Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[Balta1701]

Oh that's bulls***. In your own home you have the advantage.

 

I'm not talking about a situation where you're in a crowded plaza and someone with a gun starts shooting people and you want to play the hero. I'm talking about you're in your home and feel your life is being threatened. Two completely different scenarios. In your mind it doesn't matter, you should just lie on the ground and pray you don't get shot. I say f*** that, I should have the right to protect myself. I think it's bulls*** that you would judge someone on their actions in what they believe to be a truly life or death situation.

The things I think are bulls**t include:

 

1. Basing national policy decisions on events that happen ~200 times per year, when gun deaths total ~30,000 or so per year.

2. The fact that Congress is so scared of finding out that you're better off not having a gun in the house during a home invasion that they won't allow research into the question.

3. The fact that how you want to feel about yourself is used to make policy rather than actual data.

4. The fact that you feel you get to look down on someone who would just give up their wallet or their jewelry box rather than get shot at if doing so makes it much more likely that you will live, because you're sure that you'd want to go down fighting and anyone who just wants to "Lie on the ground and pray you don't get shot" is not deserving of respect.

[Jenksismyhero]

The other means generally take far more sophistication and intelligence. The reason guns are dangerous is because it allows someone who doesnt have that intelligence to inflict massive damage.

 

You can extrapolate your argument into "Why not let Iran have a nuclear weapon, they can kill people without them."

 

Well that is true, the nuke just makes it a lot easier.

 

Fair, but let's be realistic. You ban automatic weapons and even hand guns. You still get rifles and shotguns. In this recent tragedy the shooter now knows that he only has X amount of time to get off shots, so he shoot the adults who pose the biggest threat to him. The kids certainly can't defend themselves. You've done nothing but MAYBE lessen the total number of victims, but in general terms of talking about these tragedies, is there a difference between 20 and 30 victims?

 

I just think there's a deeper societal issue here that gets overlooked by pointing at guns. It's not our gun-toting nature that's causing these events, it's something that makes these people snap and w'ere not doing enough to prevent that from happening.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

The other means generally take far more sophistication and intelligence. The reason guns are dangerous is because it allows someone who doesnt have that intelligence to inflict massive damage.

 

You can extrapolate your argument into "Why not let Iran have a nuclear weapon, they can kill people without them."

 

Well that is true, the nuke just makes it a lot easier.

They argue that they need it for self defense, too

[Balta1701]

I'm sure balts will be happy to provide you with the data on the likelihood of you shooting your child to death.

Like I've said...successful self-defenses happen ~200 times per year. ~200 kids age 11 and under die in gun related accidents per year. They're subequal. For every successful self-defense with a gun recorded by the FBI, a kid 11 or under dies in a gun accident.

[Jenksismyhero]

The things I think are bulls**t include:

 

1. Basing national policy decisions on events that happen ~200 times per year, when gun deaths total ~30,000 or so per year.

2. The fact that Congress is so scared of finding out that you're better off not having a gun in the house during a home invasion that they won't allow research into the question.

3. The fact that how you want to feel about yourself is used to make policy rather than actual data.

4. The fact that you feel you get to look down on someone who would just give up their wallet or their jewelry box rather than get shot at if doing so makes it much more likely that you will live, because you're sure that you'd want to go down fighting and anyone who just wants to "Lie on the ground and pray you don't get shot" is not deserving of respect.

 

I don't look down on you for thinking that. I'm just saying you have no right to tell me I have to think like you. You're trying to restrict what I can do. You can do whatever you want.

[Jenksismyhero]

Like I've said...successful self-defenses happen ~200 times per year. ~200 kids age 11 and under die in gun related accidents per year. They're subequal. For every successful self-defense with a gun recorded by the FBI, a kid 11 or under dies in a gun accident.

 

And in one of those situations you can control the entire situation, in the other you can't.

[Soxbadger]

You've done nothing but MAYBE lessen the total number of victims, but in general terms of talking about these tragedies, is there a difference between 20 and 30 victims?

 

To the 10 people who would have otherwise died, I assume there is a very large difference.

 

We have to be honest here. If many people wanted to, they could easily put up a body count far greater than anything most of these shooters could imagine. A simple gasoline tanker driven into the schools front door at the moment school is ending would likely result in massive casualties.

 

It is our responsibility to try and create laws to minimize the ability for people to kill other people. That is the best we can do.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Fair, but let's be realistic. You ban automatic weapons and even hand guns. You still get rifles and shotguns. In this recent tragedy the shooter now knows that he only has X amount of time to get off shots, so he shoot the adults who pose the biggest threat to him. The kids certainly can't defend themselves. You've done nothing but MAYBE lessen the total number of victims, but in general terms of talking about these tragedies, is there a difference between 20 and 30 victims?

 

I just think there's a deeper societal issue here that gets overlooked by pointing at guns. It's not our gun-toting nature that's causing these events, it's something that makes these people snap and w'ere not doing enough to prevent that from happening.

I can't believe the callousness here. Yes there's a big f***ING difference.

[Soxbadger]

I just think there's a deeper societal issue here that gets overlooked by pointing at guns. It's not our gun-toting nature that's causing these events, it's something that makes these people snap and w'ere not doing enough to prevent that from happening.

 

I think most rational people believe that there is almost impossible to guess who is going to "snap" and thus it is very difficult to prevent them from snapping. Thus it is easier to just restrict guns.

 

I mean the obvious solution is to just not allow people who will kill someone to buy a gun. Unfortunately this isnt Minority Report, so I dont have a precog to tell me which of you is a murderer and which of you arent. So all things being equal, Id just rather play it safe and not let anyone have a gun.

[DukeNukeEm]

One more thing, why in the world would you want the government to give up their guns when those guns are used to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic?

Because government's have never abused their power when granted a sole monopoly on the use of force, right?

 

As for the technology disparity, that's fine. In the hypothetical SHTF scenario, having to break out Predator Drones and A-10's against American citizens means the government has already totally lost control. You're bringing phrases like "collateral damage" and "acceptable civilian casualties" we associate with Bosnia and Iraq to our homes. Nuclear weapons? I mean holy s*** if the Feds ever got so goddamn maniacal to use those against Americans wouldn't the entire argument that the government is to be trusted with those weapons moreso than private citizens go flying right out the damn door (I'm not advocating private ownership of nukes btw)? The truth is in order to keep order and maintain a facade of normalcy the government would be prohibited from using their full military capabilities, or else they'd have no country to rule. Even you guys would probably raise an eyebrow at THAT kind of response.

 

I dont trust the government. I think that if they could they would've dissolved this whole democracy thing a long time ago and gone full fascism the instant the population became too weak to resist it. Ever heard of Operation Northwoods? I mean that isn't even crazy conspiracy s***, it got f***ing declassified. You can read the memo's online.

 

The good news is that people in this country are armed, about 80,000,000 people here are firearm owners. I dont care what contraptions the military has, or even if they can somehow convince an army of volunteers to start occupying their own homes and bombing their own neighbors, they cannot suppress that many people with guns. Its not possible. Unless of course they can get them to give them all up willingly by telling them its "for their own safety and security" and that they "promise we wont do anything bad once were the only ones with weapons".

[Balta1701]

Fair, but let's be realistic. You ban automatic weapons and even hand guns. You still get rifles and shotguns. In this recent tragedy the shooter now knows that he only has X amount of time to get off shots, so he shoot the adults who pose the biggest threat to him. The kids certainly can't defend themselves. You've done nothing but MAYBE lessen the total number of victims, but in general terms of talking about these tragedies, is there a difference between 20 and 30 victims?

 

I just think there's a deeper societal issue here that gets overlooked by pointing at guns. It's not our gun-toting nature that's causing these events, it's something that makes these people snap and w'ere not doing enough to prevent that from happening.

This is worth replying to specifically regarding banning assault rifles.

 

It's hard to state how much more of "Killing machines" these things are than anything else out there. They are remarkably lethal. Between the large magazine, the rapid fire capability, the size (which limits the kick so that you can get off repeated aimed shots) and the type of ammunition used, they are incredible killing machines.

 

When the death toll for this was given as like 26, with only a couple wounded, guessing that his main weapon was the assault rifle was easy. If you go to do this with a pistol, you kill some, but you wound a lot unless you put multiple rounds into each person. Pistol ammunition can kill at close range or with a well positioned shot, You get shot in the arm with a pistol, you're not likely to die.

 

You take that same shot from one of these things, you go down. When the ammunition from an assault rifle hits the body, it doesn't just penetrate, it tends to tumble and fragment/spall, causing vast amounts more tissue damage and delivering vastly more energy to the body its impacting. The same shot to the arm that might wound a person from a pistol will tear that person's arm nearly off from an assault style rifle. These weapons and rounds are built so that if an approaching soldier is hit by a single round...they go down and do not get back up.

 

Each case is different, but the more you make a person reload, and the less lethal you make the gun, the more people will survive. It's really hard to express how truly efficient of a killing machine one of these rifles is. That's all they're built to do, tear flesh apart.

[StrangeSox]

Jenks is literally willing to sacrifice 50% higher body counts to satisfy his gun lust

[Balta1701]

And in one of those situations you can control the entire situation, in the other you can't.

Yes you can.

 

You can almost perfectly prevent gun accidents involving children under 11.

 

If children under 11 do not have access to guns...you have controlled the problem.

[StrangeSox]

And in one of those situations you can control the entire situation, in the other you can't.

You don't control the entire situation with a gun. This false sense of power is part of the distorted psychology

[DukeNukeEm]

This is worth replying to specifically regarding banning assault rifles.

 

It's hard to state how much more of "Killing machines" these things are than anything else out there. They are remarkably lethal. Between the large magazine, the rapid fire capability, the size (which limits the kick so that you can get off repeated aimed shots) and the type of ammunition used, they are incredible killing machines.

 

When the death toll for this was given as like 26, with only a couple wounded, guessing that his main weapon was the assault rifle was easy. If you go to do this with a pistol, you kill some, but you wound a lot unless you put multiple rounds into each person. Pistol ammunition can kill at close range or with a well positioned shot, You get shot in the arm with a pistol, you're not likely to die.

 

You take that same shot from one of these things, you go down. When the ammunition from an assault rifle hits the body, it doesn't just penetrate, it tends to tumble and fragment/spall, causing vast amounts more tissue damage and delivering vastly more energy to the body its impacting. The same shot to the arm that might wound a person from a pistol will tear that person's arm nearly off from an assault style rifle. These weapons and rounds are built so that if an approaching soldier is hit by a single round...they go down and do not get back up.

 

Each case is different, but the more you make a person reload, and the less lethal you make the gun, the more people will survive. It's really hard to express how truly efficient of a killing machine one of these rifles is. That's all they're built to do, tear flesh apart.

Less than 1% of shootings in the US use fully automatic weapons. They're extremely expensive and even more difficult to properly fire. Even in the military most soldiers never go full auto, 3 round burst at the most. Those who do are using weapons that are mounted or can be quickly deployed to suppress an enemy, aka keep them pinned and hiding behind cover. They're too inaccurate and temperamental to be used or even relied on any other way.

 

EDIT- If you're just referring to semi-automatic rifles, well, those are really no more deadly than your average handgun in one of these situations.

Edited December 18, 2012 by DukeNukeEm

[Balta1701]

Less than 1% of shootings in the US use fully automatic weapons. They're extremely expensive and even more difficult to properly fire. Even in the military most soldiers never go full auto, 3 round burst at the most. Those who do are using weapons that are mounted or can be quickly deployed to suppress an enemy, aka keep them pinned and hiding behind cover. They're too inaccurate and temperamental to be used or even relied on any other way.

 

EDIT- If you're just referring to semi-automatic rifles, well, those are really no more deadly than your average handgun in one of these situations.

I'm not talking about a fully automatic weapon.

 

You said it yourself...appropriate use of these weaopns isn't even fully automatic for soldiers. The weapons themselves though, remain killing machines. A person using a semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle walking down the hallway is effectively just as well armed as a soldier in the field. A single shot limit really doesn't change anything.

 

These things are killing machines that put handguns to shame in effectiveness. Particularly for this type of incident.

[BigSqwert]

Because government's have never abused their power when granted a sole monopoly on the use of force, right?

 

As for the technology disparity, that's fine. In the hypothetical SHTF scenario, having to break out Predator Drones and A-10's against American citizens means the government has already totally lost control. You're bringing phrases like "collateral damage" and "acceptable civilian casualties" we associate with Bosnia and Iraq to our homes. Nuclear weapons? I mean holy s*** if the Feds ever got so goddamn maniacal to use those against Americans wouldn't the entire argument that the government is to be trusted with those weapons moreso than private citizens go flying right out the damn door (I'm not advocating private ownership of nukes btw)? The truth is in order to keep order and maintain a facade of normalcy the government would be prohibited from using their full military capabilities, or else they'd have no country to rule. Even you guys would probably raise an eyebrow at THAT kind of response.

 

I dont trust the government. I think that if they could they would've dissolved this whole democracy thing a long time ago and gone full fascism the instant the population became too weak to resist it. Ever heard of Operation Northwoods? I mean that isn't even crazy conspiracy s***, it got f***ing declassified. You can read the memo's online.

 

The good news is that people in this country are armed, about 80,000,000 people here are firearm owners. I dont care what contraptions the military has, or even if they can somehow convince an army of volunteers to start occupying their own homes and bombing their own neighbors, they cannot suppress that many people with guns. Its not possible. Unless of course they can get them to give them all up willingly by telling them its "for their own safety and security" and that they "promise we wont do anything bad once were the only ones with weapons".

 

Must be awful living life with such paranoia.

 

[BigSqwert]

It's not our gun-toting nature that's causing these events, it's something that makes these people snap and w'ere not doing enough to prevent that from happening.

 

59% less homicides by firearms and 65% less suicides.

[BigSqwert]

Video Games Are Not The Problem

[StrangeSox]

59% less homicides by firearms and 65% less suicides.

I'm sure he supports universal mental care.

[Balta1701]

I'm sure he supports universal mental care.

Stated have cut more than $4 billion from mental wealth since the recession. Large additional cuts are scheduled with the sequester. Its te end result of demanding spending cuts....this is a constituency that is unlikely to defend itself and is happily put on the chopping block.

[StrangeSox]

Jk, i know the same people saying "it's not guns! We don't need gun control! It's mental health!" are also virulently opposed to universal health care, because freedom

[DukeNukeEm]

Must be awful living life with such paranoia.

Rather be that than naively believing in the federal government.

[ptatc]

Depends on your definition of "need". All of the examples you used could be solved through other methods (compound bow, fence, trap, etc.) But the gun is an effective tool. Most reasonable people recognize this. Its just there needs to be some recognition that you dont need a 30 clip magazine to effectively prevent squirrels or any other animal.

 

A bolt loading rifle could handle many of those jobs, and unless someone has great proficiency they are unlikely to get as many shots off as they would with a semi-auto.

I agree with the concept. Your other options are not as effective as a gun. I use a lever action personally. Semi-auto aren't as much fun either in my view. This is why I would not be in favor of an overall gun ban or restriction.

[ptatc]

 

they're not even subtle about the "compensating" angle

Why should they be. They are using an advertising ploy to get people to buy one of their products which is legal. Don't blame a company for trying to make money legally.