[Shinrei]

Illuyankas, on 15 January 2011 - 03:47 AM, said:

I always thought the 'criminals will just get guns anyway' argument pretty stupid, really. Sure, they'll find their way to get the bigger pieces despite the law, but it'll be much harder, much more expensive and require much more effort to get guns from across a border instead of a Borders, that in itself lowering crime rates.

And Nico, ensuring someone who snaps has that firearm just so you can have your own to defend yourself is not going to help someone in the workplace, or the post office, for the usual examples. Oh, and the barrier thing does help point out who is trying to assassinate the politician, cause if everyone pulls a gun after a shot rings out the initial shooter would be exceedingly difficult to pick out through the crowd.

From a logical standpoint, arguing that guns in the US should be taken away is even more stupid.

There are millions and millions of guns in the US. The only way to make them "hard to get" would be for the national guard to break down doors and confiscate them ala a totalitarian state. As excitable as Nico is, I would have no doubt that he is not alone in that if the government attempted such a thing people WOULD use them against the authorities in a protection of their rights.

[HoosierDaddy]

Shinrei, on 15 January 2011 - 08:58 AM, said:

Illuyankas, on 15 January 2011 - 03:47 AM, said:

I always thought the 'criminals will just get guns anyway' argument pretty stupid, really. Sure, they'll find their way to get the bigger pieces despite the law, but it'll be much harder, much more expensive and require much more effort to get guns from across a border instead of a Borders, that in itself lowering crime rates.
?
And Nico, ensuring someone who snaps has that firearm just so you can have your own to defend yourself is not going to help someone in the workplace, or the post office, for the usual examples. Oh, and the barrier thing does help point out who is trying to assassinate the politician, cause if everyone pulls a gun after a shot rings out the initial shooter would be exceedingly difficult to pick out through the crowd.

From a logical standpoint, arguing that guns in the US should be taken away is even more stupid.

There are millions and millions of guns in the US. The only way to make them "hard to get" would be for the national guard to break down doors and confiscate them ala a totalitarian state. As excitable as Nico is, I would have no doubt that he is not alone in that if the government attempted such a thing people WOULD use them against the authorities in a protection of their rights.

From a logical standpoint, the Second Amendment has been completely and totally blown out of all original purpose. Just look at all the rationalization that's taken place already in this thread. It's there and I acknowledge it's rightful protection, doesn't make it right and it doesn't make us safer.

I'm so fucking sick of this stupid fucking debate. Just because there is a right, doesn't mean it isn't a proscribed right. There are and should be limits to who and what type of guns are available.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 15 January 2011 - 09:18 AM

[Dolorous Menhir]

Nicodimas, on 15 January 2011 - 04:55 AM, said:

This shooter was in AZ arguably a very pro gun state, he was tackled not shot. Granted I argue this would have been less likely at a right wing event, but who knowsit could of went down the same way for reasons mentioned above. Got to have a good shot in that small amount of time. This event has given me cause to ponder why nobody shot him...thats my only thought I could come up with.

Hi Nicodimas - did you see this story? A man nearby was armed, when he arrived at the scene he was presented with the opportunity to shoot the man he saw with a gun.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

Fortunately he didn't, because the shooter had already been subdued and the second man had taken his gun away. Very easy to imagine the wrong person being shot here. Something to bear in mind when suggesting that more armed people in the area would have let to a better outcome.

The article goes on to note that although prepared to shoot, the first man had not drawn his gun because he himself did not want to be mistaken for the shooter and shot by accident.

[stone monkey]

Despite the various voices for and against wide gun ownership in the US, any sane observer will be able to say that this really isn't going to change the status quo in any way. If we're going to be ruthlessly pragmatic we'll just have to point out that if you're going to let everyone and his dog in the US own guns legally, then you (US citizens) will just have to get get used to the idea that, as a result of this, every so often one of your fellow citizens will go batshit insane and use his legally obtained gun to slaughter a bunch of people.

Presumably the current consensus of opinion over there is that this is worth it.

[Shinrei]

stone monkey, on 15 January 2011 - 12:49 PM, said:

Despite the various voices for and against wide gun ownership in the US, any sane observer will be able to say that this really isn't going to change the status quo in any way. If we're going to be ruthlessly pragmatic we'll just have to point out that if you're going to let everyone and his dog in the US own guns legally, then you (US citizens) will just have to get get used to the idea that, as a result of this, every so often one of your fellow citizens will go batshit insane and use his legally obtained gun to slaughter a bunch of people.

Presumably the current consensus of opinion over there is that this is worth it.

Basically.

But it should be pointed out that many of these events, a prime example being the columbine incident, were carried out with illegaly acquired firearms, not legally acquired ones, meaning existing gun control laws were broken.

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 15 January 2011 - 01:30 PM

[worry]

Bullet control!

[Tapper]

Shinrei, on 15 January 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

stone monkey, on 15 January 2011 - 12:49 PM, said:

Despite the various voices for and against wide gun ownership in the US, any sane observer will be able to say that this really isn't going to change the status quo in any way. If we're going to be ruthlessly pragmatic we'll just have to point out that if you're going to let everyone and his dog in the US own guns legally, then you (US citizens) will just have to get get used to the idea that, as a result of this, every so often one of your fellow citizens will go batshit insane and use his legally obtained gun to slaughter a bunch of people.

Presumably the current consensus of opinion over there is that this is worth it.

Basically.

But it should be pointed out that many of these events, a prime example being the columbine incident, were carried out with illegaly acquired firearms, not legally acquired ones, meaning existing gun control laws were broken.

Yes. And that is where the whole debate goes wrong, imho. Fine if you have the right to carry and own for self defense. It may actually be a deterrent for burglars et cetera, although personally, I do not really believe that, myself.

But organized crime will always, always have ways to obtain fire arms, so if you seek to protect yourself from sects, the triades, the Tijuana and Columbian drug cartels, the Russian mob, kidnappers for ransom because you are rich, or politically motivated idiots because you are outspoken/impopular/driving a Prius and run for office, you'll fail from the outset as you'll be outgunned or they'll find a way to surprise you no matter what you carry yourself.

The columbine example also proves that no matter what, people can obtain illegal guns if they want to. Your system (as any system) is not watertight. So if a bunch of high school emo twats can obtain bigger guns, how effective is allowing gun owning/carrying? Not to mention that a shoot-out in a class room, if the teacher decided to shoot back, would likely cause even more collateral damage.

Now, mind you, I believe there is no way whatsoever that the US federal/ state government can actually impose a government monopoly on violence if they even wanted to. There are far too many gun owners and far too many people who are economically depending on the gun industry. But I also think that no-one should try and convert countries who have said monopoly to the US stance, as at the least the number of gun related accidents amongst innocents/owners per capita are a whole lot lower (and I dare say, the number of shootings per capita, too).

[Shinrei]

Tapper, on 16 January 2011 - 11:44 AM, said:

The columbine example also proves that no matter what, people can obtain illegal guns if they want to. Your system (as any system) is not watertight. So if a bunch of high school emo twats can obtain bigger guns, how effective is allowing gun owning/carrying? Not to mention that a shoot-out in a class room, if the teacher decided to shoot back, would likely cause even more collateral damage.

Now, mind you, I believe there is no way whatsoever that the US federal/ state government can actually impose a government monopoly on violence if they even wanted to. There are far too many gun owners and far too many people who are economically depending on the gun industry. But I also think that no-one should try and convert countries who have said monopoly to the US stance, as at the least the number of gun related accidents amongst innocents/owners per capita are a whole lot lower (and I dare say, the number of shootings per capita, too).

I see this argument (the underlined part) all the time, and have always wondered what proof there is that this is really all that likely.

And I wouldn't suggest that the US should import its gun customs to anywhere else. It just gets tiring to hear non-USians go on about how "crazy" we are.

[Beezulbubba]

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Zu0LJtbWBTg

This post has been edited by Falstad Wildhammer: 16 January 2011 - 06:25 PM

[Tapper]

Shinrei, on 16 January 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

Tapper, on 16 January 2011 - 11:44 AM, said:

Not to mention that a shoot-out in a class room, if the teacher decided to shoot back, would likely cause even more collateral damage.

I see this argument (the underlined part) all the time, and have always wondered what proof there is that this is really all that likely.

How many amateurs (even with hours at the shooting range, you're not prepared for a gunfight, and will probably in a panic forget everything about aiming and grip) can keep their cool and aim, then take down a target that's shooting at them? A minority, I'm willing to bet. When you as teacher miss your first shot(s), the crazy suicidal shooter is then as likely to jump amidst the students as he is to turn and flee, I guess, which means that you have a chance to shoot your own students.

[Shinrei]

But then we can play other "what ifs" as well. If a shooter realizes he is being fired at or that someone else has a gun (not being a professional cool headed sort) they may run away, or at the very least panic and instead of casually gunning people down at point blank would become more wild and less accurate.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Handguns aside, we've had a long-gun registry in Canada for awhile now, and it's actually difficult to obtain a legal long-barrel firearm here by comparison to almost anywhere in the states. It involves taking a course (or home study course), enduring a practical test and going through basic hunter safety training.

I don't think that making long guns difficult to obtain and expensive to register *does* anything in particular other than tell police who owns legal guns and who had to jump through the educational hoops to get them. Crazy folks will rampage and "crimes of passion" will occur and gangs will fight, same as anywhere else. The gun law does precisely nothing to curtail any of the deaths related to those. Crazy folks own guns and know how to use them. Wives can get their husbands' guns when they find out their husband was cheating, gangs get their guns illegally and don't register them anyway....and no part of the gun law addresses any of that.

That said.....

I do think that the gun registry creates and reinforces a certain safety-culture surrounding guns in Canada. All the gun owners I know (regardless of their personal views on gun laws) are proud to own their firearms and treat them with great respect, partially due to their personal levels of sanity, but also because from the outset, they were taught to treat guns with respect. The modern view among younger gun owners especially is that guns are a privilege rather than a right. They are a tool that has an intended use, and can be used recreationally if it's done safely. Whether that attitude was taught by a parent or a gun course, it's ingrained in the gun culture here. We go out to shoot shit in the woods, just like anyplace else, but the activity always surrounded by a shroud of safety and alertness. The actual owner of the gun doesn't drink (or at least only a little) during gun activities, and he makes sure he shows the basics and the "don't point it at anybody" rules to whoever he hands the gun to.

The fact that there is a constant and vocal debate on gun control in Canada makes a huge difference too. The anti-gun culture constantly opposes a pro-gun culture that doesn't have a second amendment to fall back on as their sole argument. Pro-gunners are constantly forced to prove through their actions that guns, while dangerous, can be a part of a safe, sane society. If there is a rise in a particular kind of gun death, be it accidental or intentional, the education component can be modified in an attempt to prevent it in the future (eg: encouraging new owners to keep guns in safes, or to use trigger locks). The fact that everybody needs to take a firearm course now serves to reinforce a consistent safety message through the whole gun-owning population and I think gun owners on the whole are safer and more responsible for it.

In america, I think the biggest poison to the whole gun issue is the second amendment itself. Pro-gunners don't even have to prove to anti-gunners or pro-gun-law folks that they (on the whole over time) can operate their firearms safely. If it comes down to an argument the pro-gunners can't win.....SECOND AMENDMENT. It's an American right to own a firearm and that can't be changed at this point. IMO the US should institute an education component in addition to the usual criminal background check. You don't have to institute a registry, you don't have to restrict firearm types and it doesn't have to cost any money to the gun-owner. Just make a safety course a requirement of owning a gun. Having that safety message drilled into the skull of every person would do worlds of good for the attitude surrounding firearms over time and would be more effective than almost any other method. It's not gonna directly stop the crazies or criminals...it's more subtle. A safety-educated father might buy trigger locks for all his guns, which prevents his bullied son from going on a school shooting rampage. The younger guy who just endured the gun course might see irresponsible practices among his friends and rub off some of his safety consciousness on them, leading by example. Hypothetical of course, but education is always a key in changing cultures for the better. I don't see why gun culture is any different.

[Cougar]

I don't want to get too involved in a long argument about the merits of gun control - as far as I can see the brief exchange between Stone Monkey and Shin hit this on the head. The US has high gun crime because it allows a proloferation of weaponry with substantially less control than say the UK. It's endemic in the culture of the country and the judgement is braodly that it's worth having a large number of gun deaths so US citizens can own their own arsenal of assualt weapons for recreational/pseudo-sexual purposes etc. Fine. I think that's batshit crazy, but hey, as Shin says they aren't trying to export it so I'm all for letting them kill each other if the populace desires to own firearms.

The thing is though about Columbine, Shin, rightly points out the weapons were obtained illegally the logic of this argument is "gun control would not have stopped the killers ontaining weapons because they were prepared to obtain them illegally". This to me is a deeply, deeply flawed argument which ignores some simple ideas. I shall elaborate.

Here is (I can't verify that this is 100% accurate and explanation of how the columbine shooters obtained their weapons:

"Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase." Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500."

If that is incorrect then fine, however the argument still stands. They were, through relatively straight foward means, able to get around the law. This is little more difficult than getting an overage friend to buy you alcohol. They obtain it legally and then illegally sell it on. If these boys had been in the UK they'd have had to know some seriously dangerous people to get firearms of this nature, in other words the sheer ease of obtaining legal ownership in this case makes illegal aquisition vastly easier. "Obtained illegally" really as either a coverall term or a defence of legal gun proliferation does not stand up.

Lets say a firearm in the UK might be obtained from a variety of sources - an ex-military weapon that had been recommisioned by an illegal dealer (few and far between), smuggled into the country, perhaps stolen from the police or military or else retained since the 1990s (the last time an automatic pistol was legal) or 80s for an assualt rifle. All these are still fairly difficult ways of aquiring something. If the illegal aquisition involves little more than getting a mate to get it for you, nicking from a familiy member/friend etc or breaking into a sports store/gun shop, then it's orders of magnitude easier.

That's all.

[foolio]

Tapper, on 16 January 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

Shinrei, on 16 January 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

Tapper, on 16 January 2011 - 11:44 AM, said:

Not to mention that a shoot-out in a class room, if the teacher decided to shoot back, would likely cause even more collateral damage.

I see this argument (the underlined part) all the time, and have always wondered what proof there is that this is really all that likely.

How many amateurs (even with hours at the shooting range, you're not prepared for a gunfight, and will probably in a panic forget everything about aiming and grip) can keep their cool and aim, then take down a target that's shooting at them? A minority, I'm willing to bet. When you as teacher miss your first shot(s), the crazy suicidal shooter is then as likely to jump amidst the students as he is to turn and flee, I guess, which means that you have a chance to shoot your own students.

I think Tapper is totally correct about the collateral damage aspect of having shootouts between wackoos and responsible gun owners in crowded areas....I was thinking about what a dissaster it could have been if several people opened fire at the event that this discussion started about. I am all for defending yourself, but it does seem like potentially throwing gasoline on a fire. Having said that, if I happened to be at this even with my daughter I would have done WHATEVER it took to try and get her out of there alive. And I hate guns but I am generally packing in public events that could turn ugly....So yeah, I am a hypocrite of sorts. In my defense I never carry a gun when I am alone, but if the wife and daughter are around, I generally do.
Just saw this bad boy at a gun show this weekend and started thinking about how ugly things could have turned if someone strated blasting back with it....14 guage pistol...."the judge". And this is nothing compared to some of the things people are toting around....

[Aptorian]

That gun looks weird. Is the drum elongated to allow for big caliber rounds?

[cerveza_fiesta]

the further question is:

Is everyday life *really* that dangerous that you need to be toting around a hand gun at all times....I mean really?? If you told me you commute on foot through Compton or downtown Baltimore every day, I would understand...but what is really likely to happen on a daily basis, in a place that you would actually take your family, that would require you to whip out a pistol?

And given that stuff like columbine, Vtech, Tuscon and other public violent events happen, it doesn't mean they happen all the time. It doesn't mean they are the norm, or even that you could call them "likely" incidents. So the whole reason you pack a gun when out with your family is the fear that a violent incident could happen anytime, when in fact violent incidents that require a firearm-based response are incredibly rare...and the gun gives peace of mind even though you might not be able to shoot it straight while under stress and are even less likely to have a clear shot at your target.

That's my problem with the packing for protection at public events and in crowded places. It doesn't make sense. You're as likely to die from a falling tool on a construction site or by lightning strike as you are to die during a public shooting incident, so why don't you walk around wearing a kevlar helmet equipped with a lightning rod too?

[foolio]

Jenisapt Rul, on 17 January 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:

That gun looks weird. Is the drum elongated to allow for big caliber rounds?

I think so, and I think it "only" holds four rounds as opposed to six for your normal revolver....

[Shinrei]

I think I've said this before, but perhaps ironically I come from a gun free family. My uncle used to hunt, but since he gave that up he sold all of his rifles several years ago. I haven't personally (knock on wood) felt I've ever needed one.

In Japan it's illegal to carry even a pocket knife.

[rhulad]

I'm of the opinion that if you are batshit crazy and determined to kill a bunch of people, you are going to find a way to do so, whether that be with a gun or a bomb it probably won't matter to you. There is most definitely a correspondence with gun crimes and the availability of the weapons, but that isn't to say that the rate of murder would be drastically reduced if you removed every gun from a country. People are going to kill each other regardless of whether they have a gun or not. Violent crimes, and homicides where a knife was used are way higher than those where guns are used (in Alberta at least) and it is not hard to get a gun here. If you know where you can get some cocaine or meth, then it won't be a stretch for you to find an illegal gun. I don't know what the drug culture is like in Europe, but over here dealers have access to illegal weapons and, by association, so do their customers.

[Qman39]

Sombra, on 10 January 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:

I look at the pictures of the fuckwit NRA/Tea Party/Palin/Militia type peoples, then I see the footage of the shitheads in Pakistan celebrating the murder of a progressive Governor, and I realise something:

Different faces, same fucktards.

I hope that lady pulls through.

Is AZ a death penalty state? Meh, a court will probably find he wasn't in command of his faculties anyway.

I don't think an insanity defense will work for this guy. One of the elements that has to be proved is whether the individual was capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. The evidence that is surfacing now makes it clear that this was well thought out and that he knew what he was doing was wrong....thus the apologies to friends, etc. I am not saying some lawyer won't try it....but it doesn't seem like a viable defense.