NationStates

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:48 pm**

Aav Verinhall wrote:
Hammer Britannia wrote:If you do not know who Ian McCollum is, you have no legal right to talk about guns

Period.

Actually, I think I do. I'm for gun control, and I don't watch random people on youtube talk about guns. I'm not that kind of person.

Would be a lot cooler if you were.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:51 pm**

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
The Two Jerseys wrote:You totally just went and Googled that and didn't have it bookmarked for years.

Nope, never heard of that book before in your life till I posted that link.

Nosireebob.

I have a physical copy too

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:18 pm**

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
The South Falls wrote:A group of armed civilians, regulated by the gov't.

You'd be wrong, the phrase in the 1790's had nothing to do with government regulation. Well regulated in ye olde English means in working order, in this case referring to people being armed and having their own ammo and such things.

And having guns that work instead of blowing up in their face.

Sure that was a problem with a few early firearms.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:23 pm**

The Lone Alliance wrote:
Washington Resistance Army wrote:
You'd be wrong, the phrase in the 1790's had nothing to do with government regulation. Well regulated in ye olde English means in working order, in this case referring to people being armed and having their own ammo and such things.

And having guns that work instead of blowing up in their face.

Sure that was a problem with a few early firearms.

Kinda fix'd that after 1905. Something about eyeballing the heat-treatment process without indoor-lighting.

Modern laser-thermometers and thermocouples have just about gotten that art down to an exact science.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:46 pm**

East Ustya wrote:
Novum Texas wrote:If a couple of farmers with muskets can stop the british Empire in 1776, We can stop a America with AR-15s

Not the same, not even a bit.
With a musket you could kill any soldier back than, but an AR-15 is no match against Tanks and Gunships.

Infantry is still a thing, and IEDs and other anti-vehicle weapons exist an can be honemade.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:46 pm**

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:
The Lone Alliance wrote:And having guns that work instead of blowing up in their face.

Sure that was a problem with a few early firearms.

Kinda fix'd that after 1905. Something about eyeballing the heat-treatment process without indoor-lighting.

Modern laser-thermometers and thermocouples have just about gotten that art down to an exact science.

Exactly but in the early years that was a problem.

It would have been catastrophic to call out the Militia only to have every musket misfire at the same time, therefore the guns had to be well regulated.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:49 pm**

The South Falls wrote:I think people should be able to own muskets, at any time they want. Assault rifles should be banned, but since muskets are single shot, then people can carry those at any capacity and time they want. Same with Flintlock Pistols.

How about a no?

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:51 pm**

The South Falls wrote:
Washington Resistance Army wrote:
What do you think that means, exactly?

Well, since we should have a 'well-regulated militia', and ARs are originally army weapons, then we should have ARs to form a 1783-style militia.

This message has been supported and paid for by the National Rifle Association

Most firearms require military in origin. Papa’s deer rifle? Based off of late 19th century military boltactions. Lever actions? The Assualt rifles of the American Civil war. Pump action shotguns? The Germans wanted them to be banned from warfare as WMDs due to the damage they cause in close quarters.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:53 pm**

Sovaal wrote:
The South Falls wrote:I think people should be able to own muskets, at any time they want. Assault rifles should be banned, but since muskets are single shot, then people can carry those at any capacity and time they want. Same with Flintlock Pistols.

How about a no?

Like I said before, I'll agree only if the right to vote is limited to a select group of people (of which I am a part, naturally) and we can own black people as slaves.

Why won't these gun-grabbers compromise?

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:00 pm**

Sovaal wrote:
The South Falls wrote:Well, since we should have a 'well-regulated militia', and ARs are originally army weapons, then we should have ARs to form a 1783-style militia.

This message has been supported and paid for by the National Rifle Association

Most firearms require military in origin. Papa’s deer rifle? Based off of late 19th century military boltactions. Lever actions? The Assualt rifles of the American Civil war. Pump action shotguns? The Germans wanted them to be banned from warfare as WMDs due to the damage they cause in close quarters.

The whole "weapons of war" that has been used alot as of late by brain dead anti gunners, is stupid, purely emotionally driven and shows their ignorance and the response should be met with a "so fucking what!" The nuts and bolts of it all, the 2nd Amendment covers so called "weapons of war" or as we POTG call them, firearms.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:59 pm**

Grinning Dragon wrote:
Sovaal wrote:Most firearms require military in origin. Papa’s deer rifle? Based off of late 19th century military boltactions. Lever actions? The Assualt rifles of the American Civil war. Pump action shotguns? The Germans wanted them to be banned from warfare as WMDs due to the damage they cause in close quarters.

The whole "weapons of war" that has been used alot as of late by brain dead anti gunners, is stupid, purely emotionally driven and shows their ignorance and the response should be met with a "so fucking what!" The nuts and bolts of it all, the 2nd Amendment covers so called "weapons of war" or as we POTG call them, firearms.

Pretty much. It doesn't help that The Washington Post et al use the term in a sensationalized manner: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... a525517792

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:48 pm**

The New California Republic wrote:
Grinning Dragon wrote:The whole "weapons of war" that has been used alot as of late by brain dead anti gunners, is stupid, purely emotionally driven and shows their ignorance and the response should be met with a "so fucking what!" The nuts and bolts of it all, the 2nd Amendment covers so called "weapons of war" or as we POTG call them, firearms.

Pretty much. It doesn't help that The Washington Post et al use the term in a sensationalized manner: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... a525517792

Usually I tend to find that The Washington Post is a pretty good place for news and is usually rational and logical; until they begin talking about guns, then it's like all logic and rationality and trying to be unbiased just goes out the window.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:46 pm**

Valgora wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Pretty much. It doesn't help that The Washington Post et al use the term in a sensationalized manner: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... a525517792

Usually I tend to find that The Washington Post is a pretty good place for news and is usually rational and logical; until they begin talking about guns, then it's like all logic and rationality and trying to be unbiased just goes out the window.

To be fair. Yes. But I'd still read the WP over, say, Breitbart, because over at Breitbart, logic goes out the window while talking about guns too, but at least the WP has logic 99% of the time. But, I would support a ban on assault wweapons even if the WP said no.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:47 pm**

Aav Verinhall wrote:
Valgora wrote:
Usually I tend to find that The Washington Post is a pretty good place for news and is usually rational and logical; until they begin talking about guns, then it's like all logic and rationality and trying to be unbiased just goes out the window.

To be fair. Yes. But I'd still read the WP over, say, Breitbart, because over at Breitbart, logic goes out the window while talking about guns too, but at least the WP has logic 99% of the time. But, I would support a ban on assault wweapons even if the WP said no.

1. I'll agree with you on the statement about WP and Breitbart
2. I disagree with the ban on assault weapons

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:51 pm**

An "assault weapons" ban is beyond meaningless and all the evidence supports that.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:54 pm**

Valgora wrote:
Aav Verinhall wrote:
To be fair. Yes. But I'd still read the WP over, say, Breitbart, because over at Breitbart, logic goes out the window while talking about guns too, but at least the WP has logic 99% of the time. But, I would support a ban on assault wweapons even if the WP said no.

1. I'll agree with you on the statement about WP and Breitbart
2. I disagree with the ban on assault weapons

Call me a crazy liberal if you want, but I support assault weapons bans. I personally think that there would be fewer mass shootings if you couldn't buy an AR-15.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:56 pm**

Aav Verinhall wrote:
Valgora wrote:1. I'll agree with you on the statement about WP and Breitbart
2. I disagree with the ban on assault weapons

Call me a crazy liberal if you want, but I support assault weapons bans. I personally think that there would be fewer mass shootings if you couldn't buy an AR-15.

AR bans are honestly just bandaids. What needs to be regulated is the purchasing process, not what kinds of guns people can buy.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:59 pm**

Mujahidah wrote:
Aav Verinhall wrote:Call me a crazy liberal if you want, but I support assault weapons bans. I personally think that there would be fewer mass shootings if you couldn't buy an AR-15.

AR bans are honestly just bandaids. What needs to be regulated is the purchasing process, not what kinds of guns people can buy.

That too. But I don't think an AR ban would be insignificant in helping, either.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:01 pm**

Aav Verinhall wrote:
Mujahidah wrote:
AR bans are honestly just bandaids. What needs to be regulated is the purchasing process, not what kinds of guns people can buy.

That too. But I don't think an AR ban would be insignificant in helping, either.

Why ban something when you could deal with the cause of the problem?
Someone can easily kill without needing an AR-15 or any other "assault weapon".

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:03 pm**

Valgora wrote:
Aav Verinhall wrote:That too. But I don't think an AR ban would be insignificant in helping, either.

Why ban something when you could deal with the cause of the problem?
Someone can easily kill without needing an AR-15 or any other "assault weapon".

Elaborate. If you mean death penalty, that's an entirely seperate can of worms. And I won't even think of going there.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:04 pm**

Aav Verinhall wrote:
Valgora wrote:
Why ban something when you could deal with the cause of the problem?
Someone can easily kill without needing an AR-15 or any other "assault weapon".

Elaborate. If you mean death penalty, that's an entirely seperate can of worms. And I won't even think of going there.

How could I have been talking about death penalty?

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:12 pm**

Valgora wrote:
Aav Verinhall wrote:
Elaborate. If you mean death penalty, that's an entirely seperate can of worms. And I won't even think of going there.

How could I have been talking about death penalty?

"Why ban something when you could deal with the cause of the problem?" I assumed you meant death penalty. My bad. So you mean crisis intervention, mental health training, etc?

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:16 pm**

Aav Verinhall wrote:
Valgora wrote:How could I have been talking about death penalty?

"Why ban something when you could deal with the cause of the problem?" I assumed you meant death penalty. My bad. So you mean crisis intervention, mental health training, etc?

Yes, stuff like that.
Dealing with the cause of violent crime.
Improving the state of mental healthcare in the US would be a step in the right direction.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:17 pm**

Aav Verinhall wrote:
Valgora wrote:
Why ban something when you could deal with the cause of the problem?
Someone can easily kill without needing an AR-15 or any other "assault weapon".

Elaborate. If you mean death penalty, that's an entirely seperate can of worms. And I won't even think of going there.

For example, this article lists three better ways of dealing with the cause of the problem: universal background checks to prevent the wrong people from getting guns, "red flag" laws to take guns away from people who endanger themselves or others, and tighter laws about storing guns, to keep them out of the hands of kids and thieves. The article provides evidence that they work, but doesn't link to the studies. I haven't had time to dig them up and read them to see if they say what the article says.

Better mental health laws and more money for treatment should also work, though I don't have any links handy for that.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:25 pm**

Aav Verinhall wrote:
Mujahidah wrote:
AR bans are honestly just bandaids. What needs to be regulated is the purchasing process, not what kinds of guns people can buy.

That too. But I don't think an AR ban would be insignificant in helping, either.

Since mass shootings have been carried out during assault weapons bans, using weapons besides AR's, and don't really require a high rate of fire or the features of an AR, I don't see where your argument is coming from. An AR is one style of rifle, it is no better or worse than any other style of rifle that has the same two features (semi auto and detachable box magazines). Since those two features are really popular with civilians (making up the vast majority of civilian firearms) you would face big trouble trying to ban them.

Aav Verinhall wrote:
Valgora wrote:How could I have been talking about death penalty?

"Why ban something when you could deal with the cause of the problem?" I assumed you meant death penalty. My bad. So you mean crisis intervention, mental health training, etc?

Three step solution to the gun crime problem in the US:
1) Law and order reform. Local community action/policing, based on intervening troubled youth before they commit violent crimes and getting them away from the wrong influences. Helped by reform to the penal code (minimum sentencing and a number of drug crimes), and changes to the rehabilitation/prison system.
2) Fight against income inequality. Changes to education policy, from elementary to college, including but not limited to focusing on schools in the most troubled neighborhoods and generally reducing the financial costs of college.
3) Better police/community awareness of signs of mass shooters, and how to respond. Could be helped by something like a gun violence restraining order, but not truly necessary.

NationStates

Gun Control III - the Gunnening