Support NATA 2014

New York's Gun Ban

  • 5,410 Views
  • 284 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 18th, 2013 @ 09:34 PM Reply

At 1/18/13 07:27 PM, Warforger wrote: They get their guns illegally, Adam Lanza's guns were mostly acquired legally.

Wrong. He stole them.

If he had obtained them legally, or attempted to, he would've been turned down because of his psychological history.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 18th, 2013 @ 09:48 PM Reply

At 1/17/13 08:44 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 1/17/13 08:38 PM, TheMason wrote: Can you establish evidence that we need to ban/restrict high-capacity magazines?
No, of course not. If anything, the evidence shows that banning them does effectively nothing. I just think the reasons why they shouldn't be banned are bogus; I think hicap mags are more for hobbyists than anything else. And that's fine! Just say so.

I was talking to a friend of mine who is a cattleman and he reminded me of something the other day...a gun like a Mini-14 or AR-15 is useful as a 'varmit gun'. It's small, weak .223 round is quite effective for coyotes and the high cap mag is also useful for ridding one's ranch of animals that pose a threat to livestock.

It's not about hunting...but protecting the food supply/investment.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 18th, 2013 @ 09:50 PM Reply

I believe I brought that point up, maybe it wasn't here on NG...

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 18th, 2013 @ 10:29 PM Reply

At 1/17/13 11:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm going off of Scalia's contrived rule. I'm saying what should be the rule based on the rights of Americans to live safely balanced against the plain text of the Amendment.

And yet there is no demonstrated trend where allowing assault weapons tips the balance towards endangering the rights of Americans to live safely.

This is where your argument (or at least the argument of gun control advocates) fail.

I apologize, I used the wrong term (they have specific terms of art in the legal sense). I meant ambiguous. The legal term of art for ambiguos means that it written in such a manner that two people can honestly read into it it two different meanings. You read "bear Arms" as to read "bear as many of any type of arms" and I read "the right to posses arms" in its strictest sense meaning the right to bear a firearm.

No...I understand what you are saying. Switching one word for another doesn't negate what I said. The second amendment is written clearly within the context of the 18th century when it was written. Therefore, it's meaning is still discernable...and clear.

Where the ambiguity comes in is when people with agendas attempt to dismiss original intent as a way of sidestepping the civil right that the second amendment established. I do not doubt that you are a honest, intelligent and reasonable individual. And I know we disagree here.


The lawful need here is the core of the second amendment: National Defense. The second amendment guarantees the right for the citizenry to keep firearms that are common to the military in order to provide for the security of a free state. I will get into the feasibility of this in a moment in answer to something you write later on.
You get into the feasibility but missed the point I was getting at.

No, I think I do get the point that you were getting at. The problem is what I see as a lawful need (National Defense) that is the prime and core spirit of the second amendment is present in military style semi-auto rifles.


But all cars have a primary usage that is positive whereas guns do not. Guns primary usage is to cause harm to flesh. Whereas a car has to be used improperly to be dangerous, a gun has to be used properly to not be dangerous. (sounds the same but to use a gun properly requires affirmative effort, wheras using a car improperly requires affirmative effort, and not the other way around for both.)

A few things here:
* Driving is a priviledge...not a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right.
* The primary usage of a gun is positive. No commercial gun manufacturer makes a gun with the intention to market it to criminals. Instead they are marketed as tool for self-defense and hunting...and even patriotism. While it accomplishes this task through harming flesh as you point out...the purpose for which it is intended to harm that flesh must be considered.


Even then, even if you're right. We already have MASSIVE systems in place to register automobiles and their drivers, and one has to pass a test to drive one of these, unlike guns where all one has to do is go to a gun show and put down cash. There are lots of conditions that would disqualify someone from using a car, not nearly as many for using a gun which has little other use than to harm.

* A vehicle is exponentially more complex to operate than a vehicle.
* A vehicle has significant more potential to do significant more harm than a gun.
* Because of the complexity of driving a vehicle there should be more conditions that disqualify someone from driving than from operating a less complex machine such as a gun.
* Quality is more important than quantity when discussing what disqualifies someone from owning/using something. Are the conditions that disqualify someone from owning a gun reasonable? Are they effective?


You completely miss the point here. The point isn't that single shot rifles can't do the job. The point ins't that small clips can't do the job. The point is that the difference between currently legal weaponry and that which would still be legal (clips smaller by a whopping 3 rounds, and the same exact weapons but clad like a hunter's weapon) provide no real difference for national defense than the other. They both pale heavily in the face of the weapons they would go up against.

No...no I got your point. And I negated it.

The fact is they would NOT pale in the face of the weapons they would go up against.


Your examples show that it;s the people behind the guns, not the extra 3 bullets or the 100% functionless (by several admissions here) military chic cladding, that make the defense.

Here we're going to get into some minutae.

* The things that makes FMJ ammo horrible for killing...actually make it good for shooting down aircraft. In Iraq a raid of AH-64 Apache gunship helicopters was forced back due to damage taken from AK-47 fire. Two aircraft had to crashland and many others were grounded for several days and weeks for battledamage. The extra twenty bullets that a 30 round mag affords in this case would make a difference. In Vietnam attack aircraft like the A-4 and A-6 attack jets and AH-1 gunship helicopters were succeptable to small arms fire.

* In urban environments, mounted attacks are not practicle. Thus, you need soldiers to go house-to-house dismounted. So much of the armor advantage is lost.

* The only military functionality that is lost in the semi-auto clones is the ability to provide suppressive fire...a function that is actually designed not to kill but to intimidate. It is also a huge waste of ammo and not much used.


The advantage that the people would have over a tyrannical government...is the ability to have firearms.
If this is your argument,why are you comfortable with people not having M-60s or rocket launchers or tacticals driving down the streets? Those are definitely weapons common to the military.

First of all, it is a point I made that you did not address: in the even that the government would attempt to go tyrannical the military would fracture and those weapons would fall into either the hands of states succeeding from the Union, active duty military leaving and taking those weapons with them, or the national guard armories that store those weapons being overrun.

Secondly, they are not all that common. When Scalia talks about unusual and uncommon he is speaking of what is unusual and uncommon for individuals. Those are special weapons for special circumstances and not common or usually toted by most soldiers.


True, but the thing is once you delve into the math about guns, violence, and injury...the public time and time again have proven that they are capable of handleing the responsiblity.
10,000 annual gun deaths seems to indicate otherwise.

Not at all.

Accidental gun deaths: Barely register as their own category. More people of all ages die from walking and falling accidents than from firearm accidents.

Suicide gun deaths: Our suicide rate is flat, furthermore the only categories that show any moderate effect of gun availability is males living in a home with a loaded firearm and old people. Even then, the difference barely registers as having any sort of statistical significance. In short, waving a magic wand and removing all guns from the equation will have no to very little effect. The people who kill themselves with guns will still kill themselves...probably much more inhumanely and with much more suffering.

Homicide gun deaths: The vast majority of these are used with guns gained either illegally or by criminals against other criminals. There will always be a demand for these guns as long as we have a demand for narcotics...and as long as both of these demands exists there will be sophisticated and established smuggling routes to get them into the hands of murderers.

So no...emotional lawyering aside...the math does not support the gun control argument.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 18th, 2013 @ 10:30 PM Reply

At 1/18/13 09:48 PM, TheMason wrote: I was talking to a friend of mine who is a cattleman and he reminded me of something the other day...a gun like a Mini-14 or AR-15 is useful as a 'varmit gun'. It's small, weak .223 round is quite effective for coyotes and the high cap mag is also useful for ridding one's ranch of animals that pose a threat to livestock.

It's not about hunting...but protecting the food supply/investment.

Yeah, AR's are not really that powerful

Just for perspective, my friend's 16 year old brother shoots one competitively in the YOUTH division. It's a baby gun.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 18th, 2013 @ 10:35 PM Reply

At 1/18/13 09:34 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Wrong. He stole them.

Er yah that wasn't what I meant but I guess you're technically right. The guns were acquired legally by his mom though, he stole it from her which isn't something you want kids to be able to do.

If he had obtained them legally, or attempted to, he would've been turned down because of his psychological history.

It's still not effective as we saw in the Aurora shooting, the guy got past all those psychological tests and got guns. That's what I was disappointed in, none of the solutions proposed seemed to have addressed that.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 18th, 2013 @ 10:49 PM Reply

At 1/18/13 10:35 PM, Warforger wrote: Er yah that wasn't what I meant but I guess you're technically right. The guns were acquired legally by his mom though, he stole it from her which isn't something you want kids to be able to do.

She was a shit parent for allowing her unstable kid get ahold of it

It's still not effective as we saw in the Aurora shooting, the guy got past all those psychological tests and got guns. That's what I was disappointed in, none of the solutions proposed seemed to have addressed that.

The solution to stop things like that is to get rid of gun free zones. Let's examine how a gun free zone affects people in them

Normal law abiding gun owners: Because it's a gun free zone, will leave their gun at home..or in the car or whatever.
Armed criminal: Will do what he wants because his mission is to kill, and has no regard for the law or lives.

A gun free zone, is literally useless, as it just makes rules that criminals won't follow anyway. Gun free zones just create targets that won't/can't fight back.

Please, explain how a gun-free zone protects anyone.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 01:33 AM Reply

It's still not effective as we saw in the Aurora shooting, the guy got past all those psychological tests and got guns. That's what I was disappointed in, none of the solutions proposed seemed to have addressed that.

The Aurora shooter went out of his way to go a gun free theater. There were larger and closer theaters then the one he hit. And even better his AR-15 jammed he switched to pistols (Which kill far more then rifles)

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 02:07 AM Reply

At 1/18/13 10:33 AM, JoSilver wrote: Who in the hell even needs assault rifles

Stop using terms you don't know the meaning to. It has been stated many, many times in every single gun thread regarding gun control that very few people actually have access to assault rifles. What we do have access to is "assault" weapons which was a buzzword created to make them sound more scary. It is the equivalent of calling every car with a spoiler (Pistol grip, collapsible stock, etc) a race car regardless of what is under the hood (Semi-auto vs automatic).

. I believe that our second amendment right is base on self defense so why have guns that kill rather than wound. Sure I don't know a lot about guns or the mentality of the people who are in fear of the rise of tyrannical dictator but as long as not all the guns are gone I don't see what the problem is.

It is based off of national defense, specifically regarding the general populace, not just an individuals self defense. Even then, an AR platform is an excellent self-defense weapon. Banning one made up category of firearm, especially one based off of looks and not performance, is a horrible precedent to set, and having only a handgun would not really help you that much in larger scale events.

Unless of course your counter-argument would be that Obama/Hitler is plotting against us all, WHICH WOULD TOTALLY MAKES A SHIT TON OF SENSE!

Meh, I think the Hitler comparisons are a bit much, but I really do not trust Obama regarding firearms.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 03:18 AM Reply

At 1/18/13 10:29 PM, TheMason wrote: No...I understand what you are saying. Switching one word for another doesn't negate what I said. The second amendment is written clearly within the context of the 18th century when it was written. Therefore, it's meaning is still discernable...and clear.

It is not clear. If it had a clarifying adjective, then it would be clear. Based solely on the text both a place where Americans could have every firearm known to man including nuclear weapons and a place where only derringers could be owned can be reasonably inferred.

There is nothing stating that the right is restricted by the size of the weapon, nor that anything but the simplest Arm is all that is allowed. The lack of any clarification language creates the ambiguity. (Trust me, I have actaully had to argue such empty texts before, and it really fucking sucks when the drafters leave such things out, as textually anything could be the right answer.

Where the ambiguity comes in is when people with agendas attempt to dismiss original intent as a way of sidestepping the civil right that the second amendment established.

That's not the definition of ambiguous.

No, I think I do get the point that you were getting at. The problem is what I see as a lawful need (National Defense) that is the prime and core spirit of the second amendment is present in military style semi-auto rifles.

So the militia language isn't throw away language?

the purpose for which it is intended to harm that flesh must be considered.

Doesn't matter. A gun is meant to harm living flesh in EVERY USAGE. It takes a qualification of that to turn a negative thing into a good thing. (i.e. hunting, or self defense)

A car is meant to transport. It takes a qualification of that to turn it into a bad thing.

* Quality is more important than quantity when discussing what disqualifies someone from owning/using something. Are the conditions that disqualify someone from owning a gun reasonable? Are they effective?

No. They're horribly insufficient.

There is no excuse for a person convicted of DV to EVER be able to hold a gun again.

The fact is they would NOT pale in the face of the weapons they would go up against.

That was not the point. And yes, a 10 shot AR-15 pales in comparison to an M1A1. That doesn;t mean the M1A1 is the guaranteed victor, but that is beside the point.

The point is that the existence of 3 measily rounds per clip when going up against a fully mobilized military with weapons that far outclass any civilian rifle make little difference. A 10 shot rifle and a 7 shot rifle are about equal in effectiveness against a fully armed military unit. The lack of difference is the point, not the comparison between civilian weapons and military weapons.

Think of it like going into a sword fight with a 2 inch switchblade versus a 2 inch stilleto. The difference in blade timing does little to even the odds.

The extra twenty bullets that a 30 round mag affords in this case would make a difference.

Most allowable clips are 10 rounds, not thirty. The loss is only of 3 rounds per clip.

Also, the M1 clad as an M1 versus the M1 clad as a M-16 fires exactly the same (not to mention the M1 look is just plain better). The look of an assault rifle doesn't magically make the gun fire harder, as you have pointed numerous times yourself.

First of all, it is a point I made that you did not address: in the even that the government would attempt to go tyrannical the military would fracture and those weapons would fall into either the hands of states succeeding from the Union, active duty military leaving and taking those weapons with them, or the national guard armories that store those weapons being overrun.

So why is there even a need for ivilians to have such weaponry, or cheap knockoffs of such weaponry? If they'll end up getting it anyway.

Secondly, they are not all that common. When Scalia talks about unusual and uncommon he is speaking of what is unusual and uncommon for individuals. Those are special weapons for special circumstances and not common or usually toted by most soldiers.

I've never ben a fan of the "because it exists it's Constitutional" argument. It;s nothing more than a cop out for judges too weak to actually take a stand.

Not at all.

10,000 incidents of fatal shooting by civilians is a pretty stong indication that civilians can't properly handle the responsibility. Intentional or accidental has no bearing on this. Misuse is misuse whether intentional or accidental.

Kel-chan
Kel-chan
  • Member since: Mar. 6, 2011
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Animator
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 04:04 AM Reply

They get their guns illegally, Adam Lanza's guns were mostly acquired legally.

wrong

he killed his mother and stole her weapons.... hence just as illegally gotten as the thug that steals them from someone else.

He attempted to buy guns but didnt feel like waiting the mandatory waiting period so he murdered his mother.

We already have laws against murder and felony theft but it didnt seem to stop that

Kel-chan
Kel-chan
  • Member since: Mar. 6, 2011
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Animator
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 04:15 AM Reply

At 1/19/13 03:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
There is no excuse for a person convicted of DV to EVER be able to hold a gun again.

Just a point about this, its actually kind of a whole nother topic but as a female I can tell you it is incredibly easy to get a man arrested for domestic violence when nothing of the sort occured at all. In fact I have known a person that did just this because she got into a verbal arguement with her boyfriend. He never laid a finger on her yet now he was arrested and charged with DV and now has lost his 2nd amendment right forever among having a lifelong mark that will come up everytime he goes for a job interview. Also in many states in countys they have mandatory arrest laws in cases of DV no matter who starts a fight or even if a person doesnt want to press charges.

Don't have such blind faith in the law because it can easily be turned to ensnare you and anybody else if people know how to game the system correctly

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 12:20 PM Reply

Most allowable clips are 10 rounds, not thirty. The loss is only of 3 rounds per clip.

Stop talking about crap if you have NO clue. One year to turn them in and misdemeanor charges if you don't.
The law effectivley bans 95-99% of all handguns. It was purposefully constructed to do so. That is infringing.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 12:31 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 04:15 AM, Kellz5460 wrote: Just a point about this, its actually kind of a whole nother topic but as a female I can tell you it is incredibly easy to get a man arrested for domestic violence when nothing of the sort occured at all.

Arrested =/= convicted.

And convicting on DV is extremely hard. Are there times where it's a wrong conviction? Yeah. Is it easy to get someone convicted of DV? No.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 12:39 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 12:20 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Stop talking about crap if you have NO clue.

Merely saying that isn;t a victory for you. If I have no clue, start using sources to show me that.

One year to turn them in and misdemeanor charges if you don't.

Speaking of sources, show me the exact statutory language that says this.

The law effectivley bans 95-99% of all handguns. It was purposefully constructed to do so. That is infringing.

It still leaves a huge array of firearms available. It limits the ability to own some guns, but it in no way conflicts with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 01:40 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 12:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It still leaves a huge array of firearms available. It limits the ability to own some guns, but it in no way conflicts with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

Would you say that citizens not being allowed to comment on politics would be an infringement for freedom of speech? I mean, there is plenty of other things to talk about after all


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 03:07 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 12:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/19/13 12:20 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Stop talking about crap if you have NO clue.
Merely saying that isn;t a victory for you. If I have no clue, start using sources to show me that.

One year to turn them in and misdemeanor charges if you don't.
Speaking of sources, show me the exact statutory language that says this.

The law effectivley bans 95-99% of all handguns. It was purposefully constructed to do so. That is infringing.
It still leaves a huge array of firearms available. It limits the ability to own some guns, but it in no way conflicts with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/14/cuomo-n ew-york-guns/1833271/

More then 10 now need to be turned over or sold out of state. between 8-10 pay to have them retrofitted. Or they will be charged with a misdemeanor.

Sources yay

Oh and cops aren't specifically exempt even though they hold about double that. You can tell this law wasn't rushed and was well thought out.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 10:06 PM Reply

At 1/18/13 10:49 PM, LemonCrush wrote: She was a shit parent for allowing her unstable kid get ahold of it

It's her kid, eventually they find out stuff like lock combinations.....But this sort of proves my point, entrusting such power to private citizens only makes it more easily abused.

The solution to stop things like that is to get rid of gun free zones. Let's examine how a gun free zone affects people in them

Normal law abiding gun owners: Because it's a gun free zone, will leave their gun at home..or in the car or whatever.
Armed criminal: Will do what he wants because his mission is to kill, and has no regard for the law or lives.

Jesus Fucking Christ are we in fucking Iraq or America? I doubt even people with guns go to every goddamn restaurant or theater with the idea in their head that people will start shooting them unless they live in downtown LA.

A gun free zone, is literally useless, as it just makes rules that criminals won't follow anyway. Gun free zones just create targets that won't/can't fight back.

Ok?

Please, explain how a gun-free zone protects anyone.

I wasn't arguing in favor of that. But I'd say it's better than taking the African way of education and arming every goddamn thing with limbs with a M16 so that when someone comes to shoot up the school instead of a massacre they'll have a firefight.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 10:55 PM Reply

Not having gun free zones in public places =/= arming everyone
See only people who follow the law obey gun free zones..

CaveStoryGrounds
CaveStoryGrounds
  • Member since: Jan. 3, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Writer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 19th, 2013 @ 11:33 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 10:55 PM, Ceratisa wrote: See only people who follow the law obey gun free zones..

Spotting those that don't follow the law isn't black and white, but the tools they use are easy to spot and through the proper steps much easier to get rid of. If they have no tools for the law they wish to break, they cannot easily break that law.

If your car is towed you can not speed in it but must somehow retrieve it or steal another, both can be very difficult, costly, and time consuming. No different with guns.

Zanroth
Zanroth
  • Member since: Jul. 22, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Artist
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 10:45 AM Reply

Great, another example of linear thinking idealists fucking shit up in the long run.
First of all, I think it's a bad idea in essence.
Second of all, this solution will FAIL, are you that stuck up in your emotions and blind idealism to see that?

New York's Gun Ban

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 12:29 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 03:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
There is nothing stating that the right is restricted by the size of the weapon, nor that anything but the simplest Arm is all that is allowed. The lack of any clarification language creates the ambiguity. (Trust me, I have actaully had to argue such empty texts before, and it really fucking sucks when the drafters leave such things out, as textually anything could be the right answer.

I see your point, however I do not think it is as ambiguous as many people on the gun control side make it out to be. I think there is more clarity than is presented in popular media.

So the militia language isn't throw away language?

The militia language is commonly misinterpreted and misrepresented by gun control politicians and advocates to make the argument that the amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms to the militia...which today they claim is the National Guard.

All the militia language is a preamble which establishes their purpose in making it an individual right. Therefore, it does establish what purpose they had in mind for an armed citizenry. Was it hunting, self-defense, or national defense?

Thus the lawful purpose behind the second amendment is military in nature...since it's the only purpose mentioned. It speaks directly to the type of individual arm that is being protected. So it is important in this regard. However, contextually and grammatically it does not effect to whom the right belong to. It is not a militia right...it is an individual right.

:)


Doesn't matter. A gun is meant to harm living flesh in EVERY USAGE. It takes a qualification of that to turn a negative thing into a good thing. (i.e. hunting, or self defense)

A car is meant to transport. It takes a qualification of that to turn it into a bad thing.

But this is a difference on paper, not in fact. The reality is more harm is done by cars than by guns...and to more innocents. Furthermore, guns are a consumer that is a civil right wheras the ability to drive and own a car is a priviledge and not as much of a necessity as a gun.


* Quality is more important than quantity when discussing what disqualifies someone from owning/using something. Are the conditions that disqualify someone from owning a gun reasonable? Are they effective?
No. They're horribly insufficient.

There is no excuse for a person convicted of DV to EVER be able to hold a gun again.

Hey...I think that there is some room for strengthening how firearms are acquired. On the other hand, there is no argument thus far presented to push for the bans on 'assault weapons' and high-cap mags.

That was not the point. And yes, a 10 shot AR-15 pales in comparison to an M1A1. That doesn;t mean the M1A1 is the guaranteed victor, but that is beside the point.

The point is that the existence of 3 measily rounds per clip when going up against a fully mobilized military with weapons that far outclass any civilian rifle make little difference. A 10 shot rifle and a 7 shot rifle are about equal in effectiveness against a fully armed military unit. The lack of difference is the point, not the comparison between civilian weapons and military weapons.

Think of it like going into a sword fight with a 2 inch switchblade versus a 2 inch stilleto. The difference in blade timing does little to even the odds.

This argument is invalid based upon that you seem not to understand what is currently permissible by your next statement...

Most allowable clips are 10 rounds, not thirty. The loss is only of 3 rounds per clip.

No...30 round magazines (the term 'clip' is erroneous) as well as 75 rd & 100 rd mags are allowable/legal. So yeah...we are talking a loss of 20+ rounds per mag.


Also, the M1 clad as an M1 versus the M1 clad as a M-16 fires exactly the same (not to mention the M1 look is just plain better). The look of an assault rifle doesn't magically make the gun fire harder, as you have pointed numerous times yourself.

Huh? An M1 is a battle rifle; which means it fires a high-powered round. Most are actually bolt action (although the M1 is semi-auto) with fixed mags less than 10 rounds. So there are no M1s clad as M-16s.

As for how it is clad...my AK-47 is a post-ban model. It lacks a bayonet lug and pistol grip...but it maintains the ability to accept a high-cap mag. I don't want to loose that feature just because people who do not understand it...and thus fear it (along with all guns)...weild power emotionally and irrationally.


So why is there even a need for ivilians to have such weaponry, or cheap knockoffs of such weaponry? If they'll end up getting it anyway.

The main reason it creates a natural reserve force that is shown to be effective both in 1776 and in 2012 against much more conventionally powerful militaries.


I've never ben a fan of the "because it exists it's Constitutional" argument. It;s nothing more than a cop out for judges too weak to actually take a stand.

Hey...it's a natural extension of Scalia's opinion that in order to be regulated a firearm must be either uncommon or unusual.

10,000 incidents of fatal shooting by civilians is a pretty stong indication that civilians can't properly handle the responsibility. Intentional or accidental has no bearing on this. Misuse is misuse whether intentional or accidental.

Accidents:
All unintentional injury deaths
âEU¢Number of deaths: 120,859
âEU¢Deaths per 100,000 population: 39.1
âEU¢Cause of death rank: 5

Unintentional fall deaths
âEU¢Number of deaths: 26,009
âEU¢Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
âEU¢Number of deaths: 33,687
âEU¢Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9

Unintentional poisoning deaths
âEU¢Number of deaths: 33,041
âEU¢Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

Source

Firearms deaths (accidental)
* Number of deaths: 606
* Deaths pers 100,000 population: 0.2

Source

What are the other types of firearms deaths?

Homicide: Having watched this and posted rates for the past (almost) 10 yrs on NG these rates fluctuate between 13K and 18K a year. Right now we are at an all time low...around 13K.

Suicide: Again...I've watched this too. The rate fluctuates less than homicide and is a little higher at 15K-18K.

Now the things with these:
* The people who are killed in homicide tend to not: own the gun legally and they tend to be criminals regardless of possession of a firearm.

* Substitution effects come into play with suicides. The availability of guns does not impact suicide rates...they will find other ways to kill themselves.

So in summation...

* Your stat of 10K is wrong...it actually underrepresents the amount of firearms deaths.

* It does not accurately represent the nature of firearms deaths.

The reality is:

* In the vast majority of cases of misuse, it is intentional misuse. This cannot be so casually dismissed. A gun is an inert object...it does not just up and decide to turn on its owner and go off on their own accord. There has to be deliberative, and thoughtful action.

* In half the cases of intentional misuse...the gun is (in a statistically significant number of cases) is acquired illegally. Therefore your point fails.

* In the other half, the presence of the gun has nothing to do with causing the death. The death will occur irregardless...and probably with more suffering.

* The number of accidental deaths is trivial.

Your point is emotionally charged here...as well as factually untrue.

:)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 02:34 PM Reply

At 1/19/13 10:06 PM, Warforger wrote: It's her kid, eventually they find out stuff like lock combinations.....But this sort of proves my point, entrusting such power to private citizens only makes it more easily abused.

No it doesn't. An armed citizen, or even a cop, would've popped his bitch ass the moment he pulled a gun. FWIW, kids are not magic...they do not just "find out" safe cobminations

Jesus Fucking Christ are we in fucking Iraq or America? I doubt even people with guns go to every goddamn restaurant or theater with the idea in their head that people will start shooting them unless they live in downtown LA.

Well, a bunch of people didn't bring their guns to a movie theatre in Colorado...and now they're dead...so evidently, there is danger everywhere.

Ok?

So, you prefer that, say, children in an elementary school, be sitting ducks for a madman?

I wasn't arguing in favor of that. But I'd say it's better than taking the African way of education and arming every goddamn thing with limbs with a M16 so that when someone comes to shoot up the school instead of a massacre they'll have a firefight.

Teachers are armed in Israel. When was the last time you heard of a school shooting there? Hell, just have a cop or two at schools.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 02:36 PM Reply

Qualifying pistols as "Assault Weapons" is a pretty sickening leap honestly.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 07:14 PM Reply

At 1/20/13 02:36 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Qualifying pistols as "Assault Weapons" is a pretty sickening leap honestly.

Qualifying an AR-15 as an "assault weapon" is a sickening leap

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 42
Programmer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 07:27 PM Reply

At 1/20/13 07:14 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/20/13 02:36 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Qualifying pistols as "Assault Weapons" is a pretty sickening leap honestly.
Qualifying an AR-15 as an "assault weapon" is a sickening leap

AR-15s are assault weapons ( I know it stands for Armalite Rifle) but it qualifies:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
detachable Magazine
threaded barrel/Flash suppressor
Has selective fire (Usually ARs have semi to Burst fire)

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 09:41 PM Reply

At 1/20/13 07:27 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
detachable Magazine
threaded barrel/Flash suppressor
Has selective fire (Usually ARs have semi to Burst fire)

None of those things make a gun more deadly, or more suited to "assault" someone...FWIW, I've never seen an AR with burst fire.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 42
Programmer
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 09:46 PM Reply

At 1/20/13 09:41 PM, LemonCrush wrote: None of those things make a gun more deadly, or more suited to "assault" someone...FWIW, I've never seen an AR with burst fire.

well technically a M16A3, M4A1 (which is a cousin of the AR)

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 22nd, 2013 @ 07:58 PM Reply

At 1/20/13 09:46 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: well technically a M16A3, M4A1 (which is a cousin of the AR)

My cousin who looks like me knowing Jiu Jitsu does not mean I can all of a sudden do Jiu Jitsu


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban Jan. 22nd, 2013 @ 08:31 PM Reply

At 1/22/13 07:58 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
At 1/20/13 09:46 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: well technically a M16A3, M4A1 (which is a cousin of the AR)
My cousin who looks like me knowing Jiu Jitsu does not mean I can all of a sudden do Jiu Jitsu

Mason's Fun and Useless Fact of the Day

'AR-15' is the ArmaLite name for the rifle, including the military's selective fire rifle. M-16x and M-4 are just the military's nomenclature for them. So technically all 'black rifles' made by Colt (who bought the rights to the gun from ArmaLite) whether military or not...are AR-15s.

As for your point RB...the only thing that the civilian AR-15 lacks that the military version has is a degraded suppressive fire capability. So it's like imagine Jiu Jitsu has two different black belts and one can only do 98% of the other one. It would be like your cousing who looks like you has the higher belt...and you have the lower one.

:)

Besides...it's a shitty gun. Perhaps we should ban it from the military too and buy AK-47s!


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature