The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Birdjaguar]

On paper maybe. Not so much in practice.

How so?

 

[Bugfatty300]

How so?

Spree killers don't tend to be confronted regardless. I've never seen a pattern that correlated to magazine size. People are terrified and just trying to hide or escape, the killer being free to come and go even after running out of ammo. Invariably they run amok at will until they kill themselves or police kill them. And people underestimate how quick a reload can be with a little practice. It's pretty negligible.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't know; it seems to me he is saying that the right to self defense tops guns and that guns are just our current way of providing for it.

Right. In his view they cannot be constrained because they are vital to self defense. The obvious flaws in that position are lost on him, either intentionally or otherwise, so he is going to continue down the "guns shall never be denied" path.

 

[Commodore]

Since [you say] guns are not essential to self defense, with a suitable alternative, you would agree to ban them all together?

Depends on what you mean by suitable alternative. I would define it as whatever the most commonly used man-portable infantry weapon of the time is. Right now, it's firearms, typically pistols and rifles. If you agree to that definition, then sure, I could agree to limiting access to certain types of firearms if those firearms were no longer the standard weapons used by police and military forces.

I won't support an outright ban of all firearms though, because again, individuals should be able to choose how best to exercise their right to self-defense, as long as they don't violate the rights of others (no preemptive strikes on your neighbor because their poodle keeps crapping in your grass).

That isn't what he said, as I read it. He seems to be saying that guns ARE essential to self defense.

Not guns, but rather parity with the average infantryman or police officer. Not necessarily to fight against them, but because what they have should serve as the example for what can be considered reasonable for self-defense. And before someone says it, no that does not include tanks, fighter, etc. That's why I used the term infantryman instead of soldier.

So if the armies of the world went back to swords and spears, that's what would be considered the standard for civilian self-defense as well.

 

[Akka]

It's not the right to a firearm, it's the inherent right to self-defense that all humans should have.

The right of self-defense doesn't imply the right to access to weapon. It's a right about the legitimacy of action, not about making everyone a potential danger.

In order to preserve that right, the people must have access to the absolute best tools available.

So nuclear weapons and tanks ? No ? These are the best tools, though. Do you support private ownership of armed tanks ?

Not guns, but rather parity with the average infantryman or police officer. Not necessarily to fight against them, but because what they have should serve as the example for what can be considered reasonable for self-defense. And before someone says it, no that does not include tanks, fighter, etc. That's why I used the term infantryman instead of soldier.

That seems pretty arbitrary. Why take the regular infantryman and not soldier ?

Without that access, you really don't have the ability to exercise that right, and if you don't have the means to exercise a right, then you don't really have that right.
The government should not be dictating how one gets to exercise their rights beyond stopping you from violating the rights of others.

Not owning a firearms doesn't prevent you to defend yourself, your argument doesn't make sense. Also, self-defense isn't a right you "chose how to exercise". You don't preemptively chose you'll self-defend and how you'll do it, it's an action you do when an attack comes.

You seem to mix up several things here - right to self-defense with means available, self-defense with defense against oppression (which are functionally different) and so on.

 

[Commodore]

Why take the regular infantryman and not soldier?

Because an infantryman is a specific type of soldier that is equipped with practical means for self-defense. Using the generic term of soldier would include everyone from the infantryman to the Patriot Missile Operator.

The right of self-defense doesn't imply the right to access to weapon.

Sure it does. Having the right to self-defense means you must have the ability to defend against a variety of attacks. And history has shown that the best means of defending yourself from an attack is to equip yourself similarly to your attacker. When the state "attacks" you with a prosecutor, you get a defense attorney to exercise your right to self-defense. So it only makes sense that if someone attacks you with a gun, you should have the opportunity to equip yourself with a gun to defend yourself.

 

[Zardnaar]

Because an infantryman is a specific type of soldier that is equipped with practical means for self-defense. Using the generic term of soldier would include everyone from the infantryman to the Patriot Missile Operator.



Sure it does. Having the right to self-defense means you must have the ability to defend against a variety of attacks. And history has shown that the best means of defending yourself from an attack is to equip yourself similarly to your attacker. When the state "attacks" you with a prosecutor, you get a defense attorney to exercise your right to self-defense. So it only makes sense that if someone attacks you with a gun, you should have the opportunity to equip yourself with a gun to defend yourself.

Theory doesn't match reality. If the attacker couldn't get the gun in the first place......

 

[Akka]

Because an infantryman is a specific type of soldier that is equipped with practical means for self-defense. Using the generic term of soldier would include everyone from the infantryman to the Patriot Missile Operator.

You didn't answer the question : your own premises are that :
- Self-defense requires access to the best tools available.
- Self-defense includes the ability to defend against the state.
The state has tanks and nuclear weapons. From where comes your arbitrary limit to "infantryman" then ?

Sure it does. Having the right to self-defense means you must have the ability to defend against a variety of attacks.

No. Again :
The right of self-defense doesn't imply the right to access to weapon. It's a right about the legitimacy of action, not about making everyone a potential danger.
Right is not ability. The right of self-defense is not about the ability to defend oneself, but about the legitimacy. The ability is the domain of equality, not right.

And history has shown that the best means of defending yourself from an attack is to equip yourself similarly to your attacker. When the state "attacks" you with a prosecutor, you get a defense attorney to exercise your right to self-defense. So it only makes sense that if someone attacks you with a gun, you should have the opportunity to equip yourself with a gun to defend yourself.

Then you can reach the same objective by banning all firearms instead.

 

[Moriarte]

Interesting. In the city where I live (in Europe) guns are allowed considering proper paperwork, annual shooting practice, mental evaluation, etc. Scarcely anyone carries them or keeps them, it just isn't in our culture. Most people would likely brand you some flavor of crazy if you aren't professional bodyguard/policeman/similar and still carry a piece around.

So, my question to the Americans: what would make guns go out of fashion in your territories? They are fun toys, and I liked visiting shooting range when I was young, but it's freakin crazy having them everywhere, and most importantly people get shot by them in such huge numbers and so often.

 

[Commodore]

The state has tanks and nuclear weapons. From where comes your arbitrary limit to "infantryman" then ?

"Best tools" does not always mean the most powerful. I think you would be hard-pressed to find practical ways of defending yourself or your property from an armed intruder with a tank or nuclear warhead.

Even the military realizes this which is why we don't open up the start of every conflict with a nuclear bombardment.

They are fun toys,

Let me stop you right there. Guns aren't toys, they are a responsibility. As much as I encourage gun ownership, I'm also the guy who will slap someone upside the head if I see them being reckless or irresponsible with a gun.

 

[Moriarte]

Yeah, see, someone like you can walk up to a man carrying a gun, slap him upside the head, take his gun and shoot few people. In your opinion, is anyone reckless or irresponsible in this particular hypothetical situation?

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, see, someone like you can walk up to a man carrying a gun, slap him upside the head, take his gun and shoot few people. In your opinion, is anyone reckless or irresponsible in this particular hypothetical situation?

A bit out of context.

Guns are fun, I don't own one personally I would only want to use one at a gun range.

Gun safety is basic things. Don't point them at people, empty the chamber, identify the target is don't fire them into the bush.

You also have to store them under lock and key, can't put them in the back of your closet any more. We borrowed some shot gun shells back when we were young and stupid.

His key point us don't be an idiot or moron with them.

They banned the AR 15 here, there's still some amnesty time left in the buyback.

 

[Moriarte]

His key point us don't be an idiot or moron with them.

My key point: however smart you think you are in your “precautions”, having and carrying a gun is huge danger to you and people around you. That’s why it’s better left to competent organizations - the army, police.

 

[Zardnaar]

My key point: however smart you think you are in your “precautions”, having and carrying a gun is huge danger to you and people around you. That’s why it’s better left to competent organizations - the army, police.

Guns aren't the problem, the American gun culture is.

You don't really need pistols at all, and much beyond a 5 or 10 round magazine.

They'll never ban guns here, would not be surprised if we end up with single shot rifles or modern blackpowder weapons. That's all you really need for hunting and farming.

Shotguns as well.

You'll never have 0 gun crime. Even if they banned them in America it'll take 20 or 30 years to really do much. If you have to pay $15000 to get one.....

Would probably just be easier to tax them. Tax them to use problem ammo roof. through theAR 15 for hunting sure $20 or $100 a shot.

That's a direct tax on the manufacturer to produce the ammo. Import tax.

Eventually existing ammo stocks will run low.

With all the guns out there already untraceable target the ammo.

How much is a full auto in the USA these days.

 

[Commodore]

With all the guns out there already untraceable target the ammo.

Targeting ammo isn't going to get you much. Ammo is too easy to manufacture on your own. Banning or taxing ammo is only going to stop people from buying it, but won't do anything to cut down on the actual supply.

And remember, the paranoia of the 2nd Amendment community has been planning for such actions for decades, so most of us already have the necessary tools and skills to start manufacturing our own ammo.

Although I would still encourage you to go forward with your plan to attack ammo. Black market ammo sales could be a nice little side hustle for me.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm also the guy who will slap someone upside the head if I see them being reckless or irresponsible with a gun.

If you try to slap me for being "irresponsible" with my vital self-defense tool I'll just shoot you, nice try tho.

 

[Akka]

"Best tools" does not always mean the most powerful. I think you would be hard-pressed to find practical ways of defending yourself or your property from an armed intruder with a tank or nuclear warhead.

Even the military realizes this which is why we don't open up the start of every conflict with a nuclear bombardment.

You avoided my point. Your argument is that self-defense is a right (I agree on this) and that to be valid you need to have the equivalent weapon as the would-be aggressor.
If the aggressor is another individual, then the equivalent weapon could be nothing/knife by banning all guns.
If the state is the aggressor, then equivalent weapon would be military ones, up to tanks and so on.
I can't see where your own argument can manage to be consistent while banning heavy weapons. Either you're accepting that guns aren't to defend against the state (and so they can be forbidden entirely) or you're accepting that there doesn't need to be an equivalent in means (or you should accept tanks and the like).

 

[EgonSpengler]

My key point: however smart you think you are in your “precautions”, having and carrying a gun is huge danger to you and people around you. That’s why it’s better left to competent organizations - the army, police.

And those organizations either (a) don't let their own people carry a gun around merely because they want one, or (b) are a nice illustration of the myriad ways people cannot be trusted with firearms. As I understand it, the US military doesn't let its soldiers and sailors go around armed unless they have a reason to be, e.g. they're in a combat zone or serving as an MP/SP or base security.

As for police, we expect them to have a high level of training, discipline, and accountability in how they handle their guns, and still it's a huge mess. Police, both in their successes and their misadventures, are a wonderful example of the limits and dangers of deploying lethal force in a civilized society. Police represent the bulk of the militia, as envisioned by the Founders and referenced in the 2nd Amendment, and we see almost every day that they're simultaneously overburdened and unaccountable to the citizenry. (Look at this douchebag in New York: He literally killed someone using a technique he was specifically barred from using, and not only was he was merely fired for it, he's actually suing to get his job back. I can't even describe how arrogant and contemptuous of us this guy is. He actually thinks he should be allowed to continue policing New York City, with a gun and everything, after killing someone. The hubris and entitlement are staggering.)

 

[El_Machinae]

This is a false dichotomy. There is a multitude of factors that determine casualty rates in incidents like these, and magazine capacity isn't a very big one.

You're right, bad phrasing. I meant to say it is the occasional doubling. There will be specific incidents where magazine capacity is a factor. And of those incidents, some of them will be obvious.

We talk about magazine capacity and bump stocks when a specific incident looks like it was aggravated by one of those.

When discussing with 2nd Amendment advocates, they note that they believe that Mental Health issues tend to be what causes specific incidents to be worse. If that were true, you would expect people who believe in the NRA to also be donating to mental health research.

 

[El_Machinae]

I was never mugged while operating a nuclear submarine.

True. But I've got history on my side. During the American Revolution, the musket was considered a viable tool in toppling an oppressive regime. In the modern day, bomb vests are decidedly a tool shown by the free market of Insurgency to be the tool that insurgents want to use.

So, it's both sides of the modern Second Amendment. Protection against being mugged. Practical tool for dissuading a government from getting too radical.

Honestly, I know it's ridiculous. I just don't know where my logic breaks down. Especially considering deterrence is considered a success when it comes to applying violence defensively