The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Lexicus]

Note that soldiers supplying their own equipment was a feature of the early Roman Republic (and perhaps the Roman Kingdom, though of course we have no reliable records from that time), not the Roman Empire. By the late Republic (after around 100BC) what are called the Marian reforms had shifted the army from a citizen-militia where soldiers were divided into classes based on wealth (and thus what equipment they could afford) to a more uniform, professionalized force whose equipment was provided by the state and salary paid by the state (or, in some cases, by extremely wealthy individual generals).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'd have to look it up, but I always thought the right to an attorney was part of your right to a fair trial. Since the state names a licensed attorney to represent its side of the case against you, you need one to represent your side of the case.

I'm not really au fait with America rights, nor which specific ones are "constitutional", I was just speaking from a general "what seems reasonable and fair" point of view. But in general it seems reasonable that the state should actively support your rights, or provide access to whatever is needed to exercise them, if they are putting you in a position where they become relevant. It's less reasonable that they should provision any other rights you might have as well.

 

[Commodore]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/blue-live...5rqJiMGtape9Wwk3-A6FlueyxFbGcWXk2VIbDQXLM863I

Three guns, a knife and a saw aren't exactly what I would call a "major" cache of weapons. The cache my Iraqi counterparts and I found that contained 66 AK-47 rifles, 9 RPG-7s, 19 suicide vests and 12 light machine guns of various models is what I would call a major cache of weapons.

In fact, if the cache reported in this article were something one of my sources called me out for, my response would be "you brought an entire platoon of our soldiers and interrupted my day for this BS".

In the US today, you couldn't send someone to fight for the country and ask them to bring their own gun

It's mostly international law that prevents that though. International law dictates that all weapons and ammunition uniformed military members use must be issued to them by their government. This is to ensure soldiers aren't bringing crazy or highly illegal onto the battlefield. So, in theory, if the US stopped adhering to the Geneva Conventions entirely, it could ask soldiers to provide their own equipment.

I say in theory though, but it also just makes more sense to give soldiers government-issued equipment. That way you can ensure standardization which makes training programs easier to develop and makes logistics less of a nightmare, and we all know how important logistics is in the age of highly mobile, industrialized warfare.

 

[Lexicus]

Three guns, a knife and a saw aren't exactly what I would call a "major" cache of weapons. The cache my Iraqi counterparts and I found that contained 66 AK-47 rifles, 9 RPG-7s, 19 suicide vests and 12 light machine guns of various models is what I would call a major cache of weapons.

In fact, if the cache reported in this article were something one of my sources called me out for, my response would be "you brought an entire platoon of our soldiers and interrupted my day for this BS".

This may shock you but...the Iraq War isn't going on in Wisconsin

 

[Commodore]

This may shock you but...the Iraq War isn't going on in Wisconsin

I don't know man, it might be.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I don't know man, it might be.

No need to salivate, my friend

 

[Sommerswerd]

But those New England states won't let me have my full-semiautomatic assault machine gun that holds 100 clips per magazine.

Meh, Bernie's got your back in VT... and I'm sure something can be worked out in Maine. You ever been to Maine? I will guess without even looking that they are pretty lax with gun laws.

EDIT: I just checked... giffords.org, which I am assuming is related to Gabby Giffords, (the US Congresswoman whose husband is an Astronaut and who famously was a shooting victim and is now a gun-control advocate) gives both Maine and Vermont an "F" in their gun laws, along with, just to name a random few... Mississippi, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana... you get the idea. Ohio got a "D", so... welcome to New England

​

 

[EgonSpengler]

Meh, Bernie's got your back in VT... and I'm sure something can be worked out in Maine. You ever been to Maine? I will guess without even looking that they are pretty lax with gun laws.

EDIT: I just checked... giffords.org, which I am assuming is related to Gabby Giffords, (the US Congresswoman whose husband is an Astronaut and who famously was a shooting victim and is now a gun-control advocate) gives both Maine and Vermont an "F" in their gun laws, along with, just to name a random few... Mississippi, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana... you get the idea. Ohio got a "D", so... welcome to New England

​

Yeah, New Hampshire is libertarian, so I'd have been surprised if their gun laws were very strict. This map is handy in showing that there's only a loose correlation between gun laws and gun deaths. As with so many things, laws can only do so much; culture and individuals' attitudes are also key. Maybe moreso. It jumps right out at me that Maine has some of the most relaxed gun laws, according to this map and its measures, and yet is in the Top 10 for fewest gun deaths. To hazard a guess, I'd suspect that there a lot of hunters, but the macho "gun culture" like you find in the South is less of a thing. Probably not many Mainers just walk around with an iron on their hip in case of ninjas or zombies or Soviet paratroopers. Maybe a bit more like Canada, and less like Tennessee? (My understanding is that Canada is well-armed, and yet they seem to mostly shoot deer and not each other. Maybe I'm wrong about that.) In a radio program about violence by police officers, a sociologist said "Culture eats policy for breakfast." That's true for a lot of things. You could impose Massachusetts gun laws on the states that have high gun deaths, and they still might shoot the [stuffing] out of each other.

 

[Sommerswerd]

But those New England states won't let me have my full-semiautomatic assault machine gun that holds 100 clips per magazine.

Also... You mean "rifle that has a 100 round magazine"? I know you're just being silly with all those redundancies and extra-scary buzzwords, but you're technically using incorrect/inaccurate language to describe firearms so I just can't resist correcting you ... cause its you... so its funny cause I never get to do that.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Also... You mean "rifle that has a 100 round magazine"? I know you're just being silly with all those redundancies and extra-scary buzzwords, but you're technically using incorrect/inaccurate language to describe firearms so I just can't resist correcting you ... cause its you... so its funny.

I think he was making fun of us.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think he was making fun of us.

Of course, but its still funny. I got the joke immediately, but when else am I going to get a chance to correct @Commodore about guns?

 

[choxorn]

This map is handy in showing that there's only a loose correlation between gun laws and gun deaths.

A loose correlation, but still a pretty clear correlation- 9 out of 10 states in the Orange are F's, 9 out of 10 states in the Blue are C- or higher, with Illinois and Maryland the lone states better than C not in the Blue.

Another key thing affecting this is not just cultures and attitudes in that state, but also in nearby states, because state borders are fairly porous- a notable example is how most of the guns involved in shootings in Chicago weren't bought in Illinois, so despite Illinois's fairly strict gun laws they're often ineffective because it's too easy to just buy a gun in Indiana or Missouri and bring it into Illinois.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This map is handy in showing that there's only a loose correlation between gun laws and gun deaths.

Yeah I noticed that too... it suggests that having the strictest gun laws is not always necessary to have a lower gun-death rate.

It is worth noting however, that all three states with "A-" ratings were in the top ten group for lowest death-rates and that no state with a "B" or higher failed to make it into the top ten, so that strongly suggests that stricter gun laws do help with death rates.

I also have to say, as an aside... Montana and Wyoming being in the bottom ten is a little surprising, given how sparsely populated they are. You'd have to drive like 100 miles to even find anyone to kill.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Yeah I noticed that too... it suggests that having the strictest gun laws is not always necessary to have a lower gun-death rate.

It is worth noting however, that all three states with "A-" ratings were in the top ten group for lowest death-rates and that no state with a "B" or higher failed to make it into the top ten, so that strongly suggests that stricter gun laws do help with death rates.

Yes, I think so, but it's hard to make a causal claim, because it might be that the states that have stricter gun laws also tend not to have a "gun culture."* For the most part, states have the laws their people want, not the laws they need. Add to that our ability to move as we like, and people who just like guns will gravitate to the states that have more relaxed laws.

I also have to say, as an aside... Montana and Wyoming being in the bottom ten is a little surprising, given how sparsely populated they are. You'd have to drive like 100 miles to even find anyone to kill.

Yeah, unfortunately, it's because of suicide rates. iirc, Alaska, Montana and Wyoming are the top 3 states for successful suicides. Domestic-violence homicides also make up a non-insignificant proportion of gun death rates. iirc, women who live in homes with a gun are more, not less, likely to be victims of a homicide.


* It's an irony that I'm sure has been noted here before, but the NRA was founded by Northerners after the Civil War to promote gun ownership and proficiency. Southerners had no need for an organization to promote shooting and teach safety & marksmanship - they had their parents and grandparents for that.

 

[tetley]

Gun control is where my politics get a little complicated.

I support gun control in other countries. It's working. In fact, I adamantly oppose Americans travelling into those countries and trying to "bring America" into their countries. Ask any Canadian about the Calgary Stampede cop from the U.S. who wrote a letter to the editor in Canada.

But I don't think the U.S. is ready for too much gun control. The 2nd Amendment is there precisely because you can't trust the cops or the "justice" system to protect you. The whole idea about "if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is hooey. It's really, "If THEY do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about." The person you can trust to protect you is #1.

Here's where it gets complicated, and belongs to no single political party: the Left needs to arm themselves and exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Yet the stereotypical Leftie is supposed to oppose 2nd Amendment. How's that going to work? Leave all the gun-toting power to the cops who are killing you? You have to disarm both the right and the left, the good and the bad, the cops and the civilians. And if cops want to resign because they had their precious guns taken away, good riddance to them. We were defunding them, anyway.

All said, I am not left. I side with the left because the Religious Right and the Trump Party are far worse.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes, I think so, but it's hard to make a causal claim, because it might be that the states that have stricter gun laws also tend not to have a "gun culture."* For the most part, states have the laws their people want, not the laws they need. Add to that our ability to move as we like, and people who just like guns will gravitate to the states that have more relaxed laws.

Good point, makes sense.

Yeah, unfortunately, it's because of suicide rates. iirc, Alaska, Montana and Wyoming are the top 3 states for successful suicides. Domestic-violence homicides also make up a non-insignificant proportion of gun death rates. iirc, women who live in homes with a gun are more, not less, likely to be victims of a homicide.

That's sad. Maybe sparsely populated places with less stuff to do, less varied places to go, eat, be entertained, etc. and less opportunities to find work, might have more people feeling more lonley, bored, isolated, purposeless etc... I'm just speculating, but I guess it makes sense. I did know that Alaska was notorious for people being depressed/suicidal, but I always attributed it to the bizarre day/night cycle because of that Al Pacino movie "Insomnia".

 

[Commodore]

I think he was making fun of us.

I was actually making fun of both CNN and Joe Biden. Biden is on the record as saying the following "No one needs a magazine that can hold 100 clips."

 

[El_Machinae]

Technically true!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I wonder where the gun control debate is going to go after Trump wrongly proclaims himself the winner of the election and his supporters turn out in armed resistance when the official results come out different. I expect the violence in November to be absolutely spectacular, and in the aftermath of spectacular violence there is always going to be a wealth of insanity.

 

[cardgame]

Yeah I noticed that too... it suggests that having the strictest gun laws is not always necessary to have a lower gun-death rate.

It is worth noting however, that all three states with "A-" ratings were in the top ten group for lowest death-rates and that no state with a "B" or higher failed to make it into the top ten, so that strongly suggests that stricter gun laws do help with death rates.

I also have to say, as an aside... Montana and Wyoming being in the bottom ten is a little surprising, given how sparsely populated they are. You'd have to drive like 100 miles to even find anyone to kill.

Maryland. Also, several C states made it to top 10 while B- Illinois didn't. A D state got into bottom 10 even though there were still another 10-15 F states to choose from instead.

Remove suicides and let's see the chart then, because they do nothing except muddy the water. Suicide can be done with a single bullet, or without a firearm at all, so it's really a non-factor unless we're talking, specifically, about suicide. Bringing it into gun control is practically off topic.