Gun Control thread (merged many)

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by August

I was thinking it was a tube fed given that it has a lever action. I guess it could be just for looks?

I gave a link to the manufacturers website with their information on the firearm. I hope they know what they manufacture and according to them it is not a lever action.

[Betonov]

The lever could be the release for the folding mechanism.

[Sailor Steve]

Continued from the 'Terrorist Attack In South Carolina' Thread:

Originally Posted by Oberon

I think this is where between America and the rest of the world there is the vital disconnect. There's not many other countries out there that have such a fear of government, bordering in some cases on paranoia.

We've already side-stepped from another tragedy to another gun control argument. I'd like to side-step a little further, into other reasons why the United States and other countries don't always understand each other. We are currently commemorating the 100th anniversary of the First World War, and a new thread has been started observing the 75th anniversary of the Battle Of Britain. One of the things I've encountered from various Europeans of my acquaintance over the years is a mild animosity towards the United States over our reluctance to get involved in either of those wars until rather late in the game. In one case it was more than mild, tending towards outright condemnation. I had to explain and remind that our Revolution was against British actions, yet we always faced the reminder that we were still British ourselves. This meant maintaining a hostility toward our closest relatives while holding court with our traditional enemies. The fact that the closest of those enemies (France) was also our greatest help during our break with Britain might have made a difference, but then we had to face a new France that had killed the royalty and nobility who had helped us and set up a new, supposedly democratic but in actuality truly tyrannical government, which was itself soon replaced by an outright dictatorship.

Where all of this led was to our first president, after having allied himself with the British against the French, which cause trouble for the next two administrations, finished his second term with an admonishment that "... nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated."
-George Washington, Farewell Address, 1797

In fact after breaking the ties with France formed in 1778 the United States did not enter into another formal military alliance until the creation of NATO in 1949. Many of us consider the alliances that led to World War 1 to be the perfect justification for our reluctance to do the same.

This is often classified by Americans as blind obedience to governments, whereas others would classify it as a form of trust.

The basic concept in America is that the government has no rights. Any power granted to the government is done so by the people. If you trust the government so much that you give up your freedoms to them, what do you do in the case where the government does indeed turn tyrannical and decides to take the rest? No trust should ever be placed in the government. It should serve the people, and never the other way around.

I would ponder though, since 1787, how many times the US government has legitimately earned that distrust? Not just in a way that would upset those of a particular political leaning, but an active lurch into an area that the populace did not want it to go.

A good question. The answer would seem to be none, which could be said to imply that our distrust is wrong. On the other hand it could be said to imply that

A) The people in charge of the government are themselves distrustful, and are careful to keep it that way, or

B) The government is careful not to earn that distrust because they've see what happens when we don't like the way the government treats us.

Many times people in the US will state that gun control is the first step into a tyrannical, dictatorial government...

Possibly, possibly not, but without an armed citizenry what is to keep that from happening? As people have also stated in the US, the Second Amendment is what makes the First Amendment possible. Like the other, that is a trite homily, but there is also some truth behind it. If your leaders stated tomorrow that no books could be published without direct permission from Parliament, what could anyone do about it?

completely ignoring the relaxation of gun control in Nazi Germany.

I read that article, and it is more than a little biased. The author mentions the disarming of the Jews, but justifies it with the point that very few of them were armed anyway, and their handful of guns was of no help in Warsaw and they may have even made it worse. My objection to that is that the author implies that they shouldn't have tried at all. The gun-rights advocate would point out that if they had all been armed it might have been a different story. I will only point out that while it is true that the Nazis did relax gun control, they only did so for the "right" people. The also disarmed the populace of the countries they conquered and occupied.

Of course the author of the article is a gun-control advocate. The problem there is that every article arguing the other side is also a highly biased gun advocate site. There seems to be no one willing to look at both sides of the question and seek honest answers.

...and this is logical, but one could argue that there are plenty of other ways to curb a peoples freedom than removing firearms, and in that respects there are some nations that it could be argued have greater freedoms in areas than the US has but who practice firearm regulation in a stricter manner than the US.

It could also be argued that those greater freedoms are granted by the government, and are in place only so long as the government continues to grant them.

It's something that's going to come to a head there at some point in the future, and it could, legitimately, lead to civil strife.

One can only hope that some equitable solution is found before that happens.

And now I've stayed up way past my bedtime, and I have to go crash.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Continued from the 'Terrorist Attack In South Carolina' Thread:


We've already side-stepped from another tragedy to another gun control argument. I'd like to side-step a little further, into other reasons why the United States and other countries don't always understand each other.

Firstly, thank you for replying over here, I imagine you might need to prune and bring across other comments as time goes on because it's inevitable that this shooting has brought up the gun control question.

We are currently commemorating the 100th anniversary of the First World War, and a new thread has been started observing the 75th anniversary of the Battle Of Britain. One of the things I've encountered from various Europeans of my acquaintance over the years is a mild animosity towards the United States over our reluctance to get involved in either of those wars until rather late in the game. In one case it was more than mild, tending towards outright condemnation.

Secondly, an apology from me on behalf of Europe for the treatment you received in that regard. Whilst I believe that it can be used as a tool to rib America with, I certainly do not think that it's something that can be used as condemnation. America had her reasons for entering the wars when she did, and certainly in the case of the Second World War, Roosevelt did everything he could, short of actual declaration in order to help keep the Allies afloat before Germanys declaration of war on America.
I think people tend to forget the lend lease supplies, certainly in Western Europe, but I know that Russia has never forgotten, and it's a shame that there are such enmities between East and West again at the moment because there's a debt of gratitude there for both the lend-lease equipment and the men (such as Jimbunas father) who delivered it.

I had to explain and remind that our Revolution was against British actions, yet we always faced the reminder that we were still British ourselves. This meant maintaining a hostility toward our closest relatives while holding court with our traditional enemies. The fact that the closest of those enemies (France) was also our greatest help during our break with Britain might have made a difference, but then we had to face a new France that had killed the royalty and nobility who had helped us and set up a new, supposedly democratic but in actuality truly tyrannical government, which was itself soon replaced by an outright dictatorship.

I think that the United States of America is possibly one of the few nations who has faced a revolution that did not involve major loss of life amongst its own people. Not immediately at least. France underwent the reign of terror, Russia had civil war and purges, it's one of the things that has always tempered my left leanings and made me cautious of the people that call for revolution. They're always rather vague about what will replace the status quo.

Where all of this led was to our first president, after having allied himself with the British against the French, which cause trouble for the next two administrations, finished his second term with an admonishment that "... nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated."
-George Washington, Farewell Address, 1797

It's a wise move, really, honestly a move of self-preservation, since Europe of that time, and the century before and after it, was a place of war and rival nations. It always bemuses me (if that's the right word) that we are now in the longest period of peace in Europe since the days of the Roman Empire.
Besides, America of the early 1800s was still focusing inward, expanding west, dealing with the Native American situation, straightening out borders with Mexico and British Canada. The last thing you'd want to do is to get involved in a European war. Of course, that didn't stop you from winding up in one in 1812, but that, really I think was a case of tying up matters left over from the War of Independence.

In fact after breaking the ties with France formed in 1778 the United States did not enter into another formal military alliance until the creation of NATO in 1949. Many of us consider the alliances that led to World War 1 to be the perfect justification for our reluctance to do the same.

Perfectly understandable, and, honestly, for a nation such as America, you have the luxury of being able to consider isolation as an option, even though it eventually does lead to not inconsiderable problems. We once, perhaps, could have felt the same back when we had our considerable colonial holdings, but as a small island nation now, we are sadly lost in reminiscing about our past with delusions of grandeur. It's one of the reasons I'm in support of the EU, the nations of Europe are insignificant on their own now, the people we once sneered at as 'backward' have overtaken us, it took them longer because they were geographically larger, but they did it, and now western Europe can only consider itself relevant as a unified force.

The basic concept in America is that the government has no rights. Any power granted to the government is done so by the people. If you trust the government so much that you give up your freedoms to them, what do you do in the case where the government does indeed turn tyrannical and decides to take the rest? No trust should ever be placed in the government. It should serve the people, and never the other way around.

Now this is the meat of the matter. Yet, I think that people will give up certain freedoms depending on how they are asked to do so. Now, something like the Second Amendment is too big a thing to tackle in any particular way, you can chip away at it, and slowly sleepwalk a country into it. Just as an act such as the PATRIOT act was passed through with begrudging acceptance as necessary because of 9/11 and the new threat of terror. Benjamin Franklin called it years ago, and I'm sure I don't need to repeat the quote.
Now, you make an important point in the last sentence of your paragraph there, A government should serve the people and never the other way around. I fully agree with this, completely. However, there are a lot of problems in how much a government can help and serve the people without in turn people serving the government. It is, I believe, a two-way street. In this particular example, surely it is the role of the government to help reduce domestic terrorist attacks on its people? However, the government would face a quandary, as indeed it does, in how to do such a thing while preserving the second amendment. Catch-22.
One day someone might come up with an answer to that question, and they'll probably be made President. I hope it isn't me that thinks of the answer.

A good question. The answer would seem to be none, which could be said to imply that our distrust is wrong. On the other hand it could be said to imply that

A) The people in charge of the government are themselves distrustful, and are careful to keep it that way, or

B) The government is careful not to earn that distrust because they've see what happens when we don't like the way the government treats us.

A sceptical mind in regards to government is a healthy thing, but I think that the US is fast approaching the point where technology is going to make that approach to keeping tyrannical government in check a thing of the past. Once it was safely assumed that if a government went tyrannical that the military would split and that the defenders would at least have the aid of some military force in the inevitable war.
However, as the military moves towards a robotic force requiring less manpower to operate a similar amount of destructive potential, then a tyrannical government would have little to fear of its people.
Earlier in this exact thread I posed the question of how much effectiveness an AR15 would pose against a Predator drone at 15,000 ft.
As technology goes on and machine replaces man in the military, small amounts of people are going to wield a lot of power, and it will only take the loyalty of these people in order to rob the public of a defensive army.
I dare say there would be compromises, it certainly wouldn't go all the governments way, but as Harvs pointed out, it has been a very long time since the Second Amendment was written, and I think that the part of it that retains to protecting the American people against a tyrannical government needs to be re-examined closely in light of new technology.

Possibly, possibly not, but without an armed citizenry what is to keep that from happening? As people have also stated in the US, the Second Amendment is what makes the First Amendment possible. Like the other, that is a trite homily, but there is also some truth behind it. If your leaders stated tomorrow that no books could be published without direct permission from Parliament, what could anyone do about it?

One would hope that such a leader would be swiftly removed by parliament, or indeed by Her Majesty herself. There are some checks and balances in our political system in order to prevent the rise of tyranny, however the disconnect between the elite in Westminster and the general public as well as the complete mess that is the 'First Past the Post' voting system does show that it's not perfect and I think that in the next century or two there's going to be problems from that.

Ultimately, in both our nations, power lies in the military rather than in the people. They are the ones that, whilst not controlling all the guns, do control the big guns, the tanks, the jets, the helicopters and the drones.
When the people rose up in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood was elected into power, it was the military that removed them and put into power a government of their own, and it's the military that has spent its time since then systematically rounding up and arresting as many Muslim Brotherhood and former Mubarak ministers as it can.

I read that article, and it is more than a little biased. The author mentions the disarming of the Jews, but justifies it with the point that very few of them were armed anyway, and their handful of guns was of no help in Warsaw and they may have even made it worse. My objection to that is that the author implies that they shouldn't have tried at all. The gun-rights advocate would point out that if they had all been armed it might have been a different story. I will only point out that while it is true that the Nazis did relax gun control, they only did so for the "right" people. The also disarmed the populace of the countries they conquered and occupied.

Yeah, I do apologise for the bias, it was the first article I came across whilst googling for that particular situation. I do see where you're coming from in regards to the Jewish resistance, and indeed you can see that the French did put up a good resistance of their own. Ultimately though, it needed the backing of the Allied army to achieve its goal of a free France.

Of course the author of the article is a gun-control advocate. The problem there is that every article arguing the other side is also a highly biased gun advocate site. There seems to be no one willing to look at both sides of the question and seek honest answers.

That is the sad truth there. Too many people shout at each other rather than listen.

It could also be argued that those greater freedoms are granted by the government, and are in place only so long as the government continues to grant them.

It can be truthfully argued indeed.

One can only hope that some equitable solution is found before that happens.

Likewise, it would be a very sad day for the world if America were to undergo a Second civil war.

And now I've stayed up way past my bedtime, and I have to go crash.

And I, almost time for me to crash into bed too. It's always a pleasure to discuss these things with you, and a learning experience too.

[Von Tonner]

I have to say, given how extremely strict it is to buy and own a gun in SA - one could almost say the opposite in extreme to USA where one can buy a gun through the mail - we still land up second to the USA in gun related deaths.

http://businesstech.co.za/news/gover...-in-the-world/

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Secondly, an apology from me on behalf of Europe for the treatment you received in that regard.

If you're talking about my personal experiences, don't worry about it. I've always found it odd that some people can carry hostility over events that took place before they were even born. I'm talking about a couple of odd individuals who have their own skewed visions of history. I doubt either of them ever bothered to pick up a book, let alone a dozen, and explore what really happened and why.

...it's one of the things that has always tempered my left leanings and made me cautious of the people that call for revolution. They're always rather vague about what will replace the status quo.

Very true. I try to remind people that while, as John Adams said later, "The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people..."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...ms-to-h-niles/

In fact the shooting only started with that whole Lexington/Concord thing. Even that has its debating points, as the colonials perceived the move to be an infringement of their rights while the Governor saw himself as trying to curtail a dangerous threat. Did he see himself as a tyrannical dictator? I would say almost certainly not.

Of course, that didn't stop you from winding up in one in 1812, but that, really I think was a case of tying up matters left over from the War of Independence.

That is a great example of what can happen when hotheads collide. As usual the British had already apologized for the impressments, and always returned the American sailors when it was proven that they were indeed from our side of the pond. It was the Americans this time who made a mistake, and we're lucky we came out of it the way we did.

A government should serve the people and never the other way around. I fully agree with this, completely. However, there are a lot of problems in how much a government can help and serve the people without in turn people serving the government. It is, I believe, a two-way street. In this particular example, surely it is the role of the government to help reduce domestic terrorist attacks on its people? However, the government would face a quandary, as indeed it does, in how to do such a thing while preserving the second amendment. Catch-22.

I agree. What seems obvious to one side is obviously wrong to the other. If we can't look into the private lives of our citizens it's impossible to tell if they are potential terrorists. On the other hand the government looking into our private lives is the biggest thing we don't want.

In the gun control debate both sides have good and valid points. Neither side wants to admit that the other may have something worthwhile to say. It's true that if all guns are removed from society it becomes impossible for mass shootings to take place. Well, almost impossible. A soldier or policeman with problems can still pull it off. Recent events on the other side of the spectrum bring to light what a retired cop I once knew like to say: "If guns are outlawed only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

I don't have any answers, but there is one thing I'm sure of. This debate will never come to a conclusion until both sides stop seeing only their own truths and open themselves to the truth of what the other side is saying and start working together to find a real solution. "I'm right and you're stupid" never solved anything.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I agree. What seems obvious to one side is obviously wrong to the other. If we can't look into the private lives of our citizens it's impossible to tell if they are potential terrorists. On the other hand the government looking into our private lives is the biggest thing we don't want.

I agree, and whilst I'm not a big fan of Rand Paul, I will wholeheartedly applaud his filibuster of the PATRIOT act renewal. Of course, the USA Freedom Act has since come in which could be seen as PATRIOT lite, but it was a good effort nevertheless. The problem with something like the PATRIOT act and the 'War on Terror' is that civilian surveillence can actually be used to prevent terrorism, but at what cost? Do we take the risk of another mass terrorist strike on the scale of 9/11 while keeping the government out of our private lives, or accept the intrusion for our safety?
It's not an easy question to answer, Ben Franklin did say that those who would sacrifice essential liberty for the sake of a little safety deserve neither, but who could have foreseen in his era the deaths of nearly 3000 civilians in one horrific day?

In the gun control debate both sides have good and valid points. Neither side wants to admit that the other may have something worthwhile to say. It's true that if all guns are removed from society it becomes impossible for mass shootings to take place. Well, almost impossible. A soldier or policeman with problems can still pull it off. Recent events on the other side of the spectrum bring to light what a retired cop I once knew like to say: "If guns are outlawed only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

That touches on another massive question which is, like race relations, not solely an American problem, and that's the relationship between the public and the police, and the gradual erosion of trust between the two. I think as the public have become more aware of some of the abuses perpatrated by the police they are often focused on these issues rather than the good. Perhaps this is also a part of the race relations problem in that people get focused on the negative aspects of it more than the positive ones. Media plays a heavy part in this, but equally we cannot solely blame media for it only parrots to us what we want to see from it, otherwise it would not profit from its demographically targetted audience.
In that way you can also see why politicians lie, because who would vote in a politician that told hard hitting truths?

I don't have any answers, but there is one thing I'm sure of. This debate will never come to a conclusion until both sides stop seeing only their own truths and open themselves to the truth of what the other side is saying and start working together to find a real solution. "I'm right and you're stupid" never solved anything.

Very true indeed, and I think that the internet is both a cure and a problem with this. The internet has opened our horizons to thousands of different opinions, but we as a species tend to flock towards those who share the same viewpoints, Roof most likely was partially radicalised by the internet, instead of opening his mind to the opposite viewpoint of his beliefs, he chose as many do, to embrace and cement what he already believed in and to dig deeper into that, to radicalise to the extent that he believed that he had a mission to save America from the blacks.
Of course, that is speculation at the moment, but I doubt he would be the first to walk that road, sadly.

[Harvs]

Ok, August, you need to pull your head in a bit mate, i have a rifle, i use that rifle to hunt for food either to fill my freezer or for dog food, the rifle i have is not a toy its a tool, i was taught from an early age to be aware of what lies behind your point of aim, to shoot straight and shoot to kill, my father was a great shot and a great teacher, i have served time in the Royal Australian Army, i have used all types of weapons, my favourite was the L1A1 SLR, a deadly accurate rifle with a 7.62 round that blows things apart, that rifle is banned now under our laws and thank Ghandi's sandals it is, as i have said there is NO reason on earth that you can give me to justify a civilian owning a military type auto or semi auto weapon, are you that bad of a shot that you have to take down your kill with 20 rapid fire rounds? or do you just like to go down to the range and show of to your mates or take off down the bush and take out a few trees just for the fun of it, as i said, a rifle is a tool, but unfortunately so are many of the people that own them.

Originally Posted by Harvs

...as i said, a rifle is a tool, but unfortunately so are many of the people that own them.

Beautiful.

[August]

Originally Posted by Harvs

Ok, August, you need to pull your head in a bit mate, i have a rifle, i use that rifle to hunt for food either to fill my freezer or for dog food, the rifle i have is not a toy its a tool, i was taught from an early age to be aware of what lies behind your point of aim, to shoot straight and shoot to kill, my father was a great shot and a great teacher, i have served time in the Royal Australian Army, i have used all types of weapons, my favourite was the L1A1 SLR, a deadly accurate rifle with a 7.62 round that blows things apart, that rifle is banned now under our laws and thank Ghandi's sandals it is, as i have said there is NO reason on earth that you can give me to justify a civilian owning a military type auto or semi auto weapon, are you that bad of a shot that you have to take down your kill with 20 rapid fire rounds? or do you just like to go down to the range and show of to your mates or take off down the bush and take out a few trees just for the fun of it, as i said, a rifle is a tool, but unfortunately so are many of the people that own them.

Pull my head in? In spite of your little digs about my marksmanship and my character, I don't have to justify my rights to you or anyone else, not that you'd listen anyways since you seem to have already made up your mind about it.

As for shooting trees maybe that's why you Australians can't be trusted by your masters to handle firearms. A competent marksman should always know where his bullets are going and a patch of forest is never a proper backstop. Such practices are likely to get someone injured or killed.

One dead, shooter sought at Delta State University

If the professor only would have had a gun...

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

One dead, shooter sought at Delta State University

If the professor only would have had a gun...

So?
Report: Woman dies after knife attack in Saco supermarket
http://bangordailynews.com/2015/08/1...o-supermarket/

Ah right...
For whatever reason, I forgot that posting in this thread is a bad idea.
Nevermind my post... and the dead professor, and the 20+ kids from Sandy Hook and all the others who have been killed by knife-lovers... oh wait...

[Onkel Neal]

Then again, I've owned guns for 40 years and haven't killed anyone.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Then again, I've owned guns for 40 years and haven't killed anyone.

I hope you didn't!
There is no problem in owning guns at all, if the laws in my country would be a tiddy tad more lax, I'd probably be on the range now and then, for now it is too much a pain in the bum to do shooting over here.
However, I think there should be limits to who owns them and how easily they are distributed/obtained though. Why would that hurt? Why are so many people reacting sensitive to stricter gun laws, if they actually have nothing to fear?
As we can see in other countries, that helps a lot bringing the numbers of gun related victims down. Not sure why this is a bad thing...