[Andorion]

Is America a liberal state? If I remember my civics right, in a liberal state the citizens enjoy the liberty to do what they will while it is the duty of the state to protect them from threats, internal or external.

Therefore here is my point of confusion. Why do some Americans feel they must take extraordinary measures to protect themselves? I mean you have the normal measures - securing your home and property with security devices, even in some areas having a gun at home, and then you have the extraordinary which seems to involve hoarding guns and ammo, and openly carrying guns on the street.

I will not say it is wrong to have a gun at home for your own safety. Properly licensed, with thorough background checks, kept safely and out of the reach of children a gun might even be an asset. So you can have a pistol, or even a shotgun.

But how does having dozens and dozens of guns help? You only have one set of arms. Why do you need assault rifles and high capacity magazines and thousands of rounds of ammo? Who will you be defending yourself against?

Or does self defense apply against the government? The basic premise of a democratic government is that by its very nature it is benevolent. The democratic system makes it so. For the gun-wielding American is the government malevolent? Then you have a far deeper problem which no guns can solve. Then you need popular movements and political consciousness and public opinion and political reform.

There have been many links upthread to surveys and news and legal arguments. I may lack the knowledge, expertise and context to process them all.
So my question is this. When you look at the guns in your gun rack/cabinet what do they represent? A last line of defence against law breaking home intruders? An assurance of security against an unchecked government? Or something else?

[worry]

90% of the issue is lobbyist groups who represent the industry, not consumers (even consumers of guns). 9% is hobbyists throwing a genuine tantrum, aided in no small part by the lobbyist-funded reading of the 2nd Amendment we have now. 1% is people who actually believe what they're saying in terms of self protection or government intrusion or other principled stances (I'm not conflating these stances, just saying they all make up that 1%).

[Solidsnape]

It's always the lobbiests.
Bastards.

[amphibian]

Andorion, on 08 October 2015 - 02:19 AM, said:

Why do you need assault rifles and high capacity magazines and thousands of rounds of ammo? Who will you be defending yourself against?

Most gun-owning people do not have assault rifles. Those are almost all reserved for the military and some police departments. There are a few collector's items, but they are very rare and well tracked. The key distinction in most gun-knowing people's minds for assault rifles is that their rate of fire can be selected to be automatic (pull the trigger, bullets fire until trigger is released), as well as semi-automatic (pull the trigger and the next bullet is readied for firing, which requires the trigger to be pulled again).

What people do have is AR-15s and the AR stands for Armalite Rifle, not Assault Rifle. These are semi-automatic, often look like the public's conception of what an assault rifle looks like, and there's an actual need for them in terms of wild coyote/boar hunting. The boars in particular take a ton of punishment before they go down and they can really hurt people if they get close. However, people have these AR-15s way in excess of that need.

The stockpiling of thousands of rounds of ammunition links somewhat to paranoia and somewhat to ammunition prices. Sometimes people will buy at what they think is the low point of ammunition prices for a while and then use them up. There is a great deal of uncertainty in ammunition costs and the paranoid link plenty of crazy stuff to "Obama". Costs for ammunition have actually gone up and more people are now manually reloading their own ammunition, which means they're stocking gunpowder and other components in their houses - which is actually kinda normal. I have a good friend who has all of that in his basement, although he doesn't do it real often.

As for the high capacity magazines, I dunno.

As for why some people choose to have so many guns, I dunno.

[Andorion]

amphibian, on 08 October 2015 - 06:26 AM, said:

Andorion, on 08 October 2015 - 02:19 AM, said:

Why do you need assault rifles and high capacity magazines and thousands of rounds of ammo? Who will you be defending yourself against?

Most gun-owning people do not have assault rifles. Those are almost all reserved for the military and some police departments. There are a few collector's items, but they are very rare and well tracked. The key distinction in most gun-knowing people's minds for assault rifles is that their rate of fire can be selected to be automatic (pull the trigger, bullets fire until trigger is released), as well as semi-automatic (pull the trigger and the next bullet is readied for firing, which requires the trigger to be pulled again).

What people do have is AR-15s and the AR stands for Armalite Rifle, not Assault Rifle. These are semi-automatic, often look like the public's conception of what an assault rifle looks like, and there's an actual need for them in terms of wild coyote/boar hunting. The boars in particular take a ton of punishment before they go down and they can really hurt people if they get close. However, people have these AR-15s way in excess of that need.

The stockpiling of thousands of rounds of ammunition links somewhat to paranoia and somewhat to ammunition prices. Sometimes people will buy at what they think is the low point of ammunition prices for a while and then use them up. There is a great deal of uncertainty in ammunition costs and the paranoid link plenty of crazy stuff to "Obama". Costs for ammunition have actually gone up and more people are now manually reloading their own ammunition, which means they're stocking gunpowder and other components in their houses - which is actually kinda normal. I have a good friend who has all of that in his basement, although he doesn't do it real often.

As for the high capacity magazines, I dunno.

As for why some people choose to have so many guns, I dunno.

I did not know that the US had wild boars. Are they very common? Usually I understand large US animals to mean grizzlies or pumas.

Regarding ammo prices what would be the average annual ammo requirement for a gun user? 30 rounds a month? 50? Thats 600 rounds a year. Say there's a sale going on and you buy 1000 rounds, then you should be ok for 2 years? Are my guesses anywhere near correct?

Is manual reloading safe? From explosion and toxicity angles.

[Obdigore]

Nicodimas, on 07 October 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

Obdigore- Questions for you, just for curiosity

A) Do you think it's wrong to send our most precious asset we have that are defenceless themselves and then post Gun-free Zone signs outside the place.

Do you believe the media should moderate these school shooting, or censor these shootings effectively? I realize the negative implications and what this sounds like. However, this would be a Media censor. +/-

No, you don't get to dictate the questions being discussed.

I'll happily answer your leading questions right after answer my previous questions about a plethora of western nations that have tight controls on weapons and have 1/4 or less the amount of death from firearms, and how your entire 'arm everyone and their kids' coincides with the reality of what firearm access results in.

Or you can continue flailing about like a kid learning to swim, reaching for anything you think will help, like claiming big pharma is making people crazy through drugs, or claiming 'rural people are fine with guns, we just can't let city folk have them!'.

If you honestly believe any of this. Post why. Post your arguments and back them up with facts, sources, studies, what have you.

If you are just trolling in the discussions forum, well, keep doing that I guess.

[Obdigore]

Andorion, on 08 October 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

I did not know that the US had wild boars. Are they very common? Usually I understand large US animals to mean grizzlies or pumas.

Regarding ammo prices what would be the average annual ammo requirement for a gun user? 30 rounds a month? 50? Thats 600 rounds a year. Say there's a sale going on and you buy 1000 rounds, then you should be ok for 2 years? Are my guesses anywhere near correct?

Is manual reloading safe? From explosion and toxicity angles.

Wild Boars can be a problem in the south. I would suggest larger caliber weapons instead of semi-automatic ones, but some cursory google has a number of articles suggesting Winchester 30-30s as one of the (still) preeminent wild boar hunting weapons.

Regarding ammunition usage, I have a guy at work who is a competitive (pistol) shooter, he goes through hundreds of rounds a week, practicing at his local shooting club (because it's so much more than _just_ a range, apparently - sounds like a redneck country club, honestly).

[Gorefest]

amphibian, on 08 October 2015 - 06:26 AM, said:

Costs for ammunition have actually gone up and more people are now manually reloading their own ammunition, which means they're stocking gunpowder and other components in their houses - which is actually kinda normal.

Dear gods, now I am scared.

[amphibian]

Obdigore, on 08 October 2015 - 02:11 PM, said:

Regarding ammunition usage, I have a guy at work who is a competitive (pistol) shooter, he goes through hundreds of rounds a week, practicing at his local shooting club (because it's so much more than _just_ a range, apparently - sounds like a redneck country club, honestly).

50 rounds of 9mm is about 10 to 15 dollars for the "volume shooters who don't care too much about exacting precision" level of ammunition. Obviously, the best ammunition will cost more than this, but people don't usually put hundreds of those rounds downrange every week.

200 rounds of .223 in the same usage category is about 70 to 80 dollars.

People will go through a 50 round box or two for handguns per trip to the range. Rifles, I dunno. Gnaw was talking about getting 200 rounds for multi-day hunting trips during elk season.

[amphibian]

To address the idea raised by Nicodimas of going into cities and taking guns away from "urban people who shouldn't have them", NYC tried that.

Quoting Ta-Nehisi Coates (from http://www.theatlant...eration/403246/):

Quote

But even in Giuliani’s hometown, the relationship between crime and policing is not as clear as the mayor would present it. After Giuliani became mayor, in 1994, his police commissioner William Bratton prioritized a strategy of “order maintenance” in city policing. As executed by Bratton, this strategy relied on a policy of stop-and-frisk, whereby police officers could stop pedestrians on vague premises such as “furtive movements” and then question them and search them for guns and drugs. Jeffrey Fagan, a Columbia University law professor, found that blacks and Hispanics were stopped significantly more often than whites even “after adjusting stop rates for the precinct crime rates” and “other social and economic factors predictive of police activity.” Despite Giuliani’s claim that aggressive policing is justified because blacks are “killing each other,” Fagan found that between 2004 and 2009, officers recovered weapons in less than 1 percent of all stops—and recovered them more frequently from whites than from blacks. Yet blacks were 14 percent more likely to be subjected to force. In 2013 the policy, as carried out under Giuliani’s successor, Michael Bloomberg, was ruled unconstitutional.

1 percent of stops is incredibly low and an astounding waste of manpower in overpolicing small/non-violent crimes and underpolicing major/violent crimes.

This is a terrible idea on both the effectiveness of the approach and the ethics.

[Andorion]

Briar King, on 09 October 2015 - 12:39 AM, said:

Yea so I've stayed out of posting here but I ll answer Ando's? about boars. Yes we have them. We actually had a rather large herd of them come through my neighborhood last yr and everyone was killing them cause they destroy yards and can kill you quickly especially kids. It wasn't uncommon to hear shooting at 3-5 am during this time. The beast were all over us and lots of people ate really good during those times.

Time for me to fade in background again.

Shooting boars I can sympathise with. Those things can be very dangerous especially in a populated area.

Huh US having boars is something that totally passed under my radar.

[worry]

IIRC there's an enlightening docudrama about that very thing called Wild Hogs, w/ John Travolta and Time Allen.

Anyway, the interesting thing w/ that is there's the reasonable way to do it, and the "gun nut" way to do it. You wouldn't believe how popular it is -- like people pay to do this -- shooting herds of wild pigs with machine guns from helicopters. Sure it serves the purpose of winnowing the population, but anyone who says that's the reason they do it that particular way is full of crap as you can probably imagine.

[Nicodimas]

Obdigore, on 08 October 2015 - 02:07 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 07 October 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

Obdigore- Questions for you, just for curiosity

A) Do you think it's wrong to send our most precious asset we have that are defenseless themselves and then post Gun-free Zone signs outside the place.

Do you believe the media should moderate these school shooting, or censor these shootings effectively? I realize the negative implications and what this sounds like. However, this would be a Media censor. +/-

No, you don't get to dictate the questions being discussed.

I'll happily answer your leading questions right after answer my previous questions about a plethora of western nations that have tight controls on weapons and have 1/4 or less the amount of death from firearms, and how your entire 'arm everyone and their kids' coincides with the reality of what firearm access results in.

Or you can continue flailing about like a kid learning to swim, reaching for anything you think will help, like claiming big pharma is making people crazy through drugs, or claiming 'rural people are fine with guns, we just can't let city folk have them!'.

If you honestly believe any of this. Post why. Post your arguments and back them up with facts, sources, studies, what have you.

If you are just trolling in the discussions forum, well, keep doing that I guess.

@ Amphibian

Ok. So if we cannot address the removal of gun's on a very very limited scale, then how is this going to scale to the national level. Somehow enforcement has to occur.

@Obi
I have thought the best way to frame this argument. I will simply start here, the foreign countries numbers just don't matter. They are irrelevant to the discussion as it doesn't take into account this: We have a different culture here completely, that constitutional law has the 2nd Amendment. As it stand's it will always grant a high access of firearms.

http://www.supremeco...titutional.aspx

DC VS HELLER
https://scholar.goog...s=1&oi=scholarr

We can use laws, restrictions, education and work on mental health to curb the violence that America encounters. There will be no categorical gun ban, like they have in foreign countries as you see it, because of the 2nd Amendment. As of today you are going to have to resolve that you live in a country with three hundred and fifty million guns and this will increase to five hundred+ in the next ten years. We have to figure out more clear cut way's to reduce violence.

Mental Health, crisis teams, education, technology are some things we can institute today.

If you want to ban them completely-->Amend the 2nd, Article 5, Constitutional Convention are the only ways that I see. I don't see those happening. Educate me.. In my minds eye, any of these happen^ states succeed for all sort's of other grievances that may or may not exist. And what happens next is...everyone peacefully goes there separate ways and we break up into some smaller countries...I guess right?

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 10 October 2015 - 12:24 AM

[Illuyankas]

It's kind of hilarious how against changing a document that's explicitly already been changed (it's in the name) in a way that would combine inconveniencing your hobby with saving lives people are. Also I probably wouldn't want to associate myself with the last group to want to split off from the US because of laws they didn't like.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 10 October 2015 - 06:17 AM

[Obdigore]

Nicodimas, on 10 October 2015 - 12:18 AM, said:

@Obi
I have thought the best way to frame this argument. I will simply start here, the foreign countries numbers just don't matter. They are irrelevant to the discussion as it doesn't take into account this: We have a different culture here completely, that constitutional law has the 2nd Amendment. As it stand's it will always grant a high access of firearms.

http://www.supremeco...titutional.aspx

DC VS HELLER
https://scholar.goog...s=1&oi=scholarr

We can use laws, restrictions, education and work on mental health to curb the violence that America encounters. There will be no categorical gun ban, like they have in foreign countries as you see it, because of the 2nd Amendment. As of today you are going to have to resolve that you live in a country with three hundred and fifty million guns and this will increase to five hundred+ in the next ten years. We have to figure out more clear cut way's to reduce violence.

Mental Health, crisis teams, education, technology are some things we can institute today.

If you want to ban them completely-->Amend the 2nd, Article 5, Constitutional Convention are the only ways that I see. I don't see those happening. Educate me.. In my minds eye, any of these happen^ states succeed for all sort's of other grievances that may or may not exist. And what happens next is...everyone peacefully goes there separate ways and we break up into some smaller countries...I guess right?

Going with the 'american exceptionalism' argument ah? That is pretty much the last vestiges of an argument that has been torn to shreds, and even already addressed earlier in this thread.

It isn't 'different' here. In general, Americans aren't exceptional compared to Australians, or Swedes, or Japanese, or Argentinians. The only continent that can actually get away with the Exceptionalism argument is Antarctica.

You don't even need to change the second amendment for it to make sense -
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Challenge the ruling that 'Well Regulated Militia' means every male between 18 and 45, and get that removed. The National Guard is the only thing that qualifies as a 'well regulated militia'. Of course you would need to remove politicially biased shitstains from the SCOTUS, but after that all those laws that make sense (like requiring private sellers to document who they sold their firearms too, or straight up banning handguns) wouldn't run afoul of this amendment that was never intended to work this way.

Fuck me if Scalia in is 'strict interpretation' wasn't such a joke, he'd read the second amendment as 'The National Guard can have all the muskets they want'.

The simple fact of the matter is that your hobby is the cause of death for ~25k people every year in the US. It's only redeeming quality is allowing some people to hunt for meat. What is the point? Why can't we do things to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country? Why do you think your hobby is worth more than the lives of 25,000 people every year, Nico?

[Nicodimas]

Aww, I am glad you both framed it as a hobby. That's illogical. Did you both read DC Vs Heller in its entirety? The argument really stems from self defense. Now, here is the ideology difference and I understand and can empathize where we part ways so let me explain:

If man is a predator. For example: He consumes 80 billion animals a year roughly. Has historical committed all sorts of heinous acts.. That would lead you to believe interior of man there would be an apex predator. Psychology has deemed to call these people sociopaths/psychopaths. Evil. On a lower level they might as a individual harm you, on a greater level they are known to seek positions of power. This is all fact and we can all probably point some of these out. I think everyone has encountered a true sociopath and seen the path of destruction that they can inflict? Ponder this.. The only response that some offer is retribution for crimes after the fact, when it would be in there very natures to simply not care.

Now according to way I read it and view the 2nd amendment it is to keep these bullies at bay. It's a de-facto self preservation clause for the individual person. It in the way it was worded was the same for the society as large. They had seen and knew the corrupt would keep finding ways to position over ordinary man that's why they put it so simply.Ok anyone should agree that makes sense? There a few other points like property and life rights that creep up in this discussion. Of course I believe it's totally shitty that not only do they gain guns, but seeks positions of power too.

Most gun crime occurs with handguns and arguably handguns are the best at personal self defense. We split on the argument right here* The overall solution is to prevent and reduce crime and violence.

@ worry.. I have been pondering your thought on arms race. Is this inherent to man? Yea. It's not like either side is going to give up there bombs before the other.. Cause of trust. Also, science is very much a extension of mans nature.

The lethality argument:

However a potential way to bridge the gap could be non-lethal arms.. Technology! They aren't quite there today, but the control lobby instead of stripping a right and property. They could seek ways to bridge this trust...this wouldn't be so much about removing, but changing the way they go about the argument through education and technology. Think about a PR campaign that shows people using instead of a very lethal gun, successfully using a non-lethal. I don't think anyone wants to live with someone dead, because of themselves. This would be a start in bridging the argument. Would non-lethal's take flight, only if the technology could indicate they effectively stop a person.

...Unless the true goal is for other people is to remove rights from a people that inherent think differently. If you frequent guns forums this comes up quite often. The control lobby will get nowhere if they keep trying to use mass removal/restrictions as an ideal. If anything this has doubled down on current guns! The very thing you are trying to prevent it has made it explode dramatically upward. This preserves the overall psyche of self preservation in an individual instead instead of trying to strip this important principle.


I really wanted to counter the hobbyist stance. This is a mere forum post and probably can't ever ever properly convey the importance of this argument.

edit:
<posting from phone, good times>

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 10 October 2015 - 06:58 PM

[worry]

I think the "just in case" argument is an excuse (or self-delusion) for the vast majority of, yes, hobbyists. It doesn't seem to be the case with you -- like you seem to genuinely have a self defense mindset -- but that just means the #1 and #2 reasons are flipped. Collecting still makes it a hobby, even if it's a relatively practical one (like repairing actual cars vs. building model cars). And where collecting guns is not a hobby it strikes me as a subset of hoarding, where you need that 12th gun "just in case" of violence like some need that 12th frying pan "just in case" the first 11 don't work out. I suppose that's true of survivalism in general. Just different branches of the same neurotic limb. The difference being, I suppose, that your money goes to the gun industry which is rivaled by perhaps only the tobacco and oil industries in terms of sheer unadulterated evil.

[Illuyankas]

Nicodimas, on 10 October 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:

Aww, I am glad you both framed it as a hobby. That's illogical. Did you both read DC Vs Heller in its entirety? The argument really stems from self defense. Now, here is the ideology difference and I understand and can empathize where we part ways so let me explain:

If man is a predator. For example: He consumes 80 billion animals a year roughly. Has historical committed all sorts of heinous acts.. That would lead you to believe interior of man there would be an apex predator. Psychology has deemed to call these people sociopaths/psychopaths. Evil. On a lower level they might as a individual harm you, on a greater level they are known to seek positions of power. This is all fact and we can all probably point some of these out. I think everyone has encountered a true sociopath and seen the path of destruction that they can inflict? Ponder this.. The only response that some offer is retribution for crimes after the fact, when it would be in there very natures to simply not care.

Now according to way I read it and view the 2nd amendment it is to keep these bullies at bay. It's a de-facto self preservation clause for the individual person. It in the way it was worded was the same for the society as large. They had seen and knew the corrupt would keep finding ways to position over ordinary man that's why they put it so simply.Ok anyone should agree that makes sense? There a few other points like property and life rights that creep up in this discussion. Of course I believe it's totally shitty that not only do they gain guns, but seeks positions of power too.

Most gun crime occurs with handguns and arguably handguns are the best at personal self defense. We split on the argument right here* The overall solution is to prevent and reduce crime and violence.

I can guarantee you that the death toll from these theoretical sociopaths that you think are being deterred by the existence of guns (except they aren't, as evidenced by all of recorded history) would not be a fraction of the actual real currently happening death toll of the people being shot by guns, for whatever reason. I doubt they'll beat the number of preschoolers killed per year by guns (83 for the record). Really man you shouldn't be so hard on the US. I mean, if you were right, then either Europe is a ravaged wasteland of roving murder gangs and savagery (it's not Christmas yet) or the US has more sociopaths than voters and only the current ratio of one gun to one person keeps your neighbour from slithering into your house at night.

Also I'm wildly pro rifle and anti handgun just for that first step of minimal loss of the positive uses of guns and massive decrease in deaths and murders.

Quote

@ worry.. I have been pondering your thought on arms race. Is this inherent to man? Yea. It's not like either side is going to give up there bombs before the other.. Cause of trust. Also, science is very much a extension of mans nature.

The lethality argument:

However a potential way to bridge the gap could be non-lethal arms.. Technology! They aren't quite there today, but the control lobby instead of stripping a right and property. They could seek ways to bridge this trust...this wouldn't be so much about removing, but changing the way they go about the argument through education and technology. Think about a PR campaign that shows people using instead of a very lethal gun, successfully using a non-lethal. I don't think anyone wants to live with someone dead, because of themselves. This would be a start in bridging the argument. Would non-lethal's take flight, only if the technology could indicate they effectively stop a person.

...Unless the true goal is for other people is to remove rights from a people that inherent think differently. If you frequent guns forums this comes up quite often. The control lobby will get nowhere if they keep trying to use mass removal/restrictions as an ideal. If anything this has doubled down on current guns! The very thing you are trying to prevent it has made it explode dramatically upward. This preserves the overall psyche of self preservation in an individual instead instead of trying to strip this important principle.


I really wanted to counter the hobbyist stance. This is a mere forum post and probably can't ever ever properly convey the importance of this argument.

edit:
<posting from phone, good times>

So, are you for removing guns until the technology to prevent the misuse of firearms is in place?

Also, rather than veer wildly into wacky strawmanning as is my wont when I'm having fun, I'd like to ask you seriously if you'd consider taking the US a route like Switzerland - mandatory gun ownership but with massive restrictions on the use and abuse of said firearms?

[Nicodimas]

I absolutely love the way you framed your argument.. Damn that's funny.. I will check it out and do some thinking on your points.

I will keep mentioning It's still a difference in total numbers! You couldn't remove them quick enough Australia alone spent 31 years to remove 630,000 guns in voluntary buy back programs. I ran the math and that would suggest 40 million if a similar plan was somehow funded. We are selling 15-20 million a year. (If I was the gun companies I would just run a voucher for a half off coupon to counter this)

http://dailycaller.c...by-the-numbers/

[Tsundoku]

The Federal gun buyback started after 1996 mate.