Gun control thread #4387

[Per]

the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of parrots from time to time.

The founding fathers obviously had some strange notions of how to build a country.

 

[James Snowscoran]

Most people in the military wouldn't fire on an American citizen. That just wouldn't happen.

You realize they've all sworn to defend against enemies foreign and domestic, right?

Can't really argue with the people who perceive the founding fathers as messianic figures and view the second amendment as sacred dogma.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

firearms should be under the control of only the state.

Ah yes, the almighty state, who is wholly competent, and would never abuse their power.

Most people in the military wouldn't fire on an American citizen. That just wouldn't happen.

Ruby Ridge?
Seige at Waco?
Granted it was ATF, but who's cool with those a-holes deeming who is and isn't fair game to shoot dead? Women, kids, family pets, they shoot 'em all.

And when they pull shady things like that, and get caught covering it up, it only feeds validation to the paramiltary militias, and the Tim McVeighs and Unabombers of America to "keep them honest". Truck bombs are no way to enact federal change, but you can't go around doing things like Ruby Ridge and Waco and not expect the people to sit on their hands. If some ATF cowboys shoot your kid, friend, wife and dog dead, and then lie about it, you're just supposed to trust that the state will make everything OK for you and make cogent decisions about who should or shouldn't have access to firearms?

Evidently, some things are beyond the competence of the state, perhaps we should examine disarming them somewhat.

 

[Wintermind]

Grouping the ATF with the military is an insult to the psycho baby-killing jarheads. (Nobody wants to be in the same group as the ATF).

 

[TheWesDude]

Per,

not the case at all. the whole point is that the government is protected from the people, and the people have protection against the government.

either can become corrupt or make stupid choices.

the people can elect incompetent president who is the leader of the country, so the people do not elect the president.

the "state" can become corrupt and possibly reach a state where they are harmful, so the people can have the means to take action against the state.

state is protected from the people, and the people have protections from the state. in reality that is the ideal. each is protected from the other.

if the state has all the power, then the individual has none.

if the individual has all the power, then the state has none.

 

[Threepwood]

In Ireland...we manage to police our nation just fine.

...Ahahaha. Oh dear.

 

[Four Suited Jack]

In Ireland...we manage to police our nation just fine.

...Ahahaha. Oh dear.

What are you implying?

 

[ViewedCloth]

Isn't it obvious?

 

[Four Suited Jack]

Isn't it obvious?

The Troubles?

Ignorance!

First off, the Troubles were in the Northern six counties of the province of Ulster, which are within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, not the Republic of Ireland.

Secondly, terrorism is in a league of it's own, it is not anywhere as easy to deal with as common crime, try using 9/11 as an example of the United States police force being sub-par and see what reaction you get.

Lastly, the troubles are not on anymore.

I also bet you think there is only one IRA and that the ones that did the bombings are the original one.

 

[ViewedCloth]

Calm down, it was a joke!

Hell, you could make one about the lack of police in the London riots, or their failure to control it.

 

[James Snowscoran]

They only failed to control it because they didn't have enough guns

Fact: With enough guns, almost every sort of crime can be prevented

 

[Four Suited Jack]

They only failed to control it because they didn't have enough guns

Fact: With enough guns, almost every sort of crime can be prevented

Not true, they could not instil order because they were not allowed use force that was appropriate to the situation, thank the do-gooders for that.

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[ViewedCloth]

Are you implying that police shoot the rioters? The same situation can be solved without any injuries or deaths, but what we really need is this type of non-lethal bullet that's filled with an eye irritating powder, it's pretty useful, I think it's called the 'pepper bullet'

 

[Four Suited Jack]

Are you implying that police shoot the rioters? The same situation can be solved without any injuries or deaths, but what we really need is this type of non-lethal bullet that's filled with an eye irritating powder, it's pretty useful, I think it's called the 'pepper bullet'

Shooting is not necessary, although, that depends on the severity of the riot in question, anyway, there are other means, the police have weapons other than lethal firearms, such as water-cannons, the rubber bullets you mentioned, batons and so on.

 

[Threepwood]

First off, the Troubles

Wasn't talking about the troubles.

 

[SuAside]

No. As I've mentioned before, this is a fantasy you're constructing yourself with no basis in reality.

Because my country totally hasn't been systematically taking my gun rights away piece by piece over 2 reforms the past 20 years?

Gun laws have been under periodic review for half a year by a parliamentary committee which will eventually publish a recommendation, but unless you're privy to inside information there's no way you'd know about whether or how they'll recommend changing the law.

Hehe, time will tell. We'll get back to this in due time.

The longer-term trend (past 30 years or so) has been towards a more liberal society rather than furthering restrictions on personal freedom.

You've been reading different history books than I have, then...

Also, please explain to me how more regulation equals more substantive freedoms? Rules and laws restrict generally, since without rules and laws "everything goes". Rules at most protect freedoms of others, but they never broaden freedoms.

Traffic lights, to name one obvious example. There are plenty of others.

Traffic law & traffic lights take away your freedom of driving everywhere you fucking want. It as something that restricts, it does not grant liberty or freedom. Without traffic law, "everything goes". Of course, it would be anarchy, and downright unliveable, but arguing that traffic lights gives you freedom is beyond comprehension...

Your reasoning doesn't support your conclusion. Stricter laws are imposed, as a result substantially fewer licenses are issued; this does not support your conclusion that strictness of a law cannot be measured by the number of permits, as in your example evidently it can.

People will still need cars as our society is built around them. People still have holiday budgets. As such people will combine both to get their permits. As such the MAJORITY of people will still have permits. As such, you cannot say that the number of people owning X is related to how strict a law is. It can be very strict, yet the majority of people still own X.

Strictness should be weighed on the law itself, not the number of people who jump through the hoops to get what they want.

There's much that could be stricter and that would affect said difficulty that doesn't involve a blanket ban on semi-automatics.

And what workable measure would you then propose?

It is worth saying that legal fully automatic machineguns in the US are extremely rare and expensive. And you could probably, much more easily find and buy an illegal one for a whole lot less money, what with legal FA AR-15's going for 15+ thousand dollars, if you can find one. probably a bit less for the auto-sear alone.

Euhm, no.

A MAC-11 or MAC-10 can be found at 2000 USD. This is about as much as I paid for my Sig Sauer X-Five.

I still don't understand why people associate "weapons" so much with "freedom" when it is clear that no society can exist without limitations.
The concept of "freedom" and "liberty" is just a catchphrase. No society not even a democracy is only about liberty.
There is usually a consensus between rights and responsibilities. That counts for the state just as much as it does for the citizen.
Just because someone might give you the "right" to own any firearm does not inherently mean they also grant you "freedom". I am sure it is a bit more complex then just that.

Owning of guns is -a- freedom or -a- liberty. Not Freedom with capital F. Someone that can own a gun if he wants to, is arguably more free than a person that is otherwise equal, yet cannot own guns.

My approach is that my freedom ends where someone else's begins. I cannot do things that would negatively affect others outright. Driving 150kph in a 50kph zone is one of those things, I would not only endanger myself but others as well. However, being of sound mind and body, I pose absolutely no threat to others by owning a gun. If you do not intend to invade my home, the chances of you getting hurt by my hand is extremely slim to non-existant.

I am opposed to allowing civilians to carry firearms.
They have no need for them. not only does it make it easier to acquire them for illegal uses, it just increases the odds of people getting shot in general.

If you'd bother to actually study the case material at hand, you'd find that gun crime increases where laws are very lax (everyone can get guns without issues) OR where laws are extremely strict (where no one can get guns).

You know why it's illegal to carry knives in The Republic of Ireland and The United Kingdom (I'm unaware of such laws elsewhere)? If you're carrying a weapon or have access to one you are likely to use it when you "need" it, self defense can and has been a convenient excuse to commit murder.

Belgium has a law that states a knife carried without good reason is considered an illegal weapon.
So if you want to cut an apple on the train, that's fine, you can have your knife with you.

I'm not a fan of concealed carry, but you are outright denying people the right to proportional self-defense. That's pretty bad from where I'm standing. Let me guess, you've never lived in a bad neighborhood?

In Ireland, An Gardaí Síochána (The Guardians of the peace - Our police force) don't even carry firearms, the regular ones anyway, only the plain clothed Gardaí and the Emergency Response Units carry them and we manage to police our nation just fine.

That's what the brits thought as well until recently, right? Look at their violent crime statistics for the past 20 years and tell me how this has been working out for them.

Increasing the circulation of firearms among the civilian population is not a good thing, firearms should be under the control of only the state.

Because "the state" has absolutely no history of abuse of those weapons, amiright?

Oh wait...

Which implies the United States military wouldn't defeat such a movement with ease.

Afghanistan, Vietnam,...

Yeah, easy peasy.

The police should be enough.

Yes, because the police sure served the people who died in London this week so brilliantly well, let alone those who lost their livelyhood or their homes. How shortsighted can you possibly be?

Alright, so I have some exceptions for farmers and hunters but that's a very limited circulation.

Oh, right, so YOU and the army can own guns, but OTHERS not so much, right?

 

[Wintermind]

In America? Since we haven't allowed any new guns into the registry since '86? (or maybe '68, I can't remember), the FA version of a gun typically costs an extra ten thousand dollars over the normal, non-FA version.

Of course I don't generally google the price of registered machineguns, so I'm just going by what I've seen mentioned before.

 

[WillisPDunlevey]

I have owned guns for years (and had access to guns when I was 5-6).

I have never rioted or shot anyone... but if rioters decided they wanted to burn out my street, there would be a lot of squeegeeing that needed to be done afterward.

Just sayin'

I don't mind people in other countries who don't want gun rights but:

1. Don't bitch that you don't have any guns when "the Germans"* come.
2. Don't bitch later that you don't have any guns when you finally throw out your dictators (Egypt)

edit: I should have wrote "threw out one dictator in favor of the rest of the military junta"


*or other approximate scenario.

 

[Crni Vuk]

lol at "dictators". Like those are the REAL issues we have to face in our societies. But yeah ... guns give you freedom. And next youre voting for the right wing/tea party then. ( - just saying its exagerated to make a point)

 

[SuAside]

In America? Since we haven't allowed any new guns into the registry since '86? (or maybe '68, I can't remember), the FA version of a gun typically costs an extra ten thousand dollars over the normal, non-FA version.

Of course I don't generally google the price of registered machineguns, so I'm just going by what I've seen mentioned before.

MACs are cheap crap. They go from 2000-3000$ generally.
There's even cheaper crap too. Often WW2 stuff. Sten or Sterling comes to mind. Very crude & cheap to mass produce weapons.

If you want to get into assault rifles, the FNC is your best bet. That's around 7000-8000$ if you get a good deal.

lol at "dictators". Like those are the REAL issues we have to face in our societies. But yeah ... guns give you freedom. And next youre voting for the right wing/tea party then. ( - just saying its exagerated to make a point)

You'll find the demographics of gun owners largely follow those of the population. From uber rich guys to poor people, from right wing to left wing... Comes down to it that most gun owners are very moderate.

This often translates in the fact that gun owners are having a very hard time forming political organisations to defend themselves from gun bans etc. There is simply no consensus on other issues, thus forming organizations or even just giving voting advice is an issue. Look at what happened with the brits. Their inability to form a single front to combat the new legislation cost them their right to own (nearly all) semi-automatic weapons.

The exception here is the NRA and this also explains why the NRA has so many foreign members. The european countries simply have no similarly powerful organization.