The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

(I suspect against a foreign threat our heavily armed populace would be a negative as much as a good thing and there would be a lot of friendly fire deaths and just general disorder because of it.  You'd have the American military potentially going into areas with armed US citizens and being hesitant to shoot while the foreign forces would be free to shoot at anybody that wasn't on their side.  But I don't know of any actual historical comparable cases.)

 

This jus seems unnecessarily cynical.

 

If Ukraine can figure this out with people coming off the streets lining up to volunteer to fight and being given guns, why can't we jus because some of us already have our own?

[bearrock]

The foreign forces scenario also requires some cost-benefit analysis.  Suppose we legally allow x amount of firepower for potential utility in those foreign invasion scenarios.  Let's say ideal fire power for self defense is y and x-y = z.  Is z causing additional societal harm in peaceful times compared to what y would have caused?  Or is the actual threat of foreign invasion scenario (where the US military alone is not sufficient to repel or deter the invasion but the citizenry with their guns help turn the tide) too remote to justify the continued cost of maintaining z among society at large?

 

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

If Ukraine can figure this out with people coming off the streets lining up to volunteer to fight and being given guns, why can't we jus because some of us already have our own?

 

Can we find a middle ground by maintaining a secured stockpile of guns in the community with regular weapons training for the populace?  Like a well regulated militia?

[Cooked Crack]

Quote

“The gun was not properly stored,” Orange County Sheriff John Mina said at a news conference. “In fact, it was easily accessible, even to a 2-year-old, and the result is a tragedy that no one in this community can really comprehend.” 

 

Ayala, 28, was charged with manslaughter by culpable negligence, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of ammunition by a convicted felon and violation of probation, Mina said. 

 

Both Ayala and Mabry had been on probation for child neglect and narcotics possession.

 

Willing to bet they charging the mother since she already had a criminal record.

[PeterMP]

34 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This jus seems unnecessarily cynical.

 

If Ukraine can figure this out with people coming off the streets lining up to volunteer to fight and being given guns, why can't we jus because some of us already have our own?

 

It is the difference between having a gun and having the mind set that you are going to protect what is yours and not having a gun and having to get a gun and be integrated into an existing military framework.

 

I could absolutely be wrong.  It isn't something I strongly believe or think.  Just what I suspect.  

 

I don't think there's any doubt that the pre-existing militias and war lords in Afghanistan and Iraq hurt the functioning of the Iraqi and Afghani militaries against the Taliban and ISIS.  And didn't help them.  The pre-existing armed populace wasn't a benefit.  Now, is the US currently in that same situation?  No.  But there's also no real possibility of the US military being overwhelmed and defeated by a foreign foe.  So we'd have to start with a US with a heavily armed populace and without a military to prevent an invasion.  And I suspect that would result in a more feudal and territorial US.

 

Where this has worked, including the US revolution, the populace has been pretty gun poor (compared to the current US population) and has had to get a gun and be incorporated into the system.

Edited June 7, 2022 by PeterMP

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

🤣  Honest question, how much difference would banning all semi-auto make in mass shooting events?  I agree it's not happening, just curious.

I think semiautomatic weapons are at the core of gun culture. Them not existing in any media, and in any household, and at any range, cuts severely into gun culture. 
 

I think a person confronted with an ar15 vs a revolver, may have different reactions in those different scenarios. 
 

i think the public not having semi automatics would tilt the “good guy with a gun” scenario back towards the good guy’s side a bit. 
 

I have no way to quantify how many fewer lives would be lost if people could both not fire nor reload as fast and as reliably and with such ease in terms of recoil and general stating on target. No way. Presumably it would make a big difference. 
 

The overall potential is immeasurable. 
 

The culture change over 50 years of that… who the hell knows. 

It would also allow for the demilitarization of our police 

 

I mean the impact is potentially very broad 

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Willing to bet they charging the mother since she already had a criminal record.

I don’t like this. This 2 year old just lost a father. In this specific scenario, she would have had to do something independently awful to justify taking away the mother too 

 

At some point the punishment may appear to defeat the purpose. 

[PeterMP]

31 minutes ago, tshile said:

i read what he said as to mean your right to own that weapon is not linked directly to your ability to walk into a chik-fil-a carrying one just like: what’s up? 
 

Like just being as direct as possible: there’s lots of room on it to believe you could pass a law that says:

You are allowed to own an ar15, but you are definitely not allowed to carry it into any chik-fil-a during or outside of business hours. 
 

And that isn’t necessarily a conflicting stance to take with regards to the 2nd amendment 

 

Okay, and you are talking about reality.  And in reality they are linked and have to do with one another.

 

Based on how people vote and how politicians act, the two things that he said aren't related to one another are.

[Renegade7]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Okay, and you are talking about reality.  And in reality they are linked and have to do with one another.

 

Based on how people vote and how politicians act, the two things that he said aren't related to one another are.

 

Are you saying now they are or 200 years ago when they ratified 2nd amendment?0

[PeterMP]

11 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Are you saying now they are or 200 years ago when they ratified 2nd amendment?0

 

Nobody had an AR-15 and there was no Chick Fil A for somebody to carry their AR-15 into 200 years ago so I'm obviously not talking about anything 200 years ago.  And you couldn't have been either.

Edited June 7, 2022 by PeterMP

[tshile]

Excuse me, chik-fil-a has been a staple of this country from the start. 

Edited June 7, 2022 by tshile

[Renegade7]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

Nobody had an AR-15 and there was Chick Fil A for somebody to carry their AR-15 into 200 years ago so I'm obviously not talking about anything 200 years ago.  And you couldn't have been either.

 

Cmon, man, stop being so literal, that's exactly what I meant concerning the 2nd Amendment basically being hijacked from its original intent. 

 

One of the biggest reasons was for militias because of their concern of having a standing army (Continental Army was mostly dissolved after we won our Independence).

 

Can't imagine how the Founders would look at us now, so much of what we're seeing today and what I'm describing is largely relatively recent, pushed by gun manufacturers and backed by SCOTUS.

 

There's no way this is what they had in mind or their intent.  Jus another example of them trying to be forward thinking and that coming to a limitation of not being forward thinking enough (I mean, in all fairness, how could they possibly forsee things like the Internet and how not specifically constitutionally protecting right privacy could backfire the way it has?)

[tshile]

By the way. Just being… realistic, or trying to be. 
 

you people keep on about militia this and that, and you should be careful what you wish for. 
 

what you may get is just a 10,000x increase in militias. 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

By the way. Just being… realistic, or trying to be. 
 

you people keep on about militia this and that, and you should be careful what you wish for. 
 

what you may get is just a 10,000x increase in militias. 

 

Yea, it was almost immediate how quickly we realized the malitia to avoid a large standing army idea was a bad one, War of 1812 Britain burned DC to the ground and wasn't **** we could do about. 

 

I don't think we were ready at that time to make amendments to cancel out amendments like we did prohibition. Another of our unresolved issues that blew up in our face later in history, like "best way or time to end slavery"...

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

Can we find a middle ground by maintaining a secured stockpile of guns in the community with regular weapons training for the populace?  Like a well regulated militia?

 

I'd find it hard to believe the military doesn't already have a plan for how to arm civilians if it comes to that given we haven't gotten rid of the draft yet.  Contingency contingency contingency.

 

There have been articles and research into the military getting involved as it has with video games beyond jus recruitment. Some they claim is jus to help training for their own soldiers, some suggest it doesn't help general population enough to make a noticeable difference.

 

I remember being in love with GoldenEye on N64, then one day I got older and started to pull back from shooter games as the mass shooter rampage frequencies started to grow.  One day I was playing CoD against my sister and I jus stopped, I was done. 

 

I cannot prove the impact the games have on the perception of how to think like someone fighting with a realistic military style weapon, but it felt too real to me and I haven't played a shooter game in over a decade because of it.

[Dan T.]

I think some people thought “Wolverine” was a documentary. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Lots of good discussion in here today and I really wanted to type out some good responses.  But them I came home and had a little smoke.  Now I'm too lazy.

 

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

. Let’s not pretend a AK47 and a  9mm do the same amount of damage in the same amount of time.

 

I do want to hear you explain this supposed vast difference between damage and speed between an AR and an AK.

Edited June 7, 2022 by The Almighty Buzz

[skinsmarydu]

My Vietnam vet roommate in the early 90s had a Tec-9.  Compared to my little .25, it looked like a machine gun.  😅  I think we had the best-protected apartment in the complex.  (And that would be as big as a "reasonable" person would need, imho.)

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

I do want to hear you explain this supposed vast difference between damage and speed between an AR and an AK.

I think you need to reread what you quoted.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I think you need to reread what you quoted.

 

I just did.  Maybe I am misunderstanding you but that is how I take what you said.  What am I missing?

[Forever A Redskin]

We need to look no further than Australia to know why we can't ban guns. It starts with semi automatic rifles then they come for more.

 

 

[PeterMP]

11 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

I just did.  Maybe I am misunderstanding you but that is how I take what you said.  What am I missing?

 

I think she meant a traditional 9 mm pistol.  Not a 9 mm AR-15.  But I believe even they are generally considered less powerful (e.g. lower muzzle velocity) than a normal AK-47 so reasonably there would be a difference.

3 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

We need to look no further than Australia to know why we can't ban guns. It starts with semi automatic rifles then they come for more.

 

 

 

Please explain with some details what lesson we should learn from Australia.

 

To help get you started, guns aren't banned in Australia.

Edited June 7, 2022 by PeterMP

[Redskins Diehard]

2 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

We need to look no further than Australia to know why we can't ban guns. It starts with semi automatic rifles then they come for more.

 

 

Just like what happened when we regulated automatic weapons in 1934.  Deep state ploy to wait 88 more years and go after semi automatic. I bet the plan for year 2100 is to take shotguns. Then the coup de grace in year 2200 is to take all the guns!

[Forever A Redskin]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I think she meant a traditional 9 mm pistol.  Not a 9 mm AR-15.  But I believe even they are generally considered less powerful (e.g. lower muzzle velocity) than a normal AK-47 so reasonably there would be a difference.

 

Please explain with some details what lesson we should learn from Australia.

 

To help get you started, guns aren't banned in Australia.

 

Most semi-automatic weapons were banned for civilian use. Licensing and registration rules were tightened. A national firearms registry was established. Gun owners had to provide a justification for owning a weapon, and personal security was specifically excluded as a valid reason.

 

Not quite a ban, but damn close. And they keep tightening it further and further. 

 

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

To help get you started, guns aren't banned in Australia.

No but they’re heavily regulated and “self defense” does not pass a a reason to receive a license 

 

I don’t have time to look into it any further unfortunately.