Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Gun congrol is Bullshit
Arethusa
Universal Cathode
in Zocalo v2.0
[url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5001380249576962921]I do love Penn Jillette in an entirely appropriate manner[/url].
Comments
One of the nice things about living in Texas, good gun laws.
Two things about the video:
1) When the Second Amendment was written (ca. 1787), the average person could fire two or three shots in a minute. Today, the sky is really the limit when it comes to volume of fire. Just something to think about.
2) The lady with the clothing shop (where she hid guns everywhere) struck me as paranoid. Again, I have no problem with owning guns, but to stash that many (esp. the carbine in the closet) seemed like overkill (no pun intended). I really think it was more for her piece of mind. She would have never been able to use that .32 handgun she zipped up in her purse, for example... it was too secure and she would not have enough time to draw it if she was attacked.
Armed citizens do not ensure freedom (after all, the NRA crowd is rather known for being ironically authoritarian, docile, and all too happy to embrace oppressive government so long as that government allows them to hug their guns and vote Republican). But armed citizens are the last line of defense.
Besides, the entire [i]point[/i] of living in a free state is that I do not have to justify my rights as "useful" or "necessary." And it [i]is[/i] also notable that the gang member they interviewed is pretty much representative of all street crime out there. It isn't hard to get guns, including fully automatic weapons like AKMs. Globalization, trafficking, and importing make the entire debate irrelevant from a pragmatic perspective.
That said, I do agree the woman with the shop seemed rather nutty. But, that aside, she at least seemed to have a reasonable enough understanding of lethal force, in that it is never desirable— only sometimes necessary and better than the alternative.
SOME guns pose an [i]unnecessary[/i] risk to other people. The only use a TEC-9 has, for example, is to spray bullets. Reasonable exceptions have to be made. To me, banning assult weapons is just that. People would still be able to hunt, shoot targets, and defend themselves without them.
[B]They serve a [i]very[/i] useful purpose. In the hands of the people, they do not allow the government to maintain a monopoly of force. [/B][/QUOTE]
US Army = Bombs..
- PJH
[B]1) When the Second Amendment was written (ca. 1787), the average person could fire two or three shots in a minute.[/B][/QUOTE]Now wasn't it something like that three in minute was very good speed at that time.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arethusa [/i]
[B]They serve a [i]very[/i] useful purpose. In the hands of the people, they do not allow the government to maintain a monopoly of force. Just because guns shoot faster now does not invalidate the fundamental principle of keeping arms and therefore power in the hands of the people.[/B][/QUOTE]Otherwise good but that common people is dumb as boot and controlling them doesn't require any force, just little propaganda and they'll follow everyone to everywhere just like sheeps in butchers line.
That being said, I hate the NRA. They went from a group of sensible organized gun owners promoting fun and SAFE gun ownership to a right wing political lobbiest organization hell bent on Rosie Odonell's destruction. While I agree Rosie is a demon from hell and must be destroyed, I disagree with the rest of their current philosophy. Look on the NRA website and find the 4 safety rules for handling a weapon, you can barely find them if they are there at all.
If ANY gun laws should be passed it should be to help ensure that the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN purchasing the weapon knows how to safely store, operate and clean the weapon.
I dont believe in the accidental discharge. There are only negligent ones. And hell, I have been responsible for a negligent discharge, but it was on a range and the weapon was safely pointed downrange because while I screwed up I was still living by the 4 safety rules.
1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Keep the weapon on safe until you intend to fire.
Very simple, I have had them memorized for years now.
The Brady Bill was worthless. By the Brady Bill an assult weapon was categorized by phisical attributes and not necessarily lethality, for example (and I dont quite remember how many but) in order to be classified as an assult weapon by the Brady Bill all guns were banned (or changed) that met 4 out of the 5 requirements, those being...
1. have a magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
2. have a flash suppressor on the end of the barrel (not a silencer just something to minimize the flash)
3. have a collapsable stock.
4. a pistol grip
5. a bayonett mount
While I will freely admitt that by these qualifications an AK-47 (a true assult weapon) would be classified as illegal, it also made other weapons harder to own. Why can't I, a former US Marine, own a service rifle? I would very much like to own and shoot the competition model M-16 (with the 7.5lbs barrel). It was a damn nice weapon. All I want to shoot is paper.
anyways...
The most important part of that whole show.
"With all these gun laws keeping people from owning guns then how do criminals get guns? The same way they do a lot of other things, ILLEGALLY!"
[B]Now wasn't it something like that three in minute was very good speed at that time. [/B][/QUOTE]
You are correct, most people couldn't even fire three shots in a minute. It greatly depended on the type of firearm. For example, a rifle of that period was much more difficult to load because often times the bullet was too large to fit (properly) in the barrel. On the other hand, a smoothbore musket was slightly eaiser... sometimes one could even load a small stone if necessary.
SpiritOne,
Once again you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. The NRA has become little more than a right-wing political action committee, more interested in who is going to become the next Republican president than responsible gun ownership. They have become completely unreasonable.
[B]"With all these gun laws keeping people from owning guns then how do criminals get guns? The same way they do a lot of other things, ILLEGALLY!" [/B][/QUOTE]
Of course. Which is a lot harder than legally and also a criminal act, which could get you in prison.. :rolleyes:
Getting guns illegally— [i]anywhere[/i]— is incredibly easy. Yes, even in Europe.
I have never touched a gun in my life. If I wanted a handgun right now, I would have to apply for a permit, get approval from my town chief of police, fill out a bunch of paperwork, take some classes, and three months from now, I could buy a gun and wait two weeks before I would be allowed to pick it up and take it home.
I can also make a few phone calls and get a Glock and two mags for $200 by tomorrow night.
Yes, it is illegal to yell fire under the wrong circumstances, because it could kill people. It is illegal to kill people. Makes sense. Does it matter how? Is it more or less wrong, from either a moral or a legal standpoint, for a person to kill another by starting a panicked stampede, or with a knife, or with a gun, or even a Buick?
Why is the tool more important than the criminal action or the intent behind it? What if someone is killed by a ballpoint pen? Just look around, in your home, in your office, and think what you could use as a weapon. The cord on your mouse? Any number of cooking utensils or garden tools, the pens and pencils in your pocket? Your car?
As for the assault weapons ban, the rifles it affected were changed in ways that were merely cosmetic, and the number of crimes commited with them went from just about zero to... well, just about zero. Handguns got smaller and easier to conceal as a result of the magazine restriction. By the way, machine guns have been restricted since 1934. The AK or AR-15 you can buy in the local gun shop might look scary, but it is not a machine gun. If you convert it, well, that has been illegal for the last seventy years already.
And lastly, the average US Army infantry company of around 150 men in Iraq right now is accounting for about one tenth the number of enemy dead as their ten man battalion sniper section. To make up for that, the snipers use perhaps one round for every one or two hundred that the regular infantry uses. Will the next gun control bill propose to ban bolt action rifles because of their terrifying effectiveness? Perhaps the type of gun isn't so important as the man behind the trigger.
Walked in, knowing what I want to buy, filled out a background search, clerk called a phone number, gave someone my info and got an approval in less than 15 minutes. Walked in and out with the gun in less than an hour.
That was in 2005.
but your right, I know pretty much where I could go right now and get ANY gun I wanted for about 300-400 illegally.
Its really not that hard.
just because I thought it was humorous, I paid for my glock with a credit card that I earn airline miles on.
[B]As someone who enjoys shooting, (paper or clay targets) and as someone who's family owns a number of firearms, I agree that SOME guns are ok. However, assult weapons, machine guns, and certain handguns serve no useful purpose, and should not be allowed in my opinion.
Two things about the video:
1) When the Second Amendment was written (ca. 1787), the average person could fire two or three shots in a minute. Today, the sky is really the limit when it comes to volume of fire. Just something to think about.
[/B][/QUOTE]
My favorite rejoinder to this comment is to point out the infamous expiditon by the British to concorde was to sieze not only a large stockpile of powder, but several cannon that had been kept there, essentialy in private hands.
Secondly the sky isnt the limit with modern firearms, since fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated in the united states since 1934.
The assualt weapons ban was a ban more about the "appearence" of a weapon then anything about its functionality. Even the high cap magazine ban is a bit of a red hering since while it does take some practice, a combat magazine change isnt that difficult relativly speaking.
Weapons like the Tec-9 are somewhat nefarious in reputation,and are liked for their "cool factor" but praticly speaking they are not even that dangerous. They almost always come in 9mm and perform the same as any other 9mm firearm. Even then natural selection has reduced their presence in criminal hands. most of the "machine pistols" or "assault pistols" are no longer being manufactured, and the prices, even on the street of them are increasing due to rising scarcity of availbility, combined with collectors seeking them for decent sums.
Last but not least, shooting victoms have a lower overall fatality rate then stabbing victoms. As for the general homicide rate in the US, again some 60 percent of homicides are caused by firearms, and even if you removed ALL the firearms related homides from the statistics, the US STILL has a higher murder rate then the western european nations.
And SpiritOne your dividing up the M16/AR15 and AK47 is itself baseless. First of all the number of truly fully automatic AK's in the country is low, and both weapons take about the same amount of effort to make fully automatic. Yes, even an modern AR15 can be made fully automatic if you want to take the time, the basic design was supposed to be FA rember? All your using as the charatersitic for judgement is similar superfical charatersitics. In this case instead of it being about appearence, its about the thoughts your bringing to the discussion on the weapon, not about the merits of various AK clones currently availble.
Last but not least the invention of the Minie ball in 1840 combined with the usage of the percussion cap in about 1820 made even muzzle loaded weapons capabile in decent hands of a rate of fire of about 3 rounds per minute.
[B]Uh, I'm going to go out and take a wild guess here: you've never been a criminal, nor known anyone who was.[/B][/QUOTE]
Working as a janitor, we had two in our workforce that was former jailgoers. So yeah, I know where to get them..
But getting them would be illegal. Having them in my house could get me in jail. Which I dont want, so the real thing were talking about is not whether I could get them, it is whether Id risk it.. :rolleyes:
Also, define crime or criminal.
* It is illegal to steal chewing gums from stores. Even so, many do just that when growing up.
*It is illegal to wash money.
*It is illegal to smoke marijuana.
*It is illegal to rob banks.
*It is illegal to kill people.
*It is illegal to take your neighbours bike for a joyride and then dump it in the forest.
All of the aove make you a criminal, but I dont think every one of those criminals would walk around with guns just because they would think: "well Im already a criminal, so I could as well get a gun..".
[B]Why is the tool more important than the criminal action or the intent behind it? What if someone is killed by a ballpoint pen? Just look around, in your home, in your office, and think what you could use as a weapon. The cord on your mouse? Any number of cooking utensils or garden tools, the pens and pencils in your pocket? Your car? [/B][/QUOTE]
It's a little eaiser to kill people with a machine gun than a ballpoint pen, now isn't it? We restrict people's access to dynamite and other explosives, why not certain firearms?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]My favorite rejoinder to this comment is to point out the infamous expiditon by the British to concorde was to sieze not only a large stockpile of powder, but several cannon that had been kept there, essentialy in private hands.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Even if you are infering that owning cannons was somehow acceptable, those cannon were likely captured from the British and they wanted them back. Those armories were run by the colony for their militia, not for use by private citizens. Besides, I doubt the Second Amendment reallty means that individuals should be able to own artillery.
The second amendment means that I should be able to stockpile artillery, heavy machine guns, teflon-coated "cop-killer" bullets for kevlar penetration, grenades, bazookas, tanks, and thermonuclear weapons! And as for anyone who disagrees with that: Why do you hate America?
Dammit, if I want a Trident missile submarine in my backyard pool, and and the guv'mint can't stop me!
[B]*It is illegal to wash money. [/B][/QUOTE]
For future reference, the term is to "launder" money.
[B]Because different crimes give you different lengths of time.
Also, define crime or criminal.
* It is illegal to steal chewing gums from stores. Even so, many do just that when growing up.
*It is illegal to wash money.
*It is illegal to smoke marijuana.
*It is illegal to rob banks.
*It is illegal to kill people.
*It is illegal to take your neighbours bike for a joyride and then dump it in the forest.
All of the aove make you a criminal, but I dont think every one of those criminals would walk around with guns just because they would think: "well Im already a criminal, so I could as well get a gun..". [/B][/QUOTE]
Actualy speaking from experience with criminals many of them do think that way. Criminals exist in a very dangerous world. They have many enemies, most of them are fellow criminals. One of the interesting things is that if you look at american homicide statistics you discover a large percentage of the victoms of homicide are themselves engaged in criminal enterprises. Many criminals aquire firearms to protect themselves against rivals oddly enough. This is especially true in the narcotics buisness, and not just in the US, but around the world.
[B]But of course it does!
The second amendment means that I should be able to stockpile artillery, heavy machine guns, teflon-coated "cop-killer" bullets for kevlar penetration, grenades, bazookas, tanks, and thermonuclear weapons! And as for anyone who disagrees with that: Why do you hate America?
Dammit, if I want a Trident missile submarine in my backyard pool, and and the guv'mint can't stop me! [/B][/QUOTE]
You do know you have weakend your argument by perpetuating at least one urban myth in your diatrabe there? You do know that Teflon coated bullets magicly penetrating vests isnt real right? Its a urban legend the press picked up and spread around. Teflon doesnt confer any magical properties allowing it to ignore kevlar.
And if you had the resources to aquire a newly built trident missle submarine and maintain it, and crew it, you might just be able to work out a deal with the US goverment to do so, cause with that kind of wealth all sorts of doors would open for you.
And Space Ghost, no the cannon were not captured from the british, the various state assemblies arranged to have them bought and paid to equip portions of the colonial militias. This was due to the problematic situation in the fronteer and with France. Many people seem to forget that the war of independance was actually the second serious war the colonies fought. Legaly speaking after about 1771? 2? the colonial assmeblies were completely non govermental orginizations. Because the crown had revoked many of their charters, they had ceased to exist. Also before the establishment of the continental army in 1776, the members of all the colonial fighting forces were private citizens. Of course since "we" won the war of independance that gets white washed, because they then became the legal goverments of their respective states.
Lastly tanks are legal in civilian hands in the US, its fuctioning tank guns that are not. Its just that tanks are very, very expensive, but I know where to get a chieftan for a hundred grand if your interested. Gas and maintance prices are a bitch on them though.
[B]Actualy speaking from experience with criminals many of them do think that way. Criminals exist in a very dangerous world. They have many enemies, most of them are fellow criminals. One of the interesting things is that if you look at american homicide statistics you discover a large percentage of the victoms of homicide are themselves engaged in criminal enterprises. Many criminals aquire firearms to protect themselves against rivals oddly enough. This is especially true in the narcotics buisness, and not just in the US, but around the world. [/B][/QUOTE]
Im guessing when you say narcotics business, you dont mean smokers or hasslers. Youre talking big time dealers, right?
In any given population, Im guessing people the people involved in heavy crime that would risk it to buy weapons (if guns are illegal) would be, say one in ten thousand. It would be harder to get guns and more risk involved, so just getting a gun to [i]"settle the score"[/i] would require hard thinking, and those who actually do, would have killed the guy in some other way (knives etc.) as well.
So, just a guess, but the people in Sweden owning illegal guns would be ~1/10000. Those actually going out to buy a gun for revenge would perhaps also be 1/10000. Now, isnt 2/10000 a lot of a better risk than that perhaps 1/10 had guns if they were legal?
I at least feel assured that not 1/10 could shoot be in my back at a thousand paces, but perhaps 1/10000, and you know where those people hang, and can avoid them.
And no we are not even talking big time dealers.
First of all, The FBI uniformed crime report used to keep track of weather or not those convicted of homicide had prior convictions, and we know that untill the 80's about 70% of homicides are commited by those who already have a criminal record. For more recent data we look at various state law enforcement data and we find similar numbers. For those who are convicted felons, they can not legaly purchase a firearm anyways. In order for them to aquire a gun they are either going to have to plot to fabricate identification, or get one on the black market.
Just by that metric alone your assumption of 1/10000 is shown to be a bit off.
And for your information while the swedish goverment statistics are a pain to find, the only estimates I found put illegal firearms in the country at about 30,000, meaning that the actual ratio of illegal guns to people is about 1/300.
Last but not least the 1999 data from the United Nations International Study on Firearms regulations states that about 20% of swedish households legaly posses firearms, putting that number at 1 in 5.
[B]US Army = Bombs.. [/B][/QUOTE]
I thought bombs were the forte of the USAF...?
Space Ghost:
I must take issue with your statement pertaining to the ownership of assault weapons being banned because they "serve no purpose".
It's this sort of attitude which is infringing on the rights of law abiding replica firearm owners here in the UK, as politicians refuse to acknowledge or accept that a person may want to own one: their argument being, "why does anyone *need* a replica firearm anyway?" How dare someone dictate what I do and do not "need". What I resent are my lifestyle choices (as a replica owner), which are completely legitimate, being frowned upon because they somehow don't fit with the government's ideal social model of what an individual's interests should be.
Please note the theme of a governing body increasingly deciding what is "best" for the people by restricting their ownership rights; it's usually the first rung on the ladder to totalitarianism.
This same argument applies to assault weapons. People don't need them, but still there's a huge collector's market for them, and entire gun clubs and societies orientated towards their ownership. As long as assault weapons are used responsibly, who's to say what an individual can own within the boundaries of the law.
The obvious counter-argument to this is that they're far more dangerous than say single-action shotguns or semi-automatic pistols. However, criminals who use them for illegal acts are in a minority; and it is inherently [b]undemocratic[/b] to persecute a law-abiding majority of assault weapon owners for the acts of a handful of miscreants.
Please excuse me if my diatribe was a tad impassioned, but Airsofters such myself are going to be shafted sooner or later when the Violent Crime Reduction Bill bans the sale of replica firearms in the UK later on this year.
[B]Where are you coming up with these numbers?[/b][/quote]
As I said, it was a guess..
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Just by that metric alone your assumption of 1/10000 is shown to be a bit off.[/b][/quote]
If youre talking about USA that is, but guns arent illegal there, are they?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]And for your information while the swedish goverment statistics are a pain to find, the only estimates I found put illegal firearms in the country at about 30,000, meaning that the actual ratio of illegal guns to people is about 1/300.[/b][/quote]
If youre assuming that each person owns just one gun. ok 1/10000 might be far off the mark, but it would more likely be between 1/1000 - 1/3000. I.e. one person owns between 3 and 10 guns..
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Last but not least the 1999 data from the United Nations International Study on Firearms regulations states that about 20% of swedish households legaly posses firearms, putting that number at 1 in 5. [/B][/QUOTE]
I did say illegal firearms.. :rolleyes:
the problem with that number is that antique firearms are also counted here in sweden, so even if that gun might not work, you still have to report it.
Even crossbows are counted as firearms here, so I will have to get a permit to use it in my reenactor club..
[B]I thought bombs were the forte of the USAF...?
Space Ghost:
I must take issue with your statement pertaining to the ownership of assault weapons being banned because they "serve no purpose". [/B][/QUOTE]
Perhaps I should rephrase my argument to say that the risk assault weapons pose, in my opinion, is far greater than the legitimate purposes they serve to law abiding citizens. While I respect your lifestyle as a replica owner, the fact of the matter is assult weapons are meant to kill people, plain and simple. As far as I am concerned, they do it too easily to justify anyone owning them, outside of the military.