6 minutes ago, qwertyK said:

Then we also have a problem with lacklustre police training (hardly surprising considering the size of the US). I know people react differently but double taps are used all the time and recommended by SF here in the UK. I'm not saying limit guns to 15 bullets, but limit pistols to 10 or 12. and rifles to 15. No one is going to use 30 rounds on a single person. 

In training and reality, you shoot until the threat stops.  If that takes 15 shots then so be it.

11 minutes ago, qwertyK said:

Then we also have a problem with lacklustre police training (hardly surprising considering the size of the US). I know people react differently but double taps are used all the time and recommended by SF here in the UK. I'm not saying limit guns to 15 bullets, but limit pistols to 10 or 12. and rifles to 15. No one is going to use 30 rounds on a single person. 

Double taps are a good start, but until the threat goes down you need to keep shooting. That's why police in the US are trained center mass and usually mag dump in their shootings.

 

I doubt you took the time to read the articles I provided, so I'll summarize them. The police officer in the first one used a .45 ACP glock to fire at a bank robbery suspect. To quote the article:

In this free-for-all, the assailant had, in fact, been struck 14 times. Any one of six of these wounds — in the heart, right lung, left lung, liver, diaphragm, and right kidney — could have produced fatal consequences…“

in time,” Gramins emphasizes.

 

This occurred over 56 seconds. It was only ended with 3 shots to the head. The suspect was not on any sort of mind altering substance, only pure adrenaline.

 

In the second article, the mother emptied all 5 shots from her .38 caliber revolver into the neck and face of the burglar. He only left after she convinced him she had more rounds, and still stumbled down the stairs, got into his car, and drove a block away. Should he have been inclined, he could have killed her in that time frame.

 

Large magazines can also be a hindrance. At the movie theater shooting in Colorado, James Holmes initially started with an AR-15 that had a 100 round beta mag in it. It jammed, as those things are pieces of crap, and he was able to hit more people with the shotgun.

 

Finally, there are billions of magazines in circulation. Good luck finding them all.

6 minutes ago, Sam said:

 

Look, I don't believe just suddenly taking everyone's guns away is going to solve anything.  I don't really consider myself to be in the pro or anti gun control camp... I just take issue with stupid, ill-informed comments like the one posted above.

 

It's perfectly fine to believe in the 2nd Amendment and to want to a carry a gun.  Indeed, if I lived in America I would probably want to carry a gun too considering many other people do.  I don't necessarily believe that there's a link between decent people carrying weapons and mass shootings.

 

Yes, the Las Vegas shooting is in some respects more unconventional, but it works effectively to demonstrate why you cannot blame victims for being shot.  It's undeniable that had people been carrying guns in Vegas, it would have been much worse.

 

That's why it's not a victim's fault for their choice to carry or not carry a gun.

 

My only issue is with the individual who did blame the victims in this scenario.  All crime is the fault of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator alone.  I'd like to make that clear.

 

The argument isn't stupid simply because the logical conclusion is one you didn't already believe or like.

 

You took an extreme outlier of an extremely rare even and then applied absolutely incorrect parameters to such an extreme example... and the only facts that you made claim to were historically inaccurate.

 

Look, I understand that you don't understand. I don't even blame you for not knowing the facts, the statistics, or even the rationale. It is a different mindset based on a different culture based on freedoms that you don't have or understand in the way that we do. I get it and don't blame you for that.

 

I even, in no small part, agree about victim blaming. While I understand and even support his statements, the way he did so made it seem that he was blaming the victims rather than stating that protection should come from yourself rather than rely on others.

 

What I do take issue with was the inaccurate and grossly biased scenario that you set up to prove your point... not even considering the fact that it was historically innacurate and goes against every real data point available.

 

14 minutes ago, qwertyK said:

There was a recent incident at a church in Nashville where the church usher got a gun and held the suspect down but in all fairness, if the guns weren't so readily avaliable it wouldn't be an issue. People need to get with it. Gun control does not mean banning all guns. I don't want that to happen and neither do most people. Gun control means restricting magazine capacities, closing legal loopholes, doing more background checks....

 

I mean, seriously. What's the big deal in waiting an extra day or two to get a license? The NRA tell people that if we implement gun control then they will not have any guns. In reality, they may have to wait a bit longer and not be able to shoot more than 15 bullets. Please tell me a rational situation where you would need more than 15 bullets. Two bullets is enough to stop most people. It's ridiculous. We are trying to save lives. And if we can't give people the treatment they need then we need to restrict their access to lethal weapons. 

 

Those 'incidents' happen constantly but they are almost exclusively kept off of the news. Guns being readily available do not force a whacko from being a whacko. If someone wants to do harm, they will. Look at the stats I listed of the UK as a perfect example. Every culture is different, I admit that... but assuming that because guns are available, people will do bad things is absurd. Restricting an inherent right to possibly reduce some murders (historically the opposite is true) is as anti-American as any idea can be. The problem is that every series of 'common sense' legislation leads to even more 'common sense' legislation. It doesn't stop. There is never a point where the following would be said: 'enough safety' has been reached so taking away rights can stop now.

 

20 minutes ago, Ben said:

With respect, the way I wrote my message was to prove a point. You kept bringing up how it was a god-given right to bear arms in the United States, I used my example proving that it was in fact an opinion of another human being and not god. What I am trying to say is that your reasoning behind having a gun is based on that of a person in the 1700's who could not foresee the future, and to use that as an excuse not to make change is quite silly, and almost concerning. 
 

 

What would they have changed if they could have seen the future? Hmmm? Guns get more bullets?!? Guns fire even faster?!? No... restrict guns now!!!

 

No. They had weapons that fired extremely fast back then... that held massive amounts of rounds back then... hell, they didn't just know about them, they were FANS. Read up on the Lewis and Clark expedition. They knew that technology wasn't going to suddenly stop and that even if it did... 'assault style weapons' were available back then.

 

It isn't an excuse not to change the law... the law doesn't grant us a thing other than protecting us from an over reaching government. Those men may seem like traitors to you, but to us they were brilliant men. Brave men. The constitution was created in the exact way that it was to prevent this exact type of thing from happening. You say they couldn't see the future, yet I think they did a quite great job in preparing us for it.

15 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

 

What would they have changed if they could have seen the future? Hmmm? Guns get more bullets?!? Guns fire even faster?!? No... restrict guns now!!!

 

No. They had weapons that fired extremely fast back then... that held massive amounts of rounds back then... hell, they didn't just know about them, they were FANS. Read up on the Lewis and Clark expedition. They knew that technology wasn't going to suddenly stop and that even if it did... 'assault style weapons' were available back then.

 

It isn't an excuse not to change the law... the law doesn't grant us a thing other than protecting us from an over reaching government. Those men may seem like traitors to you, but to us they were brilliant men. Brave men. The constitution was created in the exact way that it was to prevent this exact type of thing from happening. You say they couldn't see the future, yet I think they did a quite great job in preparing us for it.

Whilst not having much of a knowledge of weapons during the late 1700's, I am pretty sure the weapons where either single shot, or weapons like the Blunderbuss which whilst shooting many projectiles, only worked at really short range and then took some time to then reload. Fact of the matter is, is that they couldn't foresee the future, such as the two world wars which all but began the arms race, including machine guns as we know them today. 

I also see that on a few of your posts you mention the 2nd amendment protecting you from an over-reaching government, this is what confuses me. You elect these people, if you can not trust someone, why elect them, and if you don't want them over-reaching then why does your constitution not have laws that protect you from that. Instead it seems the norm in America for everyone to have guns in order to from what I guess, overthrow the government if they go crazy? I mean it's 2017 after all, you have all these committee's to protect your rights and yet a gun is still required? 

14 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

What I do take issue with was the inaccurate and grossly biased scenario that you set up to prove your point... not even considering the fact that it was historically innacurate and goes against every real data point available.

 

Is it really inaccurate to suggest that had people been carrying weapons in Las Vegas that the situation would have been much more confusing, chaotic and lethal?

 

16 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

Those 'incidents' happen constantly but they are almost exclusively kept off of the news. Guns being readily available do not force a whacko from being a whacko. If someone wants to do harm, they will. Look at the stats I listed of the UK as a perfect example. Every culture is different, I admit that... but assuming that because guns are available, people will do bad things is absurd. Restricting an inherent right to possibly reduce some murders (historically the opposite is true) is as anti-American as any idea can be.

 

I agree that someone who wants to do harm will.  There's no denying that.  The emphasis has to be on limiting that person's ability to do harm though.  If prevention is better than cure, then surely it would be ideal to make it harder for that same person to actually get a gun, rather then be relying on other people with guns to stop them.

 

And, well, restricting rights is pretty common practice in the United States, whether or not people would like to admit it.  Someone convicted of any felony will lose the right to carry a weapon, even if their offence was entirely non-violent in nature and even if there were mitigating circumstances.  You might argue that someone ticking those boxes who perhaps got caught up in a financial crime is far less likely to shoot someone than a person who is legally allowed to carry a weapon but clearly has mental health issues or other factors which would raise concern.

 

The thing about the UK at least, is that while crimes involving firearms do of course happen here, they happen so, so, so so much less frequently than in many, many other countries.  If someone does go insane, the chance that they will be able to get a firearm and go on a killing spree is, compared to the US, minuscule.  And, even in the event that this does happen, because the supply of firearms here is scarce, the weapons employed are typically old/ineffective/incapable of killing large numbers of people.   When you compare that to the US, you'll find that almost always the firearms used are very effective at killing large numbers of people (like AR-15s and semi automatic pistols).

 

It should be noted just how rare modern semi-automatic weapons in the UK are.  The typical confiscation by the Met Police in London looks something like this:

Spoiler

 

In my opinion, this is one of the big differences that people don't understand or know of.  The sheer supply of weapons in the US makes it very easy for one to fall into the wrong hands, whereas over here it's substantially harder.

@Ben

 

2 hours ago, Narcissus said:

Guess what. The argument about how guns have changed has been debunked more than virtually anything else. When the constitution was written, single fire muskets were NOT the only weapons. There were numerous weapons that fired numerous rounds per and held numerous rounds per. From the Belton Flintlocks (fired approx 20 rounds per trigger pull in less than 5 secs) to the Girandoni air rifle (22 round capacity ~30 seconds to empty) and even the Puckle gun (gatling gun),  and on and on and on and on. The only difference was the cost to produce them was extremely high. So that is debunked... please stop saying that they never knew 'assault style' weapons would exist.

 

 

Quote

I also see that on a few of your posts you mention the 2nd amendment protecting you from an over-reaching government, this is what confuses me. You elect these people, if you can not trust someone, why elect them, and if you don't want them over-reaching then why does your constitution not have laws that protect you from that. Instead it seems the norm in America for everyone to have guns in order to from what I guess, overthrow the government if they go crazy? I mean it's 2017 after all, you have all these committee's to protect your rights and yet a gun is still required? 

 

All it really takes is one generation of hostile interests, say from rich and powerful individuals buying out the right people. The constitution does have various laws, such as strict details on how each branch of the government should be run and how each branch cancels other ones out. But people are people, and the wrong people can have a very good chance of getting into power.

 

And before some one brings up the vast technological differences between armed citizens and the military, there is a reason why we haven't won a war against an insurgency.

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by c13

1 minute ago, c13 said:

 

 

 

 

All it really takes is one generation of hostile interests, say from rich and powerful individuals buying out the right people. The constitution does have various laws, such as strict details on how each branch of the government should be run and how each branch cancels other ones out. But people are people, and the wrong people can have a very good chance of getting into power.

 

And before some one brings up the vast technological differences between armed citizens and the military, there is a reason why we haven't won a war against an insurgency.

 

You are right, although I tend to think of this as the necessary trade-off that you make to live in a developed country with functioning institutions.  A certain amount of faith has to be placed in those institutions, and a degree of power afforded to them.

 

After all, that's the point of the rule of law - a society collectively entrusts a higher power to keep the peace, rather than having to take matters into their own hands.

1 minute ago, Ben said:

Whilst not having much of a knowledge of weapons during the late 1700's, I am pretty sure the weapons where either single shot, or weapons like the Blunderbuss which whilst shooting many projectiles, only worked at really short range and then took some time to then reload. Fact of the matter is, is that they couldn't foresee the future, such as the two world wars which all but began the arms race, including machine guns as we know them today. 

I also see that on a few of your posts you mention the 2nd amendment protecting you from an over-reaching government, this is what confuses me. You elect these people, if you can not trust someone, why elect them, and if you don't want them over-reaching then why does your constitution not have laws that protect you from that. Instead it seems the norm in America for everyone to have guns in order to from what I guess, overthrow the government if they go crazy? I mean it's 2017 after all, you have all these committee's to protect your rights and yet a gun is still required? 

 

Look up some of the guns I listed earlier. I think you will be quite surprised by their capabilities. Sure, they can't stack up to modern weaponry by any means, but the point that they would have excluded such weapons if they had known of them isn't realistic. They had very surprising rates of fire, ammo capacity, etc. They knew and were fans... big fans.

 

The 2nd amendment is for protecting us from an over reaching government. Forcibly, if necessary. Look throughout the world's history. At no time did anyone believe that those actions could happen during their time... times had changed and the world wasn't the same. What people don't understand is there is a false dichotomy between the people on one side and the big bad government on the other. That isn't how authoritative regimes come to power and that is how true tyrannical governments always start. Disarm the populace after finding common ground with one group of the 'people' over another... it is a slow and steady change that has a lot of support from the 'people'.

 

So, do I think it is going to happen? I honestly don't know. Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but the separation of the populace is happening and the government is siding predominately with one of the two main sides.

 

Am I a prepper who thinks the government is a boogeyman out to get me? No. However, these rights are to protect us and I don't care to give that right up because of the actions of some nutters. I want that right to be there when my daughter has daughters or sons of her own... it is a protection that goes on protecting us as long as we fight for it. There are laws that limit government power, but it decays each time the government slightly over reaches its authority. Our rule of law is defined not just by the letter of the law, but also by precedents. If it happened before and wasn't stopped, it is likely okay now to do it.

 

The founders knew this, and prepared for it by creating the first and second amendments. Those amendments don't give us the rights, they simply protect them in as strong of language as could be conceived. So, no matter the date, a government that no longer fears it's populace learns to control it. Our government hasn't feared us in a long time. So again... do I think it will happen? I don't know. I do however believe in being prepared. I also appreciate that the 2nd amendment affords me the ability to protect myself in other situations as well. Even if the government were a docile, well-meaning creature... I would still fight for the right to defend myself. As a disabled individual, the only way that happens is through the 2nd amendment.

 

15 minutes ago, Sam said:

 

Is it really inaccurate to suggest that had people been carrying weapons in Las Vegas that the situation would have been much more confusing, chaotic and lethal?

 

 

I agree that someone who wants to do harm will.  There's no denying that.  The emphasis has to be on limiting that person's ability to do harm though.  If prevention is better than cure, then surely it would be ideal to make it harder for that same person to actually get a gun, rather then be relying on other people with guns to stop them.

 

And, well, restricting rights is pretty common practice in the United States, whether or not people would like to admit it.  Someone convicted of any felony will lose the right to carry a weapon, even if their offence was entirely non-violent in nature and even if there were mitigating circumstances.  You might argue that someone ticking those boxes who perhaps got caught up in a financial crime is far less likely to shoot someone than a person who is legally allowed to carry a weapon but clearly has mental health issues or other factors which would raise concern.

 

The thing about the UK at least, is that while crimes involving firearms do of course happen here, they happen so, so, so so much less frequently than in many, many other countries.  If someone does go insane, the chance that they will be able to get a firearm and go on a killing spree is, compared to the US, minuscule.  And, even in the event that this does happen, because the supply of firearms here is scarce, the weapons employed are typically old/ineffective/incapable of killing large numbers of people.   When you compare that to the US, you'll find that almost always the firearms used are very effective at killing large numbers of people (like AR-15s and semi automatic pistols).

 

It should be noted just how rare modern semi-automatic weapons in the UK are.  The typical confiscation by the Met Police in London looks something like this:

 

In my opinion, this is one of the big differences that people don't understand or know of.  The sheer supply of weapons in the US makes it very easy for one to fall into the wrong hands, whereas over here it's substantially harder.

 

It is very inaccurate. Generic statements like that are why I created this account... if something is repeated enough, it gets believed. Do you honestly think that there weren't conceal carry citizens who ignored the gun-free policy and were carrying? I can't legally say that I would ignore those gun-free policies *cough*, but most CCWers I know intentionally 'forget' or mistakenly 'forget', I should say. Gun free zones are where nearly every mass attack has happened, and foregoing that protection is something many of us 'forget' to do. Yet because noone saw the shooter, there were zero reported cases of weapon wielding whackos running around causing havoc. True, this is pure speculation, but I would bet that there were a number of people armed in that crowd of country western music fans.

 

I agree that restricting our rights is more and more common here. Hence the soft revolution that created the situation that elected our commander and chief. We are getting to the boiling point and anyone 'outside the political system' is seen as a chance to restore the values that have made us what we are. I don't believe that non violent felons should lose their 2nd amendment rights for the exact reason that you listed. It is a fairly unpopular view to hold, but a guy who messed up years ago, did their time, and was released should have their rights returned to them. Time served, rights reinstated. If we don't trust that they are rehabilitated and willing to obey the laws, then why release them? Multiple offenders excluded, obviously.

 

Again, your information is wrong. AR-15s and the like are NOT the predominate weapon used in mass murders. That is an intentional misleading lie that is pushed at every chance available. The vast majority (I believe it is like 90% but don't hold me to that) are committed with handguns, not 'assault' rifles. Also, a semi-automatic pistol is virtually every handgun used today. Even revolvers act in much the same way (double action), so saying that ar-15s and semi auto pistols are very effective is a glorified and shock inducing way of saying virtually any modern weapon available.

 

Yes, the supply here is much, much greater. However, nothing would change (or should for that matter) most of our minds on the 2nd amendment. Even if the statistics were the opposite and demonstrated that higher gun volumes increased violent crimes, etc... I would still fight to defend my right to carry. That is what people don't understand. The statistics are in our favor by magnitudes, but even if they weren't... I would be here arguing my right to carry. Holding a viewpoint that is the right one requires resolve, regardless of convenience of the situation.

 

37 minutes ago, c13 said:

All it really takes is one generation of hostile interests, say from rich and powerful individuals buying out the right people. The constitution does have various laws, such as strict details on how each branch of the government should be run and how each branch cancels other ones out. But people are people, and the wrong people can have a very good chance of getting into power.

 

Agreed. Look at the Judicial branch creating laws and repeatedly overriding the executive branch for political purposes as modern examples. When the supreme court creates laws, we have a problem. When the House is an empty and weak shell that doesn't even have the power of the purse any longer, we have problems.

 

29 minutes ago, Sam said:

You are right, although I tend to think of this as the necessary trade-off that you make to live in a developed country with functioning institutions.  A certain amount of faith has to be placed in those institutions, and a degree of power afforded to them.

 

After all, that's the point of the rule of law - a society collectively entrusts a higher power to keep the peace, rather than having to take matters into their own hands.

 

Losing rights and watching branches of the government act in ways it was never meant to have authority over is not a trade-off, that is the beginning of a tyrannical government that could do bad, bad things. The rule of law applies to both citizen AND government. That is a founding premise of the constitution... to keep the government's power limited.

10 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

The 2nd amendment is for protecting us from an over reaching government. Forcibly, if necessary. Look throughout the world's history. At no time did anyone believe that those actions could happen during their time... times had changed and the world wasn't the same. What people don't understand is there is a false dichotomy between the people on one side and the big bad government on the other. That isn't how authoritative regimes come to power and that is how true tyrannical governments always start. Disarm the populace after finding common ground with one group of the 'people' over another... it is a slow and steady change that has a lot of support from the 'people'.

 

Bla bla bla, 2nd amendment, overreaching government, classical rethoric. Do you think an overreaching government would mean the little elected senators and all their clique would pull up their sleeves and come fight you to get you? No. An overreaching government would use the army. If you think that you can fight back a very trained army with the largest budget in the world, oh boy you're even more delusional than I thought.

Yes... the old "you can't beat a standing army" comments.

 

Yes, we have an impressive military. Yes, it has a massive budget. Yes, it has aircraft and ships and missiles and ad infinitum.

 

So tell me, Hystery... when has the US military defeated a large group of insurgents? Insurgents that know the full capabilities of said military? Insurgents that are better armed than any other in the world? Insurgents that can easily pass through checkpoints without raising alarm? Insurgents that have the military at a great disadvantage as the military would not be eager to fight the civilians they are supposed to protect?

 

Enough said, but I'll say more.

 

Do you think that those of us that fight so ardently for our 2nd and 1st amendment rights would be daunted by failure? Do you think that because we would lose, we would give up our arms and just acquiesce? No, we will fight to the last of us if that was our only option. That isn't bravado, that is a belief system that you will never understand. If any country has a history of bowing down, I figure you might know quite well who that would be. Obviously, I'm not talking about the U.S.

2 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

Bla bla bla, 2nd amendment, overreaching government, classical rethoric. Do you think an overreaching government would mean the little elected senators and all their clique would pull up their sleeves and come fight you to get you? No. An overreaching government would use the army. If you think that you can fight back a very trained army with the largest budget in the world, oh boy you're even more delusional than I thought.

 

If you are so anti 2nd amendment, then what do you suggest?

 

Completely amending the constitution and removing our right to bear arms would 1. outrage most of the country including myself, even though I am a kid from new york city which is generally a liberal, strict gun law state I am pro 2nd amendment, and I think it is our right to have guns if we want, and 2. It could lead to other amendments of the constitution taking away even more of our rights and freedoms that millions of law abiding citizens of the U.S. like to have. If we changed the second amendment of the constitution, one of the first ever amendments, making the first ratification in 26 years you think it would stop there? Trump would find it smart to ratify the rest of the constitution and change a constitution that the anti gun people like, and then the argument will be reversed and they would be against a ratification. You dont understand how the world works, if 100% of the country was against the gun laws we have then they would have been changed years ago, but obviously there is a large group of people, tens of millions of people are pro gun and ratifying the amendment would just be in favor of the anti gun movement, you think it is that simple.

 

Or do you suggest, editing the already made amendment. Although more logical what exactly would it say without removing the right itself? 

 

1 hour ago, Ben said:

I also see that on a few of your posts you mention the 2nd amendment protecting you from an over-reaching government, this is what confuses me. You elect these people, if you can not trust someone, why elect them, and if you don't want them over-reaching then why does your constitution not have laws that protect you from that. Instead it seems the norm in America for everyone to have guns in order to from what I guess, overthrow the government if they go crazy? I mean it's 2017 after all, you have all these committee's to protect your rights and yet a gun is still required? 

3

That's the thing, most Americans are not voting, and there's a reason for that. This past presidential election, Donald Trump had *roughly* 60M votes. Hillary Clinton had about 61M votes. Gary Johnson had about 4M, and Jill Stein had about 1.2M. That's only about 125M votes yet there are about 324M people in the United States. We had to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. That should say enough about the political state in this country and why Americans distrust the government. If you have complete trust in your government, you need professional help right away.

 

Quote

Whilst not having much of a knowledge of weapons during the late 1700's, I am pretty sure the weapons where either single shot, or weapons like the Blunderbuss which whilst shooting many projectiles, only worked at really short range and then took some time to then reload. Fact of the matter is, is that they couldn't foresee the future, such as the two world wars which all but began the arms race, including machine guns as we know them today. 

So, you're essentially suggesting that the founding fathers of the United States were retarded and didn't think that (with time) technology would progress and develop? They didn't say that we have the right to bear muskets and blunderbusses. Specifications such as those would imply exactly what you're attempting to suggest. They said that we have the right to bear arms. Obviously, when technology develops and the government gains possession of more developed weaponry, the people should be allowed to also gain (limited) access to the same weaponry. What good would the 2nd amendment be if we have muskets and the government has assault rifles? That's dumb as hell man, come on. 

 

48 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

Bla bla bla, 2nd amendment, overreaching government, classical rethoric. Do you think an overreaching government would mean the little elected senators and all their clique would pull up their sleeves and come fight you to get you? No. An overreaching government would use the army. If you think that you can fight back a very trained army with the largest budget in the world, oh boy you're even more delusional than I thought.

4

An overreaching government would likely use its police and its military, that is correct. But that's not the case in the United States. As a member of the United States Army, I can safely guarantee you that we're not going to willfully march down our own neighborhoods and take away our own rights simply because wealthy men in business suits tell us to. If you really believe that American servicemembers would willfully roll armored vehicles down our own neighborhoods and engage our own citizens, you are delusional. There's a difference between a lawless riot and an illegal deployment of the military to our own country. We aren't some third world country.

 

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

1 minute ago, TheDivineHustle said:

So, you're essentially suggesting that the founding fathers of the United States were retarded and didn't think that (with time) technology would progress and develop? They didn't say that we have the right to bear muskets and blunderbusses. Specifications such as those would imply exactly what you're attempting to suggest. They said that we have the right to bear arms. Obviously, when technology develops and the government gains possession of more developed weaponry, the people should be allowed to also gain (limited) access to the same weaponry. What good would the 2nd amendment be if we have muskets and the government has assault rifles? That's dumb as hell man, come on. 

You've clearly failed to see my point, I never said they thought technology wouldn't become advanced. What I said is that they could not of foreseen that we would gain the ability to fire weapons such a high amount of weapons. Adding onto that, I don't have complete trust in my government, I doubt you'll find anyone who does, but for a country which refers to itself as the land of the free and a democratic nation, a lot of Americans seem to trust their Government so little that they require firearms to overthrow them, when the time comes. 

1 minute ago, Ben said:

You've clearly failed to see my point, I never said they thought technology wouldn't become advanced. What I said is that they could not of foreseen that we would gain the ability to fire weapons such a high amount of weapons. Adding onto that, I don't have complete trust in my government, I doubt you'll find anyone who does, but for a country which refers to itself as the land of the free and a democratic nation, a lot of Americans seem to trust their Government so little that they require firearms to overthrow them, when the time comes. 

When did owning firearms become about overthrowing our government? The number of Americans that own firearms legally hovers around 30% with a majority of them just wanting that gun to protect themselves, and you will find them to be the most loyal to our government because of its backing on legally owning guns and not amending the constitution to restrict the 2nd amendment. I dont see where overthrowing the government came into the picture. Also America is not a "democratic nation" and I am not sure who says that, nor do I see how that has to do with the 2nd amendment, and calling our country the "Land of the Free" applies in this situation and supports our argument we are free and that is backed by every amendment in the Constitution. 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

It is very inaccurate. Generic statements like that are why I created this account... if something is repeated enough, it gets believed. Do you honestly think that there weren't conceal carry citizens who ignored the gun-free policy and were carrying? I can't legally say that I would ignore those gun-free policies *cough*, but most CCWers I know intentionally 'forget' or mistakenly 'forget', I should say. Gun free zones are where nearly every mass attack has happened, and foregoing that protection is something many of us 'forget' to do. Yet because noone saw the shooter, there were zero reported cases of weapon wielding whackos running around causing havoc. True, this is pure speculation, but I would bet that there were a number of people armed in that crowd of country western music fans.

 

It's not inaccurate as there's nothing that any number of people carrying weapons could have done in Las Vegas.  There was absolutely no benefit to anyone there of having a weapon, and the only thing that could have come from carrying a weapon in Vegas would have been the increased burden of being in possession of a weapon during an active shooter incident.

 

There's any number of scenarios that could have happened from someone in the crowd, who was carrying, misidentifying another person within the crowd during the heat of the moment as being involved (by something as simple as a gesture or movement or so on), or a responding police officer noticing someone who was running away with a weapon bulging through their clothing, or exposed by their shirt lifting up as they ran, or whatever else.  Nothing good could have come from someone carrying a weapon in that crowd in Las Vegas.

 

Let's remember that shooting situations aren't cut and dry.  There were reports of multiple shooters in Las Vegas, nobody had a clue what was going on at first.  I don't see how anyone can claim that during that chaos, there would have been any benefit from anyone in that crowd using or carrying a weapon.

 

That's not an argument against or for gun control.  That's an argument against the wrongly perpetuated idea that goes around which says that people who are carrying weapons don't become victims.  Anyone can be a victim, carrying a gun or not. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

I agree that restricting our rights is more and more common here. Hence the soft revolution that created the situation that elected our commander and chief. We are getting to the boiling point and anyone 'outside the political system' is seen as a chance to restore the values that have made us what we are. I don't believe that non violent felons should lose their 2nd amendment rights for the exact reason that you listed. It is a fairly unpopular view to hold, but a guy who messed up years ago, did their time, and was released should have their rights returned to them. Time served, rights reinstated. If we don't trust that they are rehabilitated and willing to obey the laws, then why release them? Multiple offenders excluded, obviously.

 

An unpopular view indeed, but I agree.

 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

Again, your information is wrong. AR-15s and the like are NOT the predominate weapon used in mass murders. That is an intentional misleading lie that is pushed at every chance available. The vast majority (I believe it is like 90% but don't hold me to that) are committed with handguns, not 'assault' rifles. Also, a semi-automatic pistol is virtually every handgun used today. Even revolvers act in much the same way (double action), so saying that ar-15s and semi auto pistols are very effective is a glorified and shock inducing way of saying virtually any modern weapon available.

 

I did say AR-15s and semi-automatic pistols.  They are both very capable weapons.  The only point I was making is a comparison with the UK where it seems that less capable firearms are more prevalent.  I believe that the only mass-shooting in the UK since the Firearms Act was passed after the Dunblane massacre was the earlier mentioned case of Raoul Moat in Cumbria, where he used a sawed off shotgun - definitely a powerful weapon, but certainly less effective at both range and killing speed than a modern handgun.  When looking at other shootings, one case pops to mind which was that of Jo Cox, a British MP, where the weapon used was a crude, homemade pistol:

 

Spoiler

 

I am in no way saying that AR-15s are the most common weapon.  I'm simply pointing out the differences in supply between the US and the UK.  It is far, far easier to obtain a modern, semi-automatic pistol or AR-15 in the US than in the UK.

 

1 hour ago, Narcissus said:

Yes, the supply here is much, much greater. However, nothing would change (or should for that matter) most of our minds on the 2nd amendment. Even if the statistics were the opposite and demonstrated that higher gun volumes increased violent crimes, etc... I would still fight to defend my right to carry. That is what people don't understand. The statistics are in our favor by magnitudes, but even if they weren't... I would be here arguing my right to carry. Holding a viewpoint that is the right one requires resolve, regardless of convenience of the situation.

 

I think you're being selective in your use of facts, though.  Yes, it is true that states with higher gun volumes do not have higher rates of violent crime -- but they do have higher rates of murders committed with firearms.

 

This is the part that nobody on either side seems to understand though.  Gun control doesn't stop violent crime, and it doesn't decrease the murder rate as the left would have people believe.  It really doesn't, and there's facts which are constantly quoted by the right which are accurate and do disprove this.

 

For instance, in the UK, we banned handguns in 1996.  From 1990 until the ban, the murder rate was somewhere between 10 and 13 per one million people.  The rate actually went up after the ban, to 18 per one million in 2003 but then fell to 9 per one million in 2014.  Obviously, gun control has nothing to do with the murder rate, there's still just as many (and in some years more) murders now with gun control than before (official statistics below): 

 

Spoiler

 

The same is true in Australia, murder rates have remained practically the same since gun control was enacted over there in 1996 (official statistics): http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

 

Still, the right conveniently ignores the fact that the United States undeniably does have a gun homicide problem:

• United States, 29.7 homicides by firearm per 1 million people
• Australia, 1.4
• New Zealand, 1.6
• Canada, 5.1
• Sweden, 4.1

(UNODC data)

 

Indeed, for some harsh reality that should hit closer to home for people here, states in the US with higher levels of gun ownership also have higher rates of law enforcement officer murders.  There's some interesting research you should check about this, using official stats from the FBI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566543/

 

I do understand where you are coming from when you say that the stats are in your favor, but please also understand that most statistics which you are presented with will be very selective, designed to reinforce bias in one way or an another.  Lots of people pay lots of money to do that, including the 38 million dollars spent by gun rights groups during the 1990 election cycle (which is quite the amount for back then).

 

One interesting thing about comparing gun stats between countries is Switzerland, though.  Firearm ownership in Switzerland is as close to the US as you'll get in the developed world:

• Switzerland guns per 100 people: 46
• United Stats guns per 100 people: 89

The gun homicide rate in Switzerland is 7.7 per 1 million.  Yes, it's more than in any other European country, but still way less than the United States (29.7) (again, UN data)

 

Just saying, the stats aren't necessarily in your favor -- but they aren't really in favor of gun control either.

1 minute ago, Ben said:

Adding onto that, I don't have complete trust in my government, I doubt you'll find anyone who does, but for a country which refers to itself as the land of the free and a democratic nation, a lot of Americans seem to trust their Government so little that they require firearms to overthrow them, when the time comes. 

 

Well, we aren't a Democracy, we're a Republic. And I mean considering the fact that the natives were practically wiped out, slavery lasted so long in this country with colored people being treated horribly thereafter, imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, Benghazi, Russian collusion, it's easy to see why people wouldn't trust the government. Whether the whole Russia thing is true or not, the fact that it's a topic puts me on edge about the government as a whole, not just on Donald Trump. Our guns ensure that we aren't dragged out of our homes and rounded up like the Jews were back in Nazi Germany. That's an exaggerated example, yes, but hopefully, you get my point.

Quote

You've clearly failed to see my point, I never said they thought technology wouldn't become advanced. What I said is that they could not of foreseen that we would gain the ability to fire weapons such a high amount of weapons.

Okay, my apologies then, I misinterpreted what you said. But regardless, this statement:

Quote

"Fact of the matter is, is that they couldn't foresee the future, such as the two world wars which all but began the arms race, including machine guns as we know them today."

 

This statement gives off the implication that the founding fathers were foolish and didn't have any concept of time and progression. I guarantee you that they could definitely foresee the future and the advancement of weaponry and technology because they had technological advancements of their own. Why would they not assume that guns would gradually become more lethal and harbor more firepower?

 

1 minute ago, t0y said:

When did owning firearms become about overthrowing our government? The number of Americans that own firearms legally hovers around 30% with a majority of them just wanting that gun to protect themselves, and you will find them to be the most loyal to our government because of its backing on legally owning guns and not amending the constitution to restrict the 2nd amendment. I dont see where overthrowing the government came into the picture. Also America is not a "democratic nation" and I am not sure who says that, nor do I see how that has to do with the 2nd amendment, and calling our country the "Land of the Free" applies in this situation and supports our argument we are free and that is backed by every amendment in the Constitution. 

I've seen more than a few times in this topic where people have quoted the 2nd amendment as a right, which protects Americans from an over-reaching government. Surely that comment hints at the use of firearms in order to protect these rights? As for my comment on the Land of The Free, that was not referring to firearms but your government, surely if the country is the land of the free and you are a country which elects it's leaders, you are able to take action, legal action that is to protect yourselves when a government is 'over-reaching'.

16 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

An overreaching government would likely use its police and its military, that is correct. But that's not the case in the United States. As a member of the United States Army, I can safely guarantee you that we're not going to willfully march down our own neighborhoods and take away our own rights simply because wealthy men in business suits tell us to. If you really believe that American servicemembers would willfully roll armored vehicles down our own neighborhoods and engage our own citizens, you are delusional. There's a difference between a lawless riot and an illegal deployment of the military to our own country. We aren't some third world country.

 

 

I'd like to hope so but people are very very easily influenced these days.  Anything posted in a top 10 list on Buzzfeed is as good as gospel to the left, much like whatever on Breitbart is undeniable fact to the right.

 

The US military (and the UK and many other countries) have quite willfully deployed illegally to other countries.  Feed people the right lie and I'm sure it could happen anywhere (even if only on a small scale).

 

Plus, come on, we both know that men in business suits have been taking away our rights for quite some time!

1 minute ago, Sam said:

 

I'd like to hope so but people are very very easily influenced these days.  Anything posted in a top 10 list on Buzzfeed is as good as gospel to the left, much like whatever on Breitbart is undeniable fact to the right.

 

The US military (and the UK and many other countries) have quite willfully deployed illegally to other countries.  Feed people the right lie and I'm sure it could happen anywhere (even if only on a small scale).

 

Plus, come on, we both know that men in business suits have been taking away our rights for quite some time!

Of course, I understand your point. It's hard for me to really determine exactly what would happen because the entire thing is dependent upon the situation and subjective to each individual. What I do know is that I and those that I serve with take pride and honor in what we do, and there'd have to be some really twisted shit going on for us to be content with an illegal deployment in our own country against our own people and our own families. Now, another country is different. We may not necessarily agree with our own presence around the world, but we do what we must. When we begin to talk about our own land, that's a totally different story man. Like I said, there's a difference between being deployed to a riot, and being deployed to take away rights. But the decision to continue obeying the government is subjective to each individual soldier. I, personally, and many others wouldn't stand for it, and I'm not afraid to say that.

2 minutes ago, Sam said:

 

I'd like to hope so but people are very very easily influenced these days.  Anything posted in a top 10 list on Buzzfeed is as good as gospel to the left, much like whatever on Breitbart is undeniable fact to the right.

 

The US military (and the UK and many other countries) have quite willfully deployed illegally to other countries.  Feed people the right lie and I'm sure it could happen anywhere (even if only on a small scale).

 

Plus, come on, we both know that men in business suits have been taking away our rights for quite some time!

 

Well according to my friend in the Guard, the Army, Navy, or Air Force cannot be deployed into the United States under any circumstances that includes fighting (to keep civilians under control) that job is up to the National Guard, which doesn't deploy with tanks, except overseas (as seen in past deployments of the Guard.) So really no, the Army cant be deployed into our streets at any scale against our civilians.

 

9 minutes ago, Ben said:

I've seen more than a few times in this topic where people have quoted the 2nd amendment as a right, which protects Americans from an over-reaching government. Surely that comment hints at the use of firearms in order to protect these rights? As for my comment on the Land of The Free, that was not referring to firearms but your government, surely if the country is the land of the free and you are a country which elects it's leaders, you are able to take action, legal action that is to protect yourselves when a government is 'over-reaching'.

 

Well I guess whoever said that, it is their prerogative if they want their gun to defend themselves against the government, but that in no way reflects the majority of gun owners in the country, the whole debate is centered around gun owners 1. wanting their rights as stated in the Constitution, and 2. wanting to defend themselves in case of a terror attack such as this one, or if someone is breaking into their house, purely for self defense. And I actually don't understand what you mean about protecting ourselves with legal action when our government is overreaching, I am not saying that to argue with you I just don't understand what that is about lol.