or after they try disarming everyone else. Are the police going to kick down every door in every ghetto and try and search the premises for illegal firearms?

And of course there's the 2nd Amendment, along with several Supreme Court rulings backing it up. Citizens have an individual right to own, carry, and use firearms. Police cannot seize firearms from law abiding citizens. There are some strong limitations on how sweeping any firearm ban can be, after the Supreme Court found Washington DC's total handgun ban to be unconstitutional. And while political fever is high right now and Obama doesn't care much about citizen's rights or limits on executive power, a very, very large percentage of America backs up the NRA and openly politically opposes a lot of gun control laws that are getting tossed around.

Gun control is not effective. It is not practical. It is generally not Constitutional (and in America, we try to actually care about the rights of our citizens).


Dark, firstly, being Australian I should refer you to this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders). Notice how the difference in mass shootings either side of the Port Arthur shootings. We've had exactly one. And that resulted in more changes to gun laws and we've had zero since then.
As someone living with these laws I can say that, yes, they have had an effect and I, like most Australians, are glad we have them.

Mass shootings are the statistical equivalent of anecdotal evidence. They're pretty rare in the first place, and subject to being very random. There's little rhyme or reason, you just sometimes get a crazy person who wants to hurt people, and it's silly to think that you can do much to control or predict that (other than having a really good mental healthcare system). The point of the link was that the new gun control laws had no statistically significant effect on any crime rates. The only change that the study could determine was that fewer people committed suicide by firearm, though I saw from another source that overall suicide rates went up. I had an article on this just a few days ago, but I'm having trouble finding it.

Now, I'm not going to fall into the logical fallacy that some gun people do (and like the gun guy here probably did)and assume that, since there's been no decrease in crime, any increases in crime are because criminals are now preying on unarmed citizens and more guns would necessarily stop them. The point is, the laws didn't stop crime. They didn't decrease crime. They really didn't do anything at all, except make it really hard or impossible for law-abiding citizens to own firearms. In America, we had our own national Assault Weapons ban for a decade, 1994-2004, which did jack-all to the crime rates. Before it expired, Congress put together a committee to determine if our laws did anything, and they couldn't come to any conclusion other than that they didn't have any effect.

The whole point is, there's not even a correlation between how strict gun laws are and what the crime rates are, let alone a cause-effect relationship. There's no justification for most forms of gun control, such as an "assault weapons" ban, whether logical or legal, only raw irrational emotion triggered by tragedy.



Secondly, saying "suck on this" when making a point can work, but when the point is "someone got shot to death possibly whilst planning to replicate a horrific massacre" jubilation makes it seem you're more intent on winning the argument than arguing your case.

I said it because I'm pissed off. I'm tired of being part of a group constantly attacked as stupid, selfish, and detached from reality by people who don't know what they're talking about. The whole "conversation" about gun control laws is, just below the surface, all about how anyone with a gun is a nutcase, and we should ban all the guns. And in the meantime, there are a whole list of thing that can be done to reduce crime, and not just mass killings, yet they're completely ignored in favor of attacks, however subtle, on

Want to stop mass killings? We have a whole list of problems with how our mental healthcare system works. Fix that. Federal databases for background checks have some flaws that prevent some people from getting flagged when they take a background check to buy a gun. Fix that. Train teachers and school staff how to deal with active shooters, because right now that training is severely lacking. Fix that. Stop wasting time attacking law abiding citizens and the 2nd Amendment and start trying to deal with the actual frikin' problem.

Believe it or not, we want to solve the problem too. So stop attacking us and let's deal with how to actually address the problem.



Also:

From the article you linked:

So, yeah...

You kind of illustrated exactly the point I was trying to make. I was being sarcastic. Not sure how you could have missed the sarcasm, in fact.


Edit: btw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fI1oP1h8VA, and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting


Edit 2:
For a little more clarification on why this whole thing angers me, just an example, someone I knew posted on Facebook "You're not a Christian if you carry a gun". Now, off the top of my head, I have at least five friends, all of whom are strong Christians, in various branches of the military and/or various police forces. All of whom carry guns, all of whom are very good people who would never commit a violent crime, who are all responsible, caring, people who stand up for what's right. But apparently they're all actually bad people, because guns are bad. And these are just my high school and college friends. That's not counting various parents of friends in the police or who served in the military.

[DarkLink]

On a less politically charged note, I found this pretty funny: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/10/gun-advocates-celebrate-secret-obamacare-provision-forbidding-exec-order-to-regulate-guns-and-ammo/

Basically, Obama passes Obamacare, right. Now, Biden's talking about how Obama will bypass congress and use his executive powers to "do something" (hasn't really mentioned any details yet) about gun control. Except, under Obamacare, the law he himself pushed through, there's some random clause that prevents him from doing that something, whatever it is.

[Nabterayl]

On a less politically charged note, I found this pretty funny: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/10/gun-advocates-celebrate-secret-obamacare-provision-forbidding-exec-order-to-regulate-guns-and-ammo/

Basically, Obama passes Obamacare, right. Now, Biden's talking about how Obama will bypass congress and use his executive powers to "do something" (hasn't really mentioned any details yet) about gun control. Except, under Obamacare, the law he himself pushed through, there's some random clause that prevents him from doing that something, whatever it is.
... was that sarcasm? As the article itself notes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/10/gun-advocates-celebrate-secret-obamacare-provision-forbidding-exec-order-to-regulate-guns-and-ammo/3/), "unless you suspect that the President plans to put any newly proposed controls over firearms under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, I’m afraid you don’t really have much to celebrate."

I don't know what authority the vice president is thinking of when he talks about taking action by executive order, or whether the president is actually thinking of doing what the vice president says he's thinking of doing, but I doubt anybody is contemplating about using the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

EDIT: Didn't mean to be hostile, or to come off as politically charged, just ... you got the "random clause" bit wrong.

[DarkLink]

No, like I said that's just something I found funny. I read the whole article before I posted it, and I didn't miss the part you quoted. It's only indirectly relevant, I just found it amusing that that language popped up in Obama's signature law.

Anyway, here's the full quote from Biden (which, I don't know about you, but considering how laws are supposed to work in this country I find this kind of creepy regardless of what law is trying to be passed): "The President is going to act, there are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the Attorney General and all the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action, we believe is required," said Biden.

There's some more recent stuff: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/11/wonkbook-inside-bidens-gun-control-agenda/



There was one really stupid quote from that article. Some guy tweeted: " People say “gun control can’t stop mass shootings.” Except in every other country in the developed world." Except, of course, for all the mass killings (including shootings) that do happen in other developed nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers


This guy puts it really well, I think: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/17/guns-mass-killings-worldwide/1776191/. I've said it before, word for word, violence is cultural.

Edit: man, my font got all messed up with the copy/pastes.

[Nabterayl]

I don't think I agree with everything about that article - Neither Switzerland nor Israel have (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/) high rates of gun ownership as far as I know (though I know there's a popular perception that everybody in Switzerland owns a militia-issue assault rifle). But I do agree with it, and you, that mass shootings simply aren't a gun control issue, unless by "gun control" we mean spending the hundreds of billions of dollars it would take to make the United States a gun-free zone (just pulled that number out of the air; I wouldn't be shocked if it took trillions of dollars to do that, but I would be shocked if it took less than several hundred billion).

[Gotthammer]

Suicide is, sadly, a very common thing in Australia and has been rising over the past few years. The laws weren't to stop gun crime per se, but to remove weapons that are frankly unnecessary to our country. Farmers and hunters can still get their hands on rifles to hunt and clear feral animals, but crazies can't get weapons to mow down people in shopping centres - now if crazies do flip out they don;t have easy access to some of the most deadly tools to cause damage.

It's a completely different cultural attitude here on guns. Figures can be slightly misleading on gun ownership, as if I owned a deactivated antique I would be classed as a gun owner. Also if I wanted to own the collector's Megatron I'd need a firearms license! I've known people who've owned guns, being from the bush, but know no-one who owns one now. My point was less that you are wrong - I agree a similar scheme wouldn't work in the US for a whole raft of cultural, economic and practical reasons - but that because of those differences pointing to our example as a case that such laws are flawed isn't an accurate comparison.
Obviously it is a bit of specious reasoning ("Not a bear in sight, the bear patrol must be working"), but there is very little call here for the laws to be revoked and almost all gun violence is "crim on crim" here, with illegal weapons (which will always exist), or stolen weapons (mostly from security firms).


I wasn't attacking your position, as I said above I don't think Australian style gun control will work in the US (or is wanted like it is here), just trying to nudge you away from angry rhetoric as it becomes far to easy for people on both sides to become polarised and that helps no one (and is something I'm guilty of myself).


On the sarcasm - I got you were being sarcastic, but if you were being sarcastic about "no guns means no deaths in schools", that would mean you are saying that without guns there are still deaths - which the article you linked clearly said there weren't. So the article was either contradictory to your point if being sarcastic, or proving the point if interpreted literally - thus my confusion.

[eldargal]

I think part of the problem in America is that they think all gun control is equal. There is a world of difference between taking away semi-automatics which no one has any legitimate reason to own and taking away all firearms. We have strict gun control laws in Britain, a firearm homicide rate 1/4 of that in the US and you can still get regular guns and go hunting and all that sort of thing.

[Nabterayl]

There is a world of difference between taking away semi-automatics which no one has any legitimate reason to own
I've heard this before but not from people who actually know what a semi-automatic weapon is (which I guess I don't know you do, but I assume you would have picked up a reasonable amount of firearms knowledge in your general and/or reenactment geekery). I'm curious: what underlies this judgment?

In case it's relevant to your response, my personal [simplified] attitude is pro-gun, pro-regulation.

[eldargal]

Well I'm pro-gun too, as I said I own guns and shoot regularly. The issue with semi-automatics or 'assault weapons' is that no one really needs them. You can get semi-automatic rifles for hunting but you're supposed to take out most things with a single shot to the heart and lungs so it dies quickly with the minimum trauma. What semi-automatics do well is fire a lot of bullets rapidly with accuracy, making it ideal to kill lots of people. If you really think you need an semi-automatic for hunting you probably aren't a good hunter.

But again the key issue is that gun control is not all or nothing. If someone has a legitimate use for a semi-automaatic (I don't know, perhaps bear culling requires semi-automatics?) they should be able to get one. But the idea that some suburban redneck has a right to a locker full of semi-automatics just because he has a right to arms in general is insupportable as far as I'm concerned.


I've said it before, word for word, violence is cultural.
So, guns don't kill people, Americans kill people?:p

Edit: I phrased my point poorly, what I mean to say is that no one has a legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons (outside perhaps a few very specialised things like bear culls and then then I'm just speculating). Nor can the right to bear arms be conflated with the right to semi-automatics. One can have the right to bear arms without access to semi-automatic weapons.

[Deadlift]

"Guns dont kill people, rappers do" GLC

[Nabterayl]

I think a lot of the American schizophrenia around guns revolves around our cultural and legal notion that human beings have a natural right to use firearms in self-defense. Once you start talking about guns as weapons, and not just tools (that is, as tools to kill human beings as opposed to tools to kill animals) you eventually have to get square with what to do with guns that are good at firefights. I get the impression that most first-world nations simply disagree with America on this point - as far as I know, for instance, neither British law nor culture recognizes a natural right to use firearms in self-defense (yes?).

That said, I wish that American gun control was more sensible about self-defense. For instance, given a belief in the right to use firearms in self-defense, and a desire to decrease the use of guns in crimes, it seems quixotic to me that we are forever worrying about whether "assault weapons" should be banned instead of talking about how to [better] regulate handguns.

EDIT:

I think part of the problem in America is that they think all gun control is equal. There is a world of difference between taking away semi-automatics which no one has any legitimate reason to own and taking away all firearms. We have strict gun control laws in Britain, a firearm homicide rate 1/4 of that in the US and you can still get regular guns and go hunting and all that sort of thing.

I think this stems from the fact that America's gun culture is obsessed with gun ownership instead of the use and practice of arms. I know a lot of my countrymen who own guns, and precisely two of them fit my definition of a responsible weapon-owner. I think, if all you really care about is whether or not you can own a gun, you're already primed to see all issues in terms of "can has" and "cannot has."

[Psychosplodge]

I get the impression that most first-world nations simply disagree with America on this point - as far as I know, for instance, neither British law nor culture recognizes a natural right to use firearms in self-defense (yes?).

I believe we did, essentially that's where yours comes from the English law as it was in the late 17th century, then about 1921 it was tightened up in a fear of communism following the Russian revolution, and then further tightened up following Dunblane.
I don't know when we lost the similar rights to self defence in favour of "reasonable force", I suspect around 1997.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/630829eb52e5c8bc7b2ec96aebd4a6d0/tumblr_mf8oefUgfG1qewacoo1_500.png
3564

[Uncle Nutsy]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/630829eb52e5c8bc7b2ec96aebd4a6d0/tumblr_mf8oefUgfG1qewacoo1_500.png
3564

simple: we don't live in a culture of fear.

[Nabterayl]

simple: we don't live in a culture of fear.
I think your national dialogue also benefits from not having achieved nationhood through revolt. I am amazed at how many Americans continue to feel that their own representatives, elected with the benefit of 21st century communications technology, are equivalent to officials appointed by a government separated from them by the Atlantic Ocean and limited to 18th century communications technology.

But hey, a gubmint is a gubmint, right? Always gotta be ready to rebel!

[DarkLink]

While I do agree that the rhetoric can get a little overzealous, go over to CNN, or BBC, or any other major news site. Look at the international news. Look at how much of the world is oppressed. Look at how much of the world lives in fear, and I mean true fear where gangs and criminals and even corrupt government can, will, and do destroy lives on a regular basis. Look at the revolutions in the middle east. Look at Lybia.

If you can do that and still say, with a straight face, that we don't need to worry about defending ourselves ever, you're either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid.

I'm not going to need a firearm to defend myself against any government right now. In five years, I probably won't either. Odds are good I won't in ten years. But it's possible. And if I surrender my right and my family's and children's rights to defend themselves because I'm foolish enough to think that because I don't need it right now I never will, then it will be one more chain my kids will have to carry. Freedoms and rights aren't something you can throw away as soon as you've earned them. If my government tries to take away my freedom of speech, I will protest against it. If they try to take away my right to due process, I'll fight against that. If they try and pass laws that violate privacy, I'll fight against that. And if they try and take away my means to defend myself, I'll fight against that just as I would to defend any of my other rights.

And it's about more than just the government. In fact, it's far more about simple criminals. Read this: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

In America, there are approximately 3-4 million home invasions every year. Many of them occur when the home owners are present, and many of them lead to violence. The police won't help you. They can't. Response time in the best of cases is a couple of minutes, and it only takes a couple of seconds for a violent criminal to do serious harm. It happens. And that's just home invasions. There are plenty of other crimes happening all the time all over the place that hurt a lot of people. Doesn't matter if you live in America, or England, or Australia, the numbers might change a little bit but it is still a legitimate worry for millions of people. Just because you've decided to gamble that you'll never need to defend yourself doesn't mean that other people live in as safe of a neighborhood as you.

Just because you happen to live in a peaceful part of the world, doesn't mean your right to be able to defend yourselves is suddenly invalidated. You're just spoiled, and most people don't realize how incredibly lucky they are to grow up peacefully. And it's far from a guarantee.


Well I'm pro-gun too, as I said I own guns and shoot regularly. The issue with semi-automatics or 'assault weapons' is that no one really needs them. You can get semi-automatic rifles for hunting but you're supposed to take out most things with a single shot to the heart and lungs so it dies quickly with the minimum trauma. What semi-automatics do well is fire a lot of bullets rapidly with accuracy, making it ideal to kill lots of people. If you really think you need an semi-automatic for hunting you probably aren't a good hunter.

Hunting is far from the only legitimate use of firearms. There are also a whole range of shooting sports revolving around semi-auto guns, and on top of that simply shooting semi-autos is just plain fun. You can do anything from simple plinking to 3-gun competitions, and anything in between. And as uncomfortable as some people are with the fact, killing people in self defense is one of those legitimate uses.

Also, assault weapons is a bull**** term. So is 'military style' weapon. Both are intended to deceive an uninformed audience, or repeated by ignorant individuals, into thinking it refers to assault rifles or actual military weapons. It does not. It refers to nothing more than semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles firing low-power cartridges (yes, low power, as in not high-power). There are plenty of firearms that are semi-automatic (most guns are), magazine fed (again, most guns are), firing bigger and more deadly bullets. The average hunting rifle fires a much bigger bullet than an AR-15 does. In fact, in a lot of America it's illegal to hunt deer with AR-15s, because the bullet is too small to reliably and cleanly kill the deer (and believe it or not, clean and "humane" (for lack of a better term) kills are a big deal in the hunting community, as is environmental sustainability and other surprising issues). (Edit: See this, for reference: http://fishgame.com/deblog.php?p=683)

It's also important to point out that, aside from exceptionally rare events like mass shootings (which is about as rare, and about as difficult to prevent as, say, being killed by a lightning strike), 'assault weapons' aren't actually the figurative smoking gun in firearms crime. That's handguns, for the simple reason of concealability. You can't hide a rifle, 'assault' or no, in your back pocket. Handguns account for more than 90% of all gun crime. And, by the way, the Supreme Court already ruled handgun bans unconstitutional, so no luck there.



But again the key issue is that gun control is not all or nothing. If someone has a legitimate use for a semi-automaatic (I don't know, perhaps bear culling requires semi-automatics?) they should be able to get one. But the idea that some suburban redneck has a right to a locker full of semi-automatics just because he has a right to arms in general is insupportable as far as I'm concerned.

It's all about where you draw the line. But again, semi-automatic rifles are not the perpetrators you're making them out to be. Banning high capacity magazines isn't really an effective measure either. Reloading is easy. High capacity magazines buy you a couple seconds in a firefight, but for a criminal when no one's shooting back that doesn't matter, it's little more than a minor inconvenience. Especially considering the tendency of mass shooters to carry multiple firearms.

We already have about all the gun laws that will have any meaningful effect. The problem isn't the gun laws themselves, and we don't really need new gun laws. What we do need is a more effective means of implementing them, as in the aforementioned example of mentally ill individuals slipping through the cracks and passing background checks when they shouldn't.



So, guns don't kill people, Americans kill people?:p

:D
With unmanned drones, too.

http://www.greyghostgear.com/newsletter/november2012/Men_with_beards3.jpg


But in all seriousness, yes. In America, we have a lot of inner city crime. Gangs fighting gangs in ghettos, and the like. It jacks up our crime rates a lot. Live outside of those bad neighborhoods and America is actually much higher up on the rankings. The number of people who have been victims of a violent crime is actually significantly lower in America than in England. In England, about one in three people apparently have been victims of violent crime. In America, it's closer to one in five. So in England, criminals are less violent, but that crime is more distributed and more likely to affect your average citizen. In America, criminals are more violent, but that violence is more contained. I wish I could find the studies that addressed this that I got those numbers from. It's very difficult to find anything that is actually in-depth and insightful enough to say anything more than "America has more crime in general than Europe".

And look at the honor killings and the like in, say, India. Right now it's a really big deal, it's a massive problem that they're struggling to deal with. We don't have that problem in the West not because we have a law that says you can't do it, we don't have that problem because it has no cultural support. It's cultural. Any solution to their rape problem that fails to deal with the cultural issues involves is little more than a band-aid over a gushing wound. Same basic idea here, if we want to reduce violent crime we need to figure out why people commit violent crimes and dissuade them. Just making the crimes more illegal won't do much to stop the problem.

So why are some places so violent and others not? Access to weapons is one theory, but a quick look over commonly available statistics pretty quickly reveals a complete and utter lack of correlation of any sort in the broad scope. But a quick study of culture provides not only a solid theory for why some places are violent, but tracks very closely with the statistics. Look up Culture of Honor, which actually specifically address part of this.

This is part of my personal frustration. A lot of people, particularly in politics and the media, are so focused on demonizing high caliber rifles and other mostly irrelevant crap that they completely lose sight of what can be done to actually, genuinely address the problem, and they wield dead kids and tragedies like Sandy Hook as political weapons to do so, and on top of that they have the gall to claim to take the moral high ground while they do it too. It's disgraceful.



Edit: I phrased my point poorly, what I mean to say is that no one has a legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons (outside perhaps a few very specialised things like bear culls and then then I'm just speculating). Nor can the right to bear arms be conflated with the right to semi-automatics. One can have the right to bear arms without access to semi-automatic weapons.

http://media-cache-ec3.pinterest.com/upload/91831279873564850_VW1U3NuJ_b.jpg

You don't need to justify a need or want in a free society. You need to justify why you might take away that need or want. You don't need freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom of the press, or freedom to assemble, or the right to a trial by a jury of peers and due process, or access to birth control, or access to a doctor, or just about anything that modern society tries to provide. That's not the point, and if you start your line of thinking with "but you don't need X" you're going to be thinking in the wrong direction.

[Uncle Nutsy]

I think your national dialogue also benefits from not having achieved nationhood through revolt.

may not be an open revolt, but we had a good one with the americans in 1812.

They haven't gone after us and they've become our friends since.. but if they try anything like that again, they KNOW they're going to get a sound thrashing. :)

[Nabterayl]

Also, assault weapons is a bull**** term. So is 'military style' weapon. Both are intended to deceive an uninformed audience, or repeated by ignorant individuals, into thinking it refers to assault rifles or actual military weapons. It does not. It refers to nothing more than semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles firing low-power cartridges (yes, low power, as in not high-power). There are plenty of firearms that are semi-automatic (most guns are), magazine fed (again, most guns are), firing bigger and more deadly bullets. The average hunting rifle fires a much bigger bullet than an AR-15 does. In fact, in a lot of America it's illegal to hunt deer with AR-15s, because the bullet is too small to reliably and cleanly kill the deer (and believe it or not, clean and "humane" (for lack of a better term) kills are a big deal in the hunting community, as is environmental sustainability and other surprising issues). (Edit: See this, for reference: http://fishgame.com/deblog.php?p=683)

It's also important to point out that, aside from exceptionally rare events like mass shootings (which is about as rare, and about as difficult to prevent as, say, being killed by a lightning strike), 'assault weapons' aren't actually the figurative smoking gun in firearms crime. That's handguns, for the simple reason of concealability. You can't hide a rifle, 'assault' or no, in your back pocket. Handguns account for more than 90% of all gun crime. And, by the way, the Supreme Court already ruled handgun bans unconstitutional, so no luck there.
Certainly handgun bans are unconstitutional, but it bothers me that America spends so little time trying to regulate handguns - which are the weapons best suited to, and most used in, most gun crimes, and so much time worrying about "assault weapons" - a class of weapons that, if it describes anything, describes weapons better suited than handguns to the least controversial of all self-defense situations (the home invasion).


It's all about where you draw the line. But again, semi-automatic rifles are not the perpetrators you're making them out to be. Banning high capacity magazines isn't really an effective measure either. Reloading is easy. High capacity magazines buy you a couple seconds in a firefight, but for a criminal when no one's shooting back that doesn't matter, it's little more than a minor inconvenience. Especially considering the tendency of mass shooters to carry multiple firearms.
This is part of my frustration with the focus on "assault weapons" (a term I also detest; I prefer "home defense weapons"). A mass shooting scenario is essentially a turkey shoot; as I understand the tactics of a typical mass shooting, the actual weapon used is virtually irrelevant. To the extent the "assault weapon" classification describes gun functionality, it describes functionality that makes a gun [very marginally] better in a gunfight - and the existence of a gunfight means a gun crime gone horribly wrong; it means victims resisting unlawful aggression.


Nor can the right to bear arms be conflated with the right to semi-automatics. One can have the right to bear arms without access to semi-automatic weapons.
Well, no, it can't, but the right to bear arms in connection with a well-regulated militia certainly can. Mind, I think people who use the Second Amendment to justify their desire to own a weapon for self-defense are twisting the law, and I think the Second Amendment was founded on an incorrect premise even when it was written - but, if your primary reason to protect the right to bear arms is to promote a well-regulated militia, a ban on semi-automatics is pretty squarely incompatible with that particular right to bear arms. Similarly with a right to bear arms in self-defense. It would be bizarre in the extreme to tell people they have a right to bear arms in self-defense, but can't bear semi-automatics.

If you don't think a militia is desirable public policy, and don't think people should have a right to bear [fire]arms in self-defense, I can absolutely see banning semi-automatic and automatic weapons.


Same basic idea here, if we want to reduce violent crime we need to figure out why people commit violent crimes and dissuade them. Just making the crimes more illegal won't do much to stop the problem.

So why are some places so violent and others not? Access to weapons is one theory, but a quick look over commonly available statistics pretty quickly reveals a complete and utter lack of correlation of any sort in the broad scope. But a quick study of culture provides not only a solid theory for why some places are violent, but tracks very closely with the statistics. Look up Culture of Honor, which actually specifically address part of this.

This is part of my personal frustration. A lot of people, particularly in politics and the media, are so focused on demonizing high caliber rifles and other mostly irrelevant crap that they completely lose sight of what can be done to actually, genuinely address the problem, and they wield dead kids and tragedies like Sandy Hook as political weapons to do so, and on top of that they have the gall to claim to take the moral high ground while they do it too. It's disgraceful.
I'm with you 100% here. Among the problems we have, in my opinion, is that our gun culture sucks. And although I don't think that's a primary source of the problem, I do think there's more our gun laws could do to promote a better gun culture.


may not be an open revolt, but we had a good one with the americans in 1812.

They haven't gone after us and they've become our friends since.. but if they try anything like that again, they KNOW they're going to get a sound thrashing. :)
Wasn't that a draw (http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=340)? ;)

[eldargal]

I put 'assault weapons' in quotes for a reason, it is a silly term. Also I'm not 'making them out to be perpetrators', banning semi-automatics will help reduce fatal shootings but it isn't the only solution. It still doesn't change the fact that having lots of them lying around for not particular reason is a recipe for disaster. The fact remains that needs are different from uses. There are plenty of legitimate uses for semi-automatic weapons, they aren't the same as needs. Likewise there are plenty of legitimate uses for dynamite and high explosives but they are still controlled.


You don't need to justify a need or want in a free society. You need to justify why you might take away that need or want. You don't need freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom of the press, or freedom to assemble, or the right to a trial by a jury of peers and due process, or access to birth control, or access to a doctor, or just about anything that modern society tries to provide. That's not the point, and if you start your line of thinking with "but you don't need X" you're going to be thinking in the wrong direction.
This is silly. All those things have been justifed, we keep them because the alternative is worse as we can see today and throughout history in countries without these rights. The alternative to having semi-automatic weapons, on the other hand, is simply trivial. You might as well argue you have a right to landmines, clusterbombs and RPGs too. You need none of those and most people don't need semi-automatics.

[Nabterayl]

banning semi-automatics will help reduce fatal shootings but it isn't the only solution. It still doesn't change the fact that having lots of them lying around for not particular reason is a recipe for disaster.
I don't think I buy that. Why would replacing even every semi-automatic action with a bolt-, lever-, pump-, single-, or double-action significantly affect the number of gun deaths in a given area?

Having lots of guns lying around, or not lying around ... sure, I think that would have a non-trivial effect on gun deaths. But I don't see how a semi-automatic action is particularly relevant to any kind of gun death except where the victim is (i) in a gunfight or (ii) one of a large number of potential victims actively fleeing from the shooter, which don't exactly account for a large number of gun deaths.

[eldargal]

Because semi-automatics are much more efficient tools for killing than regular firearms. The bullets you can fire in a short space of time the more people you can kill before they have a chance to flee.

[Nabterayl]

I suppose that might be true in some cases. My understanding is that American gun crime deaths, at least, tend to come in ones and twos, and overwhelmingly come from handguns. I don't like shooting double action pistols any more than the next guy, but I'm not convinced I would find it much of a handicap to shooting one or two unarmed targets.

As for mass shootings ... not that I think those are effectively addressed by gun control, but I've always been curious: do the victims of mass shootings tend to flee? I imagine in most cases that is the smart thing to do, but is it what actual people tend to do? The impression I get of American mass shootings is that the dead were generally shot like fish in a barrel, in which case the only real limiting factor to the carnage would be how many rounds the shooter brought - virtually everything about the type of weapon used would be irrelevant. I don't actually know, though. Does anybody have actual data to share on that subject?

[Wildeybeast]

I suppose that might be true in some cases. My understanding is that American gun crime deaths, at least, tend to come in ones and twos, and overwhelmingly come from handguns. I don't like shooting double action pistols any more than the next guy, but I'm not convinced I would find it much of a handicap to shooting one or two unarmed targets.

As for mass shootings ... not that I think those are effectively addressed by gun control, but I've always been curious: do the victims of mass shootings tend to flee? I imagine in most cases that is the smart thing to do, but is it what actual people tend to do? The impression I get of American mass shootings is that the dead were generally shot like fish in a barrel, in which case the only real limiting factor to the carnage would be how many rounds the shooter brought - virtually everything about the type of weapon used would be irrelevant. I don't actually know, though. Does anybody have actual data to share on that subject?

Take the school setting; you are in your classroom teaching, you hear gun shots and most probably screaming. Do you attempt to evacuate your terrified students, not knowing how many gunmen are out there, where precisely they are in the school or who is shooting at who? Or do you hunker down, attempt to barricade your classroom, hide your students away from doors and windows as best you can, keep them quiet and pray to whatever god you think might be listening? Most classrooms only have one door in and out, if the gunman walks through that, fish in a barrel is exactly what you are. The only difference the type of gun makes is how quickly you can kill everyone in the room and move onto the next one.

As a tangent question, as there ever been a mass shooting in America committed by a woman?

[eldargal]

What Wildey said. Controlling or banning semi-automatics isn't a magic bullet (pardon the pun) that will end shootings, but it does help minimise the number of casualities in shootings and mass shootings if the experiences in numerous other countries are anything to go by. Britain and Australia to name two.

[Wildeybeast]

What Wildey said. Controlling or banning semi-automatics isn't a magic bullet (pardon the pun) that will end shootings, but it does help minimise the number of casualities in shootings and mass shootings if the experiences in numerous other countries are anything to go by. Britain and Australia to name two.

I agree with you EG. Since Dunblane and the ban on handguns, we've had no handgun based mass shootings. Gun murders committed by criminals still occur (though mostly with converted replicas) but the chances for a random pyscho to get hold of guns and go postal has drastically reduced. The problem America has is that there are so many guns already in public hands. Banning the sales of semi-automatics will stop that number increasing, but it's an 'after the horse has bolted' situation. What do they do about all the ones already out there? If they had a register of who owns guns like we do then they could address that, but I'm not sure they do.

[eldargal]

It's a mess for sure. A gun buy-back can help reduce the number of weapons out there and following that the police can seize any they find but they will still be out there.

[Nabterayl]

That's why I think reducing or quasi-eliminating private gun ownership would be a hundreds of billions, if not trillion-plus, dollar proposition. Some Americans believe that gun buybacks wouldn't work; I don't buy that. I just think it would be prohibitively expensive. I have multiple extended family who are the most facepalmy ignorant multiple gun owners (not actively dangerous, just right-wing ignorant), and I'm pretty sure even they would sell at the hundreds of thousands of dollars price point, I'm pretty sure. There are probably thousands of gun owners who wouldn't sell for the price of the national debt, but I think with enough money you could significantly reduce the number of privately held weapons.

But before you did that, you'd have to significantly rewrite the Second Amendment, which would be both a federal and state-by-state fight whose advertising spending would likely make our gay marriage spending fights look like tossing pennies into a wishing well. The Second Amendment will tolerate all sorts of restrictions on how and where you carry or store a gun, and how you can buy a gun, but an actual ban on semi-automatic weapons, or a "real" class of weapons, would almost certainly fail no matter who was on the Supreme Court. We don't even, strictly speaking, ban automatics over here (although they remain an almost imperceptible influence on our gun deaths, as one would expect).

That's one reason why DarkLink and I view "reducing the number of gun deaths in America" as primarily a cultural, rather than gun control, goal.

Wildey: Yes, apparently (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting). Not that they get reported on much. As Everybody Knows(TM), American school shooters are lonely white males with mental illnesses who play violent videogames and watch violent movies.

[Mr Mystery]

The right to bear arms? Fine.

Just make bullets, cartridges, rounds and so on prohibited.

[Wildeybeast]

Wildey: Yes, apparently (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting). Not that they get reported on much. As Everybody Knows(TM), American school shooters are lonely white males with mental illnesses who play violent videogames and watch violent movies.

I figured that would be the case.


The right to bear arms? Fine.

Just make bullets, cartridges, rounds and so on prohibited.

Could they give everyone swords? Or a mace or an axe or something. Then that would fulfil the category of having a weapon for self defence whilst vastly reducing the murder rate. Train kids in school how to use them, then everyone has the ability to defend themselves against criminals and the King of England. It would also be much harder to accidentally kill yourself or a family member with a sword. And swords are cooler.

[Fizzybubela]

I figured that would be the case.



Could they give everyone swords? Or a mace or an axe or something. Then that would fulfil the category of having a weapon for self defence whilst vastly reducing the murder rate. Train kids in school how to use them, then everyone has the ability to defend themselves against criminals and the King of England. It would also be much harder to accidentally kill yourself or a family member with a sword. And swords are cooler.
No! Hammers and axes are cooler!

[Wildeybeast]

Fine by me. You can have morningstars or quarterstaffs for all I care, as long as it is a hand to hand weapon and you are trained to use it properly.

[Nabterayl]

Could they give everyone swords? Or a mace or an axe or something. Then that would fulfil the category of having a weapon for self defence whilst vastly reducing the murder rate. Train kids in school how to use them, then everyone has the ability to defend themselves against criminals and the King of England. It would also be much harder to accidentally kill yourself or a family member with a sword. And swords are cooler.
Assuming that's a serious question (sometimes I can't tell when you're deploying the British sense of humor or not :P), the serious answer is no. To put on my lawyer hat ...

The Second Amendment does not, strictly speaking, enshrine a right to self defense. It enshrines the right to keep and bear arms of the sort in common use at the time in question. In the 21st century, that certainly includes firearms. American law is a little fuzzy on what kinds of weapons are not eligible for Second Amendment protection, but the Supreme Court has intimated before (although not stated outright) that the Second Amendment applies to weapons with "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The actual reason an American keeps or bears arms has recently been held to be irrelevant, so long as that reason is one that is lawful.

The right to self defense, in America, is considered a natural right - so it doesn't need to be explicitly granted (though it can be regulated) by an act of the sovereign, and cannot be taken away even by an act of the sovereign. So the Second Amendment is only about self defense insofar as it guarantees the [regulatable] right to keep and bear arms of the sort in common use at the time (which certainly, at this time, includes semi-automatic firearms) for lawful purposes, which self-defense happens to be (although the Second Amendment does not make it so).

Hence, replacing firearms with other weapons actually does violate the Second Amendment, unless those other weapons are themselves "modern." And since the towering majority of gun crimes are already committed with pretty much the least destructive "modern" weapons available, that makes no sense from a policy standpoint.


Train kids in school how to use them

... and you are trained to use it properly.
In my opinion, this is one area in which American gun regulation is totally nonsensical. We have a lot of laws regulating what type of person can own a gun - no felons, no mentally ill (though most mass shooters are not actually mentally ill (http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12858757-mass-murderers-often-not-mentally-ill-but-seeking-revenge-experts-say?lite)) - but very few laws regulating proficiency with a gun once owned. This makes no sense to me from a militia-, self-defense, reducing gun deaths-, or moral standpoint. I'm pretty sure that proficiency requirements would be totally permissible regulation under the Second Amendment. They wouldn't reduce gun deaths in the short term, but in the long term, I think they would help to make our gun culture more responsible. I think this video (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-myth-of-the-gun) does a good job of articulating the current American attitude towards guns: pick up a gun, and you're empowered. I think that if we could change that over the course of a few decades to "attain and maintain proficiency with a gun, and you're empowered," we'd see them misused less.

Certainly when I teach my daughter to shoot, she's getting taught that mere ownership of a weapon imposes a moral responsibility to learn to maintain and operate that weapon, and that if you aren't physically fit and learning to use that weapon to paralyze, vegetate, kill, or dismember (if applicable) a human being when your heart is racing, your mind is blank with terror, the lighting is poor, and the threats are unknown, then you aren't learning how to operate that weapon at all.

[Wildeybeast]

I was deploying the British sense of humour (or at least my own version), but thanks for the interesting response. So in the future when laser rifles or killbots are state of the art weaponry, your average American will be able to own them?

I'd agree that proper training in use of deadly weapons (and I include in that how to store them so your small children can't get hold of them) should be a mandatory part of owning a gun. You (as we do) require people to prove they are competent at driving before allowing them unsupervised access to a machine that can potentially kill people if not treated with proper respect, yet you don't for a machine which is designed to kill people. Is this something the pro-gun lobby would be against? To an outsider it seems like a good starting point of compromise between unfettered access and outright bans.

Edit: Two further questions. Could an American own/carry a sword if they wanted? And could I come over there on holiday and buy a gun or is it an Americans only thing?

[Nabterayl]

So in the future when laser rifles or killbots are state of the art weaponry, your average American will be able to own them?
In theory, yes. That said, it's quite possible that when those weapons are in common use but not yet humdrum, they'll be so heavily regulated that your average American won't. For an analogy, Americans (at least as a matter of federal law) can own automatic weapons right now, but automatics manufactured after 1986 are only salable to government actors. As the supply of transferable automatic weapons is thus fixed/declining, the market price is quite extraordinary. You can own an automatic weapon (unless your individual state says you can't, as mine does - a ban that I think would have a hard time surviving Supreme Court scrutiny, but as far as I know hasn't been challenged), but it's pretty hard to get your hands on one all the same. I wouldn't be surprised if laser rifles or killbots occupy a similar space.


I'd agree that proper training in use of deadly weapons (and I include in that how to store them so your small children can't get hold of them) should be a mandatory part of owning a gun. You (as we do) require people to prove they are competent at driving before allowing them unsupervised access to a machine that can potentially kill people if not treated with proper respect, yet you don't for a machine which is designed to kill people. Is this something the pro-gun lobby would be against? To an outsider it seems like a good starting point of compromise between unfettered access and outright bans.
Well ... some of our pro-gun lobby would be against it. I'm genuinely not sure how much. I certainly wouldn't.

Many of the Framers of our constitution were in love with the idea of a militia (that is, the notion of non-professional citizen soldiers equipped with privately owned weapons equal in capability to those of a contemporary professional army), because they were convinced that professional armies tend to be tools of oppression. Even Alexander Hamilton, one of our staunchest pro-central government Framers, said, "if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights." James Madison called a militia, "the best and most natural defense of a free country," and Elbridge Gerry even thought the purpose of a militia was "to prevent the establishment of a standing army" (emphasis mine).

Now, in my opinion, these statements are just historically incorrect. I'm appalled that as big a history nerd as Madison (who was so big a geek that he bored his fellow delegates at the Constitutional Convention about obscure Greek confederacies as object lessons in "real life" democracies) couldn't see that, especially having just lived through a war that thoroughly demonstrated the uselessness of militia against a modern professional army. The gap between militia and modern professional armies has only gaped wider since then, and I think the United States Army can justly point to itself as a counterexample to the notion that professional armies must always behave as deplorably as the Enlightenment thought they must.

Nevertheless, there is a portion of our gun lobby that is genuinely convinced that (i) an armed citizenry can resist oppression by a tyrannical domestic government or invading foreign enemy and (ii) the right to be so armed is an important part of what it means to be free. I am personally pretty convinced that, from a sociomilitarypolitical standpoint, they are simply mistaken, at least with respect to (i). But there are those who are so convinced, and it's not hard to see why, if you think a gun is a tool to resist government oppression, you would be mighty suspicious of any effort to reduce the citizenry's armament. What, after all, is the government afraid of? ::conspiracyeyes::

That portion of our gun lobby would probably resist legislated gun training, yeah - because they would see it as a sneaky way to reduce the citizenry's armament. But I'm not sure how big that portion of the pro-gun lobby is.


Edit: Two further questions. Could an American own/carry a sword if they wanted? And could I come over there on holiday and buy a gun or is it an Americans only thing?
Well, the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee Americans the right to keep and bear swords. In fact, it doesn't bear on swords at all, so American sword ownership and carry laws are strictly state and local. I haven't yet looked into sword laws in detail (my wife and I aren't planning on starting our daughter on longsword for a few years), but my unresearched understanding is that American sword laws are often a product of historical accident. For instance, here in California we ban automatic weapons but (I have heard) allow the open carrying of swords without even a permit; whereas in Texas, guns receive much more favorable treatment while swords are a big no-no. I expect that's mostly a product of which states have had horrible sword/knife crimes at politically sensitive moments more than anything else.

As for foreigners purchasing guns ... I don't know for sure but I expect so, assuming you were here long enough to get through the background check and waiting period.

[Mr Mystery]

No swords for Americans! Swords are for Nobles. America has no Nobles.

They can have Axes (note the spelling silly American types!) and hitty-sticks only!

I can have a sword. Being Scottish, and my family owning land, I am be default a Laird.

[Wildeybeast]

Nevertheless, there is a portion of our gun lobby that is genuinely convinced that (i) an armed citizenry can resist oppression by a tyrannical domestic government or invading foreign enemy and (ii) the right to be so armed is an important part of what it means to be free. I am personally pretty convinced that, from a sociomilitarypolitical standpoint, they are simply mistaken, at least with respect to (i). But there are those who are so convinced, and it's not hard to see why, if you think a gun is a tool to resist government oppression, you would be mighty suspicious of any effort to reduce the citizenry's armament. What, after all, is the government afraid of? ::conspiracyeyes::

Would those be the same elements that stockpile large amounts of weaponry in rural locations and get involved in stand-offs with law enforcement officials that don't end well for anyone?


No swords for Americans! Swords are for Nobles. America has no Nobles.

They can have Axes (note the spelling silly American types!) and hitty-sticks only!

I can have a sword. Being Scottish, and my family owning land, I am be default a Laird.

Good point, no swords for the colonial commoners. We should also probably keep long bows away from them lest they team up with the villainous French (again).

[Nabterayl]

Good point, no swords for the colonial commoners. We should also probably keep long bows away from them lest they team up with the villainous French (again).

Just as well. As I recall you had to legislate mandatory longbow ownership and training to maintain an effective archer corps. We Americans would never consent to government-mandated weapons training anyway.

[DarkLink]

I'm with you 100% here. Among the problems we have, in my opinion, is that our gun culture sucks. And although I don't think that's a primary source of the problem, I do think there's more our gun laws could do to promote a better gun culture.


Actually, our gun culture is really solid. Seriously, never violate any of the rules for safely handling a firearm at a shooting range, because someone will correct you and they probably won't be nice about it either. The gun culture almost universally takes firearms safety and responsible handling very seriously. Similarly, as I mentioned, hunters and the like tend to be much more conservation minded that the redneck stereotype would imply.

On the other hand, we have a few hundred million people who aren't part of that, but still have some access to firearms. In particular, poverty-stricken areas with gang cultures have access to plenty of cheap guns, but lack the cultural focus on responsibility and safety that the gun culture groups do. You end up with petty criminals, gang members, and the like committing a lot of crimes, and the presence of firearms means some of those crimes are shootings.


This is silly. All those things have been justifed, we keep them because the alternative is worse as we can see today and throughout history in countries without these rights. The alternative to having semi-automatic weapons, on the other hand, is simply trivial. You might as well argue you have a right to landmines, clusterbombs and RPGs too. You need none of those and most people don't need semi-automatics.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the foundations of free society. You and I, as individuals, are free to do whatever we want. We decide that, while freedom is really nice, we don't like criminals and the like, so we organize a government to provide police and military and laws and a justice system. We agree to give up certain things, but we have to be very careful about what we give up. The whole point of the government is to protect our freedoms, which are things we already have. Government is not there to hand us our rights, it's there to protect our rights.

We start from a position of complete freedom, and we carefully give away unimportant freedoms in favor of certain securities. Otherwise, we're little better than servants of a tyrannical government... oh, wait, you're British, maybe that's why you don't get this:p.

We start with all our freedoms, but we have to justify why we're going to take certain freedoms away. We agree to ban murder, because I don't feel like murdering people and I don't want people trying to murder me, and I think we can all agree with that, so no murder. Same thing with theft and assault and so on and so forth. We regulate bank loans so that we don't get the wall street equivalent of loan sharks (we could probably do a better job of this). We give up land mines because they're super dangerous and there's not really a whole lot to actually do with them.

But then we get to personal firearms, and we decide that the people need to retain reasonable access to them for the purposes of defense. It's a last resort against our own government becoming tyrannical, such as has happened to countless nations across the world throughout history. It gives us a defense of last resort against foreign militaries. It allows us a means to actually use the Castle Doctrine, that is the legal right to use force in self defense, seeing as it's literally impossible for the police to reliably stop violent criminals before they do irreparable harm. Yes, it's a last resort, and far from a guarantee at stopping criminals, but at least it gives citizens a chance. And along with all the various forms of self defense, there's a whole slew of sporting uses that we can take advantage of, for the fun of it.

You might not find any of that important. I do, and so does a very, very large percentage of America.

Point is, you start with freedoms and you have to justify government taking those freedoms away, and modern personal firearms is the logical place to draw the line while retaining access to the right to self defense. That necessitates retaining semi-automatic firearms, but does not require anything more than that so we heavily regulate full-auto firearms and bigger.


I don't like shooting double action pistols any more than the next guy, but I'm not convinced I would find it much of a handicap to shooting one or two unarmed targets.

In semi-automatic handguns, there's not much of a functional difference between single action and double action. Both fire once per pull of the trigger. The only difference is that in single actions, the hammer is cocked by racking the slide, while double actions **** the hammer when you pull the trigger leading to a slightly heavier trigger pull. A lot of pistols are actually both single and double action by design, to get the best of both worlds. In fact, about the only handgun that can't fire rapidly in one form or another would be single-shot pistols, or those little double-barrel derringer type guns, or something similar.

Really, handguns are kind of all-or-nothing. They're functionally similar enough that you either ban all of them or not bother banning any of them, and since banning handguns is a political and legal non-reality it's kind of a moot point.

So if you want to regulate handgun crime, you go back to the stuff I was talking about earlier. The current gun laws themselves cover what they need to generally, but there are related laws that are flawed like the federal background check databases leaving out many mentally ill individuals. Either way, we're no longer talking about gun control itself here.



As for mass shootings ... not that I think those are effectively addressed by gun control, but I've always been curious: do the victims of mass shootings tend to flee? I imagine in most cases that is the smart thing to do, but is it what actual people tend to do? The impression I get of American mass shootings is that the dead were generally shot like fish in a barrel, in which case the only real limiting factor to the carnage would be how many rounds the shooter brought - virtually everything about the type of weapon used would be irrelevant. I don't actually know, though. Does anybody have actual data to share on that subject?

It depends on where the shooting takes place. If it's somewhere like a theater with only one or two exits, the fleeing is the best option, and preferably you can trample the shooter on the way out or something. There's no safe way of dealing with a shooter in a situation like this, or a shooter in the middle of a crowd or something. For all the talk about how civilian shooters aren't trained to safely deal with this type of situation, frankly police training standards aren't up to this level either because there is no safe way of dealing with this. That's precisely why it's so dangerous.

If you're out in the open in a courtyard and someone starts shooting, getting to immediate cover and waiting for police to deal with the shooter, or fleeing the scene altogether, is best, but again it depends on if the shooter is in the open area itself and thus is mobile, or if they just have a rifle and are firing from a fixed position a distance away.

If you're in a school, with a shooter roaming the halls, it's better to hunker down and keep out of sight, and hope the shooter doesn't find you or you get the chance to ambush the shooter instead. This is where concealed carry firearms absolutely shine. The only person moving about is the shooter, and the shooter will be facing potential ambush around every corner, and the civilians don't have to worry about accidentally shooting someone because everyone is sitting tight and hiding. With a minimal amount of training, a teacher can defend their classroom with minimal risk, or even move to draw the shooter away from more populated parts of the school. And the police merely have to identify themselves, police are well trained in this anyways. So with a surprisingly small amount of training, you can go a long ways to mitigate active shooters in this sort of situation.


Take the school setting; you are in your classroom teaching, you hear gun shots and most probably screaming. Do you attempt to evacuate your terrified students, not knowing how many gunmen are out there, where precisely they are in the school or who is shooting at who? Or do you hunker down, attempt to barricade your classroom, hide your students away from doors and windows as best you can, keep them quiet and pray to whatever god you think might be listening? Most classrooms only have one door in and out, if the gunman walks through that, fish in a barrel is exactly what you are. The only difference the type of gun makes is how quickly you can kill everyone in the room and move onto the next one.

While classrooms individually are fish in a barrel, hundreds of students running through the halls means that the shooter doesn't even have to kick down the door. Nor does it force the shooter to waste time moving from classroom to classroom, which is valuable time for the police to respond and stop the shooter. It also forces the shooter into close quarters, which maximized the odds of a teacher or staff member getting the opportunity to confront and overpower the shooter.



As a tangent question, as there ever been a mass shooting in America committed by a woman?

Forget America, has there ever been one in the world?


It's a mess for sure. A gun buy-back can help reduce the number of weapons out there and following that the police can seize any they find but they will still be out there.

The problem with gun buy-back programs is that they don't buy back many of the at-risk guns. Criminals use firearms as tools of the trade, they're going to keep some around. Civilians buy guns to use them. Gun buy back programs tend to just end up with a lot of broken down used guns that were just sitting around in a closet not getting used in the first place. And it costs the government a lot of money, too. I haven't seen any statistics on the effects on crime, but I'm a little dubious of the efficacy based on what I do know.



Just make bullets, cartridges, rounds and so on prohibited.

You can believe that they've tried.



Could they give everyone swords? Or a mace or an axe or something. Then that would fulfil the category of having a weapon for self defence whilst vastly reducing the murder rate. Train kids in school how to use them, then everyone has the ability to defend themselves against criminals and the King of England. It would also be much harder to accidentally kill yourself or a family member with a sword. And swords are cooler.

By the time I got to middle school, we weren't even allowed to run on the playground, let alone play with swords. That would have been way more fun that dodgeball, though. Not that we were allowed to play dodgeball either, outside of PE.


You (as we do) require people to prove they are competent at driving before allowing them unsupervised access to a machine that can potentially kill people if not treated with proper respect, yet you don't for a machine which is designed to kill people. Is this something the pro-gun lobby would be against?

It's hit or miss, but I think a lot of people underestimate the purchasing requirements. You can't just go out and buy a gun off the shelf this instant as it is, and if you want a concealed carry licence or a hunting licence they require some additional measures. Part of the issue is that this is mainly covered by state law, so it varies a lot from place to place. Federal law mostly just requires a background check on all store purchases and regulates what gun stores can sell in the first place. States may or may not have additional restrictions.

As for pro-gun support, it depends on the measures. A lot of the licencing measures like what you describe are nothing more than an annoyance, while others are reasonable. If you're thinking of slapping a bunch of expensive taxes on purchases, then you're not going to make many friends, but if you're talking about training classes then believe it or not you'd only be stamping an official seal on what a lot of gun owners already do. Shooting ranges and gun stores already almost always offer various training courses, so it would be entirely reasonable to set a national standard and require a licences training course to accompany gun purchases.



Nevertheless, there is a portion of our gun lobby that is genuinely convinced that (i) an armed citizenry can resist oppression by a tyrannical domestic government or invading foreign enemy and (ii) the right to be so armed is an important part of what it means to be free. I am personally pretty convinced that, from a sociomilitarypolitical standpoint, they are simply mistaken, at least with respect to (i). But there are those who are so convinced, and it's not hard to see why, if you think a gun is a tool to resist government oppression, you would be mighty suspicious of any effort to reduce the citizenry's armament. What, after all, is the government afraid of? ::conspiracyeyes::

As to (i), look at afghanistan. A nation with a very small population and extremely meagre armaments has repelled every single invader, from Alexander to the USSR, at great cost to the invaders, with the sole exception of the USA, and even then it's probably cost the USA far more than the effort was worth. And that's just Afghanistan, which is roughly the size and population of Texas. Imagine trying to occupy the entire USA, a far far larger area with a lot of guns (and a lot more people who actually know how to shoot) and a lot more people. Suddenly, resisting foreign occupation, or even domestic occupation, doesn't seem so odd.

And I've already mentioned that a brief survey of history, or even just current events, gives countless examples of a regular need to resist both foreign and domestic oppression. Several of those events have involved the USA itself. Don't be so dismissive of the importance here, even if plenty of the people involved are one step shy of full blown conspiracy theorists.



That portion of our gun lobby would probably resist legislated gun training, yeah - because they would see it as a sneaky way to reduce the citizenry's armament. But I'm not sure how big that portion of the pro-gun lobby is.

Some, but not a lot. Like I said above, most shooting ranges already offer all sorts of training classes for a reasonable price. Making a national standard and requiring training would probably get widespread support from the commercial sector.



As for foreigners purchasing guns ... I don't know for sure but I expect so, assuming you were here long enough to get through the background check and waiting period.

I doubt it would work. For example, my family went to buy me a handgun for one of my birthdays in Reno, Nevada, a state with very loose gun laws. Turns out that particular model was illegal in California (because it had an 11 round magazine and California has that stupid 10 round limit), so they had to pick out a different model. Functionally the same, just a difference of one round. If Nevada won't sell across state lines like that, I seriously doubt they'd sell to a foreigner normally. You'd probably have to be living in the USA or something at the least.

[Nabterayl]

Actually, our gun culture is really solid. Seriously, never violate any of the rules for safely handling a firearm at a shooting range, because someone will correct you and they probably won't be nice about it either. The gun culture almost universally takes firearms safety and responsible handling very seriously. Similarly, as I mentioned, hunters and the like tend to be much more conservation minded that the redneck stereotype would imply.

On the other hand, we have a few hundred million people who aren't part of that, but still have some access to firearms. In particular, poverty-stricken areas with gang cultures have access to plenty of cheap guns, but lack the cultural focus on responsibility and safety that the gun culture groups do. You end up with petty criminals, gang members, and the like committing a lot of crimes, and the presence of firearms means some of those crimes are shootings.
I think we're using gun culture differently. I agree that those are positive aspects of the culture of many American gun owners. When I say "gun culture," though, I include the "few hundred million people who aren't part of that," who may not own guns but still have attitudes and opinions about them. As a people, taken as a whole, I think our gun culture sucks. And while I agree that many of our gun owners are responsible in terms of gun safety, I think most of our safe gun owners could still improve their philosophy about self defense. I know a lot of American gun owners who claim to want their guns for self defense, yet don't regularly practice CQB or even physical fitness. To me, that betrays a serious flaw in their "gun culture"/martial philosophy.

Maybe you do know people who practice with their weapons under the circumstances for which they claim to want them, in which case, I congratulate your sample for being better than mine :P For the sake of the nation, may my sample be the aberration.


In semi-automatic handguns, there's not much of a functional difference between single action and double action. Both fire once per pull of the trigger. The only difference is that in single actions, the hammer is cocked by racking the slide, while double actions **** the hammer when you pull the trigger leading to a slightly heavier trigger pull. A lot of pistols are actually both single and double action by design, to get the best of both worlds. In fact, about the only handgun that can't fire rapidly in one form or another would be single-shot pistols, or those little double-barrel derringer type guns, or something similar.
You may have stronger hands, or just be a better pistol shooter than I am, but I think there's a big difference, as a shooter, between a semi-automatic pistol (i.e., one in which the hammer is cocked or the gun otherwise made ready to fire by the energy of the last expended cartridge) and a real double-action pistol (i.e., one in which the hammer is cocked either by hand or by the energy of the trigger pull). Even so, I don't think I would find a double-action, or even single-action pistol particularly difficult to kill one or two people with assuming they were unarmed. My point was that, although there is a significant difference to the shooter between a semi-automatic handgun and a single- or double-action handgun, that difference would likely not be material to the kind of gun crime scenario in which handguns actually kill actual people.


It depends on where the shooting takes place. If it's somewhere like a theater with only one or two exits, the fleeing is the best option, and preferably you can trample the shooter on the way out or something. There's no safe way of dealing with a shooter in a situation like this, or a shooter in the middle of a crowd or something. For all the talk about how civilian shooters aren't trained to safely deal with this type of situation, frankly police training standards aren't up to this level either because there is no safe way of dealing with this. That's precisely why it's so dangerous.

If you're out in the open in a courtyard and someone starts shooting, getting to immediate cover and waiting for police to deal with the shooter, or fleeing the scene altogether, is best, but again it depends on if the shooter is in the open area itself and thus is mobile, or if they just have a rifle and are firing from a fixed position a distance away.

If you're in a school, with a shooter roaming the halls, it's better to hunker down and keep out of sight, and hope the shooter doesn't find you or you get the chance to ambush the shooter instead. This is where concealed carry firearms absolutely shine. The only person moving about is the shooter, and the shooter will be facing potential ambush around every corner, and the civilians don't have to worry about accidentally shooting someone because everyone is sitting tight and hiding. With a minimal amount of training, a teacher can defend their classroom with minimal risk, or even move to draw the shooter away from more populated parts of the school. And the police merely have to identify themselves, police are well trained in this anyways. So with a surprisingly small amount of training, you can go a long ways to mitigate active shooters in this sort of situation.
Yeah, I know all that ... but I'm still curious, as a citizen needing to inform my opinions about the issues of the day, whether real people actually tend to do the smart thing. For instance, I completely agree that if a person walks into a movie theatre and starts shooting people, the smart thing to do is to run, even if you have to run towards the shooter. But ... have real people in that situation tended to do that? I really don't know.


As to (i), look at afghanistan. A nation with a very small population and extremely meagre armaments has repelled every single invader, from Alexander to the USSR, at great cost to the invaders, with the sole exception of the USA, and even then it's probably cost the USA far more than the effort was worth. And that's just Afghanistan, which is roughly the size and population of Texas. Imagine trying to occupy the entire USA, a far far larger area with a lot of guns (and a lot more people who actually know how to shoot) and a lot more people. Suddenly, resisting foreign occupation, or even domestic occupation, doesn't seem so odd.

And I've already mentioned that a brief survey of history, or even just current events, gives countless examples of a regular need to resist both foreign and domestic oppression. Several of those events have involved the USA itself. Don't be so dismissive of the importance here, even if plenty of the people involved are one step shy of full blown conspiracy theorists.
Afghanistan is a fairly good example, I'll concede that. But I think you're giving militia too much credit. When else has a militia successfully defeated an opposing professional army without either turning itself into a professional army or receiving foreign aid? I can't really think of any. The Framers' notion that a good militia is a replacement for a militia is simply wrong-headed, and was demonstrably so even in the late 18th century.

I do think a good militia is nationally useful, mind, and I think we'd be better off as a country if we had one. If we wanted to pass laws with an aim to reviving the militia tradition in America, I'd certainly support that. But not on the grounds that it would be a material security against government oppression or foreign invasion.

[DarkLink]

I actually just remembered something that I had wanted to bring up. It's really hard to keep track of the number of times firearms are used in self defense each year, mainly because most of the time no shots are fired. The would be criminal starts acting up, someone shows that they're armed and wags a finger, and the criminals leave. It never gets reported to the police half the time. Obviously a difficult statistic to track.

There have been a couple of major studies tracking the use of firearms in self defense, with estimates ranging as high as 2.5 million defensive uses per year in America. Under the Clinton administration, the Dept. of Justice estimated there were about 1.5 million defensive uses per year. But, since the numbers are difficult to track, and people can't seem to agree on how to define defensive use of a firearm, I'd consider only the most conservative of estimates, and from a source with as little bias as possible.

Supposedly, according to the Brady Campaign against gun violence, the most openly vocal anti-gun group in the nation, who basically thinks that firearms of any sort are the work of the devil (as a figure of speech, they're not a religious group), firearms are used defensively about 800,000 times per year. Alternatively, a 1990's study by a university criminologist McDowall, the usage was about to 65,000 per year. So let's use that number as a conservative estimate. 65,000 defensive uses per year, give or take. (I think this includes merely scaring off criminal without actually shooting, as there are roughly a little under 1,000 police cases in which an attacker was shot and/or killed by someone acting in self defense each year, though I'd need to verify that).


In 2004, less than 10,000 violent crimes were committed with firearms of all types.


Now, I'm not going to claim that putting a gun in every person's hand will stop crime. That's a logical fallacy, as much as assuming that banning guns will stop violence. My point is, not only is there zero evidence to indicate that guns cause crime, or that banning guns will stop crime, but even by some of the most conservative estimates guns are used to scare off criminals by private citizens quite a bit more frequently than they are used to actually commit crime.



These were all numbers I found with a quick google search. Wikipedia backs them up. If anyone wants to argue with them, feel free to do a little research and contest them with more evidence. But as far as I can tell, the numbers are pretty firmly against gun control as an effective means of stopping violence. I've never heard an anti-gunner try and really argue, using actual statistics and real evidence, that gun control works. There's plenty of soapboxing and high-horsing and "but thing about the children"-ing, and I will fully admit that some pro-gunners are full of **** too*, but I simply cannot see how anyone can actually do a little research and objectively think that gun control works. Banning guns doesn't work. Banning high capacity magazines doesn't have any real effect. Banning 'assault weapons' does jack all. Banning handguns doesn't do anything. Banning guns that look scary is pointless. All it does is make people think, falsely, that they're magically safer.

*aside from some inflated statistics that I ignored, some pro-gunners will try and claim that because banning guns doesn't reduce crime, increasing firearms ownership will decrease it. I'm not saying if that's true or untrue, because there are no numbers as far as I know to either back up that claim or disprove it, but that line of thinking is a non-sequitur. It may be true, it may not be, but it doesn't matter, because the important thing is that it's easy to establish that gun control simply doesn't actually do much of anything, except tread on the 2nd Amendment and the millions of gun owners in America.




The other thing I wanted to point out was that, despite the doomsaying of sensationalist media, violent crime is steadily dropping, and has been for the last decade or two. America is a significantly safer place than it was in, say, the 70's. Mass shootings are not becoming more common. We're not on some sort of downhill track. Even the last few years of economic woes didn't lead to any increases in violent crimes, something that commonly happens in recessions. That's well worth keeping in mind.


I think we're using gun culture differently. I agree that those are positive aspects of the culture of many American gun owners. When I say "gun culture," though, I include the "few hundred million people who aren't part of that," who may not own guns but still have attitudes and opinions about them. As a people, taken as a whole, I think our gun culture sucks. And while I agree that many of our gun owners are responsible in terms of gun safety, I think most of our safe gun owners could still improve their philosophy about self defense. I know a lot of American gun owners who claim to want their guns for self defense, yet don't regularly practice CQB or even physical fitness. To me, that betrays a serious flaw in their "gun culture"/martial philosophy.

I think I phrased it poorly.

I think the majority of the people who would carry a firearm, or keep one in their home, for the main purpose of self defense, are almost certainly going to belong to the gun culture I'm referring to. There will be some other people with firearms, but they're not going to be carrying them around, and they don't keep them for the intent of self defense. So I think the our gun culture already does a pretty good job of covering the people who own firearms for self defense. I agree that training classes wouldn't hurt, so long as the training and licensing avoids certain pitfalls.

The culture I'm more concerned with is the criminal culture. Inner cities, urban decay, gangs, things like that. I mentioned it earlier, I've seen some statistics that imply that if it weren't for high inner city violence contained within poor communities and ghettos, America would actually be a safer place in terms of violent crime than a lot of Europe.

So basically, to curb violent crime it's not an issue with our gun culture or gun laws really, it's more of a poverty thing. So to solve gun crime, fix our welfare system.



You may have stronger hands, or just be a better pistol shooter than I am, but I think there's a big difference, as a shooter, between a semi-automatic pistol (i.e., one in which the hammer is cocked or the gun otherwise made ready to fire by the energy of the last expended cartridge) and a real double-action pistol (i.e., one in which the hammer is cocked either by hand or by the energy of the trigger pull). Even so, I don't think I would find a double-action, or even single-action pistol particularly difficult to kill one or two people with assuming they were unarmed. My point was that, although there is a significant difference to the shooter between a semi-automatic handgun and a single- or double-action handgun, that difference would likely not be material to the kind of gun crime scenario in which handguns actually kill actual people.

I don't think I've ever fired a double action only gun. Most pistols I've shot are all striker fired. But actually my point was just that, that in a shooting there's not that big of a difference between single and double action.



Yeah, I know all that ... but I'm still curious, as a citizen needing to inform my opinions about the issues of the day, whether real people actually tend to do the smart thing.

I don't know, really. I know at least in California we did a couple of safety drills over the course of my schooling for active shooter type events, along with the occasional fire drill. We'd lock the doors, close the shades, and sit on the floor out of sight with the lights off for a half hour. As far as the students are concerned, that's probably the correct response, the rest comes down to the teacher's training, and it sounds like this was what tends to happen. Teachers and students hunker down, while police and potentially staff try and stop the shooter. The real problem is, since the police tend to be at least a few minutes away, that gives the shooter a lot of time to play with. I know of several cases where a security guard or armed teacher was able to stop a shooter before anyone was hurt, though.

As for shootings in open areas, and for shootings in places like theaters or crowds, running for cover is the natural and correct response. I think the only real question is if there is someone in the right place at the right time with a calm mind who is able to engage and stop the shooter, and that's really a matter of luck. And Charles Whitman unfortunately did a good job of proving it doesn't take a semi-auto to do a lot of harm. Accuracy trumps rate of fire, if you will.



Afghanistan is a fairly good example, I'll concede that. But I think you're giving militia too much credit.

My point is, the presence of firearms allows for a defense of last resort. It's obviously best not to let it happen in the first place, but so long as the 2nd amendment is in place Americans have a fallback plan. It's the means to arm a citizen's militia that's at stake, and while it's obviously not needed right now, at least in America, I find it pretty hard to argue it's not something worth keeping. I find it good enough justification to retain the 2nd amendment, even without considering self defense against criminals. There are certainly some actual crazy gun nuts out there, but the general 'defend myself against tyranny' thing isn't as unreasonable as it initially sounds.

[DarkLink]

Incidentally, I was browsing TV Tropes and stumbled upon this quote:


The human mind does not like to accept the fact that large scale atrocities can be achieved by simple means. For example, there's no way the president of the United States could have possibly been killed by just a guy with a rifle on the the roof of a building—never mind that the President is still just...a guy...

It also happened to link to this article, completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but amusing nonetheless: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

[Nabterayl]

These were all numbers I found with a quick google search. Wikipedia backs them up. If anyone wants to argue with them, feel free to do a little research and contest them with more evidence. But as far as I can tell, the numbers are pretty firmly against gun control as an effective means of stopping violence. I've never heard an anti-gunner try and really argue, using actual statistics and real evidence, that gun control works. There's plenty of soapboxing and high-horsing and "but thing about the children"-ing, and I will fully admit that some pro-gunners are full of **** too*, but I simply cannot see how anyone can actually do a little research and objectively think that gun control works. Banning guns doesn't work. Banning high capacity magazines doesn't have any real effect. Banning 'assault weapons' does jack all. Banning handguns doesn't do anything. Banning guns that look scary is pointless. All it does is make people think, falsely, that they're magically safer.
Just in case it's not clear - agreed here.


So basically, to curb violent crime it's not an issue with our gun culture or gun laws really, it's more of a poverty thing. So to solve gun crime, fix our welfare system.
Also agreed here. The "I have a gun and therefore I can defend myself," or "I can shoot well at the range and therefore I can defend myself," or "I know how to safely keep a gun in my home and therefore I can defend myself" attitude is a pet peeve of mine, and one that (wrongly, I hope) I perceive a lot of Americans - gun owners and not - conveying. But for all that I think our society is in love with guns for the wrong reasons, I absolutely agree that the contribution of any defects in our national gun culture to gun deaths in the United States is dwarfed by the contribution of other defects in other aspects of our national culture.

[eldargal]

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the foundations of free society. You and I, as individuals, are free to do whatever we want. We decide that, while freedom is really nice, we don't like criminals and the like, so we organize a government to provide police and military and laws and a justice system. We agree to give up certain things, but we have to be very careful about what we give up. The whole point of the government is to protect our freedoms, which are things we already have. Government is not there to hand us our rights, it's there to protect our rights.
Actually you misunderstand. We never started with absolute freedom, that is a myth. There have always been constraints, from tribal law to modern constituional law to religious codes. It is this silly idea you Americans have that freedom is the default setting that leads you to **** up most of the places you try and spread freedom too.:p We have justified various freedoms by virtue of seeing what happens when they are taken away. Taking away freedom of speech and so forth result in demonstrably worse societies. In contrast banning semu-automatics result in fewer deaths in mass shootings and some fewer deaths in total.
Also no one is talking about removing your right to bear arms, the issue is why should extend to weapons designed to kill lots of people efficiently? IF it was really about protecting yourself fom the guvmint why aren't you allowed rocket propelled grenades and anti-air weapons? You get some but not others, there is no particular reason why you should be allowed semi-automatics if people decide they are sick of them being used in mass shootings.


As to (i), look at afghanistan. A nation with a very small population and extremely meagre armaments has repelled every single invader, from Alexander to the USSR, at great cost to the invaders, with the sole exception of the USA, and even then it's probably cost the USA far more than the effort was worth.
Actually the Islamic invasion of Afghanistan in the ninth century was successful, and Britain succeeded in annexing considerable areas of the country as part of the North-West Frontier Province (including much of the troublesom Pashtun area). In contrast the current US backed Afghan government has little control outside Kabul and while the rest of the country is occupied nominally in reality it is in the hands of warlords and a resurgent Taliban. The modern occupiation of Afghanistan was lost the moment the US refused to allow the restoration of the monarchy (popularly supported by the Loya Jirga (big council of tribal leaders and such) in favour of Hamid Karzai for president. Because he supported the US.

[DarkLink]

Literally speaking, we didn't start from position of freedom, yes. In fact in our case, your King was busy doing his oppressing and we got fed up with it:p. I'm speaking figuratively. The purpose of government in a free nation is to protect the rights of the people, not take them away. That's what I mean. Every time the government writes a law, it takes away some freedom from the people. Sometimes that's good, as in the case of laws against murder. Sometimes it can be good or bad depending on implementation such as regulating businesses. And sometimes it can be oppressive and unnecessary, such as laws violating freedom of speech and the press and that sort of thing.

In order to avoid said oppression, for the lack of a better term, the government must justify each new law to the people. There must be a reason for a law to exist, otherwise it's just pointless oppression. So if there's a reason to ban guns (e.g. gun control works) then fine, ban guns. Except gun control doesn't work. There is no reason for it, and it is not justifiable.



Just in case it's not clear - agreed here.

Yep.



A friend of mine also just posted this on facebook: http://www.assaultweapon.info/ It's mostly a retread of what's already been discussed, though put into a simple slideshow, but it does have a few salient points.

In particular, the slideshow points out that the ten round magazine limits doesn't do a whole lot of good. At columbine, the shooters had legal 10-round magazines. At virginia tech, most (or all?) of the magaziness used were just 10 rounds. It also emphasizes how common 'assault weapons' are in casual and competitive shooting sports, and how rarely they are used in crime, and how little difference there is between 'assault weapons' and everything else. In fact, according to the FBI, more people were killed by hammers than rifles of all types, let alone the small subset of rifles that get branded as 'assault weapons'.

[eldargal]

Actually you had all the freedoms before the war of independence that you had after.:p I do agree each law needs to be justified, but the justification for not allowing semi-automatic weapons is quite easy to make and, indeed, is happening right now.

Remember I'm not saying guns are bad or that banning certain guns will make the problem go away. But a variety of actions will help reduce gun crime over time. Banning semi-automatic weapons will reduce the casualties in mass shootings as evidenced by the experiences of various other countries.

Edit: Fun fact, the US President had more power and fewer checks on it in 1789 than the British monarch had, and the same applies today.

[Necron2.0]

They are not going to "ban" semi-automatic weapons. They probably will ban high-capacity magazines (they've done that off and on in the past) and they most likely will ban "assault rifles" (which I agree is a stupid idea), but semi-automatics? No. Anyone who thinks that will happen just doesn't fundamentally understand the people of the United States.

What you need to understand is we are not an homogenous people. We are actually fairly fractured and balkanized. I would remind people of Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians. Those folks were admittedly a few shades off from normal, but Americans still largely consider the government to be the bad guys in those confrontations. Now, put those raids on a national scale and you have what one of my friends used to call a "chocolate mess."

[Nabterayl]

Also no one is talking about removing your right to bear arms, the issue is why should extend to weapons designed to kill lots of people efficiently? IF it was really about protecting yourself fom the guvmint why aren't you allowed rocket propelled grenades and anti-air weapons?
We are. It's not particularly easy to find someone to sell you one, and some would say that the regulations place too much power in the hands of local law enforcement, but federal law doesn't ban the ownership of real military-style weapons. Such weapons (and in some cases, individual parts and/or rounds of ammunition as well as - or even instead of - the launching platform itself) are simply very heavily regulated as "destructive devices."

There are a few Americans who want to have a real militia, with all the time commitment and panoply of war that requires in the modern era, and act accordingly. Federal law allows that, and if state law doesn't, they're free to move to a state whose law does. But the truth is that most Americans - even most American gun owners - don't want to prepare to resist the government through force of arms. If they did, the mix of guns we have in private hands would look very different. The most common reason given by American gun owners as to why they want to own a gun is self-defense, and most American gun owners purchase accordingly. The Second Amendment is not about that, but it does have a tangential relationship to it, and that's the only reason most American gun owners care about it.

[eldargal]

Heavily regulated isn't teh same as allowed.:p

[Nabterayl]

Heavily regulated isn't teh same as allowed.:p
I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but in case you are ... sure it is. At least in this context. If you don't want to allow something ("you" in this case being the people of the United States), you ban it. If you do want to allow it, you don't ban it, and place on it however many regulations as you think concomitant with the public safety and the use for which you wish to allow it. That's what "allowed" always means. Americans have made the policy judgment that automatic weapons and other modern military hardware are desirable in private hands for pretty much only one purpose, which is justifiable rebellion. That being the extremely narrow use that it is, of course the regulations are heavy.

[eldargal]

I'm serious, not just expressing myself particularly well. I mean in the context of how freely available semi-automatic weapons are. The momsnt you start to regulate access to something you are restricting who is allowed to have it. But you're basically arguing in support of my claim that controlling semi-automatic weapons is not incompatible with the right to bear arms.

In fact my whole argument is this: Controlling certain types of firearm in order to reduce gun crime to some extent is not incompatible with the right to bear arms. But controlling certain types of firearm should not be thought of as some sort of magic cure for gun crime in the US.

[Nabterayl]

But you're basically arguing in support of my claim that controlling semi-automatic weapons is not incompatible with the right to bear arms.
Well of course it isn't. Only the legally ignorant or willfully stupid think otherwise. Even DarkLink, you'll notice, is not arguing that controlling semi-automatic weapons isn't incompatible with the right to bear arms. He doesn't seem to feel that our existing controls can or should be improved; I [probably] differ with him in that I think they can and should be improved (though not necessarily made more numerous). Even before independence, the colonies were rife with gun control laws as to who could own guns, how you could store guns, where and under what circumstances you could carry guns, and so forth. We have always understood the right to bear arms as less than absolute.

There's a big difference, though, between controlling arms and banning them (a difference some of our gun owners, incredibly, are apparently unable to perceive :P). Banning semi-automatic firearms is incompatible with the right to bear arms, at least with respect to the American right to bear arms. As a matter of philosophy ... depends on what you mean by the right to bear arms. If you mean the right to bear weapons of any kind, then no, of course you can "bear arms" even if semi-automatic firearms are excluded. But that's not what the American right to bear arms is.

EDIT:
In fact my whole argument is this: Controlling certain types of firearm in order to reduce gun crime to some extent is not incompatible with the right to bear arms. But controlling certain types of firearm should not be thought of as some sort of magic cure for gun crime in the US.
On both these statements (if not necessarily what those controls should be), I think you, DarkLink, and I are all in agreement.

[DrLove42]

If you mean the right to bear weapons of any kind, then no, of course you can "bear arms" even if semi-automatic firearms are excluded. But that's not what the American right to bear arms is.

When the 2nd ammendment was written, all that was available was single shot rifles and very basic pistols. If those were good enough for the people who wrote the damn law, why aren't they enough for you now?

I'd understand it if the ammendement was "right to bear arms" but "right to own an armoury big enough to level a small town"

[eldargal]

That is a legitimate point, as is the fact that the right to bear arms was intended to allow the US to exist without a standing army. A standing army being a tool of despots in the eyes of the founding fathers (and the British too...). It was supposed to be one or the other not both. The argument could be made that by allowings its government to possess such a large standing army the US citizenry is tacitly ceding it's right to bear arms.

Put the wind up all the nutters opposed to the US guvmint cutting its bloated defense budget.:rolleyes:

On another subject, I know there is a popular misconception in the US that British law does not allow people to defend themselves in their own home, this is incorrect. There is a decent summation of our self defense laws here (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/selfdefence--the-law-now-and-how-it-might-change-8204321.html). Basically we can use 'reasonable force' to defend ourselves in our homes. This includes firearms. Since 1995 there have been only eleven prosecutions of people for using disproportionate force against intruders.

[Psychosplodge]

There's been considerably more that have spent a night in a cell while they're deciding on reasonable force though...

[Wolfshade]

The Coalition were pressing for a slight change in wording to the law so that the determination of "reasonable-ness" would be more straight forward and that it would require a massively disproportionate response to stop it for occuring, though I am not sure exactly how far that got.

c.f. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20942890

Interestingly, in UK gun law is that the firearm is confiscated (and any other firearms) before any determination of guilt or innocence is made. I sometimes wonder if this sort of thing should be done elsewhere with cars for instance...

[eldargal]

There's been considerably more that have spent a night in a cell while they're deciding on reasonable force though...
True, and I'm not opposed to changes in the law which help support the householder a bit more than they do at present. I was just pointing out that we aren't all sitting helpless in our homes at the mercy of any burglar that walks in as some 'mericans seem to believe.:)

[Wolfshade]

True, and I'm not opposed to changes in the law which help support the householder a bit more than they do at present. I was just pointing out that we aren't all sitting helpless in our homes at the mercy of any burglar that walks in as some 'mericans seem to believe.:)

Well certainly, we all have moats which do help...

[Nabterayl]

When the 2nd ammendment was written, all that was available was single shot rifles and very basic pistols. If those were good enough for the people who wrote the damn law, why aren't they enough for you now?
As EG says, it was intended to allow the private citizen to be armed as well as a professional soldier - the idea being that if the general populace was sufficiently well armed, there would be no need to have a standing army because you would be able to assemble a short-term ad-hoc army on short enough notice to meet any threat. Thus, private citizens were allowed to (and in some cases required to) buy military-style small arms (as I'm sure you know, there was considerable variety in the field of "single shot rifles and very basic pistols" in the late 18th century), cavalry equipment, and field artillery (though for economic reasons, in general only wealthy citizens or communities tended to own the latter two). A militia, according to 18th century thought, was supposed to be as well equipped as a contemporary professional army.

That's why 18th century style armaments are not adequate substitutes for 21st century armaments under the Second Amendment - in fact, because 18th-century armaments are not remotely of the sort a contemporary professional army uses, it's highly doubtful the Second Amendment guarantees an American's right to bear such arms at all (not that such ownership isn't usually allowed under other laws).

If anything, compared to a contemporary professional army, 21st century America is less well equipped than 18th century America. In the 18th century American militia at least had more or less the same kit as a contemporary professional army. They still generally got their ***** whooped, because, you know, turns out the kit is not the real core of soldiering. Royal Army wasnt the best in the world because it had the baddest guns :P But in the 21st century most Americans lack both the kit and the training of a contemporary professional army.

[Psychosplodge]

True, and I'm not opposed to changes in the law which help support the householder a bit more than they do at present. I was just pointing out that we aren't all sitting helpless in our homes at the mercy of any burglar that walks in as some 'mericans seem to believe.:)

Still wrongly gets you on the DNA database...


Well certainly, we all have moats which do help...

True, plays havoc getting the car out when the drawbridge is playing up though, especially in the cold weather...


As EG says, it was intended to allow the private citizen to be armed as well as a professional soldier - the idea being that if the general populace was sufficiently well armed, there would be no need to have a standing army because you would be able to assemble a short-term ad-hoc army on short enough notice to meet any threat. Thus, private citizens were allowed to (and in some cases required to) buy military-style small arms (as I'm sure you know, there was considerable variety in the field of "single shot rifles and very basic pistols" in the late 18th century), cavalry equipment, and field artillery (though for economic reasons, in general only wealthy citizens or communities tended to own the latter two). A militia, according to 18th century thought, was supposed to be as well equipped as a contemporary professional army.

That's why 18th century style armaments are not adequate substitutes for 21st century armaments under the Second Amendment - in fact, because 18th-century armaments are not remotely of the sort a contemporary professional army uses, it's highly doubtful the Second Amendment guarantees an American's right to bear such arms at all (not that such ownership isn't usually allowed under other laws). If anything, compared to a contemporary professional army, 21st century America is less well equipped than 18th century America.

So can you theoretically buy a working tank? not deactivated surplus?
or a minigun?

[Nabterayl]

So can you theoretically buy a working tank? not deactivated surplus?
or a minigun?
Theoretically, yes. You'd have one hell of a time getting it licensed (and I'm pretty sure each individual cannon shell would require its own license), but it is theoretically possible (that is, not banned outright).

[Psychosplodge]

That is kinda awesome...

[DrLove42]

Physcho, you can buy old tanks in this country, i know a friend bought a T34 from Russia and uses it for stag dos and stuff, and it only set him back around 34k (this was a few years back)

And i dont know if its rrue, but i heard that the UK doesnt have a tank liscence, so to own a working, non deactivated tank, you needed a shotgun liscense. Dont know if thats true though.

In terms of matching US military for the ammendment, why arent people stocking up on Stinger missiles and Javelins instead of handguns then? If its there to match the army then what use is a hunting shotgun?

[Psychosplodge]

No the tanks you can buy in this country have the firing block removed, you can't fire shells through them, the shotgun licence is required if it has smoke-launchers still on it.
You need I think class h on your driving licence, if you're lucky enough to have the old paper licence you can drive them with L plates on and nothing more, us poor sods that only ever had photocard licences aren't that lucky.
Anchor at Ripley occasionally used to have them for sale...

[eldargal]

Theoretically, yes. You'd have one hell of a time getting it licensed (and I'm pretty sure each individual cannon shell would require its own license), but it is theoretically possible (that is, not banned outright).

I approve of this approach. Nothing wrong with heavily, heavily regulating and controlling things like that but still having them available to a deserving few. Like me.;)

[imperialpower]

The UK Shotgun licence allowes you to own smoothbore weapons so an older tank without a rifeled barrel and you can also get an explosives licence for those of us who like to use flintlock pistols and black powder revolvers so if I got caught trying to shoot down pheasants with a tank I would argue it was legal.:)

[Psychosplodge]

They generally decommission/deactivate the gun before selling the tank though, however I remember a case being in papers where the owners were charged for firearms offences for the smoke launchers...

[Wildeybeast]

Just as well. As I recall you had to legislate mandatory longbow ownership and training to maintain an effective archer corps. We Americans would never consent to government-mandated weapons training anyway.

Damn straight. Our archers were the only thing keeping the French in their place. There are still border regions of the country which have unrepealed laws permitting the shooting of Welsh and Scottish types.


True, and I'm not opposed to changes in the law which help support the householder a bit more than they do at present. I was just pointing out that we aren't all sitting helpless in our homes at the mercy of any burglar that walks in as some 'mericans seem to believe.:)

Householders are perfectly well supported by the law at the moment. Any convictions which occur are because they used unreasonable force. There was a case a couple of years back where a farmer was convicted for shooting intruders. He claimed self defence, turns out he had shot them in the back as they were running away from his property. You can't As for spending a night in the cells Psycho, the police are duty bound to investigate any situation where there are grounds to suspect a crime may have been committed. They can't simply take someone's word for it (as the case above shows). I for one would be very worried if they weren't at least detaining for questioning people who have used violence against another. As for the DNA database, I thought the law had changed that you got removed now if you weren't charged with anything?

[DarkLink]

I do agree each law needs to be justified, but the justification for not allowing semi-automatic weapons is quite easy to make and, indeed, is happening right now.

Remember I'm not saying guns are bad or that banning certain guns will make the problem go away. But a variety of actions will help reduce gun crime over time. Banning semi-automatic weapons will reduce the casualties in mass shootings as evidenced by the experiences of various other countries.


Ok, let's back up for a second. The justification for a gun control law pretty much exclusively falls under the "it stops or reduces crime". We can agree on that? If a gun law doesn't stop crime, there's no real point to that law because the whole reason for the law to exist is to reduce gun crime as much as possible.

So have you been ignoring all the stuff I've quoted that points out that the types of gun laws that Obama is considering has been well established to have no real effect on gun crime? Ergo, the justification does not exist, and thus should not be law.

Combine the ineffectiveness of that type of gun ban with the constitutionality issue, and the whole avenue of banning certain types of currently legal firearms is pretty much a dead end. Obama might or might not be able to force it through congress, but if history is evidence it will cost the Democrats a lot politically. And considering how polarized our politics are right now, adding another even more polarizing issue to the agenda is an idiotic political move. Right now as a nation we need a president who can re-unite the nation, mend our budget problems, and fix our economy. Obama has done a questionable job with the economy, has utterly failed to do anything other than barely avoid crashing on the budget issue, and has managed to only increase the political gridlock and divisions in popular opinion further on multiple issues. No wonder I didn't vote for him.



Heavily regulated isn't teh same as allowed.:p

Whatever we're doing to heavily regulate automatic firearms is working really well. Since 1936 (when the first major regulations on fully automatic firearms came out), there's been a grand total of one single shooting committed with an actual, legally owned automatic, and it was committed by a police officer. In places like Maimi, drug cartels sometimes bring in some AKs and the like from overseas, but there's nothing to be done about that, not when you can fly over to Africa and pick up an old soviet AK-47 for $20 and then smuggle it in to America along with the drugs.




Even DarkLink, you'll notice, is not arguing that controlling semi-automatic weapons isn't incompatible with the right to bear arms. He doesn't seem to feel that our existing controls can or should be improved; I [probably] differ with him in that I think they can and should be improved (though not necessarily made more numerous).

It depends on the law. Since law should be result-driving, there are plenty of laws that can be cleaned up, some that can be removed, and some added. It's just that instead of having an actual discussion to that effect, liberals here are all "RABBLERABBLERABBLEBANALLTHEASSAULTDEATHMURDERMACHI NESRABBLERABBLETHINKOFTHECHILDREN". It's not very productive. And if you look at polls asking current gun owners of their political opinions, it quickly becomes apparent that if liberals dropped the whole 'assault weapon' ban bull****, and actually listened to gun owners, there's plenty of stuff that can be agreed on. Except, they're not currently willing to have a genuine and honest discussion, and so gun owners just side with the NRA and return the favor.



EDIT:
On both these statements (if not necessarily what those controls should be), I think you, DarkLink, and I are all in agreement.

Yeah, I think the only thing I fundamentally disagree with Eldargal on is how reasonable it is to ban semi-autos. Banning semi-auto rifles is pretty much utterly pointless, if you take a quick look at the statistics. They're used for very few crimes, and are extremely widely used for a huge range of legitimate sporting purposes. If you want a more productive approach, ban all sports cars to keep people from speeding too much. That will be just as silly, but probably more effective.

If you tried banning handguns, then at least you claim with a straight face that you were genuinely trying to prevent crime instead of pursing an arbitrary political agenda, but even then the efficacy is just as questionable and it's legally unfeasible. And if you can't make a handgun ban work, then just give up on banning all semi-autos.

On the other hand, if you required a training class to obtain a firearms licence so long as it was widely available and reasonably priced, and cleaned up the background check system, you might actually do something to address the problem, and it would actually be reasonable to law abiding citizens rather than arbitrarily punishing.


When the 2nd ammendment was written, all that was available was single shot rifles and very basic pistols. If those were good enough for the people who wrote the damn law, why aren't they enough for you now?

I'd understand it if the ammendement was "right to bear arms" but "right to own an armoury big enough to level a small town"

Single shot muzzle loading firearms were cutting edge at the time. Extend that logic, and you could easily argue that any fully automatic weapon that can be carried by an individual would be reasonable to own. And guess where the revolutionaries got cannons and other heavy artillery of the time to fight with? Like Nab said, it wasn't from British armories. We're a lot more relaxed on the issue than the founding fathers, at least from that perspective.



So can you theoretically buy a working tank? not deactivated surplus?
or a minigun?

And grenade launchers. They're just obscenely expensive and require you to jump through hoops for licencing, taxes, and registration.

[Nabterayl]

In terms of matching US military for the ammendment, why arent people stocking up on Stinger missiles and Javelins instead of handguns then? If its there to match the army then what use is a hunting shotgun?
Frankly, the Framers were wrong about a lot of things. Among the things they were wrong about was that a standing army of significant size and power would inevitably lead to the oppression of its people. As pretty much every modern first world army shows, that's just not true. Most Americans simply are not worried about having to resist a government - foreign or domestic - as part of a militia. There are a very few who are, and they do stock up on all the man-portable military hardware they can get their hands on.

However, that isn't necessarily as much as you might think. The right to own, after all, is not the right to buy. The fact that I can own a Javelin and am willing to comply with all the registration requirements doesn't mean there's somebody out there willing to sell one to me.
My right to own can't compel somebody else to sell.

As I said, most Americans - even most of our ardent gun owners - don't really care about the Second Amendment's original purpose. The trick is that although the Second Amendment was intended to support a robust militia (a task at which it has utterly failed), what it actually says is that people have a right to bear arms for any lawful purpose.

What most American gun owners really want is the right to bear arms for self defense, recreation, and hunting. If we were writing the Bill of Rights now, odds are most gun owners would be happy with that. But since what they have right now is broader, even gun owners who have zero interest in rebellion have little incentive to dial it back.

[DarkLink]

Also as I noted with the Afghanistan example, there is no modern nation that can militarily control 300 million people with easy access to rifles, handguns, cell phones and the internet. Sure, citizens couldn't fight in a straight up battle, but after the last decade in the middle east it should be quite apparent how difficult it would be to exert large scale military control over a hostile populace. Air strikes would be useless against guerilla fighters in the middle of a city like New York. A military occupation of the USA would be prohibitively expensive, require a larger army than any modern military force, and would spread any military unsustainably thin. Even minimal resistance would inflict a lot of damage via attrition.

[Denzark]

There is no modern nation THAT FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF ARMED CONFLICT that could supress 300 million people. If you didn't play by the book you could have a better shot...

[Psychosplodge]

There is no modern nation THAT FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF ARMED CONFLICT that could supress 300 million people. If you didn't play by the book you could have a better shot...

Probably quite an important distinction...

[Wolfshade]

I think fundamentally the answer to a gun is not another gun.

There is an argument that says that if your attacker is armed then you need to be armed, all this does is escalate the problem. You are not at the position where neither had them.

What you need is an anti-gun, a purely defensive weapon that is as effective as a gun and provides protection.

There is a book called The Trigger written by Arthur C Clarke which discusses such an "invention" and the political consequences.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, well, when you invent an actual anti-gun you can come and save the world from itself. In the meantime, we'll continue to try and be peaceful, and when that fails, defend ourselves. Anyone who's serious about self defense should know the law well, know when to talk, and when to fight. There are far more realistic and intelligent answers than some naive hippy "violence is never the the answer" bull****. Because while there are some times when another gun isn't the answer, there are times when another gun is the only answer.

[Wolfshade]

Certainly, I think most people try and be peaceful regardless if they are armed or not.
As you imply there are times to talk and times when that doesn't work and the trick is knowing when the difference is, though it shouldn't be the go to response to go armed.
Fundamentally is not the issue of people using their guns in the way that they are allowed. It is those outside of the law and no amount of legislation is going to resolve that.
Similiarly, in the UK most gun crime is related to guns which are not legally available, so again availability isn't the issue, though certainly it is a factor.

[DrLove42]

As a question on that point then....does anyone know the statistics?

How many killing sprees are stopped by a privatly owned gun?
How many domestic gun based domestic murders are prevented by the other person having a gun?
How many robberies are prevented by the victim being armed (split between shops and private residences)?
How many violent street crimes are prevented by a random armed member of the public?

I'd imagine #3 is a high number, much higher than the others.

I ask becuase it occurs to me that these are the really big things that people who advocate guns say that guns prevent. There argument is that guns prevent violent crime. So comparing the statistic for the above questions with those of;

How many people have been killed in the (now seemingly monthly) mass shootings?
How many domestic murders are committed by guns?
Number of Armed robberies, both those that do and do not result in casulty
Muggings and crimes that occur with firearms.

You can argue that muggings and domestic murder would still occur without firearms (knives mostly taking their place) but thats a different discussion.

If guns do what is claimed and protect people then the crimes prevented will need to be far higher than those caused to back that claim




Also the claim that you can compare the US with Aghanistan or Syria for gun ownership helping the populace, i fail to see the connection. I must have missed the US government carpet bombing Houston for having a civilised protest....

[Wolfshade]

There are no reliable statistics as prevented/averted crime is not recorded by in large. Though they do sometimes make the news.

If you imagine your house has a burgular alarm how many potential robbers choose not to rob your place based on this being seen, the answer is unknown.

[Denzark]

Do I not remember Michael Moore - Bowling for Columbine - ignoring the fact he is a lefty toad - the figures he quoted (presumably correct so as not to be shot down in flames) in tterms of gun-murder in the states compared to say, UK - is in tens of thousands.

[Psychosplodge]

I can't believe anything he says.
But I think the BBC said 11K as opposed to 34 last year.

[Nabterayl]

The Department of Justice has a 20-year old study on that subject (among others) that you can read here (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf). It's only twelve pages long and gives a brief but clear critique of surveys that tend to report in the area of 1.5 million to 3 million crimes prevented annually by private guns. The DOJ study concluded that the more reasonable figure was about 108,000 crimes prevented by private guns per year. That same year, about 1.3 million Americans were victims of a crime in which a gun was used. Both figures are almost certainly lower now, since everybody agrees that gun crime has been steadily declining in the Unitrd States for at least the past 30 years, as has gun ownership (the gun crime figure in 2005 was three times as low as in 1994, for instance).

So, guns are used to commit more crimes than to prevent them. However, the DOJ also estimates (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163496.pdf) that guns used in crime tend to be owned illegally, because it is easy to illegally obtain a gun in America.

The question you ask is fairly complicated, and not just because the guns used to commit crime are often not supplied by the same channels as the guns used to oppose crime. For instance, it is well known that criminals prefer unarmed victims to armed victims, unoccupied homes to occupied homes, and so forth. When a criminal encounters an armed victim, we may safely assume it was by accident. Since less than 25% of Americans own guns (according to the DOJ), armed criminals have a fairly broad field of victims to choose from, while armed prospective victims have a narrow field of crimes to oppose. It is thus unsurprising that privately held guns aid more crimes than they oppose (assuming the DOJ is right that the studies claiming guns prevent more crimes than they aid are flawed; obviously if the DOJ is wrong, well, bully for gun owners).

On the other hand, as reported (http://www.guncite.com/journals/katesval.html#fn79) in the American Journal of Criminal Law, privately held guns are three times more likely to kill an attacker in legally justifiable homicide than they are to cause a gun accident, and even the FBI admits that private gun owners legally kill more attacking felons than does law enforcement. The Journal also reports that handgun-armed defenders succeed in defending themselves (whether or not they actually discharge their weapon) about 83% of the time - and that is only the cases where an attacker encounters an armed victim despite what we assume are their intentions not to. So a reasonable person can certainly conclude that owning a gun is a reasonable, if not foolproof, defense against crime.

This being so, a more nuanced approach to reducing gun crime might ask how best to decrease the illegal supply of guns. Our own DOJ believes that gun crimes tend not to be committed with legally obtained weapons - i.e., crimes tend to be committed with guns that are stolen or smuggled.

EDIT: I highly recommend reading that Journal article. It is long, and old, but does an admirable job of critiquing both pro-gun and anti-gun propaganda as well as admitting when our data is simply too sparse to draw reasonable conclusions from.

[eldargal]

Also as I noted with the Afghanistan example, there is no modern nation that can militarily control 300 million people with easy access to rifles, handguns, cell phones and the internet. Sure, citizens couldn't fight in a straight up battle, but after the last decade in the middle east it should be quite apparent how difficult it would be to exert large scale military control over a hostile populace. Air strikes would be useless against guerilla fighters in the middle of a city like New York. A military occupation of the USA would be prohibitively expensive, require a larger army than any modern military force, and would spread any military unsustainably thin. Even minimal resistance would inflict a lot of damage via attrition.

Yes there is. Walmart, McDonalds, any company owned by someone who supports the regime, etc. say 'Anyone who revolts against the government loses their jobs'. Revolution dies. Not to mention that if, say, it was tyrannical Democratic government most of the people voting Democrat would probably support it, so you would be left with a civil war, not a revolution. No offense but I'd have a lot more faith in a country that has a proven track record of rioting in the streets against unpopular government action (like the French).


Also I'm not referring to whatever laws Obama is proposing, I'm talking about gun control that actually worked for other nations. I've no doubt America will take that and screw it up so it doesn't work, cos that's how you roll.:p

[Psychosplodge]

Also I'm not referring to whatever laws Obama is proposing, I'm talking about gun control that actually worked for other nations. I've no doubt America will take that and screw it up so it doesn't work, cos that's how you roll.:p

I don't know EG, they're doing really well with the separation of church and state...

[Denzark]

@ Nabby - I wonder what proportion of that illegally held is repeat offenders - I believe felons aren't entitled to hold - be interesting (to me) to know the break down of legally held first offenders to illegally held second+ offenders is.

[Wolfshade]

@Nabby - That is quite a balanced article or at least it seems it and it does raise some concerns regarding the perception of gun owners with their guns as a defense

[Psychosplodge]

A special kind of crazy?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/9e92838e36dade1d2730dda3e58e5092/tumblr_mgnor4qRv91qz9bu3o1_500.jpg
3574

Apparently (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/liberty-driven-fortress-community-being-planned-in-idaho?ref=fpblg) this is being planned somewhere, the next level of prepping?

But who decides when to close the doors? what about getting in out? what if you don't "fit in"?

It's a bit fallout overseerish to me...

[Wolfshade]

Once it's full close the doors and fill with water ;)

Though who wouldn't want to live in a castle?

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah that aspects kinda cool.

the problem is the neighbours...

[DarkLink]

Yes there is. Walmart, McDonalds, any company owned by someone who supports the regime, etc. say 'Anyone who revolts against the government loses their jobs'. Revolution dies.

Yeah. Sure. Because restricting economic policies worked out so well for you against us in the first place. Ever hear of that whole 'hearts and minds' thing? Making the populace hate you is the worst way to try and snuff out unrest.

Either way, you're talking about the will to resist. I'm talking about the means. The 2nd Amendment protects our means to resist. But if we decide we like occupations and we'll accept their leadership, then that's cool, no problem. If we don't, though, we'd better have the means to resist.



No offense but I'd have a lot more faith in a country that has a proven track record of rioting in the streets against unpopular government action (like the French).

You mean like how we won our independence in the very first place, nor gave it up upon subsequent opportunities? Or how we set the example for the French Revolution? Or all the riots in the 60's and 70's over Vietnam alone? Or the constant saber-rattling from... certain areas of our nation?



Also I'm not referring to whatever laws Obama is proposing, I'm talking about gun control that actually worked for other nations. I've no doubt America will take that and screw it up so it doesn't work, cos that's how you roll.:p

Seriously? Am I the only person who thinks statistics are actually even slightly important? You've literally completely ignored anything and everything I've so much as mentioned about how gun control doesn't work. Banning semi-autos hasn't done anything to Australia's actual crime rates (a few weeks ago, the head police guy, I don't know what he's called there, officially admitted as much). We've tried banning 'assault weapons' before, and it didn't do anything.

How many times to I have to tell you that there isn't a correlation between legal gun ownership and violent crime before you even consider that your unfounded theory might be just a little detached from reality? It's like talking to a wall.



How many killing sprees are stopped by a privatly owned gun?

Nab's already covered most of the questions, I'll just add something. On average, a mass shooter kills about 17 people, iirc, before the police arrive and there are no armed civilians. On average, when there is an armed civilian present who confronts the shooter, only 2.5 people are killed. I'm not 100% on the source, and it's hard to track down that number because the media only ever reports major shootings and they flat out ignore cases where armed citizens fight back, but based on anecdotal examples I found this sounds pretty close.



Also the claim that you can compare the US with Aghanistan or Syria for gun ownership helping the populace, i fail to see the connection. I must have missed the US government carpet bombing Houston for having a civilised protest....

If we do start bombing ourselves, or if someone else invades, that's where the comparison comes from. Afghanistan is an example of how difficult it is for even the most highly trained and technologically advanced military to hold even a lightly armed populace under control. Syria is an example of the fact that even today, there are oppressive governments, and as such it's naive to assume that just because we're spoiled with democracy at the moment that we'll never need to fight for our freedoms ever again.


Do I not remember Michael Moore - Bowling for Columbine - ignoring the fact he is a lefty toad - the figures he quoted (presumably correct so as not to be shot down in flames) in tterms of gun-murder in the states compared to say, UK - is in tens of thousands.

Drop the 's'. It's not tens of thousands, it's ten thousand (well, like 14,000 or so). And that's the total homocide rate. Only maybe half of those are gun murders. I'd have to look up the exact numbers. Though that's relatively recent, I think from 2004. At the time of Columbine, murder rates in general were higher. We've been dropping steadily since the 70's, and it started to plummet about 15 years after Roe vs Wade.

I've never seen bowling for columbine, but based on what I know it sounds intentionally misleading, similar to the whole 'assault weapons' thing I've brought up. "Assault weapons" is a meaningless term designed as a scare tactic advance a political agenda to ban firearms that have no real relevance to actual crime, and similarly Moore is kind of notorious for manipulating facts in a similar manner to get the emotional response that backs his agenda. But, like I said, I've never actually seen it, so I don't really know.


Edit:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/great-gun-control-fallacy-thomas-sowell

[Psychosplodge]

I think the urban/rural comparison is not ideal, as it's common knowledge that overcrowding causes stress, and stress causes psychological issues.
.

[Nabterayl]

@ Nabby - I wonder what proportion of that illegally held is repeat offenders - I believe felons aren't entitled to hold - be interesting (to me) to know the break down of legally held first offenders to illegally held second+ offenders is.
I'd be interested in that too. I know the DOJ recommended to itself to look into that sort of thing ... I'll see if I can dig up any of their results.


@Nabby - That is quite a balanced article or at least it seems it and it does raise some concerns regarding the perception of gun owners with their guns as a defense
What concerns do you see?

Here's what I see, at least for the American case - if other countries have had different experiences, I'm not enough of a sociologist or criminologist to feel comfortable venturing into why. But for America, it seems to me that we have good authority for believing that privately held guns:

Deter or defend against more crimes than they cause accidents,
Have a high success rate in deterring or defending against crimes,
Are not even present for most gun crimes,
Are easy to obtain illegally for those who wish to own a gun for criminal purposes.

To me, this doesn't necessarily recommend the NRA's position that everybody own a gun - the fact that under our current rate of gun ownership a gun is a good defense against you personally being victimized doesn't mean that would stay true if the rate of gun ownership radically increased. However, it does say to me that an individual American who wants a personal defense against crime is at least behaving rationally if he or she purchases a gun as that defense.

DOJ has also noted (http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/aquired.htm) that there is an identifiable core of "career" gun offenders, although I haven't been able to find DOJ statistics on how big that core is. I have (http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/affected.htm) found DOJ statistics showing that fully 75% of our homicide victims are 17. The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics also notes (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/multiple.cfm) that, although violent crime in the U.S. is on a steady decline, the percentage of homicides with multiple offenders is on the rise, while the percentage of homicides with multiple victims is on the decline. It is also well known in this country (that Journal article I linked to last post mentioned this) that while gun crime is not correlated with legally owned guns, it is correlated with living in an urban environment. All of that says inner city gang violence to me (corroborating this - note also that according to the DOJ, gun crime offenders [!= gun owners] say (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163496.pdf) they carry for self-defense, and do in fact experience (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/arrest.pdf) abnormally high levels of gun crime victimization themselves).

In addition to that core of repeat gun criminals, we also have a serious gun trafficking problem in this country. As the DOJ has noted (http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/aquired.htm), most offenders in gun crimes acquired their weapons illegally, which it also found (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/arrest.pdf) is easy to do. In other words, there is a large and well-developed black market in America for the perfectly ordinary pistols that commit the overwhelming majority of our gun crimes. It would be one thing if most of the guns used in American gun crime were used by their lawful owners (lawfully obtaining a gun, after all, does not necessarily mean anything about how you will use that gun), but apparently that is not the case. It seems to me that the rational policy response is to attempt to identify and crack down on the supply of illegal guns - which is actually the DOJ's own recommendation (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163496.pdf).

Now, this certainly is a "gun control" problem by any reasonable definition, since the goal is to control a supply of guns. But it's not really a statutory response. It's an executive (i.e., law enforcement) and judicial response. The DOJ's own recommendation is not to make it increase the controls we have on legal purchase, but to target the black market - which, it notes (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163496.pdf), is most effectively done when police, social services, and courts work together. That kind of gun control is the sort that I think anybody could get behind, but I guess if you're a legislator every problem looks like one that can be legislated away. In fact, it seems like our legislators would do better to shut the f*ck up about what new types of weapons should be banned and instead shake loose some money so other branches of government can, you know, go after our enormous supply of illegal guns being sold illegally to people for the purpose of illegal activity.

[DarkLink]

Right, it's a gun control problem, but not the one that American liberals are talking about. Liberals are obsessed with taking guns away from law abiding citizens, when they should be focused on stopping illegal gun trafficking and stopping the crime in the first place. Obama should be announcing his full plan to stop gun violence tomorrow, and it's implied to focus on 1) assault weapons ban (stupid) 2) banning high capacity magaizines (irrelevant and only slightly less stupid*) and 3) fixing background checks (wait, they actually had a good idea that even gun owners can get behind? I'm shocked).

What I also really want to see is a study on how crime rates vary between different types of communities. For example, gun violence is very, very low in rich white communities in, say, southern California, while it's extremely high in poor black communities in Chicago, but I've never really seen an in-depth study on the subject. If you were to study that, then you could start tailoring much more effective anti-crime measures based on local problems, rather than clumsy and ineffective nation-wide regulations. The closest I've gotten was a study that implied that minority centered inner city violence was the sole reason America has higher crime rates than Europe, and that if you ignored those inner cities then America was actually a much safer place than, say, England, but it wasn't as thorough as it could have been.


I think the urban/rural comparison is not ideal, as it's common knowledge that overcrowding causes stress, and stress causes psychological issues.
.

That's kind of the point. If gun ownership were the cause of violence, then rural areas would have a higher crime rate. Since this is patently false, it's pretty obvious something other than gun ownership is the cause of violence, and that simple taking guns away will have no real effect on crime, which is exactly what has happened in historical cases of gun control.




*As for high capacity magazines, it's pretty much irrelevant for a three main reasons. 1) when no one is shooting back, it doesn't matter if you have to reload every 10 rounds or so, especially if you carry multiple firearms, 2) as a practical note, most mass shooters actually obeyed the 10-round limit and still did far too much damage, drawing the efficacy of the law into question, and 3) as another practical note, while you might ban future sale of high capacity magazines, it's extremely easy to acquire old, used magazines. When a 30-round AR-15 magazine is $20-30 right now, all a magazine ban will do is drive the sales to the black market and bump the prices up a little. Inconvenient, but extremely easy to bypass. And none of this is theory, either, this is exactly what happened the last time we banned high capacity magazines. No one had any problem getting 30-round magazines, it just cost a little extra to do it.

I'd also laugh if it were funny, but just now in the last few days liberals have taken to calling high capacity magazines 'assault' magazines. I'm sure we'll hear a lot about how their only possible use is to murder innocent babies, and that anyone who uses them is obviously a psychotic, unbalanced gun nut.

[Necron2.0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

[DarkLink]

+1

That's the most succinct deconstruction of the status quo of gun politics I've seen (both against the people obsessed with 'assault weapon' bans and with pro-gun groups that claim giving everyone guns will solve the problem).

What I find doubly ironic is that Obama got an absolutely overwhelming advantage in minority groups, generally because said minority groups felt Obama would 'understand their problems better'. Not that Romney (or McCain previously) would have necessarily done a better job, but this is a perfect opportunity for Obama to live up to that claim. And instead, he's squandering it on another assault weapon ban.

Edit: BTW, this is awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_o3YsUVAyQ

[eldargal]

I had written a long reply with citations but you know what, whatever. I'll just sit here living in a free and open Democracy with one twentieth the chance of being shot that I would have were I unfortunate enough to live in America and focus on less depressing subjects.

I have a lot of respect for you DarkLink, and I'm not even anti-gun but on this I think you are way off.

[Psychosplodge]

No one suggested it would have an effect on overall crime, in-fact that's likely to go up. It would probably have an effect on gun crime and mass shootings...

[eldargal]

It just dawned on me how much of this is probably related to our respective political systems. Our guvmint goes tyrannical, Queen dissolves parliament, none of those politicians have any authority to do anything and there are new elections. Jobs done. Government tries to resist but military has sworn an Oath to the monarch not the state. Everyone giggles as our political leaders are dragged through the streets in chains. The monarch herself cannot rule as she has no political authority, she is merely the source of authority.

In contrast in America the head of state is also the commander and chief of the military which swears allegiance to the state and historically republics are dramatically more likely to turn into tyrannies than monarchies, especially constitutional monarchies.

Thinking about it like that were I American I think I'd want bunkers in the garden and an immense arsenal, too.:rolleyes:

[Wolfshade]

Thinking about it like that were I American I think I'd want bunkers in the garden and an immense arse, too.:rolleyes:

Fixed ;) sorry couldn't resist.

Also interestingly:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Guns.png/300px-Guns.png

[Nabterayl]

... Am I reading you correctly that Great Britain has fewer guns per capita than Japan? I take it, then, that the UK has no firearms black market to speak of?

Also, out of curiosity: in English political theory, whence derives ultimate political power? In America, the political bedtime story we tell ourselves is that the people are sovereign, and we delegate our sovereign power to the government. Is that the bedtime story English law professors tell their little children, too (the English version being, I guess, that the people delegate their sovereign power to the monarch, who in turn authorizes a government)? Or is the monarch him- or herself the font of sovereignty?

[Psychosplodge]

The monarch is the sovereign.

[eldargal]

Well it is complicated here because we don't have a written constitution that spells it out. Not to mention that our system has evolved over the past 850 years rather than being created or re-shaped ine one or two significant events (even the brief republican Commonwelath and subsequent Restoration didn't really change much as the changes of the commonwealth were reversed, by and large). One way I've had it explained is that the monarch is the source of authority/power and the people the source of legitimacy. So the power stems from the monarch (but she cannot wield it herself) and the right to use that power comes from the monarch.

The power to form a government, for example, rests with the monarch. But by convention it is granted to the leader of the political party that won the most seats in the House of Commons in the election. I believe this is the case for most powers actually, the monarch is the source but they are delegated to elected officials and there is no longer any constituional recourse for the monarch to wield them herself.
So we don't have fairy tales about stuff coming from the people (much to our very, very smell republican movements disgust), it comes from the monarch. There is a quote from Winston Churchill, I believe, that the Crown is notable not for the power it wields but for the power it denies others. Our governments govern with the assent of the Monarch and are chosen by the people.

So in short:

The Sovereign is the source of all political powers;
which are delegated to the elected Members of Parliament;
who are chosen by the subjects of Her Majesty (aka the People)

[DrLove42]

All political power is from the government.

Officially the queen has to "sign off" on a new government, but thats more symbolic than anything. The royalty has no real power.



In term of Illegal guns, next question - Where do "illegal" guns come from? Are they guns smuggled into the country, or are they legal weapons that have been stolen?

[Wolfshade]

The sovereign is the sovereign.
Fixed.

The graph is of course relating to those legally owned firearms. As you well know Nabterayl the number of illegal or unregistered guns is unknowable. But using different estimates you can put switerzland somewhere between 2nd or 16th depending on how you count.

Accourding to the source Japan has 0.6 guns per 100, England & Wales 6.2 and Scotland 5.5.

I do not understand why the countries are selected to be represented.

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

[Psychosplodge]

The crown can wield it's ultimate power (to dissolve parliament and force elections) once. The next lot of MPs would then remove it.

[eldargal]

All political power is from the government.

Officially the queen has to "sign off" on a new government, but thats more symbolic than anything. The royalty has no real power.



In term of Illegal guns, next question - Where do "illegal" guns come from? Are they guns smuggled into the country, or are they legal weapons that have been stolen?
Yes and no. The monarch is the fount of all political authority but by convention and long precedent she (or he) cannot wield that power as it is formally delegated to elected officials. It is symbolic now because the governments work within the constitutional arrangements because they know they can be stripped off said delegated power if they behaved badly enough.

[Nabterayl]

All political power is from the government.

Officially the queen has to "sign off" on a new government, but thats more symbolic than anything. The royalty has no real power.
Well sure, but what I was curious about was whether American and British fundamental political theories differ much, and it sounds like they do. Americans are taught that sovereignty rests in the people as a matter of logic; hence, even the most powerful monarch derives his or her power from his or her subjects, rather than possessing it in the first instance. It sounds like most Britons simply would not agree with that notion.


In term of Illegal guns, next question - Where do "illegal" guns come from? Are they guns smuggled into the country, or are they legal weapons that have been stolen?
I don't have a good source for a real satisfying breakdown - I don't even kmow if there is one; if not, we may certainly hope that the president makes acquiring better data a priority. I do know that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (the federal agency charged with tracking this sort of thing) has determined (
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/ycgii/1997/ycgii-report-1997-general-findings-illegal-markets.pdf) that most illegal guns are brought into a state legally and then sold illegally within the state where they will ultimately be used in crime. In other words, they (that is, the majority of crime guns) aren't being smuggled in from foreign nations; they aren't even being smuggled in from out of state. People are buying them in state, either legally or quasi-legally*and selling them illegally to criminals.

This is one reason why even pro-gun moderates like DarkLink and myself can support requiring background checks at gun shows. At present, if state law enforcement has identified you as a gun trafficker, you can still buy guns at venues such as a gun show, because no background check is required at those venues - that is, you can buy a gun at a gun show even though you could not buy that exact same gun at a gun store across the street. I have no idea if gun shows are a significant part of our intra-state black gun markets or not, but that arrangement certainly seems like asking for trouble at the very least, given we know we do have a serious black market problem.

* I use this term for people who might not be authorized to own the weapons they buy in fact, but are sold to anyway by dealers who don't know about the buyer's status - either because they are not required to check or because they do check but the buyer hasn't been caught and convicted yet.

[DrLove42]

So by your logic would you agree that if there were less (or no) legal weapon sales, there would be less illegal weaponary?

And i don't know how state to state checkpoints work. Surely there must be 1000's of miles of boundary that would need to be policed, then people would complain their freedom was being resricted.

[Psychosplodge]

Do you have complete freedom of movement between the states?

[Wolfshade]

I think if you want to know how power is weilded in the UK you need only to watch Yes (Prime) Minister

[Denzark]

There was me thinking the sovereignty of my Liege-Lady was as a result of her loyal retainers such as myself - if she wanted Parliament dissolved I would quite happily do so with a prayer on my lips, a song in my heart and a bayonet on my rifle.

[Psychosplodge]

Well I suppose considering about what EG said about the forces earlier that would technically be true?

[Necron2.0]

Saw a recent news article on Obama's proposals, and even though I passionately hate the man, frankly I didn't see anything there to take much offense at. At face value his plan (if accurate) broke down into two components - legislative actions and executive actions. Those are:

Legislative actions:

- Universal background checks (no issues there - I thought those were the law anyway)
- prohibition of high-capacity magazines (not really an issue with me)
- strengthen anti-trafficking law (again, not an issue for me)
- assault weapons ban (Ok, stupid, but it was inevitable)


Executive orders:
- enforce existing laws (Ok)
- research on firearm deaths/crimes (non sequitur - unless this becomes a funding mechanism for a liberal media campaign)
- increase school security (non-issue)
- address mental health issue (non-issue again)

Frankly, I don't have a problem with this.

Furthermore, as a gun owner and a rabid non-liberal (although not quite staunchly conservative) I wouldn't have a problem with a national database of firearms. Frankly, we do that with just about everything else in society, why not guns? I know some would argue, "Registering guns is just the first step in taking them away!!" To which I would reply, "Dude ... You bleed for what you believe in. You have a GUN!! If you don't have the guts to defend your rights, you have already lost them, and the gun is just a very expensive and dangerous paper weight."

[Nabterayl]

So by your logic would you agree that if there were less (or no) legal weapon sales, there would be less illegal weaponary?
Well, no, my thinking is this: assume ATF (for some reason that's the acronym, not ATFE) is right and most guns that end up being used illegally cross into a state legally. The problem is therefore pretty far down the distribution chain; e.g., it's not like handgun manufacturers themselves are selling to criminals as a side business straight from the factory. Instead, the problem must look something like A buys a bunch of guns, and sells them to people he shouldn't (recall that most gun criminals are repeat offenders; hence, barred from buying guns). Now, if A has never done anything wrong before now, there is probably no way to tell that A is a gun trafficker. Nothing to be done about that*. But I find that unlikely. It seems most likely to me that most A's themselves have a criminal record, and should not be able to buy guns for illegal distribution in the first place. Now, I don't know who is selling to the A's of the world - I don't know for sure that A goes to gun shows to buy guns for illegal distribution. But if A has a criminal record (which we assume), and gun show sales require no background checks (which they don't) ... that certainly seems like a likely link in the chain.


And i don't know how state to state checkpoints work. Surely there must be 1000's of miles of boundary that would need to be policed, then people would complain their freedom was being resricted.
I'm not up on my interstate travel laws, but the general constitutional principle is very heavily in favor of free movement among states. So I'm not sure how legally feasible state checkpoints would be. But you're right, in any case - we have so many miles of interstate borders that I'm not sure it's even practically feasible.

* Well, we could ban the sale of the most commonly criminally used types of guns, I suppose, in an effort to make sure that there are no guns for people to sell to the A's of the world. Since criminals prefer guns that are not very good in a firefight, I personally have no problem with that; I have no trouble at all with the United States being a place where rifles and carbines predominate but handguns are very rare. I would miss shooting handguns, of course, but weapons are not toys. Alas, the Supreme Court (in its muddled wisdom) has recently and specifically put the kibosh on handgun bans.

----------

So, according to the White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence), what the president would like to see is this (and my personal reactions):

Require background checks for all gun sales. This seems like a reasonable step to me from the standpoint of doing something about the U.S. black market. Given that we have a known trafficking problem, and assuming that somewhere in the black market distribution chain is a well-meaning person who unwittingly sells to a criminal (even if that criminal is just a trafficker who will then sell to another criminal), it makes sense to me to require a background check for every gun sale.
Strengthen the background check system. This apparently has two parts: review the background check criteria themselves to make sure they are still aimed at the people we don't want buying guns; and attempt to remove barriers that keep state agencies from cooperating. For instance, even a state that believes heavily in gun control might withhold mental health records when requested as part of a background check on the grounds that federal privacy law can be read to require them to keep that information private. I agree that sort of thing should be clarified. Got no problem here; though I'm not sure how many times the background check system has failed, obviously if we're going to be expanding it we should look at making it better.
Assault weapons and high-capacity [>10] magazine ban. For all the reasons that have been discussed, I think this is silly.
Make it illegal to own armor-piercing ammunition. Sales of armor-piercing ammunition to private individuals are already illegal, but private ownership is not. I have no problem with this, particularly since the DOJ studies I've read indicate that we have the most success getting illegal guns off the streets in this country by doing community-targeted, multi-agency sweeps - hence, when law enforcement is most likely to find illegal guns, it will be easy to tell who owns armor-piercing ammo but very hard to tell who sold it. So I have no problem with this. If we had an epidemic of body-armored criminals I might feel differently, but since we don't ... if I want to kill a criminal, obviously AP ammo is a bad choice for me.
Make gun trafficking a real crime. Apparently, there is currently no federal crime for "buying a gun for somebody you know is a criminal." Since we know we have a major problem of people buying guns for people they know are criminals (whether to sell or to give) ... yes, 100% behind making that a crime.
Miscellaneous pro-police measures. These all seem fine to me - calling for increased (or at least not decreased) federal aid to local police agencies, requiring all federal agencies to run a gun trace on any guns they seize in the course of their operations, permit police to run a background check whenever they return a gun seized as part of an ongoing investigation, call Congress to get off its a*s and confirm a director for the ATF, change the "relic or curio" definition, have ATF publish an annual report on lost or stolen guns, and provide more money to law enforcement and schools to train for "active shooter" crime scenarios. All fine. In re: "relic or curio" specifically, federal law currently defines any gun over 50 years old as a "relic or curio." When that law was originally passed in 1968, it made a lot more sense, I think. But the gap between 1918 guns and 1968 guns is a lot bigger than the gap between a 1963 gun and a 2013 gun. Frankly, I think simple age is not a good way to define a "relic or curio" anyway.
Collect more data on gun violence. Federal scientific (as opposed to law enforcement) agencies do not conduct research on gun violence in America because Congress told them not to (or more specifically, told them not to "advocate or promote gun control," and nobody wanted to test whether Congress would look at bare research as "advocacy" and cut their funding). The president is now telling those agencies (which are, after all, part of the executive branch) to do research on gun violence in America, and essentially signaling that he'll back them if Congress gets uppity. I like this proposal, since gun violence is ultimately not a law enforcement problem. Law enforcement is there to staunch the wounds of gun violence; to tell us why we have gun violence, we want other disciplines like sociology to get involved. This thread has already raised several questions the answers to which the feds apparently just don't know, and that's stupid.

So ... except for the assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans (and while I think those are silly, I'm not too bothered about that, living in a state that bans them already on its own authority) ... pretty good set of recommendations, in my opinion.

EDIT: Actually, buried at the back of the full text of the plan is a section on mental health, which includes federal funding for teachers in training on how to identify the signs of mental health problems, and ensuring that mental health treatment is covered by medical insurance. While I know most mass shooters are not mentally ill, we do do a bad job of treating mental health in this country, so I'm in favor of that regardless of its impact on gun violence.

[DarkLink]

Background checks are law, but there are two ways that they can be strengthened. 1) there's the "gun show loophole", which isn't really a loophole, it's just that the government doesn't regulate sale between private citizens. Just like I can sell my car to my neighbor for $15 if I want, I can sell my gun to my neighbor. A lot of pro gun people question the authority of the government when it tries to regulate private sales like that, but we'll see what happens. 2) there are some aforementioned gaps in the federal databases, allowing certain individuals who would normally be disqualified to slip through.

The problem with registering guns is that the government has literally tried to take them away, and very recently as well. During Katrina, New Orleans police actually spent time not on stopping looting or maintaining order, but on tracking down law abiding gun owners and confiscating their guns. And frankly, there isn't really much purpose to registering guns like that other than to eventually take them away. Because of the way they track purchases, it's not too difficult to track the sales history of a particular firearm, which gives the police all they need to figure out who's gun committed X crime. The only difference is that the police can't pull up one single comprehensive list.

That's also ignoring the douchebaggery that the random citizens can pull with a national database. There are occasions where gun owners get openly harassed by psychotic liberals.



In term of Illegal guns, next question - Where do "illegal" guns come from? Are they guns smuggled into the country, or are they legal weapons that have been stolen?

A little of everything. But it's really hard to tell. Criminals don't go around registering their illegal guns, after all. No one really knows how many illegal firearms there are right now, so while you can tell how many legal guns were stolen that may only be the tip of the iceberg.


Well sure, but what I was curious about was whether American and British fundamental political theories differ much, and it sounds like they do. Americans are taught that sovereignty rests in the people as a matter of logic; hence, even the most powerful monarch derives his or her power from his or her subjects, rather than possessing it in the first instance. It sounds like most Britons simply would not agree with that notion.

The very idea of nobility pisses me off. At least our politicians and celebrities had to do something to earn it, even if most of what they did is... questionable.


So by your logic would you agree that if there were less (or no) legal weapon sales, there would be less illegal weaponary?

Kind of. There are already 300 million plus firearms in the USA. Even if all firearm production shut down this instant, that's still plenty of guns to arm a whole lot of people for a very long time. Guns would just get more and more expensive as time went on, and/or would be stolen more frequently. And anyone with a machine shop can make guns, too. And presumably you would still want to arm the military and police, so there would still be some firearms manufacturing going on.

It didn't work for Prohibition, and it wouldn't work too well for guns either.



And i don't know how state to state checkpoints work. Surely there must be 1000's of miles of boundary that would need to be policed, then people would complain their freedom was being resricted.

There's a sign that says "Now entering 'X' ". That's pretty much it.


Edit:
Yeah, were it not for the 'assault weapon' and high capacity magazine ban, that would be a very reasonable solution.

Luckily, I think both bans would have to get through congress, so there's a possibility for them to be defeated while letting the rest of the laws stand. Though, congress has been very all-or-nothing for the last few years, so who knows.

[Nabterayl]

The problem with registering guns is that the government has literally tried to take them away, and very recently as well. During Katrina, New Orleans police actually spent time not on stopping looting or maintaining order, but on tracking down law abiding gun owners and confiscating their guns. And frankly, there isn't really much purpose to registering guns like that other than to eventually take them away. Because of the way they track purchases, it's not too difficult to track the sales history of a particular firearm, which gives the police all they need to figure out who's gun committed X crime. The only difference is that the police can't pull up one single comprehensive list.
Well ... no, that's not the only reason. There is non-trivial research value in any unified database.

Also ... where does this idea of a gun registry come from? I don't see it in the full text (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf) of the proposal. Given the ... hyperbole some of our media establishments are prone to when it comes to the president and/or gun control, can somebody source the notion that the president is trying to create a national database of gun owners?

[Wildeybeast]

There was me thinking the sovereignty of my Liege-Lady was as a result of her loyal retainers such as myself - if she wanted Parliament dissolved I would quite happily do so with a prayer on my lips, a song in my heart and a bayonet on my rifle.

And I'll be right alongside you brother. Or at least stood at the back inciting the mob to roll those barrels of gunpowder into the cellars. That's more my area of expertise. But I'll be right next to you in spirit as you sell your life for our right to be ruled by an unelected, for-life sovereign.

[DarkLink]

Also ... where does this idea of a gun registry come from?

It wasn't part of Obama's announcement, Necron2.0 mentioned it separately.

[Psychosplodge]

But I'll be right next to you in spirit as you sell your life for our right to be ruled by an unelected, for-life sovereign.

I do shudder at the alternative, president Blair? no thank you...

[DarkLink]

I have a lot of respect for you DarkLink, and I'm not even anti-gun but on this I think you are way off.

I'm willing to let you be wrong on semi-autos, I suppose:p;).

[Wildeybeast]

I do shudder at the alternative, president Blair? no thank you...

Good god no. I'd much rather have someone who has been raised from birth to appreciate the full enormity of what being a head of state means and the responsibilities that come with said office than some slimy, ambitious, weasel-faced arse. And having a President would make us just like those godless savages across the Channel. *shudder*

[DarkLink]

On another note: http://news.yahoo.com/why-sandy-hook-massacre-spawned-conspiracy-theories-184323398.html

[Nabterayl]

On another note: http://news.yahoo.com/why-sandy-hook-massacre-spawned-conspiracy-theories-184323398.html
The only part of that article that didn't make my soul melt was hearing about Buzz Aldrin punching a guy in the face.

Seriously, people.

[DrLove42]

Conspiracy Theorists are someone everyone can get behind being shot....

[DrLove42]

Just as a side note to our American bretheren, the BBC published a list of our gun control laws in the UK today, amid possible changes to our laws

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21051062


Current UK gun-control rules
-Anyone with a gun needs to have a certificate, issued by their local chief police officer
-The certificate must be renewed every five years, and can be revoked
-Applicants are supposed to have a "good reason" for owning a gun, such as "sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin"
-The chief police officer is expected to take into account previous cautions or convictions when deciding whether to grant or renew a certificate
-They should also consider evidence of mental health problems, aggressive behaviour and alcohol or drug abuse
-They may also consult the applicant's GP to obtain medical data
-Convicted criminals sentenced to five years or more are banned permanently from owning a gun; those sentenced to three years or more are banned for five years

[DrLove42]

Just as a side note to our American bretheren, the BBC published a list of our gun control laws in the UK today, amid possible changes to our laws

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21051062


Current UK gun-control rules
-Anyone with a gun needs to have a certificate, issued by their local chief police officer
-The certificate must be renewed every five years, and can be revoked
-Applicants are supposed to have a "good reason" for owning a gun, such as "sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin"
-The chief police officer is expected to take into account previous cautions or convictions when deciding whether to grant or renew a certificate
-They should also consider evidence of mental health problems, aggressive behaviour and alcohol or drug abuse
-They may also consult the applicant's GP to obtain medical data
-Convicted criminals sentenced to five years or more are banned permanently from owning a gun; those sentenced to three years or more are banned for five years

[DarkLink]

Ours, in general, are as follows:
Must pass a background check
Must be 18 for rifles/shotguns
Must be 21 for handguns
Must be issued a permit for concealed carry (varies by state, but most will issue after a background check and a training class)
Full autos/short barrel rifles are extremely heavily regulated, extremely expensive, and easy for police to track
Rifles/shotguns must be over 26" overall and over a 16" barrel, or they are considered short barrel rifles

Many states have additional laws, such as 10rnd mag limits, and 'assault' weapon bans
Assault weapons refer to semi auto centerfire rifles with certain cosmetic features (which is why the term is so absurd)

[Wildeybeast]

What does the background check consist of? How can you 'fail' it?

[Nabterayl]

What does the background check consist of? How can you 'fail' it?
I don't know precisely what they do to check, but at least in theory, the check is, "Are you prohibited from owning a gun under the Gun Control Act?" That means that if you are:

a person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years,
a fugitive of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant,
an unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year,
a person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial,
a person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States,
a person who, being an alien except as provided in [relevant cite], has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa,
a person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces,
a person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
the subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner (this does not include ex parte orders),
a person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim, or
a person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
you should fail the check (source from the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet), who are basically the federal police), since by federal law you are prohibited from owning a gun.

[DarkLink]

Right, there's no problem with the criteria for failing a background check. It covers all the at-risk sort of things you'd expect. The problem is that 1) private sales don't require background checks, though it would be pretty hard to enforce this I think, and 2) there are various gaps in the databases, where certain things like mental illnesses don't show up, or state and federal agencies don't always communicate very well so something disqualifying in one state might not show up in another state. Obama wants gun legislation to require background checks on all purchases, including private sales, and some of his executive orders are designed to make state and federal agencies mesh together better so nothing slips through the cracks. Anyways, background checks have widespread public support and the NRA has officially announced that it doesn't have any issues with that portion of Obama's proposal, so this will likely become law. Unless they try and attach it to the assault weapons ban and force them through together, then it'll likely go down with the ship.

In fact, I've heard it's likely that the assault weapon ban and the high capacity magazine ban will get stuck in a sub-committee somewhere to die. Such legislation cost Democrats both the House and Senate last time they passed it, and there are more than enough Democrats up for reelection in contested states that it's not likely to get much support even from Democrats, and that's before you even consider Republican resistance. It's not worth the political fight, especially when a lot of people are starting to realize that not only is such legislation historically ineffective, but it isn't even really part of the problem in the first place.

[Psychosplodge]

Is there a way to appeal the decision, ie you received a dishonourable discharge from the US military, but not for anything that would make you a danger to other members of the public?

[Nabterayl]

Is there a way to appeal the decision, ie you received a dishonourable discharge from the US military, but not for anything that would make you a danger to other members of the public?
You can appeal, but only for errors of fact - e.g., the background check identified you as a felon when in fact you are not. If you were dishonorably discharged from the US military you cannot own a gun in this country, full stop. That isn't even a regulation; it's directly from the Gun Control Act itself (18, U.S.C. §922 (g)(6) (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922), in case you're curious). Nor is there any kind of expiration date in the GCA ban - doesn't matter if you were dishonorably discharged (or convicted of a felony, or whatever) yesterday or a hundred years ago.

[Psychosplodge]

Seems harsh when any muppet off the street who's basicly not come into contact with the police can get one.

[DarkLink]

If you were dishonorably discharged from the military, your life is ****ed. People won't be inclined hire you, you lose some of your rights (you can't vote anymore), etc. Dishonorable discharges are often the result of some sort of criminal activity, though deserting doesn't really have a civilian equivalent.

Remember, "any muppet off the street" has a lifetime of being a law abiding citizen, and that alone is very solid evidence, statistically, that they're not going to do something crazy. Plus we take the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing seriously. Violent criminals virtually always have a history, hence the background check. The problem is making sure that that history shows up on said background checks, thus the executive orders designed to clean up the background check system.

[Wildeybeast]

Thanks for the info Nabterayl.


Right, there's no problem with the criteria for failing a background check. It covers all the at-risk sort of things you'd expect. The problem is that 1) private sales don't require background checks, though it would be pretty hard to enforce this I think, and 2) there are various gaps in the databases, where certain things like mental illnesses don't show up, or state and federal agencies don't always communicate very well so something disqualifying in one state might not show up in another state. Obama wants gun legislation to require background checks on all purchases, including private sales, and some of his executive orders are designed to make state and federal agencies mesh together better so nothing slips through the cracks. Anyways, background checks have widespread public support and the NRA has officially announced that it doesn't have any issues with that portion of Obama's proposal, so this will likely become law. Unless they try and attach it to the assault weapons ban and force them through together, then it'll likely go down with the ship.

In fact, I've heard it's likely that the assault weapon ban and the high capacity magazine ban will get stuck in a sub-committee somewhere to die. Such legislation cost Democrats both the House and Senate last time they passed it, and there are more than enough Democrats up for reelection in contested states that it's not likely to get much support even from Democrats, and that's before you even consider Republican resistance. It's not worth the political fight, especially when a lot of people are starting to realize that not only is such legislation historically ineffective, but it isn't even really part of the problem in the first place.

What exactly do you mean private sales? I'm reading that sales between individuals rather than shop to customer and I suddenly imagined a huge unregulated 2nd hand gun market.

[DarkLink]

It's exactly what it sounds like. If I want to sell my neighbor my shotgun because I got a newer and better one, I can walk over to his house and give it to him for however much he's willing to pay. Only licensed dealers are required to use background checks (which is anyone who ones a gun store, or acts as a retailer for a gun manufacturer). That's the 'gun show loophole' that gets mentioned here on occasion. At gun shows, there are a bunch of gun owners hanging out with each other, and they can make private deals as they please.

[Nabterayl]

And yeah, there is a huge unregulated 2nd hand gun market. Mind, the GCA doesn't apply to sales - if you fall into one of those categories I mentioned, by law you are prohibited from owning a gun. My felon neighbor isn't magically allowed to own a gun just because I sold my old one to him in a private sale. On the other hand, there is no obligation for me to check whether he is a felon, either - at least, not yet. And even if I did, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (which is what federally licensed firearms dealers use) isn't even available to me, as a private individual, I believe. That's something else Obama would like to change.

[DrLove42]

It amuses me theres more paperwork to sell your car privately than there is to sell an actual weapon....

[Houghten]

What, you don't think a car's an actual weapon?

[Psychosplodge]

What, you don't think a car's an actual weapon?

Only if you're doing it right...

[DarkLink]

It amuses me theres more paperwork to sell your car privately than there is to sell an actual weapon....

Cars are quite a bit more dangerous.

[DrLove42]

What, you don't think a car's an actual weapon?


Difference is a car is not intended to be a weapon.. Its primary role is as a means of transport.

Use a car correctly for its intended purpose and it will never hurt anyone. Use a gun correctly, for its intended purpose (which we have covered is defending yourself,others, civil liberties or hunting) and someone or something is in danger. Its also far easier to kill with a gun, and harder to injure yourself at the same time

[DarkLink]

I'm not how to respond to that nicely.

Cars used for their intended purpose kill more people every year than guns do. About 33,000 people were killed in car crashes in 2011 in the USA. Less than half that many people died via homicide of any form, and only about two thirds of those were from firearms. The majority of uses for a gun put nothing more than a piece of paper in danger, and as far as sporting purposes go, shooting is safer than basketball, jogging/running, soccer, football, baseball, bicycling, tennis, ice hockey, skateboarding, walking, and golf, and if you ignore hunting then you can add gymnastics, ice skating, swimming, and bowling to that list. A significant number of uses of a firearm are as necessary as using a scalpel to cut someone open. Saying a gun is only used to hurt people is as stupid as saying that scalpels are only used to hurt people, because they're 'intended' to cut flesh. Your bull**** moral high ground is nothing more than a nonsensical red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do with how to effectively stop gun crimes.

It doesn't matter whether or not you have decided to arbitrarily attempt to demonize a random inanimate object as a weapon. What does matter is how you can reduce criminal use (and accidental deaths, but accidental deaths are remarkably rare compared to, say, cars again). Speaking from a high horse only interrupts the people who actually try and have a real discussion.

[Fizzybubela]

Unless your horse is a high horse. ;)

[Nabterayl]

Classifying something as a "weapon" isn't necessarily demonizing it, DL. I've never bought the line of some gun enthusiasts that a gun is just a "tool." It's a weapon. The distinction, to me, is that a weapon imposes more and higher moral obligations by the mere fact of its ownership than does a tool. These are my personal weapon rules:

Weapons are fun, and may be used for many fun things, but may never be owned solely for the purpose of recreation. If you are not prepared to dismember, paralyze, vegetate, or kill another human being with your weapon, you may not own it.
Weapons impose an obligation of maintenance. You may only own a weapon if you can safely store it and can clean, maintain, and perform basic troubleshooting upon it, or are learning to do so.
Weapons impose an obligation of fitness. You may not own a weapon if you are not physically fit.
Weapons impose an obligation of proficiency. You may not own a weapon if you (i) cannot use it to dismember, paralyze, vegetate, or kill another human being in the physical and emotional circumstances in which you are likely to have access to your weapon, or if you are not learning to do so, and (ii) do not practice regularly to dismember, paralyze, vegetate, or kill another human being in the physical and emotional circumstances in which you are likely to have access to your weapon.
Those are my rules, and I'm not sure how widely they'd be accepted in the American weapon-owning community. But I don't think they demonize weapons (maybe you disagree?), despite the fact that they distinguish very sharply between a weapon and a tool.

In re: the point that brought this up, I agree (and I think you do too) that it doesn't make sense from a policy standpoint that transferring ownership of a gun is so easy in this country. I agree it has nothing to do with cars (which I also agree are more dangerous and easier to misuse than guns), but more transfer restrictions (e.g., making NICS available to and required for private sales) certainly make sense to me as good policy.

[DarkLink]

I don't disagree. That wasn't quite the reason for my comment. At the core, getting caught up in an argument over whether or not something is or isn't a weapon and may or may not be intended to kill people or whatever other labels you want to slap on is unproductive. That's what I meant.

[Psychosplodge]

That surprises me, even adjusting for population, you car death rate is approx 2:1 ours.

[Nabterayl]

Comes from driving on the right side of the road.

[Psychosplodge]

Comes from driving on the right side of the road.

Yeah that is generally safer...

[DrLove42]

Maybe its something to do with road design. Here its all bendy, roundabouts and traffic lights, whereas the states is lots of straight roads and cross roads

Or type of car. Lot more muscle carss and SUVs in the US

[Wolfshade]

That surprises me, even adjusting for population, you car death rate is approx 2:1 ours.


Comes from driving on the right side of the road.

2k vs 33k in terms of raw numbers but there are troubles with this kind of statistic, possibly a better one is fatalities per km travelled which is 5.7 & 8.5 (per billion km travelled) UK & USA respectively. Though the big shock is Motorway/Highway vs other roads, on these other roads there is about parity 9.3 & 10.7 (per billion km) but on the highways it changes to 2.0 & 5.2 which is really quite interesting.

There are of course other contributing factors such as population densities proportion of motorway vs non motorway which is almost similiar across the two countires, the real difference is the average motorway density with the uk having almost twice as much traffic on the motorways than the states and much lower accident rates, one can only conclude that the busier a road is the safer it is ;)

[Psychosplodge]

Maybe its something to do with road design. Here its all bendy, roundabouts and traffic lights, whereas the states is lots of straight roads and cross roads

Or type of car. Lot more muscle carss and SUVs in the US
I suppose you'd be more likely to drift off if all you're doing is going in a straight line, and then you can't react to break.

Are SUV's the pretend school run 4x4? They do tend to roll more in an accident so increase severity accordingly...


2k vs 33k in terms of raw numbers but there are troubles with this kind of statistic, possibly a better one is fatalities per km travelled which is 5.7 & 8.5 (per billion km travelled) UK & USA respectively. Though the big shock is Motorway/Highway vs other roads, on these other roads there is about parity 9.3 & 10.7 (per billion km) but on the highways it changes to 2.0 & 5.2 which is really quite interesting.

There are of course other contributing factors such as population densities proportion of motorway vs non motorway which is almost similiar across the two countires, the real difference is the average motorway density with the uk having almost twice as much traffic on the motorways than the states and much lower accident rates, one can only conclude that the busier a road is the safer it is ;)

Sorry I was assuming ours were about 3k and a bit, and the US had 5x population

[Wolfshade]

The truely shocking ones are India's stats.... :eek:

[Psychosplodge]

Nah that'd never shock me, I've seen how they drive on Top Gear

[DarkLink]

We also drive, a lot. We're too big and spread out for most who live outside of, say, New York to rely on either walking, public transportation, or taxis exclusively while still showing up for work on time every day. I live outside of Sacramento, and whenever I drive into town during commuting hours the freeways are pretty full, and Sacramento traffic doesn't hold a candle to places like LA.

[Psychosplodge]

I can accept the miles driven argument which I think looking at Wolfies figure put you about 5% more deaths, but the motorway figures are shocking, whats so much more dangerous on yours to make the deathrate 4x as bad?
But traffic density should reduce fatal accidents as you're moving slower...

[DarkLink]

Traffic density at 75mph? It's not the little side roads that get crowded, it's the freeways, and it isn't usually until after an accident happens that traffic actually drops to below the speed limit.

[Wolfshade]

The traffic density is main carriageway on motor/highways excluding on/off slips/ramps. Interestingly traffic generally tends to travel at 110% of the speed limit, that is including HGV/LGVs which are of course restricted.

But yeah I think the figures in terms of billions of km travelled is better comparison. Though there is always criticism on how these are calculated.

[DarkLink]

This is a funny picture I found. You have to know a lot about guns to get it. The punchline is, whoever wrote this article is an idiot.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/45890_4770179166870_1569182839_n.jpg

[White Tiger88]

HEY! i have had my grenade launcher for over 500 years! (Also isn't that for the strap....)

[Psychosplodge]

(Also isn't that for the strap....)

I think you're right.

[DarkLink]

Correct, that's the sling attachment point.

The bayonet lug, which most ARs have, is just above the sling in the picture, at the bottom of the front sight post/gas port. All ARs with that distinctive triangle front sight post have a bayonet lug, for the simple reason that there's no point in making a completely new design to remove the lug, from the manufacturers point of view. And considering that to the best of my knowledge no civilian has ever actually been bayoneted to death, or even bayoneted at all, in the last century or so, it's utterly pointless to care because it's a purely aesthetic feature for civilians. More recent designs forego the triangular front sight post in favor of some alternative iron sight attached to the upper rail, and the gas block is usually redesigned without the lug so that the rail can be extended to protect the gas block from damage. Not only is the author incorrect about the position of the bayonet lug, but the existence or lack thereof is utterly irrelevant to gun control.

Separate from both the bayonet lug and the sling attachement point is the grenade launcher attachment. The M203 (US military's underslung grenade launcher of the last few decades) has two attachment points to hook on to an M16. First it requires a special handguard, which this rifle lacks, making it irrelevant that the second attachment point exists. The second attachment point is actually a section of barrel with a reduced diameter just in front of the front sight post, as the M203 was designed for an older version of the M16 with a thinner barrel. In fact, complaining about the second attachment point is doubly pointless because the M203 just cinches onto the barrel. The barrel itself is the attachment point, so as long as the rifle has a barrel it has that attachment point. And, of course, it's all triply pointless because the grenade launchers themselves are extremely heavily regulated, as has been discussed before, so even though you could theoretically attach a grenade launcher to the AR, you still need to actually get a grenade launcher to attach.

Additionally, that model of AR has a 1913 rail system (it has rubber grips covering the rails, but they're the railroad-track-looking things at the 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HK416.jpg)). They are a modular system that can be used to attach virtually anything to the rifle, from scopes to laser pointers to flashlights to grips to beer bottle openers (http://www.urbanertslings.com/tacetaboopsl.html) to, yes, more modern grenade launchers (http://www.tactical-life.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hk-grenade-launchers.jpg).


Also, the only other text that's really readable, the "reduces flash, allowing the shooter to conceal his position", is referring to the flash hider, the 'birdcage' at the tip of the barrel on most rifles, and the text is misleading. The purpose of the flash hider is roughly equivalent to the dimmer setting on a car's headlights. It's not some sort of magical silencer thingie that makes the report of the rifle invisible. It just makes it a little less noticeable. During daytime, muzzle flash isn't even very visible in the first place, unless you're shooting from deep shadows or something. More important, really, is that it redirects the flash so that it doesn't interfere with the shooter's sight picture, so it's also kind of equivalent to the sun shade in the front seats of your car. Flash hiders are not some sort of specialist military equipment, any more than wearing sunglasses on a sunny day is exclusive to the military.

Basically, the whole article sounds so pointless and misinformed that it would be like writing an article on how to reduce speeding, while drawing a diagram pointing to the radiator of a car and claiming that the radiator was the muffler and the muffler could be removed to make the car annoyingly loud, which doesn't really have anything to do with speeding at all. It just doesn't make sense, and laughably so.

[Psychosplodge]

Can't fault your logic there. Suppose by their logic all pick up tucks are potentially for use with a mounted machine gun... they've got the flat bed in the back...

[White Tiger88]

Can't fault your logic there. Suppose by their logic all pick up tucks are potentially for use with a mounted machine gun... they've got the flat bed in the back...

Hey...Shut up! your going to ruin my new parking spot freeing up device.......

[DarkLink]

That's pretty much the problem with most of the gun control laws in the US (and really, the rest of the world, to be honest). Instead of something that actually affects crime, we get all this "OMGF, that's an assault gun because it has the attachment point for a grenade launcher on it". 'But that's just the sling-' "Shut up gun nut, it's because of people like you there are dead children". 'Uh, no, it's really because-' "Stop arguing, you're obviously not willing to have a conversation on the subject because you love your precious guns more than children, what's wrong with you".

I wish I were joking.

[Godless Zealot]

That's the problem with many arguments in the world there is always at least two sides and usually they are committed one way or another. Often no amount of logic and reasoning can dissuade or convert someone to see your point of view. This has been a fascinating thread by the way, I haven't contributed to it at all but it's been interesting to read everyone's posts and thoughts on the matter. It's all been fairly civil too ignoring the odd jibe here and there. It's been insightful for a dumb ol' limey here to have glimpse into American gun culture and the controversy surrounding it.

(Just thought I'd add no sarcasm here at all I genuinely found it interesting.):)

DarkLink I thought you presented your argument very well. It's clear this is a topic your passionate about and your opinions and links etc are very enlightening. It must be frustrating for people to generalise a lot of gun owners out there. Even though the gentleman who argued with Piers in the video linked near the beginning of the thread did seem to resemble some horrendous caricature I thought he did make one valid point, it's not up to foreigners to dictate US domestic policies.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, regardless of your opinion on pro/anti gun, just step back and look at the headlines. Half of them are titled things like "the NRA's dangerous vision", and then they offer absolutely no real argument to back up their position other than moral indignation at how murderous anyone who likes guns must be, because of the dead children. I've actually found the last few months pretty remarkable, because there has been an unusually widespread support for pro gun within the media, but it's still 50/50 at best.

If I ever heard many gun control advocates actually backing up their argument with stuff like, y'know, statistics (that aren't taken out of context), but I really haven't, and on top of that they tend to be riddled with logical fallacies. What I have heard, and heard a lot, is complete and utter ignorance regarding virtually everything related to guns. From the demonetization of irrelevant design features of assault rifles, to complete ignorance of the Supreme Court's rulings that certain types of firearm bans are unconstitutional, it's more than a little frustrating. I've pretty much given up filtering my opinion like I would in a more balanced conversation, because so many people simply don't listen. It spills over more than a little into situations where there are people who will in fact actually listen.

[eldargal]

That's pretty much the problem with most of the gun control laws in the US (and really, the rest of the world, to be honest). Instead of something that actually affects crime, we get all this "OMGF, that's an assault gun because it has the attachment point for a grenade launcher on it". 'But that's just the sling-' "Shut up gun nut, it's because of people like you there are dead children". 'Uh, no, it's really because-' "Stop arguing, you're obviously not willing to have a conversation on the subject because you love your precious guns more than children, what's wrong with you".

I wish I were joking.
This is actually a trend I notice in most American debates actually, the quality of the debate on both sides is generally appallingly low. It can be quite bad here too (and elsewhere) but it never seems to reach quite the same low. Personally I blame the puritan culture stemming from Pilgrims, there is Right and Wrong and We are Always Right etc. So instead of, say, pro-gun groups working with the guvmint to work out laws which will let them keep their rights and help safeguard innocents everyone just stands around screaming nonsense at the other side.

[DarkLink]

The gun grabbers started it ;) :rolleyes:

[Nabterayl]

Pretty sure, in this case, the civil rights struggle (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/?single_page=true) started it.

[DarkLink]

God, the ignorance on the frontpage...

[Psychosplodge]

That's not really the type of article we should have here, surely?

[Nabterayl]

... an article on how the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment can be traced to the Black Panthers? What's wrong with that?

[Psychosplodge]

I meant it's for wargaming, the front page more than anything, yeah down here in the oubliette, but front page really?

[DarkLink]

I think he meant the frontpage article I mentioned, Dr King and Merry Gun Nut Day.

[Psychosplodge]

I think he meant the frontpage article I mentioned, Dr King and Merry Gun Nut Day.
That's what I was talking about.

[DarkLink]

The article itself wasn't terrible, though I'm not a fan of brent's rambling neigh incoherence in the first place, but yeah, random political article out of nowhere that has nothing to do with wargaming at all? Kinda weird. I mean, he does get a weekly article and he can post pretty much whatever he wants, and I'm not the sort of person to ***** just because it wasn't my favorite article EVAR, but it was kinda weird.

And it brought out the finest of trolls, too. For the most part, I had some fun both posting my arguments and opinions (basically a retread of what I've said here, but more disjointed due to the nature of Disqus) while poking fun at trolls, and it was kind of therapeutic but man, there were some really, really, really... willfully ignorant people there. There were four or five peo- trolls, I'm not sure they qualify as people;), who were on the flaming side of the made-up conversation I posted earlier:


"OMGF, that's an assault gun because it has the attachment point for a grenade launcher on it". 'But that's just the sling-' "Shut up gun nut, it's because of people like you there are dead children". 'Uh, no, it's really because-' "Stop arguing, you're obviously not willing to have a conversation on the subject because you love your precious guns more than children, what's wrong with you".

To revise my quote to match one of them:

Troll - "If anyone thinks they NEED an assault rifle, they're either lying or mentally ill".

Me - "Actually, it doesn't matter if it's a need, it's a constitutional right".

"No, it isn't, not according to constitutional scholars".

Me - "You mean constitutional scholars like the Supreme Court, who ruled the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own and use firearms for a variety of purposes, including self defense, and that a handgun ban was unconstitutional?"

Troll - "You're wrong, and you've failed to address my point that it's not a NEED (seriously, he always capitalized NEED, every single time)"

Me - "Actually, both myself and several other posters have replied regarding the need issue. Maybe you need to check your response notifications?"

Troll - "Wrong. You've ignored my point, and you're not being rational. It's not a NEED."

Me - "I have addressed your point, but to reiterate why it's irrelevant . But I'll humor you. Go to CNN or BBC or whatever, and tell me how many headlines are about some nation in civil war, or about one nation oppressing its people, or about some form of violence committed against criminals [insert the rest of this argument, which I've posted in this thread previously]. So yes, you can argue that it is a NEED, even if we lucky Westerners don't happen to be using it at this very moment."

Troll - "Wrong. You've ignored my point, and you're not being rational. It's not a NEED."

Me - "Yeah, not really. I've posted my argument. If you disagree with my argument, or any of the statistics I've quoted, or any of my conclusions, feel free to contest them with arguments of your own. Do some research, go on google, pull up some numbers to support your argument, and explain [I]why your claims are correct."

Troll - "Wrong. You've ignored my point, and you're not being rational. It's not a NEED."

Me - " 'Nuh-uh' is not generally considered to be an argument. If you want to convince anyone of anything, then go ahead and post data to support your conclusions."

Troll - "Wrong. You've ignored my point, and you're not being rational. It's not a NEED."

At that point, once he started just repeating his argument over and over again, I just started making fun of him. He even went on to claim that I was copy/pasting my statements in addition to my apparent lack of rationality. It was pretty amusing really, but it certainly didn't reaffirm my faith in humanity.

[eldargal]

This is why I never read the comments on the main page articles anymore. I mean he's right that semi-automatic weapons aren't needed, but the point of that is that tightening restrictions on who can own them is not necessarily unconsitutional. The 'need' issue is only relevant in that some firearms are a needed item for certain groups of people (sportsmen, farmers etc.)

[Psychosplodge]

You'll never find faith in humanity looking on the internet DL

[Deadlift]

http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/opinion/editorial/commentary/forward-view/marching-to-muzzle-america-s-gun-violence/article_8cfcb428-6604-11e2-8b78-0019bb2963f4.html

I personally think this article made some sense, to me it is obvious there has to be changes made to gun ownership in America, It's also obvious that Americans are not going to give up the right to own guns, but it must be possible to make some sensible changes that can help prevent some of the mass killing that seem to be a problem partly unique to America (I know we have had similar shootings here in Europe too but not to the same frequency).
So having read what I have, I think there are some sensible compromises. Banning automatic weapons, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and better education and mental health support in schools are just 3 examples I can recall from the above article that to me make sense.

For those writers in this thread who are pro gun ownership, what are your views and ideas on how to reduce the amount of gun related killings in America. I don't really subscribe to the "arm everyone" ideal that some of your more extreme pro-gun chaps are talking about.
I would like to add I am a big fan of America in general and have visited many times. I'm not anti America in anyway, if I had a chance I would be living there right now :)