Gun Rights

[The Merchant Republics]

It is true rather.

They had to depersonalize their enemies to get them to march to war, but even when they met on the battle-field only about 20% shot with the purpose of killing, and as much as 80% couldn't personally aim for their enemies.

I am sure controlling robots and seeing only a video feed will definitely resonate with the generations of kids of grow up playing violent video games.

It will. Indeed it will.

One of the reasons why artillery and air power are so valued is because they do the killing. It's depersonalized.


Even I will support a ban on death robots, but that goes just as much for the government as civilians.

[Lessnt]

I am sure controlling robots and seeing only a video feed will definitely resonate with the generations of kids of grow up playing violent video games.

It will. Indeed it will.

One of the reasons why artillery and air power are so valued is because they do the killing. It's depersonalized.


Even I will support a ban on death robots, but that goes just as much for the government as civilians.

http://www.worldoftanks.com/
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/weapons/a/blacknight.htm


they almost go hand in hand.
Well....except for controls.And realistic physics and so on.
But that is generally what I mean.

[Gun Manufacturers]

You did, when you said "An effective means of self defence is not having guns on the streets....". How do you prevent criminals from having them? It's already illegal for criminals to own/possess firearms, so passing yet another law isn't going to change anything.

How is the second amendment abused?

You seemed to be implying that I was trying to wave a magic wand at the problem. We stop criminals from having them by stopping people from having them, as anyone has the potential to be a criminal. It's not as if criminals are a separate species that all go to their favourite "no law-abiding citizens allowed" gun store.

I'm no expert on the US constitution, but as I understand it an amendment designed to give the freedom to create militias has been used as in excuse for people to have guns in every nook and cranny. Sure, the nature of a militia is a decentralised fighting force, but that's still stretching it.

A magic wand would be the only way to get rid of everyone's firearms (including criminals). As to your suggestion that I should be punished and can't have firearms because there's the POTENTIAL that I could become a criminal in the future, I find it laughable. People have the potential to be sex offenders, are you going to advocate everyone being punished like they had already committed such a crime? Criminals get their firearms any way they can, including illegal means.

The second amendment gives people the right to own and bear arms, and one of the reasons is to create militias. However, just because that's the only reason stated in the amendment, doesn't mean that's the only allowable reason.

[Gun Manufacturers]

You seemed to be implying that I was trying to wave a magic wand at the problem. We stop criminals from having them by stopping people from having them, as anyone has the potential to be a criminal. It's not as if criminals are a separate species that all go to their favourite "no law-abiding citizens allowed" gun store.

I'm no expert on the US constitution, but as I understand it an amendment designed to give the freedom to create militias has been used as in excuse for people to have guns in every nook and cranny. Sure, the nature of a militia is a decentralised fighting force, but that's still stretching it.

The 2nd Amendment is so that every able bodied American citizen is able to serve in the military with their own weapon in case of an invasion by a foreign power. Technically the militia is supposed to be equipped with the same rifles as the regular military, but only the regular militia is equipped with M4s and M16s. The irregulars are equipped with whatever they can get their hands on, be it M1 Garands or Remington 700s, or some rly dumb semi-automatic AR-15.

Hughes Amendment severely curtailed the ability of the irregulars to arm themselves to protect the Union.

Of course my AR15 is dumb, it's an inanimate object without a brain.

[President Mathias]

I'm surprised. I'd have thought that the, very liberal, NSG population would generally be for Gun Control.

[Lessnt]

I'm surprised. I'd have thought that the, very liberal, NSG population would generally be for Gun Control.

Most people are mixed.

[Galla-]

The 2nd Amendment is so that every able bodied American citizen is able to serve in the military with their own weapon in case of an invasion by a foreign power. Technically the militia is supposed to be equipped with the same rifles as the regular military, but only the regular militia is equipped with M4s and M16s. The irregulars are equipped with whatever they can get their hands on, be it M1 Garands or Remington 700s, or some rly dumb semi-automatic AR-15.

Hughes Amendment severely curtailed the ability of the irregulars to arm themselves to protect the Union.

Of course my AR15 is dumb, it's an inanimate object without a brain.

As long as it's wood it's good

[Gun Manufacturers]

Of course my AR15 is dumb, it's an inanimate object without a brain.

As long as it's wood it's good

It's not. The front forearm is a YHM aluminum free-float tube, and the stock is a standard black composite A2 stock.

[Tsal-Kar]

Your average person won't harm someone until you give him a reason to harm someone and then he might (as in 1/1000 no it's really not going to happen) harm the person. This statement is certainly true, also certainly devoid of meaning.

The average person will not ever be given a reason valid enough to kill someone except in the most extreme of measures. I'll source this in a moment, but even during the First World War, very few casualties were caused by infantry killing each other, for the simple fact that the average man with a gun will do everything in his power to not have to shoot that gun at another person; they would purposefully aim away from their targets, just so they could not be responsible. Today's trained soldiers must be given massive amounts of conditioning to learn how to fire their weapons without hesitation. It's why artillery and air craft revolutionized warfare because it depersonalized the violence.

This is untrue.

They simply learned that the people they were shooting at, were in fact, not people at all.

They were "the enemy", or "Krauts", or "zipperheads", or "hajji".

That "they're not people" thing worked great when Christmas came along...

[Gun Manufacturers]

As long as it's wood it's good

That pic is disgusting.

It's not really that bad (it's a throwback to when military rifles had wood stocks/forearms). If that forearm was a free-float (and I was building another AR15), then I'd consider getting such a kit.

[Separatist Peoples]

As long as it's wood it's good

That pic is disgusting.

It is pretty garish...not really disgusting...

I like wood stocks. The pretty stock on my baby, my 1861 Springfield rifled musket, is all wood, and absolutely gorgeous. Not to mention pretty fucking solid.

[Tsal-Kar]

That pic is disgusting.

It is pretty garish...not really disgusting...

I like wood stocks. The pretty stock on my baby, my 1861 Springfield rifled musket, is all wood, and absolutely gorgeous. Not to mention pretty fucking solid.

I like wood stocks on guns that they are meant to be on - they just don't belong on black rifles in my book...

[JJ Place]

Figured I'd again address some of the more common pro-gun control points, with some new information this time; I found this handy website called http://guncite.com/ that has all sorts of useful information...

A gun is more likely to kill a member of the family than a criminal. This is based on a study done by Doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay in 1986. They calculated that the rate of firearm deaths of innocents vs. firearm deaths of criminals, all in the house the crime was being committed in, was 43:1. They found that from 1978 to 1983 in homes where a firearm was kept, there were: 12 accidental deaths, 41 homicides, 333 suicides, and 3 "unknown" deaths, for a total of 389 non-self-defense kills. Meanwhile, there were 9 self-defense kills. This calculates out to 43:1. Interesting method of deciding that you'll probably be murdered with your own gun, when most of the deaths are suicides... However, lets look at statistics on deaths in the home without firearms, based on the doctors' own statistics and statements (and, briefly, the FBI Uniform Crime Report). 0 unintentional deaths, 50 homicides (More? Interesting...), 347 suicides, and 0 "unknown" deaths, for a total of 397 non-self-defense kills. There were 4 self defense kills (rounded up significantly; the1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report stated that non-gun justified homicides were 13% of all justifiable homicides, but the writers rounded this to 30% to achieve a whole number). This calculates to... 99 non-self-defense kills to one. So, basically, you are less likely to die of homicide or suicide, and more likely to successfully kill in self-defense, if a gun is involved. Interesting.

Allowing the carrying of handguns will result in an explosion of crime. Okay, let's compare, with the use of FBI statistics... In 1998, May-Issue states had an average of 590.1 incidences of violent crime per 100,000 people. They had an average homicide rate of 5.9 per 100,000 people. In right-to-carry states, meanwhile, there was an average violent crime rate of 543 per 100,000 people (respectably less), and a homicide rate of 6.7 per 100,000 people (a bit more, yes). So, there is significantly less violent crime, but less than one more homicide per 100,000 people. Not exactly mass-shooter-paradise, eh?

You are more likely to be injured or killed if you try to defend yourself with a gun. I simply suggest that you look at this chart, compiled with the use of the National Crime Victimization Survey in from 1992 to 1998. In case you're wondering about the acronyms, SP is, of course, self-protection; O is offender; the first "injury" column appears to be pre-self-protection; the second is post-self-protection; and "loss" is death of the victim. I strongly encourage a comparison of "Attacked O with gun" to "No SP measures at all".

I hereby decree Tsal-Kar the recipient of the JJ Excellence of Argument Award for this post.

[Galla-]

It is pretty garish...not really disgusting...

I like wood stocks. The pretty stock on my baby, my 1861 Springfield rifled musket, is all wood, and absolutely gorgeous. Not to mention pretty fucking solid.

I like wood stocks on guns that they are meant to be on - they just don't belong on black rifles in my book...

AR-15 with wood is great.

Plastic guns are an abomination. If you can't crack a cinderblock or a watermelon open with the stock, it isn't solid enough tbh.

[DaWoad]

Figured I'd again address some of the more common pro-gun control points, with some new information this time; I found this handy website called http://guncite.com/ that has all sorts of useful information...

A gun is more likely to kill a member of the family than a criminal. This is based on a study done by Doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay in 1986. They calculated that the rate of firearm deaths of innocents vs. firearm deaths of criminals, all in the house the crime was being committed in, was 43:1. They found that from 1978 to 1983 in homes where a firearm was kept, there were: 12 accidental deaths, 41 homicides, 333 suicides, and 3 "unknown" deaths, for a total of 389 non-self-defense kills. Meanwhile, there were 9 self-defense kills. This calculates out to 43:1. Interesting method of deciding that you'll probably be murdered with your own gun, when most of the deaths are suicides... However, lets look at statistics on deaths in the home without firearms, based on the doctors' own statistics and statements (and, briefly, the FBI Uniform Crime Report). 0 unintentional deaths, 50 homicides (More? Interesting...), 347 suicides, and 0 "unknown" deaths, for a total of 397 non-self-defense kills. There were 4 self defense kills (rounded up significantly; the1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report stated that non-gun justified homicides were 13% of all justifiable homicides, but the writers rounded this to 30% to achieve a whole number). This calculates to... 99 non-self-defense kills to one. So, basically, you are less likely to die of homicide or suicide, and more likely to successfully kill in self-defense, if a gun is involved. Interesting.

Allowing the carrying of handguns will result in an explosion of crime. Okay, let's compare, with the use of FBI statistics... In 1998, May-Issue states had an average of 590.1 incidences of violent crime per 100,000 people. They had an average homicide rate of 5.9 per 100,000 people. In right-to-carry states, meanwhile, there was an average violent crime rate of 543 per 100,000 people (respectably less), and a homicide rate of 6.7 per 100,000 people (a bit more, yes). So, there is significantly less violent crime, but less than one more homicide per 100,000 people. Not exactly mass-shooter-paradise, eh?

You are more likely to be injured or killed if you try to defend yourself with a gun. I simply suggest that you look at this chart, compiled with the use of the National Crime Victimization Survey in from 1992 to 1998. In case you're wondering about the acronyms, SP is, of course, self-protection; O is offender; the first "injury" column appears to be pre-self-protection; the second is post-self-protection; and "loss" is death of the victim. I strongly encourage a comparison of "Attacked O with gun" to "No SP measures at all".

I hereby decree Tsal-Kar the recipient of the JJ Excellence of Argument Award for this post.

for basing his entire argument on a source that isn't from where he claimed it was?

[GeneralHaNor]

This happens every day in America.

That's why you don't hear about it. No one cares to report the next school shooting or political rally gunfight, we're all too conditioned, so we just go "again?" with no expression of surprise.

Ayup.

waaaait, would you like to claim that guns haven't been used to massacre people, like (for example) in schools?

Would you like to prove that Stabbings don't happen in schools?
Would you like to prove that I can't obtain a gun right now? legal or illegal, on my whim?

More non-sequiters won't win you any points

[DaWoad]

waaaait, would you like to claim that guns haven't been used to massacre people, like (for example) in schools?

Would you like to prove that Stabbings don't happen in schools?

nope but show me a single one anywhere that killed as many as a gun massacre.

Would you like to prove that I can't obtain a gun right now? legal or illegal, on my whim?

please

More non-sequiters won't win you any points

not interested in points winning and not a non-sequiter

[GeneralHaNor]

Would you like to prove that Stabbings don't happen in schools?

nope but show me a single one anywhere that killed as many as a gun massacre.

Would you like to prove that I can't obtain a gun right now? legal or illegal, on my whim?

please

More non-sequiters won't win you any points

not interested in points winning and not a non-sequiter

It is so, "Blah, statwanking shows that guns are used to kill people"

Well....duh, If I'm going to kill someone I'm going to use the most efficient tools available to me.
It always seems to boil down to Guns being to easy to use, and to effective.

Show me how gun control could possibly limit my access, and I'll show you a State that I will actively resist.

[DaWoad]

nope but show me a single one anywhere that killed as many as a gun massacre.

please

not interested in points winning and not a non-sequiter

It is so, "Blah, statwanking shows that guns are used to kill people"

Well....duh, If I'm going to kill someone I'm going to use the most efficient tools available to me.
It always seems to boil down to Guns being to easy to use, and to effective.

Show me how gun control could possibly limit my access, and I'll show you a State that I will actively resist.

so . . .the united states and essentially every other first world government out there?

you go ahead and resist that.

[Galla-]

It is so, "Blah, statwanking shows that guns are used to kill people"

Well....duh, If I'm going to kill someone I'm going to use the most efficient tools available to me.
It always seems to boil down to Guns being to easy to use, and to effective.

Show me how gun control could possibly limit my access, and I'll show you a State that I will actively resist.

so . . .the united states and essentially every other first world government out there?

you go ahead and resist that.

It isn't difficult to obtain a firearm in any modern, first world country.

At all.

[DaWoad]

so . . .the united states and essentially every other first world government out there?

you go ahead and resist that.

It isn't difficult to obtain a firearm in any modern, first world country.

At all.

he said limit. The US of A certainly limits your access to . . .say . .. M249 SAWs or MANPADS or Stingers or. . .I could go on and you say this as if you have great experience with obtaining weapons in every first world nation but I'm still gonna have tocall you on that. Please, prove to me that a gun is "not difficult to obtain" in any first world country.

[Galla-]

It isn't difficult to obtain a firearm in any modern, first world country.

At all.

he said limit. The US of A certainly limits your access to . . .say . .. M249 SAWs or MANPADS or Stingers or. . .I could go on and you say this as if you have great experience with obtaining weapons in every first world nation but I'm still gonna have tocall you on that. Please, prove to me that a gun is "not difficult to obtain" in any first world country.

It isn't exactly difficult to obtain automatic weapons, again.

Just modify semi-automatics. The M1 Garand can be converted to full automatic with five minutes of your time and metal file.

Yes, it is legally limited, but those legal limits are very difficult aside from massive, totalitarian control of the arms market. You could, theoretically, purchase a MANPADS (fyi stinger = manpads) from a defence contractor today quite legally.

Norinco tried to do such, and that's why the USA doesn't import Chinese firearms anymore.

[GeneralHaNor]

so . . .the united states and essentially every other first world government out there?

you go ahead and resist that.

It isn't difficult to obtain a firearm in any modern, first world country.

At all.

Correct, I aim to keep it that way
Pun Intended

[DaWoad]

he said limit. The US of A certainly limits your access to . . .say . .. M249 SAWs or MANPADS or Stingers or. . .I could go on and you say this as if you have great experience with obtaining weapons in every first world nation but I'm still gonna have tocall you on that. Please, prove to me that a gun is "not difficult to obtain" in any first world country.

It isn't exactly difficult to obtain automatic weapons, again.

Just modify semi-automatics. The M1 Garand can be converted to full automatic with five minutes of your time and metal file.

[citation needed]

Yes, it is legally limited, but those legal limits are very difficult aside from massive, totalitarian control of the arms market. You could, theoretically, purchase a MANPADS (fyi stinger = manpads) from a defence contractor today quite legally.

*facepalm* *sigh* for some reason I had in my head MANPAD=Man Portable Anti-tank weapon
but [citation needed on being able to simply purchase one from a defense contractor legally.

Norinco tried to do such, and that's why the USA doesn't import Chinese firearms anymore.

norinco?

[Senestrum]

It isn't exactly difficult to obtain automatic weapons, again.

Just modify semi-automatics. The M1 Garand can be converted to full automatic with five minutes of your time and metal file.

[citation needed]

A semi-automatic weapon is a fully-automatic weapon with a catch that stops the bolt after one shot regardless of whether or not the trigger is held down. It's quite easy to convert most semi-automatic firearms to fully automatic if you know how the operation works.