Jump to content
1911fan

Do you support gun control?

Recommended Posts

I'm talking about being able to identify the problems that lead to this kind of violence and help the people before they find themselves committing such atrocious acts, which would involve both improving our knowledge of mental illness and how the brain operates and attaching less stigma to the illnesses. A big part of the problem is that people don't want to discuss their problems or let other people know about it, and I think the at least one reason is that there's a social stigma to any kind of "problem."

 

I understand what you're getting at, but it's sort of a unicorn solution. My point is that even if help is sought after, that's still not always enough, as was the case with the Aurora shooter.

 

It's a better solution than blanket bans, which have a track record of failure.

 

That's a tough argument to make.

 

Also keep in mind that the "assault weapon" bans are generally not aimed at eliminating shootings, but rather making shootings less lethal by limiting the firearms in common use. If we judge the bans by that standard, then they do seem more effective than if we judge them solely by the number of shootings.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what you're getting at, but it's sort of a unicorn solution. My point is that even if help is sought after, that's still not always enough, as was the case with the Aurora shooter.

 

The case of James Holmes proves my point: he was classified as a threat to the public by Dr. Lynne Fenton, who reported him to campus police. A number of his acquaintances testified that they viewed him as dangerous and violently unstable before the shooting. Nothing ever came of it, and that's the problem. Many people, including one of the mental health professionals he was seeing, deemed that he was a threat and went so far as to report it to campus police. And nobody did ANYTHING in response. He was still allowed to freely purchase firearms from a legal dealer, which is an issue, but the bigger problem is that NOTHING happened. Perhaps the crisis could have been averted if his diagnosis was taken more seriously and efforts were made to put him under more stringent security, and more of his friends were willing to tell the authorities of their fears.

 

That's a tough argument to make.

 

It's not. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 had extremely little impact on crime rates, especially since it was attempting to restrict weapons that were used in 2 percent of crimes in the first place; at its absolute mythical best, it could have dropped crime by 2 percent. A study on

finds that the UK has seen a gradual increase over the past century despite enacting more and more strict legislation, whereas the US murder rate fluctuates wildly with no regard to gun laws. It's very apparent that something other than gun control is the answer to solving murders, considering that legislation has little to no appreciable impact. Continuing to think that gun control is the answer to anything is the textbook "definition of insanity": doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

 

Also keep in mind that the "assault weapon" bans are generally not aimed at eliminating shootings, but rather making shootings less lethal by limiting the firearms in common use. If we judge the bans by that standard, then they do seem more effective than if we judge them solely by the number of shootings.

 

An impossible effort. The first problem is the assumption that you can ONLY be deadly through "high capacity magazine clips" and "semi-automatic assault rifles." Lack of semi-automatic weapons or being forced to use small magazines encourages the shooter to make their shots count, rather than simply pointing and pulling. Machine guns typically provide an even worse effect, as there's a belief among the ignorant that you simply hold down the trigger and wave the gun around like in a movie or video game to kill people. You can see this effect in airsoft, as well as the switch from fully automatic rifles to 3-round burst and emphasis on semi-automatic shooting in the military to improve hit ratios. Restricting mass shooters from heavy firepower will simply encourage better accuracy.

 

Even then, you're assuming that you've successfully prevented mass shooters from acquiring weapons by banning them. There's millions of firearms available that are now illegal under the new laws which millions of people are going to be quite unwilling to part with.

 

So let's assume that you got all of the legally owned firearms gathered up and destroyed or sent over to the new group of "freedom fighters" that the government wants to support. What about the illegal ones? Or the ones that are almost regularly stolen from police and military? Do you expect the black market supply to simply dry up?

 

Now let's assume you've removed all legally and illegally owned banned weapons. Nature abhors a vacuum, and as we've seen with the prohibition of drugs and alcohol, criminals will very rapidly come to exploit the new market for firearms. The ATF's gunwalking scandal is pretty demonstrative of their ability to facilitate the illegal firearms trafficking.

 

So you lock down the borders effectively enough to isolate the supply. How do you uninvent the gun? Guns and ammo aren't magic; the semi-automatic weapon is well over a century old, and the fully automatic one is older. Metallic cartridge casings date back about 170 years. The earliest propellant is at least a thousand years old. People can make guns very easily; a Sten gun has only a few moving parts, and it's higher quality than some functioning submachine guns made by the IRA or in Brazil (Brazil in particular has a gigantic amount of illegal submachine guns because of the ease of creating them). Rifling is overrated for close range shooting that most murders take place at, but we've done it for centuries with wooden tools. Filipino amateur gunsmiths are making a killing, to the point where they're making better money than the farmers and fishermen.

 

What do you do? You cope. Recognize that guns exist, and sometimes people do bad things with them. Instead of trying to solve an unsolvable problem in a way that restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens, try to keep the problems from occurring in the first place: improve mental health and education, stop making policies on subjects that you don't understand, fix the socioeconomic gaps that drive the poor to crime in an effort to overcome the short straw that they drew.

 

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is a proven true statement. Maybe we should try to make a world with less outlaws instead.

Edited by chitoryu12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is a proven true statement. Maybe we should try to make a world with less outlaws instead.

Taking firearms away from those who use them to protect themselves/family is just dumb. They aren't the ones murdering people so why should we be punished. I've known people who hate firearms and think they should be banned. But when I ask them, "do you think I personally should be allowed to own a firearm?" "Aren't I important enough to not become a victim?" There reply is "yeah I guess, you're a good and responsible person." To which I say "So are lots of firearm owners, we're all responsible individuals." After hearing that they still try to argue their point against the majority of the public being disarmed, albeit with a little more understanding towards one self defense. I think strict gun control is mainly because the mass majority of people are uniformed. They think that every semi auto AR-15 can become fully automatic by inserting a high capacity magazine, or by doing a minor modification. They think they little .223 can cause mass carnage and is a high powered caliber. The masses are largely uniformed about the true nature beyond firearms, which leads to emotion, not reason, taking over. They may claim it truly is reason and not driven by emotion. But until you can have an intelligent conversation with me regarding firearms, I will forever remain skeptical of their logic.

 

I'd like to end with this. When the government purchases full auto M4s they are called defense weapons. When a civilians purchase semi auto AR-15s it is called an assault weapon. Now they aren't using it for assault but for target shooting or protection. Thanks to the liberal media, any 'scary' looking firearm is immediately labeled as an assault weapon, capable of mass carnage and murder to the extreme. People decry "why should anyone own this? It must be banned!" "Do it for the children" "Do it for our own good".

 

I wish when I buy a firearm, everyone will understand I will be using it safely, and to respect my decision even if you do not like firearms. Just like when the government goes and buys one too, everyone feels safe knowing it will be used responsibly.

Edited by The Death Merchant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The case of James Holmes proves my point: he was classified as a threat to the public by Dr. Lynne Fenton, who reported him to campus police. A number of his acquaintances testified that they viewed him as dangerous and violently unstable before the shooting. Nothing ever came of it, and that's the problem. Many people, including one of the mental health professionals he was seeing, deemed that he was a threat and went so far as to report it to campus police. And nobody did ANYTHING in response. He was still allowed to freely purchase firearms from a legal dealer, which is an issue, but the bigger problem is that NOTHING happened. Perhaps the crisis could have been averted if his diagnosis was taken more seriously and efforts were made to put him under more stringent security, and more of his friends were willing to tell the authorities of their fears.

 

You're changing your argument. I addressed this very situation in my post, to which you replied that you weren't talking about changing anyone's authority- you were just talking about improving society's knowledge on mental illness so that people can easily and indiscriminately seek help.

 

Getting back to Aurora: yes, nobody did anything- because nobody had the authority to do anything. How is he going to be put under more stringent security? Is he going to be committed to a mental institution? That's very difficult to do against someone's will. Are the police going to take action? How can they, when he hasn't broken any laws- what are they going to do? If you want to see an improvement in the action taken, the therapist/psychiatrist needs the authority to declare someone unstable with the laws in place to back them up and disallow firearm ownership, among other things. But this gets back to my original point- the argument of whether or not that should be done is an argument of freedom. Is it acceptable to give the authority of stripping someone's rights away to mental health care workers? What happens if they're wrong, and you're stripped of your rights wrongfully? It's a tough argument to make.

 

But undoubtedly, the "educate society about mental illness" to the point where it will prevent shootings is a unicorn solution. It sounds great on paper but is ultimately impractical, if not impossible to achieve in practice.

 

It's not. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 had extremely little impact on crime rates, especially since it was attempting to restrict weapons that were used in 2 percent of crimes in the first place; at its absolute mythical best, it could have dropped crime by 2 percent. A study on
finds that the UK has seen a gradual increase over the past century despite enacting more and more strict legislation, whereas the US murder rate fluctuates wildly with no regard to gun laws. It's very apparent that something other than gun control is the answer to solving murders, considering that legislation has little to no appreciable impact.

 

It absolutely is a tough argument to make, because one of your comparisons has absolutely no data.

 

Your argument is this: Assault weapons bans are less effective than improved mental health care and education at preventing mass shootings.

There are several problems with this.

 

1. There is no data correlating mental health care and the number of mass shootings. You can't make a solid comparison if you have no data.

 

2. As pointed out in my other post, assault weapon bans are not aimed at preventing mass shootings- rather, they're aimed at lowering the number of lives lost, following the logic that "more lethal weapons allow more deaths." You can cite crime rates all you want, but you'd be missing their point.

 

3. Using data from different countries to support the claim of assault weapons bans being ineffective is imperfect at best. There are too many variables to have an accurate comparison, as anyone familiar with statistics would tell you. There can be a correlation, but we don't know the relationship of that correlation, making it almost pointless to have.

 

This is why your argument is tough to make.

 

Continuing to think that gun control is the answer to anything is the textbook "definition of insanity": doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

 

It's a clever quote, but that's not the textbook definition of insanity.

 

An impossible effort. The first problem is the assumption that you can ONLY be deadly through "high capacity magazine clips" and "semi-automatic assault rifles."

 

Nowhere do I make this assumption. I would make the argument that you could be more deadly with high capacity mags, but I have never said that they are a requirement for lethality.

 

Lack of semi-automatic weapons or being forced to use small magazines encourages the shooter to make their shots count, rather than simply pointing and pulling.

 

A reasonable point. But keep in mind that shooting, especially pistol shooting, is difficult. It takes considerably more skill to hit your target at 50ft with a pistol than an AR15.

 

Machine guns typically provide an even worse effect, as there's a belief among the ignorant that you simply hold down the trigger and wave the gun around like in a movie or video game to kill people.

 

Comparing military experiences to mass domestic shootings is a poor comparison. Mass shootings typically happen at very close range (unlike the military), and while you may expel more ammo per target hit, your rate of fire could certainly increase your total number of hit targets.

 

You can see this effect in airsoft, as well as the switch from fully automatic rifles to 3-round burst and emphasis on semi-automatic shooting in the military to improve hit ratios. Restricting mass shooters from heavy firepower will simply encourage better accuracy.

 

May encourage it, yes. But accuracy takes skill to acquire, and most mass shooters have little shooting experience. That's why they suck so bad.

 

Even then, you're assuming that you've successfully prevented mass shooters from acquiring weapons by banning them.

 

Over time, this is the case. Some inevitably wear out or break, and without introducing new firearms, the pool gets smaller and smaller. 10 years is not enough time for many guns to wear out or break, so the pool of available firearms was not limited in an appreciable amount by the '94 AWB.

 

There's millions of firearms available that are now illegal under the new laws which millions of people are going to be quite unwilling to part with.

 

This is mostly irrelevant, since the AWBs proposed (even the NY one) allow people to keep the "assault weapons" they already own.

 

So let's assume that you got all of the legally owned firearms gathered up and destroyed or sent over to the new group of "freedom fighters" that the government wants to support. What about the illegal ones? Or the ones that are almost regularly stolen from police and military? Do you expect the black market supply to simply dry up?

 

I think we need to clarify an important thing- there's a difference between an 'illegally owned firearm' and an 'illegal firearm.' An illegal firearm would be a SBS, SBR, or a select-fire rifle that has no tax stamp, or in the case of the select-fire rifle, is not on the MG registry. An illegally owned firearm is a legal firearm possessed or trafficked by someone who shouldn't have it.

 

The 'black market' consists of both. You imply that the 'black market supply' wouldn't dry up because the majority of it consists of illegally owned firearms, and ones you claim to be regularly stolen from police and military. Now, where do those illegally owned firearms come from? They originate as legally owned firearms. If ,for the sake of argument, we assume that a complete and effective gun ban were in effect, then of course the supply of legally owned firearms would dry up. This, in turn, means that a large portion of the 'black market' would lose its supply. To add to that, I think you exaggerate the weapons stolen from police and military. So yes, without supply, the black market would eventually dry up (or, at the very least, prices would be outrageous).

 

Also, the ATF points to the 3 most common ways that firearms are obtained illegally:

1. Straw purchasing

2. Corrupt FFLs

3. Private sales

 

I feel it's important to point out the lack of a "stolen from military and police" category.

 

But this is sort of irrelevant, because I've never mentioned a blanket gun ban.

 

Now let's assume you've removed all legally and illegally owned banned weapons. Nature abhors a vacuum, and as we've seen with the prohibition of drugs and alcohol, criminals will very rapidly come to exploit the new market for firearms. The ATF's gunwalking scandal is pretty demonstrative of their ability to facilitate the illegal firearms trafficking.

 

So you lock down the borders effectively enough to isolate the supply. How do you uninvent the gun? Guns and ammo aren't magic; the semi-automatic weapon is well over a century old, and the fully automatic one is older. Metallic cartridge casings date back about 170 years. The earliest propellant is at least a thousand years old. People can make guns very easily; a Sten gun has only a few moving parts, and it's higher quality than some functioning submachine guns made by the IRA or in Brazil (Brazil in particular has a gigantic amount of illegal submachine guns because of the ease of creating them). Rifling is overrated for close range shooting that most murders take place at, but we've done it for centuries with wooden tools. Filipino amateur gunsmiths are making a killing, to the point where they're making better money than the farmers and fishermen.

 

You're arguing that a blanket gun ban would not be 100% successful. I don't know why you're arguing this, because I don't see anyone in this thread who disagrees with that.

 

What do you do? You cope. Recognize that guns exist, and sometimes people do bad things with them. Instead of trying to solve an unsolvable problem in a way that restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens, try to keep the problems from occurring in the first place: improve mental health and education, stop making policies on subjects that you don't understand, fix the socioeconomic gaps that drive the poor to crime in an effort to overcome the short straw that they drew.

 

The two positive actions you proposed are both, unfortunately, unicorn solutions.

 

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is a proven true statement. Maybe we should try to make a world with less outlaws instead.

 

While true, this is a meaningless and irrelevant statement. It's the definition of outlawing something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what you're getting at, but it's sort of a unicorn solution. My point is that even if help is sought after, that's still not always enough, as was the case with the Aurora shooter.

 

 

 

That's a tough argument to make.

 

Also keep in mind that the "assault weapon" bans are generally not aimed at eliminating shootings, but rather making shootings less lethal by limiting the firearms in common use. If we judge the bans by that standard, then they do seem more effective than if we judge them solely by the number of shootings.

 

And yet, there is absolutely no evidence that "assault weapon" bans have any effect on crime or making mass shootings less lethal. Despite all the hysteria and rhetoric, the majority of shootings happen with handguns, not rifles. In fact, rifles account for only about 230 murders a year, and that is all rifles, not just so called "assault weapons".

 

It would seem that the tough argument to make is why certain types of rifles need to be banned, when they account for less deaths annually than hands and feet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet, there is absolutely no evidence that "assault weapon" bans have any effect on crime or making mass shootings less lethal.

 

Right, but the point is that their effectiveness should be judged by their impact on shooting lethality, not strictly the number of shootings, making it a poor comparison to chitoryu12's proposed solution.

 

Despite all the hysteria and rhetoric, the majority of shootings happen with handguns, not rifles. In fact, rifles account for only about 230 murders a year, and that is all rifles, not just so called "assault weapons".

 

Agreed.

 

It would seem that the tough argument to make is why certain types of rifles need to be banned, when they account for less deaths annually than hands and feet?

 

That's actually a very easy argument to make. The tough argument comes when looking at the legality of such a ban, and whether the restrictions on freedom are worth the perceived security.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Some of these quotes have had to be combined to avoid having more than the allowed number of quote blocks)

 

You're changing your argument. I addressed this very situation in my post, to which you replied that you weren't talking about changing anyone's authority- you were just talking about improving society's knowledge on mental illness so that people can easily and indiscriminately seek help.

 

I said in my first post on the subject that both proper identification of problems and encouragement of people to seek help was important. Holmes sought help or was recommended to help, and his therapist reported him as dangerous. Despite this, nobody bothered to recognize the danger well enough to do anything.

 

Getting back to Aurora: yes, nobody did anything- because nobody had the authority to do anything. How is he going to be put under more stringent security? Is he going to be committed to a mental institution? That's very difficult to do against someone's will. Are the police going to take action? How can they, when he hasn't broken any laws- what are they going to do? If you want to see an improvement in the action taken, the therapist/psychiatrist needs the authority to declare someone unstable with the laws in place to back them up and disallow firearm ownership, among other things. But this gets back to my original point- the argument of whether or not that should be done is an argument of freedom.

 

It's fully possible to put someone into the custody of mental health professionals if they demonstrate a threat to themselves or others; Baker Acting is mostly done for the suicidal. They're taken and put under secure surveillance for up to 72 hours to determine their mental state. With someone who's been deemed a danger to other people rather than merely about to shoot themselves, it could easily end up longer.

 

What happens if they're wrong, and you're stripped of your rights wrongfully? It's a tough argument to make.

 

Then you look at the situation and try to make improvements so that it doesn't happen again. "What if it's not perfect?" isn't a very good argument. While this sounds like it could easily be turned around to refute my own arguments against gun control, you have to keep in mind that the arguments I make against more restrictive measures are based on the fact that even if they worked perfectly as intended, they still wouldn't get the job done. They're inherently bad policies without a history of working.

 

But undoubtedly, the "educate society about mental illness" to the point where it will prevent shootings is a unicorn solution. It sounds great on paper but is ultimately impractical, if not impossible to achieve in practice.

 

....

 

The two positive actions you proposed are both, unfortunately, unicorn solutions.

 

It's NOT a unicorn solution, even if you're short-sighted enough to think it is. You're again operating under the "What if it's not perfect?" idea.

 

1. There is no data correlating mental health care and the number of mass shootings. You can't make a solid comparison if you have no data.

 

2. As pointed out in my other post, assault weapon bans are not aimed at preventing mass shootings- rather, they're aimed at lowering the number of lives lost, following the logic that "more lethal weapons allow more deaths." You can cite crime rates all you want, but you'd be missing their point.

 

3. Using data from different countries to support the claim of assault weapons bans being ineffective is imperfect at best. There are too many variables to have an accurate comparison, as anyone familiar with statistics would tell you. There can be a correlation, but we don't know the relationship of that correlation, making it almost pointless to have.

 

1. Such data would be nearly impossible to provide unless better mental health care was implemented and changes in mass shootings could be monitored. Compared to gun laws, which have been implemented time and time again to little or no effect.

 

2. I haven't missed their point. Their point is just ridiculous, because it does nothing to actually prevent the deaths from occurring in the first place. Instead of trying to lower the amount of killings and crime, they try to apply blanket restrictions to all citizens, including ones who have done nothing wrong, in the hopes that it'll trip up the minority that do bad things. It's a shotgun approach that does nothing to address the problems and barely addresses the symptoms.

 

3. The reason I bring up the data is to prove the point that firearm bans don't have an appreciable effect: the graphs in the video very clearly show the times of legislation for two different nations and shows how little effect they have on the statistics. The point behind it is that there are far more variables than civilian firearms ownership at hand, and the belief that more restrictions will be a solution simply does not work with any of the numbers.

 

Nowhere do I make this assumption. I would make the argument that you could be more deadly with high capacity mags, but I have never said that they are a requirement for lethality.

 

I didn't say that YOU made this assumption.

 

A reasonable point. But keep in mind that shooting, especially pistol shooting, is difficult. It takes considerably more skill to hit your target at 50ft with a pistol than an AR15.

 

Irrelevant. There's nothing stopping you from getting closer, and 50 feet isn't even a difficult distance for someone who can shoot a handgun effectively.

 

Comparing military experiences to mass domestic shootings is a poor comparison. Mass shootings typically happen at very close range (unlike the military), and while you may expel more ammo per target hit, your rate of fire could certainly increase your total number of hit targets.

 

Bullets are not magic, contrary to what movies and video games may demonstrate. When your projectile is less than 10 millimeters in diameter, precision is needed even at in-your-face range if your target is making any effort to dodge or fight back. Too many people have fallen for that trap and simply fired without even aiming, often without realizing that they're not hitting the target because people don't fly off their feet with a gout of blood when shot.

 

May encourage it, yes. But accuracy takes skill to acquire, and most mass shooters have little shooting experience. That's why they suck so bad.

 

I actually did up detailed casualty lists on another forum for every mass shooting in schools in the United States, and the shooters actually had quite decent hit ratios except in a few cases (like SuccessTech Academy, which only had a few wounds before the shooter committed suicide, as well as one where the shooter spent most of his ammo wildly firing around the administrative office after killing his intended target and only caused minor shrapnel wounds to a nurse). While shooting is difficult, the shooters hardly "suck". The Columbine kids, in particular, practiced regularly.

 

Over time, this is the case. Some inevitably wear out or break, and without introducing new firearms, the pool gets smaller and smaller. 10 years is not enough time for many guns to wear out or break, so the pool of available firearms was not limited in an appreciable amount by the '94 AWB.

 

....

 

The 'black market' consists of both. You imply that the 'black market supply' wouldn't dry up because the majority of it consists of illegally owned firearms, and ones you claim to be regularly stolen from police and military. Now, where do those illegally owned firearms come from? They originate as legally owned firearms. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that a complete and effective gun ban were in effect, then of course the supply of legally owned firearms would dry up. This, in turn, means that a large portion of the 'black market' would lose its supply.

 

This assumes that guns are no longer being manufactured or brought in to supplement the supply. As I said, you can't uninvent the gun. In countries where firearms are difficult or expensive to acquire legally, home gun shops pop up and simple automatic weapons are built and provided to anyone with a little cash.

 

This is mostly irrelevant, since the AWBs proposed (even the NY one) allow people to keep the "assault weapons" they already own.

 

Which makes it even more ineffective than it would already be, as it makes zero effort to try and remove the millions of now banned firearms already in the market. The point I made is that even if no guns were grandfathered in, it's a bad assumption to assume that the majority of the population will willingly hand over their weapons.

 

I think we need to clarify an important thing- there's a difference between an 'illegally owned firearm' and an 'illegal firearm.' An illegal firearm would be a SBS, SBR, or a select-fire rifle that has no tax stamp, or in the case of the select-fire rifle, is not on the MG registry. An illegally owned firearm is a legal firearm possessed or trafficked by someone who shouldn't have it.

 

While correct, this is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Again, this is assuming that guns brought over the border or manufactured illegally in the country would not fill the vacuum. You're operating under the assumption that once legally owned guns disappear from the black market, nothing happens.

 

To add to that, I think you exaggerate the weapons stolen from police and military.

 

Also, the ATF points to the 3 most common ways that firearms are obtained illegally:

1. Straw purchasing

2. Corrupt FFLs

3. Private sales

 

I feel it's important to point out the lack of a "stolen from military and police" category.

 

If you'd like, I can show you quite a few documented instances of stolen police and military firearms. It's quite apparent that they have a tough time keeping a hold on their guns.

 

You're arguing that a blanket gun ban would not be 100% successful. I don't know why you're arguing this, because I don't see anyone in this thread who disagrees with that.

 

No. I'm arguing that it would be extremely unsuccessful and cause far more problems than it would solve. As I said at the beginning of this post, there's a difference between "It's not perfect, ergo don't do it," and "It's a bad policy altogether."

 

You have utterly zero basis to assume that. How many studies should I provide showing the effect that socioeconomic factors have on crime? It sounds like a lot, since you must have missed high school.

 

While true, this is a meaningless and irrelevant statement. It's the definition of outlawing something.

 

It's not irrelevant because it's absolutely true. In countries that have extremely restrictive firearms laws, the only people who own them are either criminals or otherwise law-abiding people who purchased weapons illegally and put themselves at risk of incarceration to try and put themselves on an equal playing field with criminals. China has a blanket ban on civilian firearms ownership that makes it nearly impossible for anyone but the wealthy or connected to legally acquire guns, and yet literally hundreds of tons of explosives and thousands of guns are being found and destroyed by the government. As my previous post showed, the Philippines has a huge home gun market despite being highly restrictive compared to the United States; there are 3.9 million estimated firearms in the Philippines, but less than 800,000 are registered.

 

All of the numbers indicate that no matter how much firearms are restricted, they have yet to have any appreciable influence on crime rates. The fact that people continue to insist that it'll help if we REALLY try this time and ignore all the past failures and failures in other countries (especially the ones with more restrictive firearms laws but higher crime and murder rates) makes me wonder just how much anti-gun politicians actually understand about the subject, rather than acting out of blind fear. Then I remember the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and how its proponents described firearms and realized that they don't know jack sh!t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said in my first post on the subject that both proper identification of problems and encouragement of people to seek help was important. Holmes sought help or was recommended to help, and his therapist reported him as dangerous. Despite this, nobody bothered to recognize the danger well enough to do anything.

 

It wasn't that nobody recognized the danger- it was that nobody could do anything even with the knowledge of the danger.

 

It's fully possible to put someone into the custody of mental health professionals if they demonstrate a threat to themselves or others; Baker Acting is mostly done for the suicidal. They're taken and put under secure surveillance for up to 72 hours to determine their mental state. With someone who's been deemed a danger to other people rather than merely about to shoot themselves, it could easily end up longer.

 

Yes, it is possible. But it's not easy to do. If they do not pose an immediate threat, then the process involves courts, witness statements, etc. And if someone is taken in for an evaluation, if they are not determined to be a threat based on that small window of examination, they must be released. It's a very difficult process to have someone committed.

 

Then you look at the situation and try to make improvements so that it doesn't happen again. "What if it's not perfect?" isn't a very good argument. While this sounds like it could easily be turned around to refute my own arguments against gun control, you have to keep in mind that the arguments I make against more restrictive measures are based on the fact that even if they worked perfectly as intended, they still wouldn't get the job done. They're inherently bad policies without a history of working.

 

With most topics, you'd be right. But this is a case of wrongfully denying someone their right to keep and bear arms, which is not something to tread lightly on. It's a perfectly valid argument to say that a policy should not be in place if it infringes someone's rights, even if it is used the vast majority of the time for good.

 

More simply, it's illegal for the government to do that.

 

It's NOT a unicorn solution, even if you're short-sighted enough to think it is. You're again operating under the "What if it's not perfect?" idea.

 

No, I'm operating under the "it's not practical to implement" idea. You've given very vague descriptions of what this solution would entail, but you haven't given any insight as to how they would be implemented. It's easy to say 'society should know more about mental illness' and 'we should remove the social stigma against it.' But it's also easy to say 'society shouldn't engage in racism' and 'we should remove stereotypes.' The problem comes in the implementation of such ideas. Even without knowing how your implementation would work, there are already glaring issues, such as peoples' rights being wrongfully violated. I agree with the sentiment of your solution, but it's easy to say and hard (if not impossible) to do, which is why I'll call it a unicorn.

 

1. Such data would be nearly impossible to provide unless better mental health care was implemented and changes in mass shootings could be monitored. Compared to gun laws, which have been implemented time and time again to little or no effect.

 

Agreed. But your recognition in this case agrees with my point that your claim is a tough argument to make, since one item in the comparison has no data.

 

2. I haven't missed their point. Their point is just ridiculous, because it does nothing to actually prevent the deaths from occurring in the first place. Instead of trying to lower the amount of killings and crime, they try to apply blanket restrictions to all citizens, including ones who have done nothing wrong, in the hopes that it'll trip up the minority that do bad things. It's a shotgun approach that does nothing to address the problems and barely addresses the symptoms.

 

Agreed. But their point being ridiculous doesn't change their goal, and it's silly to judge their effectiveness with a different goal. It's like calling a supercar bad because it gets bad gas mileage. It's true, but that's completely missing that the point is to go fast, even if you might think that point is silly.

 

... To be continued

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. The reason I bring up the data is to prove the point that firearm bans don't have an appreciable effect: the graphs in the video very clearly show the times of legislation for two different nations and shows how little effect they have on the statistics. The point behind it is that there are far more variables than civilian firearms ownership at hand, and the belief that more restrictions will be a solution simply does not work with any of the numbers.

 

Your data does not prove anything. At best, it demonstrates that there is a possible correlation. I would honestly recommend (not trying to be smug or condescending here) taking a statistics course to better understand what (if anything) your data shows.

 

Irrelevant. There's nothing stopping you from getting closer, and 50 feet isn't even a difficult distance for someone who can shoot a handgun effectively.

 

Of course there's something stopping you from getting closer- your targets run away from you. While 50ft isn't a difficult distance for someone who is good with handguns, it's enough distance to create a big difference in effectiveness between an AR15 and a pistol. Add in a moving target and it gets even more difficult.

 

Bullets are not magic, contrary to what movies and video games may demonstrate. When your projectile is less than 10 millimeters in diameter, precision is needed even at in-your-face range if your target is making any effort to dodge or fight back. Too many people have fallen for that trap and simply fired without even aiming, often without realizing that they're not hitting the target because people don't fly off their feet with a gout of blood when shot.

 

Something like an AR15 does not have much recoil. Using Aurora as an example, a select fire rifle (assuming it didn't jam on him) being used to fire into a crowd of people running toward the exit almost certainly would have resulted in more casualties. This does not apply to every shooting since every situation is different, of course- but select fire means just that: you have both semi automatic, and burst/full auto.

 

I actually did up detailed casualty lists on another forum for every mass shooting in schools in the United States, and the shooters actually had quite decent hit ratios except in a few cases (like SuccessTech Academy, which only had a few wounds before the shooter committed suicide, as well as one where the shooter spent most of his ammo wildly firing around the administrative office after killing his intended target and only caused minor shrapnel wounds to a nurse). While shooting is difficult, the shooters hardly "suck". The Columbine kids, in particular, practiced regularly.

 

Hit ratios are going to be high due to the short ranges of mass shootings. It's a bad measure of proficiency. A very proficient shooter will produce more center of mass hits, which almost certainly translates to more deaths. Mass shooters typically do not have much practice time in shooting.

 

This assumes that guns are no longer being manufactured or brought in to supplement the supply. As I said, you can't uninvent the gun. In countries where firearms are difficult or expensive to acquire legally, home gun shops pop up and simple automatic weapons are built and provided to anyone with a little cash.

 

I think you exaggerate 'a little cash.' Either way, the small number of guns being manufactured illegaly is so small compared to the supply of the current 'black market.'

 

Which makes it even more ineffective than it would already be, as it makes zero effort to try and remove the millions of now banned firearms already in the market. The point I made is that even if no guns were grandfathered in, it's a bad assumption to assume that the majority of the population will willingly hand over their weapons.

 

You're judging its effectiveness by its immediate effect, not its long-term effect. AWBs really aren't intended to have a large immediate effect.

 

While correct, this is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Again, this is assuming that guns brought over the border or manufactured illegally in the country would not fill the vacuum. You're operating under the assumption that once legally owned guns disappear from the black market, nothing happens.

 

It's not irrelevant, because the overwhelming majority of supply of the illegal firearms market disappears if legal firearms are banned.

 

If you'd like, I can show you quite a few documented instances of stolen police and military firearms. It's quite apparent that they have a tough time keeping a hold on their guns.

 

And no matter how many instances you provide, it will pale in comparison to the number of firearms in the illegal market that started as legally owned firearms. It's statistically irrelevant.

 

No. I'm arguing that it would be extremely unsuccessful and cause far more problems than it would solve. As I said at the beginning of this post, there's a difference between "It's not perfect, ergo don't do it," and "It's a bad policy altogether."

 

You have utterly zero basis to assume that. How many studies should I provide showing the effect that socioeconomic factors have on crime? It sounds like a lot, since you must have missed high school.

 

I think I'll start a new policy for replying to posts, where I'll ignore parts that include personal insults. It's unnecessary, irrelevant, and only detracts from a meaningful discussion.

 

It's not irrelevant because it's absolutely true. In countries that have extremely restrictive firearms laws, the only people who own them are either criminals or otherwise law-abiding people who purchased weapons illegally and put themselves at risk of incarceration to try and put themselves on an equal playing field with criminals. China has a blanket ban on civilian firearms ownership that makes it nearly impossible for anyone but the wealthy or connected to legally acquire guns, and yet literally hundreds of tons of explosives and thousands of guns are being found and destroyed by the government. As my previous post showed, the Philippines has a huge home gun market despite being highly restrictive compared to the United States; there are 3.9 million estimated firearms in the Philippines, but less than 800,000 are registered.

 

All of the numbers indicate that no matter how much firearms are restricted, they have yet to have any appreciable influence on crime rates. The fact that people continue to insist that it'll help if we REALLY try this time and ignore all the past failures and failures in other countries (especially the ones with more restrictive firearms laws but higher crime and murder rates) makes me wonder just how much anti-gun politicians actually understand about the subject, rather than acting out of blind fear. Then I remember the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and how its proponents described firearms and realized that they don't know jack sh!t.

 

It's a completely meaningless statement, which meakes it irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if you turn it into an argument for why legal gun ownership is good, which you did not do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of gun control, the following amendments did not pass through the U.S. Senate today!

 

Manchin-Toomey-Schumer proposal

Grassley-Cruz-Graham substitute amendment

Leahy-Collins trafficking amendment

Cornyn right-to-carry reciprocity amendment

Feinstein gun & magazine ban amendment

Burr protection of veterans’ gun rights amendment

Launtenberg-Blumenthal magazine ban amendment

 

I know it wont be the end of the debate, but to stop 7 amendments/bills/etc is a great win for gun owners, gun lovers, and most importantly, the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the topic of gun control, the following amendments did not pass through the U.S. Senate today!

 

Manchin-Toomey-Schumer proposal

Grassley-Cruz-Graham substitute amendment

Leahy-Collins trafficking amendment

Cornyn right-to-carry reciprocity amendment

Feinstein gun & magazine ban amendment

Burr protection of veterans’ gun rights amendment

Launtenberg-Blumenthal magazine ban amendment

 

I know it wont be the end of the debate, but to stop 7 amendments/bills/etc is a great win for gun owners, gun lovers, and most importantly, the Constitution.

 

Agreed, awesome :a-grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read up on the failed bills/amendments, Airborne. Good news for the time being.

 

I'm especially glad Feinstein's bill didn't pass. That woman is a living example of WHY term limits are such a good idea. My mother (born and raised in SoCal) despises Feinstein and attributes California's decline to her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media says "91% of people were in favor of gun control bills"

 

I want to know who came up with that number. I think 3% was the actual number. This is pretty sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The media says "91% of people were in favor of gun control bills"

I would love to see how the media comes up with those numbers, if they aren't just flat out lying.

 

Also, if 91% of the people favor gun control, why did more than half the Senate vote against all 7 of them?

 

It has gotten to the point where I do not watch the news anymore, be it Fox, CNN, etc. They are all skewed one way or another. The media also loves to give the "losing side" more opportunities to argue, in order to make arguments seem balanced. Rather than giving equal time to each side, they give the losing side more time so their weaker argument/less proof/data/support actually seems greater. Max & Jules Boykoff actually published a study on this in 2004. I have to read Merchants of Doubt for my energy and the environment class, in which case they talk about this study. Taken straight out of the book; "Max and Jules Boykoff found that 'balanced' articles -- ones that gave equal time to the majority view among climate scientists as well as to deniers of global warming -- represented nearly 53% of media stories. Another 35% of articles presented the correct majority position among climate scientists, while still giving space to the deniers." What makes this so bad is that the scientist who believe in climate change are in excess of 70%. So its the media that can make minorities appear to be majorities.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would love to see how the media comes up with those numbers, if they aren't just flat out lying.

 

Also, if 91% of the people favor gun control, why did more than half the Senate vote against all 7 of them?

 

I believe that figure is coming from this poll:

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/american...n-violence.aspx

 

But background checks are only one small portion of 'gun control,' and most people who believe that there should be background checks on all gun sales don't thoroughly know the current laws. Many believe that buying a gun online means you don't need a background check, which is simply not true (if buying from out-of-state). Additionally, the phrase "gun show loophole" has been running rampant lately, but this is misleading since the vast majority of sellers at gun shows are FFLs, and as such would require background checks.

 

So yeah, a poll said 91% of Americans supported a single issue that they don't fully understand, leading to blanket statements from the media that "91% of Americans support stricter gun control."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see that our politicians realized those bills have no place in America. Too much flawed legislation aimed at hurting honest and legal gun owners.

 

It has gotten to the point where I do not watch the news anymore, be it Fox, CNN, etc. They are all skewed one way or another. The media also loves to give the "losing side" more opportunities to argue, in order to make arguments seem balanced. Rather than giving equal time to each side, they give the losing side more time so their weaker argument/less proof/data/support actually seems greater. Max & Jules Boykoff actually published a study on this in 2004. I have to read Merchants of Doubt for my energy and the environment class, in which case they talk about this study. Taken straight out of the book; "Max and Jules Boykoff found that 'balanced' articles -- ones that gave equal time to the majority view among climate scientists as well as to deniers of global warming -- represented nearly 53% of media stories. Another 35% of articles presented the correct majority position among climate scientists, while still giving space to the deniers." What makes this so bad is that the scientist who believe in climate change are in excess of 70%. So its the media that can make minorities appear to be majorities.

 

I agree about the news part. Our media no longer informs us of what is really important. I feel like ABC, CBS, NBC only want to talk about dumb things, celebrities, and fake reality shows. There is way too much bias and they aren't concerned about what is actually happening around us. Take some recent, noteworthy U.S. events which the media refuses to talk about or only briefly mentions:

 

Bitcoin collapses and an estimated $1 Billion is essentially wiped out.

 

Gold and Silver prices tanked. This is extremely noteworthy as so many people have their savings/retirement funds invested in Gold/Silver.

 

Government Assistance Programs like Welfare, Food Stamps, Social Security could dry up in the near future.

 

The U.S. is spending astronomical amounts compared to the GDP.

 

Department of Homeland Security buys 1.6 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition (enough to fight the War in Iraq for 25 years), 2700 APCs, 7,000 fully automatic military rifles, and $2 billion worth of 'no hesitation' targets (pictures of average civilians) for shooting practice. I personally think this might be tied to preparing for if government assistance programs run out of cash and people begin to riot.

 

For those who want to stay informed about the world and all the crap that is going on around us, the only way to do that is go online and do research. Check out websites which aren't afraid to tell you the truth and actually report relevant stories. Our traditional TV Media does nothing for us these days. Fox seems to be the only channel left that actually isn't afraid to bring up and legitimately discuss current events.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that figure is coming from this poll:

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/american...n-violence.aspx

 

But background checks are only one small portion of 'gun control,' and most people who believe that there should be background checks on all gun sales don't thoroughly know the current laws. Many believe that buying a gun online means you don't need a background check, which is simply not true (if buying from out-of-state). Additionally, the phrase "gun show loophole" has been running rampant lately, but this is misleading since the vast majority of sellers at gun shows are FFLs, and as such would require background checks.

 

So yeah, a poll said 91% of Americans supported a single issue that they don't fully understand, leading to blanket statements from the media that "91% of Americans support stricter gun control."

I know sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet, but my comment was supposed to be taken sarcastically, but thanks for the link.

 

That being said, I am not completely against criminal background checks for all sales, but we already have them for FFL's, which as you said occupy most of the gun shows. I don't think the "gun show loophole" is prevalent as the media/liberals make it out to be (claiming 40%). I think the issue more so resides with private sales, such as if I listed my shotgun on Craigslist. To some degree, I would like to see some form of a background check used there. But the liberals barking up the "criminal background check" thing is a bit comical since those checks are pretty widespread & universal among firearm sales.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that Adam Lanza was denied the purchase of a firearm at a gun store when they did a background check on him, resulting in him going home, killing his mother, and then STEALING her guns. Stricter background checks for even private sales and closing the so-called gunshow loophole would still fail to prevent the Sandy Hook shooting from taking place, and would never safeguard against a similar incident. Hell, in China a man murdered 20 kids and 3 teachers with just a KNIFE.

Edited by Dmitri Kalashnikov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly if I was ever selling a gun to someone I don't know personally, I'm doing the transfer through an FFL. I'd pay that fee out of what I'd be charging for the gun. It would just be for my own peace of mind to make sure I wasn't selling to someone who shouldn't have one. (Thus accidentally breaking the law myself.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would just be for my own peace of mind to make sure I wasn't selling to someone who shouldn't have one. (Thus accidentally breaking the law myself.)

 

As per federal law, it's not illegal to sell a firearm to someone who can't legally own one as long as you don't have reason to believe that they can't own it. Some state laws are slightly more restrictive than that, but most aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in NY, it's a whole different beast here. That said, do you really want to be legally in the clear but find yourself saying, "Well he didn't seem like he was an escaped felon who was off his meds. He was really polite and kept talking about how much he loved children and puppies. I had no idea he had recipes for both." You see I draw a distinction between what the law requires and what I require for myself. I don't care if someone's got a Congressional Medal of Honor. If I don't know 'em, we're going down to the FFL to do some paperwork. (That said if a buyer did have the CMH he'd get a massive discount and lunch.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I live in NY, it's a whole different beast here.

 

True.

 

That said, do you really want to be legally in the clear but find yourself saying, "Well he didn't seem like he was an escaped felon who was off his meds. He was really polite and kept talking about how much he loved children and puppies. I had no idea he had recipes for both." You see I draw a distinction between what the law requires and what I require for myself.

 

I don't hold myself accountable for others' actions, so I personally would not be bothered by it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was really polite and kept talking about how much he loved children and puppies. I had no idea he had recipes for both.

 

Sigged to inhumanity.

 

Although, I do think NY is over protective with gun control now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question with banning private sales of guns is what else do you apply the restrictions to? Guns have been allowed for private sale simply because they're treated like all other private property. Banning that would have an implication of "This is not your property to give away", which makes you wonder just WHO really owns your guns. But you also have to ask if only guns will have these restrictions applied. Will anything else with the same potential danger or designed as a weapon be subject to the same restrictions? Knives, swords, baseball bats, cars, all of the various explosive ingredients (charcoal, sulfur, saltpeter, fertilizer, fuel oil....), etc.

 

It's somehow implying that guns are so heinous and dangerous that they deserve special restriction above all else. But so many other objects cause more fatalities and injuries, and yet they don't see such restrictions. It's apparent that it's not purely "How deadly are these?" when it comes to making a decision. And from everything I can see when I read the arguments of pro-gun control politicians and laymen, it looks a lot like fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question with banning private sales of guns is what else do you apply the restrictions to? Guns have been allowed for private sale simply because they're treated like all other private property. Banning that would have an implication of "This is not your property to give away", which makes you wonder just WHO really owns your guns. But you also have to ask if only guns will have these restrictions applied. Will anything else with the same potential danger or designed as a weapon be subject to the same restrictions? Knives, swords, baseball bats, cars, all of the various explosive ingredients (charcoal, sulfur, saltpeter, fertilizer, fuel oil....), etc.

 

It's somehow implying that guns are so heinous and dangerous that they deserve special restriction above all else. But so many other objects cause more fatalities and injuries, and yet they don't see such restrictions. It's apparent that it's not purely "How deadly are these?" when it comes to making a decision. And from everything I can see when I read the arguments of pro-gun control politicians and laymen, it looks a lot like fear.

 

Um, let's make something clear: the proposed legislation wasn't to ban private sales. The parts dealing with private sales was that you'd have to do a background check on a buyer even if it's a private sale. We aren't in that deep yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, let's make something clear: the proposed legislation wasn't to ban private sales. The parts dealing with private sales was that you'd have to do a background check on a buyer even if it's a private sale. We aren't in that deep yet.

 

The issue is the difficulty in performing a background check without access to the same resources as an FFL holder. If it was made simple, easy, and quick, nobody would have any right to complain. But right now I don't see things set up that way, which makes it easy to sloppily make it a "Just no more private sales, right?" thing.

 

One thing that a lot of new gun control legislation has in common is that it's a sloppy solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. There is no data correlating mental health care and the number of mass shootings. You can't make a solid comparison if you have no data.

 

3. Using data from different countries to support the claim of assault weapons bans being ineffective is imperfect at best. There are too many variables to have an accurate comparison, as anyone familiar with statistics would tell you. There can be a correlation, but we don't know the relationship of that correlation, making it almost pointless to have.

 

The reason for these is because the NRA successfully lobbied for the it to be illegal for the CDC to do research into gun violence. Any research done in the US is decades old, which is why people compare with other countries. Long term, this is probably the single most important thing that needs to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue is the difficulty in performing a background check without access to the same resources as an FFL holder.

 

That's not even really an issue at all- the proposed bill would simply require you to go to an FFL and fill out a 4473 and have a background check run for a private sale. Many people already do this.

 

If it was made simple, easy, and quick, nobody would have any right to complain.

 

The complaint people have is that it creates a record of every gun sale in the US. FFLs are required to keep 4473s for 30 years, at which point they can be destroyed. If an FFL goes out of business within that 30 years or they are subpoenaed, the forms are turned over to the ATF, where nobody really knows what's done with that information. Combined with a 4473 for every gun transfer in the US, this requirement would make it easier to create a registry for firearms. It's not a great argument, but it seems to hold at least some water when there are a good number of politicians who have openly stated the desire for a gun registry.

 

One thing that a lot of new gun control legislation has in common is that it's a sloppy solution.

 

Agreed, although controlling possession of items has historically always been sloppy.

 

The reason for these is because the NRA successfully lobbied for the it to be illegal for the CDC to do research into gun violence. Any research done in the US is decades old, which is why people compare with other countries. Long term, this is probably the single most important thing that needs to be changed.

 

As much as I love research on things, I'm not entirely convinced that this is a worthwhile thing to research. The studies that have been done in the past are statistically inconclusive, and more recent studies (outside the US) are no different. There are simply too many variables to draw any meaningful conclusions. At most, you can recognize correlations, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, knowing a correlation exists isn't very helpful at all. The relationship of that correlation is what can ultimately lead you to conclusions, and those relationships are near impossible to discover because there are so many other possible influences. My friend's father is a statistics and sociology professor at Columbia University and has explained these problems on several occasions. Much of his research is focused on research methodology, which recognizes the important point that gathering accurate data on this kind of subject is almost impossible to begin with- but the analysis of that data is even more difficult.

 

That said, the larger point to make is that lack of good data is not an excuse to embrace poor data. There isn't a good way to measure the effectiveness of gun bans because we don't have any control sample to compare it to. It's bad science. So to claim that they are either effective or ineffective is merely an opinion formed by intuition, which is silly no matter which side someone supports.

 

I think the argument to be made shouldn't be "The data shows that gun bans are ineffective, therefore we should not ban these guns" because the data doesn't show anything statistically relevant.

 

Rather, the argument should be "There is no data to show that gun bans are effective, therefore we should not ban these guns" because the burden of proof (or at least evidence) should belong to those wanting to create more restrictive laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like a universal background check only if it was quick, easy, and free for private citizens to do and the information on checks didn't get hidden away by the government to use for their own purposes. I don't like to distrust the government and there are people who go way too far with it, but I've seen enough nasty or outright corrupt politicians and bills to question their motives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest part of knowing EVERY SINGLE firearm sale and having every one registered is that if they do pass a gun control bill in the next couple years(who knows, but I doubt it), they will know who has what and if they deem it illegal, they will try and take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the research. The "RIGHT" to own firearms is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment of the Bill of "Rights". Even debating whether we should keep it or not makes me sick. Disarming a group of people is always the one of the first step towards tyrannical control. We already have laws in place that provide for background checks, as well as criminal laws when people commit crimes with guns. Now, for all you "well, then people would have rockets and missiles" well, missiles and rockets are not firearms. The federal government was originally set up to provide for national defense, interstate commerce regulation, and collection of taxes. It was NOT setup to tell every American what is morally acceptable to own and not own. The 2nd amendment was made to ensure that the PEOPLE will always have the power to exercise their rights, not the government. Any laws limiting access to firearms and their use is an infringement on that right and is technically unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm jumping in mid-argument, but I wanted to give a military and competitive shooter perspective on the practicality of various firearms in reference to this conversation.

 

 

As much as I love shooting pistols in steel challenge or USPSA competitions, pistols SUCK ballistically. Compared to rifles and their various rounds, pistol rounds have little fragmentation on impact, and the cavitation and force equally pale in comparison to what a rifle can do.

 

From a pure wound trauma standpoint on a shot against unarmored soft tissue, a close range hit from a 12 ga shotgun using buckshot will create more damage than any 5.56 mm projectile; it is for this reason that Dr. Fackler has expressed his preference for 12 ga buckshot over 5.56 mm for close range defensive use. Compared to pistol caliber weapons, virtually any shoulder fired carbine caliber weapon or 12 ga shotgun will prove superior from a wound ballistic standpoint. Keep in mind that over the past 20 years, the vast majority of the 5.56mm/.223 loads we tested have exhibited significantly less penetration than 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 12 ga. shotgun projectiles after first penetrating through interior walls. Stray 5.56mm/.223 bullets seem to offer a reduced risk of injuring innocent bystanders and an inherent reduced risk of civil litigation in situations where bullets miss their intended target and enter or exit structures, thus 5.56mm/.223 caliber weapons may be safer to use in CQB situations, home defense scenarios, and in crowded urban environments than handgun service caliber or 12 ga. weapons. Below are the wound profiles of unobstructed shots at 3 meters, comparing several weapons that might be used for home defense:

 

HomecarbineWP_zpsb0f60aa6.jpg

 

If I could, I would walk around town with an AR pattern rifle any day of the week than carry pistols. Pistols are a compromise. There is a reason pistols are called "secondary" weapons.

 

I disagree with the good doctor on shotgun as my go to defense weapon of choice. Most have 4-5 rounds at hand, no one practices with them, and as a result, most shooters will short stroke a pump shotgun, flinch in anticipation of recoil (which will make you miss, believe it or not), or miss all 5 rounds and not be able to load the weapon. Also, has anyone fired a defensive #00 buck shell with a pistol grip shotgun? or Defensive slug shell with pistol grip only? It hurts a lot and you can't look down the sights of a shotgun effectively, which means that you'll more than likely miss.

 

Why do I raise these points? Because the most effective self-defense tool for anyone on earth is a shoulder fired, semi-automatic rifle. This is based on wound characteristics, terminal performance, and ballistic performance. It is much easier to shoot a rifle than a handgun quickly and accurately, and you can have 30+ rounds on tap. Why is that important? Because everyone misses, threats take cover behind hard objects, and some threats require more than 15 rounds to reduce. PCP is one helluva drug, more than a few LEO buddies have shot bad guys in the thoracic cavity 10-15 times and the dude is still coming at them.

 

This brings me to another point. Reloads. I can reload my rifle/pistol in under a second. Most people can do it within 3 with no practice. What are you going to do in 3 seconds if you have no means of resistance? Nothing. Do I personally want to reload in the middle of a gunfight? No. Can I? Yes. Point is this: mag capacity restrictions hurt those who are trying to defend themselves (pistols suck at stopping threats, so why do I need less ammo for them?) and not criminals (whether they be mass murderers or otherwise).

 

 

To cover background checks briefly - the system in place is never enforced and the mental health and privacy aspect of HIPA laws prevent many mentally disturbed individuals from being prohibited from obtaining a firearm. Aurora happened because the medical community does not have a direct line of communication to the NICS database. This is both good and bad. Good, because your doctor cannot attack you if his political leanings are against firearms, bad because the only way you can be blacklisted on NICS for mental reasons is if a judge reviews a case and declares you mentally unfit to obtain firearms. This almost always happens because a crime is committed by the individual. It is rarely, if at all, a preemptive countermeasure.

 

We like to talk about national background checks, but to make sure that everyone is complying fully, you would have to register all firearms. How would you know if everyone was playing by the rules? The only way to truly enforce it would be to require registration of all firearms. Something like 60% of firearms are not registered in any way or were sold via private party and thus there is no 4473 on them to subpoena.

 

Let's not even mention that 20-30% of crimes that are supposed to be on the NICS system are not because cities and counties did not send up the paperwork on misdemeanor A offenses that warrant a blacklist from NICS and owning a firearm.

 

 

Practically speaking, an AWB or mag cap limit is seriously hurting the ability of law abiding citizens who take the right of personal defense into their own hands (as they should) to defend themselves against a threat to their or their loved ones' lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Compared to rifles and their various rounds, pistol rounds have little fragmentation on impact, and the cavitation and force equally pale in comparison to what a rifle can do.

 

You must not like the 7.62x25 the Tokarev and M57 take. Subsonic, penetrates through soft body armor. That's pretty good I think.

 

With shotguns, I think birdshot is the best self defense round. Little recoil, lots of spread, minimum damage to your home. Shove your KSG with that and you'll be set.

 

And I honestly do NOT like .223, too under powered. I would rather use something like a Mosin Nagant over any rifle, because sometimes people hide behind things. For a semi automatic combat style rifle I would prefer either .300 Blackout or 5.45x39. One is a nice hefty round, the other is technically a hollow point.

 

Then again, these are my opinions, I do see where you are coming from. I just prefer blunt stopping power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With shotguns, I think birdshot is the best self defense round. Little recoil, lots of spread, minimum damage to your home. Shove your KSG with that and you'll be set.

Birdshot is a pretty terrible defense round. I wouldn't count on it when your life depends on it. There are guys that do test with ballistics jell sometimes covered with clothing, the birdshot simply doesn't penetrate. Worse yet, it doesn't leave a permanent void in the body, which means while it may hurt, it won't stop the attacker. Furthermore while yes, it spreads more (which makes it less deadly/poor energy density), you still have to be aiming fairly well. Every try shooting clay pigeons? It isn't just sticking the muzzle in the general vicinity. You do actually have to aim. That doesn't change in the HD situation.

 

00 Buckshot has been proven time and time again to be the go to defense round. Good penetration, relatively tight patterns, good energy density, and good permanent cavity/void in the target. That target is going to suffer massive trauma, and it shouldn't take more than 1 00 buck to stop them. If you are really worried about over penetration, you can step down to something like 000 buck or even BB, BBB, etc. They still maintain a relatively good terminal ballistic effect, although 00 is still shown to be better.

 

Birdshot just doesn't have it to stop a person. For claiming you like blunt stopping power, I am surprised that you would choose birdshot as your defensive round of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually go skeet shooting regularly, and I learned the first time how difficult it is to aim :a-laugh:

 

I do see your point, but birdshot also has a great advantage of getting more shots off in a faster amount of time. I'm not saying you can't with buckshot, I'm saying it's easier with birdshot. You have to take into consideration the person will probably run when you have the gun out, if not shooting will cause fleeing. Worst case they try shooting back, in which if you fire two shots of birdshot, one after the other, it will be quite effective.

 

And actually, after thinking about it, I have decided neither bird nor buckshot is good enough. I would just use flechettes. Because nothing says "get out of my house" like pinning the guy to your wall.

Edited by Coyote98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...