Guns

[-Cheezman-]

The ACLU has, I think, a very valid point:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/washingto...fair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america

Our nation’s watchlisting system is error-prone and unreliable because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names.

The government contends that it can place Americans on the No Fly List who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime, on the basis of prediction that they nevertheless pose a threat (which is undefined) of conduct that the government concedes “may or may not occur.” Criteria like these guarantee a high risk of error and it is imperative that the watchlisting system include due process safeguards—which it does not. In the context of the No Fly List, for example, the government refuses to provide even Americans who know they are on the List with the full reasons for the placement, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.

ACLU on Watchlists from 2014: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/watchlist_briefing_paper_v3.pdf

I find it ironic that democrats, who mostly detested "terror watch lists" heavily in the early 2000's are now rallying behind them in such positive fervor.

I'm going to conclude the deaths attributed to civilian ownership of firearms is not, really, what is being considered, and rather, it's merely political grandstanding.

 

[Johnnypenso]

“Well law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun,” Rangel responded. “You know that, so you’re not going to push me in that direction.”

“But you’re protected by guns all over the place here in the Capitol,” she pointed out.

Rangel laughed at that. “Well that’s a little different,” he chuckled. “I think we deserve–I think we need to be protected down here.”

 

[stonesfan129]

I voted for "loose" control. I think the controls we have in place right now are reasonable and work, here in the US. At least here in Wisconsin, they do. I don't think passing more "gun control" laws is going to deter criminals, because that's not what laws do. I think people have the right to self defense with a firearm. And I think this whole "no fly, no buy" watchlist legislation -- if it passes -- will be ruled unconstitutional since it totally denies due process of law protected in the fifth amendment.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Hmmm, by that logic by politicians you'd assume guns' have legs and traveled to the club themselves..

You've clearly never seen a herd of AR-10s traveling the plains.

 

[Danoff]

If you spam the trigger you can because it becomes pretty much full-auto. Ten quick 3-round bursts gives one the rough equivalent of full-auto.

Interesting point. My understanding was that the burst fire rate is a short duration mode for the firearm that cannot be sustained - a sustained full-auto having to have a reduced rate of fire due to at least heat considerations. So I would not have thought it possible to maintain burst fire mode from trigger spamming. I don't have any personal experience with burst fire, which it sounds like you do, so my understanding may not be correct. How long can you sustain trigger spamming?

But I do not really see why we are discussing this because those kind of fire m odes are not allowed on civilian guns.

It's a gun thread, we're allowed to chat about guns in general, not just civilian guns.

 

[Swagger897]

You've clearly never seen a herd of AR-10s traveling the plains.

You know, I was about to google that and then the pieces came together.

 

[N0t_L3fty]

I want loose controls for me, the rest of you I ain't so sure about

 

[A2K78]

I want no controls whatsoever on guns i.e. no background checks, no waiting period, etc.. as these are nothing but a restriction on ones right to private property.

As for the NRA, why people make them out to be pro-gun/ pro-second amendment is beyond me, this when consider the fact they've supported gun laws and still do.

 

[fumunaplz]

I want no controls whatsoever on guns i.e. no background checks, no waiting period, etc.. as these are nothing but a restriction on ones right to private property.

As for the NRA, why people make them out to be pro-gun/ pro-second amendment is beyond me, this when consider the fact they've supported gun laws and still do.

Strange, My post was cut off, no worries the interweb is a funny thing sometimes. This is what I wanted to say...

I simply want to know why it is some sort of thought of the left wing that there are so many people who hate society and wish to kill innocent people to prove their point? That makes zero sense to me. Have a gun in the U.S., I will tell you exactly why, to protect yourself from tyranny, that is the law.

Should you hunt game? Maybe if that is your gig, good for you. Do you need to protect your home from arseness? perhaps, good for you.

Do you have a right to a gun? Yes, yes you do. So what, why do people think that is such a horrid thing? it's not much of anything if you consider the world such a grand place some would have you believe it is.

In reality perhaps the world is not so geat.

I don't think it matters to the masses tbh, standing up for yourself and right to life seems of little importance to a larger agenda of borg or something.

 

[A2K78]

Vance nails it perfectly:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/01/ten-thoughts-on-the-second-amendment-and-gun-control/

 

[Danoff]

Vance nails it perfectly:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/01/ten-thoughts-on-the-second-amendment-and-gun-control/

8. The Second Amendment hasn’t prevented a single gun-control law from being passed.

The federal government is out of control. The Constitution has utterly failed to restrain the federal government. The Second Amendment hasn’t prevented the federal government from infringing upon gun rights and instituting hundreds of federal gun control laws. In light of this, the fact that the McDonald case said that the Second Amendment now applies to the states means absolutely nothing. The Constitution and the Second Amendment only mean what the Supreme Court say they mean.

Really? What about DC vs. Heller:

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owninghandguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

If his point is that it was passed and then subsequently struck down, rather than not being passed in the first place, it's kinda hard to prove whether or not that happens. It's also beside the point because the 2nd amendment and supreme court are designed to strike down laws that have passed rather than weigh in on laws that are proposed. Congress should try not to pass laws that violate the constitution (and I think where they willfully do so they should resign), but ultimately the constitution works through the supreme court on laws that exist.

 

[fumunaplz]

...Congress should try not to pass laws that violate the constitution (and I think where they willfully do so they should resign), but ultimately the constitution works through the supreme court on laws that exist.

A very clever check written into the format of the U.S. law and the u.s. supreme court does a good job of preservation, at the very least we can see exactly what each member decides and why. Congressmen are a direct representation of their constituents and should do so also under the laws given, the court is a direct representation of the law itself. Good post 👍

I came here to say this however, treat the cause not the effect. In other words, don't try to take guns away from people, take away the reason people use them to cause harm. That should not be hard for anyone to understand.

 

[stonesfan129]

They should do away with the no-fly list anyway. Restricting peoples' freedom of movement when they haven't even committed a crime is illegal too as it also violates due process of law.

Anyone else see these laws California passed? Background checks to buy ammo. Magazines that hold 10 or more rounds have to be turned in - and you do not get fairly compensated for them. Magazines cannot be removable. How do any of these laws stop the bad guys?

Come to a state like Wisconsin, we have none of these laws, and our crime rate isn't out of control like California's.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Anyone else see these laws California passed? Background checks to buy ammo. Magazines that hold 10 or more rounds have to be turned in - and you do not get fairly compensated for them. Magazines cannot be removable. How do any of these laws stop the bad guys?

Come to a state like Wisconsin, we have none of these laws, and our crime rate isn't out of control like California's.

I saw it coming honestly. Our Governor Jerry Brown has been pretty good at Vetoing ridiculous gun control bills up until now. It's because he can't run for another term so now can push the agenda with nothing to lose. Pretty scary. They've tried to ban Bullet Buttons before and Brown Veto'd that one but they don't stop and just change the wording a little and push them again and again until someone like Jerry gets pressured to sign it. Outside of the background for ammo sales, none of these regulations will be enforceable unless one were to be caught. Good ol California. I'm originally from Texas. Moving back has been looking better and better everyday but it has for years anyways. These laws will save no lives. Mark my words.

 

[stonesfan129]

I saw it coming honestly. Our Governor Jerry Brown has been pretty good at Vetoing ridiculous gun control bills up until now. It's because he can't run for another term so now can push the agenda with nothing to lose. Pretty scary. They've tried to ban Bullet Buttons before and Brown Veto'd that one but they don't stop and just change the wording a little and push them again and again until someone like Jerry gets pressured to sign it. Outside of the background for ammo sales, none of these regulations will be enforceable unless one were to be caught. Good ol California. I'm originally from Texas. Moving back has been looking better and better everyday but it has for years anyways. These laws will save no lives. Mark my words.

Hopefully this is challenged and overruled by the courts. Otherwise if they say states may create impediments like this, who knows what other states will limit the second amendment.

 

[N0t_L3fty]

The "Peoples Republic of California" is the exception to the rule, most will come to their senses. Most of the state is controlled by Hollyweird. The real Americans out there can't fit a word in edgewise. They are drowned out by the anthill dwellers, & their illegal alien serfs. It is mostly a desert, shut off the water, & guard the border. Same with most of the south west cut off the water from the rockies the the area will dry up & blow away. They aren't Apache, they can't live there without water from some where else. Damn the golf course dried up, ain't that a shame.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

What the hell...?

 

[Swagger897]

What the hell...?

Don't worry, I've seen these extreme types before... Take away butter/beer/racing and... Oh what's the phrase,

The South Will Rise, again...

 

[A2K78]

They should do away with the no-fly list anyway. Restricting peoples' freedom of movement when they haven't even committed a crime is illegal too as it also violates due process of law.

Anyone else see these laws California passed? Background checks to buy ammo. Magazines that hold 10 or more rounds have to be turned in - and you do not get fairly compensated for them. Magazines cannot be removable. How do any of these laws stop the bad guys?

Come to a state like Wisconsin, we have none of these laws, and our crime rate isn't out of control like California's.

Brown is doing nothing but creating more business for the black market.

 

[Biggles]

I don't think passing more "gun control" laws is going to deter criminals, because that's not what laws do.

I always find this a fascinating argument. Clearly, in a society awash with guns, like the US, criminals are going to have guns, for aggression & self protection. However, there are societies with very few guns, & in those societies its uncommon for criminals to have guns. In the UK even the police don't, for the most part, have guns.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police

The mass shootings like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Orlando etc. are not generally carried out by "criminals", but by previously law-abiding citizens who have easy access to firearms.

 

[stonesfan129]

I always find this a fascinating argument. Clearly, in a society awash with guns, like the US, criminals are going to have guns, for aggression & self protection. However, there are societies with very few guns, & in those societies its uncommon for criminals to have guns. In the UK even the police don't, for the most part, have guns.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police

The mass shootings like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Orlando etc. are not generally carried out by "criminals", but by previously law-abiding citizens who have easy access to firearms.

So the solution is to take away the means of self-defense from everyone? I disagree that those people were model citizens that should have been allowed to own guns. I certainly don't think "no fly, no buy" is the answer. Nor is restricting the rights of people who have followed the law.

And it's funny you should bring up the UK. After most guns were banned there, crimes with guns went down, but violent crime went up. The same was true of Australia. The same is true of any other country that has banned most or all gun ownership.

Check out this book - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime. It goes into more detail than I have time for here, and makes a great case for gun ownership.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I always find this a fascinating argument. Clearly, in a society awash with guns, like the US, criminals are going to have guns, for aggression & self protection. However, there are societies with very few guns, & in those societies its uncommon for criminals to have guns. In the UK even the police don't, for the most part, have guns.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police

The mass shootings like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Orlando etc. are not generally carried out by "criminals", but by previously law-abiding citizens who have easy access to firearms.

The UK just had an MP killed by a mental patient with a supposed home made gun. As I've said countless time, if there is a will there is a way.

 

[Biggles]

So the solution is to take away the means of self-defense from everyone?

I haven't offered a "solution", let alone such a sweeping one - just pointing out your (very cliched) argument is spurious.

I disagree that those people were model citizens that should have been allowed to own guns. I certainly don't think "no fly, no buy" is the answer. Nor is restricting the rights of people who have followed the law.

You are making a very confused argument. "Those people" shouldn't have been allowed to have guns because they weren't model citizens ... OR ... you certainly don't think restricting "the rights of people who have followed the law" (none of the shooters was a convicted criminal prior to his shooting rampage) is the answer? Which is it?

For the rest, I am very familiar with Lott's book & the various arguments of the pro gun lobby which (inevitably) make a "great case for gun ownership". The statistics don't show what you say - they are much more complicated than that, but, like many Americans, you are not starting from a point of objectivity. Perhaps you didn't bother to read the article I provided a link to, but you might stop to consider this excerpt:

In 2012, according to data compiled by the FBI, 410 Americans were “justifiably” killed by police—409 with guns. That figure may well be an underestimate. Not only is it limited to the number of people who were shot while committing a crime, but also, amazingly, reporting the data is voluntary.

Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero.

The UK just had an MP killed by a mental patient with a supposed home made gun. As I've said countless time, if there is a will there is a way.

Of course there will always be incidents. In the UK they are very uncommon compared to the US.

How easy that way is, is what is in question.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@Biggles I'm not talking about the commonality in relation to your statement, just saying that though something seems safe due to measures doesn't always pan out as such.

 

[Danoff]

I always find this a fascinating argument. Clearly, in a society awash with guns, like the US, criminals are going to have guns, for aggression & self protection. However, there are societies with very few guns, & in those societies its uncommon for criminals to have guns. In the UK even the police don't, for the most part, have guns.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police

The mass shootings like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Orlando etc. are not generally carried out by "criminals", but by previously law-abiding citizens who have easy access to firearms.

...or someone rents a uhaul and fills it with fertilizer. If someone is bent on racking up 50 counts of murder, they're not concerned by 3 counts of unlawful possession of a firearm (as is evidenced by the often unlawful possession of firearms/body armor), but also it just wouldn't make any sense for it to be a deterrent.

I maintain that I'd rather be shot to death than stabbed to death.

 

[Rallywagon]

...or someone rents a uhaul and fills it with fertilizer. If someone is bent on racking up 50 counts of murder, they're not concerned by 3 counts of unlawful possession of a firearm (as is evidenced by the often unlawful possession of firearms/body armor), but also it just wouldn't make any sense for it to be a deterrent.

I maintain that I'd rather be shot to death than stabbed to death.

At least with a knife I have a fighting chance, it's a lot harder to disarm a person who can shoot you from across the room.

 

[Danoff]

At least with a knife I have a fighting chance, it's a lot harder to disarm a person who can shoot you from across the room.

I didn't stay attacked with a gun vs. attacked with a knife. I said killed with a gun vs. killed with a knife. The homicide statistics are interesting when you don't account for weapon of choice.

Incidentally, I'd take a 100-fold risk of being shot to death over being stabbed to death if the chance is 0.00000001% (that's an exaggeration).

 

[Rallywagon]

OK, I get why you might want to be shot rather than stabbed, though, unless it is a head shot, I doubt one is really going to hurt less than the other. But you would rather increase your chances of being killed 100 fold, rather than being killed by a knife?

 

[Danoff]

OK, I get why you might want to be shot rather than stabbed, though, unless it is a head shot, I doubt one is really going to hurt less than the other. But you would rather increase your chances of being killed 100 fold, rather than being killed by a knife?

It depends on the chances. Being shot you're more likely to die quickly. Even a gunshot wound that takes some time to kill you will likely go more quickly than being stabbed to death. Also, there's something a little more... sanitary, less traumatic, more... I dunno... honorable? about being shot to death vs. stabbed. Stabbing is so visceral. If the chances are .1% of being murdered, a 100-fold increase in my chances of being killed means I've got a pretty good chance of being killed, so no thanks. On the otherhand, if it's infinitesimal and I multiply it by 100, it's still infinitesimal, so yea, I'll take the trade to get a higher chance of being killed quickly.

Interestingly even getting shot in the head is kindof a crap shoot as to whether you die. Most of it has to do with the random trajectory the bullet takes after entry.

 

[Rallywagon]

I guess I'd rather make my death more personal. If someone is stabbing me, then we are close, I would think it would weigh on a person more. Shootings can be far more anonymous. Not to be so macabre, but you don't have to hear the groans, their breath, you don't have to feel the bullet parting flesh. If someone kills me, I want it to stand out to them. Not just be another random gunned down. That, and I am a fairly confident fighter and feel I have a better chance of surviving, or at least subduing an attacker with a knife than with one who has a gun.