Guns good or bad

[POWER IN MISERY]

fuck all yall lemme keep my guns

 

[Un Platano]

 

[The Carolignian]

I think certain weapons, which I'll loosely define as "military grade", should be banned. Permits should also be required for all guns, as well as the normal safety courses and background checks one would expect.

Other than that, I'm a liberal who is pro-gun. Imagine that.

 

[Duke Nukem]

I think certain weapons, which I'll loosely define as "military grade", should be banned. Permits should also be required for all guns, as well as the normal safety courses and background checks one would expect.

Other than that, I'm a liberal who is pro-gun. Imagine that.

It's hard to define military grade, because pretty much every kind of firearm that you can imagine was used by some country's military at some point in time, and many ancient designs still are, especially in specialty categories or units. Besides, there are certain special categories that already are tightly regulated by ATF via tax stamp and passport style identification cards. A total ban is hardly necessary in my opinion, as the process of acquiring certain items is long, arduous, and expensive. Making it harder otherwise is redundant.

In theory it sounds fine, but in practice, it's probably not a good idea to give the government an idea of what exactly everyone owns and where. Too many gun grabbers in politics.

Now the Swiss have managed to make the firearm thing work. They have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world, and they do have a loose permit system in place for heavier weapons. It's just a formality but hardly necessary in such a country. Plus, almost every Swiss adult male has been through state militia training, and is generally allowed to keep a full automatic rifle and ammunition in his home. (civil service is also available now thanks to the more lefty politicians there, but my point stands)

So firearms are not the problem here. But the Swiss also have a functional mental health care system, which is excellent compared to many others, including the US.

There's only one gun I really want, anyway. I don't really care about the rest.

 

[Calooby]

 

[Duke Nukem]

In hindsight it's the best thing to happen in the history of the world but that doesn't mean it was reasonable or justified at the time.


lmao I'm American I just think 1788 was a much more respectable year in American history than 1776.

The reality of the matter is, most people loved England and the Crown. But King George III's attempts to milk extra income, attempts to disarm the colonists and take direct control of their militias, forcing the colonists to quarter British troops in their homes on the host's dime, the Boston Massacre, and various other actions that would be referred to as "Intolerable Acts," were just too much to bear and spilled over into guerrilla warfare and destruction of British property.

Respectable or not, the colonists tried to make things work with England, but it simply couldn't happen given the circumstances.

Of course a thread about gun control turned into a bunch of autistic sperging.

Let me specify what I mean two pages ago. You don't need an assault rifle, SMG, or automatic shotgun to protect yourself from muggers or protect your home from intruders. You don't need those guns for hunting either. A shotgun would be enough for home defense. A handgun is enough to protect you from a mugger. And a rifle is enough to hunt. And talking about needing automatic guns to protect yourself from the government makes you look like you've got a screw loose.

Honestly gun spergs are a lot worse than sword and knige spergs.

The Second Amendment was not about hunting or even home defense. It was about restraining the government from disarming its own citizens like the British Crown attempted to as one of its many evil actions against the American colonies. The Founders knew that the government they set up would eventually go bad, and added it, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, as an attempt to keep the new government in check and avoid a repeat of the same problems that led to the Revolutionary War in the first place.

After all, they didn't want to end up trading one king a thousand miles away for a thousand kings one mile away.

This is true, governments are the world heavyweight champions in mass murder. The actual term for it is called democide.

 

[The Carolignian]

It's hard to define military grade, because pretty much every kind of firearm that you can imagine was used by some country's military at some point in time, and many ancient designs still are, especially in specialty categories or units.

I would think anything capable of killing large numbers of civilians within a short amount of time would be a fairly reasonable definition.

In theory it sounds fine, but in practice, it's probably not a good idea to give the government an idea of what exactly everyone owns and where. Too many gun grabbers in politics.

Do you honestly believe they don't have a general idea already? Surely you're not so naive...

Now the Swiss have managed to make the firearm thing work. They have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world, and they do have a loose permit system in place for heavier weapons. It's just a formality but hardly necessary in such a country. Plus, almost every Swiss adult male has been through state militia training, and is generally allowed to keep a full automatic rifle and ammunition in his home. (civil service is also available now thanks to the more lefty politicians there, but my point stands)

So firearms are not the problem here. But the Swiss also have a functional mental health care system, which is excellent compared to many others, including the US.

Now, here you have a fairly good point; the Swiss do have an impeccable record when it comes to civilian gun ownership. I wonder if if it's entirely explainable by having a good mental health system, though?

The Second Amendment was not about hunting or even home defense. It was about restraining the government from disarming its own citizens like the British Crown attempted to as one of its many evil actions against the American colonies. The Founders knew that the government they set up would eventually go bad, and added it, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, as an attempt to keep the new government in check and avoid a repeat of the same problems that led to the Revolutionary War in the first place.

After all, they didn't want to end up trading one king a thousand miles away for a thousand kings one mile away.

None of this thinking scales rationally to the age of suitcase nukes and drone strikes. While I agree a populace should always be armed enough to inflict significant casualties on an out-of-control state (the better to cause them to reconsider their actions), let's not pretend who'd have the better hardware here.

 

[Duke Nukem]

I would think anything capable of killing large numbers of civilians within a short amount of time would be a fairly reasonable definition.

Pretty much anything that isn't a muzzleloader could fit that definition, depending on the skill of the person involved. Remember that Simo Hayha took down dozens of Russian troops with a bolt action rifle and not even a telescopic sight. That means your hunting rifle will be considered a "sniper weapon of war" once the antis gain enough ground.

Do you honestly believe they don't have a general idea already? Surely you're not so naive...

While you do go through a background check and fill out a Form 4473, the form is only kept for two years at the dealer, and anything can happen within that time. Private sales go on all the time. The point of origin is known, but there is nothing that says I can't sell my firearm later if I need the money or would rather have something else. Happens all the time.

And that's not even getting into Build It Yourself stuff, which is legal in the States, as long as it's not intended for sale.

Now, here you have a fairly good point; the Swiss do have an impeccable record when it comes to civilian gun ownership. I wonder if if it's entirely explainable by having a good mental health system, though?

It's definitely a large factor I'm sure, they've been surrounded by hostile nations ever since their inception as well. Rifle shooting and marksmanship are national sports basically and do not have the stigma they might elsewhere. A Swiss general said to a German general looking to go through Switzerland's territory in World War I to outmaneuver the French, that if such a thing was attempted, that each of his men would "shoot twice, and go home." Their culture isn't as nearly driven by desire for recognition nor do they have the same gang problems that the US does, which would exist regardless of laws here. But there may be other factors, there usually are.

None of this thinking scales rationally to the age of suitcase nukes and drone strikes. While I agree a populace should always be armed enough to inflict significant casualties on an out-of-control state (the better to cause them to reconsider their actions), let's not pretend who'd have the better hardware here.

A good deal of modern military weaponry is expensive and more difficult to maintain compared to small arms, for one. Second, I believe any government willing to use nuclear weapons and drone strikes on its own territory would become very unpopular very quickly, and probably end up making any kind of rebellion gain support, at least from a propaganda viewpoint. Such things would more than likely be used as a last resort, considering the weight of such a decision. Besides, all the technology in the world can't even bring Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, to order. It is known as the Graveyard of Empires for a reason.

Better hardware does not automatically mean better results, especially not in a protracted guerrilla warfare campaign. Sure, a couple of air strikes here and there might scatter the rebels or disrupt them temporarily, but it won't destroy their will to fight, at least not in and of itself. There's a lot of difference between set piece battles between nation-states and between a nation-state and a non-state actor.

 

[Antipathy]

Really, all I think is that civilians shouldn't get automatic weapons. They don't help with hunting, or personal defense, or any of the other tired justifications that are used to try and sidestep their obvious militant purpose.

Anything else is fine.

 

[WW 635]

Really, all I think is that civilians shouldn't get automatic weapons. They don't help with hunting, or personal defense, or any of the other tired justifications that are used to try and sidestep their obvious militant purpose.

Anything else is fine.

They don't get to have automatic weapons. Even the US military uses three round bursts on its standard rifles. Anything more than that is just wasteful.

 

[Antipathy]

They don't get to have automatic weapons. Even the US military uses three round bursts on its standard rifles. Anything more than that is just wasteful.

While I don't normally milk tragedies for points, Stephen Paddock begs to differ.

 

[WW 635]

While I don't normally tard cum tragedies for points, Stephen Paddock begs to differ.

He modified semi-automatic weapons.

 

[Antipathy]

He modified semi-automatic weapons.

Using equipment available on the civilian market, explicitly made for converting semi-automatic to full auto. Furthermore, many automatic weapons are sold to civilians as it is anyway.

 

[WW 635]

Using equipment available on the civilian market, explicitly made for converting semi-automatic to full auto. Furthermore, many automatic weapons are sold to civilians as it is anyway.

Wasteful civilians who can't aim

 

[Antipathy]

Wasteful civilians who can't aim

If you can't aim, and instead of, oh, I don't know, learning to aim, you instead use automatic weapons, you suck as a marksman. That's not even addressing the main point that automatic weapons are military weapons. Civilians don't need automatic weapons.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Whenever I see the 'muh self defense' argument, my question is: where do you people live? I don't live in fear of a home invasion, because they're rare. It'd make more sense to be afraid of cars, considering they kill vastly more people every year. It'd make even more sense to be afraid of donuts, since heart disease is the biggest cause of American deaths. Cops here remind people to lock their doors so their stuff won't get stolen. Does everyone else live somewhere with a super high crime rate?

Anyway, I don't think guns should be banned, but I also don't think felons or the severely mentally ill should be able to buy them and I don't think you should be able to have a semi automatic strapped around you at Target. And considering that 60% of gun deaths in the US are suicides, we need better mental health care before more gun control.

 

[Club Sandwich]

1. the Las Vegas shooter didn't convert anything, and did not use any sort of automatic weapon. he used a bump stock - a molded bit of plastic that allows bump firing (a shooting technique) to occur in a more controllable manner. you do not need any special tools, training, or devices for bump firing. a belt loop, your finger, a shoestring, a stick off a tree, et c, can all do this. to seek to somehow ban a shooting technique would have to include language that would ban either common objects, or completely ban any self-loading firearm.

2. tanks, strategic weapons (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological), drones, and the like cannot hold street corners. infantry do. and infantry is often killed by artillery (bombs) or small arms. by ensuring that small arms remain in the public's hands, a government is unable to maintain a monopoly on violence. taking sniper fire for years, the inability to sleep safely, your friends and family constantly at risk - these factors help ensure that a government cannot turn against it's people. this is intentional.

like everything else in the Constitution and the Bill or Rights, they are limitations on the powers of the government and the recognition of natural rights that every human, by divine grace (or whathaveyou) possess inherently - an intrinsic right that no government should be able to deny or infringe.

3. "anything capable of killing large numbers of civilians within a short amount of time" would most effectively ban fatty foods (heart disease and obesity), motor vehicles that could travel faster than 30 mph (vehicular manslaughter), most forms of fertilizer and chemicals used for plastics (bomb making materials), and higher education (machinist skills, chemistry, electronics, et c).

you might want to have a crack at banning opposable thumbs as well.

4. the fact of the matter is that the US is completely awash with guns. there are enough firearms to arm every man, woman, and child in the US with something, and provide them with enough ammunition to kill 20 people and still have enough weapons and ammunition for backup.

yet a astonishingly small number of those guns are used in crime. where to these guns come from? theft and/or straw purchase (which is where someone purchases a firearm for the purpose of passing it to someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm). interviews with convicted felons that used firearms in their crimes on where they obtained their weapons generally points the fingers at unattended homes/cars, lovers/friends/family, more rarely fellow gang members, and sometimes the police (theft).

the most common weapons used in crime are handguns of varying description, and cut down shotguns. concealment is more important than lethality.

if you want to make good headway in someone curbing gun crime globally, let's have better enforcement of laws already on the books, and better equip the public to secure their firearms better against theft.

on a tangential topic, over half of all gun deaths are suicides. removing the stigma of seeking mental help (for fear of humiliation, the loss of rights, the loss of pride) is the surest way to help combat this. somehow being able to detect suicidal people is an exercise in futility - only people close to them can really do so... and they are not mandatory reporters. they don't report their depressed friend to the police or to therapists, they try to cheer them up on facebook and give up when they're met with resistance.

it is an entirely separate issue to target suicidal persons as the gun is an expedient tool to end their life, not a cause of it. without any sort of conviction, you likewise cannot take away their rights to it either unless you also make it okay to infringe upon other rights (freedom of association perhaps) or engage in a puerile discussion on various wrongthink and pre-crime; where you are guilty and must be punished prior to doing anything.

Whenever I see the 'muh self defense' argument, my question is: where do you people live? Does everyone else live somewhere with a super high crime rate?

crime occurs frequently enough that to be the victim of a crime without any recourse for protection will sorely make you wish you had some ability to resist it. generally speaking, democratic strongholds with large urbanized sprawls are the crime centers of the US. these areas (of course) have some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and those laws do nothing to combat gun crime in those cities.

more to it: who are you to say what means someone else can use to defend themselves? if your life is valuable, then why not use the most expedient and effective means to defend it with? if you can't do that, then in what way is your life valuable and worth defending? make that decision to defend or not defend your life and property for yourself - do not presume to make it for others - it isn't your decision to make.

you also imply that people should give up their homes and property and live elsewhere which is a very tall order for some people. super high crime rate or not, it is their home. inner city Atlanta or the sprawl around LA or Detroit or Chicago. how about Boston, a city riddled with crime. people with means do not live here - and those that elect to, have protection in some fashion. either they are not targeted by crimes of opportunity, or they purposefully elect not to affiliate themselves with certain groups of people. many chose to live in gated and policed properties away from the violence. others merely commute.

you should not be forced from your home to appease criminals.

Anyway, I don't think guns should be banned, but I also don't think felons or the severely mentally ill should be able to buy them and I don't think you should be able to have a semi automatic strapped around you at Target. And considering that 60% of gun deaths in the US are suicides, we need better mental health care before more gun control.

convicted felons are prohibited persons and cannot legally possess any firearm. "mentally ill" as far as firearms are concerned requires an involuntary commitment. people that are not convicts or been court ordered to psychiatric care are as free as anyone to buy and own a gun because they haven't committed any crimes.

some 30% of gun owners walk around armed for personal protection. who are you to say they shouldn't? if you don't want to, that's your decision to make and i pray you will never be in a situation where you need to have a weapon but don't have one. but please do not tell me that my 120lb fiancee can't have a gun to equalize her ability to fight off a 250lb rapist. don't tell me that my neighbor, a guy that fought in WW2, can't have his little Browning Automatic because he's missing his leg and physically unable to run away or resist muggers out for his money or his pain meds. likewise i carry a pistol regularly because i might be a target for gang violence as i very commonly work with police agencies on a variety of topics. many people i know that carry a gun just want one to help them make it home if case something terrible happens that might require fighting for their life against those that would mean to do them harm.

guns can be the great equalizers between men and women, rich and poor, weak and strong, the able bodied and the physically infirm. and that is a good thing to have the option of.

 

[Antipathy]

Ah, yes, you need guns for self defense, the most trod out argument I have ever seen. Which is why the rapist has a gun. Which is why the mugger has a gun, which is why the criminals have guns. Carrying guns just removes any statistical advantage of superior physicality, while drastically upping the death toll of common crimes.

2. tanks, strategic weapons (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological), drones, and the like cannot hold street corners. infantry do. and infantry is often killed by artillery (bombs) or small arms. by ensuring that small arms remain in the public's hands, a government is unable to maintain a monopoly on violence. taking sniper fire for years, the inability to sleep safely, your friends and family constantly at risk - these factors help ensure that a government cannot turn against it's people. this is intentional.

like everything else in the Constitution and the Bill or Rights, they are limitations on the powers of the government and the recognition of natural rights that every human, by divine grace (or whathaveyou) possess inherently - an intrinsic right that no government should be able to deny or infringe.

3. "anything capable of killing large numbers of civilians within a short amount of time" would most effectively ban fatty foods (heart disease and obesity), motor vehicles that could travel faster than 30 mph (vehicular manslaughter), most forms of fertilizer and chemicals used for plastics (bomb making materials), and higher education (machinist skills, chemistry, electronics, et c).

Alright, so, let's tear this chunk apart, I summarized the rest, but this is the most egregious segment.

Number 2: Absolutely not. The government has far better trained and equipped men than civilian Joe can muster. An insurrection will end with air strikes and an armored push supported by well trained infantry within three days. Any fantasies of fighting the government are futile, because the government has more and better guns and men as it is, anyway. Honestly tell me that a couple of hicks can seriously withstand the most overfunded military force in the world. Tell me a shotgun can breach tank armor, with total honesty. You can't. Tank can and will hold streets against nothing but infantry with rifles. Explosives are needed to crack them, and civilians don't have access to explosives the same way they do guns.

Number 3: Cars let people go faster and further than people without, and my opinion on public transit has little to do with firearms. Fast food doesn't fly into people's mouths, they have to eat it themselves. Fertilizers and plastic making chemicals are bulky and difficult to refine at home, and have somewhat low yield as it is, and higher education is linked to lower crime rates as it is.

Guns aren't going to save you from a home invader, when he's armed. He shows up with a loaded gun in his hand, you have your underwear and a gun safe halfway across the house. Think Mr. Mugger's going to be polite and let you unlock your safe, load your gun, aim, and fire before he blows your head off? It's ludicrous.

The mental health system, the prison system, and the law enforcement system of the US are in shambles, and curbing rampant access to civilian firearms may, at least, slow the rate of deaths so that overpaid, old white men can do nothing in Congress.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

how about Boston, a city riddled with crime. people with means do not live here - and those that elect to, have protection in some fashion. either they are not targeted by crimes of opportunity, or they purposefully elect not to affiliate themselves with certain groups of people. many chose to live in gated and policed properties away from the violence. others merely commute.

Rich people don't live in Boston? You ever heard of Beacon Hill? Or, I don't know, all of the massively expensive condos they've been putting up for the last ten years, making it one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country? I think it's time to stop watching The Boondock Saints.

 

[Organic Fapcup]

Said it before, will say it again. Anybody who's for any form of gun control whatsoever is scared of loud noises.