US Gun Control General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
RedNalgene said:
The other scary point to consider is that you don't have to pass a shooting test to buy a gun. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you know how to use it. Would you allow your 16 year old to get behind the wheel of a car and hop on the highway right away? Of course not. You'd expect to first drive in a parking lot at slow speed, then take driver's ed where they are on side streets for a while, and only after many hours of side street driving would you allow them onto the highway.

Then why is it OK for someone to buy a gun and expect to be able to use it effectively right away? I know many police officers and the amount of gun training they go through is RIDICULOUS. There's a reason for that.
Click to expand...

1.) Police need training because they are put in harm's way and may need to defend themselves or others.

2.) Concealed Carriers ARE trained and tested on their aim before they can get a CCW license.

3.) A 16 year-old driving is a poor analogy. Driving presumes someone has been given a license to do so. That is equivalent to obtaining a CCW. So a proper driving analogy would be "would you let a 16 year old drive down the highway without a license or having never sat in a driver's seat"? Of course not. Nor should anyone without a CCW be walking down the street with a gun on their hip. BOTH driving without a license and carrying a gun without a license are ILLEGAL and irresponsible actions and punishable with jail time. Carrying a gun without a license may even be a felony, but I'm not sure. Nobody should be carrying a gun without a license, and nobody can legally.

enewtabie said:
lol sorta true. I outshot my friend who is a Federal Agent when taking concealed classes. He was there for his dad.
Click to expand...

They call me Hawkeye at the range.
 
Jim E. Rossler said:
If you ever go to a gun range and see those police you trust with your life shoot, most shoot like novices compared to the regulars at the range.
Click to expand...

Whoa really? I think if I shot guns for a living I'd want to be really good at it. Hell I'd like to be good at it just because the range looks like fun.
 
YvBsB.jpg



/thread
 
Valnen said:
Whoa really? I think if I shot guns for a living I'd want to be really good at it. Hell I'd like to be good at it just because the range looks like fun.
Click to expand...

The thing is, they don't "shoot guns for a living". Look up some statistics on the percentage of officers who ever fire their weapon during their career.

Not saying that excuses them for being poor shots, but they aren't exactly the military either.
 
Jim E. Rossler said:
If you ever go to a gun range and see those police you trust with your life shoot, most shoot like novices compared to the regulars at the range.
Click to expand...

I've also been to a gun range where I fear for my life because of the jokers there. It works both ways. If I had to choose between a trained police officer and some rando that goes to the gun range, I'm choosing the police officer every time. I wouldn't say that the majority of private gun owners have "proper" training, given they don't need any training to buy a gun.
 
DECK'ARD said:
Watching things like the primaries and debates over there, it comes across like professional wrestling really. The republican primaries especially seemed like political satire dressed up as meant to be something serious.

It's just like people in suits speaking bollocks, even more than we get over here. And where a scandal is like buying a floating duck house with public money. There are limits on how much any party can spend in elections and how many television adverts they can run.

US politics seems completely bankrolled by money, with just wrestling style figureheads to latch onto, and money isn't given expecting nothing back. It's vested interests, the whole system must be so completely corrupt by how much money is swimming around in it. In the same way US society seems so violent by how many guns are swimming around it.

Maybe it's just how we are shown it over here, but it all seems such a complete mess.
Click to expand...

I'm sure where you live, politics and money don't mix. But you're right about the election here. They're figureheads and absolutely nothing substantial has been said thus far in the campaign. The debates won't be much better. Just a few bullet points and zingers. And then we judge who won by how many shots the one guy got on the other and who seemed to look the most "Presidential". It's really sad.
 
Dreams-Visions said:
1.) Police need training because they are put in harm's way and may need to defend themselves or others.

2.) Concealed Carriers ARE trained and tested on their aim before they can get a CCW license.

3.) A 16 year-old driving is a poor analogy. Driving presumes someone has been given a license to do so. That is equivalent to obtaining a CCW. So a proper driving analogy would be "would you let a 16 year old drive down the highway without a license or having never sat in a driver's seat"? Of course not. Nor should anyone without a CCW be walking down the street with a gun on their hip. BOTH driving without a license and carrying a gun without a license are ILLEGAL and irresponsible actions and punishable with jail time. Carrying a gun without a license may even be a felony, but I'm not sure. Nobody should be carrying a gun without a license, and nobody can legally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but CCW is different. You don't need a CCW to own a gun.
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
I'm sure where you live, politics and money don't mix. But you're right about the election here. They're figureheads and absolutely nothing substantial has been said thus far in the campaign. The debates won't be much better. Just a few bullet points and zingers. And then we judge who won by how many shots the one guy got on the other and who seemed to look the most "Presidential". It's really sad.
Click to expand...

Oh don't get me wrong, power and corruption will be everywhere. We've spent about a couple of years in the UK roasting evey politician and every party over it. And it will still be going on.

It's just the US system seems to actively encourage it! It can't be good for anyone not personally receiving the benefits of it. And anything such as gun-control or issues where a lot of money is involved will never get off the ground let alone provoke the national debate it truly deserves.
 
Shake Appeal said:
One of the worst things in the Constitution, and that's saying something for a document that originally asserted a black person was worth 3/5 of a white one.
Click to expand...

There are many Americans that think saying anything bad about the constitution is basically blasphemy.
 
The_Technomancer said:
I do not buy that gun ownership in the US is an uncontrollable force that simply cannot be effectively curbed, as some people seem to think.
Click to expand...

There are laws and process in place when purchasing a "gun", especially handguns, in most states, including criminal background checks. Fully automatic weapons are illegal outside of Class III lic.

Unless you're referring to removal of all guns, then there's no way that'll happen. Be it removal of guns from the market, or from current owners. The arguments against both are strong, and right.
 
I know this is probably a stupid question, but why don't they just ban handguns, but allow large rifles? Handguns are more concealable, more trafficable, and hence more likey to be used in a crime than most rifles. I'm taking about like a minimum gun size law, that would ensure every gun was a big brutish weapon.
 
Moral Panic said:
I know this is probably a stupid question, but why don't they just ban handguns, but allow large rifles? Handguns are more concealable, more trafficable, and hence more likey to be used in a crime than most rifles. I'm taking about like a minimum gun size law, that would ensure every gun was a big brutish weapon.
Click to expand...

Interesting approach.
 
Valnen said:
There are many Americans that think saying anything bad about the constitution is basically blasphemy.
Click to expand...
The US Constitution is dope. It's a fucking awesome piece of work, and laid the foundations for so much of what we consider essential and implicit about democracy today. But it was, and remains, far from flawless. It was a work born from fundamental disagreements (and compromises) between a wide variety of positions, some of them more radical than would be broached or tolerated in American politics today. The Second Amendment was anathema to some, an awkward concession for many, but it was deemed a necessary compromise. It's just a shame that no one involved in the drafting of the Bill of Rights at the end of the 18th century had a crystal ball to see what the long-term ramifications would be for inner-city Chicago and America at large at the start of the 21st.
 
Moral Panic said:
I know this is probably a stupid question, but why don't they just ban handguns, but allow large rifles? Handguns are more concealable, more trafficable, and hence more likey to be used in a crime than most rifles. I'm taking about like a minimum gun size law, that would ensure every gun was a big brutish weapon.
Click to expand...

What's the minimum size? You could use a hacksaw.
I have a rifle that could be put under a jacket. That's not really solution.
 
Shake Appeal said:
One of the worst things in the Constitution, and that's saying something for a document that originally asserted a black person was worth 3/5 of a white one.
Click to expand...

As well, the population of the country wasn't taken until the first census of 1790 when it was under four million people (which could or could not account for many non-whites since they weren't considered citizens or fully human). We didn't even know a whole lot about what was on the other side of the Mississippi, so wild animals and indigenous peoples were out there posing a threat to settlers while there was little policing going on, in general. Times and problems change, so, too, must the thinking and the solutions. Today, we're a nation of well over three-hundred million and are more densely-packed together than ever before, with many times more differing viewpoints and cultures to account for. Guns weren't anywhere near as prevalent in those days compared to what has happened in the post-WWII and Vietnam era. Concealing them was much more difficult because there weren't the proliferation of handguns...or even shotguns, scoped-rifles, and semi- and fully-automatic varieties of rifles...all of which are infinitely more accurate, more lethal, and have more general killing power due to relatively rapid fire capability and ammo count. Those words, that thinking, was not built for 20th and 21st century America. We're not on the cusp of revolution or hostile takeover from other more powerful nations and interests. America isn't now under threat like it was in those nascent moments of nationhood.
 
show me your skeleton said:
sorry for being naive but why would anyone want/need more than five guns?
Click to expand...

People that shoot for a hobby. A buddy of mine is a hunter. So his household has more than five guns. THen again, he DETESTS semi-auto rifles and sees no reason why anyone would ever need them. He and I have had some lively debates but I respect him a great deal. He's the outdoorsman type.
 
Moral Panic said:
I know this is probably a stupid question, but why don't they just ban handguns, but allow large rifles? Handguns are more concealable, more trafficable, and hence more likey to be used in a crime than most rifles. I'm taking about like a minimum gun size law, that would ensure every gun was a big brutish weapon.
Click to expand...

They're banned to carry in NYC but that didn't stop this guy there today. Criminals have this strange habit of not obeying laws...

Legality is irrelevant when the law isn't obeyed.

Shake Appeal said:
One of the worst things in the Constitution, and that's saying something for a document that originally asserted a black person was worth 3/5 of a white one.
Click to expand...

...and the VERY first gun control laws passed in the US was to keep blacks from obtaining or carrying firearms.

Notice how the places with the strictest gun control laws to this day are the places with large concentrations of minorities.
 
MightyHedgehog said:
As well, the population of the country wasn't taken until the first census of 1790 when it was under four million people (which could or could not account for many non-whites since they weren't considered citizens or fully human). We didn't even know a whole lot about what was on the other side of the Mississippi, so wild animals and indigenous peoples were out there posing a threat to settlers while there was little policing going on, in general. Times and problems change, so, too, must the thinking and the solutions. Today, we're a nation of well over three-hundred million and are more densely-packed together than ever before, with many times more differing viewpoints and cultures to account for. Guns weren't anywhere near as prevalent in those days compared to what has happened in the post-WWII and Vietnam era. Concealing them was much more difficult because there weren't the proliferation of handguns, of varying and infinitely more accurate, more lethal, and with more general killing power due to relatively rapid fire capability and ammo count. Those words, that thinking, was not built for 20th and 21st century America.
Click to expand...

I don't really see it as much different to the Bible really.

Trying to rigidly apply something from very different times and a very different society to the one of today. No matter how blindingly obvious how things have changed, and the problems it causes, it just must be maintained. Just because.

And to even suggest otherwise is blasphemy and must be silenced. Surely if society is to evolve the rules it works by must as well? Or those rules can became a hurdle to it, setting some in stone seems ridiculous.
 
DECK'ARD said:
I don't really see it as much different to the Bible really.

Trying to rigidly apply something from very different times and a very different society to the one of today. No matter how blindingly obvious how things have changed, and the problems it causes, it just must be maintained. Just because.

And to even suggest otherwise is blasphemy and must be silenced. Surely if society is to evolve the rules it works by must as well? Or those rules can became a hurdle to it, setting some in stone seems ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Exactly as I see it. It's Biblethumping and, perhaps, of the worst kind. It appeals to those who fear.
 
Godslay said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM
Click to expand...
Wow, this is incredibly ignorant. Here's the version the House sent to the Senate:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The equivalence between 'people' and 'well regulated militia' is pretty clear here: the framers agreed that free people forming (well regulated) militias represented the best defense of their fledgling democracy -- which at the time of drafting was true, both because of the limitations of federal or even state-level policing in the 1790s and the then relatively small gulf between one trained, armed fighting force and another (today the gulf is wider than it has been at any other point in human history).

Not everyone agreed that the Second Amendment was even needed; it was a concession made by federalists to those individual states that were concerned about the United States one day possessing a standing army that could overpower them. (Which today it does, ensuring the Amendment is actually redundant except as an inane point of principle.)

Also the comma these dumb magicians are joking about doesn't even exist in the Amendment as it was entered into the House journal:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The contingency of the second clause upon the first is here blindingly obvious.
 
Here's a solid look at what the people who approved the Second Amendment thought a well-regulated militia should be (i.e., the context in which citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms):

http://constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Something tells me they didn't have a good sense of what was coming down the line, technologically speaking:

That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps.
Click to expand...

Where are the fucking bearskin caps on your holsters, gun nut America.
 
Shake Appeal said:
Wow, this is incredibly ignorant. Here's the version the House sent to the Senate:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Click to expand...

That's not how it appears in the ratified version.

In addition to that, the Supreme Court already ruled that a militia is unconnected to the right of a citizen to bear a firearm. You can dance around it all you want, but the fact remains that the magicians and the Supreme Court say that your interpretation is wrong.
 
Moral Panic said:
I know this is probably a stupid question, but why don't they just ban handguns, but allow large rifles? Handguns are more concealable, more trafficable, and hence more likey to be used in a crime than most rifles. I'm taking about like a minimum gun size law, that would ensure every gun was a big brutish weapon.
Click to expand...

Because there are millions have handguns out there right now.
Criminals won't give up their handguns.
Criminals will still obtain black-handguns, aka, alley-van specials.
Handguns are the 2nd best (legal) firearm for home defense, and in some cases, based on the size of rooms/hallways, they maybe your own personal best choice.
They're concealable in public. A criminal will more likely think you're not armed, and thus you can get the drop on them. Just like how criminals think why they carry them, they won't see them, thus they carry them.
They're easier to hold and fire, thus those who are handicapped, or say smaller in size (generally) like women can operate them easier.
 
soqquatto said:
so maybe it's time to shelve it since it turned out to cause so many troubles.
Click to expand...

If the people who wrote the Bible got it wrong in places, I'm sure the founding fathers could have been having an off day as well.

Or maybe they just couldn't see into the future.
 
nodle said:
YvBsB.jpg



/thread
Click to expand...

The constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. A piece of paper won't protect your rights, nor is it the source of your rights.

If I were enthusiastic about guns as a hobby, I'd want them regulated to high heaven. I don't understand how anyone who enjoys guns could feel otherwise. Do you think the gunshow loophole is doing any favors for your hobby, upholding the constitution?
 
Godslay said:
That's not how it appears in the ratified version.

In addition to that, the Supreme Court already ruled that a militia is unconnected to the right of a citizen to bear a firearm. You can dance around it all you want, but the fact remains that the magicians and the Supreme Court say that your interpretation is wrong.
Click to expand...
As ratified by the Secretary of State of the United States, there is no comma; you're thinking of the version Congress passed, prior to ratification. And District of Columbia v Heller was a 5-4 ruling by one of the most conservative Courts in history. Neither of these things are relevant to the point, which is that having the framers of 1791 determine our civilian gun policy in 2012 (or to even think that many of them would endorse the Second Amendment if they could be brought back to life to see what it had wrought) is lunacy.
 
Shake Appeal said:
As ratified by the Secretary of State of the United States, there is no comma; you're thinking of the version Congress passed, prior to ratification. And District of Columbia v Heller was a 5-4 ruling by one of the most conservative Courts in history. Neither of these things are relevant to the point, which is that having the framers of 1791 determine our civilian gun policy in 2012 (or to even think that many of them would endorse the Second Amendment if they could be brought back to life to see what it had wrought) is lunacy.
Click to expand...

The law stood in 2008. You are fighting a losing battle. Lunch is over...
 
Yenrot said:
I have only seen this (police patrolling with assault rifles) after very specific (and rare) events - Ronan Kerr murder, the army barrack massacre a few years back. I would say, when compared to the south and mainland Britain, NI is a special case.
Click to expand...

NI is of course a special place but don't forget the handguns they all carry.
 
Shake Appeal said:
As ratified by the Secretary of State of the United States, there is no comma; you're thinking of the version Congress passed, prior to ratification. And District of Columbia v Heller was a 5-4 ruling by one of the most conservative Courts in history. Neither of these things are relevant to the point, which is that having the framers of 1791 determine our civilian gun policy in 2012 (or to even think that many of them would endorse the Second Amendment if they could be brought back to life to see what it had wrought) is lunacy.
Click to expand...

I agree. The idea that quoting the second ammendment should automatically end discussion seems to be incredibly ill thought-out.

If you are against gun controls then that's one thing but surely those beliefs should be based upon the realities of 2012 rather than the views of people living over 200 years ago.

Everyone is aware that the second ammendment exists but that doesn't mean that it is correct and immune to alteration or repeal.

Ironically, the second ammendment itself would not exist if people always perceived the constitution with such rigidity.
 
2nd amendment says we can bear arms. Also it is safer if more people have guns on them as seen in Switzerland and the wild west. Switzerland has the lowest crime ratein the world and the wild west never got more than like 5 deaths a year, EVER.
 
So how many people need to die to guns before pro-gun America would even consider giving up guns?

No amount of deaths would cause them to want to give up guns. Because the more that die by guns, the more stringently they believe Americans require the rights to bear arms.
 
Sneds said:
I agree. The idea that quoting the second ammendment should automatically end discussion seems to be incredibly ill thought-out.

If you are against gun controls then that's one thing but surely those beliefs should be based upon the realities of 2012 rather than the views of people living over 200 years ago.

Everyone is aware that the second ammendment exists but that doesn't mean that it is correct and immune to alteration or repeal.

Ironically, the second ammendment itself would not exist if people always perceived the constitution with such rigidity.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers in their infinite wisdom allowed us to amend the constitution to get rid of the 2nd amendment if we wanted to. We don't want to. Therefore yes, the 2nd amendment is still the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DanDaDan | Discussion Thread
Community  2 3 4
174
14K
Robot Carnival replied
China Discusses Sale of TikTok US to Musk
2 3
113
7K
DirtInUrEye replied
Naked Gun Trailer - August 1st.
News  2 3
124
6K
Hookshot replied
Hackers take control of robot vacuums in multiple US cities, yell bad words.
34
2K
poppabk replied
  • Locked
Ukraine is fielding machine-gun turrets remotely controlled by the Steam Deck
33
2K
Puscifer replied
Top Bottom