🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Jericholyte]

I do love how people say it's simply mental health, or one item in isolation, when it's clearly a combination of factors.

Look at the fire triangle. In order for a fire to start it needs three things; fuel, oxygen and heat. Gun violence is the same, it undoubtedly has an element of mental health in it, but you also need opportunity and acces to the weapon.

Now I'm not saying violent crime will end if you take guns away, but it is clearly the most potent of the three elements. Replace the gun with a knife, yes people still die, as is evident by the attacks in London, but the numbers will drop astronomically. Remove the ability for a mentally ill person from killing tens of people in a short space of time and these events will result in fewer and fewer deaths.

I also guarantee that if some of these most recent shooters had to go face to face with their victims in order to kill them with a knife or manual object, many would think twice about it.

 

[MaceB]

Depends which way you take that data. "Gun massacres" the way the government measures it is anything over 3 people. So murder-suicides are in this, gang shootouts, the works.

And okay, so using your position - there was a spike in the overall gun violence soon after the ban was lifted in the mid-90s. Gun crime's still down overall now though from what it was then, and we don't have an AR ban anymore.

Facts are facts, but interpretation and lack of omissions of anything counter is important too. The FBI literally says gun crime overall is less now than it was in the late 80s and early 90s. The ban was in effect back then, it's not now.

It's more than the ban, it's a social thing.

Sigh... yes... gun violence is lower today... for all kinds of reasons. But to look at the statistics and to say that the Assault Rifles Ban didn't work is being disingenuous at best. Once it was enacted, mass gun killings decreased and once it was taken away gun violence increased by like 4 times. You can do all the mental gymnastics in the world to counter that fact, but it's pretty darn obvious that the ban had a positive impact.
I can use physics to show that an elephant can fly with its ears... but it's fairly obvious what the reality is. When the ban went in place, gun violence went down. Twist that however you want to red hat... doesn't change the data.

 

[Mike5575]

This wasn't a constitutional right until the 70s.

Nonsense. Everyone has the right to self defense and defense from the government.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

 

[MaceB]

If you're arguing that we need guns in case we ever need to revolt against the government, then I guess we should allow tanks and bazookas to be for sale as well.

Owning a gun for self defense is a right. It's also in the 2nd amendment that such things should be regulated though. We're arguing over the line... not whether all guns should be banned.

And again, the AR-15 is a military grade weapon designed for warfare. Civilians don't need them, and they shouldn't be allowed to own them. They serve no purpose. You can't overwhelm the government with them... they're impractical for defense and impractical for hunting. Their only value is to kill people and they don't belong on our streets.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Muskets and bluderbusses and that's it! Solved

 

[MaceB]

Well that was the framer's intent, which is usually something that conservatives really value... except for this issue.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Nonsense. Everyone has the right to self defense and defense from the government.



George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

I'm more worried about getting shot by an idiot with an AR-15 than the government.

 

[squeekness]

I'm more worried about getting shot by an idiot with an AR-15 than the government.

Indeed.

 

[Hotwire]

I was going through an old Photobucket account and came across this gem. It's close to 10 years old from a local shop near me. Now, tell me people selling guns don't exploit the fears of gun nuts?

 

[Sithborg]

Well, someone tried to swat David Hogg.

I would call that attempted murder...

 

[Aximili86]

There's nothing wrong with that advertisement, Hotwire.

And not anyone who owns a firearm is a "gun nut". Statistically most of these people want at least some action on this, background reform. Guns owners, not the wider population as a whole.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

I do remember seeing an ad for Four Loko that used the same tactic.

 

[Thundercrack85]

There's nothing wrong with that advertisement, Hotwire.

And not anyone who owns a firearm is a "gun nut". Statistically most of these people want at least some action on this, background reform. Guns owners, not the wider population as a whole.

Fearmongering isn't a good thing. No one is banning any guns and certainly not those pictured.

At this point they're just profiteering from school shootings.

 

[Aximili86]

Everyone fearmongers, on everything. They're not doing anything wrong with advertising, it's the public deciding they might want to stock up here, not the storeowners.

 

[Sithborg]

But, it is increasingly not "the public", but a small minority.

 

[DeadPresident]

Last I checked 1/3 of America owns 100% of the guns, I'm not sure only 33% of a country's population should be able to hold the other 67% to ransom over something that's having as large an impact as gun regulation is.

If it was something smaller then sure, but there are preventable deaths happening on a weekly basis.

 

[DarkKnight]

I'd like to know where some of these statistics come from. Not singling out your stats DeadPresident, but some stats in general. I say that because using yours as an example, "only 1/3 of American own firearms". How is that data collected. In many states such as my own, it is legal to buy and sell firearms from a private party (civilian to civilian) without the requirement of a background check (though most people do state they will only sell to a fellow CWP holder to know they are legally allowed to own a firearm). Also, In most states there is no gun registration, no licensing needed. So in many of these states, the traceability of fireamrs for such figures cannot be accurate as the number of firearms that are not traceable are in the millions.

Now, me being a law abiding responsible gun owner that loves and supports the 2nd amendment, there are certain gun law changes that would not bother me and I would have no problem supporting. but it does pain me to see the number of people that do support an all out gun ban. Sad to see that.

Around here, no matter if you're a boy or girl growing up, its like a right of passage and a wonderful bonding experience with your father or mothers to grow up being taught responsible gun safety, practices, sport, hunting, etc. Nothing like being handed down a beautiful rifle or shotgun that you are the 5th generation owning it.

We can go on for days about what causes these horrible acts of violence, but until someone can show hard evidence, I'll still not blame a particular firearm. Fore example, the AR-15 has been available to the civilian market for over 50 years. 1963 I believe. so for years it wasn't a problem. The firearm has barely changed over those years with the exact same semi-auto action and function unlike the military grade versions of select fire and fully auto.

 

[DarkKnight]

Also, I just want to point out since I've seen this topic brought up several time. The "assault weapons ban of 1994" never outright banned weapons like the AR-15. During this ban that went I believe from 1994 to 2004 they actually defined what an "assault" weapon was. for example for semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 was considered an "assault" weapon if it had a collapsible stock, magazine capacity above 10 rnds I believe, threaded barrels allowing the attachment of muzzle devices such as flash suppressors, sound suppressors and accessories such as those. So even in 1994-2004 a AR-15 could still be purchased, gun manufacturers simply did not put those options on them any more. In fact, many of California gun laws still go buy many of these same laws that were specified in this 1994-2004 "ban" today.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Nonsense. Everyone has the right to self defense and defense from the government.



George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Mike, bruh bruh, you think if the American military decides to enforce a presumably unlawful order to enslave/mass imprison/mass murder the American people that a bunch of people armed to the teeth with what they can buy at gun shows/stores is going to stop them?

What's your home defense AR-15 going to do against a drone strike from several miles away?

 

[Mike5575]

If you're arguing that we need guns in case we ever need to revolt against the government, then I guess we should allow tanks and bazookas to be for sale as well.

Owning a gun for self defense is a right. It's also in the 2nd amendment that such things should be regulated though. We're arguing over the line... not whether all guns should be banned.

And again, the AR-15 is a military grade weapon designed for warfare. Civilians don't need them, and they shouldn't be allowed to own them. They serve no purpose. You can't overwhelm the government with them... they're impractical for defense and impractical for hunting. Their only value is to kill people and they don't belong on our streets.

The point of the militia is to act as a deterrent against government aggression. Obviously the government could nuke half of Texas if they wanted to but what good would that do for them? How many armed Americans would have to be killed just so the government can maintain it's status quo?

The AR-15 is a small caliber semi-automatic rifle. Semi-automatic rifles have in circulation for about a hundred years. Most common weapons used bh civilians were used by the military first.

For home defense, the AR is more accurate than a handgun and has a much higher magazine capacity, and less recoil. Also, shorter barreled ARs and AR pistols are better for home defense since they allow you to maneuver around corners more efficiently.

In your "expert opinion" why does the AR-15 "serve no purpose" and why is it "impractical" for self defense?

 

[chaseter]

Mike, bruh bruh, you think if the American military decides to enforce a presumably unlawful order to enslave/mass imprison/mass murder the American people that a bunch of people armed to the teeth with what they can buy at gun shows/stores is going to stop them?

What's your home defense AR-15 going to do against a drone strike from several miles away?

You don’t own a drone that kills drones? Bruh...let me hook you up with my drone guy. Tell him Channing sent you.

 

[Thundercrack85]

This notion that the 2nd Amendment is going to stop government tyranny is a childish fantasy. More importantly, the people who support the 2nd Amendment usually support things like the Patriot Act which curtail civil liberties, so I'm rather skeptical of their ability to identify potential government overreach in the first place.

 

[ohiostate124]

This notion that the 2nd Amendment is going to stop government tyranny is a childish fantasy. More importantly, the people who support the 2nd Amendment usually support things like the Patriot Act which curtail civil liberties, so I'm rather skeptical of their ability to identify potential government overreach in the first place.

Citation needed

 

[Sithborg]

You really just needed to live through that time of "ra-ra america" to know it was true.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Citation needed

Okay.

"No sitting Republicans who were in Congress in 2001 voted against the PATRIOT Act."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/congress-government-spying-votes-charts/314519/

80% of Republicans supported extending the PATRIOT Act in 2005.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/PollVault/story?id=833703

It's only when Obama became president that support for the PATRIOT Act fell to 52% among Republicans

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capito...republicans-switch-views-on-nsa-surveillance/

They also voted for Trump.