Guns in America

[T-Dub]

11 hours ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

He bought guns "legally". I would say yes. Wouldn't you?

 

No I would call it a law enforcement failure, first & foremost.

 

You are able to buy guns while being on a government watch list because, generally speaking, the government is not able to rescind your constitutional rights without a trial or even notifying you of the fact. 

[T-Dub]

Also this may not be the right thread, but it's interesting how little attention this story is getting considering what just happened:

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2016-06-13/indiana-man-arrested-in-california-with-guns-chemicals

[|Elflocko|]

1 hour ago, T-Dub said:

Also this may not be the right thread, but it's interesting how little attention this story is getting considering what just happened:

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2016-06-13/indiana-man-arrested-in-california-with-guns-chemicals

White, not "Muslim", 2nd Amendment, move along...

[T-Dub]

16 hours ago, Elflocko said:

White, not "Muslim", 2nd Amendment, move along...

I've read some stuff claiming he actually was Muslim & knew the Orlando dick from some training camp in Virginia, but none of this was from what I'd call a legit source.  It's a short hop from false flag CIA crisis actor lizard people.

[oldschooler]

On 6/15/2016 at 6:06 PM, T-Dub said:

 

No I would call it a law enforcement failure, first & foremost.

 

You are able to buy guns while being on a government watch list because, generally speaking, the government is not able to rescind your constitutional rights without a trial or even notifying you of the fact. 

Without law enforcement there isn't much "control".

And I may be alone in this line of thinking. But I don't think it is anyone's right to own a weapon that's sole purpose is to kill

as many people as possible with as little effort as possible. Those weapons can turn even the weakest person into a WMD instantly.

[T-Dub]

On 6/20/2016 at 7:37 AM, oldschooler said:

And I may be alone in this line of thinking. But I don't think it is anyone's right to own a weapon that's sole purpose is to kill

as many people as possible with as little effort as possible. Those weapons can turn even the weakest person into a WMD instantly.

 

1. You certainly have a right to the opinion, but as far as rights are concerned it was the 2nd one established in our Constitution. I'd say that makes it fairly important.

2. Unless you consider paper targets, tin cans, birds, deer etc to be people that is hardly their sole or even intended purpose.

[|Lucid|]

1 hour ago, T-Dub said:

 

1. You certainly have a right to the opinion, but as far as rights are concerned it was the 2nd one established in our Constitution. I'd say that makes it fairly important.

2. Unless you consider paper targets, tin cans, birds, deer etc to be people that is hardly their sole or even intended purpose.

 

Assault rifles ie: weapons made for the battlefield are clearly made with the intended purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short amount of time as possible. That is clearly what they were designed to achieve, and not shooting tin cans. You can shave with a bastard sword, but that doesn't change the fact it was designed to cleave people's head off.

As far as the second amendment goes, clearly the framers couldn't have foreseen the state of weapon technology as it exists today. There is clearly a reason we shouldn't let people have a fully weaponized Abrams tank. The question is, where do we draw that line? I think what needs to be looked at is how many rounds can this thing put down range in 1 minute, can it be easily modified to significantly increase that (ie, making a semi automatic into a full auto by tweaking a spring, etc). What is the "cartridge" or load amount, and how easily is it reloaded? What is the caliber of the round and the charge? 

I strongly believe in the 2nd amendment. I don't think we should restrict people from having hunting rifles, standard barrel shotguns (that aren't magazine fed) and small to medium size pistols (.38 is all you need for self defense). And I know pistols are by far the most often used in street violence and crimes. But that's not what I am addressing here. The ability for someone to walk into a crowded space and murder 50 people in less than a minute (a fully automatic AR15 has the ability to fire as much as 25 rounds in 2.5 seconds) needs to be addressed. 

For the record, I don't think the government should have the ability to curtail our rights by simply putting us on a "list" without having to go through the judicial process and letting the accused face their accuser and defend themselves against any charges. It should be the onus of the state to prove this person is a threat of some sort. If we allow the state to take our rights simply because they want to, what's next, locking people up because they have "dangerous" thoughts?

[T-Dub]

20 hours ago, Lucid said:

 

Assault rifles ie: weapons made for the battlefield are clearly made with the intended purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short amount of time as possible.

 

This Colt Navy revolver was made for the battlefield, with the intended purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short amount of time as possible.

 

 

This M1903 Springfield rifle was made for the battlefield, with the intended purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short amount of time as possible.

 

 

Yes, obviously there is a difference.  That's why perceived intent is not a reasonable legal definition of "Assault Rifle".

 

As far as the second amendment goes, clearly the framers couldn't have foreseen the state of weapon technology as it exists today. There is clearly a reason we shouldn't let people have a fully weaponized Abrams tank. The question is, where do we draw that line? I think what needs to be looked at is how many rounds can this thing put down range in 1 minute, can it be easily modified to significantly increase that (ie, making a semi automatic into a full auto by tweaking a spring, etc). What is the "cartridge" or load amount, and how easily is it reloaded? What is the caliber of the round and the charge?

 

As far as the 1st Amendment goes, clearly the framers couldn't have foreseen the state of communications technology as it exists today.  There is clearly a reason we shouldn't let people have instantaneous, encrypted & anonymous global email access or cheap, widely-available cell phones. The question is, where do we draw that line?

 

 

 

 

[|Lucid|]

1 hour ago, T-Dub said:

 

This Colt Navy revolver was made for the battlefield, with the intended purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short amount of time as possible.

 

 

This M1903 Springfield rifle was made for the battlefield, with the intended purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short amount of time as possible.

 

 

Yes, obviously there is a difference.  That's why perceived intent is not a reasonable legal definition of "Assault Rifle".

 

 

 

 

As far as the 1st Amendment goes, clearly the framers couldn't have foreseen the state of communications technology as it exists today.  There is clearly a reason we shouldn't let people have instantaneous, encrypted & anonymous global email access or cheap, widely-available cell phones. The question is, where do we draw that line?

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting, accept you are the one who stated that killing people wasn't necessarily the intended purpose of these weapons (which by definition, a weapon is meant to kill people), the only point I was making was that that it was. I then went on to list several things that I thought were relevant to determining whether a weapon should be sold to the general public, all of which had absolutely nothing to do with "perceived intent". 

And to your last point on the 1st amendment, I don't believe it is clear that people shouldn't have those things. Are you attempting to argue that people should have a fully weaponized modern tank?

[T-Dub]

54 minutes ago, Lucid said:

 

Interesting, accept you are the one who stated that killing people wasn't necessarily the intended purpose of these weapons (which by definition, a weapon is meant to kill people

 

You think a .22 rifle was meant to kill people? What about a bow & arrow?  A hammer can certainly be used as a weapon, or a knife. Like any of those things, it's only a weapon if used as one.  The guns that existed when the 2nd Amendment was drafted were quite capable of killing people.

 

Quote

And to your last point on the 1st amendment, I don't believe it is clear that people shouldn't have those things. Are you attempting to argue that people should have a fully weaponized modern tank?

No, I'm showing that this argument that the 2nd Amendment was not written with modern technology in mind could just as easily be applied to the Constitution in general.  You can't own a fully-weaponized modern tank now, under existing law, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

 

[|Lucid|]

3 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

You think a .22 rifle was meant to kill people? What about a bow & arrow?  A hammer can certainly be used as a weapon, or a knife. Like any of those things, it's only a weapon if used as one.  The guns that existed when the 2nd Amendment was drafted were quite capable of killing people.

 

No, I'm showing that this argument that the 2nd Amendment was not written with modern technology in mind could just as easily be applied to the Constitution in general.  You can't own a fully-weaponized modern tank now, under existing law, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

 

You seem really stuck on the "purpose" of these weapons. Like I said before, the only reason I brought that up was because you said killing people wasn't necessarily the purpose of an assault rife, and it clearly is. Listing other things that are also meant to kill people doesn't really change that. Neither does listing things that can also kill people but weren't necessarily designed to.

Regardless, that had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I proceeded to list as ACTUAL things I felt were relevant to whether something was appropriate to be sold to the general public. I'm not sure why you have chosen to ignore this aspect of my post and focus on the less relevant aspect of what the design purpose of these weapons are.

The reason I listed the tank example is because it is something that society in general has determined to be unacceptable and is illegal for a reason. Obviously this line has been drawn somewhere already, and for a good reason. I think it's very much time that we take a look at personal firearms to determine whether modern technology has made them so destructive as to merit restrictions. Personally I am in favor of some sort of legislation to restrict them which is based on the technological aspects of these weapons, and not something based on model names or aesthetics. This isn't a black and white issue, and there are many opinions that have merit. Personally I don't think mass scale murder in minutes is an acceptable trade off so someone can shoot some tin cans with an AR15. It seems you have a different opinion, which is fine. That's why we are talking about this, and I think it is a good discussion we are having as a society.

[T-Dub]

4 hours ago, Lucid said:

You seem really stuck on the "purpose" of these weapons.

 

Not really, this discussion evolved from Oldschooler's statement about a gun's "sole purpose (being) to kill".   You can scroll back through the thread & see I'm not completely opposed to further gun control measures.  What I am very much opposed to is an emotional response driving bad, unenforceable legislation that accomplishes nothing. I often hear "we have to do something" & my response is that no, we don't; not if that something is dumb or pointless. Passing laws just to make ourselves feel better is not the answer.  I think demonizing the AR-15 type rifles when the overwhelming majority of shooting homicides are committed with handguns points to an emotional response.  

Like I've said before, I see very little will to enforce standing gun laws, I suspect due to fear of another Waco incident. And like I've said before, let the ATFE disarm the extremist militias that have stockpiled these weapons, that continually make terrorist threats & talk openly of armed insurrection, and THEN tell law-abiding citizens that they can't purchase one of their own. I also think we have much more of a public mental health issue than a gun control issue, but that isn't nearly as convenient of a soapbox. 

[|Lucid|]

Way to spit on my opinion by labeling it "an emotional response" and a soap box. Pistols kill more people than bombs and I don't think people should be able to buy/own them either. Most people are murdered by someone they know or because of activity they are involved in. What gets people about these mass shootings is that they are random and indiscriminate. And that they cost large amount of lives all at once and in a short period of time.

You aren't going to convince me that people have a right to own machine guns or other high rate of fire, high impact weaponry of the modern battlefield, but you also don't see me trying to belittle your position or make you look foolish for disagreeing with me. Hopefully law enforcement and law makers wake up and we do something about this because quite frankly it's beyond absurd.

[MichaelWeston]

2 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

Not really, this discussion evolved from Oldschooler's statement about a gun's "sole purpose (being) to kill".   You can scroll back through the thread & see I'm not completely opposed to further gun control measures.  What I am very much opposed to is an emotional response driving bad, unenforceable legislation that accomplishes nothing. I often hear "we have to do something" & my response is that no, we don't; not if that something is dumb or pointless. Passing laws just to make ourselves feel better is not the answer.  I think demonizing the AR-15 type rifles when the overwhelming majority of shooting homicides are committed with handguns points to an emotional response.  

Like I've said before, I see very little will to enforce standing gun laws, I suspect due to fear of another Waco incident. And like I've said before, let the ATFE disarm the extremist militias that have stockpiled these weapons, that continually make terrorist threats & talk openly of armed insurrection, and THEN tell law-abiding citizens that they can't purchase one of their own. I also think we have much more of a public mental health issue than a gun control issue, but that isn't nearly as convenient of a soapbox. 

What guns did the Orlando Shooter use? San Bernadino? The kids in the kindergarten? The people in the movie theatre? 

I honestly can't believe how little people seem to care about the deaths of other people in comparison to their recreation. 

 

[T-Dub]

10 hours ago, Lucid said:

Way to spit on my opinion by labeling it "an emotional response" and a soap box.

 

The idea that the AR-15 rifle is the culprit in mass shootings is not just your opinion, it's the standard response from a segment of media & politicians whenever one is used in a publicized shooting.  I suspect we don't hear as much about the cheaper, higher-caliber AK/SKS types because they tend to have wooden stocks.  For some reason synthetic stocks are scarier, as seen in the last "assault rifle" ban.  It's why it gets referred to as the "scary black rifle ban". (The expiration of which, incidentally, has coincided with a reduced murder rate.) So yes, banning something out of fear rather than logic is definitively an emotional response.  Ignoring the actual statistics of steadily-reducing gun deaths for the sake of spreading fear through the media is an emotional response. Limiting caliber & magazine capacity does have some merit, not that I'm sure I agree with it myself, but at least it's not based on appearance.  High-capacity magazines are both plentiful and relatively easy to manufacture & the AR-15 type's 5.56mm or .223 round is not an exceptionally high caliber so I'm not sure where all that leads.  And no, bombs are not responsible for the vast majority of gun violence, and neither are rifles in general - of all types. Handguns are, far and away.

Unless you are a politician or some other type of legislator you shouldn't take the "soapbox" comment personally, either.  Public mental health care simply doesn't rally the voters or get someone's name in the news like their "tough" stance on gun control.  From what I've seen the recurring theme in these shootings is not the type of gun (again, handguns are far more common), but the lack of psychiatric care available to the shooter even though the people around them knew they had severe mental problems.

[T-Dub]

8 hours ago, MichaelWeston said:

What guns did the Orlando Shooter use? San Bernadino? The kids in the kindergarten? The people in the movie theatre? 

I honestly can't believe how little people seem to care about the deaths of other people in comparison to their recreation. 

 

 

That's 4 shootings out of how many?

Did you know that far more children die in backyard swimming pools than from guns? I can't believe how little people seem to care about the deaths of children in comparison to their recreation. Does anyone really need a backyard swimming pool?

 

I honestly can't believe how little people seem to care about facts in comparison to their arguments.

 

 

[oldschooler]

On 6/15/2016 at 6:06 PM, T-Dub said:

 

[oldschooler]

41 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

That's 4 shootings out of how many?

Did you know that far more children die in backyard swimming pools than from guns? I can't believe how little people seem to care about the deaths of children in comparison to their recreation. Does anyone really need a backyard swimming pool?

 

I honestly can't believe how little people seem to care about facts in comparison to their arguments.

 

 

I wish I didn't have to work so much. I would love to spend more time debating this topic with you.

I'll just respond to this for now. The next time someone walks into a school and intentionally kills 20 1st graders 

with a pool will be the first time. And those deaths by pools are accidents. We are talking about nutjobs intentionally

seeking out random people and murdering them where they stand.

 

You don't need a weapon of war to shoot tin cans and paper targets. And if that's all that was happening you wouldn't 

hear anyone saying shit about shit needs to change. But that's obviously not the case. Do you believe all people have a right 

to own a gun? Do you believe all people should own any weapon they want to buy like grenades, mines and rocket launchers?

If your answer is NO. Then you're already infringing on people's "rights". If your answer is YES. Then you're obviously a moron

that I wouldn't waste one more second talking on this subject with.

 

[T-Dub]

1 hour ago, oldschooler said:

 

Do you believe all people have a right 

to own a gun? Do you believe all people should own any weapon they want to buy like grenades, mines and rocket launchers?

If your answer is NO. Then you're already infringing on people's "rights". If your answer is YES. Then you're obviously a moron

that I wouldn't waste one more second talking on this subject with.

 

 

But neither of these are the case.  Not everyone is legally able to purchase a gun & we already have background checks.  Although you can potentially buy a lot of crazy shit under a federal Class 3 license (though not much in the way of explosives), owners are under serious scrutiny. ATF can search your home without a warrant at any time if you have a Class 3 permit.

I would like to see the exception for background checks on private sales removed. I think that would do a lot more good than banning one well-known model of semi-auto rifle out of the many, many different kinds available.  This fixation on the AR-15 makes about as much sense to me as banning 97 octane fuel as a means of combating arson.

[|Lucid|]

7 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

But neither of these are the case.  Not everyone is legally able to purchase a gun & we already have background checks.  Although you can potentially buy a lot of crazy shit under a federal Class 3 license (though not much in the way of explosives), owners are under serious scrutiny. ATF can search your home without a warrant at any time if you have a Class 3 permit.

I would like to see the exception for background checks on private sales removed. I think that would do a lot more good than banning one well-known model of semi-auto rifle out of the many, many different kinds available.  This fixation on the AR-15 makes about as much sense to me as banning 97 octane fuel as a means of combating arson.

Who said anything about banning specific models? 

[T-Dub]

1 hour ago, Lucid said:

Who said anything about banning specific models? 

 

Quote

(a fully automatic AR15 has the ability to fire as much as 25 rounds in 2.5 seconds)

 

(Any full-auto is illegal w/o a Class 3 license btw.  VERY illegal.)

 

Quote

Personally I don't think mass scale murder in minutes is an acceptable trade off so someone can shoot some tin cans with an AR15

 

Quote

What guns did the Orlando Shooter use? San Bernadino? The kids in the kindergarten? The people in the movie theatre?

 

If anyone cares to provide a more accurate explanation of what they mean by "Assault Rifle Ban", feel free. The accepted definition of "assault rifle" is a rifle capable of both automatic ("machine gun") and semi-auto fire.  These are already illegal for most people to own.

 

 

 

This was an interesting read:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/23/gun-control-violence-what-works-what-doesnt

 

Note that they credit magazine limits with at best a potential 1% decrease.

 

[oldschooler]

9 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

But neither of these are the case.

You should be a politician. Seriously. Tap dance around without really saying anything.

[T-Dub]

12 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

You should be a politician. Seriously. Tap dance around without really saying anything.

 

I guess, if by "tap-dancing" you meant pointing out that both the scenarios you were complaining about are already covered under the law?

 

I would say a politician is more likely to resort to ad hominem attacks when the facts don't fit their agenda.  You can do better than that.

 

 

[oldschooler]

11 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

I guess, if by "tap-dancing" you meant pointing out that both the scenarios you were complaining about are already covered under the law?

 

I would say a politician is more likely to resort to ad hominem attacks when the facts don't fit their agenda.  You can do better than that.

 

 

No I mean you say something, someone responds, you cherry-pick what they say, and don't really respond back.

I didn't ask you what was covered. I asked you what you think. See the difference? I asked you that because

when I said something before about a weapon that's sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible shouldn't

be in the hands of citizens, you talked about "rights". Again, see the difference? It's not everyone's "right"

 to own every weapon. It's not even some people's right to own any weapon.

 

You also posted pics of antique guns and talked about them like the gun that was just used in the deadliest 

mass shooting in our Nation's history. Since 2007, we have had the 7 of the deadliest mass shootings ever in America.

3 of THE deadliest. 160 people shot dead and 185 people injured. We've had people shot at schools, watching movies,

at work, at church and dancing at a club.  When the Constitution was written, one shot and the person could have been overcame

easily. Instead, you now how weapons where one person can over take a place filled with over 300 people and he can shoot

over a third of them. This isn't about paper targets, tin cans, swimming pools or antique weapons. This isn't about everyone 

having a right to such weapons. This isn't about a document written almost 250 years ago by straight white men that thought it

was OK to say "all men are created equal" and own slaves. It's about there being way too many guns, way too many weapons of war,

and way too many idiots that can easily obtain them. Because way too many politicians are bought and paid for and way too many

citizens are drinking the NRA's Kool-Aid. 

Less than 5% of the world's population has 50% of the world's guns. 

Shit needs to change. And it needs to change quickly. 

 

 

[|Lucid|]

13 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

 

(Any full-auto is illegal w/o a Class 3 license btw.  VERY illegal.)

 

 

 

If anyone cares to provide a more accurate explanation of what they mean by "Assault Rifle Ban", feel free. The accepted definition of "assault rifle" is a rifle capable of both automatic ("machine gun") and semi-auto fire.  These are already illegal for most people to own.

 

 

 

This was an interesting read:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/23/gun-control-violence-what-works-what-doesnt

 

Note that they credit magazine limits with at best a potential 1% decrease.

 

 

Apparently you haven't been reading any of my posts, perhaps past the first paragraph. The only time I mentioned banning by model names was when I said this:

 

On 6/22/2016 at 3:10 PM, Lucid said:

Personally I am in favor of some sort of legislation to restrict them which is based on the technological aspects of these weapons, and not something based on model names or aesthetics.

 

The only reason I even mentioned the AR15 is as an example..