Gun Control thread (merged many)

Originally Posted by Oberon

if one of them is a criminal then what are you going to do?

there is the big hole found in all pro anti gun arguments, criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS so gun bans only disarm law abiding citizens and prevents them from being able to defend themselves and family and makes them easy prey for any criminal.

its so silly that people still think laws can change how criminals behave, criminals by definition do not follow or obey laws so laws mean nothing to them be it 1 or 1,000 laws saying they cant do something

criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS

You had better abolish those laws that say felons can't have guns then.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Webster

there is the big hole found in all pro anti gun arguments, criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS so gun bans only disarm law abiding citizens and prevents them from being able to defend themselves and family and makes them easy prey for any criminal.

its so silly that people still think laws can change how criminals behave, criminals by definition do not follow or obey laws so laws mean nothing to them be it 1 or 1,000 laws saying they cant do something

This is true, although there are some things to take into question.
If one cannot trust the police to catch criminals then why do the police exist?
Furthermore, one does not know who will become a criminal until after they have performed their act. Now, say for example a man robs a bank with an assault rifle and kills a teller. Up until that day, the man was a perfectly upright citizen with a legal rifle, however...I don't know...perhaps he lost his job and couldn't afford to pay something, or he got himself into a tight corner that he saw that the only way out was to commit a felony and hope to reap its rewards. Now, a person is dead and only now can the police act and confiscate his weapon, when it's too late.
Now, if a ban or a tougher regulation had come into place before hand, then the man would either have to break the law to obtain the weapon, or use a different weapon, in the first instance there is the opportunity to detain the man before the crime is committed, in the latter, sadly, short of banning or regulating tougher ALL offensive weapons then there is not, however depending on the weapon it makes the job harder (after all, unless you're pretty good with a throwing knife, then a knife is not a ranged weapon and you have to get close to a person to use it which opens up a window of self-defence or indeed prevents the incident entirely [through the use of, for example, a stab proof window like they have on London buses]) than it does with a gun where depending on the weapon, all you have to do is point and click.

Now, obviously I have argued for and against a ban or tougher regulation on assault rifles and guns in general on several occasions on this forum, because I can see where people are coming from, and in many instances it's not so much the fact that it is a weapon being taken away as it is a right given by the amendment of the founding document of the American nation. When you tie this into the slippery slope started by the PATRIOT act then it's understandable why people are so on edge about the whole affair. Likewise, it's understandable that many people in America are very much tired of seeing dead school children on the evening news and they seek for the nearest and easiest object available to counter that.
What neither side seems to be able to come to terms with, in this clash over firearms, is that it is not the firearm that is the problem, it merely exacerbates the existing problem which is a polarised culture with a lack of mental health care and facilities.
There has become a very much 'them or us' sort of attitude generated by Americans over the past ten years, obviously this is a generalisation and I don't tar everyone with the same brush, but it's the impression that I'm sure that many outside America have got, and I'm sure that some inside it have as well. There's no middle ground, no common ground for people to agree on or appetite for compromise. The internet has not helped in this, radical ideas are much easier to spread now, it's a lot like when the printing press was first invented and you had a massive upsurge in groups like the Levellers, Diggers and the Quakers, because ideas were a lot easier to exchange and were no longer limited to one set of people telling you the same thing over and over. As such a more fractured society has emerged, just as it did back then. War and the conflict against the Muslim faith has also leant its part into the increasing radicalisation of our society, and it has all lead to nations of people who range between depression, naivety or anger.
So...what do you do?
Well, leaving the firearm issue aside, obviously a move towards greater tolerance is required, as well as better mental health awareness and services. When the Sandy Hook massacre took place, there was a good discussion on here about the deterioration of mental health care in America, and I think that this would be a more productive avenue to explore than simply taking assault weapons out of the equation, because as it has been shown before, that does not work.
There has already been an Assault Weapons Ban...it did not stop school shootings, it did not even lead to a decrease in them, in short it did nothing.

However, to the men and women in office pressing for one, it is a helpful popularity boost amongst their core voters who are calling for one because they are told by the media that is what will help, and because there is no middle ground in America, the extreme left will read and watch their media and believe what it tells them, and the extreme right will read and watch their media and believe what it tells them, and the problem shall remain at an impasse because both sides are fighting over the wrong issue.
In short, when both left and right are wrong, where do you go from there?

Please, American politics, find a middle ground...come back to it...

[Ducimus]

I'm quite pleased to see that my senator, is doing his job!

I suspect he got inundated with letters just like the ones I wrote him.

Originally Posted by Oberon

This is true, although there are some things to take into question.
If one cannot trust the police to catch criminals then why do the police exist?

well we don't have a policeman inside every single house wearing a gun on his side (if we did it would be the same as having every homeowner owning a gun) so when someone busts down your door the fact that you have a gun means you "might" be able to stay alive long enough for the police to arrive which often takes 15 minutes if you are very lucky and in most cases its a half hour to an hour before they show up.

its not about killing people or trying to "play" cop, its about protecting your life until those properly trained to deal with criminals (cops) can get there to protect you.

as far as trusting the police, well in my town (not a bad area mind you) if you call 911 for a noise complaint, fight, car accident, or a break-in then the cops show up in about 15-20 minutes but if you tell them someone is shooting it takes no less then an hour before they show up and they arrive driving slowly with no flashing lights or sirens so good luck living long enough for help to arrive from the police.

it is what it is but in my town its obvious the police wait until the shooting stops before they go anywhere near the scene so if the perps run away, gun jams, or they run out of bullets then you "might" live to see another day.

bottom line is the police can never be everywhere all the time and that's why we have the second amendment

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Webster

well we don't have a policeman inside every single house wearing a gun on his side (if we did it would be the same as having every homeowner owning a gun) so when someone busts down your door the fact that you have a gun means you "might" be able to stay alive long enough for the police to arrive which often takes 15 minutes if you are very lucky and in most cases its a half hour to an hour before they show up.

its not about killing people or trying to "play" cop, its about protecting your life until those properly trained to deal with criminals (cops) can get there to protect you.

as far as trusting the police, well in my town (not a bad area mind you) if you call 911 for a noise complaint, fight, car accident, or a break-in then the cops show up in about 15-20 minutes but if you tell them someone is shooting it takes no less then an hour before they show up and they arrive driving slowly with no flashing lights or sirens so good luck living long enough for help to arrive from the police.

it is what it is but in my town its obvious the police wait until the shooting stops before they go anywhere near the scene so if the perps run away, gun jams, or they run out of bullets then you "might" live to see another day.

bottom line is the police can never be everywhere all the time and that's why we have the second amendment

So, how do countries with gun laws handle it?
I was under the impression that the second amendment was not to do with crime rates but prevention of tyrannical actions by the government by providing the ability for citizens to be able to overthrow their government if it became tyrannical.
Of course, how relevant such a thing is when you're armed with an M16 and the government has a B52 dropping bombs on you is another matter for another thread.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I was under the impression that the second amendment was not to do with crime rates but prevention of tyrannical actions by the government by providing the ability for citizens to be able to overthrow their government if it became tyrannical.

That's partly true. First, the American Founders were steeped in the Enlightenment concept that all of us are posessed of natural rights, i.e. rights that are inherent to our existence. I don't have the right to kill you because you have an inherent right to life; you also have a right to defend yourself. They not only believed that the body of the people should organize to form an army in times of need, but that a standing army was in itself a dangerous thing. The following is a thick piece of reading, but it should help explain what they were really thinking.
http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/Journal/

Of course, how relevant such a thing is when you're armed with an M16 and the government has a B52 dropping bombs on you is another matter for another thread.

Well, the North Vietnamese did just fine for ten years in that exact situation, and even managed to win. Of course they didn't have M-16s, they had AK-47s.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That's partly true. First, the American Founders were steeped in the Enlightenment concept that all of us are posessed of natural rights, i.e. rights that are inherent to our existence. I don't have the right to kill you because you have an inherent right to life; you also have a right to defend yourself. They not only believed that the body of the people should organize to form an army in times of need, but that a standing army was in itself a dangerous thing. The following is a thick piece of reading, but it should help explain what they were really thinking.
http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/Journal/

So, where do PMCs fit in? Academi, for example, is that a militia or a military force?

I understand the concept behind the Bill of Rights and the Amendments, and why people are so upset about any form of gun regulation, as I said in my TLDR ramble a few posts ago. I shall have a look through that link at a time when my focus is a bit more sharp, otherwise I hit the wall of text and bounce off it. But I get the general gist of the idea, although I do wonder if the founding fathers of America were to look upon America now, whether they'd still make that amendment. Still, that's a question that has no answer really.

Well, the North Vietnamese did just fine for ten years in that exact situation, and even managed to win. Of course they didn't have M-16s, they had AK-47s.

Steve.
Are you forgetting minor little details like surface to air missiles and Migs?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Steve.
Are you forgetting minor little details like surface to air missiles and Migs?

The point wasn't that they shot down some B-52s, but that they survived the bombing and still were able to wage a ground war, and win it.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The point wasn't that they shot down some B-52s, but that they survived the bombing and still were able to wage a ground war, and win it.

The point being, it wasn't because they had some AK47s, it was because they were backed by a superpower and supplied with that superpowers military hardware.
So is the Michigan militia going to be backed and supplied by China or Russia in the struggle against Americas secret NWO?
Maybe they can call on the French again.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The point being, it wasn't because they had some AK47s, it was because they were backed by a superpower and supplied with that superpowers military hardware.
So is the Michigan militia going to be backed and supplied by China or Russia in the struggle against Americas secret NWO?
Maybe they can call on the French again.

No, it was because they refused to give in. It was the common Vietnamese and his AK that won that war. Exactly what hardware are you referring to?

The entire US military isn't going to follow an order to attack fellow Americans without asking questions. While many of us don't consider the National Guard to be the militia described in the Constitution, in fact they have refused to obey orders to arrest protesters, at least here in Utah. There is every chance that a significant portion of the military would side with a resistance.

This is also one of the reasons that we argue that citizens should have access to military weapons, just to minimize the possibility of that sort of government control.

[Oberon]

I think the number of American soldiers who would fire on Americans would depend on how the situation is sold to them.
In the beginning it would be relatively easy to paint the enemy Americans as terrorists, you've already gone partially down that road since 9/11. Perhaps by staging another even bigger terrorist attack (ala Operation Northwoods) which is pinned on a specific group of Americans, it would serve to muster some force against them.
As the operation continues on, it becomes a bit harder, but if you exploit the 'Them or us' attitude which is popular then you could probably create enough propaganda to motivate not just the ordinary American military, but people who are loyal towards the government who might want to be formed into their own militias.

No, it was because they refused to give in. It was the common Vietnamese and his AK that won that war.

Really? and what won the war against the French?

Exactly what hardware are you referring to?

Do you want to start with those I already mentioned or do you want to go through the whole communist supplied arsenal the NVA had?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Furthermore, one does not know who will become a criminal until after they have performed their act.

That brings up an interesting point. The draconian gun laws being considered are presuming that I, as a gun owning citizen, will, with some high probability, become a gun using criminal. Hence, the need to preemptively preventing me from obtaining high capacity magazines (clips) or worse thumb-holes in pieces of wood or plastic.

I, as a law abiding gun owner, object to the government presuming that I am going to commit a gun related crime with no probable cause.

The harsh fact of society is that every criminal is allowed their first crime. Until they commit an illegal act, they are citizens and enjoy all the freedoms that other citizens enjoy.


We can't, and should not even attempt, to preemptively prevent criminals from committing their first crime.

What we can, and should do is preemptively prevent specifically mentally ill (as defined by competent medical authority) people from obtaining firearms.

Let's solve that problem first. If we can solve that problem, I wager that the number of these horrible school/workplace/mall shootings will go down.

In my opinion, the anti-gun people are trying to solve the wrong problem the wrong way.