The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Captain Wiggles]

1 minute ago, gbear said:

 

How often are guns stolen in the U.S? 

 

 

Quite often. Depending on where you live guns can be the target of buglaries. Which is why no sane person advertises that they have guns. 🤣

[tshile]

Just now, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Quite often. Depending on where you live guns can be the target of buglaries. Which is why no sane person advertises that they have guns. 🤣

Ding ding ding ding

 

 

[gbear]

2 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Quite often. Depending on where you live guns can be the target of buglaries. Which is why no sane person advertises that they have guns. 🤣

That is what I thought too.  That is why I would gladly post about not having a gun, especially if I can follow it up with an comment about real protection.   

[Captain Wiggles]

Just now, gbear said:

That is what I thought too.  That is why I would gladly post about not having a gun, especially if I can follow it up with an comment about real protection.   

 

Generally if a burglar sees that a house has a security system or dogs they move on to a softer target. 

[Renegade7]

46 minutes ago, tshile said:

I appreciate the rest of your post

 

but I don’t think you’re going to get very far “playing dumb” on this. 
 

but yeah maybe the challenge would result in the sale of guns being tax free. I see that as more likely than upholding a 1000% tax on a gun you want to ban because it’s used (and no other real reason) but whoops it’s not a ban it’s a tax…. I just don’t see it. 
 

but hey I’m wrong about a lot of things so who knows 

 

It's one of those things where we agree on trying anyway, and I agree that ignoring "unintended consequences" is the most likely way Democrats find a way to screw this up (same way they blew that softball to vote on bill identical to what was protected by Roe).

 

 

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Generally if a burglar sees that a house has a security system or dogs they move on to a softer target. 

Home break ins around here are rare. 
 

cause you got like a 60% chance of being shot. 
 

which is why most of the ones that do happen, happen mid day. Which seems weird cause everyone can see you - but what they care about is you not being home. Covid changed that. Cause. Now people are home all the time 😂 

 

car break ins are out of control though. Easy to see no one’s in there. Solid chance you can see what is steal-able. And a surprising number of people just do not lock their car doors…. According the police, most of them are occurring when the doors are unlocked 🤷‍♂️ 

 

But yeah you gotta be some kinda dumb to break into a house out here at night. 
 

better bring your own gun…

[FuriousD]

 

[Captain Wiggles]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

which is why most of the ones that do happen, happen mid day. Which seems weird cause everyone can see you - 

 

Cops recently announced here they're no longer responding to security alarms that go off during the day. According to them 99% of daytime alarms are false. Still probably shouldn't announce it in the local paper tho. 😬

[TheGreatBuzz]

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

Half the military people are these gun people, btw. 
 

but also - look around. We spent 20 years in Afghanistan and finally withdrew because a bunch of dip****s with ak47’s that just randomly shoot cause Allah will guide their bullets, wouldn’t go away. 
 

Ukraine is standing up to Russia, and sure they are being armed but sophisticated foreign weaponry isn’t the only way they’re doing it. 
 

I used to think like you but I’ve seen enough to realize an armed populace is about impossible to control. 
 

which I believe is the point. 

 

Thank you.  I thought I was going to have to make this point again for the bazillionth time in this thread.

[Forever A Redskin]

34 minutes ago, tshile said:

Half the military people are these gun people, btw. 
 

but also - look around. We spent 20 years in Afghanistan and finally withdrew because a bunch of dip****s with ak47’s that just randomly shoot cause Allah will guide their bullets, wouldn’t go away. 
 

Ukraine is standing up to Russia, and sure they are being armed but sophisticated foreign weaponry isn’t the only way they’re doing it. 
 

I used to think like you but I’ve seen enough to realize an armed populace is about impossible to control. 
 

which I believe is the point. 

 

So how do you propose people defend themselves if guns are banned, and criminals are still buying illegal guns like they always have? Guns can be 3D printed now, the real criminals don't go through legal means to obtain their firearms if they have any brains.

 

It's a where do you draw the line thing for me, and will banning the mystical AR-15 everyone is obsessed with talking about really do anything other than make people resort to a different model? 

 

Once power is taken away from the people, it's never given back to them. That's the most important part of all of this. You don't set that precedent because once they ban AR-15s, handguns will be next (as soon as headlines read "school shooter uses popular Glock handgun with 6 magazines to kill multiple students)

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

So how do you propose people defend themselves if guns are banned, and criminals are still buying illegal guns like they always have? Guns can be 3D printed now, the real criminals don't go through legal means to obtain their firearms if they have any brains.

 

It's a where do you draw the line thing for me, and will banning the mystical AR-15 everyone is obsessed with talking about really do anything other than make people resort to a different model? 

 

Once power is taken away from the people, it's never given back to them. That's the most important part of all of this. You don't set that precedent because once they ban AR-15s, handguns will be next (as soon as headlines read "school shooter uses popular Glock handgun with 6 magazines to kill multiple students)

 

 

1.  Many criminals get their guns from legal gun stores through things like straw purchases.  And many that don't get their gun from stealing it from somebody that it got it legally.  So if people can't get guns legally, then criminals can't steal them to commit illegal crims.

 

Smuggling guns is much harder than things like most drugs so harder to get away with.  And many countries trace their smuggled guns back to the US so if it is harder to get and make guns in the US, then you affect the global ability to smuggle guns.

 

2.  Printing full guns isn't that easy.  Metal can't be printed and there are many important pieces of gun that are normally made of metal.  To my knowledge, no fully printed gun has been used in a crime.  There are people that are printing parts of guns, buying gun parts, and assembling them into a functional gun.

 

3.  Your last point isn't really true.  We can even see that with guns.  The assault weapons ban was a case where a power was taken away from people (the ability to buy what was considered an assault weapon) and then given back to the people.  African Americans and the right to vote is another case where the power was taken (shortly after Reconstruction) and (slowly) has been won back (until maybe more recently).

 

It might sound good, but it is really just a stupid talking point.

 

Anybody that thinks about things for even a little bit can think of cases where the power between the people and the government have moved back and forth over the decades.

Edited June 6, 2022 by PeterMP

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Half the military people are these gun people, btw. 
 

but also - look around. We spent 20 years in Afghanistan and finally withdrew because a bunch of dip****s with ak47’s that just randomly shoot cause Allah will guide their bullets, wouldn’t go away. 
 

Ukraine is standing up to Russia, and sure they are being armed but sophisticated foreign weaponry isn’t the only way they’re doing it. 
 

I used to think like you but I’ve seen enough to realize an armed populace is about impossible to control. 
 

which I believe is the point. 

 

1 hour ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

Thank you.  I thought I was going to have to make this point again for the bazillionth time in this thread.

 

As it pertains to the citizens standing up against tyranny, the overlap between gun owners and military is only relevant to the extent that military members willfully disobey the orders of a tyrannical government.  The firepower owned by the target of tyranny has nothing to do with it.

 

Furthermore, how much of the quagmires in the middle east is a result of of an unobtainable policy objectives and how much is the effectiveness of guns vs tanks, airplanes, and bombs? 

 

So guns are effective to keep a tyrannical government in check only so far as the tyrannical government is not willing to cross a line?  If the dictator gives the green light to start napalming the dissidents, all bets are off?  Is a well regulated militia gonna be effective against Hitler Jr. greenlighting a nuclear strike in a town full of dissidents? Is it the AR15s that will save us in that scenario or someone in the military giving the middle finger to the dictator?

 

Maybe AR15s won't do the trick, but never ending stream of military weapons supplied by foreign powers might I guess.  Too bad those useful things are decidedly against the law for civilians to own.  Is the 2nd amendment only supposed to keep a tyranny in check with the aid of foreign powers or should my neighbor be allowed to go buy a couple of javelins and a fleet of drones just in case?  I'm glad the US military is unlikely to follow orders of a dictator in furtherance of tyranny.  I'm sure that's way more likely to keep US from turning into North Korea than me owning a stockpile of guns.  If not, give me an argument on how the 2nd amendment protects a right to own a gun but not a missile.

 

 

[PeterMP]

28 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Furthermore, how much of the quagmires in the middle east is a result of of an unobtainable policy objectives and how much is the effectiveness of guns vs tanks, airplanes, and bombs? 

 

So guns are effective to keep a tyrannical government in check only so far as the tyrannical government is not willing to cross a line?  If the dictator gives the green light to start napalming the dissidents, all bets are off?

 

Syria/Assad anybody?

 

Access to guns don't seem to have helped the opposition there.

 

The Taliban didn't win because they did or did not have access to guns.  They won because of their level commitment compared to ours.  The Taliban was willing to essentially do everything they could to win.  We weren't.

 

Vs. Assad was willing to do everything he could to win and did and won.

 

(The biggest difference is we were at least trying not to act as tyrannical force in Afghanistan (or Iraq) and Assad and the Taliban are tyrants and don't have any problem acting as tyrants.)

Edited June 6, 2022 by PeterMP

[tshile]

35 minutes ago, bearrock said:

So guns are effective to keep a tyrannical government in check only so far as the tyrannical government is not willing to cross a line?  If the dictator gives the green light to start napalming the dissidents, all bets are off?  Is a well regulated militia gonna be effective against Hitler Jr. greenlighting a nuclear strike in a town full of dissidents? Is it the AR15s that will save us in that scenario or someone in the military giving the middle finger to the dictator?

Well

if your argument is the government will nuke us so we don’t need to worry about defending ourselves then 🤷‍♂️ what to tell you. 
 

russia could nuke ukraine (supposedly)

 

how’s that working out for them? 

Edited June 6, 2022 by tshile

[tshile]

49 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Printing full guns isn't that easy.  Metal can't be printed and there are many important pieces of gun that are normally made of metal.  To my knowledge, no fully printed gun has been used in a crime.  There are people that are printing parts of guns, buying gun parts, and assembling them into a functional gun

On this subject. Based on my understanding. I would run away if you pulled a 3D printed gun out on the range to use it. That dumbness has just as much chance to hurt the shooter, as it does to fire correctly. 
 

I understand theoretical threat of the download-and-print-gun, but they’re far from truly functional. 
 

49 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The assault weapons ban was a case where a power was taken away from people (the ability to buy what was considered an assault weapon) and then given back to the people.

It wasn’t taken and given back in an absolute sense. What was granted was a time-limited idea, and when its time expired it wasn’t renewed. 
 

I know you know that. Im just highlighting that aspect because I think it matters. 
 

in fact I’m willing to bet you get more support if your idea is time-limited and dependent on support to renew to continue. 
 

but don’t be surprised if it’s allowed to expire. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by tshile

[tshile]

I mean our country’s government was almost overthrown by a couple thousand people, many of whom didn’t know they were there to overthrow the government they thought they were just there to yell and throw their hands in the air, almost none of which were armed at all, not that long ago. 
 

Most of you were part of conversations with us, both at the time and in the time since, about some of the horrendous things we could have seen that day if only…. 
 

Now you’re gonna tell me that citizens owning firearms couldn’t possibly be of value if the government/society goes upside down?

 

hahaha get out of here with that silliness. You all drank too much of your koolaide today. 
 

if this country falls apart, ****s gonna get wild and quick. You all talking like access to guns won’t matter. It’s the only thing that will matter. You all lost your damn minds. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by tshile

[purbeast]

I wonder what all of these other 1st world countries without a bajillion guns will do when their hypothetical tyrannical government doesn't overtake their country.

 

However will they continue on as a society?

[Renegade7]

38 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Syria/Assad anybody?

 

Access to guns don't seem to have helped the opposition there.

 

The Taliban didn't win because they did or did not have access to guns.  They won because of their level commitment compared to ours.  The Taliban was willing to essentially do everything they could to win.  We weren't.

 

Vs. Assad was willing to do everything he could to win and did and won.

 

(The biggest difference is we were at least trying not to act as tyrannical force in Afghanistan (or Iraq) and Assad and the Taliban are tyrants and don't have any problem acting as tyrants.)

 

I don't know, man, I'd argue Assad was getting his ass kicked until Russia got involved and that's what really turned the tide in his favor.

 

Afghanistan was also barely paying or feeding their troops, President was probably planning to dip all along and jus did at the last minute once Taliban was jus outside Kabul.

 

I agree with your premise in principle concerning who was more motivated or willing to go all in being more of a factor then access to guns.  Same time Tablian didn't simply want it more, Afghan military got hungry, wasn't getting paid so didn't want to fight at all. Any level of motivation is higher then no motivation at all.

 

Syrian resistance didn't want it any less then Assad, there are documentaries to show that, they got outgunned in the long run as support for them dried up in attempt to not escalate the situation once Russia got involved.

 

Sorry if it comes across as nitpicking, I jus don't like the Taliban or Assad getting any more credit then those assholes deserve. Saying either of them simply wanted it more bothers the hell out of me.

[Berggy9598]

Statistically speaking is it more prudent to act in the way of trying to prevent another school shooting or the U.S government sending foot soldiers into every neighborhood in attempt to oppress free citizens? 

[Renegade7]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

if this country falls apart, ****s gonna get wild and quick. You all talking like access to guns won’t matter. It’s the only thing that will matter. You all lost your damn minds. 

 

Facts.

 

Packing for winter of government collapse, it will jus be taken from you if you don't have a firearm by someone who does.

 

I'm als in agreement on not buying there's no point in having an armed population to fight a theoretical tyrannical US because the US military would be too powerful to overcome. 

 

Did Vietnam care about that?  Did we care about that with respect to the British concerning our own fight for Independence?

 

There are absolutely pros and cons to having a heavily armed civilian population.  It's also a very real deterent from invasion on top of having oceans on either side of us.

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

Statistically speaking is it more prudent to act in the way of trying to prevent another school shooting or the U.S government sending foot soldiers into every neighborhood in attempt to oppress free citizens? 

 

Fair for current probability assessment, but we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face. Has to be a middle ground here.

[tshile]

If you think the US military was going to safe guard this country if 1/6 goes the other way, then you’re so out of touch I don’t know what to tell you. 
 

In many of the ways I could see this country going upside down, the divide that causes it also exists in the military and the military would also be divided. It could be between brass/leadership and the people that actually follow the orders. 
 

I don’t know how anyone could presume to know how it would go down. 

8 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

Statistically speaking is it more prudent to act in the way of trying to prevent another school shooting or the U.S government sending foot soldiers into every neighborhood in attempt to oppress free citizens? 

Our congress is currently investigating an alleged attempt to overthrow the government 

 

So you tell me which one is worse 

[purbeast]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

If you think the US military was going to safe guard this country if 1/6 goes the other way, then you’re so out of touch I don’t know what to tell you. 
 

In many of the ways I could see this country going upside down, the divide that causes it also exists in the military and the military would also be divided. It could be between brass/leadership and the people that actually follow the orders. 
 

I don’t know how anyone could presume to know how it would go down. 

Oh the irony...

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

Well

if your argument is the government will nuke us so we don’t need to worry about defending ourselves then 🤷‍♂️ what to tell you. 

 

Defend ourselves against whom?  Private citizens?  Yes, you need guns (which circles back to how much firepower is enough.  If handguns are good enough for police officers in the line of duty, why do private citizens need semi-autos and rifles?)  You can also have a debate and regulation based on allowable firepower commensurate with need and situation.  Restrictions on ammunition, borh types and amount, etc.

 

Defend ourselves against the government?  How do you justify any restriction on type of weapon?  Even assuming that the current cadre of legal guns would be sufficient to fight back tyranny under the right circumstances, is there any doubt that citizens would be more capable of keeping the tyranny in check with access to the currently illegal weapons?  How do you draw the line here and support illegalizing weapons even more likely to keep the government in check?

 

56 minutes ago, tshile said:

russia could nuke ukraine (supposedly)

 

how’s that working out for them? 

 

If the rest of the world didn't have nukes, do you think Putin is gonna take a L and go home or would he push the button?

 

If Ukraine still had their nukes, would Putin have crossed the border in the first place?

 

27 minutes ago, tshile said:

if this country falls apart, ****s gonna get wild and quick. You all talking like access to guns won’t matter. It’s the only thing that will matter. You all lost your damn minds. 

 

You're conflating societal chaos with dictatorial crackdown.  Guns become valuable in mass anarchy because there's already so many guns in circulation.  But those guns won't do much against the US military actually determined to wipe out citizens with guns.

 

The value of individual gun ownership, the scope and utility of the type of weapons are all subject of reasonable debate in a rational society.  Once you extend the 2nd amendment to individuals where the purpose is to allow individuals to have power to prevent the tyranny of the government, all hell breaks loose.  

 

Unless you flush well regulated militia down the toilet, the 2nd amendment can't logically be read to support a constitutional right to bear arms by individuals.  Once you flush the well regulated militia, there is no logical boundaries to what arms individuals should have the constitutional right to own.

[Renegade7]

While we could all jus choose to die holding our breathe waiting for congress to pass something, it sure is nice knowing some states can jus do certain things themselves:

 

Quote

New Yorkers under age 21 will be prohibited from buying semiautomatic rifles under a new law signed Monday by Gov. Kathy Hochul.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/06/new-york-governor-signs-law-raising-age-to-own-semiautomatic-rifle.html

 

Even my wife believes there should be an exception for members of the military under 21, and i agree with her, jus cannot confirm if New York made that exception.