Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[wiegeabo]

And using tasers indiscriminately when it's supposed to be an alternative to lethal force. Not a first solution. But a (next to) final option.

 

[Phallic]

I have seen this reply in many arguments from gun rights advocates and I am convinced that this is straight from the NRA talking point playbook. Just keep in mind that you were the one who brought up the fallacy that violent crime in countries that had gun bans being high and I just wanted to show you that if you compare them with the United states, the incidence of violent crimes are much lower. Who said that you couldn't compare these countries since they do share very similar cultural and societal structures. People in the UK for instance listen to rock music, post messages on Facebook, use IPhones and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken (I know because I was there). They also suffer from similar crimes. If we can't compare the two because of social factors, then maybe we should adopt theirs since they have a lower violent crime rate.

***** Way to oversimplify the issue. You can continue to assume that two countries are identical in every regard with the exception of gun laws. It's a fallacious argument and you're willfully ignorant, or intentionally trying to mislead others by making it. *****

I do believe that God is good, but I don't think we need to bring him into this discussion. I am pretty sure he does not want us using guns anyway. Now, this is just an open discussion and i don't think you should take it so seriously as to want to bang your head against a brick wall. If you are suicidal, then seek some help immediately or refrain from posting in these types of forums.

***** I'm not religious at all. I do know, however, that the Bible supported the use of weapons in self defense. So, if I were a religious man, my support of gun rights would in no way be against that. *****

Although they make up a tiny portion of violent crimes, assault weapons are the firearm of choice for mass shooters. Semi-automatic hand guns and assault weapons have been used in close to 73% of the mass shootings since 1982. You can continue to bang your head against the wall while we do something about that problem.

***** Two points here. Your graphic flat out disproves your idea that so called "assault weapons" are used in tons of mass shootings. Revolvers and Shotguns are used more than "assault weapons." In addition, mass shootings are akin to freak incidents. They're absolutely tragic when they happen, but to essentially take a proverbial dump on the 2nd amendment over such freak incidents while ignoring the broader issue is absolutely the wrong way to approach the situation. *****

...

No, that is utterly false. Do you realize that the residents of the southern states were granted amnesty after the civil war lest they be charged with treason for taking up arms against the federal government and that General Lee died without a country since he was never pardoned until the 1970's? the truth of the matter is that the only thing outside of a few vague quotes about taking arms, that the founders mentioned about gun freedoms was in Federalist Paper #29 where it said the following:

The only reason why they recognized the right to bear arms was in conjunction with a well regulated militia that would be needed to defend the country. If the people use their arms to overthrow the government, they would be guilty of treason as prescribed in Article 3 of the Constitution. If you think it meant anything else you are definitely misguided.

***** These quotes indicate otherwise:

A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]
B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]
C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]
*****

So you are trying to rewrite history now? Back in the 1980's the Glock company made a plastic gun (the Glock 23). This is why a law was made to ban all plastic guns.

***** I own 2 Glocks, one of which being a Glock 23. Trust me, it's mostly metal. Glocks were never all plastic, no idea where you got that from. I would love to see you try to source this claim, because it is absolutely false. *****

Oh the features are understood to make these weapons lethal when used in concert and to also turn them into virtual machine guns. I have already shown video that proves that. You are just in denial that that is the case.

***** I'm just in denial? I have first hand experience with these things. You have videos that hardly support your claims, if at all. I'll go with my experience on this, thank you very much. If you have limited to no experience with firearms, you really are in no place to tell people what they can and can't use. I and others have refuted your outrageous claims on "deadly assault weapon features." There is really nothing more to be said here *****

http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/top-...albany-possessing-illegal-firearms-5502.shtml

***** Where in the article does it say that a registry prevented the crime? *****

There is just as much data out there saying the contrary. Let's wait and see.

***** There really isn't. Major government agencies have already concluded that the last AWB didn't work. I don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp. *****

The credible polls, coming from sources like Gallup, CNN, Rasmussen, et. al. usually have a 95% confidence level. I am pretty sure that most Americans want this and only the gun lobby that don't.

***** There are plenty of historical instances where major polling companies were way off. In addition, given the level of ignorance I've seen from people in general with regards to guns, most of which not being their fault due to the media misinformation that has been going on, it's no surprise that people have been railroaded into believing gun control actually works. *****

...

 

[mrvlknight21]

The militarization of police is a serious problem. It's rather hypocritical to say police should have "assault weapons", but not law abiding citizens. Either they both have 'em, or only the military has military-style weaponry.

I know police. I've seen their training. I've also seen their work. Tasering people to death. "Accidentally" shooting people. I am not impressed.

You have seen the worst scenarios, which just happen to get all the attention from the media and so forth. For every one of those awful screw ups there are literally THOUSANDS of arrests, high risk warrants, and daily interactions gone bad that are handled safely and properly.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You have seen the worst scenarios, which just happen to get all the attention from the media and so forth. For every one of those awful screw ups there are literally THOUSANDS of arrests, high risk warrants, and daily interactions gone bad that are handled safely and properly.

And most Americans who own "assault weapons" legally never misuse them.

Either police and lawful civilians should be allowed to carry military-style weapons, or neither.

 

[wiegeabo]

someone find this statistic for me because I'm too lazy right now.

On average, what percentage of gun deaths in the US were from a mass shooting in the last 10 years.

Bonus points if you can find the percentage that were from legally owned weapons (one year will be fine for that one).

 

[mrvlknight21]

And using tasers indiscriminately when it's supposed to be an alternative to lethal force. Not a first solution. But a (next to) final option.

Here is the way the national use of force continuum breaks down from highest level to lowest (according to the training that I had).

Lethal force=firearm
Less lethal force=ASP baton, Pepper spray, Taser
Empty hand= open hand techniques (grabbing someone to move them)or closed fist techniques (strikes)
Verbal-issuing commands
Presence

As you can see Taser is on the same level as the ASP baton and Pepper spray and here is the issue with that.

Using an ASP baton properly can pretty much guarantee some serious injuries like broken bones and deep bruises at a minimum. So, there is always the question of how hard to swing the baton, hitting the person in the right spot and hoping that it disables their resistance or whatever, so that you dont end up with a lawsuit for excessive force, even if it was warrranted. A cop friend of mine told me about how he swung the ASP as hard as he could multiple times on a suspect during a fight and the guy just laughed at him. This cop is 6' 5" and about 240 and was a big time high school athlete. Im sure he wasnt too mild with it.

Using Pepper spray is also questionable, because it affects everyone differently. Some people have no reaction at all. Plus theres issues with blowback, cross contamination and so on. So using that can be risky in several ways.

Now, on to the Taser. I have yet to see the Taser fail to bring down a subject, and not only that, it usually takes the fight right out of them. So, in that regard it is a lot safer for the officer and suspect than the listed equivalent level options. I am not claiming that it is perfect, just trying to explain why it is used more often than most people agree with in certain situations.

We (my dept) were also trained that any physical resistance could warrant the use of a Taser. So, according to my particular department's use of force policy, we could use a Taser when any physical resistance occurred, such as a person just resisting arrest by pulling away or not letting you cuff them (putting it more on the level of open hand techniques).

Again, all of this information is just an FYI only, as I have been trained on Taser use and accepted situations to use it.

 

[wiegeabo]

That's good information to have

 

[Hotwire]

Either police and lawful civilians should be allowed to carry military-style weapons, or neither.

If your average everyday citizen faced the dangers in one month what a cop faces in a day, I'd agree with you.

 

[Phallic]

If your average everyday citizen faced the dangers in one month what a cop faces in a day, I'd agree with you.

There are countless examples of people being faced with multiple attackers, requiring more than 10 rounds to defend themselves. Given it can easily take 5 rounds to stop a threat, it should be pretty easy to speculate what would happen to someone with a 10 round magazine vs 3+ attackers.

 

[Grievous]

I wasn't fond of Obama sort of saying violent video games are connected to this aggressive behavior from people. There are thousands upon thousands of gamers including myself who are what I'm sure most would consider peaceful people. I don't see how people can look at games in a bad way but not movies.

 

[darkscarecrow]

I wasn't fond of Obama sort of saying violent video games are connected to this aggressive behavior from people. There are thousands upon thousands of gamers including myself who are what I'm sure most would consider peaceful people. I don't see how people can look at games in a bad way but not movies.

That whole attitude has been around for years. I remember in the 80's Al Gore's wife Tipper and the whole fight against music. It was called the PMRC! Now it's Video Games and movies. They are fools!

 

[darkscarecrow]

I am totally in favor of the second amendment: The Right to bear arms. Think about it. The Liberal media is in bed with the Democratic party and they tow the line 100%. If you ban guns then all you are helping are the criminals. Illegal guns will always be accessible to criminals! From stolen ones to ones that come across the border illegally. Individual homeowners, private law abiding citizens and the like will be the only ones hurt. We can't help it if some wacko decides to go into a school and shoot it up. If he hasn't got access to a gun then he will find a way. Just like McVeigh did in Oklahoma City. It could be a bomb or an axe or anything. Are we going to ban axes if they start using those. I don't think so. The Liberals have always had it in for the N.R.A. and the second amendment. I have a better idea. Lets just ban everything that can be used as a deadly weapon. That's possibly where this country is headed in this situation.

 

[Grievous]

I wish enough people would call out the media and tell them to knock off all this liberal buddy stuff, funny how so many Americans just straight up don't care about how a media group operates when they claim to be fair and balanced.

 

[wiegeabo]

The fair and balanced guys are owned by the conservative media. Who are just as bad as those owned by the liberal media.

 

[Grievous]

The fair and balanced guys are owned by the conservative media. Who are just as bad as those owned by the liberal media.

Fox News is right friendly I won't deny that, my point is people really don't seem to care if they're source of news is biased.

 

[Hotwire]

There are countless examples of people being faced with multiple attackers, requiring more than 10 rounds to defend themselves. Given it can easily take 5 rounds to stop a threat, it should be pretty easy to speculate what would happen to someone with a 10 round magazine vs 3+ attackers.

If you're going to be using a gun to defend yourself, you really need to train yourself to use it properly. There's really no reason, except for panic, that you can't stop an attacker with one or two rounds. Maybe you need a larger caliber weapon, better marksmanship, even combat training. As Marvolo said, a shotgun with some nice buckshot will get the job done with minimal rounds.

 

[darkscarecrow]

The fair and balanced guys are owned by the conservative media. Who are just as bad as those owned by the liberal media.

The difference is this. The Liberal media and the politicians they support don't like competition. They feel that they are entitled to control what we read, watch and listen to. I think that has been proven by "The Fairness Doctrine". That was led by a group of Liberal's in congress years ago to shut down conservative media outlets like talk radio. If that had passed then they would have moved on to Foxnews and anybody who disagreed with them. Sounds kind of like Nazi Germany and people being told what to listen to and what to read. If the media was truly fair and balanced then Liberal policies would hardly stand a chance in the publics eye. Most Americans identify themselves as conservative anyhow. More conservative than Liberals anyhow! The downfall of America is eminent folks.

 

[Super Kal]

i am in full support of the Second Amendment. right now i have a pardner pump shotgun, and recently bought a Mossberg 715T. it's just a real pain in the butt to find ammunition (which i did find today, and in great quantity), and magazines...

this is how it all starts, though... Hitler did the same thing Obama did, using children to support his own agenda of taking away the civilian's right to defend themselves. as a Christian, i have no wish or intention to murder someone, but i do have the right to defend myself, my wife, and my property. also with the help of castle Doctrine, and SB 378, it's going to be difficult for federal officials to come and take away the guns of Texas citizens...

and, personally, i hope this is something that goes through all states...
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507

 

[Paradoxium]

No, I actually brought this up weeks ago when this happened. I think that is just 1 of the steps that needs to be taken, and taken immediately. Put it in as a part of the building of all new schools from this point, maybe Congress can NOT TAKE THAT RAISE THAT THEY may be receiving and use that money to begin replacing outside doors and windows with stronger glass, as strong as the White House has in all schools now open. Just one step, but IMO, definitely one that could slow down a gunman.

I am absolutely dumbfounded no one is taking this approach at least. Hell I am further dumbfounded why the Republicans don't grief the Democrats by saying "let's take your raise and put it into better door frames and windows". I have a hard time seeing the public going against it.

 

[Victarion]

Lanza breaks into a locked school through a ****** window right next to it. From then on kicking cheap doors open to kill little kids. Am I the only one who thinks a better window and some better doors could have prevented a lot of deaths, and maybe other ones in the future??? Government buildings have it, why the hell doesn't more school follow suit? Hell maybe campaign a message to do this. No need to create a law.

Or am I a window and door extremist???!!!

I also mentioned this shortly after the shooting. If we can give Congress 6000 worth of raises, we can certainly follow Kelly's/Paradoxium's suggestion. Even if we have to take away those raises. I'm certain the congress-folk would find a way to cope.

 

[Spider-Who?]

If you're going to be using a gun to defend yourself, you really need to train yourself to use it properly. There's really no reason, except for panic, that you can't stop an attacker with one or two rounds. Maybe you need a larger caliber weapon, better marksmanship, even combat training. As Marvolo said, a shotgun with some nice buckshot will get the job done with minimal rounds.

It's a nice thought, but in reality it really isn't the case. Fear of death or severe injury does a lot of crazy stuff to the mind and body, and years of training can fly out the window. Just look at 9/10s of shoot outs cops are in. Secondly, a lot of drugs will keep a target moving despite being hit several times. My uncle was a cop in DC and saw this countless times. This of course is no excuse not to train, but not every situation is going to have an intruder standing still with a perfectly calm expert home owner. And not everyone can handle a shotgun. I'd much rather a person use whatever firearm they're most comfortable with than risk unintentional injury with a weapon they can't properly handle.

 

[roach]

i am in full support of the Second Amendment. right now i have a pardner pump shotgun, and recently bought a Mossberg 715T. it's just a real pain in the butt to find ammunition (which i did find today, and in great quantity), and magazines...

this is how it all starts, though... Hitler did the same thing Obama did, using children to support his own agenda of taking away the civilian's right to defend themselves. as a Christian, i have no wish or intention to murder someone, but i do have the right to defend myself, my wife, and my property. also with the help of castle Doctrine, and SB 378, it's going to be difficult for federal officials to come and take away the guns of Texas citizens...

and, personally, i hope this is something that goes through all states...
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507

wow there is a lot of paranoia in this post.
1) Can we please stop with the Hitler comparisons?
2) No one is coming to take your guns.

 

[Victarion]

wow there is a lot of paranoia in this post.
1) Can we please stop with the Hitler comparisons?
2) No one is coming to take your guns.

I can't speak for Kal, but I think his concern is less "muh guns" and more politicians overstepping their bounds. At the end of the day, for their lavish paychecks and manchild games, they are public servants. It something they seem keen to forget and need to be reminded of.

 

[wiegeabo]

The difference is this. The Liberal media and the politicians they support don't like competition. They feel that they are entitled to control what we read, watch and listen to. I think that has been proven by "The Fairness Doctrine". That was led by a group of Liberal's in congress years ago to shut down conservative media outlets like talk radio. If that had passed then they would have moved on to Foxnews and anybody who disagreed with them. Sounds kind of like Nazi Germany and people being told what to listen to and what to read. If the media was truly fair and balanced then Liberal policies would hardly stand a chance in the publics eye. Most Americans identify themselves as conservative anyhow. More conservative than Liberals anyhow! The downfall of America is eminent folks.

I'd say most Americans identify themselves as Centrists, except on the occasional issue. Or they really are, but don't think of themselves that way. They're more conservatives than liberals, and more liberal than conservatives.

But the Far Left and Far Right have the loudest voices and most money, so that's all we see and hear. And then we assume everyone else has to be as far left and right as they are because we never hear otherwise.

And fair and balanced is a ******** concept anyway. The news media's job is to report the facts, no matter who it hurts or helps. Sadly, no big media outlet does this because they're too scared to anger the advertisers and politicians that keep them propped up.

 

[Spider-Who?]

wow there is a lot of paranoia in this post.
1) Can we please stop with the Hitler comparisons?
2) No one is coming to take your guns.

Not really true. The vast majority of the politicians fighting for gun control want ALL guns gone. Hell, the governor of New York tried to outright ban guns from his state the other week. He had to settle for extreme restrictions. Most see stricter gun control as a stepping stone to confiscation, and that is what upsets gun owners. It's not conspiracy or paranoia. It's fact. And its good to be aware in order to fight it in the future.

On another note, a friend posted this on facebook. I think people, especially those who don't know much about whats going on, should give it a look:

http://www.assaultweapon.info/