Gun control - murderer control?

[Guard Dog]

You know I could post a dozen or so studies that prove violent video games leads to violent behavior. How is confiscating guns and different from video game control. Suppose enough politicians get it in their head that it will be for your own good to ensure you are not having your delicate little minds warped by the violent images in Fallout 3 then seizing and outlawing  all the games they don't think you should have. Never mind the fact that 99.9% of the people never act any differently. After all, you should never let facts get in the way of a purely political goal.

[AGX-17]

too lazy, afraid or incompetent to get to the bottom of the real problem. Be it guns, knives or what have you.

So what's the real problem?

 

Reagan (in)famously cut mental health funding and support for veternas in the 80s (unfettered capitalism hasn't performed its supposedly inevitable miracle of fixing that problem,) politicians on both sides (albeit with more fervor on one side than the other,) tend to think the criminal justice system should be about revenge and punishment (i.e. "three strikes" laws which even conservatives in deep red states are recognizing as failures, or prosecutors insisting on trying juvenile offenders as adults to appease public opinion,) rather than reform (the evil socialist dystopias of Scandinavia have proven objectively that a reform-oriented system significantly reduces the number of repeat offenders.) Besides, most murders are committed by people who know each other, i.e. domestic violence, and typically not "in cold blood."

 

Before certain parties go nutballs, I've never been able to interpret the Second Amendment as anything but an individual right to bear arms, given the context of its drafting.

 

Taking into account the death penalty, that's failed as a deterrent as well. It's fine if you're dealing with a psychopath who'll never stop killing, but the most important thing to keep in mind is that nearly all murderers commit murder because they're either acting irrationally (i.e. fits of rage, schizophrenic episodes, etc.) or they rationally believe they won't be caught.

Edited March 2, 2014 by AGX-17

[Volourn]

"I love guns. I am also for strict gun control. How is that combination possible? I believe in the system we have in Sweden. If you are going to buy a gun, you need to prove you are sane, that you can handle the gun and that you have no history of violence. Also, you need to keep the gun safe. That means you need to keep the actual gun in one weapons safe, the bolt in another safe and the ammunition in a third (I think, not sure about that one)."

 

 

 

 

No. This doesn't make sense. NA countries already have laws like this. Nicd try, though.

 

Those who are fun gun control want as total ban. This small little steps are just a way to sneak in there. And, they awlays use the lame  stupid 'for the children' bullcrap.  republicans and liberals, conservatives, democracs, and any other party are the same. they want power and control. They want people to be slaves to their wishes and demands. Period. This is fact.

[Hurlshort]

It is not even feasible for the government in the US to take away everyone's guns.  There are 2 guns for every 3 people in this country.

[Walsingham]

I hope I'm not just being boring by bringing this up again, but privately owned guns to stop the government is total arse.

 

I reiterate this point because I  was reading GD's point just now and I thought: "How capable would the British Army be, if it was armed with just a mishmash of pistols and rifles?" And the answer was, for all the training and determination, it would be total cack. Any remotely comparably sized force, even the Belgians, would be better.  Let alone the most expensive armed forces in the World (i.e. the US Army).

 

Seriously, GD. Defending freedom with a few rifles is utter balls. You're much better trained than me. I'm sure if you step back a few paces, you'd agree.

[ShadySands]

I actually disagree with that Wals and here is a couple reasons why

 

1. If it ever came to that it wouldn't be a conventional war but a guerrilla war/insurgency

2. a non-trivial amount of troops would outright refuse to fight

 

Not that I think such a thing is ever going to happen

 

I've seen more than a few people here in the states call for a system similar to what mkreku described but the problem with that is that gun ownership is a right and not a privilege like driving a car or whatever else you would have to get a license for.

[Valsuelm]

I actually disagree with that Wals and here is a couple reasons why

 

1. If it ever came to that it wouldn't be a conventional war but a guerrilla war/insurgency

2. a non-trivial amount of troops would outright refuse to fight

 

Not that I think such a thing is ever going to happen

 

I've seen more than a few people here in the states call for a system similar to what mkreku described but the problem with that is that gun ownership is a right and not a privilege like driving a car or whatever else you would have to get a license for.

 

Not only would a non-trivial amount of troops refuse to fight a non-trivial amount of troops would join the opposition to the government if/when it comes to that. Civil wars are usually messy, very.

 

As for rights vs. privileges, when we started accepting that the government grants us privileges to do simple things such as drive a car we started forgetting what freedom is. The DMV is an abomination in a free nation, especially considering what it's come to be in most if not all U.S. states at this point (far far more than just a drivers licensing bureau).

[Guard Dog]

It is not even feasible for the government in the US to take away everyone's guns.  There are 2 guns for every 3 people in this country.

Which is why it must be done incrementally. "We don't want to take all your guns. We just want reasonable restrictions on magazine fed rifles" then it will be  "We don't want to take all your guns. We just want reasonable restrictions on semi-auto handguns" then it will be "We don't want to take all your guns. We just want reasonable restrictions lever action rifles." then comes "We don't want to take all your guns. We just want reasonable restrictions on pistols" then "We don't want to take all your guns. We just want reasonable restrictions on shotguns"

 

Next thing you know it's illegal to own a BB Gun. To quote George Washington, an armed man is a citizen, and unarmed one a subject.

[Guard Dog]

I hope I'm not just being boring by bringing this up again, but privately owned guns to stop the government is total arse.

 

I reiterate this point because I  was reading GD's point just now and I thought: "How capable would the British Army be, if it was armed with just a mishmash of pistols and rifles?" And the answer was, for all the training and determination, it would be total cack. Any remotely comparably sized force, even the Belgians, would be better.  Let alone the most expensive armed forces in the World (i.e. the US Army).

 

Seriously, GD. Defending freedom with a few rifles is utter balls. You're much better trained than me. I'm sure if you step back a few paces, you'd agree.

Wals, the entire strength of the US Army including Guard & Reserves is 1,105,301. The entire strength of the US Marine Corps is 235,000 Active & Reserve, the Navy has 432,731 Active and Reserve, the Air Force has 332,854, hell I'll even throw in the FBI at 35,902, the Secret Service 6,700, US Marshall Service 4,853. That is a total of 2,400,000 rounding up.

 

In the US last year there were 33,439,301 individual hunting licenses sold. Those are resident licenses because some hunters will buy several out of state but only one resident. Almost every one of them owns at least one firearm and is proficient in it's use. And that is just hunters. That's not even counting legal gun owners who don't hunt. Now consider for the sake of argument that even a third of those are willing to fight (the same percentage as fought in our last revolution). At over 13 million armed fighters it would be the largest armed force in the history of the world. Even if it was not able to operate as a cohesive unit, a guerilla force of that size would wash this country in blood if the government ever turned against it's citizens. A possibility I FIRMLY believe is possible if not probable. As long as the citizens are armed it will be impossible.

 

http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/HuntingLicCertHistory20042013.pdf  

Edited March 2, 2014 by Guard Dog

[Walsingham]

1) I don't find it credible that attested (or whatever you chaps call it) forces would diverge in significant numbers for the very simple reason that no-one is going to be bloody stupid enough to announce a dictatorship.

 

2) If a dictatorship were to happen I don't believe it would be planned. Although it might occur after a significant crisis, and the imposition of martial law. Under which circumstances there would be far more pressing grounds to remain within unit and team discipline and obey orders than to defect.

 

3) You seem to feel that ordinary US citizens who bear arms are guerrilla fighters. I believe it is no insult to them to suggest they aren't. They lack tactical training, communications kit and small unit cohesion. They have no experience of warfare, no stomach for a guerilla campaign, and no tribal or other affiliations to mobilise around. The only kind of resistance they could mount to organised forces would be just enough to legitimise the force being brought against them. Sacttered pockets of ad hoc fighting woudl only terrorise the majority of ordinary citizens.

 

~~

 

I don't suggest for one moment that the USA is ready for gun control, or even that it would solve anything. But the argument that gun ownership has anything to do with being an active citizen is at best a red herring. At worst it's a foolish distraction from simpler less dangerous things like reading a newspaper and voting.

[mkreku]

But if you're so afraid of your own government to a degree that owning a gun makes you feel safer, why not advocate legalizing hand grenades and rocket launchers too? I mean, that's what the army would use against your 30.06. And tanks. And bombers. And helicopters, fighter jets, drones, cannons, mines, machine guns. machine cannons, submarines, hangars, you name it.

 

Even if you cowboys would outnumber the armed forces 10-1, they'd still outnumber you strength wise 1000-1.

 

It's such a weird argument to stand by. It's like grasping at straws, but worse.

[Mor]

^ Because nothing says second amendment f*** yeah, like a gunship parked in your back yard. 

 

Edited March 2, 2014 by Mor

[Guard Dog]

But if you're so afraid of your own government to a degree that owning a gun makes you feel safer, why not advocate legalizing hand grenades and rocket launchers too? I mean, that's what the army would use against your 30.06. And tanks. And bombers. And helicopters, fighter jets, drones, cannons, mines, machine guns. machine cannons, submarines, hangars, you name it.

 

Even if you cowboys would outnumber the armed forces 10-1, they'd still outnumber you strength wise 1000-1.

 

It's such a weird argument to stand by. It's like grasping at straws, but worse.

Oh this is all a hypothetical discussion no doubt. And no I'm not in favor of legalizing military grade weapons for a lot of very good reasons. Although if I really wanted a .50 Cal machine gun, I can legally buy one if I were willing to go through the State & BATF licensing process. I would never do that because it's expensive and what the heck would do with such a thing since I don't expect to have to actually fight a revolution. However, a citizenry that is armed to the degree that we are is a pretty strong guarantee we won't have cause fight another one. And yes, if the US Military were to bring it's full strength to bear on any kind of insurrection it would be hopeless. But as Shady pointed out, we would not give them a stand up fight.

 

I think an armed revolt against the government would be a lot more effective than you or Wals are willing credit.

 

But like I said, possible is not probable or likely.

[HoonDing]

[Guard Dog]

As far as fearing the government as a reason to own a gun, that is as good a reason as any I guess. I own them because (reasons in order of priority):

 

1) I enjoy shooting

2) I live in a rural area and if I had to call the police is would take them and hour to get here. So if something goes down I'm on my own

3) I enjoy hunting

4) Self defense while travelling

5) Animal menace at home. I had to make some adjustments in the local Coyote population last year because they were becoming too aggressive

6) I have several genuine antiques and collectors pieces that will never be fired again (but could be) 

7) Because I can

9)  Zombies... you never know

10) Fight against foreign invaders. (I'm watching you Canada)

11) To, hypothetically, fight back against the government someday if it ever becomes necessary.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Guard Dog

[mkreku]

See.. I understand 1-9. Those are my own reasons (except I hate to kill things so I basically shoot paper thingies instead). It's just number 10 that's out there.

[Valsuelm]

But if you're so afraid of your own government to a degree that owning a gun makes you feel safer, why not advocate legalizing hand grenades and rocket launchers too? I mean, that's what the army would use against your 30.06. And tanks. And bombers. And helicopters, fighter jets, drones, cannons, mines, machine guns. machine cannons, submarines, hangars, you name it.

 

Even if you cowboys would outnumber the armed forces 10-1, they'd still outnumber you strength wise 1000-1.

 

It's such a weird argument to stand by. It's like grasping at straws, but worse.

 

Not even remotely a weird argument. Putting aside the fact that I am for citizens owning grenades and rocket launchers legally as making them illegal really doesn't accomplish much good (I personally know some ex-military who do indeed own grenades outside of the realm of the law and at least one person who could build you a rocket launcher in his garage (and you might note they aren't running around blowing people up)), you assume very wrongly that any insurrection is going to be nothing but non-military vs. military. If a large scale rebellion ever arises in the U.S. (and most anywhere else) that will definitely not be the case. Believe it or not conversations amongst people in the U.S. military are had these days about what they'd do in the face of a rebellion, and it's no small amount of them they would join in it. It would not be long before most everything the government has in terms of resources is in the hands of those looking to overthrow it.

 

I realize you're in Sweden where rebellion is not part of the everyday discussions (heck. you still have a King) and socialism/communism is embraced by near everyone there it seems. But in some places like the U.S., there are a lot of folks who do not forget how our freedoms were won, and who realize they are disappearing at an ever increasing rate. It is no coincidence that gun and ammo sales have gone through the roof in the last few years in this nation at the same time we see our Constitution all but ripped to shreds (there is not much of it that hasn't been gutted at this point), and watch our government do whatever it pleases no matter how unethical, unlawful, or evil it may be, with little to no consequences seen for the perpetrators of these deeds.

 

While some folks like to discuss which of our rights we're willing to give up for X, and many more would rather just pretend everything is hunky dory because their life is going relatively well or they're just too ignorant, others are increasingly thinking the time for discussion is nearing an end, not to mention many realize the economy is on the precipice of an abyss. 15 years ago if you brought up revolution in your average church, bar, or other public discussion most people would look at you like you're an alien. Today, it's not an uncommon subject to hear being discussed, and more and more people are seeing it as something that is probably inevitable.

[Elerond]

I like more our army structure where majority of army's power comes from conscripted reserves which means that government cannot use army against anything that people don't approve and army can't do coups at least not easily.

 

Although this and our quite strict gun control laws don't stop us owing guns as there is one civilian owned gun per every three citizens.

 

For topic itself I would say that gun control laws or banning guns don't stop people murdering or killing each other, but gun control laws in my country work at least in some extend to stop unstable people getting guns in their hand and people need to know how to use gun before they can buy one which has decreased accidental deaths and injuries by guns noticeably.

[Walsingham]

I have no doubt that there would be some bloody exchanges of fire. But just stop and think. If 'armed citizens' killed members of a military or police unit, would that deter them? Like **** it would. It would make the other members of that unit furious.

 

Politics would go out of the window. Your armed forces are professionals, and the most basic element of that is an unwillingness to back down if you are threatened with violence. And certainly not if your mates have been killed. 

 

You should read some Ahmed Shah Masood. You can't win a war with handfuls of people fighting locally. And there's no ****ing way people who just happen to share gun ownership could organise to fight any other way. Again, no tribes, no local political movements, no experience of that sort of fighting.

 

As mkreku said, you can pick just about any argument for gun ownership, except guaranteeing personal freedom from the state.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You also need to remember that guns aren't really to protect against the military (which is unlikely to fight it's own citizens anyway, as has been pointed out), it's to protect against pro-government thugs (see Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Organizing for America in Obama's wet dreams). Also the amount of violence that would result from trying to repress a heavily armed population is enough to give even the most tyrannically minded pol some pause.

 

Edit: Even in Ukraine, protesters were fighting riot police, not the military.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[alanschu]

Hand grenades and other military grade munitions are already illegal and always have been. That is not the same as kicking in your door and seizing property you have always had and that was suddenly made illegal by legislative fiat.

 

 

So your position is that those weapons should be illegal simply because they always have been, and that guns should be legal because they have been?

 

Wouldn't this indicate a strong amount of faith on your part that the government was right in the first place (and unquestioningly so)?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

This is one cause I will fight for. This is one thing I will take up arms to defend. And if they day comes when they do come for mine I will kill as many as I can and they can take them from my corpse. 

 

Anyone else thinking of Poe's law reading this?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

This is one cause I will fight for. This is one thing I will take up arms to defend. And if they day comes when they do come for mine I will kill as many as I can and they can take them from my corpse. 

 

Anyone else thinking of Poe's law reading this?

 

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=ORYVCML8xeE

 

Internet forums and hyperbole are like peanut butter and jelly. But in all seriousness, if it ever did come to confiscation, yes I'd fight. I don't think I'd want to be around to witness what came next.

[Orogun01]

I have no doubt that there would be some bloody exchanges of fire. But just stop and think. If 'armed citizens' killed members of a military or police unit, would that deter them? Like **** it would. It would make the other members of that unit furious.

 

Politics would go out of the window. Your armed forces are professionals, and the most basic element of that is an unwillingness to back down if you are threatened with violence. And certainly not if your mates have been killed. 

 

You should read some Ahmed Shah Masood. You can't win a war with handfuls of people fighting locally. And there's no ****ing way people who just happen to share gun ownership could organise to fight any other way. Again, no tribes, no local political movements, no experience of that sort of fighting.

 

As mkreku said, you can pick just about any argument for gun ownership, except guaranteeing personal freedom from the state.

It's unlikely that a guerrilla will win against a major military force, but they can survive and slow or even halt the advancement of a major incursion if only for as long as it will take the proper military forces to reach their location. They would fight because there is no other option.

 

This is probably part of why the second amendment was established to prevent early America from being conquered.

[Gorth]

Although if I really wanted a .50 Cal machine gun, I can legally buy one if I were willing to go through the State & BATF licensing process. I would never do that because it's expensive and what the heck would do with such a thing since I don't expect to have to actually fight a revolution.

Didn't you have some kind of coyote problem at one time???

 

Yes, the entire discussion really *is* hard to comprehend as an outsider. I sometimes suspect it's more to do with principles (the context of the original legislation being forgotten in the mists of history) rather than any practical value of having a gun under your pillow at night.

 

That being said, I think I would like to satisfy my curiosity some day and try out various hand weapons on a shooting range (with proper instructors and training mind you).