# Maryland assault weapons ban upheld in federal court



## Explorer (Aug 12, 2014)

A federal judge on Tuesday upheld Maryland&#8217;s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.



> The law banning the guns, which was passed in May 2013, was challenged in court by a group of nine plaintiffs including gun stores, gun ownership organizations, and individuals.
> 
> &#8220;Upon review of all the parties&#8217; evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right,&#8221; U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake wrote.
> 
> ...


Now this is interesting. It doesn't actually infringe on someone's right to bear arms, but does put restrictions on what arms can be owned.

----

My friend who invited me to join in a Second Amendment rally didn't like that I was making a case for the average citizen to own chemical and biological weapons... nor did he like that gun rights advocates were arguing that the state had a legitimate interest in keeping such weapons out of the hands of citizens, the Second Amendment notwithstanding. 

It was a pretty commonsense argument from the gun rights advocates, to stand against the thought that the right to bear arms means any and all armaments should be allowed. 

It's interesting to see that reasoning being used to draw lines on what should be allowed. Once you introduce that governmental interest in limiting certain behaviors (like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater), that's when you can have discussions about where the lines should be drawn. 

So, should citizens be allowed to have any weapons, including assault weapons, as well as chemical and biological weapons? (Remember, the Second Amendment didn't specify only firearms.)

Or can limits be put in place?


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Aug 12, 2014)

I think it's pretty silly people ever thought they'd need these types of guns to protect their homes in the first place, it always seems the people who own these types of weapons regard them as toys rather than deadly weapons? 

Is there anyone who really thinks they should have the right to chemical and biological weapons? That's insane if there is, obviously the second amendment could of never predicted the types of firearms that exist today let alone the chemical/biological weapons that would appear to be magic to people from that time...so no, average people should never have access to these weapons.

I think if the founding fathers had the chance to start America in the present day they would of been much more specific about what weapons you have the right to protect yourself with, if they would of even allowed weapons in the first place. which is why these amendments should be revised more often to fit the modern society's problems.


----------



## MFB (Aug 12, 2014)

I'm perfectly OK with this. While my dad owned an AR-15 in his time as well as a pretty bitchin' shotgun, I was always more fond of his handgun collection that he had (and that I learned to shoot on.) Smaller, more easily hidden around the home for safety, etc... 

Not to open a can of worms, but how many shootings happen with assault weapons vs. handguns? Assault rifles, in my opinion (obviously), should be accessible to military personnel who've had the handling to own them and that's it.


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Aug 12, 2014)

I wont feel safe in my house in a court up a hill in the 'burbs unless I got my mustard gas..

The Constitution. Screwed and abused like the bible.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 13, 2014)

What I found really useful at that time, and have continued to use since, is that no one really wants to argue for absolutely no limits on the Second Amendment. it's when you get folks, even hardcore gun enthusiasts, to admit that there are some things which should be off the table that a true dialogue can happen, without devolving into Charlton Heston's "cold dead fingers!" like at that rally he threw in that town right after that young child was killed.


----------



## McKay (Aug 17, 2014)

If anyone thinks assault weapons are the same thing as assault rifles rather than a largely aesthetic differentiation created by the anti-gun lobby to play on the ignorance of the well-meaning masses..

They're not.


----------



## MassNecrophagia (Aug 18, 2014)

Does common sense need to be federally mandated?

Drawing a parallel between AR-15s and chemical/biological weapons comes off as facetious. 

An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. 

I don't understand how people are convinced that banning something's use over it's aesthetic isn't insane. If they were to say "Let's ban semi-automatic firearms because 95% of shootings are committed by these types of weapons" it would make absolute sense. Would more people disagree with them? Yes. Saying "This gun has a pistol grip, it's more likely to be used to kill someone" or "This magazine has a paddle, so it's easier to detach with one hand. This gun is a killing machine!" is, essentially, all they're doing.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Aug 18, 2014)

I don't really care if people have them, but if anyone thinks they're gonna defend themselves against a government with drones and hellfire missiles with a bushmaster from wal mart, they are hilariously mistaken.


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 18, 2014)

Explorer said:


> What I found really useful at that time, and have continued to use since, is that no one really wants to argue for absolutely no limits on the Second Amendment. it's when you get folks, even hardcore gun enthusiasts, to admit that there are some things which should be off the table that a true dialogue can happen, without devolving into Charlton Heston's "cold dead fingers!" like at that rally he threw in that town right after that young child was killed.



I think it is quite clear that the amendment as written allows absolutely no room for any kind of limits.

The only legitimate way to institute limits is to change the language of the amendment *and that is exactly what needs to happen*. Anything else just continues down the dangerous path of using the Constitution as a set of guidelines rather than actual laws.

It does not get any clearer than "shall not be infringed."

The first step to fixing this mess is in admitting that the 2nd Amendment is not a reasonable law anymore. Private citizens absolutely should not have unlimited rights to bear arms. All it takes is one example to make that clear: Nuclear weapons - according to the 2nd Amendment we all have the right to keep and bear them. That is insane.


----------



## Rosal76 (Aug 18, 2014)

People feel safe when gun laws are passed and enforced. They shouldn't because guns laws are laws that criminals don't follow. Criminals aren't going to care if the state they live in is going to ban fully-automatic firearms with 30 round clips or whatever because they are going to get them, one way or the other, and use them.

Anti-type advocates like to blame and ban everything. First it was guns, then is was heavy metal, then it was drugs, then it was Beavis and Butthead and t.v. shows and movies, etc, etc, etc. They just can't blame the person/people who committed the crime.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 18, 2014)

Guns that criminals get a hold of were legal once. They were bought from a shady store, sold by a guy who filed it as stolen, stolen from someone who didn't store it properly or maybe just went to a gun show and bought it. They don't appear out of thin air. Getting rid of them now that they are already in the black market is a whole other thing though.


----------



## Rosal76 (Aug 18, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Guns that criminals get a hold of were legal once. They were bought from a shady store, sold by a guy who filed it as stolen, stolen from someone who didn't store it properly or maybe just went to a gun show and bought it.



That's what I meant but not fully explained in my first post.



Rosal76 said:


> ... because they are going to get them, one way or the other, and use them.


----------



## Randy (Aug 18, 2014)

MassNecrophagia said:


> Does common sense need to be federally mandated?
> 
> Drawing a parallel between AR-15s and chemical/biological weapons comes off as facetious.
> 
> ...



Article:


> Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.



So lack of 'select-fire' is the thing that makes an AR-15 not an assault rifle. I don't know guns... how difficult is it to modify an AR-15 to make it select fire capable? Is this a common modification? Is there any outward change to the appearance to the rifle that makes it obvious to authorities or bystanders that the gun has been modified in such a way?


I agree with you, with regard to most of these laws being arbitrary. 

I've got a slightly different take on things (I think), in that, they're targeting specific guns that AREN'T used in the majority of crimes. What's unsaid here is that the bulk of violent crimes involving guns usually involve gang/drug activity, and they're typically pistols (since they can be easily concealed). The unfortunate issue is that things like "Sandy Hook" are the big news items that prompt legislation, whereas everyday, inner city type murder is apparently not worthy of legislating against.

As for the targeting of assault weapons, I believe the idea is that the legislation is less about targeting the most frequently used weapons, and specifically banning weapons that excel at killing large groups of people indiscriminately. As I said, I don't know guns so I have no idea how good or bad an AR-15 or other banned weapons are at doing such a thing, but if the goal is to specifically eliminate guns that do that, and those guns do that, then it's not completely off base.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 18, 2014)

Rosal76 said:


> That's what I meant but not fully explained in my first post.



Yes, but regulating those point of entries could minimize the number that enter the black market in the long run. Just because weapons exist in the black market already doesn't mean we should just give up entirely. It's a battle that can eventually be won, especially since the type of weapon criminals use tend to be cheap crap anyhow. Regulation isn't the same as banning either. Even for the 'banned' items you can still get them through special permits and fees I believe.

If there was better regulation on storage requirements, stricter penalties for improper sales, mandated mental and criminal background checks on any sale of a weapon (private or commercial), limiting sales based on household mental health and background criminal status as well (in case you happen to live with a nutter), better background checks at gun shows, etc. across the entire nation and it was properly enforced we would see things diminish over time. As it is we have laws that simply aren't enforced in some cases, and poorly enforced in others, as well as a complete lack of consistency across the states. Can't buy a weapon in your state? Just drive to the next state over where regulation is practically non-existent and pick one up. Kind of a 'united we stand, divided we fall' type of thing and right now we are a very divided nation.

Also, I'd like to note that advocating a ban on a weapon does not even kind of imply that they don't also blame the shooter. They are just hoping to rid them of their weapon of choice in the hopes of minimizing future instances by other individuals. It may be misguided, but they aren't stupid. They are well aware of who pulled the trigger.


----------



## Necris (Aug 18, 2014)

- AR15.Com
As stated in the article there are ways to convert an AR-15 to be fully automatic, however the parts to do it have to be registered and made before a certain date, they're very, very expensive, up to $20k or more. The "Lightning Link" mentioned in the article is also very expensive to get legally, however, if a person were willing to risk the heavy fines and jail time they could try to make one on their own. You can even find detailed plans to build your own online.
(I'm probably on some government watch list now for even opening the page that contained them.   )

To my knowledge if someone went the legal route, or found a way to make the weapon capable of full auto fire on their own most bystanders wouldn't be able to tell the difference and even law enforcement officers probably wouldn't be able to tell without inspecting it up close.


----------



## ghostred7 (Aug 18, 2014)

Randy said:


> Article:
> 
> 
> So lack of 'select-fire' is the thing that makes an AR-15 not an assault rifle. I don't know guns... how difficult is it to modify an AR-15 to make it select fire capable? Is this a common modification? Is there any outward change to the appearance to the rifle that makes it obvious to authorities or bystanders that the gun has been modified in such a way?
> ...



It *can* be modified to do it, but not safely. Hell... M16/AR-15 have enough problems with jamming with frequent use as-designed. Modified trigger mechanism, bolt, etc will cause potential for damage. ANYTHING can be modified...whether or not it'll blow up in your face is completely up to the individual doing the mod and his/her skill level. As for banning weapons that "can kill a large group of people," ....in the right hands, that's pretty much any semi-automatic made. Magazine capacity only reduces time-used of the weapon by maybe 5-10 seconds at most. You can buy the 10rd mags at surplus stores all day long...and as they're smaller and not curved like the 30rd mags, one can carry a LOT more on their person.


----------



## Shimme (Aug 18, 2014)

Necris said:


> - AR15.Com(I'm probably on some government watch list now for even opening the page that contained them.   )



Most people on the internet are eligible to be on a watchlist.

Edward Snowden was a frequent poster on Ars Technica, and so am I. Three degrees of separation yo


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 18, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> I think it is quite clear that the amendment as written allows absolutely no room for any kind of limits.
> 
> The only legitimate way to institute limits is to change the language of the amendment *and that is exactly what needs to happen*. Anything else just continues down the dangerous path of using the Constitution as a set of guidelines rather than actual laws.
> 
> ...



Every "right" has its own limitations. The right to free speech is limited by "fighting words" and defamation, for instance, or the famous "yelling 'fire' in a movie theater."

Indeed, following standard statutory principles of interpretation, the Second Amendment's wording is a bit of a cluster.... as it correlates the "well-regulated militia" with the "right to keep and bear arms." There's a lot of ambiguity in that statement, and ambiguity leaves plenty of room for statutory interpretation.

Plus, anyone who's looked at constitutional law since Marbury v. Madison treats the Constitution as the law of the land, but finds plenty of room to interpret those deliberately vague pronunciations to support all manner of laws and principles far beyond the purview of the original document.


----------



## Choop (Aug 18, 2014)

Randy said:


> Article:
> 
> 
> So lack of 'select-fire' is the thing that makes an AR-15 not an assault rifle. I don't know guns... how difficult is it to modify an AR-15 to make it select fire capable? Is this a common modification? Is there any outward change to the appearance to the rifle that makes it obvious to authorities or bystanders that the gun has been modified in such a way?
> ...



I'm not sure how easy it would be to modify an AR for full-auto functionality, but AFAIK most of the crimes involving an AR that have been in the news in the last few years involved the regular semi-auto variety. 

You're totally right though (or at least I agree) that things like ARs are being focused on not because of how frequently they're used in crime, but because when they are involved in a crime it's often a really big thing that affects many people, gets lots of media, etc. One problem is that aesthetics often get focused on when referring to a weapon as an "assault weapon" when the real problem is the combo of semi-auto fire with high capacity magazines. Many semi-auto rifles, even a large number that have straight wood stocks and look like hunting rifles, have the option to insert a high capacity magazine and it's really not much different from an AR. One solution could be to restrict the sale of high cap mags, but even so mags would be way easier to circulate illegally than weapons.

I'm pretty torn on the subject myself. I like guns, and I respect the right to own and use them under the right circumstances, but it's becoming increasingly obvious in this country that many others don't respect that right (talking about people who go on shooting sprees, here, or just any criminal activity).


----------



## asher (Aug 18, 2014)

Not to mention the incredible number of fatal accidents out of sheer stupidity.


----------



## Choop (Aug 18, 2014)

asher said:


> Not to mention the incredible number of fatal accidents out of sheer stupidity.



Yeah definitely. Proper education and caution should come with owning a firearm, and are things that many gun owners tend to ignore, sadly.


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 18, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> Every "right" has its own limitations. The right to free speech is limited by "fighting words" and defamation, for instance, or the famous "yelling 'fire' in a movie theater."
> 
> Indeed, following standard statutory principles of interpretation, the Second Amendment's wording is a bit of a cluster.... as it correlates the "well-regulated militia" with the "right to keep and bear arms." There's a lot of ambiguity in that statement, and ambiguity leaves plenty of room for statutory interpretation.
> 
> Plus, anyone who's looked at constitutional law since Marbury v. Madison treats the Constitution as the law of the land, but finds plenty of room to interpret those deliberately vague pronunciations to support all manner of laws and principles far beyond the purview of the original document.



There is still no room for any kind of restriction based on the type of weapon.

It has one word to categorize ALL weapons: arms.

The militias of the time had all of the exact same weapons as the official soldiers. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there was an intent to separate "military" arms from "civilian" arms.

The 2nd Amendment very clearly allows all of us to have nukes in our basement.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 18, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> There is still no room for any kind of restriction based on the type of weapon.
> 
> It has one word to categorize ALL weapons: arms.
> 
> ...



Justice Scalia (hardly a voice advocating for gun control, and one of the staunchest "originalists" on the Court advocating for a strict original interpretation of the Constitution) said the following in District of Columbia v. Heller:



> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 18, 2014)

Troy, I agree that the wording of the 1st and 2nd Amendments have no limits in their wording to allow for compelling governmental interest to place limits on them. However, that doesn't mean that US law hasn't evolved to deal with things the Constitution's framers hadn't considered. (After all... there's no section of the Constitution which deals with having sex in public, which could definitely be considered a form of expression.)

The reason I take the "no limit!" stance when I'm in a group of strict 2nd Amendment interpretationists is because most of them are willing to accept that freedom of speech can have reasonable limits put on it, and that they don't want terrorists (domestic or on visas) having access to certain weapons on US soil. It gets even more interesting when conversation turns to making weapons like explosives from raw materials, where they think the government has a right to protect against someone gathering those materials without scrutiny... while at the same time arguing that there should be no scrutiny of weapons purchases. It's an inconsistent rabbit hole.


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 18, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Troy, I agree that the wording of the 1st and 2nd Amendments have no limits in their wording to allow for compelling governmental interest to place limits on them. However, that doesn't mean that US law hasn't evolved to deal with things the Constitution's framers hadn't considered. (After all... there's no section of the Constitution which deals with having sex in public, which could definitely be considered a form of expression.)



This is not an analogous situation. There is no section of the Constitution saying that "The right of the people to have sex in public shall not be infringed."

The Constitution can be amended - if the law is to change that is what needs to happen. The more we ignore it and make up our own interpretations without actually changing the document itself to reflect reality, the less we can rely on any of it.


----------



## McKay (Aug 18, 2014)

Why not allow gun ownership but push for better background checks? A lot of mass shootings are the result of negligent parents (which is an inevitability to a degree, but I'm sure steps can be taken) or allowing people with psychological issues to own/have access to weapons. As has been noted, the overwhelming majority of gun crime in the US happens in urban areas, with handguns, and is largely endemic to gangs. However I've seen statistics which show that handguns prevent a lot of crime in the US, so it's a tricky situation. Personally I think people should be entitled to ranged tasers and should be able to use them if threatened, that seems like a happy compromise as far as personal safety goes.

I admire the body politic/government dynamic the founding fathers envisioned, and I really do believe that freedom to own weapons as a method of decentralising effective power from the state is something worth preserving. The moment militias become officially sanctioned it completely defeats the point, which further complicates the matter. If you disagree with the idea of giving people the ability to rally together and create effective modern fighting forces, that's fine, I understand why you would. I think it's a fundamental component of true democracy with a lot of unfortunate downsides. I'm a firm believer in democracy and the decentralisation of power though, so this is really an extension of my political philosophy.


----------



## Murdstone (Aug 18, 2014)

If I want a barrel of lyophilized Bacillus anthracis mixed with puffer fish leaking tetrodotoxin to dump on whoever walks through my front door without doing the special knock, I should be allowed to, damn it!


----------



## MassNecrophagia (Aug 19, 2014)

It'd probably be easier(also, cheaper) to get a select fire rifle on the black market than convert a semi-auto to select fire.

Just sayin'


----------



## Church2224 (Aug 19, 2014)

I guess this is a bad time to tell the forum I just bought two AR-15s...


----------



## Shimme (Aug 19, 2014)

Church2224 said:


> I guess this is a bad time to tell the forum I just bought two AR-15s...



Do you plan to murder people with them? No? Then I think that the majority of this forum is okay with you owning them. It's only a problem depending on how you use them.


----------



## vilk (Aug 19, 2014)

Church2224 said:


> I guess this is a bad time to tell the forum I just bought two AR-15s...



Just in case you need to fire two ar15s at the same time ? Or is it more like one for standard and one for drop C kinda thing


----------



## myampslouder (Aug 19, 2014)

I just bought an ar15 and a handgun. Come at me bro!

In all seriousness I agree with one of the previous posts that the laws have changed with advancements in weapons technology and other modern developments. I firmly believe that people should have the right to have weapons for defense and for sport. The argument for banning high capacity magazines to reduce has no ground to stand on since it has been done before and accomplished nothing but creating an inconvenience. 

Another argument that gets thrown around is people don't need these deadly "assault weapons for any reason" well for one they aren't assault weapons. It's a semi automatic rifle. For this argument I will focus on the AR15 since its the center of most debates. The AR15 fires a 5.56x45mm or .223 Remington cartridge. It's not a powerful round by any means in face many combat troops don't even like it because of its poor performance stopping targets in battle. The .223 Remington which the 5.56 is based on is what's called a varmint round. It's small and mostly effective on coyotes, prairie dogs, and wild hogs with proper ammo selection. It is not the almighty powerful man stopper/ cop killer round the media makes it out to be. 

The AR15 is a semi auto rifle just like many other rifles available that take a detatchable magazine. Many in the anti gun community like to argue that they are easily converted to fire full auto and that is a lie. To convert an AR15 you need to purchase a different trigger group and bolt made for an M16 and those are HIGHLY regulated by the BATF. Also the parts will not drop right in. Some.Will like the trigger and the selector switch but the critical part is what is called an AUTO SEAR. This is the part that allows the weapon to fire full auto without exploding in your face. To fit an auto SEAR in an AR15 would require pretty good knowledge of machining and access to a cnc machine in most cases to make room in the receiver and the proper jigs to correctly place the pin hole that holds it. The pin the holds the auto SEAR is clearly visible on the side of the weapon and simply drilling that hole in the receiver is a federal offense with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and a $250,000 dollar fine.

Also other popular rifles like the AK47 have totally different receivers and I ternal parts to prevent them from being modified to full auto capabilities.


As far as handgun ownership. It's been proven time and time again that areas with high rates of gun ownership and a high number of people who concealed carry have much lower crime rates. Areas with very strict gun laws have very high crime rates. 


On the constitution I fully believe that allowing a change to the bill of right is a step in the wrong direction. Changing the bill of rights is opening the door to losing some of the checks and balances in our government and civil liberties that our country was founded on. I understand that the constitution has had amendments added before but the first 10 amendments to our constitution are the rights this country was founded on


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 19, 2014)

Just more of the same old left-winger B.S. .

Oh big brother please save us from ourselves.


----------



## myampslouder (Aug 19, 2014)

Also I feel it should be pointed out that same attitude that it's ok to give up freedoms to make yourself feel safer also brought us wonderful things like the patriot act....


Also so called "assault rifles" are very rarely ever used in violent crimes. The number is incredibly small when you look at it on a national scale and not the hopped up numbers that news sites like Huffington post would have you believe.

What's so funny about this argument is if you applied it to anything else you would be liked at like a fool and a moron. The typical anti gun way of thinking is oh my god an ar15 was used in 1 incident out of 300,000 we should ban them. Apply that to another scenario. Most people agree that Islamic extremists make up a very small number of the Muslim population but if someone says all Muslims are bad and we should ban Islam in the US based on the actions of few extremely misguided individuals you are viewed as an ignorant bigot asshole. Another example. Say your a white guy and you get mugged by a black guy. You don't go around saying you should ban black people because one douche did something stupid. The gun control argument is the same. For every idiot that does something stupid with a gun there are a few hundred thousand more responsible gun owners and firearms enthusiasts that simply want to enjoy their hobby and defend themselves or their families if needed.

And on the Maryland decision from what I read in the ruli g it seems to.me her decision is based more on ignorance of the subject and not legal precedent or facts. I imagine this won't be the final decision in this matter.


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Aug 19, 2014)

The only people that anti-firearm laws affect is the law-abiding firearm owner. 

Making the law-abiding owner of 10+ round magazines turn them in, wont force the criminal to turn his/her in. 



wheresthefbomb said:


> I don't really care if people have them, but if anyone thinks they're gonna defend themselves against a government with drones and hellfire missiles with a bushmaster from wal mart, they are hilariously mistaken.



Not just a single person with their wal-mart rifle... The entirety of the NRA, and many more lawful gun owners... Over _*four and a half million *_people with their bushmaster's from wal-mart. A single person might not make a difference against hellfire, but over 4.5 million people might. That's the reason for our wal-mart bushmasters, and the 2nd amendment after all... to put in to place a new government if needed. 

The united states armed forces has about 1.4 million active personnel with about 850,000 in reserves. Assuming that many folk would fight against their own civilians. 

The NRA is 4.5 million, and doesn't include the many 2nd amendment activists who aren't a member. More than twice the armed forces. 

I'm sorry, but our bushmasters from wal-mart actually _would_ make a difference.


----------



## asher (Aug 19, 2014)

Against tanks and helicopters and drones.

Right.


----------



## McKay (Aug 19, 2014)

asher said:


> Against tanks and helicopters and drones.
> 
> Right.



Hence well regulated militias. Honestly, I don't really care about the pesonal defense aspect because that can be achieved with tasers. The people should be able to organise an effective fighting force. If that means enough people want to band together and mutually fund their own drones, tanks and helicopters, they should be able to. Self determination doesn't mean a thing without the hard power to back it up.


----------



## Choop (Aug 19, 2014)

Not looking to get into a theoretical "who would win in a fist fight" bar-style debate, but you'd be surprised at how resourceful people can be.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Aug 19, 2014)

asher said:


> Against tanks and helicopters and drones.
> 
> Right.


 These guns nuts are insane, warfare has changed *a lot* since the second amendment was originally written in. 

And secondly in what situation would the government or any other major foreign power ever want to attack the U.S. (or U.S. citizens in the governments case). Especially with the world becoming more and more economically dependent on each other, a war would send many economies around the world down the toilet.


----------



## asher (Aug 19, 2014)

Well, militias in the colonial, revolutionary sense. Back when the only thing that wasn't common for everyone to own was a cannon, because of how technology was back then...


----------



## McKay (Aug 19, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> These guns nuts are insane, warfare has changed *a lot* since the second amendment originally written in.
> 
> And secondly in what situation would the government or any other major foreign power ever want to attack the U.S. (or U.S. citizens in the governments case). It would serve no benefit.



The entire dynamic of a preventative measure, or a precaution in general is rooted in the fact that it pre-empts a potential threat. Just because something isn't bad now doesn't mean the right to do something about it should be denied to people. This issue actually revolves around a philosophical question; are rights derived from an authority or the individual? It's no good being "allowed" to organise in such a way by the state.



asher said:


> Well, militias in the colonial, revolutionary sense. Back when the only thing that wasn't common for everyone to own was a cannon, because of how technology was back then...



The logical end of this point is that arms ownership rights would have to expanded rather than fruther regulated in order for the 2nd ammendment to fulfill its original purpose.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Aug 19, 2014)

McKay said:


> The entire dynamic of a preventative measure, or a precaution in general is rooted in the fact that it pre-empts a potential threat.
> Just because something isn't bad now doesn't mean the right to do something about it should be denied people. This issue actually revolves around philosophical question; are rights derived from an authority or the individual? It's no good being "allowed" to organise in such a way by the state.


I'm not arguing any of the points you've made in the above quote, the point I was trying to make was that any opposition the government might face in the event of some theoretical hostile takeover, would be decimated with the tanks, drones, airstrikes or even biological weapons if they felt the need. The only situation where the second amendment would serve some use is in the case of a foreign military invading the U.S. but we have the National Guard who would be much better trained to handle the situation than the 3 million or so NRA members.


----------



## McKay (Aug 19, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I'm not arguing any of the points you've made in the above quote, the point I was trying to make was that any opposition the government might face in the event of some theoretical hostile takeover, would be decimated with the tanks, drones, airstrikes or even biological weapons if they felt the need. The only situation where the second amendment would serve some use is in the case of a foreign military invading the U.S. but we have the National Guard who would be much better trained to handle the situation than the 3 million or so NRA members.



If your argument is correct then for the second amendment to fulfill its original purpose the law would have to be changed to allow for people to create their own fully capable modern military force.

However, your argument is only partially correct. Using your own logic, a foreign military would have a great deal of trouble invading and occupying the US already given the proliferation of arms among the civilian population. There is little difference in principle between a foreign military and the US military save scale. In addition to this, a civil or domestic conflict would divide conventional US forces, further reducing their effectiveness and disseminating their technological/material advantage to opposing factions.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Aug 19, 2014)

McKay said:


> If your argument is correct then for the second amendment to fulfill its original purpose the law would have to be changed to allow for people to create their own fully capable modern military force.


As I said later on in my previous response we have the National Guard for any military conflicts on U.S. soil. Add police, SWAT, and federal agents to those numbers and you have an even bigger domestic force. The country would have to be in dire straits for any NRA members to be considered as a domestic force.



> However, your argument is only partially correct. Using your own logic, a foreign military would have a great deal of trouble invading and occupying the US already given the proliferation of arms among the civilian population. There is little difference in principle between a foreign military and the US military save scale. In addition to this, a civil or domestic conflict would divide conventional US forces, further reducing their effectiveness and disseminating their technological/material advantage to opposing factions.


This is why I said any hostile takeover would be so far fetched.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 20, 2014)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that we need to enforce the Second Amendment the Israeli way, with mandatory military duty for everyone..

Plus, you never term. You are always under threat of facing a court martial for any offense. Levenworth or Humphreys is where you'll be bunking, citizen, if you don't get with the program. 

At least we'll be in much better shape. You're at the mall, and some person in yoga pants which are way too small about to eat something glistening and fresh from the food court, and then you hear a voice bark out, "Drop!" Hitting the deck will do some folks a world of good, and will give us the well regulated militia which we clearly need to have in order to enforce and support that Second Amendment.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 20, 2014)

asher said:


> Against tanks and helicopters and drones.
> 
> Right.



The Viet Cong and Iraqi Insurgency would like a word with you.

Note that we weren't in Iraq for so long because we were having trouble defeating Iraq's armed forces. We had their army, air force, and navy (*giggle*) tore up six ways from Sunday with the quickness. It was the insurgency, with their improvised explosives and small arms, blending into the civilian populace, that fvcked us up for so long. Unless the enemy is moving in and destroying people and buildings wholesale with no regard for collateral damage, you don't need tanks or drones to defend yourself against them.



That's playing the Devil's advocate, of course. The more I think about the issue, the less sure I am where I stand on gun advocacy. I don't know whether I think civilians _should_ have access to whatever different kinds of weaponry, I just felt like pointing out that it's not a forgone conclusion that the military would be able to steamroll the civilian populace without causing MASSIVE collateral damage.

You know, like the collateral damage everyone here was giving Israel guff for causing in Palestine. It... wouldn't go down well.


----------



## McKay (Aug 20, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that we need to enforce the Second Amendment the Israeli way, with mandatory military duty for everyone..
> 
> Plus, you never term. You are always under threat of facing a court martial for any offense. Levenworth or Humphreys is where you'll be bunking, citizen, if you don't get with the program.
> 
> At least we'll be in much better shape. You're at the mall, and some person in yoga pants which are way too small about to eat something glistening and fresh from the food court, and then you hear a voice bark out, "Drop!" Hitting the deck will do some folks a world of good, and will give us the well regulated militia which we clearly need to have in order to enforce and support that Second Amendment.



As long as power is decentralised that wouldn't be the worst outcome, the only issue is that if authority lies in government it defeats the main point in having the militia in the first place. Essentially, if the ability to participate in a militia sanctioned by the state, it can also rescind it. Therefore the right to bear arms should remain a right rather than a privilege. Privileges are granted, not innate.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 20, 2014)

vilk said:


> Just in case you need to fire two ar15s at the same time ? Or is it more like one for standard and one for drop C kinda thing


 
one to keep, one to sell for ridiculous panic buy prices next time a crazy asshole does something crazy?

Seriously, though -- ar15's are like the barbie dolls of guns, literally thousands of accessorize to make each one have a different role. I have one set up for long range shooting, another for 3 gun events and one in .22 to practice with as its cheaper than .223.


----------



## MassNecrophagia (Aug 20, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> These guns nuts are insane, warfare has changed *a lot* since the second amendment was originally written in.
> 
> And secondly in what situation would the government or any other major foreign power ever want to attack the U.S. (or U.S. citizens in the governments case). Especially with the world becoming more and more economically dependent on each other, a war would send many economies around the world down the toilet.





War _never_ changes

In reality, in which most of us currently exist, most 2A supporters are not "gun nuts" just like most people pushing for restrictions on firearms aren't "god-damned nazis" 

Being sensible is about the best thing anyone can do. Educating yourself about firearms will do far more than banning "shoulder things that go up". Also, you are statistically more likely to kill yourself with a gun than someone else is to kill you, depending on where you read it, but I'd hope the cdc would compile some reliable numbers.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/mortality/lcwk9.htm


----------



## Church2224 (Aug 20, 2014)

vilk said:


> Just in case you need to fire two ar15s at the same time ? Or is it more like one for standard and one for drop C kinda thing



Some what like a Strat vs a Les Paul. One is operated by what is called Direct Impingement, the other by a Gas Piston system, hard to explain. They do the same thing albeit differently. I would have liked to try both to see which one I like better in the long run.


----------



## Church2224 (Aug 20, 2014)

DocBach said:


> one to keep, one to sell for ridiculous panic buy prices next time a crazy asshole does something crazy?
> 
> Seriously, though -- ar15's are like the barbie dolls of guns, literally thousands of accessorize to make each one have a different role. I have one set up for long range shooting, another for 3 gun events and one in .22 to practice with as its cheaper than .223.



This. Plus you also have calibers such as 6.8, .300 Black Out, .458, so many calibers! Direct Impingement vs Gas Piston, Long Stroke vs Short Stroke Pistons, barrel lengths, sights. 

And the AR-10s, which are usually 7.62/.308 and sometimes .338. Good hunting rifle. 

Also you do not only have ARs, but also SCARs, IWI Tavors, ACRs, Robinson Arms XCR, FN FALs, M1As, FS2000s, Steyr AUGs. 

I grew up around guns so...yeah....


----------



## DocBach (Aug 20, 2014)

Church2224 said:


> Some what like a Strat vs a Les Paul. One is operated by what is called Direct Impingement, the other by a Gas Piston system, hard to explain. They do the same thing albeit differently. I would have liked to try both to see which one I like better in the long run.


 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An-nMlDeApI&feature=player_embedded 

Why not just do it all on one gun like this?


----------



## Rosal76 (Aug 20, 2014)

Church2224 said:


> This. Plus you also have calibers such as.... .458,



For a minute there, I thought you were talking about the .458 Winchester Magnum. I'm assuming you're talking about the .458 Socom??? This is the very first time I have heard of the .458 Socom. Did some quick research on the bullet. According to Wikipedia, they make a 600gr. bullet for it. That is freaking crazy. I would have never believed that you could fire a 600gr. bullet out of a AR-15 and it not break the receiver. 

I'm also a huge fan of guns and have a cool collection myself. Love finding out about new bullets they are coming out with. The Lazzeroni bullet line, developed in the early 90's, Wow! Who can afford to shoot those guns? Donald Trump.


----------



## McKay (Aug 20, 2014)

MassNecrophagia said:


> War _never_ changes
> 
> In reality, in which most of us currently exist, most 2A supporters are not "gun nuts" just like most people pushing for restrictions on firearms aren't "god-damned nazis"
> 
> ...




As Bill Burr said, the odds of drowning increase massively if you own a pool. Totally agree with your sentiments though.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Aug 20, 2014)

MassNecrophagia said:


> War _never_ changes
> 
> In reality, in which most of us currently exist, most 2A supporters are not "gun nuts" just like most people pushing for restrictions on firearms aren't "god-damned nazis"
> 
> ...


I agree with this.


----------



## asher (Aug 20, 2014)

The NRA has lobbied really, really, really hard against the CDC tracking gun deaths.


----------



## Necris (Aug 20, 2014)

DocBach said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An-nMlDeApI&feature=player_embedded
> 
> Why not just do it all on one gun like this?



Well, our "well regulated militia" does need to be prepared for anything.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 20, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> The Viet Cong and Iraqi Insurgency would like a word with you.
> 
> Note that we weren't in Iraq for so long because we were having trouble defeating Iraq's armed forces. We had their army, air force, and navy (*giggle*) tore up six ways from Sunday with the quickness. It was the insurgency, with their improvised explosives and small arms, blending into the civilian populace, that fvcked us up for so long. Unless the enemy is moving in and destroying people and buildings wholesale with no regard for collateral damage, you don't need tanks or drones to defend yourself against them.
> 
> ...



I was going to mention this earlier. Asymmetric warfare is the name of the game. Conventional warfare is a much different story, the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan learned quickly to avoid those types of confrontations. So although we have easily defeated any forces encountered head on, we still have not been able to maintain control. A fanatical and entrenched opponent that doesn't fight "fair" is pretty much your worst nightmare. And let us not forget we fought with these types of tactics in the Revolutionary War against a vastly superior fighting force. As you said that is all playing the "what if" scenario, but I can guarantee none of us would ever want to see that come fruition no matter which side of the argument you stand on. 

As far as the MD law, it's nothing more than a feel good law. They made it more inconvenient for some things to be bought, but in the end it hasn't done anything but hamper people who legally purchase firearms. We can go on a field trip to Baltimore and you can get out and ask the locals how many of them of have their HQL. Let me know how that works out for you. 

Oh and here is another fun game. Name the banned rifle in MD. A or B? ignore the 30rd magazine since it's limited to 10rds now. But one of these is legal and the other is not. 

A)






B)


----------



## myampslouder (Aug 20, 2014)

Choice A is identical to my ar15


----------



## DocBach (Aug 20, 2014)

JD27 said:


> Oh and here is another fun game. Name the banned rifle in MD. A or B? ignore the 30rd magazine since it's limited to 10rds now. But one of these is legal and the other is not.
> 
> A)
> 
> ...



I can't see any feature differences between the Colt 6920 and the Colt 6920 Magpul edition beyond the forward vertical grip. Is that the "assault weapon characteristic" that makes it banned in MD?

The reason why the military started using vertical foregrips on the M16 family of weapons is not because they make the weapon any more stable, in fact barrel control is lessened -- its that with mission essential equipment like aiming laser and white light you don't have any other place to hold the front of the weapon. 

I'm thinking my latest AR would be super illegal in MD;






...guessing you can't have NFA items there but I could be mistaken.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 20, 2014)

DocBach said:


> I can't see any feature differences between the Colt 6920 and the Colt 6920 Magpul edition beyond the forward vertical grip. Is that the "assault weapon characteristic" that makes it banned in MD?
> 
> The reason why the military started using vertical foregrips on the M16 family of weapons is not because they make the weapon any more stable, in fact barrel control is lessened -- its that with mission essential equipment like aiming laser and white light you don't have any other place to hold the front of the weapon.
> 
> ...



They are both Colt's, but it isn't the furniture that makes it banned. Any other guesses? And yes, we still have NFA, although at the moment there are some restrictions that are enforced erroneously that are not actually a part of the law. Long story short OAL has to be greater than 29" to get an approved Form 1 back from ATF at the moment.


----------



## Necris (Aug 20, 2014)

Can someone explain to me why having a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds at a time is such a necessity?


----------



## DocBach (Aug 20, 2014)

Have you ever had to shoot at something under duress? Real shooting in a life or death situation isn't as easy as Call of Duty or movies make it look to be.

The person who wins a firefight in real life is the person who brings more bullets. Period.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 20, 2014)

JD27 said:


> They are both Colt's, but it isn't the furniture that makes it banned. Any other guesses? And yes, we still have NFA, although at the moment there are some restrictions that are enforced erroneously that are not actually a part of the law. Long story short OAL has to be greater than 29" to get an approved Form 1 back from ATF at the moment.



Well, they both have 16" barrels, both have pistol grips, both have collapsible stocks, both have bayonet lugs -- is it the M203 mounting step down on the Magpul edition that makes it an assault rifle?


----------



## Necris (Aug 20, 2014)

DocBach said:


> Have you ever had to shoot at something under duress? Real shooting in a life or death situation isn't as easy as Call of Duty or movies make it look to be.
> 
> The person who wins a firefight in real life is the person who brings more bullets. Period.


I had zero expectation that it was, as it happens. But just to be completely clear we're talking firefights here? I assumed it was for home defense* or hunting**. 

I've never read a single report of a home invasion/robbery/mugging/whatever that devolved into a shootout between a homeowner/business owner/guy walking down the street/etc. and an intruder before police could arrive.


*I feel like an AR15 might not be the best choice for home defense to begin with, just due to the potential of bullets going through walls but I could be wrong.
** If it takes you 30 shots a new hobby may be in order, because you're just causing needless suffering.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 20, 2014)

DocBach said:


> Well, they both have 16" barrels, both have pistol grips, both have collapsible stocks, both have bayonet lugs -- is it the M203 mounting step down on the Magpul edition that makes it an assault rifle?



Ding Ding! A winner, the top is a Colt 6920 with standard Government barrel profile, the bottom is a Colt 6971 which has a Heavy Barrel profile. Ask me, why one is banned and the other is not and I have no logical answer, nor do the dummies who wrote the bill. The new law prohibits by name Colt AR-15s including "Copycat weapons" made by any other AR manufacture you can think off, except for Colt AR-15 HBAR rifles. There is also a Copycat feature test that can be applied to weapons which includes folding stocks (not collapsible), flash hiders, and I shit you not, the ability to mount a grenade launcher. Because literately everybody mounts a M-203 to their rifle right? Surely, I can walk into wal-mart and pick up a box of 40mm to shoot from said launcher? Wait I can't? Then why is it banned again?  In addition the OAL must be over 29". So basically, if it is not banned by name, by OAL, and has no more than 2 of the 3 copycat features, it is still for sale.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 20, 2014)

Necris said:


> I had zero expectation that it was, as it happens. But just to be completely clear we're talking firefights here? I assumed it was for home defense* or hunting**.
> 
> I've never read a single report of a home invasion/robbery/mugging/whatever that devolved into a shootout between a homeowner/business owner/guy walking down the street/etc. and an intruder before police could arrive.
> 
> ...



As for an AR for home defense -- depending on the type of ammunition used it can either be very well suited for inside buildings (which is why you see police using short barreled AR's on entry teams). Some rounds like say, steel cored rounds for penetration would be an inappropriate round to use in a situation of home defense. 

As for hunting -- AR platforms in 5.56 are not generally used for hunting except for varmiting, which is long range shooting of varmint animals such as coyotes or prairie dogs; most states also have limits on magazine capacity so magazines larger than 10 rounds are restricted for hunting purposes. 

But I didn't know the Second Amendment had a clause that said the firearms I own are specifically for home defense or hunting? 

Lets take this situation in Ferguson as an example; first, the police officer dumped his magazine (which has at least 10 rounds, most service pistols have at least 15) -- out of that he scored 6 hits, none of which by themselves provided enough power to neutralize Mike Brown (despite what movies show, instant death by a single gun shot is very rare outside of a CNS or cardiovascular hit).

Here is a question: what if Michael Brown's friend decided he also wanted to attack the officer? Would 10 rounds been enough to defend himself? What if the resulting mob of rioters decided your business or house looked like a prime opportunity to "come up" and decide that they also want to get violent with you or your family? Yes, you can replace property, but you can't replace your life or the lives of your family and as far as I'm concerned anybody who attempts to do that has made their own right to life null and void. 

Why would you want to limit your ability to defend yourself to an arbitrary number? 

Here are some articles of people using AR15's to defend themselves against multiple assailants;

5 People Who Used An AR-15 to Defend Themselves, and It Probably Saved Their Lives - Mic

The following may make me seem a bit paranoid but I have seen what a society with the absence of infrastructure looks like -- partly the reason I own firearms is seeing the pandemonium and violence carried out by people in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. I don't believe that the American society would fare any better with the lack of infrastructure as I saw first hand in Hurricane Katrina. I like keeping my guns around.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 20, 2014)

Necris said:


> I had zero expectation that it was, as it happens. But just to be completely clear we're talking firefights here? I assumed it was for home defense* or hunting**.
> 
> *Most states that I am aware off have limits on magazine capacity for hunting, usually 5rds for rifles. For self defense, I want every opportunity not to die. Call me crazy, but I don't advocate fair fights when it comes to my life of those of my family.* *Police carry more than 10rds for a reason.* *I don't have health insurance because I expect to get sick, I have it just in case I do.*
> 
> ...



Some answers to your questions.


----------



## Necris (Aug 20, 2014)

I didn't know there was a capacity limit for hunting, having never had and still having no interest in it as a hobby my knowledge there is limited. 



DocBach said:


> But I didn't know the Second Amendment had a clause that said the firearms I own are specifically for home defense or hunting?



Find me where I ever claimed it did. 


> Lets take this situation in Ferguson as an example; first, the police officer dumped his magazine (which has at least 10 rounds, most service pistols have at least 15) -- out of that he scored 6 hits, none of which by themselves provided enough power to neutralize Mike Brown (despite what movies show, instant death by a single gun shot is very rare outside of a CNS or cardiovascular hit).
> 
> Here is a question: what if Michael Brown's friend decided he also wanted to attack the officer? Would 10 rounds been enough to defend himself? What if the resulting mob of rioters decided your business or house looked like a prime opportunity to "come up" and decide that they also want to get violent with you or your family? Yes, you can replace property, but you can't replace your life or the lives of your family and as far as I'm concerned anybody who attempts to do that has made their own right to life null and void.


Not sure why you keep referencing video games and movies since I don't believe that I live in either, and I also don't believe I've said anything in this thread that would lead one to believe I'm so completely out of touch with reality that I would believe I was. Also, kindly spare me the heart string tugging "what if you or your family...?" lines.

However, am I to believe that the officer would have been completely helpless and unable to defend himself once his firearm wasn't an option?

It certainly wouldn't have been an enviable situation to be in, even less so if either Brown or his friend were carrying a weapon themselves but I believe he still would have ways to defend himself. 
That's not to say he couldn't have been severely injured or killed while attempting to defend himself of course.
However, the way you're painting the picture in my head without his gun the officer has no way of defending himself and is essentially a punching bag with a badge.


And thanks for the links now I know that firefights actually do break out in home defense situations, I wasn't kidding when I said I hadn't heard of any before now.



JD27 said:


> *As for the police comming to the rescue, they can't be everywhere all the time. And more importantly even SCOTUS doesn't believe they have a duty to protect you. They aren't your body guards and my money is spent on guitars, so I can hire any for myself. *


I hadn't insinuated they could be, it would be assumed that at some point you might call, if possible ("if possible" I can feel the reply coming ). I don't believe them to be my personal bodyguard service either. 

I'm also aware of what the Supreme Court ruled, it actually made me even less comfortable around cops than I was before the ruling (and I don't even participate in actions that would make me a target of theirs).

I should have been more clear since obviously the asterisks didn't do it for me but Hunting was what I was referring to as the hobby.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 20, 2014)

Necris said:


> I didn't know there was a capacity limit for hunting, having never had and still having no interest in it as a hobby my knowledge there is limited.
> 
> And thanks for the links now I know that firefights actually do break out in home defense situations, I wasn't kidding when I said I hadn't heard of any before now.
> 
> I should have been more clear since obviously the asterisks didn't do it for me but Hunting was what I was referring to as the hobby.



Cool. Also not my intent to make it sound like an attack on your questions, just trying to share my views and reasoning as best I can. I don't have a problem with most hunting, but I don't have any interest either.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 20, 2014)

Necris said:


> However, am I to believe that the officer would have been completely helpless and unable to defend himself once his firearm wasn't an option?




According to reports your human punching bag analogy was closer to reality than was originally reported in the news; they said he had a ocular orbit blow out meaning that one or more of the bones that form the orbit of the eye were shattered. Until he drew his gun, he was in the losing side of the fight.


----------



## asher (Aug 20, 2014)

DocBach said:


> According to reports your human punching bag analogy was closer to reality than was originally reported in the news; they said he had a ocular orbit blow out meaning that one or more of the bones that form the orbit of the eye were shattered. Until he drew his gun, he was in the losing side of the fight.



Sources? I haven't seen new reports.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 21, 2014)

Here's some sources from reputable news outlets, Newsweek and CNN.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-strong-legal-case-against-darren-wilson-265675

Caller: Officer's side of Ferguson shooting - CNN.com


----------



## asher (Aug 21, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Here's some sources from reputable news outlets, Newsweek and CNN.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/how-strong-legal-case-against-darren-wilson-265675
> 
> Caller: Officer's side of Ferguson shooting - CNN.com



Sure. I am skeptical of the story for multiple reasons, but this is the wrong thread for that really.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 21, 2014)

Back on topic -- the Maryland Assault Weapons bill is poorly worded and bans weapons on features that have little to do with the weapon's ability to harm others as much as it does to restrict a weapon's ability to "look cool." As a poster pointed out, the same exact rifle is completely legal with a minute change of removing the "grenade launcher attachment" which is silly because private ownership of grenade launchers is highly regulated (yes, with the right ATF NFA forms you can purchase grenade launchers in certain cases, but the ammunition is illegal). 

If you really want to decrease gun deaths, look into banning pistols and those evil .22 caliber weapons, as they kill more people than any other caliber firearm every year. Very few deaths are caused by weapons deemed assault weapons by state governments, even most mass shootings are not carried out by them, nor do they make such events any more or less lethal statistically compared to events where the active shooter used pistols or shotguns.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 21, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Just more of the same old left-winger B.S. .
> 
> Oh big brother please save us from ourselves.



Again, check out this quote from famed leftist Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: 



> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.



Gotta do something about those activist commies in the Supreme Court, man


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Aug 21, 2014)

I'll say it again.

*Laws which place restrictions on firearms only affect the legal and lawful owners of those firearms. 

*Seriously, banning one gun over another, or banning magazines over 10 rounds; doesn't change anything. It won't stop shootings from happening, because the *only* people who won't have them, are the people who abide by the law. 

And on another off topic note:
When it comes to magazine size, and hunting... wildlife conservation municipalities have places laws on how many rounds you can hold while hunting in the first place. Here in Florida, during duck season I can't have more than 3 shells in my shotgun while hunting, I have to plug my magazine... Or during deer season, I can't have more than 5 rounds in the rifle I use. 

So no, any folk who isn't poaching won't be using a 30 round magazine to hunt to begin with. 

And eliminating 30 round magazines just means the law abiding citizen has less rounds to hold in his rifle. The criminal who trespasses wont. Laws only affect those who abide by them.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 21, 2014)

That is true only because our laws are dispersed state-by-state. If the law were sweeping it would be equally difficult for criminals to get a hold of certain things in the long run as well because there'd be less of the hardware around in general (whatever that may be). Maybe not immediately, but eventually you'd see an overall diminishing effect. 

I'm not advocating that per se , but it'd definitely work if all states had to do it. As is, plenty of gear is sold legally that eventually makes its way to the black market and the minimally regulated states play a large hand in that. That's the part the pro camp seem to completely gloss over. No one is accusing legal gun owners of committing a crime here.


----------



## Randy (Aug 21, 2014)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> Laws only affect those who abide by them.



I hear this one a lot. Explain to me why, using your logic, we should have any laws at all?


----------



## DocBach (Aug 21, 2014)

flint757 said:


> That is true only because our laws are dispersed state-by-state. If the law were sweeping it would be equally difficult for criminals to get a hold of certain things in the long run as well because there'd be less of the hardware around in general (whatever that may be). Maybe not immediately, but eventually you'd see an overall diminishing effect.
> 
> I'm not advocating that per se , but it'd definitely work if all states had to do it. As is, plenty of gear is sold legally that eventually makes its way to the black market and the minimally regulated states play a large hand in that. That's the part the pro camp seem to completely gloss over. No one is accusing legal gun owners of committing a crime here.



Why do the states with the most restrictive gun laws still suffer the highest numbers of gun violence? 

My personally owned firearms "assault weapon" or otherwise haven't killed anybody -- why should I be considered a criminal because some crazy asshole did something crazy?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 21, 2014)

DocBach said:


> Why do the states with the most restrictive gun laws still suffer the highest numbers of gun violence?
> 
> My personally owned firearms "assault weapon" or otherwise haven't killed anybody -- why should I be considered a criminal because some crazy asshole did something crazy?



Did I say that? No, so quit being so ridiculously hyperbolic.

Did you actually read my post at all? Your response tells me likely not. Either that or you read it with your response in mind at the very least.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 21, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> Gotta do something about those activist commies in the Supreme Court, man





Yes, we do need to do something about those traitors.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 21, 2014)

flint757 said:


> That is true only because our laws are dispersed state-by-state. If the law were sweeping it would be equally difficult for criminals to get a hold of certain things in the long run as well because there'd be less of the hardware around in general (whatever that may be). Maybe not immediately, but eventually you'd see an overall diminishing effect.
> 
> I'm not advocating that per se , but it'd definitely work if all states had to do it. As is, plenty of gear is sold legally that eventually makes its way to the black market and the minimally regulated states play a large hand in that. That's the part the pro camp seem to completely gloss over. No one is accusing legal gun owners of committing a crime here.


 
We have quite a few laws at the federal and state levels that already address firearms. Our criminal justice system is an absolute joke when it comes to prosecuting those who break them. Just an example, Chicago was dead last in prosecuting federal gun crime, even though it has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. It's often too easy to plea down to a lower charge and then they are right back out to do it again.

Mayor calls federal prosecutors

Straw purchases, meaning a person legally allowed to buy firearms purchases the firearm with the intent of handing it off to another person (often prohibited). are often under-prosectuted. We can add laws all day, every day, but there is no real deterrent to breaking them if we don't strictly enforce them. I actually don't have a problem with 100% background checks on firearms. Federal law already mandates all new firearms are subject to background check through National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Depending on the state law, you can buy/sell used firearms without a background check. When people discuss the Gun show Loophole this is how the transactions take place. A private seller can sell a firearm to any person as long as they are in accordance with state law. That's not something I would feel comfortable doing personally. Other than checking your are a state resident, I have no way of knowing you are not a prohibited person.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 21, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> Gotta do something about those activist commies in the Supreme Court, man





TRENCHLORD said:


> Yes, we do need to do something about those traitors.



Wow... that was chilling. 

Who would have expected such a Tim McVeigh moment on a summer's day?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 22, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Wow... that was chilling.
> 
> Who would have expected such a Tim McVeigh moment on a summer's day?



It's night now Explorer. Get your facts straight. Please ?


----------



## DocBach (Aug 22, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Did I say that? No, so quit being so ridiculously hyperbolic.
> 
> Did you actually read my post at all? Your response tells me likely not. Either that or you read it with your response in mind at the very least.


 
_"No one is accusing legal gun owners of committing a crime here"_

My post was in response to this -- what do you think happens to legal gun owners when sweeping laws like you propose take in effect like in New York?

Gun owners that yesterday were completely law abiding became overnight felons.


----------



## Randy (Aug 22, 2014)

DocBach said:


> Gun owners that yesterday were completely law abiding became overnight felons.



Yeah, and...? Anytime a bill is signed into law, it effectively makes something that was once legal, illegal. That doesn't just apply to gun laws. 

I'd probably have more patience for these arguments if they were taken up regarding any kind of 'preventative' type laws. Instead, I only hear people complaining about it with regard to guns because that just happens to be their hobby/interest. People who only agitate for the laws that directly effect them and ignore all else sound petty to me.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 22, 2014)

Randy said:


> Yeah, and...? Anytime a bill is signed into law, it effectively makes something that was once legal, illegal. That doesn't just apply to gun laws.
> 
> I'd probably have more patience for these arguments if they were taken up regarding any kind of 'preventative' type laws. Instead, I only hear people complaining about it with regard to guns because that just happens to be their hobby/interest. People who only agitate for the laws that directly effect them and ignore all else sound petty to me.




Yeah the only reason I am against wide sweeping gun laws turning citizens into felons because it's my hobby, not because it's constitutionally protected by a document I swore oath to defend.

Luckily we live in a completely safe and stable world where nobody ever needs guns, thankfully we have the government to protect us all with their mrap vehicles and 4am raids.


----------



## Randy (Aug 22, 2014)

As has been mentioned, there are innumerable restrictions to your Constitutional rights. I can't threaten somebody with violence and I can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater; that doesn't mean I can't speak at all. Likewise, they're restrictions on magazine size and some specific features... not an outright ban on all guns all together. 

People like to pick on NY because of how 'liberal' a state it is and because of the SAFE Act but the Catskill and Adirondacks are one of the most robust hunting/sportsman areas in the United States. As silly as some of those laws are, people still have/use weapons for sport and people still have/use weapons for protection. That's not changing here, and it's probably not changing anywhere else anytime soon. Everybody needs to calm their tits.



> "Luckily we live in a completely safe and stable world where nobody ever needs guns"



So, pick one... the assault weapon bans are arbitrary, or they actually do limit significant functions of the weapon (since you're implying it reduces your ability to defend yourself)? You can't have it both ways, where we're arguing it's stupid to ban a gun based on it's grip but we're saying it's unfair because it restricts a necessary function of the weapon.


----------



## McKay (Aug 22, 2014)

To be completely honest the argument itself seems petty from across the Atlantic. There are logical and passionate arguments on both sides for perfectly sane reasons yet it just constantly descends into embittered shit slinging and condescension, generally from the people who want more restrictions but hey that's going to happen by virtue of being the instigators vs the instigated.



> So, pick one... the assault weapon bans are arbitrary, or they actually do limit significant functions of the weapon.


They're arbitrary, impotent and serve more to irritate gun enthusiasts than to prevent deaths. Banning handguns would legit be a better way of reducing gun crime and allowing people the right to bear arms as was originally intended constitutionally; as a means of defying the state should the need arise.

Pistol grip or not, a rifle will still fire accurately and lethally. As I said on page 1, anyone who entertains the term "assault weapon" as a genuine classification is being strung along by propaganda, and I use that term in its literal rather than colloquial sense. _The ban is stupid because it's a largely counterproductive inconvenience and a distraction from other legislation which could have a more dramatic impact._ Not because it seriously hampers anybody any more than pre-existing laws do. As has been said, automatic weapons and other military hardware has been banned for some time.

Again, this issue can be completely reduced to a difference of philosophy, in which there is no right and wrong answer.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 22, 2014)

McKay said:


> To be completely honest the argument itself seems petty from across the Atlantic. There are logical and passionate arguments on both sides for perfectly sane reasons yet it just constantly descends into embittered shit slinging and condescension, generally from the people who want more restrictions but hey that's going to happen by virtue of being the instigators vs the instigated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can actually still buy full auto firearms as long as they were manufactured prior to 1986 when the Firearms Owners Protection Act was passed which stopped transfer of post 1986 samples. The original National Firearms Act of 1934 imposed restrictions on their sales in general. Now they are extremely expensive and require a lengthy approval process from the BATFE which is at the Federal level. In addition, local state laws may further prohibit ownership of those. 

As I said before, we have a lot of laws on the books now. Flat out bans are like trying to cure cancer with band-aids. We do a terrible job enforcing and prosecuting those who violate the law. We could stop all sales today and it would have little to no effect on stopping gun crime due to the sheer amount that are already in the hands of private owners. The only way I see things getting better is strict enforcement of the laws. No more get out of jail passes. We have cases of Felons being caught with guns and not being fully prosecuted. That's a punishable offense of 10 years in prison. But what deterrent is that if we just let them off the hook. Mandatory mental health reporting needs to be improved across all states as well.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 22, 2014)

DocBach said:


> Yeah the only reason I am against wide sweeping gun laws turning citizens into felons because it's my hobby, not because it's constitutionally protected by a document I swore oath to defend.
> 
> Luckily we live in a completely safe and stable world where nobody ever needs guns, thankfully we have the government to protect us all with their mrap vehicles and 4am raids.





Perhaps it is a breakdown in communication, but I never actually suggested a sweeping law take place to rid the US of guns. I said that would in fact also eliminate guns for the criminals as the overall supply would drop for everyone (including the criminals). It was nothing more than a thought experiment. It would work, but suggesting it is rather pointless in this political climate. 

If we only enact these laws at a state level then of course the criminals still have access because they don't have to travel as far or across as many borders to get a hold of one and they aren't adverse to doing so since, you know, they're criminals. Some guy goes out of state or to some private owners or maybe just steals a poorly stored weapon from someones home and then just wholesales it out in the restricted region. They'll get good prices too because it is now so much more inconvenient to buy from anyone else. 

My original post was in direct response to the general statement that if _'you restrict guns you only restrict them for law abiding citizens'_. Never mind that that is a rather silly argument on its own as that applies to all laws basically, but my main point was that the regulations put in place, how they are put in place and how they are enforced is flawed. As is, it just doesn't work and something needs to change. The laws in place need to actually be enforced, all sales should be proper and have mental/criminal background checks and there should be storage requirements. The penalty for not doing so should be bad enough to deter people who float the edge of being a good citizen from needlessly breaking the law as well. Most importantly it should be the same across all 50 states at a basic level, allotting for minor fluctuation for special circumstance that maybe only apply to that state for whatever reason. 

I'm not advocating for a sweeping ban, but for responsible gun ownership.


----------



## Randy (Aug 22, 2014)

McKay said:


> They're arbitrary, impotent and serve more to irritate gun enthusiasts than to prevent deaths..



So it's your opinion that those laws are drafted in a deliberately arbitrary manner for the sole purpose of irritating gun enthusiasts?


----------



## TedEH (Aug 22, 2014)

DocBach said:


> Why do the states with the most restrictive gun laws still suffer the highest numbers of gun violence?



Not gonna lie, there's a ton of stuff in this thread I didn't read, so if this has been said already, just ignore me.

This looks like one of those correlation vs causation kind of situations. I'd assume that the high gun violence is the cause of the gun control, as opposed to being the result.


----------



## McKay (Aug 22, 2014)

Randy said:


> So it's your opinion that those laws are drafted in a deliberately arbitrary manner for the sole purpose of irritating gun enthusiasts?



No, it's my opinion that in execution they antagonise the type of person that is a militia/NRA/etc member, inadvertently or otherwise. I honestly can't figure out why the laws themselves are so arbitrary, my guess is either hysteria or antagonistic politics, although I err towards hysteria.



JD27 said:


> Mandatory mental health reporting needs to be improved across all states as well.



This would be a massive step in the right direction IMO.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 22, 2014)

Randy said:


> So it's your opinion that those laws are drafted in a deliberately arbitrary manner for the sole purpose of irritating gun enthusiasts?



Well I am pretty sure the original comment, "*Luckily we live in a completely safe and stable world where nobody ever needs guns*" was said facetiously. 

But to answer your question, it sometimes has that effect on gun owners. I can tell you right now the people who wrote the MD law, have no clue what certain features actually do. They banned them because they seemed scary. Here is another mind boggling banned vs non-banned in MD weapon comparison. 

Same rifle, different stock. Both capable of doing the same thing in the end. but one "looks" scarier so it must be more evil.

Banned







Not Banned


----------



## Randy (Aug 22, 2014)

McKay said:


> I honestly can't figure out why the laws themselves are so arbitrary, my guess is either hysteria or antagonistic politics, although I err on hysteria.



Well, in that case, I'll offer my opinion.

I'm going to pre-qualify this, and I'm not narcissistic enough to think that this makes my opinion more valid than anyone else's, but I live in the town that neighbors the Remington Arms factory and I have several friends that work there, from the factory floor to the main office and everywhere in between. I mention that because I discuss these things with my friends and in their cases, they're not just defending their hobby/interests/etc, they're debating their livelihood and a lot of their opinions come from what's floated by the main office.

By all accounts, the nature of how the legislation turns out is a product of the bill being massaged by three groups of politicians 1.) Pro-gun 2.) Pro-gun control 3.) 'I'll vote however I need to win re-election. Any legislation that has any teeth (such as the handgun bit you mentioned) would NEVER, EVER pass and anytime something significant is proposed, the NRA fires back (no pun intended) and the factory threatens to move out of the state. 

So you've got the desire of the politicians to pass SOMETHING at a time that it's popular, but they're always bumping up against the will of the industry and you get "the most that we can do with what we've got" which essentially amounts to nothing. And that's what it comes down to, I'm glad to see enough backbone by lawmakers to pass something even if it's unpopular but I honestly agree in the fact that it's totally ineffective.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 22, 2014)

Randy said:


> 3.) 'I'll vote however I need to win re-election.



So much this. 

A lot of times, that's where you see leverage applied against politicians. They might have a huge amount of money behind them from various lobbies, but if they do something which is truly unpopular with their constituents, no amount of money is going to keep them in office. 

BTW Randy, we look at various catalogs around these parts at lunchtime, and I wonder if you'd be good enough to reach out to your friends and get us a discount? 

----

As always, I have to laugh at my rep. 



> another dumbass explorer thread, already?


I like hearing all the different viewpoints in various topics, and I think debate is healthy. 

Sure, some would rather just shut down discussion they don't agree with, but the funniest thing to me is that someone who is so upset about current events wouldn't object to them until almost three weeks later. If you're not going to keep up with the news, at least buy a calendar!


----------



## The Reverend (Aug 22, 2014)

More people die from committing suicide with firearms than are killed by others.


----------



## AxeHappy (Aug 24, 2014)

The Reverend said:


> More people die from committing suicide with firearms than are killed by others.



I'm not sure if this comment is supposed to be pro or anti gun control. 

Because it is actually a pretty strong argument for gun control. Suicide tends to be a spur of the moment, deep down in my darkest depth moment, and if you don't successfully kill yourself it may be a long time, or never, before you try again. 

This is an argument for better background checks and mental health check (that's gun control) rather than banning gun outright though. 


It just seems really odd to the rest of the world when people say things like, "If we ban guns, only criminals will have gun." Well...and the police, and other people and whatnot. And where are the criminals going to get guns? And why isn't this true in any other country?

It's like the nationalised healthcare thing. Some Americans keep saying it will raise the cost of healthcare when every other civilised country has a lower cost of healthcare and a better, quicker, more effective system. *Shrugs* 

I like guns. I used to target shoot. Tried out for a target shooting team (didn't make it, I was young others had much more experience) and biathlon (which I did make, but decided not to because .... the cold). But gun control is essential. 

Why on earth should it be easier to own and use a gun than a car? Licences, mandatory training, restrictions on the types of guns (based off varying degrees of licences), banning certain types of guns/weapons completely, blah blah blah. 

I also, pretty much completely agree that the "Assault weapon" ban is an arbitrary ban born of ignorance. I don't think that means we shouldn't be looking at and considering other options.


----------



## Necris (Aug 24, 2014)

The vast majority of people who attempt suicide with a firearm die, less than 10% survive. By comparison, suicide attempts by jumping only have a 34% fatality rate, suicides by overdose (drug poisoning) are fatal less than 2% of the time and suicide attempts by hanging are effective around 75% of the time, these are the most common methods used in suicide attempts.

So ~66% percent survive jumping, more than 98% survive drug poisoning and ~25% survive hanging attempts, additionally most people (~90%) who survive a suicide attempt *don't *attempt it again.

If you go over to the CDCs fatal injury reports here, you will find that if you choose "Suicide" "All Injury" from 1999 to 2011 you get a total of 436,110 deaths. If you choose "Suicide" "Firearm" you get 228,396 deaths. 
*That's more than half of all suicides in America over a 12 year span.
*
More people die by their own hand with firearms than are killed by others with firearms? 
Then that means there is a great potential to lower_ both_ overall gun deaths and the national suicide rate significantly by instituting mandatory background checks, mental health checks and mandatory 10+ day waiting periods on _*all*_ gun purchases and transfers across the country.

Edit: Added the link.

Also, I was going to mention how the change from Coal-Gas stoves to Natural Gas stoves in the UK back in the 60s and 70s had the effect of dropping the overall suicide rate by a third, But this article covers it well and gives other examples of obstacles lowering suicide rates, such as barriers on bridges known for suicides. What does this have to do with gun suicides you ask? Nothing, aside from the fact that once an easy option was eliminated *suicide rates didn't remain the same while the methods merely changed, rather, suicide rates dropped significantly*. The same could happen with guns.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 24, 2014)

> I'm not sure if this comment is supposed to be pro or anti gun control.
> 
> Because it is actually a pretty strong argument for gun control. Suicide tends to be a spur of the moment, deep down in my darkest depth moment, and if you don't successfully kill yourself it may be a long time, or never, before you try again.
> 
> This is an argument for better background checks and mental health check (that's gun control) rather than banning gun outright though.


It is more of an argument for better reporting and mental health care. Guns aren't the only way to kill yourself. Simply banning them will just force people to find other ways.



> It just seems really odd to the rest of the world when people say things like, "If we ban guns, only criminals will have gun." Well...and the police, and other people and whatnot. And where are the criminals going to get guns?


Because it is true. There sheer amount of guns that exist in private hands make it inevitable that they can and will end up with criminals. Even if you stopped all the sales, there is no way to confiscate them. This country can't stop people from crossing the boarder with Mexico, so no doubt they would flow in by other means. Check out the ATFs Operation Fast and Furious, some of those guns came back across the boarder and ended up being used in crimes. 


> And why isn't this true in any other country?


Australia implemented very strict gun control laws. How is it criminals still get them? They appear to be wondering the same thing.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 24, 2014)

AxeHappy said:


> Because it is actually a pretty strong argument for gun control. Suicide tends to be a spur of the moment, deep down in my darkest depth moment, and if you don't successfully kill yourself it may be a long time, or never, before you try again.
> 
> This is an argument for better background checks and mental health check (that's gun control) rather than banning gun outright though.






Necris said:


> If you go over to the CDCs fatal injury reports here, you will find that if you choose "Suicide" "All Injury" from 1999 to 2011 you get a total of 436,110 deaths. If you choose "Suicide" "Firearm" you get 228,396 deaths.
> *That's more than half of all suicides in America over a 12 year span.
> *
> ...Also, I was going to mention how the change from Coal-Gas stoves to Natural Gas stoves in the UK back in the 60s and 70s had the effect of dropping the overall suicide rate by a third, But this article covers it well and gives other examples of obstacles lowering suicide rates, such as barriers on bridges known for suicides. What does this have to do with gun suicides you ask? Nothing, aside from the fact that once an easy option was eliminated *suicide rates didn't remain the same while the methods merely changed, rather, suicide rates dropped significantly*. The same could happen with guns.



Okay, so statistics support the idea that eliminating an easy suicide method doesn't lead to adoption of harder methods. Nice way to support one's ideas. And now...



JD27 said:


> Guns aren't the only way to kill yourself. Simply banning them will just force people to find other ways.



But that's not the case so far. The evidence and documentation says you're wrong. 



AxeHappy said:


> It just seems really odd to the rest of the world when people say things like, "If we ban guns, only criminals will have gun." Well...and the police, and other people and whatnot. And where are the criminals going to get guns? And why isn't this true in any other country?



Wait... are you suggesting that the reason Canada has only a seventh of our firearm homicide rate is that they require background checks on their mental, criminal and addiction histories, and also informing spouses and partners of the application, so that they can present evidence of domestic violence? 

No... that can't be the reason for less gun violence in Canada. I know because the NRA told me it's not true.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 24, 2014)

Explorer said:


> But that's not the case so far. The evidence and documentation says you're wrong.



Sure looks like a lot people, especially females, found other ways besides firearms.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/mechanism02.htm

And how do you account for Japan? One of the highest suicide rates in the world and also has one of the lowest among firearms ownership.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 24, 2014)

You asserted that if you remove an easy method of suicide, that will not act as any kind of deterrent, and all those people will then seen a harder method.

Studies and statistics have shown that assertion to be wrong. When you make it harder, or even make suicide a painful option (like adding spikes to the sides of bridges, where suicidal jumpers would be impaled), the suicide rate goes down. Those are the facts.

You insist that not one person is deterred from committing suicide by making it harder. 

By the way, I think Necris posted an excellent article in some topic or another about this very thing. Let me dig deep to see if I can find it.... Aha!

Can an Obstacle Prevent Suicide? | Psychology Today

That article is a good resource in terms of what you are arguing against. I'm sorry you weren't aware of it. 

I think you're trying to articulate something completely different, that no matter how difficult it is to do, there will always be suicides, just as you will always have murder, rape and child molestation. What you're actually arguing against is, making it harder to commit suicide lowers the suicide rate, and taking away one of the easiest and most common methods of suicide will make a large impact on the suicide success rate. 

If you really are trying to say that programs to stop suicide, murder and rape don't work to deter some of those activities, in spite of numerous studies and statistics saying otherwise, please explain why not... and in a way which simultaneously and satisfactorily explains away all the evidence which says otherwise.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 24, 2014)

Explorer said:


> You asserted that if you remove an easy method of suicide, that will not act as any kind of deterrent, and all those people will then seen a harder method.
> 
> Studies and statistics have shown that assertion to be wrong. When you make it harder, or even make suicide a painful option (like adding spikes to the sides of bridges, where suicidal jumpers would be impaled), the suicide rate goes down. Those are the facts.
> 
> ...



I never said it wouldn't stop anyone. My point was if you remove that tool there will always be others. Case in point, my reference to Japan. They have virtually no firearms and one of the highest rates of suicide. So should we turn the world into a padded safe room with no objects to hurt yourself or should we focus on actual mental health care.


----------



## MassNecrophagia (Aug 24, 2014)

You can't use "suicide deterrent" as a reason for stronger gun control, because you'd either have to have a _mandatory_ mental-health evalutation in order to obtain any firearm, or outlaw firearms altogether. Banning cosmetic features of firearms is not going to stop someone from shooting themself.

It is a very compelling argument, I can agree on that, although I would also like to point out that those statistics _do_ indicate that a large chunk of gun fatalities are self-inflicted. Does it not send your blood pressure through the roof knowing that instead of addressing that, legislators are more concerned with making _you_ feel safe by banning barrel shrouds and whatever else might look scary?

A 30rd magazine vs a 10rd magazine isn't going to make it harder to shoot yourself.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 25, 2014)

MassNecrophagia said:


> You can't use "suicide deterrent" as a reason for stronger gun control, because you'd either have to have a _mandatory_ mental-health evalutation in order to obtain any firearm, or outlaw firearms altogether.



Wait.. so you're saying that screening for those with mental health problems is impossible? Or just that it's undesirable?

If the latter, why is it undesirable to keep crazy people from buying weapons? Let's use Elliott Rodgers as your example of what you don't want to prevent, since it's relatively recent. I'm just curious what you see as the upside to no thorough mental health background checks.


----------



## MassNecrophagia (Aug 25, 2014)

Did you not read what I wrote? I said "_mandatory_ mental-health evaluation in order to obtain any firearm" And I'm not particularly pleased that you assume I'm opposed to the idea simply because I concede that it's not likely to happen.

Mental-health screening would be great. Just like a thorough background check would be. However, they're not the same thing. A domestic violence charge is going to be there or it's not. There's no disputing it. However, something like PTSD, for example, could be diagnosed by one doctor while missed completely by the next. There's absolutely no way legislation requiring a mental-health evaluation to obtain anything classified as a firearm is going to go anywhere in the foreseeable future, just like an all-encompassing ban on firearms.

I'm not saying it would be bad, and I did nothing to imply that it would be.


----------



## asher (Aug 25, 2014)

JD27 said:


> I never said it wouldn't stop anyone. My point was if you remove that tool there will always be others. Case in point, my reference to Japan. They have virtually no firearms and one of the highest rates of suicide. So should we turn the world into a padded safe room with no objects to hurt yourself or should we focus on actual mental health care.



Yeah, but the numbers show in the large majority of cases the overall suicide rate drops significantly in most places. Maybe Japan is an outlier? Not all cultures or countries are the same and Japan has some pretty unique social dynamics going on. Japan doesn't make all the other numbers go away - so either all those other countries actually have some OTHER correlating factor that makes those rates change, or Japan is different.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 25, 2014)

asher said:


> Yeah, but the numbers show in the large majority of cases the overall suicide rate drops significantly in most places. Maybe Japan is an outlier? Not all cultures or countries are the same and Japan has some pretty unique social dynamics going on. Japan doesn't make all the other numbers go away - so either all those other countries actually have some OTHER correlating factor that makes those rates change, or Japan is different.



I'm just saying removing the tool doesn't fix the problem. Maybe if we did a better job of awareness and getting people help then we wouldn't need to worry about how to suicide proof our world. We can't legislate our problems away. We have to start addressing the root causes. But I don't disagree that there are some things we need to fix with laws. I said it earlier in this thread, I think we need 100% background checks in general. The states also need to get on board with accurate and timely reporting when it comes to mental health care. A perfect example with is with the Navy Yard shooter, there were plenty of signs and even interaction with law enforcement and yet he never made it to the disapprove list.


----------



## Necris (Aug 25, 2014)

JD27 said:


> Sure looks like a lot people, especially females, found other ways besides firearms.
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/mechanism02.htm
> 
> And how do you account for Japan? One of the highest suicide rates in the world and also has one of the lowest among firearms ownership.



Where is your data that those people first looked to a gun to commit suicide and then found another option when that wasn't available? We can assume some may have, but to assume that a firearm was the first choice of every single one of these people is absurd.

Lets have a look at the gun suicide rate in Japan, finding info on this is actually difficult, if only because I don't speak Japanese. Based on what I can find, from 1997 - 2007 there were 54 suicides by police officers in Japan. In 1999 there were 47 total firearm suicides, including undetermined causes of firearm deaths we get 54, extrapolating that to a 12 year span (1999-2011) you get 648, even rounding it up to 700, or even rounding it up and doubling it to 1400 that's a far cry from Americas numbers (228,396 firearm suicides over the same 12 year span), despite Japan having a much higher suicide rate overall.

So, how is Japan a strong argument, or an argument at all, in favor of the idea that difficulty in obtaining a firearm will not deter firearm related suicides? 

As an aside, their firearm homicide rate also happens to be extremely low, as of 2008 their rate was 0.00 per 100,000 people with a total of 11 homicides by firearm that year. The highest recorded year I can see they had 56, there may have been a year where they had over 60, but I don't have access to that number.

Data doesn't support that making a common method of suicide more difficult will eliminate all suicides by that specific method. At the same time, though, that bold claim was _*never made*_. I think we're all realistic enough to know that you can't save everyone. However data _does_ support that making common methods of suicide more difficult does reduce overall deaths by that method and overall.

Why does Japan have such a high suicide rate? I don't know, I'm not an expert on Japanese culture and have never lived there; what I do know is generally common knowledge like Japan having had the concept of honorable suicide in the past, suicide having been romanticized in popular works in Japan and a strong social stigma against unemployment; but I don't believe for a moment that's even vaguely close to explaining the entire problem, there are surely a vast number of other factors, as there always are with suicides.

Why do you continue to push false dichotomies? You've given the option of turning the world into a padded safe room _or_ focusing on mental health care. Legislation _or_ mental health care. Ignoring your sarcastic padded saferoom idea why exactly couldn't legislation and improvements to mental health care not happen in tandem?

Even then, you won't stop every single suicide, is a guarantee of eliminating suicide the only point where you see making the effort as worth it?


----------



## JD27 (Aug 25, 2014)

Necris said:


> So, how is Japan a strong argument, or an argument at all, in favor of the idea that difficulty in obtaining a firearm will not deter firearm related suicides?



What part of they have virtually no firearms and still have a high suicide rate did you miss. Seems that they have found another method . What makes you think it would be different here? Has it deterred them?



Necris said:


> Legislation _or_ mental health care. Ignoring your sarcastic padded saferoom idea why exactly couldn't legislation and improvements to mental health care not happen in tandem?



For the 3rd time in this thread, I support improved background checks and reporting. My point was restricting firearms, or anything for that matter, doesn't address the "why", it only addresses the "how".


----------



## asher (Aug 25, 2014)

So we _shouldn't_ take measures that have demonstratively saved thousands of lives because it won't make them ALL go away?

That's basically what you're arguing...


----------



## JD27 (Aug 25, 2014)

asher said:


> So we _shouldn't_ take measures that have demonstratively saved thousands of lives because it won't make them ALL go away?
> 
> That's basically what you're arguing...


When did I say I wouldn't support it because it wouldn't make them all go away? Oh boy, let's make it a 4th time, I support improved background checks and reporting.


----------



## asher (Aug 25, 2014)

Yeah, I saw that. Reread it even. But: those are not going to do that much to make a dent, because there are a significant portion of cases where it's a gun in the household or just in easy access, not necessarily that particular person's. How would those checks catch that?


----------



## Randy (Aug 25, 2014)

JD27 said:


> When did I say I wouldn't support it because it wouldn't make them all go away? Oh boy, let's make it a 4th time, I support improved background checks and reporting.



You keep repeating that like it's some sort of concession or consultation. "Improved background checks and reporting" is so vague and is almost exactly the reason that's the 'easy out' and nothing's changed.

You argue that your position on not restricting firearms features and availability is based on the likelihood of being ineffective, whereas 'enhanced background checks' is what you offer as the alternative. As much as you say that like it's based on your beliefs on what's most effective, from this side of the computer, I could make an equally convincing argument you only prescribe 'enhanced background checks' because you don't have any felonies or mental health records that would restrict your use/purchase, where as restriction based on features WOULD restrict your personal ability to use/purchase. 

I'm having a hard time separating your recommendations between what is logical and what is self serving. I don't mean to pick on you but I bring this up because the lion's share of recommendations on reform I hear from gun owner all wreak the same way. God forbid a gun law makes anything any less convenient for you.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 25, 2014)

Randy said:


> I could make an equally convincing argument you only prescribe 'enhanced background checks' because you don't have any felonies or mental health records that would restrict your use/purchase, where as restriction based on features WOULD restrict your personal ability to use/purchase.



So who exactly are we trying to keep firearms away from, people with  mental health problems and felons or the general population all together? Why should we give up features based on false assumptions that they add safety? How do you know they make guns safer, if you don't know what they do in the first place?



Randy said:


> I don't mean to pick on you but I bring this up because the lion's share of recommendations on reform I hear from gun owner all wreak the same way. God forbid a gun law makes anything any less convenient for you*.*



Why is the only option on the gun control side to take away? Maybe if there was some compromise at some point then laws would get passed. 

On a side note, I come here talk about guitars, so I am about done with this thread. You're not changing my mind, I'm not changing yours, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I only got sucked into this thread because I'm a MD resident (not sure anyone that posted here even is) and gun owner which gives me some extra insight into the current laws.


----------



## asher (Aug 25, 2014)

Passing suicidal thoughts do not necessarily mean screenable mental health issues though.


----------



## Randy (Aug 25, 2014)

JD27 said:


> You're not changing my mind, I'm not changing yours



I read stuff in these threads all the time that change my mind, just not any of the stuff you're posting. If anything, the bulk of my frustration comes from the fact that I WANT to have you change my mind but the points you take sound, as I said in the last post, weak and self serving.



> Why is the only option on the gun control side to take away?



You mentioned the background check thing earlier and a couple of people said "hey, why can't it be both in tandem", which you deflect back to agitating for 'background checks only', and then you're going to accuse 'the gun control side' of only putting forward one option and not compromising?


----------



## Necris (Aug 25, 2014)

JD27 said:


> What part of they have virtually no firearms and still have a high suicide rate did you miss. Seems that they have found another method .?




Again, "found another method" implies that a gun was the first option, or on the table at all. Their high suicide rate doesn't negate the fact that their firearm suicide rate _*specifically*_ is extremely low.

I don't personally believe that their firearm suicide rates would _lessen_ if guns were more common in Japan.

Unfortunately, I was correct in assuming that not being able to speak Japanese is going to make it extremely hard for me to understand their suicide issue, since the sites with the most thorough details are in Japanese, you try sifting through that with shitty internet translation.

However, I was able to find that the most common method of suicide for both genders, by far, was hanging; which is an extremely difficult method to take preventative measures against. 
The data came from Japans Center for Suicide Prevention and was translated and made into this chart.

It happens that common suicide methods vary in different parts of the world. The United States is one of 4 surveyed countries where suicide by firearm is the most common. The other 3 are Switzerland, Uruguay and Argentina. Switzerland and Uruguay having high rates of private firearm ownership and a high number of firearms per 100 people.

Also the introduction to that study states what I, and the data I've found have been pointing to:


> Restricting access to the means of suicide is an important component of comprehensive strategies for suicide prevention. To improve prevention efforts, better knowledge of national, regional and local suicide patterns is vital, and better understanding of underlying mechanisms is absolutely crucial.


Both, not either or.




JD27 said:


> Why is the only option on the gun control side to take away? Maybe if there was some compromise at some point then laws would get passed.



I know I, personally, never once said "take them away". I said mandatory waiting periods of 10+ days, mandatory background checks, and mental health screenings. I support those in tandem with improving the mental health care in this country. 

I don't believe the end result would be anyone taking away guns already owned, or necessarily taking away the right of a private citizen to purchase a firearm.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 25, 2014)

Randy said:


> I read stuff in these threads all the time that change my mind, just not any of the stuff you're posting. If anything, the bulk of my frustration comes from the fact that I WANT to have you change my mind but the points you take sound, as I said in the last post, weak and self serving.



So when I first said I supported better background checks in post #83 it was because I was being self serving? It could only benefit me?

*"A private seller can sell a firearm to any person as long as they are in accordance with state law. That's not something I would feel comfortable doing personally. Other than checking you are a state resident, I have no way of knowing you are not a prohibited person."*

Does that sound self serving? I won't share exactly what I do for work, but I am already more than inconvenienced when it comes to sharing personal information about my life and I willingly submit to that. But you're right, it's all about me and my "hobby" and don't actually care about what people do with their "toys" as long as I can have mine.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 25, 2014)

JD27 said:


> So who exactly are we trying to keep firearms away from, people with mental health problems and felons or the general population all together?



When I read this line, my initial reaction was "what's the difference?" Everyone is sane until you diagnose them or they do something crazy. Everyone's a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime. Everyone's a responsible gun owner until they shoot something or someone they shouldn't have. Interpret that whichever way you want.

I'm not in any way claiming we shouldn't try to screen people before allowing access to guns - I think that would irresponsible. But at the same time, I think "keeping guns away from criminals and crazy people" is an unattainable goal without taking them away from everyone, which is also impossible.


----------

