The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[MushyMushy 3,617]

People talk about "needing" to feel "safe" by getting a firearm. I don't feel safe with all these guys walking around with handguns strapped to their hips or with shotguns and rifles stashed in the cab of their pickup trucks. If people really, really want guns, how about we give them 18th century muskets like the founding fathers intended? Then they can hunt if they really want to and aren't going to be a complete hazard to society because they're packing a gun that can kill a room of people in one clip. If we have to use something more recent just give these people a rifle that you have to reload after every shot. Civilians do not need any form of high-powered weapon or any weapon that uses a clip. If civilians even get guns at all they should be single-shot manual weapons.

Some people talk about how guns can be "fun" and such. I've fired one once, after a ton of nagging mind you, and found nothing gratifying about it. If something living was in the place of the can I shot at it would have been dead. What's fun about cutting the life of something short - human, animal, whatever? I see absolutely no point to these devices. People say we need them to defend our country. When was the last time a battle caused by a foreign country happened in the US? I'm not even sure. Besides, our army is so pointlessly bloated I don't think we have anything to be scared of.

It should be patently obvious that guns have massively increased violence in this country as well. It's called gun mentality - for some people in this country, guns are the first thing that comes to mind in any situation. The police here have gunned down over 500 people so far in just 2015 alone (6 months), while police in countries like the UK or Japan that have tight gun laws probably kill less than 10 a year (because hey presto! the criminals probably don't have guns!). Civilian gun violence here is comparable to countries in a state of turmoil and civil unrest. In my city alone I hear about at least one person who shot somebody or multiple people every day, sometimes more. Where did we get the idea that more guns = less gun deaths? That has to be one of the most laughable paradoxes I've ever heard.

Just remember it's a lot easier for the dude standing next to you with a gun on his hip to shoot you than it is for some "foreign attacker" (sarcasm) to shoot you.

[Duke87 1,070]

Some people talk about how guns can be "fun" and such. I've fired one once, after a ton of nagging mind you, and found nothing gratifying about it. If something living was in the place of the can I shot at it would have been dead. What's fun about cutting the life of something short - human, animal, whatever? I see absolutely no point to these devices.

No hobby is fun for everyone. I find absolutely nothing gratifying about skiing, but it is something a lot of other people enjoy doing.

As for what's fun about cutting a life short, well, again - different strokes for different folks. Some people take pleasure out of destroying things because it makes them feel powerful. But that doesn't make them bad people. I mean I think explosions are cool and will eagerly be setting off fireworks tomorrow to celebrate 'Murica. But I will also be taking proper safety precautions to ensure no one is hurt. Destruction can be enjoyed responsibly.

Besides, using a gun does not necessarily entail killing anything. I've fired a couple guns but I've only ever shot them at targets on a shooting range. No animals were harmed in the making of that entertainment.

 

Meanwhile...

It should be patently obvious that guns have massively increased violence in this country as well. It's called gun mentality - for some people in this country, guns are the first thing that comes to mind in any situation. The police here have gunned down over 500 people so far in just 2015 alone (6 months), while police in countries like the UK or Japan that have tight gun laws probably kill less than 10 a year (because hey presto! the criminals probably don't have guns!).

This I agree is a problem but it is one caused by lack of proper training and accountability, not by the criminals having guns. There are plenty of cases in the US where someone who does not have a gun or is even outright unarmed gets shot by police. Gun control won't save them unless we also take guns away from the cops.

There was a video several months ago of cops in the UK successfully disarming someone attacking them with a machete by tasing him and then taking him into custody. If that dude had tried the same thing in the US he would have had several clips emptied into him by cops who only know how to eliminate threats by putting bullets in them.

The reason we have so many police shootings is a lack of restraint exercised by the police. A fact that police departments generally don't want to change because they'd rather keep saying "better him than me" than risk their lives to save the life of someone in a confrontation with them.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Also, speaking of the UK or Japan versus the US, gun control is A LOT easier when you're on an island, or even several of them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Also, speaking of the UK or Japan versus the US, gun control is A LOT easier when you're on an island, or even several of them.

America is an island.  An island of jingoistic isolationism in a continent of internationalists.

[hym 358]

Also, speaking of the UK or Japan versus the US, gun control is A LOT easier when you're on an island, or even several of them.

America is an island.  An island of jingoistic isolationism in a continent of internationalists.

Not really. It's an open secret that the Mexican drug gangs are funneling FARC-supplied weapons into the US through the Mexican border.

[CapTon 592]

Also, speaking of the UK or Japan versus the US, gun control is A LOT easier when you're on an island, or even several of them.

America is an island.  An island of jingoistic isolationism in a continent of internationalists.

Not really. It's an open secret that the Mexican drug gangs are funneling FARC-supplied weapons into the US through the Mexican border.

Which the current government chooses to do nothing about. Not only do they perceive that alone as an insignificant issue, but they would much rather have completely open borders and let everyone come right in. National security is something that Mr. Obama could care less about, and as long as no major terrorist attack occurs from any Middle East-based terrorist groups during his presidency and he continues to remind people that Bin Laden was assassinated during his reign (although he had almost nothing to do with it), he won't have to give the issues of illegal immigration the light of day.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Conditions south of the Rio Grande must be terrible indeed for people to risk crossing into the U.S.  Kind of jumping from the frying pan into the fire, IMHO.

[CapTon 592]

Conditions south of the Rio Grande must be terrible indeed for people to risk crossing into the U.S.  Kind of jumping from the frying pan into the fire, IMHO.

Well if I was in their situation, I would want to get out of there as well. And in all honesty, I would probably just cross the border illegally. If the government isn't going to prevent it or even give the slightest hint that they care, I'll feel more than free to walk right in.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Obama admits US gun laws are his 'biggest frustration'

With a year and a half left in his time in office, Obama still hasn't cracked this nut.  Too many knee-jerk people in Congress with minds like steel traps (rusted shut).

[blade2k5 1,523]

You know, it's funny how all gun owners are considered criminal by the loony socialist liberals, but when one says that all islam is corrupt, well we're told that you can't blame all for the actions of few.  Shouldn't the same logic be applied to gun owners instead of this hypocrisy from the loony socialist left?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You know, it's funny how all gun owners are considered criminal by the loony socialist liberals, but when one says that all islam is corrupt, well we're told that you can't blame all for the actions of few.  Shouldn't the same logic be applied to gun owners instead of this hypocrisy from the loony socialist left?

I think the Canadian Mint would tend to argue that the loony is not an instrument of socialism.  It is merely a dollar coin.

As for the rabid anti-gun faction in the U.S., I think the NRA provides a sufficient, if not overwhelming, counter.  Would you call the NRA the fascist right?

  Edited August 9, 2015 by A Nonny Moose  
punctuation.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

You know, it's funny how all gun owners are considered criminal by the loony socialist liberals, but when one says that all islam is corrupt, well we're told that you can't blame all for the actions of few.  Shouldn't the same logic be applied to gun owners instead of this hypocrisy from the loony socialist left?

I think the Canadian Mint would tend to argue that the loony is not an instrument of socialism.  It is merely a dollar coin.

As for the rabid anti-gun faction in the U.S., I think the NRA provides a sufficient, if not overwhelming, counter.  Would you call the NRA the fascist right?

Lol, loony - good one Nonny. Some Canadian humor for ya blade2k5.

What makes the NRA fascist?

A lot of liberals are admitted socialists - nothing controversial about calling them that.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If gun haters are the socialist left, then it follows as the night the day, the NRA must be the fascist right.  Of course, considering the references in America, fascism is not nearly as bad as socialism considering the continued existence of the KKK and other right wing tip organizations.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

If gun haters are the socialist left, then it follows as the night the day, the NRA must be the fascist right.  Of course, considering the references in America, fascism is not nearly as bad as socialism considering the continued existence of the KKK and other right wing tip organizations.

Can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

Your statement doesn't really follow at all. Many anti-gun advocates are left-wing socialists, just a fact. If gun haters are the socialist left, then the NRA is the capitalist right.

Fascism isn't the opposite of socialism. They are not diametrically opposing world views. Remember that the Nazi's considered themselves to be National Socialists. You can have fascist socialists and fascist communists. Both the right and left are capable of it.

Just because the KKK exists doesn't mean Americans accept the philosophy of fascism. Fascism is considered way worse than socialism in the United States.

  Edited August 9, 2015 by MilitantRadical  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I am being a bit of a gadfly.  With such a large target as America, it is easy to find warts. 

The confusion between left and right political scene was very muddled by Joe McCarthy and his sidekick Tricky Dick (Nixon was McCarthy's chief counsel), and all this communist scare still echoes in the American psyche.  Too bad you didn't have a similar scare over the German-American Bund.

Also, there is too much "patriotism" in America.  Why recite the Pledge of Allegiance all the time?  What are you afraid of? Do you think people will forget what country they are in?  This is, in fact, a form of brain washing, and it really should be discontinued.  The last country that was so blatantly "patriotic" was the Third Reich. 

A true patriot quietly lives his life, but will defend his country with all force when called upon.  He doesn't need to make a vocal display at the drop of a hat.  Watch out for us, Beavers fight like polar bears when cornered.

BTW, you've even got your colours wrong.  Red is Liberal, Blue is Conservative.  If you are going to steal from us, you should get it right.  And we, of course, have the Orange, Green, Gray, and Light Blue (BQ ex Conservative).  Bipartisan political systems are almost as good a target as single party ones.  How can you decide to vote between the party of sweetness and light and the party of light and sweetness?

[LexusInfernus 908]

If gun haters are the socialist left, then it follows as the night the day, the NRA must be the fascist right.  Of course, considering the references in America, fascism is not nearly as bad as socialism considering the continued existence of the KKK and other right wing tip organizations.

That would mean that Fascism is the logical extreme of right wing thinking, like socialism is the logical extreme of left wing thinking. Of course, neither is true. You can be extremely right wing and be nothing like a fascist at all. For example, 'modern' libertarians can be extremely right wing in their paranoia about the government, their support for absolute individual freedom and their religious reverence for the invisible hand of the market as the supreme (moral) guiding force of society. Fascists are right wing in as much that they absolutely despise everything liberalism stands for. Individual freedom, womens rights, gay rights and minority rights, pacifism, multiculturalism etc, those are all things a Fascist would have nightmares about. They love big governments, in fact they love the government so much that their entire ideology is about how the individual exists solely for the government. In that sense, libertarians and fascists have completely opposite views and yet they are both considered to be the right wing. 

On the left wing we got socialists or communists, who are again subdivided into Marxists, Communists, Stalinists, Juche, etc. And each of those varies from each other in a lot of ways. At the same time there are also the anarchists, who are just as left wing as the guys described above, but are again different in that they view the government as a tool of oppression and seek a society that has no government.

tl;dr Fascism and socialism are not the logical opposites of each other. The left-right spectrum doesn't work like that. Also, the NRA is definitely not fascist given how it believes in a limited government. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Use of extremes gets attention, eh what?  The political spectrum is like a colour wheel.  It has many shades of colour from red (communist) to black (anarchist) and lots of greys, and pinks.  And you have all kinds of colours in between including the red and blue weenies in the American dual parties.

Until everything settles down to the centre of all this, we will continue to have conflicts of varying degrees.  It will probably take a war of extinction to put paid to all this nonsense.  As a predator (built-in), man will never agree with himself.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Yet another gun killing.

A history professor.  Bet he gave his killer a bad mark.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yet another gun killing.

A history professor.  Bet he gave his killer a bad mark.

Unlikely given that the suspect is a professor in Geography. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Clearly a personal conflict.  Someone was poaching in someone else's pasture.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Clearly a personal conflict.  Someone was poaching in someone else's pasture.

Yeah I heard police speculated that the shooters wife/girlfriend was romantically involved with the victim. Its why the shooter is also the suspect in the murder of said wife/girlfriend.

  Edited September 15, 2015 by LexusInfernus  

[Sabretooth78 808]

Personally, I think this uptick in gun violence (or in all reality it's probably just more over-sensationalization by the media) is more of a perverse manifestation of the ever-growing entitlement mentality in this country combined with the other ever-growing need of instant gratification.  The argument over gun rights is almost nothing more than just a straw man to get people riled up (rather than examining themselves).  IMHO, the NRA is just another bought off government shill that abandoned its everyday members a long time ago - think of an analog to OPEC - they talk with bluster and rhetoric but at the end of the day they haven't been relevant in a very long time.

That the nanny state which has nurtured the entitlement mentality now wants to take the guns away is just a nice dose of irony.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, I am getting rather old and now have a rather long perspective.  The points about the entitlements and the nanny state are well taken.  This has grown from a set of self-reliant people into this pitiful dependency in just a few years starting in about 1946, IMHO.  Too much 'America the beautiful' propaganda and not enough remembering of just what JFK said about 'what you can do for your country'.

The general political hang-up in the U.S. has happened because the sheeple have forgotten that there are issues to be solved when you go to the ballot box, not just adherence to the old party line.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A Derringer for Soccer Moms?

And speaking of concealed carry, how does this little gem sit with us?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Concealed carry is one thing, carelessness is another.

Have Americans become so blasé about firearms that they don't take precautions to prevent this sort of thing?  Killings by toddlers is getting to be routine.  People don't keep rattlesnakes as pets much, do they?

[SteveMSim 275]

I know it has been quiet without Nonny Moose, but nobody has brought up the nightclub massacre in Orlando Florida, which at least 50 are dead, yet.  This is the worst gun-related mass murder in U.S. history.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/

[MushyMushy 3,617]

It was also committed with an AR-15, the same semi-automatic assault rifle used in other major killings such as Sandy Hook. I wonder what rubbish the NRA will come up with this time to make it out like it's the victims' fault. Interestingly, L.A. Police intercepted a man today who said he was on his way to the Pride festival that was happening in the city. His car was filled with guns, ammo, and some materials that can be used to make pipe bombs.

I've read something that quoted a federal law enforcement official that said that it was probably a "mass hate crime" instead of an act of foreign terrorism. Someone told me that they read that the killer's wife said that he was abusive and enraged because he saw a gay couple kiss in public, or something like that.

[jmsepe 2,038]

Does that even matter? The issue here is that there is lack of regulation in guns in the country. Whether it is a hate crime, an act of terrorism or a lunatic running wild, these things could have been avoided if only congress is willing to work on making gun control stricter. 

[MushyMushy 3,617]

Of course banning, or at least tightly regulating (and banning certain kinds) of guns is the best route. Big fans of guns will always turn to the same arguments, like cars or knives, but they aren't valid.

A person could not physically stab 103 people (50 killed, 53 injured) with a knife or a sword, because people would be running away and there might be some who would try (and successfully) overpower the attacker. I also find it highly unlikely that somebody could run down 103 people with a car, as people could dodge the car or duck into buildings for safety.

The problem here is guns. Since I know it would likely be impossible to push legislation through in the US to ban guns, there should at least be more restrictions on type. To people I know that do own guns (for the sake of hunting, I guess), the argument I've always made is that if you're using firearms for hunting, why do you need a pistol that can be fired multiple times in one clip? Or an assault rifle like the AR-15? If you really are hunting, you need to get it right on the first shot, or else the animal will run away. Handguns were designed with killing people in mind. Assault rifles were designed for military use and are for killing a lot of people very quickly. Civilians do not need weapons specifically designed to kill people. So what I've said to these people who will not listen to the idea of banning all of the guns, why can't we just limit the sale to long guns that have to be reloaded after every shot. It would be pretty difficult to shoot 103 people with a gun of that sort, because you'd get tackled while trying to reload it. Personally I'd like to see them all banned, but if we could manage that much I'd be satisfied.

Another argument gun supporters make is that if guns are banned "criminals will get them off the black market or something." This is bogus. A comedian I watched (I forget what country he's from) said that in his country guns are banned. He said that according to officials who looked into it that black market guns there started in the tens of thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that most criminals are very poor, I don't think they'd be able to buy guns.

I'm hoping some legislation will happen as a result of this horrific shooting, but judging by our nation's reaction to past shootings, I doubt that will happen.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Good luck banning guns or placing extremely prohibitive restrictions

America's history of banning stuff has never gone well... Prohibition... The war on drugs... Why oh why does everyone forget this when there is talk about banning guns? It has historically never worked because the government was banning something people WANTED. And the end result was further crime and the very thing which happened which the people who supported the ban wanted to curb. That is the 800 pound gorilla in the room of the ban guns movement which will not budge, a prohibition will run counter to everything they believe that banning guns will supposedly achieve.

The last thing the US needs to do is give the gangsters, the criminals and the mafias massive room to expand by making guns illegal. In fact if guns were made illegal there would be further massacres, a surge in crime and boom times for the black market.

With each high profile massacre there is a rush to buy more guns in America. I'm surprised there aren't more massacres but it seems only the crazy people do these massacres and this makes me wonder about the medication they are on and why anyone wanting to buy a gun does not have a medical history check. It's always the same story- people's minds already messed up, further messed up on medication and are just functional enough to do something as terrible as a massacre like this.

Also it does not really matter if a country outlaws guns, in Europe there is a huge illegal gun market and mafias to boot who sell these weapons. It was probably how the terrorists who have attacked Paris and France got their mitts on the guns.

The root cause of this is crime and not getting on top of mental issues. Guns and America are going to be around for 100s of years. So will the yearly massacre unfortunately, there are simply too many guns and barring a complete societal change from all groups in America, then guns will remain no matter how loud the outcry becomes. Taking the guns away could become extremely divisive and an absolute nightmare for the police and even the military, think the Bundy Ranch standoff and that was an issue about cattle and land or something. Trying to neuter the 2nd Amendment may yield in 100s of standoffs.

Seriously getting rid of all the guns or placing extremely prohibitive restrictions is not the magic bullet, gun culture is a good portion of American culture for many tens of millions of people. A ban would be perceived by them as a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment and I see a small minority who won't go quietly into the night if such a thing were to happen.

But I think the most incredible thing is that despite all the news and the high-profile massacres, the US homicide rate is only I think five or six times greater than that of the UK, and most of those deaths in the US are gang/crime related, accidents and suicides.

Let's not forget that in general violent crime in the US has been steadily decreasing over the past forty years, but massacres have been increasing since the 1990s. And of course cars, alcohol, smoking, obesity and drugs/medication still kill way more people than gun related homicide ever will. So all in all why ban guns if violent crime is decreasing?

Also to people who passionately dislike guns, if you live in the US, if your home was attacked and you survived, would you still believe in not having a gun when with a gun you would have stopped the attacker in his tracks? When there is real danger, if the worst would happen, if you had some statistically bad luck, would you still believe in not having a gun?

Personally, though I'm British, I would get myself a handgun if I were living in the US. It's a responsibility yes, but there's a modicum of peace of mind.