The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[LexusInfernus 908]

Easier said than done. One of the surest methods to drive gun sales is to threaten to ban a gun. Demand for AR-15s and extended clips is currently so high that manufacturers can't keep up.

Yeah, but that is just a dumb way of going about it. If you really want to get rid of guns, you dont attack the gun lobby from the front. The first step would be to completely ruin the image that guns have in the minds of people. To make them go from desirable objects in the minds of people to dangerous child murdering tools only fit for the military and police. Only when the vast majority of people thinks that guns are horrible and doesn't want to have them anymore, then you can begin with slowly restricting the types that can be sold and reducing the amount of guns in circulation.

[AcmeSigns 97]

The so-called semi-automatics with large magazines have only two purposes: target shooting in recognized clubs; mass killing.

You left out shooting competitions. Something in the States that both civilians and law enforcement participate in.

[hym 358]

Yeah, but that is just a dumb way of going about it. If you really want to get rid of guns, you dont attack the gun lobby from the front. The first step would be to completely ruin the image that guns have in the minds of people. To make them go from desirable objects in the minds of people to dangerous child murdering tools only fit for the military and police. Only when the vast majority of people thinks that guns are horrible and doesn't want to have them anymore, then you can begin with slowly restricting the types that can be sold and reducing the amount of guns in circulation.

This is more of the "us vs. them" approach to gun control that is accomplishing nothing meaningful. It galvanizes the hardcore gun rights supporters as it is sufficient proof that someone really is out to get them. Individuals who use their guns responsibly know that they aren't carrying dangerous child-murdering tools only fit for the military and police so they won't buy such an argument any more than the major guns rights supporters. And the people who own a gun for no reason other than wanting to have an extra measure of protection for themselves and their family suddenly get demonized as if they secretly hate their own children. Such a tactic does not build support for gun control, but it does take people who might have otherwise supported some measures of gun control and turn them into gun rights supporters.

Furthermore, if the development of 3D printers as a means to produce firearms becomes practical, there is no law that gun control law activists could get passed that would prevent any of these news events from happening again in the future. There is no reducing the amount of guns in circulation. The best one can hope for is managing the situation as best as possible.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This is more of the "us vs. them" approach to gun control that is accomplishing nothing meaningful. It galvanizes the hardcore gun rights supporters as it is sufficient proof that someone really is out to get them. Individuals who use their guns responsibly know that they aren't carrying dangerous child-murdering tools only fit for the military and police so they won't buy such an argument any more than the major guns rights supporters. And the people who own a gun for no reason other than wanting to have an extra measure of protection for themselves and their family suddenly get demonized as if they secretly hate their own children. Such a tactic does not build support for gun control, but it does take people who might have otherwise supported some measures of gun control and turn them into gun rights supporters.

Furthermore, if the development of 3D printers as a means to produce firearms becomes practical, there is no law that gun control law activists could get passed that would prevent any of these news events from happening again in the future. There is no reducing the amount of guns in circulation. The best one can hope for is managing the situation as best as possible.

I admit, I put it a little bluntly. Of course, such a direct attack on guns is to obvious. The point was that you need to change the perception people have of guns. A more practical way is from this moment forth linking every kind of gun related crime and accident to the widespread circulation of guns. This worked with video games, where after every school shooting games get blamed to the point where the game industry now had to talk with the vice president after the latest school shooting. The same can be done with guns, all you have to do is link violence with guns, not even in an obvious way, but just make sure that guns get mentioned right after violence. Eventually there will be a link in peoples head and slowly the support for gun rights will diminish.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This is more of the "us vs. them" approach to gun control that is accomplishing nothing meaningful. It galvanizes the hardcore gun rights supporters as it is sufficient proof that someone really is out to get them. Individuals who use their guns responsibly know that they aren't carrying dangerous child-murdering tools only fit for the military and police so they won't buy such an argument any more than the major guns rights supporters. And the people who own a gun for no reason other than wanting to have an extra measure of protection for themselves and their family suddenly get demonized as if they secretly hate their own children. Such a tactic does not build support for gun control, but it does take people who might have otherwise supported some measures of gun control and turn them into gun rights supporters.

Furthermore, if the development of 3D printers as a means to produce firearms becomes practical, there is no law that gun control law activists could get passed that would prevent any of these news events from happening again in the future. There is no reducing the amount of guns in circulation. The best one can hope for is managing the situation as best as possible.

I admit, I put it a little bluntly. Of course, such a direct attack on guns is to obvious. The point was that you need to change the perception people have of guns. A more practical way is from this moment forth linking every kind of gun related crime and accident to the widespread circulation of guns. This worked with video games, where after every school shooting games get blamed to the point where the game industry now had to talk with the vice president after the latest school shooting. The same can be done with guns, all you have to do is link violence with guns, not even in an obvious way, but just make sure that guns get mentioned right after violence. Eventually there will be a link in peoples head and slowly the support for gun rights will diminish.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There is no fast solution to this, if there is one at all. Not only have the Americans enshrined the "right to bear arms" in their state papers, but they are pretty much all fundamentalists when it comes to the Constitution and its amendments. Anyone attacking this has about as much chance as you would have in Israel trying to talk them out of the Torah.

[Meg 368]

There is no fast solution to this, if there is one at all. Not only have the Americans enshrined the "right to bear arms" in their state papers, but they are pretty much all fundamentalists when it comes to the Constitution and its amendments. Anyone attacking this has about as much chance as you would have in Israel trying to talk them out of the Torah.

You are implying (among other things) that the American people are not open to the idea of amending the Constitution. It has been amended six times while I have been alive. It can be amended again, if we so chose.

But, that's the point: it is our choice. I know that some people think it's time to trash and start over. But you won't find many of them living here.

And calling us "fundamentalists" about the Constitution is calling us fundamentalists about upholding the law. The Constitution is the highest law of the land and, yes, we are rather attached to it.

[Duke87 1,070]

What you really see, ultimately, is that Americans are more resistant to change than people in other Western countries. We still hold onto ideas that people elsewhere ditched decades ago. This puts us out of line with our peers on many issues, gun control being just one of them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There is no fast solution to this, if there is one at all. Not only have the Americans enshrined the "right to bear arms" in their state papers, but they are pretty much all fundamentalists when it comes to the Constitution and its amendments. Anyone attacking this has about as much chance as you would have in Israel trying to talk them out of the Torah.

You are implying (among other things) that the American people are not open to the idea of amending the Constitution. It has been amended six times while I have been alive. It can be amended again, if we so chose.

But, that's the point: it is our choice. I know that some people think it's time to trash and start over. But you won't find many of them living here.

And calling us "fundamentalists" about the Constitution is calling us fundamentalists about upholding the law. The Constitution is the highest law of the land and, yes, we are rather attached to it.

Not really. I was just seeking a parallel parable. One of the things that we haven't gotten used to up here is having a constitution. Ours has really only existed recently, and we tend to make amendments directly to the wording of the whole thing rather than sticking them on as riders. We are slowly seeing more and more "constitutional challenges" making it to the Supreme Court of Canada.

If you are a people of law, how come you have little things like black operations?? When push comes to shove, you invaded an ally's territory in order to murder an opponent. Calling it retribution or an assassination is just a euphemism. These guys should be hauled up before the International Court of Justice. Sending people to God or Allah for judgement went out some time ago.

[Meg 368]

Not really. I was just seeking a parallel parable. One of the things that we haven't gotten used to up here is having a constitution. Ours has really only existed recently, and we tend to make amendments directly to the wording of the whole thing rather than sticking them on as riders. We are slowly seeing more and more "constitutional challenges" making it to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Well, if people are to avoid anarchy, something has to be the highest law of the land. As I understand it, in some places, it is the ruling of a monarch. Even if that monarch isn't involved in day-to-day operations, he/she could, in theory, overrule any legislative nonsense that was going on. We rejected the monarchy centuries ago and put the Constitution in its place.

If you are a people of law, how come you have little things like black operations?? When push comes to shove, you invaded an ally's territory in order to murder an opponent. Calling it retribution or an assassination is just a euphemism. These guys should be hauled up before the International Court of Justice. Sending people to God or Allah for judgement went out some time ago.

You are raising a subject somewhat outside the scope of this thread. This is the "Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban" thread, which only applies to internal US affairs.

You are touching on a related subject: the application of the US Constitution outside of US borders.

Obviously, we can not force other citizens of other countries to follow the US Constitution. That, imho, would be wrong. They should get to decide their own form of government.

The point you are raising is that the US government does not follow the US Constitution outside of US borders.

But, again, that is beyond the scope of this thread.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, we haven't had Crown intervention in our affairs as long as I can remember. The Governor General can actually fire the Prime Minister and dissolve Parliament, which forces an election. If he does that, he must resign immediately. There was one case of this in Australia a few years back.

[LexusInfernus 908]

If you are a people of law, how come you have little things like black operations?? When push comes to shove, you invaded an ally's territory in order to murder an opponent. Calling it retribution or an assassination is just a euphemism. These guys should be hauled up before the International Court of Justice. Sending people to God or Allah for judgement went out some time ago.

Meh, black ops are policy instruments vital for a state to protect its interests abroad. It also gives states some flexibility in cases that require direct action, rather than waiting for official approval of whatever legal institution is responsible for it. And besides, most black ops fall under international law. With no authority in existence that can actually enforce international law, such law becomes more an excuse to hide behind when it suits you, rather than a set in stone kind of thing. Also, I think a black op is preferable over a full scale military operation.

That aside, it is irrelevant for American constitutional law.

[Cobraroll 138]

The so-called semi-automatics with large magazines have only two purposes: target shooting in recognized clubs; mass killing.

You left out shooting competitions. Something in the States that both civilians and law enforcement participate in.

Would it really hurt competitive shooting if the maximum capacity of magazines was reduced to five rounds? I mean, everybody would have to load more often, so it wouldn't give anybody any unfair advantages. It wouldn't be too hard making new sets of rules to accomodate the events for smaller magazines.

[Duke87 1,070]

Would it really hurt competitive shooting if the maximum capacity of magazines was reduced to five rounds? I mean, everybody would have to load more often, so it wouldn't give anybody any unfair advantages. It wouldn't be too hard making new sets of rules to accomodate the events for smaller magazines.

In order for that to be true, you'd have to require everybody turn in their guns which currently have magazines with more than five rounds. This sort of idea is usually a non-starter and recipe for violence, so typically when new restrictions are placed on gun specs they only apply to guns manufactured after the date they take effect.

As mentioned upthread, fully automatic weapons were banned for civilian consumption in 1986, but if you can find one used that was made before then it's perfectly legal to buy, sell, own, shoot, etc.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Guns will eventually break as well, or they get lost, or seized because of some other reason. Eventually the number of those kind of guns gets reduced. Also, the government could make an effort to collect those kind of guns in a more voluntary way. Offer to buy such guns at a good price. Im sure some people need to cash more than they need the gun. And that way anyone who wants to keep the gun can keep the gun.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Some kind of buy back might work for some, but I think such a program will just use up funds the government can otherwise use elsewhere.

[AcmeSigns 97]

Every buy-back program I've ever seen offer something along the lines of $200.00 for a so-called 'assault weapon'. Two hundred dollars for a weapon I paid over a thousand for doesn't make very good monetary sense to me. I just watched a bit on Fox's 'Fox & Friends' where a reporter was down in Texas at a gun store / shooting range where the owner said how a fully automatic true assault weapon that he bought 7 years ago for 5k was now worth 15-20k. I'm sure he'll be turning that in for $200 the 1st chance he gets. Even as parts they're worth more than $200.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Meh, one might offer other incentives that are worth more than 200 dollars for an assault rifle. Or they might offer to pay more. In any case, the practicalities aside, Im just saying that there are ways where the government can get back banned weapons without forcing it on anyone.

[AcmeSigns 97]

A little background...here in California all of the new 'assault' weapons sold must have a 10 round maximum magazine and have what is commonly referred to as a 'bullet button' magazine release. A 'bullet button' means that you aren't able to release the magazine without some sort of external device (the tip of a .223 bullet is one choice). State law also dictates that it is a felony to import, possess or sell any 30 round magazines manufactured after a certain date (I forget specifically but it's somewhere around 2001 I believe).

Last year one of our pea-brained State Legislators proposed an all out ban on 'bullet button' AR15-platform carbines, essentially making them illegal to possess and making all of the legal owners of such potential criminals. The state would have had to 'buy back' all of the legally owned rifles at 'fair market value' since it was essentially a 'taking' of private property. It was going to cost our cash-strapped state upwards of 500 million dollars. Needless to say it died in committee.

http://www.gunowners...assault-weapons

This year they're back with even more hair-brained ideas.

http://www.gunowners...mmunition-sales

http://www.gunowners...urchase-permits

http://www.gunowners...dential-storage

Any of these with the line 'to be determined' should a cause of worry for any gun owner in the country. Why? Other states like to follow California's lead. Except, thankfully, when it comes to how to budget a State. The Dems here are just so much fun

http://www.foxnews.c...wtown-shooting/

[Dewm 177]

The so-called semi-automatics with large magazines have only two purposes: target shooting in recognized clubs; mass killing.

You left out shooting competitions. Something in the States that both civilians and law enforcement participate in.

I would disagree.

Thats like saying "the only reason to buy a Ferrari is so you can do 200MPH on the local highway."

Truth is, guns are fun (yes I am an American, and I own a AR-15..and no I have never committed a mass killing)

I enjoy going shooting, sport or not, target practice.. or just expending ammo as fast as I can at a target. Or getting my rifle out and target practice at 600yd+.. its just FUN!

No I don't go hunting, (haven't been hunting in years)..

Truth is out of the 400million+ guns we have in the US only a few are used in mass shootings, which is like 0.000002% hardly a reason to ban guns.

P.S. if anyone has any gun questions feel free to ask.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

What you are describing is surrogate masturbation.

[Dewm 177]

What you are describing is surrogate masturbation.

That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard... So if you enjoy something in life its equal to masturbating?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Think about the thrill you get.

[north country dude 202]

What you are describing is surrogate masturbation.

That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard... So if you enjoy something in life its equal to masturbating?

No, ... really?

I enjoy playing SimCity4 and other PC games, reading and writing Science Fiction, going to the movies, and etc in my spare time, ... does that mean I'm actually practicing, ...[gulp] 'surrogate masturbation'?

really?

[Dewm 177]

Think about the thrill you get.

By that logic, masturbating is the same thing as shooting a gun.. .. So should we ban masturbating?

[LexusInfernus 908]

By that logic, masturbating is the same thing as shooting a gun.. .. So should we ban masturbating?

Spilling seed is like killing millions of potential humans So its even deadlier than shooting people with a gun

All joking aside though, comparing shooting guns with masturbation is a little silly to say the least, but even if it is, so what? Its masturbation, big deal. Its not like that is a bad thing.

[Dewm 177]

By that logic, masturbating is the same thing as shooting a gun.. .. So should we ban masturbating?

Spilling seed is like killing millions of potential humans So its even deadlier than shooting people with a gun

All joking aside though, comparing shooting guns with masturbation is a little silly to say the least, but even if it is, so what? Its masturbation, big deal. Its not like that is a bad thing.

Yeah I didn't get moose's point.. maybe he's getting a little to old and senile?

Anyways back on point, I haven't seen any statistics where gun bans actually work to reduce crime..

I have to go out of town quite a bit for work, and I do feel better knowing my wife has a few guns at the house, along with a dog and a security system..

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I admit the approach is a little veering, but I was looking at the idea of joy shots. Just where do these slugs go when you just want to blow your money on ammo?

[Dewm 177]

I admit the approach is a little veering, but I was looking at the idea of joy shots. Just where do these slugs go when you just want to blow your money on ammo?

I go to a gun range that I am a member of, or I shoot at a local gravel pit.

And as far as "blowing my money", I am spending it to have fun, how is that different then spending money to go to the theater?, or buy a video game? or go to the races? spending money on something you enjoy, no matter what it is.

And honestly your comment shows how little you know about guns,

Neither my riffles nor my pistol have "slugs".. I shoot bullets (there is a difference)

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yeah I didn't get moose's point.. maybe he's getting a little to old and senile?

Anyways back on point, I haven't seen any statistics where gun bans actually work to reduce crime..

I have to go out of town quite a bit for work, and I do feel better knowing my wife has a few guns at the house, along with a dog and a security system..

Just look at pretty much every other developed country in the world. The US has an extremely high homicide and Ive posted links to four Harvard studies that show that more guns = higher homicide rate.

On top of that, the US has like the highest prison population from all the developed countries, so apparently guns are not much of a deterrent. On top of that, if you look at the crime statistics of other crimes, the rates in the US are not significantly better than for example a bunch of European countries. And those countries have strict gun control laws. So despite having guns, the US has similar crime rates as countries that aren't armed to the teeth.

Now why do crime rates increase in cities or areas that have stricter gun control laws? My guess is that it is rather pointless to ban guns in a city or district if it is surrounded by areas where people can still easily buy guns. Essentially you are disarming one part of the country, while the rest remains armed. And with no way to stop the inflow of arms into a city by people who legally buy their gun and then move towards the city, it doesn't surprise me to see an increase in crime. I think the only way for any kind of gun law to have effect is when it gets introduced nation wide.

And no need to start calling people old and senile because they make a point you do not agree with.