Gun Control

[Reincarnate]

I want to make a general discussion thread on this, but I ask that any participants please read this post first, because I want everyone to be on the same page before proceeding, and that requires some background info. Feel free to correct any inaccuracies, and I'll update.

I'd first recommend watching this video. It's 40 minutes long, but it does a terrific job at explaining all the basics of how firearms work, and a lot of this information is still very much relevant today.

Now for some main points. I'm not going to get into a bunch of stats, but rather just try to summarize things to help guide initial discussions. I'm rather intentionally being loose with my language here.

1. Manual weapons require you to reload manually between shots. You pull the trigger and fire the bullet, but now you have to manually eject the spent casing and then load the next round into the chamber yourself before you can pull the trigger and fire another bullet again.

2. Semi-automatic weapons do the ejecting/reloading for you, but only once per trigger pull. So one pull of the trigger = one shot fired.

3. Automatic weapons allow you to hold the trigger down and continuously fire bullets. You might also hear these get called "machine guns."

4. There are other modes of fire such as burst-fire (e.g. 2-3 rounds fired per trigger pull) and selective-fire (the ability to switch between modes such as semi-automatic and automatic).

5. Weapons with automatic fire capabilities are heavily regulated in the US to the point where most civilians may as well consider them functionally banned. It's a very lengthy and expensive process to get your hands on an automatic weapon. It'll take thousands of dollars, extensive background checks, and many months of waiting. There are several restrictions, and this is even before we get to the ways that individual states might make you jump through additional hoops. In some cases they are outright illegal no matter what.

Additional information if you are curious:

http://blog.adamsarms.net/blog/how-d...-nfa-tax-stamp

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-fo...ifle-in-the-US

https://www.quora.com/In-which-state...tomatic-weapon

6. An "assault rifle" is a real term that usually describes selective-fire (i.e. capable of automatic fire) weapons that you might see in the military. However, due to point (5), assault rifles are not being used by civilians to commit homicides or mass shootings. In addition, it doesn't help that the media often uses "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" interchangeably, which is also confusing because...

7. An "assault weapon" is a completely politicized, bullshit term. It's basically used to describe big, black, scary-looking rifles. In other words, the features being included here are mostly cosmetic. To illustrate:





From Wikipedia: Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include:

-Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine
-Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock, which reduces the overall length of the firearm
-A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
-Bayonet lug, which allows the mounting of a bayonet
-Threaded barrel, which can accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor, compensator or muzzle brake
-Grenade launcher
-Barrel shroud, which prevents burning of shooter's arm or hand as a safety device.

You'll also find that a lot of people legislating against this stuff don't even know what they're legislating against:

"What is a barrel shroud?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
"30 magazine clip in half a second" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0

So there's a lot of bullshit flying around here when it comes to "assault weapons."

8. In short: Trying to ban "assault weapons" means you are basically banning cosmetic features that have no real impact on one's ability to participate in gun violence or mass shootings. And banning "assault rifles" is technically useless because, again, see point (5). When participating in this thread, mention a fruit somewhere in your first post to show that you've actually read this far. I want to gauge how many people actually read this shit.

9. The point of these terms, in my opinion, is to control language and perception, and therefore control thought. It's meant to deliberately obfuscate the issue and lead people to see firearms as strictly a tool of murder and assault. It's meant to confuse people into thinking that semi-automatic rifles are somehow the same as military-grade automatic machine guns. A lot of people see this as an attempt to make a stepping stone that will later make it easier for the anti-gun crowd to push for broader gun control / possible bans. For more info please see http://www.assaultweapon.info/

10. "But what about weapons like the AR-15 I keep hearing about?" It's just a popular semi-automatic rifle that's been around for many decades. "AR" is not short for "assault rifle." It's short for "Armalite rifle." Again, to be explicit, it's not an automatic. And while we're on the subject, rifles are very rarely used in homicides.

11. So if you've read this far you're probably realizing that the only guns we need to focus on are semi-automatic handguns. Focusing on "assault weapons" or "assault rifles" or "automatic weapons" or "machine guns" is arguably a waste of time because none of these things address any real issues our society is actually facing in terms of gun violence / homicides / crime / mass-shootings. The Virginia Tech shooter, for instance, carried out a mass shooting by using two semi-automatic handguns. And more broadly...

12. Virtually all mass shootings have been done with semi-automatics. And in most cases, the weapons were obtained legally. However, mass shootings are a very small fraction of gun homicides / homicides overall. Most deaths from firearms come from suicides and violence committed with illegally-obtained handguns (especially in gang violence or poor urban areas).

13. The Second Amendment reads: "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." Whether you like guns or not, this can't be ignored.

14. So now we can finally get to the real meat of the discussion (and where things start to get a lot more opinionated): What should we do about semi-automatic firearms? Any meaningful discussion on gun control has to start here.

[adlp]

good thread

[V-Ormix]

yeah but if we don't ban guns how will we have a one world government in the future

[Frank Munoz]

it's not explicitly about the weapon it's self
and it's not about banning them either
like i have stated before a couple of times

not all of us have the same goals pertaining to Gun Control.
you think it's about SA Firearms
I think it's more about the person who uses it
my argument is less specifically about semi-auto weapons, and more of regulating all weapons(guns) so i do apologize if this isn't the type of discussion you wanted, because I believe the issue is about all firearms.

I think we can start simple, like ...
Obama, Jan. 5: You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm.

I believe everyone has a right to bear arms, just as everyone else and as the second amendment suggest.
but if you have broken the law before hand, you have therefore lost your legal right to purchase depending on the crime.
Say you started a business illegally, or suffered copyright infringement issues, those do not pertain to violence or harming citizens much, so you wouldn't be too restricted from your purchases.
It would be handled on a case by case basis i believe.
I also believe professional training for a gun owner's permit to be needed, as well as needing a gun owner's permit to purchase any type of firearm, similar to needing a drivers license to buy a car.
but
regardless of my personal view on training
Are you opposed to, or do you support, background checks for purchase of all firearms? If so, why?


also lmfao ormix

[Rojaf]

Yeah it's definitely more about background checks than any kind of ban.

i have mixed feelings about arguments over magazine size. if I'm ever in a situation where there's an active shooter, i'm counting rounds to plan the best time to run/fight. I'd prefer them to have to reload as frequently as possible.

[kommisar]

slavery and prohibition were also amendments guess what they changed them to adapt to modern society maybe guns aren't a good idea

[adlp]

those amendments werent included in the bill of rights, and nullifying the 2nd amendment would never happen, nor should it

[devonin]

America doesn't have "A Gun problem" it has several gun problems. Mass Shootings, while a problem aren't nearly as big a problem as general gun violence, gun homicide, and guns in suicides.

The biggest problem in the USA surrounding positive and useful gun reform isn't 2nd amendment rights, it's that organizations like the CDC are expressly forbidden from actually conducting research into the issues surrounding gun violence and gun suicides etc. They are actively prevented from trying to discover what kinds of changes would have what effects on the rate of gun use and gun deaths in the US. When they were able to research cars, they developed a number of measures that dramatically reduced the rate of car fatalities. But the NRA is so powerfully against allowing anything that might lead in any way to legislation that limits anybody's right to have as many guns as they want as easily as they want, that it will never happen.

So the real answer to the gun problem in the USA is "Stay away, and hope that enough people who care this much about having guns kill each other off or die of old age that they become enough of a minority to actually be able to act even remotely in the self-interest of all Americans."

For every point that Arch made in the Orlando thread about entrenched cultural norms, the point is made that Gun Culture in the USA is even more thoroughly entrenched than any of the other sentiments he's brought up. An attempt to actually circumvent the NRA lobby and try to get some research done to propose realistic and effective controls on the ownership and use of firearms will almost certainly result in actual civil war in America.

As long as that entrenched culture is present, there's basically no point in talking about gun controls. There are counters inside that culture to anything proposed no matter how reasonable.

I feel like, as gun controls go, none of these are limiting to law-abiding citizens, and all make pretty logical sense in terms of having a better sense of the state of guns in the country and how they are used with a goal to prevent the absurd number of gun deaths each year:

1/ To own a gun, you need to apply for and receive a licence
2/ To own a gun, you need to pass a basic training course in safe operation and handling
3/ To own a gun, you need to register that gun

At that point, I would consider something along the lines of:
1/ If you commit a crime with a gun, and that gun is unregistered or stolen, we add 5 years to your sentence.
2/ If you commit a crime with a gun registered to you, any guns you have registered to you are taken away and you lose your licence to own guns for 5 years.

This is easier, faster, and cheaper controls than are applied to drivers, with weaker penalties for committing crimes with guns than say, driving drunk as applied to drivers. There are arguably more guns per person in the USA than there are vehicles, so applying even a weaker version of the licence and training process for cars to guns seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Banana

[kommisar]

Originally Posted by adlp

those amendments werent included in the bill of rights, and nullifying the 2nd amendment would never happen, nor should it

why exactly is it so important to carry a weapon solely designed to kill? If having more of it undeniably increases the amount of deaths related to it, is it really being that beneficial?

maybe there's something I don't get. maybe I'm missing examples of people successfully defending themselves with a gun. All I see it as is a form of intimidation.

[reuben_tate]

In regards to the 2nd amendment, I would not be in favor of having it be nullified. The 2nd amendment gives power to the people, preventing the government from being able to impose tyranny and allowing the people to protect the rest of their constitutional rights.

Strawberry

EDIT: Of course there is still the issue of how to interpret the 2nd amendment. One way to interpret it is "Everyone should have the ability to easily obtain any weapon any time they want with no government regulation whatsoever". Another (more reasonable) interpretation would be something along the lines of the common sense gun regulation mentioned by devonin.

[Soundwave-]

Originally Posted by kommisar

If having more of it undeniably increases the amount of deaths related to it

Supposedly this premise is false. I don't have stats, but considering the number of loopholes in current gun regulation I wouldn't be surprised.

Originally Posted by kommisar

maybe there's something I don't get. maybe I'm missing examples of people successfully defending themselves with a gun. All I see it as is a form of intimidation.

Again, don't have stats, but people defending themselves from, e.g. home invasion, with a firearm is certainly common enough to not be unheard of.

[devonin]

Again, don't have stats, but people defending themselves from, e.g. home invasion, with a firearm is certainly common enough to not be unheard of.

The stats on this show that you are -hugely- more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or a family member/friend than a home invader.

Also a number of people in jail for B&E and Robbery with guns have reported (whether you want to trust this or not is totally up to you) that the only reason they brought guns to their crime was to counteract the concern that the homeowner would have a gun. And that basically if they knew the homeowner didn't have guns, they wouldn't have either, and relied on fright or bats/knives etc in case of confrontation.

[sickufully]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

In regards to the 2nd amendment, I would not be in favor of having it be nullified. The 2nd amendment gives power to the people, preventing the government from being able to impose tyranny and allowing the people to protect the rest of their constitutional rights.

'This made a helluva lot of sense when it was just muskets. You do realise you'll be bringing guns to a drone fight, right?'

This guy is hilarious but on point.

[adlp]

Originally Posted by devonin

The stats on this show that you are -hugely- more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or a family member/friend than a home invader.

Also a number of people in jail for B&E and Robbery with guns have reported (whether you want to trust this or not is totally up to you) that the only reason they brought guns to their crime was to counteract the concern that the homeowner would have a gun. And that basically if they knew the homeowner didn't have guns, they wouldn't have either, and relied on fright or bats/knives etc in case of confrontation.

as a homeowner i wouldnt want a fair fight. i want to have the advantage in my own home, and if burglars arm themselves when breaking and entering, they bring in a "more fair" fight at the risk of death or a harsher sentence

[choof]

Originally Posted by devonin

Also a number of people in jail for B&E and Robbery with guns have reported (whether you want to trust this or not is totally up to you) that the only reason they brought guns to their crime was to counteract the concern that the homeowner would have a gun. And that basically if they knew the homeowner didn't have guns, they wouldn't have either, and relied on fright or bats/knives etc in case of confrontation.

so what? if you break and enter with a deadly weapon you deserve to die

[Soundwave-]

Originally Posted by devonin

The stats on this show that you are -hugely- more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or a family member/friend than a home invader.

Hugely is an overstatement. Sources seem to agree on about 1:2, justifiable homicides to accidental gun deaths. The number of these that could be prevented by simply enforcing people be more educated about gun safety is probably fairly high.

[thesunfan]

a fruit

[top]

Originally Posted by choof

so what? if you break and enter with a deadly weapon you deserve to die

At the same time tho the owner will have the right to use deadly force cuz ya never know what a burglars packin so bringin a gun is just better safe than sorry.
Also this particular scenario is best ended with, how boutcha just dont break into peoples houses!

Fantastic thread btw i wish i could show everyone i know the OP

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by devonin

The biggest problem in the USA surrounding positive and useful gun reform isn't 2nd amendment rights, it's that organizations like the CDC are expressly forbidden from actually conducting research into the issues surrounding gun violence and gun suicides etc. They are actively prevented from trying to discover what kinds of changes would have what effects on the rate of gun use and gun deaths in the US. When they were able to research cars, they developed a number of measures that dramatically reduced the rate of car fatalities. But the NRA is so powerfully against allowing anything that might lead in any way to legislation that limits anybody's right to have as many guns as they want as easily as they want, that it will never happen.

This, THIS so fucking much. What actual logical reason is there to not allow research on a topic as important as this?

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

This, THIS so fucking much. What actual logical reason is there to not allow research on a topic as important as this?

IIRC, it had something to do with the CDC trying to pump out some really crappy studies in the 80's to push an anti-gun agenda that they had already decided on beforehand.

Edit:

http://www.drgo.us/?p=266
http://www.drgo.us/?p=285
http://www.drgo.us/?p=314