# Only in Texas (Too funny not to share)



## GuitaristOfHell (May 7, 2013)

Texas House Approves 12 Firearms Bills To Put More Guns In Classrooms And Defy Federal Law | ThinkProgress

*sigh* I could not get through this without laughing. There's so much wrong in this.


----------



## Vostre Roy (May 7, 2013)

> *No federal gun laws apply to the state*. In a blatantly unconstitutional move, the House approved Rep. Steve Toth&#8217;s (R) proposal to exempt the state from any future federal laws to ban or restrict assault weapons or magazines. Federal law enforcement officers would be punished with up to 5 years in prison and a $50,000 fine if they tried to enforce these bans.


----------



## gunshow86de (May 7, 2013)




----------



## GuitaristOfHell (May 7, 2013)

Vostre Roy said:


>


I know. It's ridiculous.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 7, 2013)

This really isnt as crazy as it seems cause most households have possession of an assault weapon in Texas. Only roughly 1.8% of almost 26 million people in Texas are CHL holders. (about 3 of every 100 people carry a gun) so your not gonna have a college full of guns, just enough scattered throughout the campus to take action as needed. A college university population is gonna be 80% or more of kids under the age of 21 and do not qualify to carry. We have such low CHL numbers in Texas because you do not need a permit to carry a handgun in a vehicle and no permit is required for long rifles/shotguns. People here arnt crazy rednecks that act like zakk wylde. They are for the most part very humble but will not hesitate to put a boot in your ass. Welcome to Texas, my front door is locked for your protection not mine.


----------



## cwhitey2 (May 7, 2013)

Fuck yeah guns!!!


...do they realize they cant just put feds in jail...im pretty sure the ATF will love this


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 7, 2013)

The more I watch the news and pay attention to anything that happens in politics it seems 75% of things done in that arena are done more to say "Take THAT!" than to actually accomplish anything of value...


----------



## Randy (May 7, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> This really isnt as crazy as it seems cause most households have possession of an assault weapon in Texas. Only roughly 1.8% of almost 26 million people in Texas are CHL holders.



Okay, but why? That's the part I don't get. Is it just like a "thing" or is a more dangerous/violent place or what...? People feel an increased need for that kinda thing?


----------



## Sicarius (May 7, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> This really isnt as crazy as it seems cause most households have possession of an assault weapon in Texas. Only roughly 1.8% of almost 26 million people in Texas are CHL holders. (about 3 of every 100 people carry a gun) so your not gonna have a college full of guns, just enough scattered throughout the campus to take action as needed. A college university population is gonna be 80% or more of kids under the age of 21 and do not qualify to carry. We have such low CHL numbers in Texas because you do not need a permit to carry a handgun in a vehicle and no permit is required for long rifles/shotguns. People here arnt crazy rednecks that act like zakk wylde. They are for the most part very humble but will not hesitate to put a boot in your ass. Welcome to Texas, my front door is locked for your protection not mine.



I work for the Community College system that's been in the news a couple of times this year, while it's a frightening thing to happen, I still hope that the senate kills this like the last time this has come up.



Randy said:


> Okay, but why? That's the part I don't get. Is it just like a "thing" or is a more dangerous/violent place or what...? People feel an increased need for that kinda thing?



To be fair I don't think that's actually true. People use ARs for hunting (.223 is a popular hunting round), they're modular, and some people just want to feel like they're an "Operator". I guess in some instances when a shotgun isn't good enough I guess a semi-auto AR is better? 

It's stupid, but guns have always given people boners because they're tokens of power. Which is why people Open Carry. They try to justify it as they're showing they're armed to dissuade anyone from attacking them. But the actual likelihood of being attacked while unarmed isn't like it's 50/50. It's a psychological thing, they have a gun, it makes them feel powerful, and it gives them reason to look down on others because that kind of shit doesn't sit right with people. So while the "sheeple" are uncomfortable, they have their ego stroked hardcore because of it, and they get to bitch at police (because of course people are going to call the cops, it's suspicious to be carrying a gun in the open) about how they're trying to infringe on their rights because they're just trying to protect themselves.


----------



## gunshow86de (May 7, 2013)

Randy said:


> Okay, but why? That's the part I don't get. Is it just like a "thing" or is a more dangerous/violent place or what...? People feel an increased need for that kinda thing?



I wish I had an answer. All I know is that we Texans love us some guns. I have a few friends, whom I would consider "flaming liberals," that went to the NRA show this past weekend.


----------



## tacotiklah (May 7, 2013)

I'm positive that inbreeding or chemicals in the water have eroded all cognitive abilities in the representatives of the state of Texas. 
Clearly they need a brief civics lesson:
Federal preemption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What Texas is trying to do is in the effect of "You can't tell me that I can't have guns Dad! If you do, I'll ground you and take away your allowance."


----------



## Sicarius (May 7, 2013)

gunshow86de said:


> I wish I had an answer. All I know is that we Texans love us some guns. I have a few friends, whom I would consider "flaming liberals," that went to the NRA show this past weekend.



Yeah, I wasn't even about to step foot into that house of loonies. 

And now our representatives are chemically retarded? That's a bit of a jump, don't you think? Why don't we leave the hyperbole at home?


----------



## tacotiklah (May 7, 2013)

My point is that there is something about the people that are supposed represent you guys that brings out all kinds of stupid. I'm sorry, but threatening to fine and imprison federal officials is the absolute height of stupidity.


----------



## Sicarius (May 7, 2013)

Of course it's stupid. It's blatantly stupid to get the person introducing it into the news.

They're just playing their game to get reelected. Something like that will never make it into law.


----------



## tacotiklah (May 7, 2013)

Hyperbole? Maybe. I just can't fathom that people that do something as stupid as that still maintain the cognitive capabilities to breathe and dress themselves, so I'm trying to figure out wtf caused these people to lose the ability to mentally function. You'd think that something so basic as Federal Preemption would be common knowledge among people that seek to hold office.

I will say in fairness that other states have thumbed their noses at federal preemption as well, in the form of legalizing marijuana, so don't think Texas is alone in this. But they certainly are the first state in recent memory to try and fine and arrest federal officials for doing their job in accordance with federal law.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 7, 2013)

I hope to see this great state continue to lead the nation in freedom of gun ownership. Everyone is all spooked about the carry a gun to school thing but what about this law? 

A license holder is not prohibited from having a handgun in his or her vehicle in a school parking lot. (School employees should know and comply with their employer's policy on this point.) However, it is a criminal offense for any person who is on school property to exhibit, use, or threaten to exhibit or use a firearm. See Texas Education Code 37.125(a).

Do you know how many guns are sitting in the parking lot of any give community college at any give time? the numbers would be startling. People are going to do what they want to do regardless of right or wrong or if its the law. So why not allow the responsiable citizens who have taken the time and money to get permits to carry their weapons with less restictions. I understand no firearms in hospitals and elementary, Jr and high schools. But to restrict someone who willing pays money to attend should be allowed to do so. Its not a right to be in college, you pay for it.

Ive attended a community college and now i am in the UT system of schools. Everyday i get a email alert from the police of assaults, robberies and all kinds of other crimes that happen daily within a few city blocks. Robberies at knife point will stop completely around here once these laws take affect.


----------



## Randy (May 7, 2013)

gunshow86de said:


> I wish I had an answer. All I know is that we Texans love us some guns. I have a few friends, whom I would consider "flaming liberals," that went to the NRA show this past weekend.



I live in a very VERY rural area of NY but up here it's pretty straight forward. You've got a lot of sportsmen (defined specifically as people who ADAMANTLY hunt, anything and everything that's in season), some protection (specifically in the cities; people who keep for protection outside of the cities is VERY rare), and a minimal amount of hobbiests (like my friend and even myself at one point, just .22s for plinking cans in the backyard; and the VERY rare enthusiast that collects the "much feared" assault weapons, etc.). Other than that, just criminals. That, for as long as I've known, is the makeup and motivation behind gun ownership here in NY and specifically upstate NY.

The thing about Texas that I have trouble understanding is the mentality that everybody needs a gun. For any reason. Is Texas so rich with wild game that everybody needs to get in on it? Is it so rife with thieves and murderers that everyone needs that form of protection? Is it home of such amazing, world class scenic/entertaining shooting ranges that everbody feels the need do it (like up here in NY, because we're in the Adirondacks/Berkshires, skiing/snowboarding/hiking/etc. is something "you just do")?

I mean, to me, those are the practical reasons for such a constant push on the necessity of loose and broadly exercised gun rights. Maybe it's overstated but the way I keep hearing it, I get this vibe of like, everybody regardless of sex, race, background or interests fits into a NEED to have these rights represented. Like I said, maybe it's overstated in the media but idk, I poke around these forums a bit and it sounds like it happens on the ground level as well...?

The only other thing I can think of is the cultural/pride thing? The same way the confederate flag still has a place in Mississippi (and I don't mean that to be two representations of perceived "redneck" culture), I'm seeing this... thing where "being a Texan means something" and "being a Texan means exercising your gun rights"? I mean, not as a slight on anybody if that's their thinking (consciously or otherwise) but I'm just really unfamiliar with that amplified pride of statehood.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 7, 2013)

Randy said:


> Okay, but why? That's the part I don't get. Is it just like a "thing" or is a more dangerous/violent place or what...? People feel an increased need for that kinda thing?



thats just what you do man, where else can you live walk out in your backyard and shoot an AK47? Texas has always had this kind of freedom and knows nothing else really. A good majority of people that are born and raised texan have grown up around pistols, shotguns, rifles. Ive got a few buddies here that even legally own automatic weapons. They cost a fortune to own and the ATF knows you have possession of it, but it is the most incredible feeling dumping a full clip in a Tech Nine machine gun. You can get shot in texas if you catch someone stealing your home made brew in your backyard. Nice old law on the books . I can walk in an Academy or Bass pro and buy a AR15 just as fast as you can walk into a grocery store grab eggs, milk and bread and get out the door with it. Our stand your ground and castle doctrine are pretty interesting too. If you catch someone doing any criminal mischief at night time on your property is grounds to shoot. You could shoot someone egging your house or rolling your trees. There was a case here a 16 yr old kid broke into a car in dallas, the guy came out and shot him in the drive way. Grand Jury never filed the case and they basically told him dont make a habbit out of it. Even when something like this happens your looking at roughly $5-10,000 just on an attorney, bail and other matters.


----------



## Customisbetter (May 7, 2013)

Dems ITT

Lol 

I am 100% behind CCW on campus. I do however wish it was like Mississpi where you have additional training required. Michigan doesn't have a multi level permit.


----------



## pink freud (May 7, 2013)

Randy said:


> I live in a very VERY rural area of NY but up here it's pretty straight forward. You've got a lot of sportsmen (defined specifically as people who ADAMANTLY hunt, anything and everything that's in season), some protection (specifically in the cities; people who keep for protection outside of the cities is VERY rare), and a minimal amount of hobbiests (like my friend and even myself at one point, just .22s for plinking cans in the backyard; and the VERY rare enthusiast that collects the "much feared" assault weapons, etc.). Other than that, just criminals. That, for as long as I've known, is the makeup and motivation behind gun ownership here in NY and specifically upstate NY.
> 
> The thing about Texas that I have trouble understanding is the mentality that everybody needs a gun. For any reason. Is Texas so rich with wild game that everybody needs to get in on it? Is it so rife with thieves and murderers that everyone needs that form of protection? Is it home of such amazing, world class scenic/entertaining shooting ranges that everbody feels the need do it (like up here in NY, because we're in the Adirondacks/Berkshires, skiing/snowboarding/hiking/etc. is something "you just do")?
> 
> ...



I think some people like guns for the same reason some people like zombie/post-apocalyptic media. In a significant portion of Americans there exists a "Cowboy/Me against the harsh world" mentality. It is the same part of a psyche that favors other things in the independence vs community dichotomy, such as anti-social program, anti-tax and such.

There isn't anything wrong with that when it is at a reasonable level. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and their own way of life. Some people take it overboard, the most obvious being those who seem to WANT conflict with the government. Apparently a group of this type of people is planning an armed July 4th march on DC.


----------



## Randy (May 7, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> I hope to see *this great state *continue to lead the nation in freedom of gun ownership.



Great state? Really? You actually love your state that much? Is it for this issue or other issues? Are you under the belief you couldn't lead an equally safe or gratifying life somewhere else?

Please elaborate on what "great state" means to you and why you think it's a necessary description in this discussion? 




ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> Everyday i get a email alert from the police of assaults, robberies and all kinds of other crimes that happen daily within a few city blocks. Robberies at knife point will stop completely around here once these laws take affect.



Sounds really dangerous. How scared of attending these schools or going out in public are you, if you're not carrying or have a gun close by? Not a leading question, just curious.

On the knife thing, my own personal experience with observing knife point robberies, these kinds of things happen fast, unexpected and in close enough proximity that pulling a gun could result in getting your throat slit or some other fatal wound. In most cases, with a gun or without, you're usually recommended to just give the person what they want and get yourself out of the situation. Scenarios of absolutely random acts of violence occur but I'd venture to guess they're overstated.


----------



## Sicarius (May 7, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> I hope to see this great state continue to lead the nation in freedom of gun ownership. Everyone is all spooked about the carry a gun to school thing but what about this law?
> 
> A license holder is not prohibited from having a handgun in his or her vehicle in a school parking lot. (School employees should know and comply with their employer's policy on this point.) However, it is a criminal offense for any person who is on school property to exhibit, use, or threaten to exhibit or use a firearm. See Texas Education Code 37.125(a).
> 
> ...



Just because you have the permit doesn't mean that you know how to act in a situation that warrants the use, or even just pulling the firearm. You can't teach that in a little 4-8hr class. That's why I'm so "spooked" about it. People are fucking stupid, and giving an uneducated person filled with ignorance about how them just carrying a gun is stopping crime from happening isn't a good idea. They don't know how to react, they don't know what to actually do, they just have a gun, and they think just having it is enough. 

Shit just fucking happens. Whether you have a gun or not, crime like you described happens all over Austin, just because it's close to UT doesn't mean they're preying on college students, that just means that crime is everywhere. Like it already is. Saying "It's all going to stop once we have guns" is just feeding into that fear mongering that the advocacy groups are throwing out there. 

By the way, that law that you pointed out? It's to make sure in the case of something like that happening no one gets in the way of the police when they try to diffuse the situation, instead of an untrained student or fac/staff with a gun getting in the way and making everything worse.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 7, 2013)

Randy said:


> Sounds really dangerous. How scared of attending these schools or going out in public are you, if you're not carrying or have a gun close by? Not a leading question, just curious.
> 
> On the knife thing, my own personal experience with observing knife point robberies, these kinds of things happen fast, unexpected and in close enough proximity that pulling a gun could result in getting your throat slit or some other fatal wound. In most cases, with a gun or without, you're usually recommended to just give the person what they want and get yourself out of the situation. Scenarios of absolutely random acts of violence occur but I'd venture to guess they're overstated.



Well in this case after you give up whatever it is to free yourself you can shoot to retrieve property. Thats part of the stand your ground. Me? im not scared, its hard to be when you carry a gun. They tell you if you cant pull the gun and shoot dont get a CHL. The great state is exactly what it says, Ive lived in other states and this one by far is the best ive been in. The weather, laws, work, affordability DFW is a great area to live. Great for new college grads too since its two big markets to apply in.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 7, 2013)

Sicarius said:


> Just because you have the permit doesn't mean that you know how to act in a situation that warrants the use, or even just pulling the firearm. You can't teach that in a little 4-8hr class. That's why I'm so "spooked" about it. People are fucking stupid, and giving an uneducated person filled with ignorance about how them just carrying a gun is stopping crime from happening isn't a good idea. They don't know how to react, they don't know what to actually do, they just have a gun, and they think just having it is enough.
> 
> Shit just fucking happens. Whether you have a gun or not, crime like you described happens all over Austin, just because it's close to UT doesn't mean they're preying on college students, that just means that crime is everywhere. Like it already is. Saying "It's all going to stop once we have guns" is just feeding into that fear mongering that the advocacy groups are throwing out there.
> 
> By the way, that law that you pointed out? It's to make sure in the case of something like that happening no one gets in the way of the police when they try to diffuse the situation, instead of an untrained student or fac/staff with a gun getting in the way and making everything worse.



Not just any fool decides to get involved in the situation. You just dont get up and start shooting. You are completely accountable for your actions, if you are not positive you cant make that shot you dont take it. If it hits someone else you will be held accountable for that murder. Owning a CHL and using it lawfully to avoid a trip to TDC takes alot of time studying a law book. Most people are beyond firearm efficient before they even consider a CHL, expecially in TX. I was able to operate a shotgun and rifle before i knew how to drive. You would be shocked how many teens/young adults 15-21 how responsabile they are with firearms.


----------



## Randy (May 7, 2013)

Sicarius said:


> Saying "It's all going to stop once we have guns" is just feeding into that fear mongering that the advocacy groups are throwing out there.



One of things that I find so odd in these debates. I'm not painting anybody with one affiliation or the other but I think it's so strange the one of the themes in the advocacy of deregulating firearms, is there's an "anti-government" element which is embodied by both "they're tyrannical dictators and we need these to defend" and "the police are incapable of defending us, so we need to do it ourselves" arguments. I find it a little short sighted to relate to either of these, but assume these same leaders are either "non-tyrannical enough" or that the same politicians that are too incompetent to distribute enough police to protect us are "all of the sudden" competent enough to draft tempered legislation that'll make us safer?

That reasons seems a bit... selective.



pink freud said:


> I think some people like guns for the same reason some people like zombie/post-apocalyptic media. In a significant portion of Americans there exists a "Cowboy/Me against the harsh world" mentality. It is the same part of a psyche that favors other things in the independence vs community dichotomy, such as anti-social program, anti-tax and such..



I mean, I don't disagree with that. I just find it hard to rationalize that THAT group of people you're describing are so common that it warrants the kind of legislation that's being floated.

I mean, lets all be honest, politicians usually pick their bills based on what'll get them votes. And they have a ton of data and statistics to base those decisions on. For all this legislation to come up, there's either some kind of overwhelming statistical information that leads them to believe it'll work and become very popular or they thing MORE THAN 50% OF PEOPLE in their voting district think they're "cowboy". 

It's all possible, I'm just still trying to grasp the culture and context involved.


----------



## Randy (May 7, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> im not scared, its hard to be when you carry a gun.



I was asking if you're scared when you're not carrying a gun.


----------



## Xaios (May 7, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> If you catch someone doing any criminal mischief at night time on your property is grounds to shoot. You could shoot someone egging your house or rolling your trees. There was a case here a 16 yr old kid broke into a car in dallas, the guy came out and shot him in the drive way. Grand Jury never filed the case and they basically told him dont make a habbit out of it. Even when something like this happens your looking at roughly $5-10,000 just on an attorney, bail and other matters.



Good fucking GOD, you're actually proud of this?! Ever heard of a little something called proportional response? Speaking as someone who is a completely law-abiding citizen, that's just _*fucked up*_. That's the same attitude that gets children shot by their parents when they're sneaking back into the house late at night.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 7, 2013)

Xaios said:


> Good fucking GOD, you're actually proud of this?! Ever heard of a little something called proportional response? Speaking as someone who is a completely law-abiding citizen, that's just _*fucked up*_. That's the same attitude that gets children shot by their parents when they're sneaking back into the house late at night.



I dont go around shooting kids throwing toliet paper, but these are examples of cases i have seen happen, go to a grand jury and nothing ever came about. Its very rare to see someone get shot here over something that happened in the front yard but home invasions frequently end in a death. I dont write laws, i just follow them. Apparently more people here than not want a gun friendly state to live, i guess if people are unsatisfied with that they can move to California.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 7, 2013)

Randy said:


> I was asking if you're scared when you're not carrying a gun.


No, but grabbing it and walking out the door with it is now a habbit. Its just like grabbing your wallet and keys.


----------



## Xaios (May 7, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> I dont go around shooting kids throwing toliet paper, but these are examples of cases i have seen happen, go to a grand jury and nothing ever came about.



I wasn't accusing you. However, your nonchalance regarding what I would call a fairly serious issue is somewhat unsettling.



ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> Its very rare to see someone get shot here over something that happened in the front yard but home invasions frequently end in a death.



Now here's a problem: living in an environment where the possibility of being victim of a home invasion is high enough that you need to own a gun for such an eventuality _is not normal_. That's indicative of a larger social problem that's not gonna be solved by everyone packing heat.



ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> Apparently more people here than not want a gun friendly state to live, i guess if people are unsatisfied with that they can move to California.



I don't think I'll ever be visiting Texas. And I'm not coming from a place that has any compunctions about gun ownership either. Sport hunting is a *big thing* here. However, we just don't _need_ guns for our daily lives.


----------



## tedtan (May 7, 2013)

Sicarius said:


> Of course it's stupid. It's blatantly stupid to get the person introducing it into the news.
> 
> They're just playing their game to get reelected. Something like that will never make it into law.


 
And this sums up politics - the name of the game is to get (re)elected. Nothing more.


----------



## Vostre Roy (May 7, 2013)

I won't comment much on the subject, this is an USA topic and therefore I can't totally relate to this, especially since I read this and that on several medias, its hard to have a proper point of view. However, I share that point of view at 1000%



Xaios said:


> Sport hunting is a *big thing* here. However, we just don't _need_ guns for our daily lives.


 
Hell, hunting is one of our major tourist attraction where I live (right after fishing and snowmobile trailing, not much to do eh?). I've learn how to shoot using a .22 caliber when I was about 10-12. I even own a rifle, wich I received when my father died, that I never even layed a finger on (its in my mother's boyfriend gun vault). I can't even remember its caliber lol

I won't add anything else as I can't figure out that mentality at all I guess


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 7, 2013)

Xaios said:


> I wasn't accusing you. However, your nonchalance regarding what I would call a fairly serious issue is somewhat unsettling.
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's a problem: living in an environment where the possibility of being victim of a home invasion is high enough that you need to own a gun for such an eventuality _is not normal_. That's indicative of a larger social problem that's not gonna be solved by everyone packing heat.



Not that im insensitive or dont care about the matter, these are real examples of their legislation in action. A balanced gun debate should have the good, the bad, and the ugly. DFW is not by far not a dangerous place to live. Having a population of people that are familiar with weapons your gonna have people that are ready to defend their castle.


----------



## Sicarius (May 7, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> Not just any fool decides to get involved in the situation. You just dont get up and start shooting. You are completely accountable for your actions, if you are not positive you cant make that shot you dont take it. If it hits someone else you will be held accountable for that murder. Owning a CHL and using it lawfully to avoid a trip to TDC takes alot of time studying a law book. Most people are beyond firearm efficient before they even consider a CHL, expecially in TX. I was able to operate a shotgun and rifle before i knew how to drive. You would be shocked how many teens/young adults 15-21 how responsabile they are with firearms.


Yeah, I would, actually. I live in a rural area, where hunting is a normal hobby for families, it was part of mine when I was very young. Guns make people think differently. "I have a gun, I am protected, I can help protect others." So, take for instance the situation that happened at one of the campuses in the system I work for. A young man, a student, was going around cutting and stabbing people, thankfully a brave unarmed person was there to help the bring him down safely.

If that person had a different mind set, and had been armed I could see that situation going very differently and very badly for everyone involved.



Randy said:


> One of things that I find so odd in these debates. I'm not painting anybody with one affiliation or the other but I think it's so strange the one of the themes in the advocacy of deregulating firearms, is there's an "anti-government" element which is embodied by both "they're tyrannical dictators and we need these to defend" and "the police are incapable of defending us, so we need to do it ourselves" arguments. I find it a little short sighted to relate to either of these, but assume these same leaders are either "non-tyrannical enough" or that the same politicians that are too incompetent to distribute enough police to protect us are "all of the sudden" competent enough to draft tempered legislation that'll make us safer?
> 
> That reasons seems a bit... selective.



Well, you gotta keep their attention by playing the 2nd amendment card over and over, and scaring the ever loving shit out of them Glenn Beck style: "The only thing keeping your Wife and Daughter from being raped and coming home safely is a gun".

He said that. At the NRA convention. 

I'm a big fan of firearms, and I have no problem with people owning them responsibly. My problem comes from people going way overboard about it and claiming their 2nd amendment is being violated whenever anyone brings up the subject of gun control.


----------



## tedtan (May 7, 2013)

Randy said:


> On the knife thing, my own personal experience with observing knife point robberies, these kinds of things happen fast, unexpected and in close enough proximity that pulling a gun could result in getting your throat slit or some other fatal wound. In most cases, with a gun or without, you're usually recommended to just give the person what they want and get yourself out of the situation.


 
I agree, but a couple of points you've missed are 1) having people carrying, concealed or otherwise, is (at least theoretically) a deterrent to the crime, and 2) bystanders being armed can still use their firearm(s) from a safe distance (which adds to #1 above).




Randy said:


> I mean, lets all be honest, politicians usually pick their bills based on what'll get them votes. And they have a ton of data and statistics to base those decisions on. For all this legislation to come up, there's either some kind of overwhelming statistical information that leads them to believe it'll work and become very popular or they thing MORE THAN 50% OF PEOPLE in their voting district think they're "cowboy".


 
I wouldn't say cowboy, but its the culture here. I have a picture of my dad and uncle teaching me to shoot from when I was 3 years old. It was only a .22, but it illustrates the point. As others have mentioned, I grew up shooting shotguns, rifles and handguns. Assault rifles I don't get - they're not automatic, so they only look like the real thing (at least not legally without a class 3 FFL). But I don't necessarily have a problem with them, either - it's just a looks thing in most cases.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 7, 2013)

tedtan said:


> I agree, but a couple of points you've missed are 1) having people carrying, concealed or otherwise, is (at least theoretically) a deterrent to the crime, and 2) bystanders being armed can still use their firearm(s) from a safe distance (which adds to #1 above).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We dont even get the privilege to wear a guns like cowboys like they do in NM. We actually have to conceal a weapon in TX. I would think everyone holstering a weapon like a police officer would deter more crime then concealing one.


----------



## tedtan (May 7, 2013)

Open carry may be more a deterrent in specific circumstances, but even with concealed carry a criminal knows that his mark is potentially armed (and the bystanders as well) before he makes a move.


----------



## Randy (May 7, 2013)

tedtan said:


> I agree, but a couple of points you've missed are 1) having people carrying, concealed or otherwise, is (at least theoretically) a deterrent to the crime, and 2) bystanders being armed can still use their firearm(s) from a safe distance (which adds to #1 above).


 
That's a fair point but again, most muggings specifically take place in isolation. I'd be equally concerned a bystander would pull a gun as I would a bystander would catch me with a roundhouse kick.

But the point is well taken.



tedtan said:


> I wouldn't say cowboy, but its the culture here. I have a picture of my dad and uncle teaching me to shoot from when I was 3 years old. It was only a .22, but it illustrates the point. As others have mentioned, I grew up shooting shotguns, rifles and handguns. Assault rifles I don't get - they're not automatic, so they only look like the real thing (at least not legally without a class 3 FFL). But I don't necessarily have a problem with them, either - it's just a looks thing in most cases.



That's not far different from where I come from either, than.

Hunting is a HUGE part of the lifestyle. I went out bowhunting with my friends a few times when I was a kid (8 or 9). It's right of passage. 


Most of my friends probably have photographs similar to the one you mentioned, hanging over the mantel in their parents house. I probably would as well, being that my father's family were from Washington/Montana and were always avid hunters but my parents moved to Long Island and ultimately decided to move to where I grew up specifically because they experienced gun violence and would rather we weren't around it at all, rather than just arm ourselves against it. Thus, I didn't grow up with guns in the house but all of my friends did and I was around them a good bit anywhere outside my door.

The assault weapon thing is around the same point where I'm like "huh"? That and the necessity to carry your weapon with you everywhere. I don't care if it's in your car or if you're carrying it somewhere that is especially dangerous or something but just wanting to have it everywhere with you all the time "just in case" feels like a stretch. To me, those are really non-essential items that fit solely into the niche of either enthusiast or "doing it just because it pisses other people off". 

Assuming that this isn't just deliberate pushback against the gun regulation folk (which I actually do assume most of it is), what value in legislation on items with such marginal use?


----------



## tacotiklah (May 7, 2013)

Sicarius said:


> I'm a big fan of firearms, and I have no problem with people owning them responsibly. My problem comes from people going way overboard about it and claiming their 2nd amendment is being violated whenever anyone brings up the subject of gun control.



This! I consider myself a lefty bleeding-heart liberal, and I believe firmly in the right to bear arms. Where I differ from the crazy, gun-toting people is that the 2nd amendment specifically states "a well-organized militia" having the right to bear and keep arms. It didn't state that any drunken jackass yokel that gets a boner for firepower can run out and get a gun. You have to have training and prove that you are a responsible person to own the gun; such as background checks/firearms and conflict training/etc. Cars can be very dangerous if an irresponsible person gets behind the wheel; hence why people have to have a license proving that they are a capable driver. Granted it's not fool-proof as the many car accidents show, but I honestly believe things would be different if we just removed the whole DMV thing and let every plastered moron behind the wheel.

I'm not alone in this belief, as according to this Gallup poll:
Guns | Gallup Historical Trends

Yeah 58% of Americans want tougher gun laws. I would go a step further and demand additional funding for county mental health clinics and awareness programs. Reach out to kids that are bullied and treated like shit and show that they don't have to raid their parents gun safes in order to get people to stop fucking with them. Focusing on just guns is far too short-sighted imho.


----------



## Edika (May 7, 2013)

First of all as a non US citizen you can tell me to mind my own business and I won't take issue.
I am against guns in general even though I have had military training and know how to use one. The only reason most of my idiotic co-soldiers didn't kill anyone was because our trainers were really strict about safety and were present whenever we used our rifles. Still some almost caused incidents. While I believe in equality in people and having the same rights and freedoms I have come to the realization that most people, even though they are of average intelligence, when given a modicum of power they behave like complete morons and a-holes.
The freedom to bear arms some of your states so passionately defend in my opinion tramples over the freedom of people not choosing to bear arms by sheer psychological pressure. 

ADevisDaydream817said that taking his gun with him is as natural as taking his keys and wallet with him. However his keys and wallets can't kill 6 to 12 people. That is a terrifying thought to have something on you that can kill that many people and consider it as something normal of your everyday life. Just to be clear I am not saying that the above member will go out on a spree and kill people and I consider his mentality quite adjusted to the environment he grew up. Another person might and history has proven that.

Of course the winners in this case are the weapon manufacturers which I am sure had a lot to do with this bill. It's catch 22 because I am sure that these weapons are made in the US and like so the people in gun friendly states support your country's economy and some people have jobs. There are more productive ways however to support your economy.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 7, 2013)

Edika said:


> ADevisDaydream817said that taking his gun with him is as natural as taking his keys and wallet with him. However his keys and wallets can't kill 6 to 12 people. That is a terrifying thought to have something on you that can kill that many people and consider it as something normal of your everyday life. Just to be clear I am not saying that the above member will go out on a spree and kill people and I consider his mentality quite adjusted to the environment he grew up. Another person might and history has proven that.



At first when i starting carrying a weapon it was a bit scary, but its really not a big deal. If your not comfortable with a loaded firearm on your side then chances are you shouldnt do it. Most people officers and CHL holders never even have to pull the trigger on a weapon in defense in their lifetime. Guns have been a big part of my life, ive been fortunate enough to shoot weapons people alot of people only see on the internet or tv. Im all for a good gun debate as long as were keeping matters civil amongst each other just like we have been.


----------



## tedtan (May 7, 2013)

Randy said:


> That's a fair point but again, most muggings specifically take place in isolation. I'd be equally concerned a bystander would pull a gun as I would a bystander would catch me with a roundhouse kick.
> 
> But the point is well taken.


 
I didn't say that those points don't have problems of their own! 

Though honestly, most of the muggings, car-jackings, kidnappings, etc. I have heard of over the past several years here in Houston have occurred in mall or strip mall parking lots or similarly crowded areas. So think of it this way - if a person is unarmed, they may be an easier mark. And a person carrying a weapon in the open is easier to disarm them and use their own weapon against them. But if that person (or someone else in the vicinity) might be armed, it can give a criminal pause to reevaluate. Again, at least in theory.




Randy said:


> Assuming that this isn't just deliberate pushback against the gun regulation folk (which I actually do assume most of it is), what value in legislation on items with such marginal use?


 
It won't pass into law, and even if it did, it wouldn't be enforceable as is. It's just stirring the pot to get a rise out of people and "rally the troops". 

I do think its important to point out that most Texans do consider themselves Texans first and Americans second, and, if that loyalty were tested, would side with Texas. Also, these are the same people who thought that the economy would completely melt down if Obama was reelected , leaving us all to hunt and gather to survive. And I'm talking about educated, upper middle class and upper class people here, too, not just the country bumpkins and red necks. So a bit of sabre rattling from politicians is to be expected from time to time.


----------



## tedtan (May 7, 2013)

ghstofperdition said:


> Focusing on just guns is far too short-sighted imho.


 
I agree that more needs to be done, and will go a step further and say that focusing solely on guns is a superficial approach taken by people who either don't understand the issues or simply want to pretend they've done something good and go home and pat themselves on the back in smug self satisfaction. Truth be told, criminals 1) aren't law abiding citizens, and 2) commit the crimes. With our border as porous as it is, gun control can't do much to keep guns out of their hands. And for the record, criminals are already prohibited from owning (or even being in the vicinity of) guns here in the US. Additional laws won't do much in this regard.

We need more police to prevent crimes, we need ways to deter children from gang/criminal lifestyles, we need better assessment and treatment of mental illness in the school systems and mental hospitals, etc.

Focusing solely on guns is like putting a band aid on a cancerous tumor - it does nothing to address the underlying issue(s) and, further, doesn't even address the symptoms. It just lets certain types of people pretend they've done something worthwhile.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 7, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> Well in this case after you give up whatever it is to free yourself you can shoot to retrieve property. Thats part of the stand your ground. Me? im not scared, its hard to be when you carry a gun. They tell you if you cant pull the gun and shoot dont get a CHL. The great state is exactly what it says, Ive lived in other states and this one by far is the best ive been in. The weather, laws, work, affordability DFW is a great area to live. Great for new college grads too since its two big markets to apply in.



It's very possible for a person with a knife to overtake someone with a gun. It's a well known fact. You have to pull the weapon and accurately aim it. Accurately being the operative word here. I own guns. But I don't think I'm a badass or any less likely to be taken advantage of because of it. To lack humility simply because you have a firearm is down right reckless and certainly not the attitude of the type of armed person I'd want to live around. Moreover, since when is personal property worth ANYONE's life under any circumstance? If you were to die in the struggle it doesn't go with you whether he gets it or not.


----------



## Sicarius (May 7, 2013)

tedtan said:


> I agree that more needs to be done, and will go a step further and say that focusing solely on guns is a superficial approach taken by people who either don't understand the issues or simply want to pretend they've done something good and go home and pat themselves on the back in smug self satisfaction. Truth be told, criminals 1) aren't law abiding citizens, and 2) commit the crimes. With our border as porous as it is, gun control can't do much to keep guns out of their hands. And for the record, criminals are already prohibited from owning (or even being in the vicinity of) guns here in the US. Additional laws won't do much in this regard.
> 
> We need more police to prevent crimes, we need ways to deter children from gang/criminal lifestyles, we need better assessment and treatment of mental illness in the school systems and mental hospitals, etc.
> 
> Focusing solely on guns is like putting a band aid on a cancerous tumor - it does nothing to address the underlying issue(s) and, further, doesn't even address the symptoms. It just lets certain types of people pretend they've done something worthwhile.





You know what does that?

Education.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 7, 2013)

Randy said:


> I mean, I don't disagree with that. I just find it hard to rationalize that THAT group of people you're describing are so common that it warrants the kind of legislation that's being floated.



+1

Not that you and I share this opinion, but it seems to me that [some] ppl have got this overinflated sense of entitlement in this country such that any change in their way of life is seen as taking away their "rights," which I don't believe ever truly existed in the sense that they're sold... But that's a whole 'nother can o' worms...


----------



## Alexxx (May 7, 2013)

I find the human fascination with guns gross. It's a man-made death-machine that gives someone a theoretical measure of "power" and the sensation of firing it is like a drug which releases adrenaline and dopamine. It's a disgusting fascination that something used for death gives so many people adrenaline-hard-ons. IMO it's just pathetic and I feel people should just find a more peaceful or productive hobby to release the dopamine. i.e. cannabis.

On-topic:I don't see how this bill could be allowed to exist with Judicial Review, it'll be repealed I'm sure. It's sad how divided our country is becoming. It's too big for one government to control IMO. Federal and State law will never coexist peacefully. Things need to change. 

If Texans want to be exempt from Federal law, I DO believe they have every right to, but not with our current governmental system. I think a Confederal system would be more beneficial to the country, so states can make their own laws without clashing with a Federal law. Essentially they could all just modify the original Constitution to taste, and Bam, you have independent state constitutions. 

On the other hand, we could just eliminate state laws and have federal law, but like I said, I believe this country is too big for one government to run alone to make laws for so many people with so many different living and geographical situations and cultural regulations, traditions and norms.

It's easier for a couple million people in a specific geographic area to agree on something than 310 million spread out across thousands of miles of land and with different ways of thinking, upbringings, and accepted norms.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 7, 2013)

Konfyouzd said:


> It's very possible for a person with a knife to overtake someone with a gun. It's a well known fact. You have to pull the weapon and accurately aim it. Accurately being the operative word here. I own guns. But I don't think I'm a badass or any less likely to be taken advantage of because of it. To lack humility simply because you have a firearm is down right reckless and certainly not the attitude of the type of armed person I'd want to live around. Moreover, since when is personal property worth ANYONE's life under any circumstance? If you were to die in the struggle it doesn't go with you whether he gets it or not.



idk man, if someone wants my wallet with all my stuff in it, my timepiece watch and my wedding band in a armed robbery style situation i would have to take force on that. Sorry my stuff not yours.


----------



## Randy (May 7, 2013)

Konfyouzd said:


> Not that you and I share this opinion, but it seems to me that [some] ppl have got this overinflated sense of entitlement in this country such that any change in their way of life is seen as taking away their "rights," which I don't believe ever truly existed in the sense that they're sold... But that's a whole 'nother can o' worms...



I hear you.

Not to further ajar this can of worms, but my girlfriend's family is VERY conservative and they bounce around a lot of those anti-Obama chain letters all the time.

Now, I'm not much of a gun enthusiast but I AM a cooking enthusiast stitch. After the Boston Bombing, I started getting emails about how "OMG! Obama's up to it again! He's going to take away your pressure cookers!" Now, I'm not going to try and call it an absolute parallel to guns because it's not (for example, wasn't mentioned in the constitution) but while I don't own a firearm, I own a pressure cooker that I paid good money for and I use (to make delicious food ) Personally, if it helps the greater good, I'd be more than happy to let the government buy my pressure cooker back but hey, if it were totally a "take them all away" thing, I'd be more than happy to give it back if it helps the greater good. 

Like I said, not an absolute parallel by any stretch but all aspects of my life I can conceivably come up with in the model of "some restrictions on your hobby items to help society as a whole" that apply to my life, my reaction is like "Meh, I'll get buy". I don't understand the absolute unwavering compromise on those kind of items, on those terms.


----------



## Randy (May 7, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> idk man, if someone wants my wallet with all my stuff in it, my timepiece watch and my wedding band in a armed robbery style situation i would have to take force on that. Sorry my stuff not yours.



Nobody said lack of an open entitlement to shoot all robbers was the same thing as giving all of your stuff away. If handled correctly, you'd get your stuff back and those people would be in jail.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 7, 2013)

Randy said:


> Personally, if it helps the greater good, I'd be more than happy to let the government buy my pressure cooker back but hey, if it were totally a "take them all away" thing, I'd be more than happy to give it back if it helps the greater good.



That and I only think of my guns as a defense method in the event that someone comes into my home with the intention of taking my LIFE. Even then I might just be able to kick their ass... 

Guns just make shit too messy when the dust settles... Literally and figuratively. I don't *want* to shoot anyone for any reason.

If they come to take my guitars I'm goin' all Kevin-Bacon-in-Foot-Loose on that ass...  

@that one badass dude - A wallet is a thing that contains cards that can be cancelled and replaced.

A wedding ring is a thing that can be replaced. It sucks it's gone but not having it doesn't mean they stole what it represents...

Anything a person can take from you short of your life can be replaced and shooting them for it is no less petty than them stealing it in the first damn place. 



> You took one of my material possessions. Therefore I must maim and/or kill you.


To keep a gun for this reason is the thought process of a Neanderthal.


----------



## Edika (May 7, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> At first when i starting carrying a weapon it was a bit scary, but its really not a big deal. If your not comfortable with a loaded firearm on your side then chances are you shouldnt do it. Most people officers and CHL holders never even have to pull the trigger on a weapon in defense in their lifetime. Guns have been a big part of my life, ive been fortunate enough to shoot weapons people alot of people only see on the internet or tv. Im all for a good gun debate as long as were keeping matters civil amongst each other just like we have been.


 
It wasn't my intention to stir things up or single you out so please accept my apologies. I found your examples really interesting and that is why I used them. I might disagree with your opinion concerning guns but you seem to have a reasonable viewpoint concerning gun ownership and be aware of the responsibilities.
I wanted to make a point about the way people have access to guns in certain states and since you have the right to bear arms from your constitution and choose so, at least there should be an evaluation of the suitability to own a gun. Unfortunately my thoughts sidetracked me. If the only factor in owning a gun is only the lack of a criminal record it's not enough. If there are other procedures then please enlighten me since I am not familiar with your legislation on this matter.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (May 7, 2013)

I just don't see a need for so many guns. I can see a shotgun for home protection and a rifle to go deer hunting because as Randy I'm in UPstate NY and that's all people use by me. We don't need an M16 to hunt deer. Waste of bullets in my opinion. If you need an automatic or semi to hunt you should really work on your aim.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (May 7, 2013)

I think gun control should be a State issue, 100%. It's silly to think that Texas would want to try to arrest any federal officers that try to enforce federal gun laws in their state, but it's not so silly to think that Texas should be able to create and enforce their own gun laws without Federal interference. I just don't think gun control should be a Federal issue at all.

Now, all that's not to say that I don't think _State_ gun control laws don't need to be stricter. I think the circumstances in each state have the potential to be different enough that gun laws in one state may not make sense in another, which could lead to issues where a blanket Federal gun law makes perfect sense in one part of the country, but not so much in another. 

Or something. I don't know. Kinda just thinking out loud .


----------



## Randy (May 7, 2013)

I could agree and disagree with parts of that.

I agree that States have different individual needs and circumstances that necessitate different rules but there should be a federal standard. We are States after all not just mini countries. There are reason the country should be concerned with what happens in its States at large (between the fact those things move across borders and plus the federal government helps fund state government). How far those standards go and how much is left up to the States is up for debate, especially until we figure out a way of holding States accountable for how their laws effect the rest of us.


----------



## Hyacinth (May 7, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> . Robberies at knife point will stop completely around here once these laws take affect.



Robberies at knife-point _will_ probably stop completely, but that's because now all those people who had knives will now have guns. So robberies at gunpoint will skyrocket, but at least there's no more knife robberies!


----------



## wlfers (May 7, 2013)

^ No, not really. Didn't see anything that made guns easier to get than they already are, just preemptive measures (that won't work anyway) against further federal restrictions and relaxation of requirements to acquire concealed carry permits.


----------



## Hyacinth (May 7, 2013)

athawulf said:


> ^ No, not really. Didn't see anything that made guns easier to get than they already are, just preemptive measures (that won't work anyway) against further federal restrictions and relaxation of requirements to acquire concealed carry permits.



It was more of a joke than anything. But there might be a guy with a clean record who wants to turn to a life of crime


----------



## tedtan (May 8, 2013)

Konfyouzd said:


> It's very possible for a person with a knife to overtake someone with a gun. It's a well known fact.


 
Yep. Anyone within about 20-25 feet (7-8 meters) can run fast enough to reach you before you can draw a gun and aim it at them. Guns are not great close in weapons - knives still rule that game (and are at least as deadly). The benefit of a gun as a weapon is that it extends the range one can hit a given target.




Sicarius said:


> You know what does that?
> 
> Education.


 
True, to an extent. Unfortunately, those most in danger of taking that route in life are those least likely to value and pursue education. And their parents are no different. I have family and friends who are educators and they say you can tell reasonably closely a student's socio-economic status based on their grades. Not their intelligence, their socio-economic status.




Edika said:


> I wanted to make a point about the way people have access to guns in certain states...


 
This isn't really accurate. People in all states have legal access to firearms. And even if they didn't legally, there is a huge underground market for illegal guns. So even those who aren't officially approved to own firearms have relatively easy access to them. This isn't really any different from anywhere else, though - if someone wants something, there is a way to get their hands on it (see drugs, prostitution (which isn't legal in the US), gambling, moonshine, etc.).


----------



## tedtan (May 8, 2013)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> We don't need an M16 to hunt deer.


 
Come on, man - no one needs (or has) an M16 for hunting. 

It's not legal to own an automatic weapon without a class 3 FFL*, and even then it's not legal to hunt with. And I'll go further by saying that the .223 (5.56mm NATO) is suitable for varmint purposes, but shouldn't be used on big game. A .243/6mm is much better suited to achieving as fast and humane a kill as possible when hunting deer and similar size game.


* The class 3 FFL is a Federal Firearms License that allows manufacturers and dealers to sell automatic weapons to military and law enforcement, as well as to one another. It's not available to just anyone, and its not cheap enough that most individuals would get one just to have it, though Ted Nugent has one for his own amusement. 




Randy said:


> ...plus the federal government helps fund state government...


 
Just as a point of fact in this particular case, Texas pays more money in to the federal government than it receives back in aid from them. Budget-wise, we run a surplus.




MatthewLeisher said:


> It was more of a joke than anything. But there might be a guy with a clean record who wants to turn to a life of crime


 
I understand its a joke, but there are plenty of guys out there with less than clean backgrounds who already have guns anyway because of the underground market. New laws won't change that at all - they'll just create more new laws for the criminals to break.


----------



## Rick (May 8, 2013)

tedtan said:


> I do think its important to point out that most Texans do consider themselves Texans first and Americans second



Damn fucking right.


----------



## Randy (May 8, 2013)

tedtan said:


> Just as a point of fact in this particular case, Texas pays more money in to the federal government than it receives back in aid from them.



As do some states with stricter-than-federal standards for gun regulation (NY, NJ, IL, CT etc.)

I get your point but I'm sure you get mine as well. The states, other than dollars-for-dollars spent within state borders, obviously get significant fringe benefits from being part of this country. 

And to my original point, the federal government has a place in setting a standard, whereby states have further options with regard to how narrow they want to make those rules within their borders. Where Tim and I would probably agree is that I believe federal regulations shouldn't have to be so strict but that's only under the condition that states are more responsible with how they handle their legislation.

I posted an article a few months ago that said, up here in NY, a disproportionate amount of guns recovered in violent crime originate from states with looser gun laws. Forgetting about banning or anything silly like that, if there's a correlation between the ease of acquiring weapons and their likelihood of ending up in places where it's more difficult to acquire weapons, that clearly illustrates that "state policies" effect places outside of their own borders, so long as we live in a free country where you can travel state-to-state without having your luggage checked.


----------



## tedtan (May 8, 2013)

I wasn't addressing your overall point, Randy. And for the record, I'm not necessarily opposed to tighter regulations (it would depend upon the specifics). I don't want flakes, loonies and criminals to be walking around armed any more than the next person. And inexperienced or hesitant gun owners are probably not any better. I was just commenting on the fact that those states that are not taking federal handouts are somewhat more independent (and have more influence) than those taking the handouts.

Regarding the article you mention, I haven't read it, so I can't comment specifically on it, but why were there more guns used in crimes from states with looser gun regulations? Were the guns stolen in these states and brought to NY? Did they come across the border in a south western state from a Mexican or South American manufacturer before being sold in NY? Did the law abiding citizens suddenly decide to become criminals and move to NY simultaneously? Were they sold at gun shows from one citizen (non dealer) to another without a background checks being performed? The fact alone isn't all that interesting, IMO - the why behind it would be much more telling and would provide a starting point from which to begin curbing the issue.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (May 8, 2013)

tedtan said:


> Come on, man - no one needs (or has) an M16 for hunting.
> 
> It's not legal to own an automatic weapon without a class 3 FFL*, and even then it's not legal to hunt with. And I'll go further by saying that the .223 (5.56mm NATO) is suitable for varmint purposes, but shouldn't be used on big game. A .243/6mm is much better suited to achieving as fast and humane a kill as possible when hunting deer and similar size game.
> 
> ...


It's not legal to smoke weed, speed, or commit murder but that doesn't stop people from doing it. I know someone that hunted with an AK-47 because he thought it was funny. There are people THAT stupid.


----------



## skeels (May 8, 2013)

MatthewLeisher said:


> Robberies at knife-point _will_ probably stop completely, but that's because now all those people who had knives will now have guns. So robberies at gunpoint will skyrocket, but at least there's no more knife robberies!


 
If I were in the business of mugging people and a concealed carry law went into effect, I would switch to a gun....

It's kind of a joke, but that truly is the nature of escalation of violence. 

We've got a gun law on the books here in Wisconsin but a couple recent mass shootings prove that doesn't matter. Are the people getting the licenses taking their guns to church? Or to get their hair done? Apparently not. 

I live in the city and I couldn't throw a rock without breaking one of my neighbor's windows. I am reminded of the six year old girl who used to live down the street from my mom (and my mom didn't live in a "bad" neighborhood)- anyway, long story short, the little girl was playing in her room and a bullet came through the wall of her house and killed her. 

Personally, if someone broke into my home, I wouldn't want to rob myself of the satisfaction of smashing their skull open by shooting them with a gun. 

And if I had a gun, I might find myself roaming the streets at night, on the lookout for wrong-doers, trying to protect those less able than I. AND that's if I could somehow make money at it, in order to pay my bills as obviously I would have to sleep during the day after my nightly patrols. 

Hm. In that event, it sounds like I could just be a cop.


----------



## narad (May 9, 2013)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> Texas House Approves 12 Firearms Bills To Put More Guns In Classrooms And Defy Federal Law | ThinkProgress



That's ridiculous, since when are there classrooms in Texas?


----------



## Sicarius (May 9, 2013)




----------



## Randy (May 9, 2013)

tedtan said:


> Regarding the article you mention, I haven't read it, so I can't comment specifically on it, but why were there more guns used in crimes from states with looser gun regulations? Were the guns stolen in these states and brought to NY? Did they come across the border in a south western state from a Mexican or South American manufacturer before being sold in NY? Did the law abiding citizens suddenly decide to become criminals and move to NY simultaneously? Were they sold at gun shows from one citizen (non dealer) to another without a background checks being performed? The fact alone isn't all that interesting, IMO - the why behind it would be much more telling and would provide a starting point from which to begin curbing the issue.



It's hard to find now, just because of how cluttered Google's results are since it's such a "hot button issue".

I agree the "why" is more relevant but I wouldn't conclude the study was completely meaningless without it. The idea that a major percentage of guns come from places a few thousand miles away moreso than states that are right over the border and, not so coincidentally, the states of origin all have notably looser laws is significant. Is it a conclusion? No. Is it a symptom? Yes.

EDIT: I can't find the actual article, but this is pretty much what I'm alluding to:







http://www.tracetheguns.org/#/states/NY/imports/


----------



## tedtan (May 9, 2013)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> It's not legal to smoke weed, speed, or commit murder but that doesn't stop people from doing it. I know someone that hunted with an AK-47 because he thought it was funny. There are people THAT stupid.


 
Unfortunately, that is a perfect example of someone who shouldn't be allowed to own firearms (or even butter knives, for that matter), but would likely manage to get their hands on them regardless of the laws we enact to prevent them from doing so.


----------



## tedtan (May 9, 2013)

Randy said:


> I agree the "why" is more relevant but I wouldn't conclude the study was completely meaningless without it.


 
I agree, its certainly not meaningless, it just provides less info to work with.


----------



## pink freud (May 9, 2013)

tedtan said:


> Unfortunately, that is a perfect example of someone who shouldn't be allowed to own firearms (or even butter knives, for that matter), but would likely manage to get their hands on them regardless of the laws we enact to prevent them from doing so.



Not if they don't have any hands.

Just saying...


----------



## estabon37 (May 10, 2013)

I've weighed in on a few 'gun control' threads through this forum over the years, and I don't want to sound like a broken record on the issue.

So instead, I'll let John Oliver's recent three-part series on The Daily Show be my broken record! It compares gun control methods taken in Australia in 1996 with the current proposals and major arguments by gun advocates in the US. Unlike me, it's funny, so regardless of your politics you should watch it for a chuckle. As a vicious critic of Australia's former Prime Minister John Howard and most of his policies, I set my politics aside when he states his reasons for taking on gun control when he did. The man helped legislate to save lives, and for that he has my eternal respect, in spite of the fact that I eternally hate his fucking guts for other actions of his.

EDIT: I forgot the links because I was busy ranting. 

PART 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

PART 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w

PART 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA


----------



## wlfers (May 10, 2013)

The problem with that argument is that it's pretty obvious the likelihood of gun violence would decrease if there were no guns around. The same way x violence would decrease if x wasn't around. They're portraying it as if it's novel "gotcha" logic. 

I'm confident every 2nd amendment advocate knows this. What would be much more telling is if they compared the statistics of post ban violence/homicide in Australia to what it was like before the ban.

The discussion needs to be way more in depth, the issue spans so many variables- but we shouldn't expect much from a comedy show anyway.


----------



## narad (May 10, 2013)

athawulf said:


> I'm confident every 2nd amendment advocate knows this. What would be much more telling is if they compared the statistics of post ban violence/homicide in Australia to what it was like before the ban.



There's been a decline in both homicide and gun-related homicide as a proportion of total homicide, post-ban. The decline in homicide generally fits the trend dating back decades before the more stringent gun control legislature was enacted, and could be seen as a continuation of a larger cultural change.

But Australia is already a much safer place when comparing serious violence - the rate of homicide is ~5 times higher in the US than it is in Australia, and the government was still actually willing to make some drastic changes in an effort to combat violence. In the US it's just special interest groups trying to put the spin on mental health, dawdling until opposition loses momentum and you're left with the status quo - which is the highest rate of gun violence in the civilized world.


----------



## estabon37 (May 11, 2013)

athawulf said:


> The problem with that argument is that it's pretty obvious the likelihood of gun violence would decrease if there were no guns around. The same way x violence would decrease if x wasn't around. They're portraying it as if it's novel "gotcha" logic.
> 
> I'm confident every 2nd amendment advocate knows this. What would be much more telling is if they compared the statistics of post ban violence/homicide in Australia to what it was like before the ban.
> 
> The discussion needs to be way more in depth, the issue spans so many variables- but we shouldn't expect much from a comedy show anyway.



Good points. I think one of the major factors in the Australian case is that though gun violence still exists, it mostly exists now in the context of gang vs gang violence, which admittedly wasn't that huge here (mostly limited to bikie gangs). Because gang violence is a pretty massive problem in many American cities, taking on laws similar to Australian laws wouldn't likely see the same reduction in violence.

Of the possible variables, I think pistols are the biggest factor. Admittedly, pistols weren't common in Australia before the gun ban, but the biggest reduction in gun related violence here was in the kind of 'heat of the moment' violence that you see when the public can possess a weapon that allows them to attack at range, with a relatively high capacity magazine, that they can easily carry undetected. People aren't as willing to risk their own safety in a knife fight or blunt weapon fight as they are to aim and fire a pistol. I believe there was also a reduction in suicides here after guns were banned, because it's much tougher for people who are having a shitty day to find the means to end their existence quickly and seemingly painlessly (which unfortunately meant a spike in people stepping in front of trains and traumatising train drivers and commuters alike, but that's a different conversation).

Call me weird, but I'd argue that possessing high-powered, low capacity rifles allows one to defend their home, go hunting, have a kickarse time at a range, in a package that children find difficult to handle irresponsibly, and toddlers can't mistake for a toy. I agree that the conversation needs to be far more in depth, and we can do that here without using dick jokes and cheap laughs in an attempt to engage people, as Jon Stewart does. Having said that, if you have some great, cheap dick jokes, please share, as I'm easily amused.


----------



## that short guy (May 11, 2013)

Randy said:


> Okay, but why? That's the part I don't get. Is it just like a "thing" or is a more dangerous/violent place or what...? People feel an increased need for that kinda thing?



Being from TX I can only assume it's for one stereotypical reason and one reason only... "We're TX, f*** you" lol I love my home but they like to do things they're own way.


----------



## flint757 (May 11, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> Well in this case after you give up whatever it is to free yourself you can shoot to retrieve property. Thats part of the stand your ground. Me? im not scared, its hard to be when you carry a gun. They tell you if you cant pull the gun and shoot dont get a CHL. The great state is exactly what it says, Ive lived in other states and this one by far is the best ive been in. The weather, laws, work, affordability DFW is a great area to live. Great for new college grads too since its two big markets to apply in.



Great state is a stretch in its own right and you should have more respect for your weapon than that. JMO, but you should fear it to an extent simply because it is dangerous and its repercussions can be irreversible. Having a nonchalant attitude that one should only own a gun if they 'aren&#8217;t afraid of it' is a scary thought.



Randy said:


> I mean, I don't disagree with that. I just find it hard to rationalize that THAT group of people you're describing are so common that it warrants the kind of legislation that's being floated.
> 
> I mean, lets all be honest, politicians usually pick their bills based on what'll get them votes. And they have a ton of data and statistics to base those decisions on. For all this legislation to come up, there's either some kind of overwhelming statistical information that leads them to believe it'll work and become very popular or they thing MORE THAN 50% OF PEOPLE in their voting district think they're "cowboy".



I wouldn&#8217;t say they are common, but I do run into at least one daily (excluding people I see regularly). Gun culture is heavily embedded in Texas and is directly linked to freedom for whatever reason (I don&#8217;t get it). As such even people who have never touched or even seen a gun in person typically stick up for stupid laws like this one.

Honestly I see laws like this only leading to more guns getting stolen as property gets stolen fairly regularly on college campuses. As someone pointed out not many people will actually, legally, be allowed to carry on campus, even with the law, so I don&#8217;t see it diminishing crime even if guns were capable of causing that kind of correlation. 



Randy said:


> Assuming that this isn't just deliberate pushback against the gun regulation folk (which I actually do assume most of it is), what value in legislation on items with such marginal use?



It is definitely push back and just a general &#8216;fuck you&#8217; type statement to Congress who has not successfully passed much to begin with making the statement a bit anti-climactic honestly.

Some people do think they need a gun at their side all the time and honestly don&#8217;t &#8216;need&#8217; it. I think at a point it becomes an OCD/addiction type thing similar to smoking, chewing a toothpick, chewing tobacco, wearing a watch (apparently), etc., where said person begins to feel incomplete without it more than anything. That being said, that is a personal problem that needs to be worked out, not pushed on to the rest of society.



Sicarius said:


> You know what does that?
> 
> Education.





tedtan said:


> Just as a point of fact in this particular case, Texas pays more money in to the federal government than it receives back in aid from them. Budget-wise, we run a surplus.



We also maintain surplus by under funding everything, dragging out state funded projects, delaying things for the next years bills, and just generally having things run at a sub par level. Our welfare system is intentionally broken, CPS is funded so poorly they can&#8217;t do their job, our public education system (IMO) sucks. Pretty much anything run by the Texas government doesn&#8217;t work the way it is supposed to. Granted this is not exclusively a Texas issue, but us running a surplus is hardly an accomplishment, especially when the way our state government was written it is basically illegal for us to spend more than we get as I understand it (which again leads to shitty programs provided/funded by the state).


----------



## ilyti (May 11, 2013)

Where I'm from, we all carry these..





No but seriously, I did rifle training years ago, and I enjoyed it to some extent. I just don't understand the need to own a gun for anything other than sport. If I'm afraid of home invasions (and I'm not), I'd get a bloody ALARM SYSTEM installed in my house. Or a dog. Or an alligator. Seriously, keep a hammer under your bed and throw at the guy when he tries to steal your.... I don't know, what do home invaders steal nowadays? Or get a boomerang, that's even better than a hammer.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (May 11, 2013)

Are there any stats floating around about what percentage of home invasions happen when the home owner is actually home? Assuming most break-ins occur when nobody is home (and unless I'm severely underestimating the stupidity of the average criminal, that's probably the case), wouldn't having a gun for home protection just add another thing to add to the insurance report after all your things have been stolen?

Note I'm mostly pro-gun, I'm just tossing that idea out there because it just occurred to me.


----------



## Sicarius (May 11, 2013)

I'm sure you're right, but if a gun is stolen during a robbery, it needs to be reported as soon as it's discovered, because you can be held accountable for the weapon being used in a crime (if that happens) and you not reporting it.

It's also good, common, practice to have all the expensive nice things, documented somewhere in case something happens for insurance purposes.


----------



## flint757 (May 11, 2013)

Documentation is definitely important (and proper storage), but I think the important thing to note from Tim's comment is that having a weapon in house is only adding to the things that can be stolen. 

If a persons main reason for getting a gun is for home invasions then they are kind of wasting their time honestly. Home invasions aren't common otherwise we'd all have been robbed several times over already and chances are we wouldn't be present when our car or house is robbed in the first place. On the topic of castle laws, I don't want someone defending my property because what if one night I forgot my keys so I essentially have to break into my own home (has happened before). I don't feel like being shot by my neighbor so that he can protect my TV. At least a police officer will stop and ask you questions first and only if you are resistant would something bad happen. All of these pro castle law people are basically saying they'd just shoot on sight. Fuck that.

If a person is mugged, unless they have spidey sense, they won't even see it coming in time to pull a weapon. The only time I can see a gun being useful is if a criminal is dumb enough to rob you while your home or his intentions are far more nefarious. Again, statically, I have a feeling that even that is fairly low to be living a life filled with that much paranoia.


----------



## Sicarius (May 11, 2013)

It also kind of depends on where you live, too.


----------



## tedtan (May 11, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Are there any stats floating around about what percentage of home invasions happen when the home owner is actually home? Assuming most break-ins occur when nobody is home (and unless I'm severely underestimating the stupidity of the average criminal, that's probably the case), wouldn't having a gun for home protection just add another thing to add to the insurance report after all your things have been stolen?
> 
> Note I'm mostly pro-gun, I'm just tossing that idea out there because it just occurred to me.


 
I know of two families who have had their home broken into and both break ins occurred at night while they were home asleep. In one case the family chased the intruder off at gun point (without firing the gun) and the other, they simply pretended to be asleep until the intruder left. In both cases the intruder was gone in 5 to 10 minutes, so even with an alarm, the police would not have arrived until after the intruder was already gone (which is probably a good thing - no hostages).

Unfortunately, that's not a big enough sample size to be meaningful, but it's all I've got on the subject.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 11, 2013)

tedtan said:


> I know of two families who have had their home broken into and both break ins occurred at night while they were home asleep. In one case the family chased the intruder off at gun point (without firing the gun) and the other, they simply pretended to be asleep until the intruder left. In both cases the intruder was gone in 5 to 10 minutes, so even with an alarm, the police would not have arrived until after the intruder was already gone (which is probably a good thing - no hostages).
> 
> Unfortunately, that's not a big enough sample size to be meaningful, but it's all I've got on the subject.



This and ive seen where two people walk up to your door at like noon and they will bang the shit out of your door and if you answer they pretend to sell something. But, if you dont answer they just kick your front door in and rob your house. Im sorry but if your ballsy enough to do that you have to be fully aware of the risk of catching a shotgun blast on the way in.


----------



## Sicarius (May 11, 2013)

I surely hope you don't think you can honestly just shoot someone for breaking in and not warn them that you are armed and will use that weapon to defend your home.


----------



## flint757 (May 11, 2013)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> This and ive seen where two people walk up to your door at like noon and they will bang the shit out of your door and if you answer they pretend to sell something. But, if you dont answer they just kick your front door in and rob your house. Im sorry but if your ballsy enough to do that you have to be fully aware of the risk of catching a shotgun blast on the way in.



Except, per your example, no one was robbed if they were home. You said the guy played it off like he was a salesman when someone answered the door (he actually could be too). Are you going to shoot everyone you don't know who knocks on your door? Because, per your example, the robbing only occurred if someone was in fact not home.

As for the alarm and police comments, yes cops will take at a minimum 5-10 minutes to get there and a true professional might take advantage of that, but if a siren alarm goes off (mine is ridiculously loud) he is no longer inconspicuous, especially walking out of the house with things, and will most likely bolt without harming or taking anything at all. I have 2 policemen who live on my street and I live less than a mile from a police station though so personally I feel very safe. It does make more sense to be prepared if the police are outrageously far away from your home.


----------



## ilyti (May 11, 2013)

flint757 said:


> if a siren alarm goes off (mine is ridiculously loud) he is no longer inconspicuous, especially walking out of the house with things, and will most likely bolt without harming or taking anything at all.


This.

There are usually police around my neighbourhood too, so because I'm not a criminal, it makes me feel safer.


----------



## estabon37 (May 11, 2013)

ilyti said:


> Seriously, keep a hammer under your bed and throw at the guy when he tries to steal your.... I don't know, what do home invaders steal nowadays? Or get a boomerang, that's even better than a hammer.



Having thrown a few boomerangs in my time, trust me: they're shitty weapons. Modern ones are, anyway. They're just flimsy bits of light wood crafted so that they return if you flick them the right way (like most women, I think. I've never met a woman). Traditional boomerangs used by indigenous tribes were very heavy, never expected to return to you - like a hatchet, or hammer. This is why I carry a bag of hammers everywhere I go. For protection.



> This and ive seen where two people walk up to your door at like noon and they will bang the shit out of your door and if you answer they pretend to sell something. But, if you dont answer they just kick your front door in and rob your house. Im sorry but if your ballsy enough to do that you have to be fully aware of the risk of catching a shotgun blast on the way in



Seemingly they are ballsy enough to do that. $1500 can get you a 16-camera night vision digital recording system that allows both live viewing of whoever's at your door through any screen that has HDMI, and records to a Hard Drive, so if a break in occurs while you are away, all that stuff can be given to police. You can even store the HD in a slim safe that you can bolt to your floor in some discreet part of the house for about $100. No need to answer the door, no way to steal the recordings, and if there's spare room in the safe you can keep your credits cards and precious shit in there too. Obviously, this system is probably overkill for most. I don't know what a shotgun costs, but if it's more than a security system, then I'd say you're wasting money.


----------



## ilyti (May 12, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> Having thrown a few boomerangs in my time, trust me: they're shitty weapons. Modern ones are, anyway. They're just flimsy bits of light wood crafted so that they return if you flick them the right way (like most women, I think. I've never met a woman). Traditional boomerangs used by indigenous tribes were very heavy, never expected to return to you - like a hatchet, or hammer. This is why I carry a bag of hammers everywhere I go. For protection.


Yeah I know, I was joking. I thought the boomerang was the closest you get to a real life Mjolnir.


----------



## Sicarius (May 12, 2013)

Well, you could always use a really heavy yo-yo, I guess.


----------



## flint757 (May 12, 2013)

It's funny to me, now that I think about it, that a lot children toys are modeled after weapons.


----------



## Sicarius (May 12, 2013)

The Yo-yo was used as a hunting weapon by some kind of tribe (allegedly).

it's also hella fun doing walk the dog.


----------



## estabon37 (May 15, 2013)

Sicarius said:


> Well, you could always use a really heavy yo-yo, I guess.



It worked in the opening fight scene of the critically lauded, Oscar-winning, modern masterpiece "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Secret of the Ooze". 'Around the world' indeed, Michaelangelo. 

I've been trying to think my way through this whole 'weapons as toys / gun culture / think of the children!' thing, and it's tricky because as much as I'd love to see the influence of real weapons in society diminished, I had so much fun as a kid (and as an adult) playing with Nerf guns and paintball guns, and using home made bows to fire poorly-sharpened sticks at targets. For this reason, I can totally understand why people would want to collect and 'play with' real firearms at firing ranges: it's fun. I just hate to think that anybody's hobby puts people other than themselves at risk.


----------



## ST3MOCON (May 15, 2013)

Good for Texas!


----------



## tedtan (May 15, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> I just hate to think that anybody's hobby puts people other than themselves at risk.


 
So no:

driving (especially bikes)
flying (especially helicopters)
drinking, unless alone
performing or seeing live music (without someone present to measure the sound pressure level to ensure the audience and performers aren't exposed to too loud a SPL for too long a period (97 dB max SPL for a 3 hour show)
etc., etc., etc.


----------



## estabon37 (May 15, 2013)

tedtan said:


> So no:
> 
> driving (especially bikes)
> flying (especially helicopters)
> ...



Touche. 

Although I'd say using cars and helicopters for the most part isn't a hobby, it's transportation. Car hobbies often involve restorations or racing, and it's not like we let race car drivers just tear it up on public roads whenever they feel like it. We build special roads for them and restrict access to these roads so that only people who are qualified (or sponsored) to drive performance vehicles can utilise this designated drive-like-a-crazy-person zone. If you do that shit out on a regular road, you get arrested. So I guess in this metaphor, a racetrack is a shooting range. Also, you have to prove you're a capable driver before you're given even a regular licence, and undergo specialist (and expensive) training to become a helicopter pilot. I don't know what the laws are in peoples' various states for owning a gun, but do you have to prove in some way that if you plan to fire your weapon you're not so uncoordinated that you could miss the side of a barn from ten paces? That you can operate the weapon safely?

Also, I've been to a couple of festivals here in Aus where there's a poster on the side of the stage saying that the decibel level has been measured, so it's safe to get up close without earplugs. Pretty sure that was done independently, as opposed to being done because of government regulations, so that the festival organisers can avoid lawsuits from the newly deaf.


----------



## flint757 (May 15, 2013)

In Texas all there is is a background check. You only have to take classes for restricted weapons and concealed carry if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Sicarius (May 15, 2013)

Just pass the ATF FFL 3 background check.
Hell, all you have to do is take a test and pay a small fee and you get an FFL, and create a small business of some type if even that.


What I'm really excited for is a new bill being put into the Texas House that would make switchblades legal to own again. And that bodes well for my knife collection/EDC.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 15, 2013)

Sicarius said:


> Just pass the ATF FFL 3 background check.
> Hell, all you have to do is take a test and pay a small fee and you get an FFL, and create a small business of some type if even that.
> 
> 
> What I'm really excited for is a new bill being put into the Texas House that would make switchblades legal to own again. And that bodes well for my knife collection/EDC.



Switchblades are badass i havent heard of this one yet.


----------



## ilyti (May 16, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> I've been trying to think my way through this whole 'weapons as toys / gun culture / think of the children!' thing, and it's tricky because as much as I'd love to see the influence of real weapons in society diminished, I had so much fun as a kid (and as an adult) playing with Nerf guns and paintball guns, and using home made bows to fire poorly-sharpened sticks at targets. For this reason, I can totally understand why people would want to collect and 'play with' real firearms at firing ranges: it's fun.


Easy. Guns and violence is something little boys love, but you're supposed to grow out of it when you enter puberty. At least to a great extent. Sure you can shoot a plastic arrow around a few times for giggles, but if you're still as into it as you were when you were 10, there's honestly some arrested development going on there. Not saying this applies to all gun-nuts, just some.


----------



## 1b4n3z (May 16, 2013)

ilyti said:


> Easy. Guns and violence is something little boys love, but you're supposed to grow out of it when you enter puberty. At least to a great extent. Sure you can shoot a plastic arrow around a few times for giggles, but if you're still as into it as you were when you were 10, there's honestly some arrested development going on there. Not saying this applies to all gun-nuts, just some.



I would add weapons-and-war- glorifying media & games into the mix as a powerful ingredient as well. In Finland a mandatory military service very efficiently removes the desire to fondle a weapon as a hobby. One grows very tired of carrying assault rifles and pistols around, not to mention accuracy rifles and light machine guns. Once the "missions" get longer and more realistic, the "fun" element is very much removed from the training, which I believe is only a good thing. They're not toys or collectors pieces, but devices designed to make holes in people.

In the same vein I'd add that unless a person has Lucky Luke level of draw and aim, a firearm is next to useless in an urban environment against a surprise attack. One would need to carry a gun in hand, loaded with the safety off. Then again, perfect paranoia is perfect awareness, eh?


----------



## estabon37 (May 16, 2013)

ilyti said:


> Easy. Guns and violence is something little boys love, but you're supposed to grow out of it when you enter puberty. At least to a great extent. Sure you can shoot a plastic arrow around a few times for giggles, but if you're still as into it as you were when you were 10, there's honestly some arrested development going on there. Not saying this applies to all gun-nuts, just some.



I suppose it depends on the situation. I had my fair share of fun diving around a paintball field a few years ago, and went back a couple of times. And every time I visit my friend back home who has a seven year old and a six year old, the four of us invariably wind up in either a super-soaker battle, or a Nerf battle depending on the weather. He's quite blunt about the fact that he'd be a gun-nut if he could legally own guns, and equally blunt about how much he doesn't want them in his home near his children. We're both lucky to live in towns with really low crime rates, so a gun in the home could only possibly hurt somebody we know.

For fuck's sake, whose side am I on anyway?!   I'm sure sides still exist, but after all that's happened recently, is it possible that far more people are in negotiation mode and seeking a happy middle ground? A badarse switchblade-shaped middle ground, maybe?


----------



## Sicarius (May 16, 2013)

The only way a gun in the home could possibly hurt someone you know is if someone not educated well enough on gun safety starts "playing" with it, or it's used on them in a shitty situation.

Know how to keep kids away from guns? Keep it in a locked gun safe. Whether it's a key lock or those musical code locks. Don't tell them what it is, or even where it is. Unless you know your child is mature enough to understand the consequences, and the proper safety.

Education, education, education. That's what it's all about. Buy a gun, a little Ruger 10/22, and take your kids to a gun range, and teach them proper safety, if you don't think you can do it well enough, the range master would be more than happy to teach you, or tell you when they have the safety classes for kids (and new adult owners). Ignore the stupid bullshit propaganda, and enjoy a day out with your kids.

When they get old enough, introduce them to archery, or bench shooting (with a higher caliber: .223, .243, .308 if they're stocky), or even skeet if you can find a 410 their size (it's not hard).

Guns aren't scary, but they're meant to be treated with every single ounce of respect because of what they can do when handled improperly. You can't handle something properly if you're scared of it.

Education, respect, and more education.


Also, Arrested development is quite a strong stretch. Being an immature man-child is one thing, but having a severe mental impairment is something else all together. 

You have to look at it from their point of view, they way they're understanding the situation is that something they've invested heavily in, is being threatened. To them, it's being threatened by people that don't understand. Which isn't much of a stretch. 

Are the "prepper" people crazy? Yes, oh god yes. But they're not mentally impaired, it's just the way they're reacting to their understanding of the situations around them.

Hell if you're that worried about it, just look at them like they're overzealous adult boy scouts. Because that's basically what they are. Except with a lot more money..

Would I build a bomb shelter? Yea, I could see that as being a pretty bad ass man-cave, but nothing more than that.


----------



## tedtan (May 16, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> it's not like we let race car drivers just tear it up on public roads whenever they feel like it. We build special roads for them and restrict access to these roads so that only people who are qualified (or sponsored) to drive performance vehicles can utilise this designated drive-like-a-crazy-person zone. If you do that shit out on a regular road, you get arrested.


 
I can't speak for Oz, but street racing is pretty common in the US. It's not legal, but it happens all the time. As do groups of teens/twenty-somethings on crotch rockets blasting down the highway at 150+ mph. I know guys who do/did this stuff, and some are not around anymore as a result.




estabon37 said:


> Also, I've been to a couple of festivals here in Aus where there's a poster on the side of the stage saying that the decibel level has been measured, so it's safe to get up close without earplugs. Pretty sure that was done independently, as opposed to being done because of government regulations, so that the festival organisers can avoid lawsuits from the newly deaf.


 
I haven't seen that, but most lager shows here are monitored. Even though there is a fine for playing too loudly, it happens all the time, especially rock and metal shows. (The fines are usually just a slap on the wrist).


----------



## tedtan (May 16, 2013)

1b4n3z said:


> They're not toys or collectors pieces, but devices designed to make holes in people.


 
I don't disagree with most of your post, 1b4n3z, but I do take exception with the quoted portion.

Guns are designed to 1) direct the trajectory of a projectile, and 2) increase the speed of that projectile (barrel length). What they are aimed at when the trigger is pulled is entirely up to the operator. And this isn't merely a semantics difference or I wouldn't point it out.


----------



## flint757 (May 16, 2013)

tedtan said:


> I can't speak for Oz, but street racing is pretty common in the US. It's not legal, but it happens all the time. As do groups of teens/twenty-somethings on crotch rockets blasting down the highway at 150+ mph. I know guys who do/did this stuff, and some are not around anymore as a result.



I drive regularly for my own needs and my job and I don't see this as often as you are making it seem. It definitely happens, but...

In my experience, though, it happens when the road is for the most part clear and it is late out. This puts hardly anyone in danger in such situations. Even then I don't see this occurring that often.


----------



## Randy (May 16, 2013)

Sicarius said:


> Hell if you're that worried about it, just look at them like they're overzealous adult boy scouts. Because that's basically what they are. Except with a lot more money..



Sure sounds like arrested development to me.


----------



## Sicarius (May 17, 2013)

It's not signs of a severe mental impairment, just someone else's point of view on a situation.

Arrested Development = Downs Syndrome
Preppers = idiots

Arrested Development =/= preppers 

Arrested Development =/= immaturity


----------



## Randy (May 17, 2013)

I'd say things like "infantile fixation" pretty accurately describe this mindset of perpetually playing "cowboys and indians/cops and robbers/escape the zombies".

If you wanna keep trading blows over the perceived context of those words, have at it. The point was, we're describing people who never evolved past the irrational level of fear that comes with either being a fragile young child or wearing a cape and running around your front yard. The definition leaves enough room for what I've implied but if you disagree, then we don't need to use that term.

HOWEVER, I don't think "idiots" is a sufficient term to describe any of this, because it essentially sidesteps the "why" factor. 

The world's a scary place, no doubt. Some scary and awful shit has and does happen. 

Reading the gun debate for the last howeverlongitsbeengoingon, I keep reading the justification for armaments (to me, the apex of which being 'prepper culture') comes from narrowed snippets from the news/personal life. "Some guy got mugged" "some woman got raped in her home" or in the more extreme cases "governments have turned their weapons on citizens" "diseases have killed groups of people before" etc. 

Rational people find simple resolutions to these things, mentally. Firstly, they're very rare. Secondly, there are ways of increasing your chance that they won't effect you (simple things like not wandering around bad neighborhoods at night, lock your doors, etc). The chance of any of those things happening to you are so low and the likelihood it's going to play out the way you "prepped yourself against" are orders of magnitude lower. Spending obscene amounts of money or making it your lifestyle to prevent against these _beyond slim_ odds of any of these things happen is neurotic and furthermore, imply an insistence on fixating on a subject the rest of society simply move past everyday.


----------



## Sicarius (May 18, 2013)

So, these people are mentally retarded because they think some catastrophic event is going to happen?

Funny you should mention zombies.

It's a term used against liberals, people often represented as "sheeple" because they can't think for themselves, and do what the government tells them.

I'm just saying, this isn't arrested development, nothing has hindered their development at all. They're functioning adults with lives and families, they're trying to protect their families from what they believe is a catastrophic event that may happen. 

There's nothing developmentally deficient about that at all. It's just that their way of rationalizing it is at the opposite end of the spectrum of how you've rationalized it.

Clever, though, "idiots" isn't strong enough, but calling them mentally deficient isn't a total stretch at all.


----------



## axxessdenied (May 18, 2013)

Sicarius said:


> So, these people are mentally retarded because they think some catastrophic event is going to happen?
> 
> Funny you should mention zombies.
> 
> ...



Guns are unnecessary. Simple. As. That.

Just looking at the amount of guns in the united states and the ridiculous gun-related gun violence clearly shows that.

I don't get why people need to defend owning guns. There's no reason to have them unless you are a hunter. 

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## narad (May 18, 2013)

Sicarius said:


> There's nothing developmentally deficient about that at all. It's just that their way of rationalizing it is at the opposite end of the spectrum of how you've rationalized it.



I think you're giving them too much credit. The last time I heard the term zombies being applied to liberals (or rather, non-gun-hoarding Americans) it was on an episode of Wife Swap and the catastrophic event was the end of the Mayan calendar. I think we all know how that one panned out.

Group think is never a good thing, but there seems to be a whole lot of overlap between people who think aliens are watching us, that plesiosaurs are alive ( ::cough:: ), that vaccines cause autism, that atlantis existed, that a solar flare is due to destroy all electronics, that some foreign country would attempt a physical invasion of the US, and that the Mayans accurately predicted the end of the world. If you start to amass a slew of counter-culture viewpoints it starts to be less about independent thought, and more of a "hipster of rationality" - choosing different beliefs only for the sake of being different. And of course a lot of these theories are industries, marketing survival goods, artifacts and tracking devices to gullible people.

I'm glad there are people out there that believe all this crap, in case one truthful scenario does sneak by the general consensus -- intellectual diversity is just like genetic diversity, making our population as a whole a little more robust to unexpected changes. As long as their marginal beliefs don't impact policy for the majority.


----------



## Sicarius (May 18, 2013)

axxessdenied said:


> Guns are unnecessary. Simple. As. That.
> 
> Just looking at the amount of guns in the united states and the ridiculous gun-related gun violence clearly shows that.
> 
> ...




And I completely disagree with you. When I have the funds I fully intend to collect a few firearms due to my admiration of them. Especially one some might be familiar with because it was in Metal Gear Solid, the H&K Mk. 23 SOCOM.

I've handled it at a SEAL armory when I visited their base in San Diego, while still in high school, and at a few gun shows. It's one of my favorite guns, and will be the first to enter my collection.

Judging by that link, I'd say we're doing pretty well. Better than 18 other countries. Why don't you post in Brazillian threads telling them they should ban guns? Or Jamaican?

Why should I be denied the ability to purchase a gun that I admire, and respect just because I don't hunt?



narad said:


> I think you're giving them too much credit. The last time I heard the term zombies being applied to liberals (or rather, non-gun-hoarding Americans) it was on an episode of Wife Swap and the catastrophic event was the end of the Mayan calendar. I think we all know how that one panned out.
> 
> Group think is never a good thing, but there seems to be a whole lot of overlap between people who think aliens are watching us, that plesiosaurs are alive ( ::cough:: ), that vaccines cause autism, that atlantis existed, that a solar flare is due to destroy all electronics, that some foreign country would attempt a physical invasion of the US, and that the Mayans accurately predicted the end of the world. If you start to amass a slew of counter-culture viewpoints it starts to be less about independent thought, and more of a "hipster of rationality" - choosing different beliefs only for the sake of being different. And of course a lot of these theories are industries, marketing survival goods, artifacts and tracking devices to gullible people.
> 
> I'm glad there are people out there that believe all this crap, in case one truthful scenario does sneak by the general consensus -- intellectual diversity is just like genetic diversity, making our population as a whole a little more robust to unexpected changes. As long as their marginal beliefs don't impact policy for the majority.



So, group think to keep guns/prep is bad, but group think to limit them is okay?

I tried to expand on that, but I can't find the words. I'm not trying to say that limiting them is what you're saying, I just think that is what others in the thread have gotten at.


----------



## axxessdenied (May 18, 2013)

Sicarius said:


> Judging by that link, I'd say we're doing pretty well. Better than 18 other countries. Why don't you post in Brazillian threads telling them they should ban guns? Or Jamaican?
> 
> Why should I be denied the ability to purchase a gun that I admire, and respect just because I don't hunt?


Because your country has proven it cannot handle guns. Simple. Why do you need to have guns? Because of your admiration of them from video games?  Go play more video games. The best way to prevent any gun related violence is to simply recycle all weapons.

You've given NO good reasons as to why you NEED a gun except for your own personal pleasure.


----------



## Sicarius (May 18, 2013)

axxessdenied said:


> Because your country has proven it cannot handle guns. Simple. Why do you need to have guns? Because of your admiration of them from video games?  Go play more video games. The best way to prevent any gun related violence is to simply recycle all weapons.
> 
> You've given NO good reasons as to why you NEED a gun except for your own personal pleasure.



I don't have to give a good reason. Gun culture between our countries is explicitly at opposite ends of the spectrum. If you were born in the U.S. and raised in a family that had them, you would think differently. 

But, you're Canadian, trying to tell an American that they have to have some brilliant reason as to why I should own a weapon. 

And frankly, go .... yourself. I don't have a reason, and I don't need one. I'm sorry that's not what your Canadian Anti-U.S. God complex wants to hear, or maybe it is, actually. I don't know. I don't really care, either. 

But, since I'm nice: While I may have encountered my example weapon in a video game, after coming across one in the real is what made me admire it. German engineering and manufacturing at it's absolute best. It's no wonder that the SEALs had them, it's an amazing weapon, and I can't wait to own one and get to finally shoot it. 

People like you (Europeans, and other outsiders) trying to tell people in America how they're supposed to be, and how they're supposed to act. To fall in line with the rest of the developed world, is exactly why there's such a backlash here.

I hate to play the freedom card, because I think Patriotism is a fraud, but I'm glad to live here sometimes, because I have the freedom to own a firearm if I so choose.

I'm sorry that you feel so differently about it, but why do you care so much about an American issue when you're Canadian? Does it directly affect you?

That's how I look at a lot of issues, actually. If I'm not directly affected by it, I don't really give a shit, and I'm apathetic to a lot of what happens here. I have my life, and I go about my day happily. I only started posting here to make sure people understood that a lot of these proposals were pandering, media attention grabbing reelection bullshit, and to try to steer it away from any "lol retarded Texan Congress people are retarded". I feel like I've done that successfully enough.

Lol we haven't proven we can "handle" guns? Did you look at any country that was after the United States? The country right after us is over double what our casualty rate is, and it gets exceedingly worse from there, go tell them they've proven they can't handle guns, and see what happens to you.


----------



## tedtan (May 18, 2013)

axxessdenied said:


> You've given NO good reasons as to why you NEED a gun...


 
If we're speaking strictly of need, then we humans need oxygen, water and food. Depending on where we live and the time of year, we may also need clothes, fire and/or shelter to protect us from the environment. Beyond these few basics, nothing is necessary so everything else is a want, not a need.




axxessdenied said:


> Because your country has proven it cannot handle guns... The best way to prevent any gun related violence is to simply recycle all weapons.


 
How does a county prove it can/cannot handle guns? I don't follow you on that point.

Also, the fact is that most gun violence in the US is gang related and the portion that is not gang related is mostly suicides. And in both cases, the poor are very disproportionately represented. Those aren't the stories that are reported (read "overhyped") in the media, but it is the truth. So how do you go about recycling these gang members' guns? Are they simply going to hand their guns over to the government because some people feel like it is the best way to prevent gun related violence? And let's be honest, even if you got their guns and recycled them, there will be a new supply of guns coming in from Mexico in short order - the Mexican drug cartels are better trained and equipped than many militaries around the world.

The better way to prevent gun violence is to prevent children from getting into gangs. We can do that through education, through increased pay (minimum wage in the US is only $7.25/hr and you have to pay for healthcare out of that), through increased social services, etc.




axxessdenied said:


> List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 
I understand what you are trying to get at here, but this isn't the right way to look at the situation. Media that report firearm related violence in one country compared to the next are attempting to manipulate people who can't think logically about the facts.

To get an accurate picture of the situation, we need to look at total violence in each country/state/city/other jurisdiction, not specifically firearm related violence, because firearm related violence will decrease with reduced access to firearms, but total violence does not necessarily follow suit.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (May 18, 2013)

Its really that simple, gun control works or bullets would be flying everywhere. Houston and Dallas would still be like the wild west.


----------



## Phrygian (May 18, 2013)

I'm so happy I live in a country where I have NEVER seen a gun in civilian hands in public. We are debating whether or not to let our _police offisers_ carry guns, instead of having a gun locked in their car.


----------



## tacotiklah (May 19, 2013)

Damn, this is some pretty horrible news:
More Americans Have Died From Domestic Gunfire Than All Wars In U.S. History - Is That True? | Addicting Info


----------



## wlfers (May 20, 2013)

Phrygian said:


> I'm so happy I live in a country where I have NEVER seen a gun in civilian hands in public. We are debating whether or not to let our _police offisers_ carry guns, instead of having a gun locked in their car.



Didn't stop your country from having a horrific gun massacre. I'm happy to live in a country where I can go to a rifle range, relax, shoot some steel and not once feel unsafe. There is a mutual respect for others, and a golden code of respecting safety. Range officers will smack the shit out of anyone being unsafe.



axxessdenied said:


> Guns are unnecessary. *Simple. As. That.*





axxessdenied said:


> Because your country has proven it cannot handle guns. *Simple.*



It would be pretty difficult to hold a discussion with you if you're so quick to generalize and so quick to make it clear that your point is self-evident. If you want to claim that the issue of gun control is so linear then it's just better to leave it at a disagreement instead of diving into discussion.


----------



## AxeHappy (May 20, 2013)

athawulf said:


> Didn't stop your country from having _*a*_ horrific gun massacre. I'm happy to live in a country where I can go to a rifle range, relax, shoot some steel and not once feel unsafe. There is a mutual respect for others, and a golden code of respecting safety. Range officers will smack the shit out of anyone being unsafe.





I'm happy to live in a country where we don't think it's okay to have multiple school shooting every year so that others can feel safe going to a shooting range.


----------



## wlfers (May 21, 2013)

You totally nailed it, the safety I feel at a gun rage is directly related to how many school shootings we have a year.  Maybe you'd care to reword that? Especially given one of the gun control advocacy's slogans "1 gun death is too many gun deaths" downplaying a terrible massacre which is completely relevant to the discussion of how well gun control works given it happened in a country with stricter gun policy seems kinda shortsighted

Population Norway: 5,063,709
Population USA: 315,895,000

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Then we consider living conditions, the fact that there are over thirty thousand gangs in the US.


----------



## flint757 (May 21, 2013)

Why would you feel unsafe at a gun range in the first place (in any other country that is).  It seems you worded that oddly to begin with. The issue with guns for most gun control advocates is not gun ranges in the first place, it's everywhere else...like colleges as an example.


----------



## wlfers (May 21, 2013)

Other individuals in this thread seem to paint firearm enthusiasts as wild west types, whether it be the guns fer everywun stereotype or the cod tactical paramilitary superhero. 

I just meant to dispel that, as I've never once felt that the power of the firearm was not respected, nor feared that they were abused. I'm happy to live here where I can experience the freedom the second amendment affords, thought this does not mean at all that I don't see changes or improvements to be made with firearm policy.


----------



## AxeHappy (May 21, 2013)

athawulf said:


> You totally nailed it, the safety I feel at a gun rage is directly related to how many school shootings we have a year.  Maybe you'd care to reword that? Especially given one of the gun control advocacy's slogans "1 gun death is too many gun deaths" downplaying a terrible massacre which is completely relevant to the discussion of how well gun control works given it happened in a country with stricter gun policy seems kinda shortsighted



The point being they have had 1 gun massacre in their nations history, while the US seems to have about 1 quarterly. 

Saying the stricter gun laws didn't stop 1 massacre, whilst saying that the US's lax gun laws make you feel happy that you can go to a gun range, ignoring the fact that the US has gun massacres all the time was...ummm...silly, so I thought I would point it out. 


It may be worth mentioning that I am a firearms enthusiasts, and fully intended to get my firearms licence once I get money raised to afford guns. I find targeting shooting both incredible fun and relaxing to the point of being almost meditative. 

I do not however, see why that means we can't have stricter gun laws that would help prevent countless deaths. Just seems silly.


----------



## Phrygian (May 21, 2013)

athawulf said:


> Didn't stop your country from having _a_ horrific gun massacre.



Yup, we had the worst single man massacre in the history of man, that's true. but that's also the only one we've ever had really. But we would have plenty more if we sold automatic rifles over counter with no real license or background checks required - which btw is SO ....ING STUPID in the first place I don't know where to begin. 

Idiots that want guns will probably most of the time get guns - A.B.B. spent months, if not years trying to smuggle his guns from eastern Europe into Norway BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BUY THEM LEGALLY IN NORWAY. Do you get my point? 

I can understand and appreciate shooting ranges and hunting, but being strict about who gets to have a gun is a good idea, however you look at it. It's like a drivers license - a privilige, not a right.


----------



## estabon37 (May 21, 2013)

athawulf said:


> You totally nailed it, the safety I feel at a gun rage is directly related to how many school shootings we have a year.  Maybe you'd care to reword that? Especially given one of the gun control advocacy's slogans "1 gun death is too many gun deaths" downplaying a terrible massacre which is completely relevant to the discussion of how well gun control works given it happened in a country with stricter gun policy seems kinda shortsighted
> 
> Population Norway: 5,063,709
> Population USA: 315,895,000
> ...



I agree that the emphasis should be on social factors and living conditions, and I think it's worth mentioning that living with guns is not a normal living condition in most first world countries. For all that I don't think this argument is a simple numbers game, here's a different set of numbers:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to this list, which focuses on intentional homicides (not just gun violence), the US is nowhere near the top of the list, with only 4.8 homicides per 100,000 people, which is pretty damn good compared to countries like Mexico, Brazil and South Africa. In the sample year for that statistic, there were 14,748 homicides, putting the US in the top ten by number. This vastly outnumbers Norway's 29 homicides for its sample year (0.6 homicides per 100,000). If you organise that list by 'rate' (per 100,000), the US is in the same company as several countries that are war zones, and has a worse rate than Palestine (145 homicides / 4.1 per 100,000), even factoring in the Israel-Palestine conflict. This list does not include accidental deaths through firearm use, and does not include suicides. This is from a 2012 study that used the most recently available data.

It's kind of hard not to assume that a combination of ease of access to firearms, and a culture where significant and influential portions of the community worship guns (I include gang members here, because they share this trait with many members of the NRA) contributes greatly to a situation where the most militarily and politically powerful nation on the planet is very, very, very far removed from most countries that share its political system and beliefs. Statistically, the average citizen was more likely to be murdered in the US than in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Syria, Tunisia or Egypt in the year of the Arab Spring.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (May 21, 2013)

Phrygian said:


> Yup, we had the worst single man massacre in the history of man, that's true. but that's also the only one we've ever had really. But we would have plenty more if we sold automatic rifles over counter with no real license or background checks required - which btw is SO ....ING STUPID in the first place I don't know where to begin.
> 
> Idiots that want guns will probably most of the time get guns - A.B.B. spent months, if not years trying to smuggle his guns from eastern Europe into Norway BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BUY THEM LEGALLY IN NORWAY. Do you get my point?
> 
> I can understand and appreciate shooting ranges and hunting, but being strict about who gets to have a gun is a good idea, however you look at it. It's like a drivers license - a privilige, not a right.


This deserves rep +


----------



## ferret (May 21, 2013)

Phrygian said:


> It's like a drivers license - a privilige, not a right.



And here is the crux of the matter in the US. By traditional reading of the 2nd amendment, it IS a right.

Personally I'm for stricter checks, especially background checks. The only people who generally can't pass a background check, are felons. As a felon, you lose rights. Makes sense to me.

When I see opposition to background checks, I scratch my head. Who's rights are being protected here? A background check won't stop you from getting a gun.... Unless you're a felon. And if you're a felon, you're not suppose to have guns anyways. (There's some exceptions allowed, state by state, I believe, related to hunting)

So opposition of background checks is.... support for felons getting guns? Yeah, I'm twisting it a bit there, but that's kinda what it comes down to... A law abiding citizen will not be stopped by a background check, so how are they harmed or disenfranchised by it?


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (May 21, 2013)

ferret said:


> And here is the crux of the matter in the US. By traditional reading of the 2nd amendment, it IS a right.
> 
> Personally I'm for stricter checks, especially background checks. The only people who generally can't pass a background check, are felons. As a felon, you lose rights. Makes sense to me.
> 
> ...


It is the right to bear arms not the right to own a gun. Automatics to a civilian are just unnecessary and my friends hunt but with good rifles and protect their homes with a Shotgun and revolver.


----------



## ferret (May 21, 2013)

You're correct, which is why I said a "traditional reading." The public has, for the most part, associated arms and guns. Like I said, that's the crux of the matter. You have the right to bear arms, but there's nothing specific about what arms or what limits. At it's strictest, it means as long as they allow you some "arms", they can restrict more powerful or dangerous ones.

Or does it? That's the whole debate.

While I prefer controls on guns myself, I will say that I believe the intent of the 2nd amendment was that arms clearly referred to "fireARMS", that is, "guns."


----------



## wlfers (May 21, 2013)

Phrygian said:


> Yup, we had the worst single man massacre in the history of man, that's true. but that's also the only one we've ever had really.



It might have to do more with you being a small, educated, homogenous, affluent country at the tip of the world without a gang problem nor a drug war at its southern border. Norway still has a relatively high gun ownership rate

"Citing the "Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City," published by Cambridge University Press, the website give the rate of private gun ownership in Norway as 31.32 firearms per 100 people, less than the reported rate in the U.S. of 88.82 firearms per 100 people." yet still manages to have a very low homicide rate. And we could even get started on Switzerland to show the problem isn't the firearm itself.



> But we would have plenty more if we sold automatic rifles over counter with no real license or background checks required - which btw is SO ....ING STUPID in the first place I don't know where to begin.


I totally agree! It would be so ....ing stupid to sell automatic rifles over the counter with no real license or background checks. But guess what? This does not happen- It would benefit your argument if you actually educated yourself on the subject matter before making such a wild assertion.



> I can understand and appreciate shooting ranges and hunting, but being strict about who gets to have a gun is a good idea, however you look at it. It's like a drivers license - a privilige, not a right.


I do not disagree at all that America needs to fix some shit. Namely the recent bill that the majority of America (including gun owners) supported that tightened up unnecessary loopholes for background checks which was killed. Special interest groups on any side of the table see compromise as loss, regardless of what the majority of the population wants, and this unfortunately leads to stagnation and stalemate.

It may be a privilege to you, but here we consider it a right. 



AxeHappy said:


> The point being they have had 1 gun massacre in their nations history, while the US seems to have about 1 quarterly.
> 
> Saying the stricter gun laws didn't stop 1 massacre, whilst saying that the US's lax gun laws make you feel happy that you can go to a gun range, ignoring the fact that the US has gun massacres all the time was...ummm...silly, so I thought I would point it out.



No, I was saying I enjoy to live in a country with this freedom as a contrast to the statement where he said he is happy to live in one without it. There was no correlation between the amount of massacres, nor some laws that I agree need tightening, and my enjoyment. 




AxeHappy said:


> I do not however, see why that means we can't have stricter gun laws that would help prevent countless deaths. Just seems silly.



I don't disagree with this.


----------



## wlfers (May 21, 2013)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> It is the right to bear arms not the right to own a gun. Automatics to a civilian are just unnecessary and my friends hunt but with good rifles and protect their homes with a Shotgun and revolver.



And here you are making the same assumption as Phrygian. Assault Rifle (as arbitrary as it's definition may be) does not equal automatic.


----------



## Randy (May 21, 2013)

Is being _semi_-*automatic* included in the definition of an assault weapon? Because I'd personally consider that equally unnecessary for civilian use.


----------



## pink freud (May 21, 2013)

If you want to get very technical, US citizens have the right to bear arms, not _fire_ them.

Ah, the pitfalls of Constitutional Literalism...


----------



## wlfers (May 21, 2013)

Yes it is. We do have a problem to face, so I just take issue when others are fighting against a problem we do not have such as "automatic rifles over counter with no real license or background checks required"


----------



## zappatton2 (May 21, 2013)

Sicarius said:


> but why do you care so much about an American issue when you're Canadian? Does it directly affect you?


 
I'm in the camp that cares little about American politics; I'm not American, I can't vote to change anything there, and I'm not inclined to tell others how to live. Yes, the concept of "gun ownership as civil right" rather than laboriously earned and easily revolked privilege (like car ownership and licensing), is thoroughly alien to me. But I do think Canadians have a horse in this particular race simply because we share a massive border, and firearms do tend to slip through and find their way into the wrong hands. It really is a shame, I'm sure there could be some moderate reforms to ensure better background checks and regulations without stepping on too many toes, but the polarization that comes with this debate down south doesn't look promising.


----------



## tedtan (May 21, 2013)

Since we are discussing various interpretations of the second amendment to the US constitution, I'll post it here and let my SSO brothers and sisters interpret it for themselves. 
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."​Put the case law interpretations and various pundits' BS aside and interpret it for yourself. What does it mean to you?

I'll post my interpretation a bit later because I don't want to influence anyone else's at this time.


----------



## Phrygian (May 21, 2013)

tedtan said:


> Since we are discussing various interpretations of the second amendment to the US constitution, I'll post it here and let my SSO brothers and sisters interpret it for themselves.
> "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."​Put the case law interpretations and various pundits' BS aside and interpret it for yourself. What does it mean to you?
> 
> I'll post my interpretation a bit later because I don't want to influence anyone else's at this time.



I interpret it as such:

In the absence of an army there is need for an armed militia of men, therefore every man has the right to bear arms should it be necessary to defend their country. 

No need for that anymore.


----------



## Randy (May 21, 2013)

tedtan said:


> "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"​



To be completely honest with you, that part alone leads me to believe the context of the original constitution is tone deaf to the environment of the modern world. 

What international-level, modern military is reliant on a civilian militia these days?


----------



## tedtan (May 21, 2013)

Randy said:


> Is being _semi_-*automatic* included in the definition of an assault weapon? Because I'd personally consider that equally unnecessary for civilian use.


 
I agree that semi auto is not necessary for hunting (though it can be beneficial in certain hunting situations where quick follow-up shots are sometimes necessary like dove, quail, ducks and goose hunting), but let's hold ourselves to a higher standard than playing semantics games:

An automatic weapon fires multiple times with a single pull of the trigger. A semi-auto only fires once per trigger pull. That's a huge difference.


----------



## Randy (May 21, 2013)

tedtan said:


> A _fully_ *automatic* weapon fires multiple times with a single pull of the trigger. A _semi_-*automatic* only fires once per trigger pull. That's a huge difference.



FTFY

I just get so sick of every conversation being derailed over the face people casually use the word "automatic" and the assumption is that they think people are running around with tommy guns.

EDIT: Inb4 somebody corrects me on the "tommy gun" statement


----------



## wlfers (May 21, 2013)

It's not derailing at all, especially given the language of the law which is very specific. We all need to be on the same page of what we're talking about at a bare minimum to be able to effectively discuss this.

There is a huge distinction between the two, and given English may not be everyone's first language (In their home language they may call all self-loading firearms automatic) it is helpful to clarify. The "automatic" in "semi-auto" refers to the firearms self-loading capability, meaning it chambers a round automatically after you fire it.


----------



## Randy (May 21, 2013)

A feature which makes it convenient to fire bullets in rapid succession, which is the crux of the debate. If the point of the legislation is to not have people carrying around weapons that essentially don't give victims a chance to escape, I'd imagine the goal is to target (no pun intended) automatics of both the 'fully' and 'semi' variety.


----------



## pink freud (May 21, 2013)

Randy said:


> A feature which makes it convenient to fire bullets in rapid succession, which is the crux of the debate. If the point of the legislation is to not have people carrying around weapons that essentially don't give victims a chance to escape, I'd imagine the goal is to target (no pun intended) automatics of both the 'fully' and 'semi' variety.



We should follow the intentions of our founding fathers.

Muskets for all!


----------



## wlfers (May 21, 2013)

Randy said:


> A feature which makes it convenient to fire bullets in rapid succession, which is the crux of the debate. If the point of the legislation is to not have people carrying around weapons that essentially don't give victims a chance to escape, I'd imagine the goal is to target (no pun intended) automatics of both the 'fully' and 'semi' variety.



I disagree on what you decided was the crux of the debate. My interpretation is less arbitrarily narrow: being the debate is about gun violence in America and how to effectively combat it.

With the aid of some google lets take a look back in the 90s, when violent crime was at its peak in America. I will first use California because we have some of the strictest gun control yet we still maintain some of the countries worst gun violence, and I'm most familiar with my home state.



> Of the fatal shootings investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department's South Bureau homicide unit in 1990 and 1991, less than 2% involved assault weapons, records show.
> 
> Of 1,979 guns seized in 1990 by state narcotics agents, he said, only 58 are on California's list of banned assault weapons.
> 
> The firearm of choice among criminals in Los Angeles, police say, is the 9-millimeter, semiautomatic pistol--the same firearm preferred by many law enforcement officers. The pistols are more easily concealed and are not banned. - '92 LA Times article


Effects of the Federal 94 Assault weapons ban



> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."
> 
> A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small..."
> 
> ...


The consensus seems to be that nothing really changed, and partisan publications posted favorable for their cause but noted something along the lines of "In my case I'm right but we don't have enough info" Now lets head back to the 21st century and check the FBI's "Crime in the United States" 



> 2009 Total firearm deaths were 9,119 with 351 (3.8%) being caused by rifles and 2010 Total firearm deaths were 8,775 with 385 (4.0%) being caused by rifles.


Two important notes here: there is a category for "firearms of undocumented type" (which may decrease rifle count), and that we are talking about all rifles in general- not just assault rifles, semi-autos, full-autos etc (which for this discussion would be increasing the count).

So assault weapons are seldom used in crime, which is one of the reasons there seems to be little consensus on the affects of the AWB. The effects, if existent at all (and considering the already present trend of decreasing violent crime) were too little to reach a conclusion. 

So once again I disagree that the crux of the debate is dealing with how fast a rifle can shoot, because we're focusing a disproportional amount of our attention on something that is such a small percentage of the greater problem. Attacking assault rifles is the simple way to believe that we are righteously tackling the problem of gun violence. It's a much more black and white picture to paint to appeal to the gun control advocates if we just say that passing another AWB will help prevent massacres.

So why not the discussion on things that will have an actual effect, like California's 40,000 guns illegally owned by people who purchased them legally but then lost their right by either becoming felons or mentally unfit to own one? (On that topic we're funding the confiscation right now). How about the ridiculously straightforward closure of the loophole that allows some firearm transactions to take place without a background check? Because it's easy to point the finger at something as villainous as the Assault Rifle. 

This invariably brings up "but any gun related death is too many, regardless of rifle type". Here I can just say that we as a country should be efficient by attacking the greater problems causing the most death, such as criminals owning firearms or requiring background checks of all purchases/transfers- THEN worrying about the subjective discussion of what style of rifle is fit for civilian ownership.


Assault Rifles Are Not Heavily Used in Crimes - Los Angeles Times
Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FBI &mdash; Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


----------



## Randy (May 22, 2013)

athawulf said:


> So why not the discussion on things that will have an actual effect, like California's 40,000 guns illegally owned by people who purchased them legally but then lost their right by either becoming felons or mentally unfit to own one? (On that topic we're funding the confiscation right now). How about the ridiculously straightforward closure of the loophole that allows some firearm transactions to take place without a background check? Because it's easy to point the finger at something as villainous as the Assault Rifle.



Assuming the majority of this was directed at me, you're misinterpreting my point. Assault weapons _were_ used in the incidents that prompted the most recent push for reforms (Sandy Hook, Aurora, Rochester), so it's silly to just pretend like they were an arbitrary target.

To the larger issue, yes, assault weapons are used in very few of the crimes. My issues is, throughout discussing this with multiple people, among multiple forums, the discussion seems to get squashed really quickly on semantics. Even in this discussion, first it was about people using the word "automatic" too loosely and now, apparently, it's about the fact we've been funneled into a discussion of what is/isn't an assault weapon, which then turned into an ad hominem attack against me and other people in this thread because "durr, you're stupid, assault weapons are seldom used". 

Like, none of that was the point of this thread and next to none of it (far as I can read) was the point of people debating this. 

Onto what my REAL point was, I was satisfied with just discussing assault weapons when this debate first opened up, because I agree that (regardless of how OFTEN they're used), they're used pretty effectively random, anonymous shootings. That's my opinion. I don't want to debate that, so consider me stubborn but it's been discussed to death weather or not having them around would make a difference, etc. and that's just not a discussion I see bearing any fruit right now. 

Things have evolved since then. A lot of pro-gun advocates keep cycling back to the fact that assault weapons aren't the issue because of what a small percentage of shooting deaths they're involved in, so we'll go that route for a moment... sure, mass shootings were what prompted the debate but lets put that aside and discuss the issue at large. 

Without having a chart infront of me, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the majority of firearm related deaths are gang/drug/personal-dispute related. The point of my posting multiple times about focusing on semi-automatic weapons was because, I'll go out on another limb guess that semi-automatic pistols are _used a lot more_ in the overall number of firearm related homicides in this country. They're easy to hide, they're easy to steal and move back and forth, and their compact nature mixed with their magazine capacity and reasonably quick rate of fire make sure your target is dead even if it's in an obscure situation (it'd be pretty difficult to carry successfully carryout drive-by shooting with a bolt-action, long rifle)

So maybe we need a witch-hunt over semi-automatic handguns as well? 

But no, for serious... Where I and the *intelligent* pro-gun crowd agree is that there's a problem with people killing other people in this country. Where we separate is that I think availability of guns _in general_ has an effect on the number of guns that make it into the hands of criminals. 

So for me, there are two issues (or three-ish?) going on here, with specific focus on guns. 

One, I don't personally feel like assault-type weapons (whether you mean the dictionary definition or the "scary boogie man" definition) are necessary for civilian use and if they're going to be be allowed for the public to use, there should be increased responsibilities with regard to how they're being kept/handled/used. I'm not saying this to prompt another "So few firearm related deaths are assault weapons, bro!" discussion. I'm fully aware of their rare nature but the gun exist, they seem to accel at killing large groups of unarmed people at the kind of range that is experienced in most public places and even if it's just "that they look bad ass", fine, I'll gladly accept the fact they look "bad ass" too much of a temptation for some people to not want to play out their violent fantasies with (I'll call that the "Joe Camel" effect). I don't really care what the reason is. The debate REALLY opened up based on a series of attacks that had similarities beyond just the weapons used, but they all happened to use "those" weapons. It's not the be all end all but it's silly to ignore it.

Second component, as I mentioned earlier, the availability and usage of these weapons in standard faire domestic and gang related violence. As has been said "if somebody's a criminal and they want to kill somebody, they will find a way". Yeah, that's unfortunate and at least 50% true but hey, how about we don't make having effective tools for that end available to them? That's one place I'll give credit to the moderate pro-gun lobby, with regard to being fair and rational about background checks, not giving felons guns, not giving people in domestic violence situation guns, etc. Credit where credit is due and I agree that those things make some difference but if the determination is that "if they want it, they'll get it" then the fact they're in circulation period implies that they'll find their way into the hands of a criminal. Once again, my argument for reduction of violent crime (specifically with regard to firearm related deaths), says "less is less", even if we all choose to debate to what degree that is true.

The third component is what I'll call the "gun lobby". Even among responsible gun owners (of which I know very many), we all realistically need to understand that the easier and more available anything is to people who use it correctly, (even if their are safety checks in place), the easier and more available those things are to people who will NOT use them correctly. It may not necessarily be a 1:1, but it's true of all things (the more Backstreet Boys CD sold at Walmart in the 2000's, the more Backstreet Boys CDs that appeared on the shelves of Goodwill in the 2010s; the point being, few things disappear from the face of the earth completely, so if it's produced, it'll end up somewhere). 

The fact that the NRA is supposed to represent both the sportsman and the manufacturers is dishonestly incestuous. In most other industries, the most well known group out there (the "face") exist to respectfully represent the users. Sometimes that means their interests run parallel to the industry (people want to save money on gas, so advocacy of fuel efficient cars and new product lines for car companies, so more sales), sometimes their interests run counter (cars without seat belts and air bags are cheaper to produce). If I have an organization out there to "represent me", I'd prefer they're independent and that their focus be on the best experience for me and everybody. What a lot of people ignore is the fact that the NRA and industry it represents make money regardless of how their product is used. Assuming that the firearms companies are not malicious lol, I'm sure they're happy seeing hobbiest shooters, hunters and sportsmen but realistically, gang and thugs shooting eachother in the streets and emo teenagers killing everbody in their schools = more bullets spent, more bullets sold and, in the present situation, means increased fear of anti-gun legislation and also more sales.

Returning to my third item, the constant push that "they're coming to take your guns" "If you don't get an assault weapon now, you never will" mean more sales, which means more haphazard purchases and more circulation. I might trust myself to by my gun and leave it locked in my safe, but my neighbor that lets his kids play next to the road, lets those same kids walk to school in the winter without a coat on or lets his LARGE and BADLY BEHAVED dog run loose throughout the neighborhood... do I expect he'll pay his gun the same respect? I don't. And when that gun gets stolen or sold by one of his kids, HIS irresponsibility becomes EVERYBODY'S problem. Once again, the easier and more convenient it is for me to do something, the more convenient it is for countless other people as well. 

All of the factors I've outlined said, I can't in good conscious say things like the NRA advocacy of lax gun laws "as an exercise of our second amendment rights" _eventhoughoursupportershaveavestedfinancialinterestinthingsbeingloose_ are done in the interest of the "us" the Constitution is supposed to represent.

Sorry for the rant and this wasn't directed at anybody specifically. In this particular thread, I thought athawulf and tedtan have both been very fair and come up with a lot of good ideas. There's a lot of common ground here.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (May 22, 2013)

I kind of laugh when people say they need them because the government will get them.
I'll give them all the automatics, and hell even grenades. I hope they realize none of that will stop a drone strike, a tactical air strike from a harrier, nor will it stop them from rolling your compound with tanks. Just saying.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 22, 2013)

I haven't read a lot of what's going on. But assuming we do come up with an effective means of confiscating all firearms in circulation, why wouldn't we simply take to making projectile launchers the way they do in prison? I watched a special the other day where folks were making guns out of chopped up match heads and random debris like a makeshift blunderbuss and they were under "maximum security." But I don't really know the extent to which the facility lives up to its classification. 

In addition to limiting the availability I think ppl globally should take a look at how they treat one another and how they teach their children to treat ppl. Human beings being the selfish dickheads we tend to be on average seem to harbor malice unnecessarily for a lot of reasons and--to me--that seems to be the source of a lot of the a lot of violence--the remains of a primitive mindset. That and mental illness in some cases--however you choose to classify it. Mental illness is a pretty vague topic that I don't really care to dive too deeply into at the moment, but I'm sure most of you get the gist of what I mean when I say that.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 22, 2013)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> I kind of laugh when people say they need them because the government will get them.
> I'll give them all the automatics, and hell even grenades. I hope they realize none of that will stop a drone strike, a tactical air strike from a harrier, nor will it stop them from rolling your compound with tanks. Just saying.



The funniest ugh thing is we're not keeping them to keep ourselves safe from outside attacks in most cases. We're more concerned with killing each other...

EDIT: ... under the pretense that it's in preparation for the former...


----------



## Randy (May 22, 2013)

Konfyouzd said:


> I haven't read a lot of what's going on. But assuming we do come up with an effective means of confiscating all firearms in circulation, why wouldn't we simply take to making projectile launchers the way they do in prison? I watched a special the other day where folks were making guns out of chopped up match heads and random debris like a makeshift blunderbuss and they were under "maximum security." But I don't really know the extent to which the facility lives up to its classification.



Alright, but do you honestly think the ease of creation or use, and availability would be even remotely comparable to the supply of guns as they exist right now?

To your second point, I don't disagree. This has to be a multipronged approach. I've been focusing in on the gun topic because that's the most contentious item but yeah, the larger idea would be to shift ourselves away from a culture of anger and violence. The goal, IMO, would be for one approach to supplement the other to the extent that the result is greater than the sum of their parts individually.


----------



## Watty (May 22, 2013)

ferret said:


> You're correct, which is why I said a "traditional reading." The public has, for the most part, associated arms and guns. Like I said, that's the crux of the matter. You have the right to bear arms, but there's nothing specific about what arms or what limits. At it's strictest, it means as long as they allow you some "arms", they can restrict more powerful or dangerous ones.



This is associated with an aspect that I think needs to be brought up in the course of the national debate surrounding the issue. 

By NOT arguing for the private citizen's right to own everything from a knife up to a *insert type of "missile" launcher here*, the advocates for the pro-gun lobby have inherently agreed that there is a line between what should and should not be legal for the private citizen to own. All we're doing now is playing around with where the division should be within the spectrum of weapons based on utility and potential to inflict needless harm.


----------



## estabon37 (May 23, 2013)

athawulf said:


> Yes it is. We do have a problem to face, so I just take issue when others are fighting against a problem we do not have such as "automatic rifles over counter with no real license or background checks required"



Colin Goddard, one of the people shot (four times) during the Virginia Tech massacre started a campaign where he secretly filmed himself buying guns from gun shows using cash only, and without ID. Here's a video of him talking about it. He bought an AK47 from a gun show for cash, without using any form of ID. Can guns be sold second hand privately without the seller asking for background information from the buyer in the US? 

One of the arguments I hear regularly is that even if guns were banned, criminals would still be able to buy and sell weapons covertly, which would leave 'ordinary citizens' unable to defend themselves. But it seems that ordinary citizens often engage in underhanded buying and selling of weapons. This does not make them evil, nefarious, gangsters, or any of the things that many of them would say of gang and cartel members. But it does make them criminals - the very people they claim to want to be able to protect themselves from.


----------



## estabon37 (May 23, 2013)

I just heard on the news that Australian State police departs are joining forces to combat illegal trade in firearms in this country. Apparently there are an estimated 250,000 weapons on the black market in Australia (so obviously, this says nothing of the amount of unregistered firearms in homes and on farms around the country), and one of the biggest concerns mentioned in the SBS broadcast was that people would purchase illegal weapons ... to commit suicide.  Is this a decent argument to introduce Euthanasia (which was struck down in the New South Wales parliament today)?


----------



## tedtan (May 23, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> Can guns be sold second hand privately without the seller asking for background information from the buyer in the US?


 
Dealers (those holding a federal firearms license (FFL) to sell firearms) are required by federal law to have a background check performed on the buyer by the FBI before they can release the gun(s) to the buyer. This applies to both new and pre-owned guns. Individuals (non dealers) are not required to have the background check performed, so it is simply not done in almost all cases. This is one of the loopholes that needs to be closed. Note that there are state laws in play here too, though, so this can vary from one state to the next.




estabon37 said:


> ...it seems that ordinary citizens often engage in underhanded buying and selling of weapons. This does not make them evil, nefarious, gangsters, or any of the things that many of them would say of gang and cartel members. But it does make them criminals - the very people they claim to want to be able to protect themselves from.


 
If the ordinary citizens are buying stolen guns or guns used in a crime, then I agree with you. But buying a firearm from an individual is not illegal, so you would have to define what you mean by the "underhanded buying and selling of weapons" before we can discuss this specifically.


----------



## estabon37 (May 23, 2013)

tedtan said:


> Dealers (those holding a federal firearms license (FFL) to sell firearms) are required by federal law to have a background check performed on the buyer by the FBI before they can release the gun(s) to the buyer. This applies to both new and pre-owned guns. Individuals (non dealers) are not required to have the background check performed, so it is simply not done in almost all cases. This is one of the loopholes that needs to be closed. Note that there are state laws in play here too, though, so this can vary from one state to the next.


 
That's roughly what I thought to be the case. It's a tricky thing to try and legislate in a way that would restrict citizens from buying and selling private property from one another (after all, one doesn't have to do a background check to sell a second hand chainsaw to a friend, or ask what they're gonna use it for). Closing a loophole that big is a legal cluster...., so I can understand why most people and politicians don't really want to look at it. 



> If the ordinary citizens are buying stolen guns or guns used in a crime, then I agree with you. But buying a firearm from an individual is not illegal, so you would have to define what you mean by the "underhanded buying and selling of weapons" before we can discuss this specifically.


When I used the word 'underhanded' I guess I meant intent to subvert (if not break) the law. For in example, Colin Goddard discusses in his video a case where he bought an AK47 from a private seller at a gun show for $660, knowing that they're available through dealers for $600. The private seller will not do a background check, so what you're getting for that extra $60 is the ability to subvert a law. Ultimately, I think reducing gun violence means some forms of restriction taking place. Legal restrictions like background checks and laws criminalising second-hand sale of weapons without a dealer's licence removes a grey area in which both criminals and law abiding citizens can buy the same weapon through private sale with equal ease. It means giving up a level of freedom (without giving up guns, magazine sizes, or carry permits), but it also means disassociating citizens and criminals.

EDIT: I can't even spell anymore. Fixed somewhat. And when did the word .... start getting censored on this site?


----------

