gun control rant thread

Here was the main link:

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1X9uhG3U6ib9CfYKWfQ8XTQHg3tyxO9TARYPXesr0NGI

Interesting. An exorbitant count of homicide by pistol as opposed to rifle. Interesting, but in no way surprising.

yEP... but they want to enact, in essence, a rifle ban. More people were killed by fists and feet than those "evil black rifles".

Just more proof that our elected officials are just that stupid.

If google is to be believed (SOURCE), there are 311,591,000 people in the US. All firearm deaths from the first link I posted are 8500. That means the total murders from all firearms combined in the US is less than .003%. (.0027).

I don't think guns are the thing we should be focusing on personally.

I agree with Chris Rock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

slefain wrote: I agree with Chris Rock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

Admittedly, a sin tax on ammo is likely. Those opposed to guns will certainly try to make getting ammo more expensive/difficult. As usual, the people most effected will be the innocent participants in shooting sports, not murderers.

JoeyM wrote:

slefain wrote: I agree with Chris Rock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

Admittedly, a sin tax on ammo is likely. Those opposed to guns will certainly try to make getting ammo more expensive/difficult. As usual, the people most effected will be the innocent participants in shooting sports, not murderers.

Plus you can't forget the zillion rounds of ammo already sitting around. Hell, I have hundreds of rounds for guns I don't even own anymore.

Hmmm, if they jack the price of bullets up, I may have a new way to fund my project car....

Bobzilla wrote: If google is to be believed (SOURCE), there are 311,591,000 people in the US. All firearm deaths from the first link I posted are 8500. That means the total murders from all firearms combined in the US is less than .003%. (.0027). I don't think guns are the thing we should be focusing on personally.

Seriously... we need to get rid of way more people than guns alone can handle. At this rate we need a meteor strike to get that number down.

N Sperlo wrote: Guns. Bombs aren't guns. Assault rifles are guns.... The founding fathers had our protection from our own government in mind. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson Does that quote mean we are going to march on the capital and shoot people? No, but it means we retain the right and ability to revolt and protect ourselves if such a situation arises.

I think you are kind of conveniently nitpicking the wording / definitions here.

The amendment says "arms" not "guns". Clearly in that time, the most advanced arms where guns, so you might imply that. But when you take the apparent purpose of those arms (ability to revolt) it seems like that would clearly imply arms capable of performing that revolt or resistance.

You might say that in modern times, having citizens armed with semi-auto or full auto guns could be effective in a revolt and fulfill that requirement. But that would be kind of like saying that when these things were written down, having swords was OK, but guns are just going too far (since the most advanced military arm of the day was a gun / cannon).

To have effective resistance against the government (which is such a ridiculously remote possibility it is almost silly to make it a consideration) you would clearly need at least SOME sort of effective anti tank and anti air capabilities. Would you say it is appropriate for citizens to own such things? (e.g. AT missles, RPGs, Stingers, radar guided AA cannons etc.)

So, I ask you (not that you can really answer it, but you know...) which way is it? Are we supposed to be armed to defend ourselves from each other (which does not appear to be the purpose of the amendment), or are we supposed to be armed to defend (or revolt) against our own government?

Again, to reiterate. What I am getting to here is NOT that weapons need to be gotten rid of (even if you wanted to it is ridiculously impractical at this point), but that there is already an accepted limit set on the bearing of "arms".

aircooled wrote: To have effective resistance against the government (which is such a ridiculously remote possibility it is almost silly to make it a consideration) you would clearly need at least SOME sort of effective anti tank and anti air capabilities. Would you say it is appropriate for citizens to own such things?

I don't know how effective they are against modern tanks, but vintage anti-tank weapons are already in private hands http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205280

(I don't know that guy, but I do know someone who used to own a WWII tank.)

In reply to JoeyM:

Most of those anti-tank guns were out of date before the end of WWII.

aircooled wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: Guns. Bombs aren't guns. Assault rifles are guns.... The founding fathers had our protection from our own government in mind. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson Does that quote mean we are going to march on the capital and shoot people? No, but it means we retain the right and ability to revolt and protect ourselves if such a situation arises.

I think you are kind of conveniently nitpicking the wording / definitions here. The amendment says "arms" not "guns". Clearly in that time, the most advanced arms where guns, so you might imply that. But when you take the apparent purpose of those arms (ability to revolt) it seems like that would clearly imply arms capable of performing that revolt or resistance. You might say that in modern times, having citizens armed with semi-auto or full auto guns could be effective in a revolt and fulfill that requirement. But that would be kind of like saying that when these things were written down, having swords was OK, but guns are just going too far (since the most advanced military arm of the day was a gun / cannon). To have effective resistance against the government (which is such a ridiculously remote possibility it is almost silly to make it a consideration) you would clearly need at least SOME sort of effective anti tank and anti air capabilities. Would you say it is appropriate for citizens to own such things? (e.g. AT missles, RPGs, Stingers, radar guided AA cannons etc.) So, I ask you (not that you can really answer it, but you know...) which way is it? Are we supposed to be armed to defend ourselves from each other (which does not appear to be the purpose of the amendment), or are we supposed to be armed to defend (or revolt) against our own government? Again, to reiterate. What I am getting to here is NOT that weapons need to be gotten rid of (even if you wanted to it is ridiculously impractical at this point), but that there is already an accepted limit set on the bearing of "arms".

It's funny, I keep seeing this argument that folks with only small arms like semi-auto rifles and lacking things artillery, airpower etc would be ineffective against a modern military so why bother. It seems some of the bad guys in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't get the memo.

Makes sense. I think the "limits on firepower" thing is a red herring anyway. I'm more worried about riots and looters. Remember what happened during the LA riots.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a05_1235367821

(BTW, I was in college back when that happened, and one of my classmates had relatives on one of the roofs. I have no idea if this is the shop his relatives were defending.)

Bobzilla wrote: yEP... but they want to enact, in essence, a rifle ban. More people were killed by fists and feet than those "evil black rifles". Just more proof that our elected officials are just that stupid.

Nope, not stupid...extremely cunning, actually. They know that a majority of the populace is ignorant of the details and facts but easily swayed by an emotional, "save the children" argument. They also know that a minority of the population will care about evil black rifles, so if they can pass a law, they can appeal to the ignorant/easily swayed for votes with minimal cost, effort, and expenditure of political capital.

mpolans wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: yEP... but they want to enact, in essence, a rifle ban. More people were killed by fists and feet than those "evil black rifles". Just more proof that our elected officials are just that stupid.

Nope, not stupid...extremely cunning, actually. They know that a majority of the populace is ignorant of the details and facts but easily swayed by an emotional, "save the children" argument. They also know that a minority of the population will care about evil black rifles, so if they can pass a law, they can appeal to the ignorant/easily swayed for votes with minimal cost, effort, and expenditure of political capital.

You're smart.

What's really scary is when both sides agree on something, then you know they're screwing us.

93EXCivic wrote: In reply to JoeyM: Most of those anti-tank guns were out of date before the end of WWII.

Those anti-tank rifles were out of date before the START of WWII.

Some crazy kills a bunch of people with a gun: Because I own a gun (.22 target pistol), I must be dangerous. Soccer moms and Canadians :) should fear me! The government should outlaw guns!

Some street racer takes out a family: Because I own a slightly modified sports car (Miata), I must be dangerous. Soccer moms should fear me! The government should outlaw all modified cars!

The above comments are in no way intended to diminish the very real horror of what has happened.

mpolans wrote: It's funny, I keep seeing this argument that folks with only small arms like semi-auto rifles and lacking things artillery, airpower etc would be ineffective against a modern military so why bother. It seems some of the bad guys in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't get the memo.

So... who is going to tell them they need to get rid of these then?:

BTW - these are man portable "arms" that are entirely reasonable weapons for a "well regulated" militia to carry if they are expected to fight a modern army.

picture of captured SA7.

In reply to aircooled:

Captured from the military or supplied by others? I doubt most resistance fighters throughout history started with heavy weapons.

SA7's that we sold to them when they were fighting the Russians I might add. funny how this E36 M3 comes back to bite us in the ass.

Those were actually Stingers that we gave them (to shot down the Russian helicopters that were causing them huge issues), the SA7 are probably coming from Iran and the like (apparently SA14's also).

Resistance fighters may not start with heavy weapons, but if they want any chance against a modern military, they better have them.

Bobzilla wrote: SA7's that we sold to them when they were fighting the Russians I might add. funny how this E36 M3 comes back to bite us in the ass.

Hell, we probably gave them yo them to fight the Russians.

People need to quit taking the 2nd amendment out of context. The militia is not the national guard(that's essentially the state army).....a militia is comprised of ordinary citizens with minimal training. Nothing more, nothing less. Advancements in the times have changed things, but people forget that back in their time, the Kentucky long rifle was one of the best weapons in the world....and they had no quarrel with letting people keep a weapon more effective that the army's own muskets. Times have indeed changed. Granted, there's a M1 Abrams not far from here in private hands......

Bobzilla wrote: SA7's that we sold to them when they were fighting the Russians I might add. funny how this E36 M3 comes back to bite us in the ass.

This is why the UN is pushing to regulate international weapons trade.

aircooled wrote: Resistance fighters may not start with heavy weapons, but if they want any chance against a modern military, they better have them.

They'd have them soon enough though. As pointed out before, chances are our military wouldn't turn on the people.

In reply to N Sperlo:

They were an illegal weapon trade back then.......lol