So, why are guns necessary?

[rvg]

Yeah, but deadly weapons aren't supposed to be fun.

That takes us back to the fact that you do not get to decide what I consider to be fun. In Germany the situation must be to your liking while here the situation is to my liking. So what's the problem? Note that anti-gun arguments die a horrible death here, and congressmen who introduce them often pay with their careers for that. We do not want regulation. Period. I'm not suggesting that Germany should de-regulate gun ownership, so why are you suggesting that America should regulate it?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not going to lie, I got lost when reading Dawg original argument and I don't know whats happening anymore.

[Husar]

That takes us back to the fact that you do not get to decide what I consider to be fun. In Germany the situation must be to your liking while here the situation is to my liking. So what's the problem? Note that anti-gun arguments die a horrible death here, and congressmen who introduce them often pay with their careers for that. We do not want regulation. Period. I'm not suggesting that Germany should de-regulate gun ownership, so why are you suggesting that America should regulate it?

I don't know, maybe your country is a good example for telling other countries how to conduct their politics.

And deterrence is a threat of a powerful retaliation with offensive capabilities, a strong wall doesn't deter a lot if it's not lined with archers and catapults.

[rvg]

I don't know, maybe your country is a good example for telling other countries how to conduct their politics.

I'm not talking about my country or your country, I'm talking about you specifically. I don't hear Chancellor Merkel asking Obama to curb our gun rights.

[Husar]

I'm not talking about my country or your country, I'm talking about you specifically. I don't hear Chancellor Merkel asking Obama to curb our gun rights.

That's because she only does what Obama tells her and tells us she can't do anything if he collects our data. So yeah, how does it feel if people from other countries meddle in your internal and personal affairs?

[rvg]

That's because she only does what Obama tells her and tells us she can't do anything if he collects our data. So yeah, how does it feel if people from other countries meddle in your internal and personal affairs?

Meddling implies action... we're just having a conversation.

[Husar]

Meddling implies action... we're just having a conversation.

Yes, and what was the issue again then? I didn't ask Obama to curb your gun rights, I just said that some restrictions may not hurt in my opinion and that I think some of the arguments brought forth to support the notions that everyone should have unlimited access to unregistered guns make no sense in my opinion.

And now that I was backtracking a bit I noticed yet another nice flaw in your argument:

Note that anti-gun arguments die a horrible death here, and congressmen who introduce them often pay with their careers for that. We do not want regulation. Period.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm



Basically a minority seems to be preventing laws that a majority is in favor of, your point that the majority of Americans want gun laws to be as they are now is thus null and void. Somewhere around 70% - 80% support background checks for gun sales, yet the laws are struck down by a lobbyist group...

[rvg]

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Basically a minority seems to be preventing laws that a majority is in favor of, your point that the majority of Americans want gun laws to be as they are now is thus null and void. Somewhere around 70% - 80% support background checks for gun sales, yet the laws are struck down by a lobbyist group...

According to your link around 50% want to keep the guns laws exactly as they are now or loosen them. Which is why anti-gun legislation dies.

[Husar]

According to your link around 50% want to keep the guns laws exactly as they are now or loosen them. Which is why anti-gun legislation dies.

Yes, when asked about gun laws in general.

When asked about a specific law that would've required background checks before gun purchases at gun shows and everywhere else, about 80% were in favor of it and the law still died. Does that mean 30% of Americans are schizophrenic or maybe they wouldn't mind background checks but oppose any further limitations?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, when asked about gun laws in general.

When asked about a specific law that would've required background checks before gun purchases at gun shows and everywhere else, about 80% were in favor of it and the law still died. Does that mean 30% of Americans are schizophrenic or maybe they wouldn't mind background checks but oppose any further limitations?

Americans are OK with background checks on all sales for the most part. They won't do much good, but I don't see them as a threat and they could help a bit. The Democratic Senate bill was a threat due to the likelihood of bad faith negotiation. They could not be trusted to put a law through that was not a poison pill for gun rights, creating databases, bureaucracy and attempting to discourage gun ownership and increase punishments for otherwise law abiding gun owners. With this legislation, only damage was done to the movement, and it is important that we never accept legislation from the opposition which moves their ball forward and ours back. We can both move our agenda forward simultaneously. Create background checks while increasing ease of concealed carry reciprocity. Require digital pre-screening keys to be coupled with all sales, but make it easy to do for the law abiding.

Lemur thinks that I don't mean this, but I do. We can tighten gun accessibility at the same time as we loosen it in other areas. It is called compromise. Many Republicans and Democrats don't know what that is, but it isn't purely the fault of the gun rights, crowd, but rather the hubris of the gun control crowd in rather having a bill fail than attempt to create a winnable coalition. They though New town would be kryptonite for us, and it was admittedly terrible, but it won't be stopped by any legislation and, of course, we have considered the likelihood of these things happening where people are completely disarmed - or even where they are armed as well. Senate Democrats wasted a good moment for something to get done. They lost Coburn and many others who were interested in drafting a good bill that could pass the house.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Just thought I would share one of the worst things I have ever read.

The Guardian seems determined to turn itself into some sort of liberal Daily Mail, if you want to be taken seriously this bile has to stop.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Any time Anti-gunners want to get extreme in the "take rights away from people" department, I welcome it. When we get extreme, it usually comes across as "most people are responsible, don't take away their rights and property". When they do it, it sounds like people who want to stop gay people from getting married because they don't understand it. I'm still against gay marriage, but I'm not unaware that it is an inherently unpopular argument.

[Goofball]

Well, tell that to the Heller decision. And the McDonald decision. And the appellate decisions citing and building the foundation of those decisions. Listen, I would gladly give up my right to keep and bear arms and the Supreme judicial decisions which officially incorporated those decisions to the States if you guys give up the false foundation of Roe v Wade and the fruit of that poisonous tree which has considerably less textual legitimacy, knowing what we know about progressive developments in fetal viability. No guns for no abortions - even trade and I'm good for it.

Also, if times and people's interest in their basic rights have changed, argue that with people and repeal the 2nd amendment. If the government could just say "this right is no longer protected because we don't feel it should be protected any longer", what was the point of the enumerated amendment process or the Bill in the first place?

I think we can make a deal here. How about I give you "no abortions after twelve weeks (unless there is a clear danger to the mother's life)" for "all firearms must be registered and no firearm can be sold without a criminal and mental health background check?"

[Goofball]

Like I said... Don't mess with our guns.

Like I said: the NRA has made you their bitch.

[Goofball]

In fact, in reading the text, if the people have a right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment, and it can be abridged but not infringed by the Federal government; the 14th amendment prevents the States from even modifying the right to keep and bear arms, as the words "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge any privileges or immunities" is included. This is the basis for incorporation to the States that the Supreme Court used in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

It is also the basis by which they will strike down the bans in my home state and many other urban areas. The "inference" that you speak of is based on the 9th amendment and the 14th together with stare decisis. The Second amendment is great, but the 9th:


And 14th, as you had posted, have been helpful in demolishing other Federal laws, some bad and others good. My interest, honestly, is to overturn as many laws as possible that don't specifically protect the rights of the people. I have minimal respect for government, except for where it protects the rights of people.

So... How do you feel about letting gays marry?

[Goofball]

What kind of moron would bring a gun to work? As for owning one, in that case the state of Michigan should have a 70% unemployment rate. Every busboy here is a hunter.

After all of those schoolchildren were murdered the NRA's suggested solution to the problem was to arm teachers. Would they then not be morons for bringing guns to work?

[ICantSpellDawg]

So... How do you feel about letting gays marry?

We've talked about this. Abolish marriage in civil law. Problem solved. The government is amoral and should leave value judgements to individuals. Contracts between whomever for whatever reason

[ICantSpellDawg]

After all of those schoolchildren were murdered the NRA's suggested solution to the problem was to arm teachers. Would they then not be morons for bringing guns to work?

It is our argument that high body count would be lowered if a handful of people out of 100 were able to keep and bear arms. Not everyone would have a permit, but a few would and it would be prudent for them to receive some training for crowded area carrying.

Your argument would be that
A) civilians would be incapable of coping with a threat and would increase body count due to blue on blue shootings
B) body count might decrease, but volume of shootings would increase due to the fact that everyone is now carrying a gun and over reacting
C) both body count and volume of shootings would increase.

Most people simply would not carry. Most people are sheep and like the idea of relying on others to protect them. You would be dealing with limited amounts of people who would take the time to get a permit and carry a heavy object that could kill them or get them sued. Blue on blue could be mitigated by training required for busy or high traffic areas such as malls, schools, large workplaces, etc. In all areas, the people you worry about committing gun crime are people who have access to firearms already and plan an attack. Those people already have guns and laws will not stop them from carrying to work to calamitous effect. The variable between your suggested situation and mine is that people have no recourse in an attack, whereas in mine a few people can attempt to neutralize or harass threat while law enforcement in in transit.

[ICantSpellDawg]

BTW: the President has been making suggestions that a gun law could have prevented the navy yard shooting

The individual passed background checks on multiple occasions, purchased a pump action shotgun legally from a licensed dealer who used a background check. What could the government have possibly done to have stopped this attack? The guy seems to have had a psychotic break 6 weeks ago, nothing suggested could have caused the government to arrest him or confiscate his property, no threats were made. Is a therapist now supposed to call the police the second any patient says anything even remotely loopy even when it is not a threat? This could cause serious harm to the patient, causing them to lose their job, their rights. Causing police to come to their home and violently escalate the situation in order to confiscate property.

The Presidential insinuation on the future of gun regulation is more terrifying than 10 navy yard shootings.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A discharge with a viable accusation of criminal intent, even if not proven, should result in a temporary suspension of the right to keep and bear arms. Not forever, but until a number of things are ironed out. I don't disagree with that. The idea that you should permanently lose rights for something that cannot be convicted is a non-starter. Likewise, a discharge by itself should not result in a loss of the right.

[ICantSpellDawg]

edit: found it

[Papewaio]

Its defense because it is deterrence.

Deterrence is part of an ROI calculation.

I presume most crimes happen at short range in poor lighting conditions with the criminal already having drawn a weapon.

I would be very surprised if all gun crime was done at high noon with good light and both combatants having their weapons holstered...then having a firearm might be a deterrent.

I'm pretty sure I've seen the second scenario a few times, but I'm not convinced I was watching a documentary.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Deterrence is part of an ROI calculation.

I presume most crimes happen at short range in poor lighting conditions with the criminal already having drawn a weapon.

I would be very surprised if all gun crime was done at high noon with good light and both combatants having their weapons holstered...then having a firearm might be a deterrent.

I'm pretty sure I've seen the second scenario a few times, but I'm not convinced I was watching a documentary.

Watch some of these videos coming out of Kenya at the Westgate. People scrambling, cowering. Unable to do anything at all but crowd into a corner and wait for al-Shabaab to roll up. Unreal. At least one out of any 10 people should have a firearm and be able to organize a controlled rout. I'm CPR/aed certified, what about armed assault certified? There are certainly fall back maneuvers that armed citizens would benefit from in an armed situation.

I'm not talking about armed citizens turning into a swat team, but spreading out and watching the rear with guns on target while unarmed citizens make an escape - do you really think that this would be a terrible policy, knowing that there are as many guns as people in the US?

[Husar]

Watch some of these videos coming out of Kenya at the Westgate. People scrambling, cowering. Unable to do anything at all but crowd into a corner and wait for al-Shabaab to roll up. Unreal. At least one out of any 10 people should have a firearm and be able to organize a controlled rout. I'm CPR/aed certified, what about armed assault certified? There are certainly fall back maneuvers that armed citizens would benefit from in an armed situation.

I'm not talking about armed citizens turning into a swat team, but spreading out and watching the rear with guns on target while unarmed citizens make an escape - do you really think that this would be a terrible policy, knowing that there are as many guns as people in the US?

How many organizations like al-shabaab do you plan to have in the US and do you seriously think your military and police forces couldn't protect your citizens from large-scale insurgencies with armed jeeps or am I getting you wrong here?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah seriously... America is going down the tube, but we're not anywhere near that far down the tube.

You might need guns to resist the Tea Party when the time comes.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's why I'm not an NRA member. When the Tea Party finally does get their Nazi on, the NRA's gonna be the paramilitary wing.

Then you're gonna have to counter them with the Oregon hippie militia.

[Veho Nex]

How many organizations like al-shabaab do you plan to have in the US and do you seriously think your military and police forces couldn't protect your citizens from large-scale insurgencies with armed jeeps or am I getting you wrong here?

A family friend of mine was in his business when it was broken into. He called the cops and told them that they were being robbed. Took 4 hours for the cops to show up. If the guy who was robbing them had a gun and wanted to do something more vicious they never would have stood a chance.

I have a really hard time reading what other counties views on firearms is. Husar, you believe a bullet proof vest is sufficient protection from a maniac with a firearm. I don't think you've ever seen one in action. While they provide substantial protection against most common caliber of pistol they do very little to stop a rifle round at close range. Most higher caliber rounds for pistols won't pen the armor but the shock and impact from the round will put you on the ground just the same. Sure you aren't going to die from the initial shot but now you are for all intents and purposes incapacitated while the gunman is free to continue advancing.

[Husar]

A family friend of mine was in his business when it was broken into. He called the cops and told them that they were being robbed. Took 4 hours for the cops to show up. If the guy who was robbing them had a gun and wanted to do something more vicious they never would have stood a chance.

When I was robbed at needlepoint the guy was so close that I couldn't have drawn a gun in time and if he had had an assault rifle and had wanted to do something more vicious, I couldn't have done anything to protect myself. I guess I'm incredibly lucky that he only cared about getting drugs and not going to go to jail for the rest of his life once he was arrested.

Now tell me why would someone want to break into your friend's business to do something incredibly vicious? Do you have that many mentally deranged serial killers in the USA? What if someone breaks in at night and doesn't wake you up? Will your gun protect you?

That it took the cops four hours sounds pretty bad, but think of all the evil taxes you save by keeping the cops understaffed.

[Veho Nex]

Husar, tell me why someone would goto a camp and shoot people for fun? How about going into a local movie theater and shooting people for some sense of fulfillment? Are there people out there that are unpredictable? Yes. Do you know what someone is going to do once they have already started to break one law? No.

What if my family friend had actually confronted the guy instead of leaving out a back entrance? No one ever knew if the guy was armed. Cops while in the majority of cities have pretty substandard budgets in Oakland they are constantly hiring. You can compare doing street patrol in some of America's worst cities to actual war zones and you wouldn't be that far from the truth.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Look at Germany's police per 100k. You have 298 cops per 100,000 people. A country with 80,000,000 people.

The United states has 316,000,000 people. With 258 cops per 100,000 people. We employ a larger police force than some countries employ a military.

Lets compare your countries capital to lala land usa, Los Angeles.

Berlin population 3.5 million. L.A. 3.82 million.

Berlin police employees per 100,000 is around 159. While L.A. is around 250 police officers per 100,000. If I used all employees that work for the police department it would be closer to 330.


----------------------------------------------------------------


Now a very small percentage of all gun related homicides are committed with a firearm registered to the person in possession. Most being stolen or purchased from underground sources. It is easier and cheaper for me to purchase a black market pistol that if I went through the proper channels. In California which has some of the countries strictest gun control laws I can call a buddy who knows a guy who has a contact or I can go through the proper channels get my criminal history and background check done every time I wish to purchase a firearm. Now if I, a guy with almost 0 criminal connections, can obtain a black market gun so easily what does that say about people who deal in narcotics or other illegal activities on a daily basis? I feel safer knowing I have some way of protecting myself if I'm ever put into an extraordinary situation rather than rely on someone to show up to protect me.

[Papewaio]

Watch some of these videos coming out of Kenya at the Westgate. People scrambling, cowering. Unable to do anything at all but crowd into a corner and wait for al-Shabaab to roll up. Unreal. At least one out of any 10 people should have a firearm and be able to organize a controlled rout. I'm CPR/aed certified, what about armed assault certified? There are certainly fall back maneuvers that armed citizens would benefit from in an armed situation.

I'm not talking about armed citizens turning into a swat team, but spreading out and watching the rear with guns on target while unarmed citizens make an escape - do you really think that this would be a terrible policy, knowing that there are as many guns as people in the US?

Again deference only works if they don't have the drop on you.

Aurora movie theatre, 12 dead 70 wounded. My guess is that in a dark movie theatre with tear gas and people stampeding for their lives defensive fire would have uped the number killed with friendly fire.

Asymmetric warfare like most crimes centres around surprise and targeting soft spots. Not will guns protect against IEDs, fire, shouting 'fire' in a movie theatre etc. Guns are useful in a subset of scenarios and will stop low level risks. But a terrorist team that is organized and trained well will need a paramilitary SWAT or better to respond to it.

Oklahoma or the unibomber or anthrax are not going to be stopped by firearms. Police work may intercept these or repeat attempts.