Gun Control in the US

[Orogun01]

Because AR's have no self defense purposes or hunting purpose.

Home protection and they are good for hunting and fishing. Animals beware.

[Volourn]

"Our citizens, as they are currently armed, would really not stand any chance against the government at this stage. Military technology is just too advanced. But it's not really a necessity either, because our government has nothing to gain from becoming a tyranny. We have a lot more to fear from the megacorporations than anything else."

 

You are assuming the Amerikan army would be willing to go to full war with its citizens on behalf of the gov't. I don't see that happening. Besides, as we've seen in the ME uprisings, it's not always about who has more firepower. National armies eventually stop/split up when forced to fight their own civilians en masse.

[alanschu]

You are assuming the Amerikan army would be willing to go to full war with its citizens on behalf of the gov't. I don't see that happening. Besides, as we've seen in the ME uprisings, it's not always about who has more firepower. National armies eventually stop/split up when forced to fight their own civilians en masse.

 

Exactly. Keeping those serving in the military grounded in reality is more beneficial to preventing full on government tyranny than packing my snub-nose six shooter or a hunting shotgun.

[Hurlshort]

"Our citizens, as they are currently armed, would really not stand any chance against the government at this stage. Military technology is just too advanced. But it's not really a necessity either, because our government has nothing to gain from becoming a tyranny. We have a lot more to fear from the megacorporations than anything else."

 

You are assuming the Amerikan army would be willing to go to full war with its citizens on behalf of the gov't. I don't see that happening. Besides, as we've seen in the ME uprisings, it's not always about who has more firepower. National armies eventually stop/split up when forced to fight their own civilians en masse.

 

That basically supports my argument. The citizens wouldn't need to be armed because the army wouldn't mobilize against them.

 

I'm not actually against gun ownership, but I think gun ownership to protect yourself from the government makes little sense in our modern society.

[Malcador]

Exactly. Keeping those serving in the military grounded in reality is more beneficial to preventing full on government tyranny than packing my snub-nose six shooter or a hunting shotgun.

 

Don't forget the police. Well might be too late for that lot anyway.

[Drowsy Emperor]

"Our citizens, as they are currently armed, would really not stand any chance against the government at this stage. Military technology is just too advanced. But it's not really a necessity either, because our government has nothing to gain from becoming a tyranny. We have a lot more to fear from the megacorporations than anything else."

 

You are assuming the Amerikan army would be willing to go to full war with its citizens on behalf of the gov't. I don't see that happening. Besides, as we've seen in the ME uprisings, it's not always about who has more firepower. National armies eventually stop/split up when forced to fight their own civilians en masse.

 

That basically supports my argument. The citizens wouldn't need to be armed because the army wouldn't mobilize against them.

 

I'm not actually against gun ownership, but I think gun ownership to protect yourself from the government makes little sense in our modern society.

 

Its the principle of the thing that's worth upholding. There is no real reason citizens shouldn't be armed. The few moronic accidents do not disqualify thousands of responsible gun owners from ownership. I consider disarming people suspicious, and voluntary abandonment of the privileges of owning a weapon disappointing. Most people are likely to go through their whole life without ever needing one, but if circumstances should arise that they need a weapon and they don't have one because they willingly discarded their right to it* - then they deserve whatever happens to them.

 

*That is the current sad state of affairs throughout most of Europe, and the right to bear arms is one thing I admire about the US, even if the climate there leans dangerously towards worshiping guns as a panacea instead of merely treating them as the tools they are.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hurlshort]

"Our citizens, as they are currently armed, would really not stand any chance against the government at this stage. Military technology is just too advanced. But it's not really a necessity either, because our government has nothing to gain from becoming a tyranny. We have a lot more to fear from the megacorporations than anything else."

 

You are assuming the Amerikan army would be willing to go to full war with its citizens on behalf of the gov't. I don't see that happening. Besides, as we've seen in the ME uprisings, it's not always about who has more firepower. National armies eventually stop/split up when forced to fight their own civilians en masse.

 

That basically supports my argument. The citizens wouldn't need to be armed because the army wouldn't mobilize against them.

 

I'm not actually against gun ownership, but I think gun ownership to protect yourself from the government makes little sense in our modern society.

 

Its the principle of the thing that's worth upholding. There is no real reason citizens shouldn't be armed. The few moronic accidents do not disqualify thousands of responsible gun owners from ownership. I consider disarming people suspicious, and voluntary abandonment of the privileges of owning a weapon disappointing. Most people are likely to go through their whole life without ever needing one, but if circumstances should arise that they need a weapon and they don't have one because they willingly discarded their right to it* - then they deserve whatever happens to them.

 

*That is the current sad state of affairs throughout most of Europe, and the right to bear arms is one thing I admire about the US, even if the climate there leans dangerously towards worshiping guns as a panacea instead of merely treating them as the tools they are.

 

But one of those few moronic accidents leads to a mentally unstable person opening fire on 6 year old children, you have to question the current policies. That is completely reasonable, even if at the end you decide that the gun control policies are adequate.

 

At this point in the thread, I've calmed down from the initial shock of the event and I'm ready address my biggest concerns. Guns are not at the top of the list, but they are on there.

 

1. Parenting - This was a gross failure of parenting, both by the father and the mother. The mother paid for that with her life.

 

2. Mental Health Care - We aren't doing enough, or we aren't addressing it correctly.

 

3. Guns - Extended clips, guns that look like assault rifles, etc. There should be some changes in both the rules and the culture of the gun owning community. This isn't the wild west.

[Malcador]

Why a problem if they 'look' like assault rifles ? I'd imagine they could do a lot with regulating the after-market parts like grips, sights, tac-lights, etc. Or just treating it like they do a car, need you to pass tests, get a licence and have that maintained periodically.

[Zoraptor]

This all sounds so alien to me. I cannot possibly comprehend why people would WANT to have guns. From my perspective the debate starts from the other end - it would be rational to ban all weapons, however the military and some policemen would still reasonably need guns. I mean, what is it that you do with your guns that is so important?

Can't agree. Guns do have legitimate uses and as such should not be subject to any sort of blanket ban. Legitimate uses would include hunting, pest control, personal defence (vs animals such as polar bears, rather than the more subjective personal defence vs humans), stock defence and stock management. Reasonable precautions and restrictions are enough to eliminate the majority of gun related incidents. To use a comparison, cars too are dangerous and theoretically if we banned them we would save ~400 lives a year. But they also have legitimate uses and most of the problems associated with them can be minimised by reasonable restrictions (speed limits, licensing, no drunk driving etc). I'd tell people that they should not own a gun if they have no use for it, but then I'd also tell people they shouldn't own a car if they have no use for it.

 

I don't hunt personally but it is a very good tool here for controlling wild populations of introduced animals such as deer, pigs or goats, which would otherwise have a significantly greater impact on our native plants, similar with noxious pests like rabbits and possums. Sometimes it is also (unfortunately) necessary to be able to shoot dogs that are attacking cows or sheep, and to be able to euthanise animals (as) humanely (as possible) without having to physically catch them or wait long periods and incur large bills from vets.

 

Fundamentally I do not like starting from a position of justifying something being legal- it ought to be the reverse, having to justify something being illegal. Something which is dangerous but has legit uses should not be banned outright unless sensible restrictions fail, and those restrictions should be targeted at maximising the reduction of harm, not at an ideological position.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The issue isn't the military. The military is mostly from the South and woudn't fight their own. The issue are pro-government goons and brown shirts (see Nicaragua).

[Calax]

Dagon, I know of so many people who would argue with you a out the military being mostly southern

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, I'd like to see that supported by some evidence. I'm not actually sure what he means by the south, and if Dagon means the traditional Southern states, then I'm pretty sure those states simply don't have the numbers to back that claim up.

[ShadySands]

First thing I found in a quick search but it seems to match my experience as it seems like every 3rd person was from Texas

 

http://www.statemast...-navy-air-force

 

EDIT: Just to remove the second link

Edited December 25, 2012 by ShadySands

[obyknven]

hear the expert

The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender.

 

http://larrycorreia....on-gun-control/

[Hurlshort]

First thing I found in a quick search but it seems to match my experience as it seems like every 3rd person was from Texas

 

http://www.statemast...-navy-air-force

 

EDIT: Just to remove the second link

 

If you scroll down on that page, you have a few folks explaining why those stats are bogus

 

http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/military-recruitment-2010/

 

Seems like a better breakdown at the above link.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Hurlshot

[Valsuelm]

First thing I found in a quick search but it seems to match my experience as it seems like every 3rd person was from Texas

 

http://www.statemast...-navy-air-force

 

EDIT: Just to remove the second link

 

If you scroll down on that page, you have a few folks explaining why those stats are bogus

 

http://nationalprior...cruitment-2010/

 

Seems like a better breakdown at the above link.

 

Neither you or the people who I'm reading calling those stats bogus in the link you provide are backing what you're saying up with anything concrete.

 

The stats ShadySands posted are from ~2004. The stats you posted are from 2007-2010. There's no reason to believe in either of the links that the info in the other is incorrect. From what I know of military recruitment both probably are correct, and I've little reason to think they're wrong. In both sets of stats the south generally is supplying more recruits than the rest of the nation. This is and has generally been true for a long long time. Something that is also true is that most military folks are pro 2nd Amendment and understand and appreciate what 'shall not be infringed' means.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Valsuelm

[ShadySands]

First thing I found in a quick search but it seems to match my experience as it seems like every 3rd person was from Texas

 

http://www.statemast...-navy-air-force

 

EDIT: Just to remove the second link

 

If you scroll down on that page, you have a few folks explaining why those stats are bogus

 

http://nationalprior...cruitment-2010/

 

Seems like a better breakdown at the above link.

 

The south is leading in the regional rates in that link too. Granted it's the recruitment rate and not the total count which is what I had them as in my first link. I could be wrong and there could be more people from outside the south but when I was in the military it definitely didn't feel that way. I do admit that I have no evidence to back that up.

 

Happy Christmas

[Malcador]

My google-fu is weak, been trying to track down numbers on that. Did find a list of active duty personnel by state, but that's just where they're stationed not necessarily where they are recruited from

 

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0509.pdf

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The military is mostly from the South and woudn't fight their own.

 

That's a fairly major assumption to make without presenting some evidence to back the claim up.

[Hurlshort]

I'd just say it is safer to say the military is mostly from the US and wouldn't fight their own. You don't really need to qualify it by a specific region. It's not like all the troops that were born in California are going to be okey dokey with fighting American citizens.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'd just say it is safer to say the military is mostly from the US and wouldn't fight their own.

 

Only if they considered the people rebelling 'their own' - that's part of the domestic treats that people in the military swear to oppose, by force if needed, when asked to do so.

[Volourn]

"Is that most people seem to be morons. I wouldn't trust them with my finances, with looking after my kids (if I had any), so why should I trust them with actually learning correct and proper gun safety and control and a roomfull of lethal weaponry? "

 

Yet,k the counter proposal is to trust wholly on the gov't to protect people and not tos crew them over. A gov't, run by, you guessed it, people. L0L

[Drowsy Emperor]

When imposing a tyranny of sorts over people, the standard instruments most governments use is the police and secret services - not the military. The military is usually fairly patriotic and too powerful and self sufficient to be a dependable tool. Its also more distant from the political centers and consequently less corrupted by them.

 

Of course, there are military juntas with strong armies and weak police, but in western states and the former soviet union, the opposite is the norm.

 

The scenario of a government declaring war on the general populace is unlikely because it makes it impossible to regain legitimacy afterwards, which is still a fairly important component of rule in the west.

 

What is entirely more possible is a slow decline into authoritarianism, not through force but through the growth of surveillance and media manipulation a la Orwell's 1984. Today's citizens are entirely dependent on those sources of information that can be controlled and channeled - the average city dweller wouldn't know if a war erupted two blocks down from his apartment if the evening news don't mention it.

 

So, to cut the long story short, this is already happening.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Guard Dog]

I agree with you guys for the most part about the military possible being unwilling to fight American civilians. However that only makes this comment all the more ominous and dangerous:

 

What is entirely more possible is a slow decline into authoritarianism, not through force but through the growth of surveillance and media manipulation a la Orwell's 1984. Today's citizens are entirely dependent on those sources of information that can be controlled and channeled - the average city dweller wouldn't know if a war erupted two blocks down from his apartment if the evening news don't mention it.

 

So, to cut the long story short, this is already happening

 

I completely agree with you here. I am growing increasing alarmed with every passing year the federal government takes more and more power the US Constitution forbids it to have and there are no consequences for it. No one pushes back, no one fights them in court. And even if you change politicians the next group comes in and takes more and more of our liberty away. Nothing big, nothing major. A little here, a small thing there, and all the while insisting they are doing it to "help" us. A little over a long time adds up to a lot.

[Raithe]

"Is that most people seem to be morons. I wouldn't trust them with my finances, with looking after my kids (if I had any), so why should I trust them with actually learning correct and proper gun safety and control and a roomfull of lethal weaponry? "

 

Yet,k the counter proposal is to trust wholly on the gov't to protect people and not tos crew them over. A gov't, run by, you guessed it, people. L0L

 

The government can screw me over slowly, regardless. The banks and corporations can do the same. Whether I have guns or not. But the moron down the street can't casually shoot me by accident nor can his kids get hold of a gun to play with when he forgets to put it in the gunsafe properly since he can't easily get hold of a gun in this country.

 

Most democracies run on popularity contests and spin rather then actual ability, and they have for awhile. I've learnt to accept that. People tend to be morons, I've learnt to live with that. Not having to worry about most morons I meet being able to carry guns is something I'm perfectly fine with.

 

Personally, I don't care so much on the gun control issue in the US because it's not the underlying cause of those problems. It's just one of the easily reached solutions when those causes push things along. Until you get a better grasp on the reasons why those people snap like that, and ways to deal with it, taking away the guns only limits them, it doesn't stop them. The question of whether that limitation is worthwhile and just how much it might slow down or prevent such occurances... That's more of a valid argument.