Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 35,363 Views
  • 1,687 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
CacheHelper
CacheHelper
  • Member since: Apr. 2, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Jan. 31st, 2013 @ 01:08 PM Reply

At 1/22/13 08:22 PM, TheMason wrote: Did you know that the body count is higher in mass shootings involving handguns over shootings involving assault rifles?

So because Handguns are super dangerous -- larger, more powerful, guns should remain legal?

It all points to further gun control will not save lives.

I disagree. I in no way think gun control will stop violence... nor do I think that gun control will have an immediate effect on society, but I do think, in the long term, gun control will help deter violence and save lives. The studies we do now are flawed because they take place at a point in time where guns are not only readily available (even banned ones because so many where purchased and placed on the streets before bans) but a massive part of our every day culture.

If we can begin to turn the tide on the amount of high-powered weapons on the street (over years of buy-back plans and good old fashioned police work confiscating criminals weapons) then eventually there won't be so many of them and the numbers will begin to drop. Socitey taking a stand against these types of weapons and crimes will also help deter the notion that gun violence is acceptable and help reduce it's place in american culture.

I would back up these arguments with evidence that in countries with strict gun control laws (like Japan) there is an amazing low number of gun-related violence per year. I think Japan had two gun-related deaths all year... compared to Americas 11,000+. Cleary, gun control can, and does, effect that numbers... it just takes time.

* There is more of a legitimate case for a handgun ban than an assault rifle ban.

Agreed, but that's not the issue... bear with me a second on this one:
I am for gun control, but I am against a ban on hand guns. Why? The same reason you are; the 2nd amendment. Although I understand that handguns are responsible for more deaths a year then assault riffles, I also understand that it's our constitutional right to protect ourselves from each other and (unrealistically by todays standards) the government itself. I do not think we should get rid of this amendment, but I do feel that the amendment needs to be controlled. Having the ability to own a handgun does not automatically garuntee you the right to own every weapon ever made.

That being said, I feel assault riffles are unneccssary in todays society. Why? Because I feel that assault rifles are more suited for spraying a large amount of (large) bullets over a good sized area in a short amount of time... not for protecting yourself from an attacker. It's not that you couldn't use an assault riffle to protect yourself, it's, as you said yourself, just not all that effective. You would be better off using a handgun.

So while a handgun can arguably serve a protective purpose an assault riffle has a harder time doing so. Additionaly, assault rifles come with the unfortunite side effect of being great tools to shoot up a building with and have a great potential to kill large amounts of innocent people in a very short amount of time. Weighing the userful features of the assault rifle against it's potential dangers, I feel that assault rifles are too dangerous and should thus, be banned.

In the end...assault 'weapons' are targeted because gun control opinion makers can manipulate the ignorance and fear of people who do not know much about guns to get these banned.

That's an assumption on your end, but it in no way speaks for all of us for gun control. You're arguments for the neccessity of an assault rifle revolved around killing a gopher and firing 30 rounds, blindly, through the walls of your house and hoping for the best. Not great answers. It's not the gun we're worried about, it's the irrational behavior of the people who might own one. Like you, who just admited to wanting to lock himself in his bedroom and then fire 30 rounds from an AK-47 through his door just hoping that the guy on the other side is bad, and he's the only one that gets hurt. It's irresponsible and dangerous. It's unneccessary. Kill gophers with a standard bolt-action rifle and protect your home with a hand gun like the rest of the responsible gun owners. Don't, please don't, fire 30 rounds blindly through the walls of your house... I might be on the other side, wether I know it or not.

theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Jan. 31st, 2013 @ 04:15 PM Reply

Just throwing this out there... With a TX prosecutor shot dead, a school shooting near Atlanta, 8 shootings at 5 gun shows on Gun Appreciation Day, and a variety of other well publicized shootings, something has got to change. I would strongly encourage those of you who have not supported gun control in the past to rethink your positions. And, for some of you, that could prove to be very helpful, especially if you disagree with the Obama plan on gun control. What other ideas do you have? It's not enough on this issue to just say no, you need to come up with some kind of alternative. The status quo clearly is not working.

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Jan. 31st, 2013 @ 06:48 PM Reply

At 1/31/13 11:52 AM, CacheHelper wrote: Wrong, that's paranoia speaking. You're refusing to face the current issues for the assumed fear of something else that may or may not occure down the road.

No it is not. An AWB serves no purpose besides making people feel warm and fuzzy and setting up future groundwork for more control. It is not paranoia when this new round of the ban is stricter than the last, especially when we have the person behind the bill having said she wants all guns banned.

A bunch of public massacers is a start.

Can you prove that the few massacres that have occurred with a weapon falling under, what the misinformed like to call, an assault weapon, either would not have occurred or would have been less deadly?

1 second might be enough time to save lives. I'd prefer to never have to face the issue but given the two choices:
-- A) no pause, just constant firing for 100 rounds
-- B) 1 second pause every 10 shots

Might be enough. That's not good enough. Lobotomizing the mentally ill might save lives. Putting the Japanese in internment camps might save lives. Only allowing every person a 2000 calorie diet with strictly managed foods would save lives. I would rather have the ability to meet force with force instead of negating my force and hoping others follow the same rules. Besides, a magazine ban won't do shit, we can already print them off, alongside an actual AR-15 like weapon.

I'm going to go for option B. That gives me 10 seconds per 100 rounds. Not the best odds, but better odds then choice A.

Not really. Those are all spread out, and that is assuming the person is just firing firing firing for every single shot. How do you know if he's reloading or just doesn't have anyone to aim at? Many shooters carry multiple weapons. There is no way to tell if he'd just switch to that one instead of reloading, saving him time. That's what the Colorado shooter did. His AR-15 jammed, switched weapons. You have to be one really bad ass mother fucker to try to take down a gunman when you're unarmed. And then we have places like Sandy Hook, where who would have attempted to subdue him? The children?


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 Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Jan. 31st, 2013 @ 08:04 PM Reply

At 1/31/13 01:08 PM, CacheHelper wrote: So because Handguns are super dangerous -- larger, more powerful, guns should remain legal?

An assault rifle fires a round that travels at a higher velocity (often referred to as power) than a handgun. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is more powerful in terms of knock-down power. The AR-15 round is smaller than the vast majority of handgun ammo. It is actually pretty much a longer and slightly (0.003 of an inch) bigger diameter than a .22. Also the speed/velocity at which it travels means that the bullet fired from an assault rifle will do LESS harm and kill LESS people than a bullet fired from a handgun

My argument is people (who I consider reasonable and thoughtful) like you who do not know much about make the following false assumption: That assault rifles are more powerful and lethal guns than handguns and/or even hunting rifles and shotguns. When the reality is assault rifles are nowhere near as powerful or as capable of harm as you assume they are.

Handguns are far, far more deadlier than assault rifles. This is not an opinion, but scientific fact based upon physics as well as the molecular properties of the bullets themselves.


It all points to further gun control will not save lives.
I would back up these arguments with evidence that in countries with strict gun control laws (like Japan) there is an amazing low number of gun-related violence per year. I think Japan had two gun-related deaths all year... compared to Americas 11,000+. Cleary, gun control can, and does, effect that numbers... it just takes time.

I understand your argument. And I see how you come to those conclusions. However, you build your argument on a foundation of sand. See you have to be careful about international comparisons in the social sciences. There are many differences between the US and Japan that are proven, scientifically, to have much stronger correlations effecting our crime levels and nature of crime. These would be:

* Japan is an ethnically and linguisticly homogenous country. The US on the other hand is a country that is very ethnically and linguisticly heterogenous. Furthermore, these differences are made more stark and open to more conflict due to historically and sociologically unique events that make up our national character.

* Japan is an island nation whereas the US shares a very long and porous border with a country through which drugs, people and who knows what else travel through very sophisticated supply routes.

* Japan is also a much smaller, more urban country which helps in policing.

* Japan is a culture based upon individual piety to family and community, while the US is a country of individuals.

* The US has a far larger and far more stratified economy than Japan.

* Japan has a higher level of educational attainment and achievement than the US.

These are all factors, which once analyzed with inferential statistics, correlate very strongly with effecting gun crime. On the other hand, when you do statistically analysis on the gun availability variable...any causal relationship (even when studying the phenomenon internationally) disappears.


* There is more of a legitimate case for a handgun ban than an assault rifle ban.
Agreed, but that's not the issue... bear with me a second on this one:
I am for gun control, but I am against a ban on hand guns. Why? The same reason you are; the 2nd amendment. Although I understand that handguns are responsible for more deaths a year then assault riffles, I also understand that it's our constitutional right to protect ourselves from each other and (unrealistically by todays standards) the government itself. I do not think we should get rid of this amendment, but I do feel that the amendment needs to be controlled. Having the ability to own a handgun does not automatically garuntee you the right to own every weapon ever made.

* These weapons would be far more effective against the government than you think for the reasons I have discussed ad nauseum on this BBS.

* The reason to have an assault rifle is for military/militia purposes...for national defense. It is the common small arm of militaries around the world. Ergo...it has a lawful purpose under the second amendment...which cannot be filled by another gun. Handguns on the other hand, do not serve a military/militia purpose. It's lawful purpose, self-defense, can be fulfilled by shotguns and assault rifles.


... Because I feel that assault rifles are more suited for spraying a large amount of (large) bullets over a good sized area in a short amount of time... ...

* The bullets fired from these weapons are NOT larger than the ones fired by handguns. You have this reversed. The AR fires a bullet that is .223" in diameter compared to a Colt 1911 which fires one .45" in diameter. The AR's bullet weighs (at most) 69 grains. The smallest .45 weighs about 225 grains. This is not opinion...this is math.

* We want psychos being able to spray and pray: 1) it is highly inaccurate and ineffective which means less people get hit, much less die. 2) They run out of bullets quicker, while hitting less people. 3) Forces the shooter, economically and through ignorant assumptions, to buy military ammo which is the least lethal ammo out there. 4) High capacity magazines increase the likelihood of the weapon failing. These guns actually work against the shooter.

I'll deal with the rest below.


... I feel that assault rifles are too dangerous and should thus, be banned.

The fact is that assault rifles are nowhere near as dangerous as you assume them to be. If it were the case, given that most criminal incarcerated for gun crime own these weapons...why are they in prison for using a handgun instead? Answer: prison interviews reveal that criminals know they are not effective for robbery or murder.

CONT.


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

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Jan. 31st, 2013 @ 08:27 PM Reply

That's an assumption on your end, but it in no way speaks for all of us for gun control. You're arguments for the neccessity of an assault rifle revolved around killing a gopher and firing 30 rounds, blindly, through the walls of your house and hoping for the best. Not great answers. It's not the gun we're worried about, it's the irrational behavior of the people who might own one. Like you, who just admited to wanting to lock himself in his bedroom and then fire 30 rounds from an AK-47 through his door just hoping that the guy on the other side is bad, and he's the only one that gets hurt. It's irresponsible and dangerous. It's unneccessary. Kill gophers with a standard bolt-action rifle and protect your home with a hand gun like the rest of the responsible gun owners. Don't, please don't, fire 30 rounds blindly through the walls of your house... I might be on the other side, wether I know it or not.

* First of all, I was talking about coyotes that threaten a rancher's livestock and hunt in packs. Bolt action rifles while more effective than muskets, are not as effective as a Mini-14 or AR-15. There is a HUGE difference between a gopher and a pack of coyotes.

* That you deem what I described as irresponsible and dangerous only shows your ignorance on this topic rather than being an indictment on my responsibility. Here's what you are missing:

1) I was not talking about shooting through 'walls' but taking cover inside my bedroom and shooting through a door during a home invasion. If it is you on the other side...what are you doing in my home in the first place? I don't know you...and in this example you would be breaking and entering. Are you breaking the law to give me flowers? Furthermore, an intermediate round being fired through the walls of a home would not have the energy to pose a threat to you in the case that you happened to be walking your dog down the sidewalk during the home invasion.

2) By the time I would pull the trigger, I would have several key indicators that the guy on the other was a bad guy. These are:
a) I am talking about a case where someone has entered my house with my invitation/permission. That person, by being in my home, is breaking the law. (Assuming that they are not police serving a warrant...in which case they would announce themselves.)
b) I have fled to my bedroom because it is a secure location where I can maintain tactical control of the situation.
c) I have also fled to my bedroom and locked the door becase as I said: I do NOT want to confront the intruder! I am not looking for a fight, nor do I deem my TV or any other material possession worthy of taking a human life.

Now...I did not mention these previously but here are the other parts of a safe, reasonable, and responsible home defense strategy...which I might add I have used in two realworld home invasions before I moved back to the country:

d) My wife calls 911 and tells them there is an intruder. In the case of robbery/burglary...I'll let the police handle catching the guy and the justice system prosecuting the guy.
e) When the person is in ear-shot I yell: "I have a gun!" At the same time I chamber a round/shell. At this point in the situation I have warned the person and provided an auditory indication that I really am armed.
f) 98-99% of the time the guy will flee. The remaining 1-2% of cases...the dude is not there to give me a hug and roses. The dude is there to do some kind of physical harm.

So this leads up to the decision time. I know that if he only wants material goods...he'll flee or just take what he wants and leave me safe. BUT if he continues trying to gain access to my bedroom...he poses a threat. It is reasonable and highly, highly probable to assume that I should be fearing for my life at this point.

At this point I should shoot through the door before he has a chance to turn any weapon he has on me. See...I know where he is...but he does not know where I am. Furthermore, in this case having the large capacity magazine (loaded with hunting rounds...instead of military rounds) gives me the ability to fire five or six shots and still have a reserve in case the dude has friends, body armor (which can be bought for as low as $500), or is hopped up on something (like the Somali fighters in Mogadishu) that enables him to continue fighting even after he is shot.

So no...the situation I described is not, as you erroneously assumed, irresponsible or unreasonable...but safe, responsible and reasonable.

I mean the alternative is for me to act like a cowboy or Rambo and go confront a guy stealing my TV...a reckless tactic that is far, far more likely to result in someone getting hurt!


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

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Jan. 31st, 2013 @ 08:29 PM Reply

At 1/31/13 08:27 PM, TheMason wrote: a) I am talking about a case where someone has entered my house with my invitation/permission. ...

(CORRECTION: that should read '...entered my house withOUT invitation/permission.')

Why can't NG have an edit button! lol


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

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 1st, 2013 @ 03:19 PM Reply

At 1/31/13 04:15 PM, theburningliberal wrote: Just throwing this out there... With a TX prosecutor shot dead, a school shooting near Atlanta, 8 shootings at 5 gun shows on Gun Appreciation Day, and a variety of other well publicized shootings, something has got to change.

I agree with you that one murder is one murder too many. I think your emotion and intentions are well meaning and noble, and I respect them. But we cannot let ourselves make public policy based upon emotions and good intentions.

We also have to realize that these events are rare. Violent crim,e along with gun crime, is dropping. It is not getting worse as one would assume from watching the news.

I would strongly encourage those of you who have not supported gun control in the past to rethink your positions.

Here's the thing, although I am a shooter and collector...my opposition to gun control is not rooted in this. Instead, it is rooted in the knowledge I have gained studying this issue as a political scientist for my entire adult life.

If giving up guns would result in even one life saved...I would. But it won't. There is nothing in the social science accomplished on this issue that indicates that the public policy we need to pursue is extensive strengthening of gun control. This is not to say that there is no room for improvement, and I'll get to that in a moment.

But what I'd recommend is policies that will increase funding for programs that will increase economic opportunities for urban minorities. I'd also recommend increased funding for education in poor districts...with no strings attached by the federal government.

We also need to reform our educational reform. I'm not usually a fan of Noam Chomsky, but he has made some very convincing arguments that the educational reform of the past 20 years (with which there has been a quintrupling of school shooting) has created a culture of political, mental and social violence that breeds these shootings. Accountability schemes have made it where there is no intellectual freedom and problems/questions only have one correct answer. Zero tolerance policies lead to labeling of kids as trouble makers, bigots, etc when all they are trying to do is find out how they socialize with each other and what is socially acceptable. This leads to the very isolation that more often than not triggers the instinct to carry out a ceremonial suicide/sacrifice ritual.

We also need to come up with some sort of rite of passage which brings people into the larger community.

In the end, I have thought about this...a lot. The thing is, the gun-control side (now trying to, humorously, re-brand themselves as pro-gun safety)...does not bring much to the debate that is all that intellectually rigorous.

And, for some of you, that could prove to be very helpful, especially if you disagree with the Obama plan on gun control. What other ideas do you have? It's not enough on this issue to just say no, you need to come up with some kind of alternative. The status quo clearly is not working.

First of all, I would like to see both sides drop the fear mongering. And yes this includes Obama. A few points:

* He needs to drop two pieces of rhetoric: The first is the line about parents needing to feel secure when they drop their kids off at 1st grade. He needs to instead re-assure parents that schools are safe. The odds of your child dying at school due to an act of violence is 1 in 1,000,000. Source He also needs to drop the line about "saving just one life". Check out the numbers:

* About 30-40K people die due to guns per year (the rate is continously getting lower than car deaths).
- For 2,000, 2005, 2008 & 2009 the average is 9,377
- Average accidents: 600
- The remainder tends to be suicides.
* There are an estimated 750K-2.25M defensive gun uses/year that involve someone merely displaying or announcing the presence of the gun...resulting in the bad guy fleeing with no one getting hurt!
-This means that in the 31 days since the start of 2013 between 63,674 - 191,095 burglaries, home invasions, rapes, assaults and murders have peacefully and without injury. At the low of this estimate (as calculated by researchers who favor stricter gun control) lives have already been saved because of guns.

* By describing civilian clones of assault rifles as weapons that belong only on the battlefield is intellectually vacuous. It displays the president's own ignorance on this topic. As well as when he discusses military ammo as designed to inflict 'maximum damage'. These are falsehoods, so either the president is speaking from the heart unaware of his own ignorance on this topic...or he is repeating a lie designed to elicit the maximum emotional appeal.
-One as I've said numerous times before...these firearms are not near as deadly as they are made out to be. In fact the AR-15's round is illegal for use in many state because of just how little damage it does.

As for my solutions...

As I stated above...I would not waste money on new laws that will target guns like the AR-15 or AK-47 which are not used in crime because of just how ineffective they are. Instead those dollars could go to social programs that will help the poor and undereducated avoid a life of crime.

BACKGROUND CHECKS
* Make it so that background checks through the FBI is mandatory in all states.
* Provide low cost background checks for individuals selling firearms to other people...whether through craigslist, gun shows, or word of mouth.
* Make an exemption for guns that are passed between family members.
* Expand it to a mental health check. This is tricky because there are serious privacy issues. What I enviion is a court process involving the patient and doctor. However, any revocation needs to be temporary and once the Doctor gives the person a thumbs up...they get their rights back.

AGE TO PURCHASE A HANDGUN
I think I could be convinced to up the age to buy a handgun to 25. There appears to be a spike around 19-24 yo, and as long as we keep the right to own long guns like shotguns...they maintain the right to defend themselves.

Those might be meaningful.

But overall...I think gun control is a distraction that won't helpsave any lives or solve any social problems.


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

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 2nd, 2013 @ 12:42 AM Reply

At 1/31/13 01:08 PM, CacheHelper wrote: So because Handguns are super dangerous -- larger, more powerful, guns should remain legal?

To illustrate the ignorance of this statement:

Ballistics gel test of a 5.56mm (M-16 round) If you want to fastforward to 4:32, that's where the relevent data is.

Ballistics gel test of a .45 ACP JHP round (handgun) Fastforward to about 2:30.

* The .45 does more tissue damage immediately upon entering the body than the AR-15/M-16 round does.
* The .45 is expanding almost immediately upon entry.
* The 5.56 takes about 4.24" to even start expanding.

This is why you can actually hunt deer with some handgun rounds that are considered less powerful than the AR-15...but you cannot hunt deer with a 5.56/.223 firearm in many states. It simply does not have the take-down power.

Again...not opinion but fact.


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

BBS Signature
Thecrazyman
Thecrazyman
  • Member since: Dec. 20, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 48
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 2nd, 2013 @ 07:26 PM Reply

At 2/1/13 03:19 PM, TheMason wrote: As for my solutions...

As I stated above...I would not waste money on new laws that will target guns like the AR-15 or AK-47 which are not used in crime because of just how ineffective they are. Instead those dollars could go to social programs that will help the poor and undereducated avoid a life of crime.

BACKGROUND CHECKS
* Make it so that background checks through the FBI is mandatory in all states.
* Provide low cost background checks for individuals selling firearms to other people...whether through craigslist, gun shows, or word of mouth.
* Make an exemption for guns that are passed between family members.
* Expand it to a mental health check. This is tricky because there are serious privacy issues. What I enviion is a court process involving the patient and doctor. However, any revocation needs to be temporary and once the Doctor gives the person a thumbs up...they get their rights back.

AGE TO PURCHASE A HANDGUN
I think I could be convinced to up the age to buy a handgun to 25. There appears to be a spike around 19-24 yo, and as long as we keep the right to own long guns like shotguns...they maintain the right to defend themselves.

Those might be meaningful.

But overall...I think gun control is a distraction that won't helpsave any lives or solve any social problems.

I have a lot of reasons why these solutions will go poorly as I will point out.

If Gun Control in all forms goes against the Nation's Constitution, then it's simply a no-go to begin with, all they want is control and in turn it just doesn't allow people to learn about Weapon Responsibility to begin with.

For Two, even if they make an exemption for guns that has to be passed between family members, it isn't gonna work, someone from somewhere will cheat on such exams and find loop holes, another reason why it isn't gonna work.

For Three, one can't always determine who's mentally healthy and who's mentally ill and the reason for that one is very simple, what if someone who was completely normal on one day and suddenly on the next day the individual actually has mental issues? That can happen in some cases which explains the big reason why one can't determine who's mentally healthy and who's mentally ill.

As for an Age requirement to even Purchase a Handgun, that won't work either, again people under such ages will find loopholes and they will, no matter how restricting they be, loopholes will always be around and this is one of the big reasons why people need to learn why Age & Maturity just don't mix, only thing that ever came close is growing up as the people we choose to become, thus explains why kids need to grow up as people first, once there done with that, only then they'll go for other things (either simple or multiple interest matters not).

Why I say the Age Requirement thing to purchase even handguns won't work are the same reason why age restrictions for entertainment won't even work, people under the age will find loophopes and it's been happening since the day they been created thus explains why people need to learn Weapon Responsibility, nuf said.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 2nd, 2013 @ 11:57 PM Reply

AGE TO PURCHASE A HANDGUN
I think I could be convinced to up the age to buy a handgun to 25. There appears to be a spike around 19-24 yo, and as long as we keep the right to own long guns like shotguns...they maintain the right to defend themselves.

Eh I'm going to disagree with this one. When we start using numbers like this to justify further restriction "evidence" will show up causing people to call for even more restrictions. It wouldn't be too long before certain people were calling for an outright ban on handguns. (Like some are already bold enough to call for)
But that's just my opinion.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 3rd, 2013 @ 12:35 AM Reply

At 2/2/13 07:26 PM, Thecrazyman wrote:
But overall...I think gun control is a distraction that won't helpsave any lives or solve any social problems.
I have a lot of reasons why these solutions will go poorly as I will point out.

I agree...after all may I remind you how I left off my post.


If Gun Control in all forms goes against the Nation's Constitution, then it's simply a no-go to begin with, all they want is control and in turn it just doesn't allow people to learn about Weapon Responsibility to begin with.

I am one of the strongest proponents of gun rights on NG. However, in reading the opinions of the SCOTUS on this issue as well as the historical context of the second amendment; I do believe that there is some degree of 'gun control' premissible under the Constitution. Scalia wrote that in the case of unusual or uncommon firearms, the federal government can impose some limitations.

Now 'assault rifle' clones do fit the bill as common and usual. They are commonly and usually employed by military riflemen. Now, the 2nd Amendment exists to provide a civilian based militia defending the country...bearing arms they provide for themselves. Something else that makes them a protected class of firearm would be that there is no other firearm that can fill that role.

Handguns on the other, are not common or usual rifleman weapons. Yes, the military does use them...but their use is limited. As for self-defense, other firearms can do just as good of a job as they can. So I think that they are open to some restrictions on them. After all, they are the ones that are overwhelming used in crime...as well as being more dangerous than assault rifle clones.

The only point I'm making here is that the 'common sense' and 'reasonable' gun control being proposed...is NEITHER. They are based on fear mongering and emotion and goes against what we know about gun violence.


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

BBS Signature
Thecrazyman
Thecrazyman
  • Member since: Dec. 20, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 48
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 3rd, 2013 @ 12:37 AM Reply

At 2/2/13 11:57 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
AGE TO PURCHASE A HANDGUN
I think I could be convinced to up the age to buy a handgun to 25. There appears to be a spike around 19-24 yo, and as long as we keep the right to own long guns like shotguns...they maintain the right to defend themselves.
Eh I'm going to disagree with this one. When we start using numbers like this to justify further restriction "evidence" will show up causing people to call for even more restrictions. It wouldn't be too long before certain people were calling for an outright ban on handguns. (Like some are already bold enough to call for)
But that's just my opinion.

More then just an opinion, America is meant to be the Land of the Free and only a select few things such as Slavery should ever be banned, but banning Gun Control outright will only do this nation a LOT more harm then good, thus explains why criminals will find alternative ways to get there hands on and perhaps even make there own handguns, even saw a documentary on TV long ago where criminals will make guns, even while in prison, they will resort to such and those who even know how won't even stop to fuel there ends.

All who think that Gun Control is the answer will (sooner or later) realize it isn't, this is why I go deeply against it, and if people like Sylvester Stallone believe that Gun Control is the answer, well I got news for you buddy, it isn't, your going against the nation's Constitution for supporting such to begin with and everyone else is also going against the nation's Constitution for the same reason on why they support Gun Control.

Again the big reason why people need to learn about Weapon Responsibility and I bet the people within the state of Maine as well as Texas know similar to what I speak about if not the same thing to what I speak about.

America is the Land of the Free, and the Land of the Free it shale be, the Land of the Free it was meant to be for the rise of the Independents is at hand, banning things not meant to be banned only takes away Independence from the people thus doing the people more harm then good.

karlkri
karlkri
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 3rd, 2013 @ 05:33 AM Reply

gun control does work if you make guns illegal. whitout gun control people would be walking around whit guns evrywhere.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 3rd, 2013 @ 08:41 AM Reply

At 2/3/13 05:33 AM, karlkri wrote: gun control does work if you make guns illegal. whitout gun control people would be walking around whit guns evrywhere.

You obviously have not taken the time to read through some of the most recent posts (about 1-2 pages). Maybe actually read about the issue from both sides.

Or hell, even realize that in the US in the vast majority of states...people can get concealed carry permits about as easily as a driver's license. That this has been going on for about 30 years now, and the data points to decreased crime?

Instead you opt to post a two line blurb of ignorance fueled drama.

Smart.

Considering it has taken you two years to find the politics section of NG...perhaps you need to go back to the General forums. :)


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

BBS Signature
theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 3rd, 2013 @ 09:37 AM Reply

At 2/1/13 03:19 PM, TheMason wrote: I agree with you that one murder is one murder too many. I think your emotion and intentions are well meaning and noble, and I respect them. But we cannot let ourselves make public policy based upon emotions and good intentions.

At this point I am merely advocating for change, as I have repeatedly stated I don't have the technical knowledge to be able to tell you what we should do specifically about guns. However, that is one of the great things about our country - when you see a problem that you don't have the technical knowledge to propose a solution to, you can still advocate for change because you can find people who do have that knowledge and can use it to advance solutions. Where that change comes from needs to be discussed more broadly than the discussion we are currently getting, but it is a discussion we need to have. And soon.

But what I'd recommend is policies that will increase funding for programs that will increase economic opportunities for urban minorities. I'd also recommend increased funding for education in poor districts...with no strings attached by the federal government.

Hell, I've been wanting this myself for years for reasons that have nothing to do with Gun Control. The problem, though, is two-fold. First, we have put forward and tried to implement initiatives like this, with the end result almost universally being the same - someone sees the government trying to invest in the things you mention, and they see a potential for profit. They hijack the appropriations meant for these programs, effectively killing the program before it begins. There was an attempt at this in Harlem in the late 70's led by one of the social scientists who helped the SCOTUS decide Brown v. Board, and he ended up being forced to resign from the post because of the actions of people trying to disrupt the implementation of these programs.

Second, even if we could feasibly implement a program like this, you have an entire Chamber of Congress who sees Austerity as the be-all end-all of solutions. The problem? Austerity kills the budget process for any kind of programs like this because it dries up any and all sources of funding. With no funding, there is no progress.

We also need to reform our educational reform. I'm not usually a fan of Noam Chomsky, but he has made some very convincing arguments that the educational reform of the past 20 years (with which there has been a quintrupling of school shooting) has created a culture of political, mental and social violence that breeds these shootings. Accountability schemes have made it where there is no intellectual freedom and problems/questions only have one correct answer. Zero tolerance policies lead to labeling of kids as trouble makers, bigots, etc when all they are trying to do is find out how they socialize with each other and what is socially acceptable. This leads to the very isolation that more often than not triggers the instinct to carry out a ceremonial suicide/sacrifice ritual.

I'll agree, conditionally. At the high school level, this is certainly true. I know one of the things I had to adjust to when coming back to college was the whole environment that there is more than just one right answer (or one right path to the correct answer). That intellectual freedom is nice. I would point out, though, that some high schools do a better job of this than others, yet we still see school shootings not only at suburban high schools (where, typically, 'intellectual freedom' is given more influence), but also at the college level and also in the real world (Gabby Giffords shooter, Aurora).

First of all, I would like to see both sides drop the fear mongering. And yes this includes Obama. A few points:

I would invite you to look in the mirror with that statement.

* There are an estimated 750K-2.25M defensive gun uses/year that involve someone merely displaying or announcing the presence of the gun...resulting in the bad guy fleeing with no one getting hurt!
-This means that in the 31 days since the start of 2013 between 63,674 - 191,095 burglaries, home invasions, rapes, assaults and murders have peacefully and without injury. At the low of this estimate (as calculated by researchers who favor stricter gun control) lives have already been saved because of guns.

Let's establish something up front: No one is advocating a complete gun ban. Regardless of the laws passed, guns will still be available. It may not exactly the weapon you would design for yourself, but as we saw with the 1994 AWB, gun manufacturers will find a way to skirt the AWB (if it passes) to still make weapons similar to the AR-15 (as an example) available to the general public while technically still meeting compliance with the AWB. Not to mention, even if the AWB passes, it has little to no effect on handguns, shotguns, bolt-action rifles and rifles that currently or could be made to meet the standards put forth under the AWB. In terms of self-defense, while a weapon like the AR-15 is nice to have, there is nothing you have put forth that, in my eyes, deems a weapon like that inherently necessary for self-defense. Everything you have mentioned (in terms of being able to defend yourself from an intruder) would still be the same if you had a Mossberg 12-gauge or a Glock instead of an AR-15.

So you say you want to stop the fear mongering? Stop pushing this argument that we need these weapons for self-defense, and stop pushing the argument that Obama is coming for your guns. The first is seriously questionable both on legal and ethical grounds, and the second is just plain nonsense.

As for my solutions...
BACKGROUND CHECKS
* Make it so that background checks through the FBI is mandatory in all states.

Conditionally agree, only because I am not sure what system the bills in consideration currently offer as a vehicle for background checks. I would like to see an individual undergoing a background check be checked not only against the FBI database, but all available criminal databases that currently exist.

* Provide low cost background checks for individuals selling firearms to other people...whether through craigslist, gun shows, or word of mouth.

Agreed.

* Make an exemption for guns that are passed between family members.

I can't say I would support this. I just see too much potential for abuse here, with the possibility of a mentally deranged individual still potentially being able to acquire a gun through a family member.

* Expand it to a mental health check. This is tricky because there are serious privacy issues. What I envision is a court process involving the patient and doctor.

I could see that, maybe open a process for doctors to be able to declare a personally mentally unfit to own a firearm through sealed proceedings.

However, any revocation needs to be temporary and once the Doctor gives the person a thumbs up...they get their rights back.

Absolutely not. From my own experience, I can tell you that just because a doctor writes you off as no longer being a danger to society does NOT mean that you should be allowed to own and purchase a weapon. I haven't been under a doctor's care for nearly a year now, and even then, I absolutely refuse to own a gun because I am afraid of what could happen given the right set of circumstances. And I am someone on the low end of the scale - someone who is schizophrenic or psychotic to a bigger degree than I am will likely never be in a position where they are capable of assuming the responsibility of owning a weapon.

AGE TO PURCHASE A HANDGUN
I think I could be convinced to up the age to buy a handgun to 25. There appears to be a spike around 19-24 yo, and as long as we keep the right to own long guns like shotguns...they maintain the right to defend themselves.

Those might be meaningful.

Eh, I dunno about the age. What I would honestly like to see is guns being regulated like cars - you have to pass a written test and a practical test to be able to legally own and operate a weapon. I would have no problem letting the NRA or similar pro-gun groups help set standards for this.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 42
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 3rd, 2013 @ 09:59 AM Reply

the current age (21) to to buy a handgun is already fine and already put under federal law.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 3rd, 2013 @ 10:51 AM Reply

At 2/3/13 09:37 AM, theburningliberal wrote: However, that is one of the great things about our country - when you see a problem that you don't have the technical knowledge to propose a solution to, you can still advocate for change because you can find people who do have that knowledge and can use it to advance solutions.

And I agree with you. I know I am fairly entrenched in my opinion, but it is an opinion based on knowledge, fact and study.

If you, Camaro, and a few of us pro-gunners could get together and make policy we'd probably get somethings done.

Instead, there are questions of money and power. For BOTH the NRA and certain Democrats (Senators Feinstein, Schumer and Rep McCarthy) this in an opportunity to raise money and get one of their major policy agendas pushed forward.

So they use fear. You speak of the urgency of this issue. But what if I told you that the numbers actually show that violent crime is dropping...but media coverage of this 'epidemic' has increased by about 600%. By rushing into it...you ill-concieved laws that will not accomplish the objectives they were meant to accomplish.


Hell, I've been wanting this myself for years for reasons that have nothing to do with Gun Control. ...

You know as someone who is fairly fiscally conservative I've always been nervous about these programs. But as I've studied the issue of crime over the past 15 years, I've become convinced that social programs are necessary. We need to figure out how to make them more workable. But that is another discussion!


I'll agree, conditionally. At the high school level, this is certainly true. ...

Here's one of the things about the college shooter...I think there is a fundamental error in socialization that happens probably around the 6th-10th grade. This carries over into the 11th and 12th grades when people tend to 'grow-up'...these kids get left behind. This isolation and lack of social skills carry over to college.


I would invite you to look in the mirror with that statement.

I don't think I'm fear mongering. I have training in the tactical use of firearms through the military, as an USAF emergency manager making sober and realistic threat assessments is another thing I've been trained to do. So when I speak of self-defense, I speak of realities and possibilities. I'm not telling you that you need to fear your neighbor.


Let's establish something up front: No one is advocating a complete gun ban. ... there is nothing you have put forth that, in my eyes, deems a weapon like that inherently necessary for self-defense. Everything you have mentioned (in terms of being able to defend yourself from an intruder) would still be the same if you had a Mossberg 12-gauge or a Glock instead of an AR-15.

* I, personally, am not arguing necessarily they are after all of our guns. I do question why they are choosing to ban 'assault weapons' using the AR-15 (used to be the AK-47) as their poster-gun of evil. These weapons are used in 0.04% of gun murders per year. They are not the weapon of choice of criminals...even when the criminal possess one. None of the math points to a need to ban them. So why the emphasis on these guns over guns that are actually killing people? Is it just ignorance on the part of law makers...or is it part of an agenda? So while yes I do have a 'slippery slope' concern...it is not an over-arching theme of my argument. Nor do I think what I am articulating is unreasonable.

* I am getting tired of the hysteria on my side. I went to Walmart to buy .22 rounds and they are sold out of everything but shotgun shells. And even the 12 guage are sparse. There is no talk about banning ammo...let's calm down people!

* When I lived in St. Louis I was living in an old house and that was the first time I experienced a home invasion. The door was one of those old solid wood. If the guy would've actually tried to get to me and my 4 mth preggo (now ex) wife...a 12 guage or Sig (I don't like Glock! lol) would be unable to shoot through it.

* Again...the ballistics of the AR-15 or AK-47 does not support Obama's argument that they cause 'maximum damage'. A realworld study of mass shootings reveals that high-cap mags and high rates of fire do not produce the 'mass death' pro-gun 'safety' advocates claim. A study of gun crime reveals that these firearms are, statistically speaking, never used in crime. So where is the justification in banning them? A case that can be supported by anything more than emotion has yet to be made.


Stop pushing this argument that we need these weapons for self-defense, and stop pushing the argument that Obama is coming for your guns. The first is seriously questionable both on legal and ethical grounds, and the second is just plain nonsense.

2: Again...I'm not pushing that Obama is coming for all my guns. I am just opposed to his articulated policy objective of renewing the AWB. I do not think he has articulated a case that holds water.

1: I would like you to explain why you think the self-defense argument is questionable on both legal and ethical grounds. Before I tackle this, I want to make sure I know where you are coming from instead of assuming.


Conditionally agree, only because I am not sure what system the bills in consideration currently offer as a vehicle for background checks. I would like to see an individual undergoing a background check be checked not only against the FBI database, but all available criminal databases that currently exist.

Under current law, the FBI provides background checks for 30-something different states. Other states do the background checks through state agencies. The FBI background check system would get everyone on the same page. But it would require more staffing for the FBI.

I can't say I would support this. I just see too much potential for abuse here, with the possibility of a mentally deranged individual still potentially being able to acquire a gun through a family member.

Here's the thing...there is nothing that suggests that this is the case. Legal gun owners do not leave their guns to people who are prohibited from owning guns. They want to keep the firearm in the family, or pass on the monetary value to their family. If someone is prohibited from owning the gun...then it has the potential for being seized and smelted.

This is a powerful disincentive.

Under the Obama plan, this is an exception.


However, any revocation needs to be temporary and once the Doctor gives the person a thumbs up...they get their rights back.

Absolutely not. From my own experience, I can tell you that just because a doctor writes you off as no longer being a danger to society does NOT mean that you should be allowed to own and purchase a weapon....

Absolutey yes. A few years ago I saw on 60 Minutes a Mental Health Association was on there urging caution on this issue. The reason is it provides a very powerful disincentive to seek help. If you are going to loose your right to something...you are inclined to avoid help. So which is better? Allowing people to regain access after getting help? Or giving them just another reason (and fear) about getting help?

I see this every day. Many of my fellow servicemembers do not seek help for their PTSD because there is this urban myth that if they do...they will lose the ability to buy a gun.

Eh, I dunno about the age. What I would honestly like to see is guns being regulated like cars - you have to pass a written test and a practical...

Problem with that is it costs money and will divert government jobs from the social programs we were talking about. And what's the justification? I understand the concern and logic...but does it stand-up to realworld data?


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

BBS Signature
theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 4th, 2013 @ 01:06 AM Reply

You speak of the urgency of this issue. But what if I told you that violent crime was down and coverage was up

I would argue that in a civilization that is supposedly as advanced as ours we should no longer be killing ourselves and each other with weapons that do have constructive uses. Some exceptions will always remain, of course - legitimate accidents, misfires, hell I don't even know how many things could possibly go wrong mechanically, not to mention legitimate self-defense shootings. But the idea that we have even one instance of an Aurora or Sandy Hook means we have not come as far as we like to think, but we know there is room for improvement. And that is why media coverage has intensified - we cant tolerate this, if we are to be as advanced as we wish we were. That's one reason they are highlighting it, so that hopefully we can fix the issues that cause the problems - whatever they result from, be it socioeconomic factors, mental health factors, whatever the cause is.

Indeed, I think even you said at one point that "One gun death is too many," or something to that effect.

You know as someone who is fairly fiscally conservative I've always been nervous about these programs. But as I've studied the issue of crime over the past 15 years, I've become convinced that social programs are necessary. We need to figure out how to make them more workable. But that is another discussion!

I wis

I'll agree, conditionally. At the high school level, this is certainly true. ...
Here's one of the things about the college shooter...I think there is a fundamental error in socialization that happens probably around the 6th-10th grade. This carries over into the 11th and 12th grades when people tend to 'grow-up'...these kids get left behind. This isolation and lack of social skills carry over to college.

I would invite you to look in the mirror with that statement.
I don't think I'm fear mongering. I have training in the tactical use of firearms through the military, as an USAF emergency manager making sober and realistic threat assessments is another thing I've been trained to do. So when I speak of self-defense, I speak of realities and possibilities. I'm not telling you that you need to fear your neighbor.

Possibilities don't speak to probabilities. Fact is, violent crime (taken as a whole) is down as you mentioned. So far down that you have a .0043% chance of being involved in a violent crime, according to the per capita violent crime rate in 2010. And that says nothing of this hysteria that we need these weapons to be able to violently overthrow the government. I'm sorry but AR-15's have nothing on a 3,000lb bunker buster, or whatever force the government might use to quell a violent uprising here in the states. The question of whether or not such a 'militia' could win would certainly not hinge on whether or not they had an AR-15. I saw an image on Facebook to this effect not too long ago, depicting Ted Nugent and his whole "I want to go to war with Obama" thing. The other part of the image featured some sort of heavily armed, menacing helicopter, with the caption... "No, you don't, you really don't."


* When I lived in St. Louis I was living in an old house and that was the first time I experienced a home invasion. The door was one of those old solid wood. If the guy would've actually tried to get to me and my 4 mth preggo (now ex) wife...a 12 guage or Sig (I don't like Glock! lol) would be unable to shoot through it.

At the time it was the only handgun example I could think of, I don't even know what a Sig is. LOL.

One of the criteria the court uses when evaluating whether a government infringement on a right that basically says that if there are other alternatives that are substantively similar (in this case, substituting a Mossberg or Glock instead of an AR-15 in a home invasion scenario as you mention), then some government regulation of that right may be constitutional if it serves a compelling state interest.

On ethical grounds, some courts use a standard in deciding whether a self-defense shooting was justified of "least lethal level of force." In other words, the amount of force you use in self defense should be just enough to overcome your attacker. Anything beyond that and you could potentially face civil, if not criminal, liability, even for a justified shooting (barring psychological breakdown / duress / something similar). This is also why police officers will try to shoot to wound, rather than kill, if at all possible.

So while yes I do have a 'slippery slope' concern...it is not an over-arching theme of my argument. Nor do I think what I am articulating is unreasonable.

Let's review, shall we? The SCOTUS has already tossed a DC Handgun ban, articulating the uncommon and unusual doctrine when it comes to weapons. I think we can all agree that the weapons handed to soldiers in Iraq would be uncommon and unusual, which is why we don't have civilians with access to them. But handguns have a legitimate self-defense function and are common and usual, so those won't be going away anytime soon. I have no problem with shotguns, either, and nor would the court. They are common in many areas in the country, and I'm sure they serve a legitimate purpose somewhere (even if I can't think of one, I am sure one exists!). Rifles (I'm thinking like a 30.06, 30/30, or the chipmunk .22 I had when I was a kid) would also fall into this category.

At this point on the AWB, I am waiting to make any decisions. Constitutionally its dubious, which is why we need to see what the final statutes look like if indeed an AWB can make it out of Congress and onto the President's desk (which is a tall order, from what I am gathering so far). Until then, it's pointless to make any arguments about its constitutionality because depending on how the statute is justified and what it covers, it may be enough for a court to uphold it, and I stress the may.

Based solely on the principle of the second amendment, though, I am still ambivalent it. The text of the amendment is pretty clear, and while they are some instances where limitations are justified (which is why we don't have fully automatic weapons flooding our streets), expanding those limitations must be done with great care and only if absolutely necessary.

Under current law, the FBI provides background checks for 30-something different states. Other states do the background checks through state agencies. The FBI background check system would get everyone on the same page. But it would require more staffing for the FBI.

I have no problem with that.

there is nothing that suggests that this is the case

I am thinking more along then lines of "Hey Bub, I can't pass this background check, but here's the cash, can you buy me a [insert gun name]?" You are thinking wills/estates.

Many of my fellow servicemembers do not seek help for their PTSD because there is this urban myth that if they do...they will lose the ability to buy a gun.

I am sorry to hear that. To respond substantively, I am still not entirely convinced people with mental illness of a degree to disqualify from gun ownership should be given that right back. There is a saying amongst addicts that is useful here - Once an addict, always an addict. The same is true with mental illness, once that door is opened, it can never be fully shut. However, you do make some convincing arguments, so what I would like to see, if it happens...

CONT

theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 4th, 2013 @ 01:08 AM Reply

Continued from previous post:

a) Very clear guidelines put forth, clearly defining what conditions are sufficient to warrant loss of second amendment rights. This would likely have to be decided on by a combination of psychiatrists, policy makers, perhaps even some congressional commissions to help define what these standards should be. I do believe that all not all forms of mental illness will lead to the kind of psychosis suffered by Lanza or Holmes. But some conditions can very easily lead, in the right set of circumstances, to very negative outcomes (as we saw in Aurora/Newtown).
b) An adjudication process to be used instead of a doctor's signature. It's one thing to get a doctor's signature on a piece of paper, it's quite another to have to present evidence in court of your competence to own a weapon. This process should also have very clear standards for how the outcome should be decided, with the details provided to both judges and persons seeking return of second amendment rights.

I understand the concern and logic...but does it stand-up to realworld data?

That's the 100-million dollar question, ain't it? I believe it was former SC Justice Louis Brandeis who said that state governments can and should be laboratories for national public policy on certain issues. And considering there is no actual federal law requiring vehicles to be insured (just 50 different state laws), many laws that would require a BMV-esque approach to gun ownership (registration, insurance, etc...) would probably be enacted at the state level. They would, of course, be challenged in federal courts (if challenged at all) since it presents a federal question on the second amendment, but they would still be state laws (assuming they are upheld).

Apologies for formatting / any other errors, I am really fucking high right now.

Iron-Claw
Iron-Claw
  • Member since: Apr. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Artist
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 5th, 2013 @ 05:15 AM Reply

The way I see it the only people who need guns is just an excuse to compensate for their freakishly short shortcomings that are freakishly short in their comings whatever those comings may be. Why can't people just take up martial arts? And why is it that everyone talking about "home defense" lives out in the middle of nowhere if there's any danger it is in that house where there's just so many guns the only danger therein is one's self. O The Irony!


Your Arrogance Will Be Your Undoing
Perfection Is An Illusion And Delusion Of Narcissists And Despots
It's Not Who You Were It's More In Who You Are And Who You Will Be

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 5th, 2013 @ 07:13 PM Reply

At 2/5/13 05:15 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: The way I see it the only people who need guns is just an excuse to compensate for their freakishly short shortcomings that are freakishly short in their comings whatever those comings may be. Why can't people just take up martial arts? And why is it that everyone talking about "home defense" lives out in the middle of nowhere if there's any danger it is in that house where there's just so many guns the only danger therein is one's self. O The Irony!

I'm sorry, but I'm not putting anyone's life at risk, especially my own, and definitely not my families, by having our only methods of defense be martial arts. You know what completely negates martial arts? Weapons, the other person having any idea on what they're doing, large enough size difference, and drugs. I live in a moderate sized city. Police response time is laughable unless they are already close by. If you live out in the middle of nowhere, police response time is no longer pathetic, but just a sad case of logistics coming into play. I also find your projections of shortcoming laughable. Ever think that, oh, I don't know, people just enjoy shooting firearms or collecting them?


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 5th, 2013 @ 07:54 PM Reply

At 2/5/13 05:15 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: The way I see it the only people who need guns is just an excuse to compensate for their freakishly short shortcomings that are freakishly short in their comings whatever those comings may be. Why can't people just take up martial arts? And why is it that everyone talking about "home defense" lives out in the middle of nowhere if there's any danger it is in that house where there's just so many guns the only danger therein is one's self. O The Irony!

Middle of nowhere? How are busy high crime cities in the middle of no where? People who are very skilled martial artists can lose against common thugs.

The Korean-born Hillman used to run the Chai Karate martial arts school in Ardsley.

In a 1996 interview with the New York Times, Hillman, a black belt, said people should study martial arts for self-defense.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/man_stabbed_during_early_
morning_u1casI14SfLzOR0wotz7mM

"They wonâEUTMt be victims," he said. "They can choose whether to continue confrontation or get out of it and flee."

This former martial arts instructor was stabbed.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 5th, 2013 @ 08:40 PM Reply

At 2/5/13 05:15 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: The way I see it the only people who need guns is just an excuse to compensate...illiterate babble.... Why can't people just take up martial arts? ...blah, blah, ignorance, blah, blah... O The Irony!

So my ex-wife and current wife (both of whom weigh about 120lbs and are 5'4") should learn martial arts and that's going to help them if a brawler the size of Kimbo Slice wants to feel powerful and rape a bitch?

Tell me...how women gotta be raped just so you can feel good about your dick?


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

BBS Signature
Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 5th, 2013 @ 11:52 PM Reply

At 2/5/13 07:08 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 2/5/13 04:42 PM, Saen wrote:
Owning any weapon I want is a fundamental American right!
Show me where the Constitution says that.

My main point behind all of this teasing is exactly the point your making now. Where in the constitution does it specifically say the right to own and use bombs, machine guns, semi-autos with 30-round magazines, grenade launchers, hollow point bullets, etc. shall not be infringed for U.S. citizens?

Most of these weapons have been declared illegal for civilian use and possession because they are incredibly dangerous in a public environment and the act does not violate the 2nd amendment. With than being said, how are we violating the 2nd by proposing to limit magazine size? Is it a matter of the definition of arms or maintaining a well-armed militia?

In the case that it is an issue of maintaining a well-armed militia, how can we fight a government armed with tanks, nukes, jets, submarines, destroyers, biological weaponry, etc with only guns?

Also for those that think the government will declare war on it's citizens (a hypothetical proposed scenario) and most of all of the military choose to not follow orders and fight against the government, lets consider this scenario. The government declares war on it's citizens because of their refusal to accept um nationalized healthcare or some ridiculous reason. The government further states that it will use lethal biological weaponry to kill all who are disobedient or whatever. The White House releases a statement somewhere along the lines of, "if you do not cooperate with the government we will not provide you with the vaccination for this lethal virus."

The point of this is if our government was really out to get us for some reason, they would be more than able to subdue us. Magazine size, high powered semi-auto rifles, hollow points, etc. won't save us from this hypothetical scenario or hundreds of others.

If I had to choose a gun to protect my house and family with, my first choice would be a shotgun every time, like my mother owned while at college. Protecting my livestock? A simple bolt action rifle does just fine, like my father and relatives in Ireland used to shoot scald crows (which eat the eyes out of sheep). Hunting? A high powered scoped bolt-action rifle will do just fine. Most hunters don't even fucking venture out into the woods, they just sit in their truck on the side of the round with their semi auto and wait for the dogs to flush the deer out! How the hell is that hunting!? It's like fucking walking in the grocery store and paying 5 times the price per pound for meat! Arming myself in public? A small handgun, a revolver in my case because of it's reliability and no clunky magazines to fondle with.

Notice how a large capacity semi-automatic rifle wasn't even mentioned, but also not even the best gun for any of these scenarios? Hmmm, now what gun would be deadly accurate, have plenty and easy to load ammunition, a rate of fire equal to how fast my trigger finger is, high caliber bullets, and perfectly legal and easy for me to buy in order that I may kill as many people as I'm able in the shortest period of time?

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 6th, 2013 @ 02:38 AM Reply

At 2/5/13 11:52 PM, Saen wrote:
At 2/5/13 07:08 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 2/5/13 04:42 PM, Saen wrote:
Owning any weapon I want is a fundamental American right!
Show me where the Constitution says that.
My main point behind all of this teasing is exactly the point your making now. Where in the constitution does it specifically say the right to own and use bombs, machine guns, semi-autos with 30-round magazines, grenade launchers, hollow point bullets, etc. shall not be infringed for U.S. citizens?

HP rounds aren't illegal. and you can go through the hoops to get a fully automatic weapon and a grenade launcher. Lots of things are explosive. But you are going after a weapon based on looks and a big bad "semi auto" feature?

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The CourtâEUTMs opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.[147][148]

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The DistrictâEUTMs total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.[148]
Other legal summaries of the court's findings in this case are similar

And what separates us from them? It's their job.

Most of these weapons have been declared illegal for civilian use and possession because they are incredibly dangerous in a public environment and the act does not violate the 2nd amendment. With than being said, how are we violating the 2nd by proposing to limit magazine size? Is it a matter of the definition of arms or maintaining a well-armed militia?

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[124] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."


In the case that it is an issue of maintaining a well-armed militia, how can we fight a government armed with tanks, nukes, jets, submarines, destroyers, biological weaponry, etc with only guns?

You seem confused about what the people in Iraq//Afgan have available to them. It has been consistently proven that our military is also not adept in urban warfare.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 6th, 2013 @ 03:06 AM Reply

At 2/6/13 02:38 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
HP rounds aren't illegal. and you can go through the hoops to get a fully automatic weapon and a grenade launcher. Lots of things are explosive. But you are going after a weapon based on looks and a big bad "semi auto" feature?

Only adds to my point. Semi-automatic weapons are a problem when you've got 30 rounds to blow off. I'd say that's pretty badass by any standard.


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The CourtâEUTMs opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.[147][148]

Why are you pasting this to me?

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The DistrictâEUTMs total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.[148]
Other legal summaries of the court's findings in this case are similar

Again why? I have nothing against handguns, unless if you've have magazines with fucking 20+ round capacity.


And what separates us from them? It's their job.

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[124] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

What the hell does any of this have to do with semi-automatic rifles and ridiculous round capacity or a standing militia? Or did you just want to define one of the legal definitions of "regulate"?


You seem confused about what the people in Iraq//Afgan have available to them. It has been consistently proven that our military is also not adept in urban warfare.

Lmao aside from the fact that our military is killing dozens of people each day in the middle east. So you depict our hypothetical war with the government as portraying our militia's fighting style similar to Al Qaeda?

Even so what good will that do against biological (starvation, plague bombs, pests, etc.), nuclear, chemical, marine, electronic, aerial, and ground warfare combined along with torture? Give me a fucking break, come back down to planet Earth.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 6th, 2013 @ 11:23 AM Reply

You seem confused about what the people in Iraq//Afgan have available to them. It has been consistently proven that our military is also not adept in urban warfare.
Lmao aside from the fact that our military is killing dozens of people each day in the middle east. So you depict our hypothetical war with the government as portraying our militia's fighting style similar to Al Qaeda?

Even so what good will that do against biological (starvation, plague bombs, pests, etc.), nuclear, chemical, marine, electronic, aerial, and ground warfare combined along with torture? Give me a fucking break, come back down to planet Earth.

You seem confused about what the government would be willing to do to citizens on its own soil. The government isn't large enough to control the country without causing extensive economic and industrial damage. You also seem to assume that aerial, and ground forces would be able to function long or well without civilian facilities to use. But if you want to assume that some civilians will continue to assist the military we must also assume that some of the military will defect.

The supreme court only considers restriction necessary when dealing with weapons like previously mentioned. Magazine size for a semi automatic weapon isn't really covered.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 6th, 2013 @ 07:58 PM Reply

At 2/6/13 03:06 AM, Saen wrote: Only adds to my point. Semi-automatic weapons are a problem when you've got 30 rounds to blow off. I'd say that's pretty badass by any standard.

Not really. If you're shooting a soft target whether you have 30 rounds straight through semi-automatic, bolt action, or needing to change out magazines every 5 shots is largely irrelevant if you're shooting something that can't shoot back. I'd argue that people using bolt action would be more deadly due to the forced slow down, making people aim better.

Again why? I have nothing against handguns, unless if you've have magazines with fucking 20+ round capacity.

And why is that? Why is a guy spending the extra second to reload somehow more of a morally superior and justifiable way to get shot at?

What the hell does any of this have to do with semi-automatic rifles and ridiculous round capacity or a standing militia? Or did you just want to define one of the legal definitions of "regulate"?

It's kind of a big one when talking about the legality of things. People argue that the founders intended muskets, (Even though those weren't the only types of weapons of the time but whatever, and they would allow you to have cannons but whatever) but they completely fail to neglect that it is saying the people have a right to be well armed. A musket is not being well armed by todays standards. I hear absolutely nobody arguing that a ban on the internet does not violate the first amendment.

Lmao aside from the fact that our military is killing dozens of people each day in the middle east. So you depict our hypothetical war with the government as portraying our militia's fighting style similar to Al Qaeda?

You think that none of our military would defect, and that those that don't would have zero qualms about just massacring US citizens on US soil? It's easy to try to justify some Afghan in the mountains as collateral damage, it's harder to justify your neighbors kid.

Even so what good will that do against biological (starvation, plague bombs, pests, etc.), nuclear, chemical, marine, electronic, aerial, and ground warfare combined along with torture? Give me a fucking break, come back down to planet Earth.

Right, because our government would just go and do that shit on our own soil. Makes perfect sense.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
RayPeranus
RayPeranus
  • Member since: Mar. 5, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 6th, 2013 @ 08:30 PM Reply

At 2/3/13 05:33 AM, karlkri wrote: gun control does work if you make guns illegal. whitout gun control people would be walking around whit guns evrywhere.

Not really... If that happened then only criminals would have guns... Jackass...

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) Feb. 6th, 2013 @ 09:33 PM Reply

At 2/5/13 11:52 PM, Saen wrote: If I had to choose a gun to protect my house and family with, my first choice would be a shotgun every time, like my mother owned while at college. Protecting my livestock? A simple bolt action rifle does just fine, like my father and relatives in Ireland used to shoot scald crows (which eat the eyes out of sheep). Hunting? A high powered scoped bolt-action rifle will do just fine. Most hunters don't even fucking venture out into the woods, they just sit in their truck on the side of the round with their semi auto and wait for the dogs to flush the deer out! How the hell is that hunting!? It's like fucking walking in the grocery store and paying 5 times the price per pound for meat! Arming myself in public? A small handgun, a revolver in my case because of it's reliability and no clunky magazines to fondle with.

* A shotgun is the most applicable to home-defense, agreed. However, depending on if you have a responsible home-defense plan (ie: retreat to a strong room) you may have to fire through a heavy wooden door. In this case, the slug or buckshot would lack the penetrating power. You might want something that shoots a fast round like an assault rifle class round...or you would want a high powered rifle.

* I know many cattlemen. We're not talking about scald crows, but coyotes and other pack animals which are small and do not require a high powered round such as most bolt-action rifles. A less powerful assault-rifle/military round is just enough power to deal with varmits. Also a lot cheaper.

* If they are hunting like you say...then:
1) They are hunting illegally. Most people in the rural I live in either shoot at poachers doing this to scare them off...or turn them in. They get arrested and loose everything in their truck.
2) In this case you want them armed with an AK-47. It is big enough to bring down a deer (unlike the AR-15), but does not have the range of high powered rifles.


Notice how a large capacity semi-automatic rifle wasn't even mentioned, but also not even the best gun for any of these scenarios? Hmmm, now what gun would be deadly accurate, have plenty and easy to load ammunition, a rate of fire equal to how fast my trigger finger is, high caliber bullets, and perfectly legal and easy for me to buy in order that I may kill as many people as I'm able in the shortest period of time?

* These guns DO NOT fire high calibur bullets.
* If you fire in the shortest period of time...you have most likely missed 90% of what you are shooting at and are out of bullets.
* The AR-15 and AK-47 are no more accurate than any hunting rifle or even .22. This is as silly of an argument as it is erroneous.
* Magazine capacity does not even correlate with a high rate of hitting anyone or body count in mass shootings.
* Typically, when assault rifle clones are used in mass shootings...you see a far less loss of life.

I know you seem to think that you are talking reason and logic...and being ignorant of firearms, these are reasonable and logical assumptions...but they are not factual points.

At 2/6/13 03:06 AM, Saen wrote: Only adds to my point. Semi-automatic weapons are a problem when you've got 30 rounds to blow off. I'd say that's pretty badass by any standard.

Not at all. Rate of fire and even how many rounds are carried in your mag are nowhere near as important as the type of ammo being fired.

In the case of military style firearms, the .223, 5.56mm, and 7.62x39mm rounds that are common for the AR-15 and AK-47 are some of the least 'badass' rounds out there. Even if you use HP rounds, the AR-15 round travels so fast it has a small chance of mushrooming.

You can buy effective hunting rounds for the AK, but these are cost prohibitive at over $1/rd compared to $0.27 for the far less lethal military round.


Again why? I have nothing against handguns, unless if you've have magazines with fucking 20+ round capacity.

Magazine capacity is, again, not the boogey man you think they are. In fact, with handguns they work against someone since they make the gun more awkward and less able to be concealed.

And again...handgun ammo comes in soft lead core, HP, and Jacketed Hollow Points for self-defense and hunting (yes, you can deer hunt with a handgun in many states...but not an AR-15 because the AR-15's .223 or 5.56mm round is deemed unethical because of its lack of killing power).


Lmao aside from the fact that our military is killing dozens of people each day in the middle east. So you depict our hypothetical war with the government as portraying our militia's fighting style similar to Al Qaeda?

The point is it is common misperception that military small arms such as assault rifles, sniper rifles, and pistols are unusually or uncommonly lethal. This is simply not true. As I have said on here ad nauseum, military ammo are prohibited from making death inevitable. This is why, for example, in Somalia we were hitting the militia fighters multiple times and they kept on fighting.

Thus, these firearms are not the killing machine menace that politicians and gun control advocates make them out to be.


Even so what good will that do against biological (starvation, plague bombs, pests, etc.), nuclear, chemical, marine, electronic, aerial, and ground warfare combined along with torture? Give me a fucking break, come back down to planet Earth.

With all due respect, just because you're a wildlife biology Sophmore/Junior at FSU does not make you an expert on CBRNe. However, being a 3E9X1 serving on a CST...I do have a certain level of professional experience on this topic.

In short:
* A hypothetically tyrannical US Govt would not use nukes domestically. It would bring in outside countries as well as making the land unusable once they are able to pacify the inhabitants.
* Torture along with too heavy of a hand when suppressing a rebellion, historically speaking, tends to actually weaken the Government's support eventually eroding it and resulting in an increased recruitment for the rebels.
* Small arms such as the AK-47 are capable of taking out low flying attack aircraft such as the AH-64 Apache (this has happened in Iraq) and the A-6 Intruder (Vietnam).

I'm not saying that victory for either side would be guaranteed. All I'm saying is that anyone who is convinced of the US military's invincibility when it comes to guerrilla warfare is grossly unaware of the military's capabilities as well as history.


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

BBS Signature