depths20XX
Member
Yeah that's actually the one I was thinking of. My bad.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
President Barack Obama preparing to issue Executive Order on gun control
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
Yeah that's actually the one I was thinking of. My bad.
Mammoth Jones
Member
"Holding a gun can make you paranoid"
That's right, firearms are mystical talismans that can imbue you with feelings just upon touching it!*
*Unless you're an adult that knows how to control yourself and follow the law.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Does it say anything about holding a weapon is like holding your genitalia? Or compensating for a lack of?
bequietdrive
Member
I can't believe Americans are still anti proper background checks on assault rifles. What a country.
The AR-15 is America's Gun, it's highly profitable, adaptable and patriotic, all at the same time. It's also great for murdering children en masse.
I'm 100% for full background checks anytime a gun changes ownership but the part that is going to make it fail is that a national registry of ownership would be required in order to do this. The guns need to always be "attached" to an owner otherwise there's no way to track person to person transfers. Most gun owners don't want the government knowing every gun they own.
That would also make it necessary to register every gun that is currently out there.
That would also make it necessary to register every gun that is currently out there.
duhmetree
Member
This is just flat out false. There is one major flaw in your logic. Maniacs who go on killing sprees break the law. I'm not sure if you're aware but shooting and killing people is outlawed in all 50 states, and Puerto Rico... This hasn't stopped or deterred homicidal maniacs.. California has the strictest gun laws in the nation... Did that stop the San Bernardino terrorists? They broke countless laws in a 'gun free zone'..
NO government law would have stopped them..
Many drugs are illegal here.. Can I no longer get or find these drugs on the black market? Illegal drugs even find their way into locked down fortresses aka the prison system. You're not going to stop murderous thugs, you're only going to take guns (protection) away from law abiding citizens. It is your right and duty to protect yourself, your family and your neighbor.
We need to start taking responsibility for ourselves.
So because something isn't 100% effective it isn't worth doing. Guess we should legalize rape, murder, theft, and pretty much every other illegal crime that hasn't been proven to 100% deter that crime. That e-coli outbreak with chipotle is a real shame. Probably should just eradicate the FDA. After all if we can't stop it 100% why fucking bother amirite? Probably should move onto the EPA next. I heard they failed to deter a number of businesses from polluting waterways a few times. Guess we should wrap it up. Throw up our hands and just go home. Fuck the commons and societal utilitarianism.
Doesn't even mention individuals owning guns! It's still crazy that the Supreme Court interpreted it that way considering the first words are "a well-regulated militia"
Stupid Supreme Court could have stopped these massacres years ago if they weren't so stupid.
8-Bit Sunset
Banned
I don't live in America, but I need to ask the questions:
Why do you feel the need to own a gun?
Is it really that dangerous where you live?
Wouldn't you prefer somewhere where there are no guns?
Why do you feel the need to own a gun?
Is it really that dangerous where you live?
Wouldn't you prefer somewhere where there are no guns?
CadetMahoney
Member
probably one of things that make you want more, the more other people don't want you to have.
Last black friday was the biggest gun sales ever iirc.
8-Bit Sunset
Banned
I just don't understand the need for them?
Are people living in the wild west or something?
Is there always a constant threat outside or even being in your house?
As an outsider I just don't get it.
At all.
They like them. It's really that simple.
9.9 times out of 10 everything else coming out of a person's mouth is just a secondary rationalization that tries to dress up the fact that at the heart of it they just want a gun because they like them.
You want to protect your family? Fine, invest in an alarm system, some deadbolts, a camera system and re-inforced closet doors to hide in. You'll have a better statistical chance of survival for you and your family then trying to play John McClain with your shooty toys.
8-Bit Sunset
Banned
Kind of sad isn't it. Really it is.
And to live somewhere where you feel the need to protect yourself with weapons, well that is no life at all.
Makes me feel sad thinking about it.
duhmetree
Member
Wow... No. That's neither logical nor what I eluded to.
Criminals will always have guns or any efficient weapon for that matter. Criminals/Murderers will not be hindered by laws. So, adding more laws will only hurt those who abide in it..
The objective is to stop law breakers and protect the innocent. Gun control does not stop lawless ones and does not protect the innocent.
Mountains of statistics say you are wrong.
Making guns prohibitively difficult to attain and reducing supply makes the frequency of gun violence drop. We saw this in Britain, Australia and even in states in America that have implemented strong gun control. When supply decreases the cost rises. In Australia the black market price for a gun soared after supply was decreased and access required higher barriers to attainment. It's basic economic principles.
No laws are 100% effective in deterrence. You made the argument that because gun control will still allow criminals to commit crimes with guns that it isn't worth doing. That's bullshit. If gun control reduces the overall risk of gun violence, which it has proven to do the world over, it is a worthy avenue to go down. Furthermore the notion that guns provide meaningful self defense has been shown to be statistically untrue. You are actually more likely to survive a intruder or criminal confrontation by running, cooperating or hiding then brandishing a gun. If you are going to confront the criminal you have about the same statistical chance of success using a bat, club or other similar weapon as you do a gun.
So, I've been staring at the 2nd amendment on Wiki for like and hour.
Here it is according to Wiki as ratified:
Now, I'm not well versed in knowledge about militias, so I've got genuine questions. Who were these "Well regulated militias" they spoke of back then? Assuming they still exist, who are they today? Are they still "well regulated"? If so, by whom are they regulated?
I have more follow up questions, but I'll leave it there for now.
Here it is according to Wiki as ratified:
Now, I'm not well versed in knowledge about militias, so I've got genuine questions. Who were these "Well regulated militias" they spoke of back then? Assuming they still exist, who are they today? Are they still "well regulated"? If so, by whom are they regulated?
I have more follow up questions, but I'll leave it there for now.
The national guard would be the go to example.
duhmetree
Member
Why does the secret service carry guns? Protection. Why do police officers carry firearms? deterrent to crime. Why shouldn't I?
Is it dangerous to go to a restaurant in Paris? What about a concert? Are there a lot of guns in Paris? Is it dangerous to go to a Christmas party for work in California?
There are bad people in this world that look to harm others. Normalcy bias might blur that.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
It is my right to bear arms as it is my right to protect myself. If you do not want to? That is your prerogative... It is a responsibility. It's not something to be taken lightly. It's something you should train with and become more comfortable with. It's something you pray you will never have to use but in the event it does... you are ready.
As the old adage goes... I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Hmm... Yes, they even seem to predate ratification as a militia, and seeing as they are reserves for the proper armed forces I guess it doesn't get more "well regulated." So still maintaining their place and importance, I suppose makes the second part of the amendment valid as well by my reading... not that I'm a Supreme Court Justice or anything.
Invest in a security system, some deadbolts and a safe room if you are really concerned about your safety.
The secret service, the police and the military have to go through extensive training, evaluations, licensing and constant monitoring to carry their weapons in their occupation. When police discharge their weapon they have to report it and justify it. Frankly I would be more then happy if that is how we govern access to weaponry in this country. You want a gun? Ok, you have to pass extensive training, evaluations, licensing, monitoring and over sight to ensure you are acting responsibly.
Even then though we can look at police and see in spite of all that training there is systemic problems occurring all over the country. The highly trained police aren't even using guns responsibly but joe redneck deserves even less scrutiny to attain his and carry it to his local Wal mart.
Why shouldn't you be able to have easy access to guns? Look at the statistics. Gun violence in this country is at unprecedented levels for a highly developed western country and your answer is to make sure everyone can easily get a gun? It's been that way for decades and yet we still can't manage to reduce gun violence to the level of our relevent peers.
Society is a constant balancing act and the current arrangement our society has with guns is too detrimental to continue without revision.
duhmetree
Member
That's a stawman argument. Of course gun crime will drop? What happened to the homicide rate?
So a ban of firearms technically didn't work... What about Switzerland? They went in the exact opposite direction and promote a gun culture. Look at thosestatistics.
This is where we just fundamentally differ. I will not let the intruder/criminal dictate the situation. I will do what is right not what it 'statistically' safe. I will also help others if need be and not run.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Do you know how many hours the secret service and police do more hours of fire arms training than you do?
You want to use Switzerland? Hold on... let me show you something
If you don't care about what is actually going to keep those you care about the safest, then you can't say you are doing what is right. At least not what is right by them. Unless to you it is right to endanger those around you more then need be because you want to play John McLain(without the actual badge to justify it)at some people that want your TV.
1.) Switzerland does not promote American style gun culture. Far from it. They actually require pretty strict monitoring and licensing. You have to register and pass licensing and training requirements to own and keep a gun. Gun ownership in Switzerland has been on the decline. Most provinces in Switzerland want army guns in depots and actually require it unless you have met certain stipulations and can qualify. All because they have rightfully agreed with the science that says guns in the home increase the risk of various gun violence. Oh and when Switzerland wanted to reduce suicides, guess what they did? They passed new firearm restrictions and the subsequent conclusion drawn was it reduced suicides. Oh and what does that reasonable gun control culture get them? Less then a third of the gun homicides per 1,000,000 people.
2.) We can argue back and forth which was the bigger driver of reducing gun violence in the U.K. but the fact is this isnt the only place this drop has been seen. We also know that in this country, states with more gun control tend to have less gun violence. With Britain though the fact is they have managed to reduce supply and access and the result is that in a country of 64 million they have very few gun deaths. In fact Britain isnt even listed on that chart - and not because i am trying to scam you - it is because Britain's gun homicides per 1,000,000 people is at .7. A whole 29 lower then America.
All in all the the evidence is overwhelming. We know that on the individual level a gun in the home leads to higher risk of gun assault, gun suicide and accidental gun deaths. We know states with stricter gun control by and large have lower rates of gun violence and we see countries that do a better job controlling supply and access to guns have lower rates of gun violence. We also know most of the science justifying defensive gun use is a myth. Frankly most of this should sound like common sense but surprisingly to people that are so infatuated with their bang bang toys, or so incapable of accepting their libertopian philosophy has real costs, it can be rather difficult to get the point across.
8-Bit Sunset
Banned
Who are you protecting yourself from? Where on earth are you living?
You shouldn't have to live somewhere where you have to make those kind of decisions.
Sorry but I just can't wrap my head around it.
Paranoia and a hero complex tends to alter the lens through which you see the world.
Gravy Boat
Member
It absolutely is a hero complex. Owning a gun for sport is ok, but if you say it's for protecting your family then that is totally a hero complex. There are many other more effective ways of protecting your family than simply buying a gun or two.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
You can end a life (or many) by simply pointing at them, Few things in life will make you feel as powerful as holding a loaded gun. Doesn't matter if you're a bald hairy fat idiot who doesn't get respect in life. Guns give you respect.
I really feel bad for all the responsible people who have guns. The majority who are good with them. It's a shame that a idiot minority being attracted to it makes it bad.
Same thing with fight dogs. It's not a Pit Bull or Bull Dogs fault. Many owners are great, but some stereotypes are attracted to it, and it becomes a fucking mess for everyone.
Drugs should be legal. If you personally know how to maintain your shit, nobody should tell you that you can't do pyschedellics like LSD. It's your brain and your right to experiment. But some people can't handle that shit, and it fucks it up for everyone.
I answered in the bolded above
I don't own a gun, but thinking about getting one
There is a good chance my gun would never be used outside of the few times I would bring it to the range, just so I can learn how to use it properly
It was intentional, but the ideas I presented hold true. I'd like to see a real argument against them.
Battersea Power Station
Member
There's no data to support that a gun will help you in the case of a home invasion. You might have heard of an anecdote or two, but it's about as likely as you winning the lottery.
You can't be serious? Someone breaks into my house I will shoot them? I have a lot to live for
I don't care if they are armed or not, you're invading my property
Unless criminals don't have guns, I see no reason why people can't protect their property? I would love a gun free society but that will never happen here
Battersea Power Station
Member
Any statistical study I've seen suggests this scenario will not happen to you, ever. I know it feels right, but humans are terrible judges of probabilities. You're much more likely to harm yourself or a friend/family member than you are to ever use your gun to protect yourself. Like magnitudes more.
I think what you mean is chances are someone is not going to break into my house with assault weapons meant for over sea's wars to steal some stuff for drugs, so there is no reason for me to have an AR-15
But robberies and break in's are on the rise where I am, moving will do nothing because this heroin epidemic is going through every town. I rather not rely on statistics to save my life. A simple rifle or shotgun will do fine
Phat Michael
Banned
Exactly. Such a fucking joke of a place. How many hundred million guns are in the states now? Hopefully Obama can slow down the rate of gun ownership so that magical half a billion mark happens later rather than sooner.
I honestly wish more gun owners had your common sense. I always look forward to your insight in these threads.
You missed that poster's point. It won't. Based on statistics. It will make you more likely to die actually if that somehow happens.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong to own one, or that your right to do so should be stripped. If I have a point, and I'm not sure I do, it's that you should own one because you like to and it makes you feel better inside. Logically, you should at least understand that it does not make you safer.
I, for instance, understand that logically, recycling plastic containers doesn't help the environment. It's a bit tougher to pin down the math, but it might actually be a net positive in carbon emissions. But I still do it because it makes me feel good. We're humans and it's expected that we don't make all decisions based on logic and reason.
Because you are not a secret service agent or a police officer.
How many concerts have you gone to that permit guns inside the venue? How often do you bring your gun to a holiday work party?
appaws
Banned
This is wrong. Militia at that time universally meant an armed population...not something controlled by the state. That is why the language of the amendment says "the people" and does not reference state governments.
The founders believed in an armed citizenry as a bulwark against tyranny. Period. Any attempt to make it seem like they didn't is just a lie.
Also, at the time "well regulated" meant well trained. The word had a different meaning then. Basically, they wanted an adult male population that was armed and well trained in the use of arms.
Of course, those who want to take away individual liberties love nothing more than to twist and play word games and remove the historical context. They ignore all other writings of the founders, and the state constitutions of the time which demonstrate that the right was universally believed to reside in individuals.
Even if you want to choose to translate well-regulated into well-trained, that's still not even being upheld today.
O.v.e.rlord
Banned
Limited Edition
Banned
I'm a hunter and gun collector.
Nah, I dont own one primarily for home defense. I have one than can be used for it, yes, but it's loaded with a blank for the first shot to frighten any would be home intruder off. Hopefully, I'll never actually have to use it in such a way.
As someone that hunts year round, and collects firearms, nah.
Should Obama provide free gun saftey/use classes via executive action?
Well-trained? We're not exactly abiding by that dude. By that logic we should have a proficiency exam that needs to be taken every few years in order to get and keep your guns.
Unless it's mandatory and whoever doesn't do it has their guns taken away it still won't abide by "well-trained."
O.v.e.rlord
Banned
A blank? I'm guessing AR, then don't have to rack it to the casing out? Or is it bolt action?
That is true.
And also tbqh the Sovereign Citizen types scare me and I'd rather them not be in charge of training the general populace.
- Status