The God Damned Gun Control Thread

[haasd0gg]

Show me then, crater, a government which disarmed its people that didn't suck. Hitlers name isn't the only one that comes to mind. The association isn't a fallacy. Reducing the peoples firepower reduces the resistance.

[Darth Crater]

"Only bad governments would disarm their citizens" is an argument. "Disarming citizens is bad because the Nazis did it" is a fallacy.

Of course, the Nazis didn't actually pass new disarmament or registration laws for five years. They simply used the ones already passed by the Weimar Republic. Exercising the power that the people of Germany willingly voted to give them. Still, I accept that bad governments want to disarm their citizens. I simply don't agree that only bad governments want to do so, or that guns are an effective means of keeping bad governments out of power in a country like the modern US.

While we're on the subject of Germany, its modern-day government has a largely disarmed populace, yet doesn't seem to "suck".

------

This bit is not intended as argument or support for any position. I just found this interesting paper about the "gun control - Nazis" argument while writing this post, and figured I'd share it: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

[Col. Hstar]

Time for me to throw in my opinion. I've seen quite a few arguments in the last few threads about this, some made me laugh others puzzled me. Unfortunately I doubt there is any real satisfactory answer that can be found. First off I'll make my personal stance clear. I don't care for guns. I've never held one, I doubt I ever will, nor do I want to. I do have friends who go on hunting trips and my Grandparents had rifles but I've never had an interest in them. Guns have uses in certain settings, guns can be used safely, the same as a car can be used safely.

As far as assault rifles go, I can't see the appeal of them. I can't see the need for them. but that's simply my opinion. What I would like to know is why would anyone need a clip that carries 30 or more rounds. The news mentions that the guy who hit the theater in Colorado had clips carrying 100 rounds or more. What normal, legal use is there that requires 100+ rounds. Yet you can by an assault rifle at the nearest Wal-mart and go online for larger clips. IMO assault rifles should be banned, at the very least mechanisms that allow a person to carry more then 25 rounds should be outlawed. There might be ways to modify it yourself (I'm not an expert so I don't know) but it should still be against the law none the less to be caught with one in your possession. Just like a Porsche 911 is really cool to have, you can't modify it to outrun police cars.

That being said banning all guns is never going to happen in the US. There are more guns in the US then pets. Someone saying that the answer to gun control is to have none of them like Japan, or very few of them is as silly as saying guns are needed in case the US gets attacked by a force traveling over the north pole. There is absolutely no way to enforce this given that criminals would never voluntarily surrender their own weapons.

Gun violence is not an issue about access to guns, it's a social one. Violence is around us no matter what weapons are available. Granted guns are more destructive which is why I say that things like assault riffles are unnecessary, but as said before, having no guns is not a reachable goal. The better issue to debate would be how can violence be controlled and stopped? Is it within the power of a government to stop violence. What factors contribute to someone developing violent tendencies? Everyone here enjoys playing SWBF, a war game that promotes shooting and blowing up other players. I doubt that a game like this can contribute as much as other more realistic games but it's just an example. Movies, games, music they all can promote violence and not everyone who listens to or watches these become violent, but it can be a factor. So the bigger question should be, what can be done about violence?

[WD-40]

I believe the point was not that ONLY bad Governments want to take away your guns, but that by people 'owning' guns and having the right to bear them helps keep good governments FROM going bad...To keep them in-check. A Government SHOULD fear the People, because they represent the Peoples interest due being elected by The People. If the majority of the 'legitimate' People want to change Laws, well, bring it. We dont change them because some Congressional leaders or the Prez grabs an 'opportunity' of impassioned anger to push personal or Party Agendas. thats just stupid and irresponsible! And that's exactly what we're seeing today.

And I don't believe our government is bad either. I feel that it has lost it's way and direction from making responsible decisions on both sides. I think there's no denying that certain self-empowering actions have taken place just in the past few years by the Executive Branch alone, and THAT has many gun owners concerned because it shows a trend toward the threat of Constitutional Rights being taken away, and a Supreme Court that appears willing to let the White House do what it wants. It's obvious what Obama says and what he does can be two different things. He has agendas, and the People don't know what his ultimate goal is going to be until its too late to do anything about it.

Gun Laws as Haas said are followed by 'Law abiding' citizens...not whacks and Felons. The government needs to enforce the Laws that are in place for better checks and balances. Making assault rifles with big clips illegal is NOT going to change a thing except for the price of the weapon. Like alcohol during Prohibition, it will always be available, and there will always be people to make it or ship it in. If there's money to be made, it will happen.

Regarding the North Pole, our biggest threats are who? Hmmmm...China, Russia, North Korea and Iran come to mind. They are located where?....Hmmmmm....the other side of the Planet the last I checked. If they were to launch anything from 'land' for an airborne assault (ballistic missiles included), from which direction would you figure would afford them the shortest direction for fuel burn and surprise? Think about that.

As a Jet Pilot, I recently HAD to fly a mission 'requiring no fuel stop' from Denmark to Los Angeles because of what we were carrying. Look at a globe, and tell me the route 'you' would take limiting yourself to 5,000 nautical miles of fuel without stopping to refuel en route.

(Hint: I had to fly way north of Iceland en route and got a great view of the 'Northern Lights'. Yes, modern technology allows us to fly directly over the North Pole if we 'had' to, and No, I did not have to fly directly over the Pole.)

So you college aged book worm worms who have no military or aviation experience 'presuming' you know everything because you read it in a book or on line can just consider that academia is no substitute for 'actual experience'. Keep in mind, that I agree it would not be in Chinas or Russia's interest to attack us in any way short of Nuclear Threat toward them. Remember, I was using Hypotheticals for the gun point regarding the Fore Fathers to spar with Crater. But North Korea and Iran are just whacky enough to lob missiles at anyone.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

By and large, I don't support many more laws restricting access to guns. I don't think that a lack of guns on the market will reduce crime or these shootings, rather a shift in the culture needs to occur. Gun ownership and the right to this ownership were established in a time where the armed forces were weak, where the government was weak, and today, having these guns in no way allows you to protect yourself from the government, which has multiple battleships, aeroplanes, tanks, and explosives. It's a placebo, and that's the only reason the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire.

[CommanderOtto]

I read somewhere that the kid from Sandy Hook played call of duty in his windowless basement all day long, 7 days a week.... i'm sure that also had something to do. It is not the cause but I guess it was a factor that influenced him.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

The Constitution is outdated. It was literally written in a time when wars were fought with musket blocks and horse-drawn cannons. That's why it's designed to be amended - to remove bad or irrelevant laws and add new ones. And in the age of tanks, air support, and over-the-horizon warfare, civilians with rifles are irrelevant.

It's not outdated and I find it laughable that anyone thinks that it is. I challenge anyone in our current times to write a piece of legislation as well thought out and simple as the Constitution is and to have it last for 200+ years. Every piece of legislation we pass these days is a bloated waste of time that generally ends up with a ton of loopholes. The people in DC are clowns and we let them stay there for as long as they please because we treat elections like a high school popularity contest. But back on task here, if there is a piece of the Constitution we don't like, then by all means, get it changed. The means to do so are there.

MD - I'm probably going to regret asking this, but who do you think is "invading" us?

We're being "invaded" by those who have no regard for our Constitution. They are succeeding because we are a complacent, all inclusive society that doesn't know when or how to control this "invasion". It's funny, because as violent as we are made out to be, the US is one of the nicest and most giving countries in the world.

Do I maintain my weapons for an "invasion" of the US?? lol, no. I have and keep weapons for the safety of myself and my family. I DO NOT own any "assault" rifles but I will as time goes by, it's just not been a priority. Banning a style of rifle is ridiculous and stupid and lands us on a slippery slope that will only end in black market weapons and making lawbreakers out of law abiding citizens and the government will have no control over it. As it stands right now, the government generally knows who has what and where. There are enough laws in place already. The problem is that we enforce the laws we have but then release the offenders too quickly because A) we don't have the room to hold them, B) we don't have the funds to hold them or C) we don't have the intestinal fortitude to hold them. There is no effective rehab for someone who doesn't want rehab. Whatever the case, they are back on the street in no time and we start all over.

Crater, there are parts of our society that are a lot more violent than the others. Why is that and what is your solution for it? Or do you not agree with that and believe we are all equally violent? If so then what? Should we restrict Hollywood? Burn books? Let the White House write our newspaper? Kill everyone at Fox News? Kill all the crazies? Besides "gun control" what are your ideas?

[[m'kay]]

I read somewhere that the kid from Sandy Hook played call of duty in his windowless basement all day long, 7 days a week.... i'm sure that also had something to do. It is not the cause but I guess it was a factor that influenced him.

Yes, it was certainly the fact that he played Call of Duty, not that he locked himself in a windowless basement for 7 days a week. The factor isn't Call of Duty, it's the ridiculous amount of isolation and depression.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

I read somewhere that the kid from Sandy Hook played call of duty in his windowless basement all day long, 7 days a week.... i'm sure that also had something to do. It is not the cause but I guess it was a factor that influenced him.

He had mental health issues that were not being sufficiently addressed and it sounds like the mom was out of options other than having him unwillfully committed. Hence the kid flipped out and did what he did. As the facts stand now I fault the mom for not keeping her firearms properly stored.

[CommanderOtto]

I think the only thing obama can do for now, that will not cause major protests around the States is....

to add a mental health test as a requirement to owning a weapon (everyone in the same household included). That way situations where the mother is ok but the kid is a maniac... these people won't get access to dangerous things like this.

this way no one will complain about gun control I guess. No guns were banned. Everyone is still allowed to own bazuka sized weapons... but you take it away from imbeciles with mental health issues (no er how small they are). I mean, no one can get angry about that right? It's a reasonable precaution.