Gun Control

[chompalot]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Public safety is certainly an issue that has been and can be considered when regulating firearms, but rather than being supraordinate vis-a-vis a sporting purpose, it is subordinate to the national security purpose of the militia.

Our military handles national security with their F-15s and so on.

[GatorBen]

Originally Posted by chompalot

What kind of fricken sport is that anyways?...hunting with an AR-15. Good grief.

I'm not sure why you think an AR-15 is such a killing machine of a gun. I've never tried, but I would strongly guess that killing a deer would probably be significantly harder with an AR than it would with my deer rifle (smaller caliber, not as fine-tuned accuracy oriented in design, etc.).

It's a scary looking gun, and it appears to be getting popular with crazies. But as I've mentioned, aside from being able to accept a larger magazine than my deer rifle it works exactly the same way.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by GatorBen

The Heller opinion more or less rejects the argument that personal usages were "subsidiary" to a primary concern about the militia, and says that the possibility of an overzealous government is why the right got specifically written down, but the right itself has more to do with individual uses.

They appear to be construing a natural right rather than strictly discussing the Second Amendment.

[chompalot]

Originally Posted by GatorBen

I'm not sure why you think an AR-15 is such a killing machine of a gun. I've never tried, but I would strongly guess that killing a deer would probably be significantly harder with an AR than it would with my deer rifle (smaller caliber, not as fine-tuned accuracy oriented in design, etc.).

It's a scary looking gun, and it appears to be getting popular with crazies. But as I've mentioned, aside from being able to accept a larger magazine than my deer rifle it works exactly the same way.

It's a gun that kills 20 babies in a few seconds. When considering all of the harm that they have caused, there is absolutely no good reason why these weapons are necessary. You can use your .30-06 or something along that line.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by chompalot

Our military handles national security with their F-15s and so on.

As does the militia with its arms and ethos.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by DeanMeadGator

This is far too simplistic, and assumes that one group is to be held responsible for school shootings and other mass murders. It is not that simple.

When I was a kid, there were no school shool shooting or mass murders. People had guns, and people had mental illnesses.

This is the question: What has happened to our society in the past ten or twenty years? Why is there a culture of violence in our country? There is an increase in violence, particularly violence aimed at the innocent.

Is it because God is being pushed aside, because there is no clear right and wrong in the minds of many, because many children are no longer raised in intact families, because we live in a generation where the primary emphasis is on "me," because money is sometimes more imporant that pinciples, because parents are too permissiive or any other number of factors"

One thing is certain - our society is increasingly violent, and one group of people is not the cause. How have things changed so much since I was a child?

Rather than conveniently blaming someone else, what can WE [i] do?

Some of the least religious societies also have very low murder rates. I can do the math later on today, but I feel fairly confident just taking a brief look at these two lists, that any significant results would indicate higher religiosity in more violent countries (for example Central America appears to be one of the most violent places on Earth in terms of gun homicides and yet is also very high on religiosity while East Asia and Western Europe are low in both).

Violence levels have actually been decreasing for years. While we are certainly having an increase in large scale killings, the overall level of violence has been decreasing for quite some time (about 15-20 years). There was a very good book on this by Steven Pinker. This violence has coincided with a decrease in the number of guns in the country over a similar time period. A massive part of the violence decline is likely due to the lowering of younger Americans being exposed to lead when they are younger. Some of it is likely due to the incarceration of many people.

It is possible that there could be a relationship between divorce rates and violence, as the US currently has the highest divorce rates. However, we also do have a very high rate of marriage, which could be due to the divorce rate or due to a societal expectation that everybody gets married compared with other countries (and likely a combo of both). This is also likely shown by the fact that the average age of those getting married in the US is lower than it is elsewhere in the Western World (by a full year and a half younger than the second youngest country-Belgium).

But on a statewide level as well as on an international level, easy access to guns does appear to be one of the most associated variables with the amount of gun crime committed.

[GatorBen]

Originally Posted by chompalot

It's a gun that kills 20 babies in a few seconds. When considering all of the harm that they have caused, there is absolutely no good reason why these weapons are necessary. You can use your 30 aut 6 or something along that line.

It still requires a separate trigger pull for every single shot, and you still have to aim it. It's not a gun that just sprays lead like non-gun owners imagine it to be, and that's the point that I've been arguing all along.

I don't even own an assault weapon (as the 94 ban defined them), my point is that focusing on them is a lot of noise for not a lot of result because there is no functional difference between one and any other semiauto, including a lot that even most proposed gun control legislation recognizes as being sporting rifles by name. You could do the exact same thing, in probably the exact same timeframe, with any semiauto that accepts a big enough magazine.

[chompalot]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

As does the militia with its arms.

Are there any threats that you don't think our military and police force can't handle? When did we last have a need to use this militia?

[chompalot]

Originally Posted by GatorBen

It still requires a separate trigger pull for every single shot. I don't even own an assault weapon (as the 94 ban defined them), my point is that focusing on them is a lot of noise for not a lot of result because there is no functional difference between one and any other semiauto, including a lot that even most proposed gun control legislation recognizes as being sporting rifles by name. You could do the exact same thing, in probably the exact same timeframe, with any semiauto that accepts a big enough magazine.

I don't agree. These weapons high-capacity magazines and are specifically made to fire at a rapid rate--that's why they're the weapon of choice in all of these killings.

[GatorBen]

Originally Posted by chompalot

I don't agree. These weapons high-capacity magazines and are specifically made to fire at a rapid rate--that's why they're the weapon of choice in all of these killings.

I can shoot my deer rifle just as fast, barring a jam pretty much any semi-auto mechanism can work as fast as you can pull the trigger (and to put shots on target aiming is the slow cog in the process anyways). The only thing that makes a difference is high capacity mags, which is what I've been saying all along.

[chompalot]

What's the point of having them if you can't get a bunch of shots off rapidly...there is none since that's their specialty.

[GatorBen]

Originally Posted by chompalot

What's the point of having them if you can't get a bunch of shots off rapidly...there is none since that's their specialty.

Aside from wanting to look like a soldier or novelty there is no point in having one instead of a sporting model semi. That's why I don't own one. But they're no more dangerous, that's why the criteria for the 94 ban were all cosmetic features not a single one of which has any effect on how fast it shoots.

[chompalot]

Originally Posted by GatorBen

Aside from wanting to look like a soldier or novelty there is no point in having one instead of a sporting model semi. That's why I don't own one. But they're no more dangerous, that's why the criteria for the 94 ban were all cosmetic features not a single one of which has any effect on how fast it shoots.

They sure are popular with mass murderers.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by chompalot

Are there any threats that you don't think our military and police force can't handle? When did we last have a need to use this militia?

Dunno, but as I said there is a distinction between the government and the nation. They are not identical entities, and the one may act against the other.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Public safety is certainly an issue that has been and can be considered when regulating firearms, but rather than being supraordinate vis-a-vis a sporting purpose, it is subordinate to the national security purpose of the militia.

The amusing part of reading the 2nd amendment as absolute is the necessity of ignoring the other parts of the constitution which preceded it and which pretty clearly define what the militia is, and how it will be under the control of the federal government. The President is it's Commander in Chief and Congress has authority to provide for the "calling forth [of] the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions." as well as the authority to provide for the "organizing, arming, and disciplining, [of] the Militia, and for [the] governing of such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States."

How then can anyone think it is legitimately meant to stand as a guardian against federal powers rather than it's enforcer.

[novagator1]

Abortion kills more kids a year than all the guns in the US combined. I don't see any of you holier than though Antigunners speaking up to ban abortions.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[GatorBen]

Originally Posted by chompalot

They sure are popular with mass murderers.

Which I've already admitted, not going to search for it but I believe earlier I said "becoming popular with crazies."

I think that points largely to mass murders having the same misconception that you do, that scary looking guns equals better for killing. But functionally it doesn't.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by novagator1

Abortion kills more kids a year than all the guns in the US combined. I don't see any of you holier than though Antigunners speaking up to ban abortions.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

This is a fair point. It's okay to kill a million kids a year *before they're born*, but kill any number of them *after* they're born ... NOW we're pissed.

[GatorBen]

Originally Posted by GatorBen

Which I've already admitted, not going to search for it but I believe earlier I said "becoming popular with crazies."

I think that points largely to mass murders having the same misconception that you do, that scary looking guns equals better for killing. But functionally it doesn't.

As another example, the Columbine shooters had Tec-9s, which were made to look like submachine guns and were specifically named in the 1994 ban. But anyone who has shot one will tell you its a worthless piece of junk because it's bulky, prone to jamming, very picky about magazine and ammo, and has awful accuracy.

Why does it get chosen? Not because it's useful for anything (it's not), but because it's scary looking and people have seen it in movies.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Interestingly, you just personally insulted me again. So you whine about it and then engage in the behavior. Again, not surprising but interesting.

So you honestly think that nobody gets a gun to protect them from other people with guns? If gun ownership has lower benefits, marginal gun owners won't purchase them. Basic supply/demand econ.

We have no idea whether effective licensing and storage requirements could have prevented this crime because we don't have access to a separate universe in which we had those laws prior to the event. However, if she had been more concerned with ensuring her guns weren't stolen (even by her son), we could have prevented this. The government can incentivize this by holding legal gun owners responsible for the actions of those that stole their guns if they did not use proper storage precaution to ensure anybody not authorized to use that gun didn't. And based upon the early reports, it seems unlikely that he son would have been authorized to use the gun under a more strict psychological screening program.

As far as national psychological evaluations, the military conducts them everyday to better evaluate their employees (soldiers). And yes it is possible to hide symptoms. However, many people are not as adept at this as they think they are. While there would still certainly be those that slipped through such a system, the ability to stop those that are clearly unfit is a good start.

I insulted no one. It's not a surprising accusation, though. It's a common phenomenon I've explained before on this forum by quoting poet Maya Angelou, who said people will forget what you said and what you did but not how you made them feel.

For some people, if someone points out glaring flaws in their reasoning and makes them feel like an idiot, as far as they're concerned it's the same as if the person called them an idiot. This is especially true of people whose level of self-esteem or lack thereof causes them to regard any criticism of their words or ideas as a personal attack.

But I digress again. Now you are suggesting that since people often buy guns for protection from other people with guns, there would be less demand for guns if there were fewer guns in existence. That's a cute idea. How will it be proven that there are fewer guns in existence? How many illegally-owned-or-bought guns are there in the U.S. right now?

Answer: We don't know. There's no way of knowing. So there will be no way of establishing that the number has been lowered to a point that people need not concern themselves with buying a gun for protection anymore.

In any event, how many people buy a gun to protect themselves only from people with illegally-bought guns, and don't concern themselves about the legal ones? Or for that matter, at the point of purchasing a gun for protection, how many buyers concern themselves with what kind of weapon a potential attacker might have, if any?

Personally if I was assured that every single gun in Miami-Dade County had been confiscated except for mine, I still wouldn't want to give mine up. Why should I? In that scenario my gun would give me the upper hand against virtually anyone who threatened me.

The point is that I don't think people necessarily buy guns so they will be on equal footing in a gunfight. It's just as likely that they hope the mere possession of the gun will give them an advantage against an intruder or attacker who didn't realize they were armed, and will retreat at the sight of the weapon.

I guess you might be onto one idea there that's not completely laughable. I haven't really thought it through but I don't see much of a problem with imposing a penalty on people who fail to adequately secure their guns, and as a result the guns get taken and subsequently used in a crime. However I don't see much of a deterrent effect resulting from that either.

Like in this case...even if the mother had lived and was subject to prosecution, how would we prove that she didn't secure the guns? It's her own son that took them. He lived with her in the house so despite her best, good faith efforts he could've figured out how to get access to her guns. Or he could've pulled a knife on her and forced her to give them to him. Nobody knows, because they're both dead. It's highly doubtful that your proposed law would've prevented that.

Regarding your last point, not to get anecdotal but when I was in the army I was given a psychological evaluation as part of a security clearance. It was a low-level clearance (just so I could have access to a code book) but was probably at least as thorough as one they'd do for gun owners.

The evaluation was the epitome of going through the motions. In short, a joke. I'm quite sure Adam Lanza's mother Nancy would've had no trouble passing with flying colors. Adam, maybe not so much. But he isn't the one who bought the guns. And we don't know that any amount of security measures she used to keep him from getting them would've worked in the end.