Gun Control

[Telconi]

I completely agree. In modern times the 2^nd amendment has become mostly obsolete. Self-defence is not really a justification when you consider how many non-lethal weapons there are. Tasers and pepper spray have already been mentioned. Although I would like to say the taser is not entirely pain-based - the electrical shock immobilises muscles. But there are a whole host full of other weapons such as baton or air soft. Not that the self-defence arguement matters as the attackers would also have a gun.

The muscle immobilization is the result of nerve feedback, anyone on drugs with a suppressed pain response would be resistant to that as well. It''s the same physiological mechanism.

[Sanctissima]

Hey CM, glad to see you're back.

As to the subject of the thread, I mostly agree. My only real point of contention is that assault rifles should be flat-out banned. If you aren't in the military or a state militia, there's no real reason to have one.

Otherwise, regulations really need to be re-worked so that they follow some kind of logical consistency because as of now, they're a god-awful mess.

[A Rational Anarchist]

If I'm going to end up in a fist fight with someone, I'll take the guy with a sucking chest wound any day of the week.

I'd consider the guy who has a few thousand volts coursing through his body at least.

I'd just retreat along the shortest route to safety, using a weapon (whatever it is) to try to clear said route of threats if and only if necessary, cause I'm not looking to test either of these theories really.

[Sovaal]

Been gone from NSG recovering from a little accident (nothing major) so I thought I'd return to the forums with a true classic - gun control.

I speak on this issue as an American, and thus I necessarily refer back to the 2nd Amendment here. The 2nd Amendment is culturally important - practically, less so. In an age of effective nonlethal self-defense weapons, 'self-defense' rings somewhat hollow as a justification; in an age of the MIC, 'combat readiness' for the civilian population doubly so; and anyone who thinks that their militia is going to resist the tyranny of the Feds with small arms is loony enough that they probably shouldn't own any guns. One must remember that even in the American Revolutionary War it was not private firearms which provided the majority of the firepower of American forces; such firearm ownership was primarily the province of skirmishers and some irregulars.

I could care less, to be honest, about long guns. We aren't the Wild West. We aren't some wartorn third-world country. Even fully automatic long guns don't concern me too much. Our problems with firearms are overwhelmingly concerned with the tracking of individuals who misuse them, not so much the disarmament of individuals with firearms. We don't live in a country where militias and gangs can resist the force of the State without using the institutions of the State (judicial process, presumption of innocence, civil rights).

Registration and tracking of firearms is all-important, as is licensing for individuals. I'm not sure that there are many circumstances I would support a full ban on a person's right to own firearms, but restricting ownership of certain firearms for certain individuals is probably useful. Acquiring a license to own handguns in particular, I think, is a good idea. Criminal activity is overwhelmingly reliant on concealment of weaponry.

I do think a limitation on different 'classes' of weapons is useful - but the current definitions of 'assault' weapons are asinine and borderline useless. Restrictions on semiautomatic long guns should be based primarily on ease of concealment - 'tactical' attachments, bayonet lugs, that shit doesn't matter. Collapsing stocks and shortened barrels and extended magazine capacity is more important, and even then I don't believe in a complete ban on such things.

Private and government property, naturally, can restrict what comes onto their property. Your rights end where another's begin. If the city doesn't want your glock in the local social services department, leave it at home and quitcher bitchin'.

Silencers is a question I struggle with. Any policy on silencers has to be Federal, not piecemeal state-by-state, but... on one hand, the use of silencers to lessen hearing loss and damage is perfectly legitimate and silencers don't work like Hollywood 'plink plink' kind of bullshit. It turns a roar into a bark. It's not exactly a sneaky-beaky murder weapon. On the other hand, turning a roar into a bark is sometimes enough combined with background ambiance to conceal the firing of a gun in circumstances where a gun should not be fired, which is... problematic.

Open carry is an issue that I think should mostly be regulated by the individual states, with some exceptions. There is no fucking reason you need to open carry a fully automatic weapon in public, full stop. Keep that shit on private property. I'd prefer it if people didn't carry their AR-15 dick replacements into the local department stores with tactical webbing and camo from head to toe either, but I guess that's more a personal preference.

So? Agree? Disagree? Am I just rambling?

Some gun control measures, such as back ground checks, not allowing violent offenders to have the, etc., I agree with, others, such as weapon and accessory bans and registrations, not so much.

Hey CM, glad to see you're back.

As to the subject of the thread, I mostly agree. My only real point of contention is that assault rifles should be flat-out banned. If you aren't in the military or a state militia, there's no real reason to have one.

Otherwise, regulations really need to be re-worked so that they follow some kind of logical consistency because as of now, they're a god-awful mess.

What do you mean by this? The rifles used by most modern militaries, or those that are available in gun stores in many.

[Telconi]

If I'm going to end up in a fist fight with someone, I'll take the guy with a sucking chest wound any day of the week.

I'd consider the guy who has a few thousand volts coursing through his body at least.

I'd just retreat along the shortest route to safety, using a weapon (whatever it is) to try to clear said route of threats if and only if necessary, cause I'm not looking to test either of these theories really.

Can't retreat when your weapon must remain connected to the bad guy by electrical leads.

Also, really? Fist fight with a guy being electrocuted? Do you want to electrocute yourself? Because that's how you electrocute yourself.

[Sanctissima]

Hey CM, glad to see you're back.

As to the subject of the thread, I mostly agree. My only real point of contention is that assault rifles should be flat-out banned. If you aren't in the military or a state militia, there's no real reason to have one.

Otherwise, regulations really need to be re-worked so that they follow some kind of logical consistency because as of now, they're a god-awful mess.

What do you mean by this? The rifles used by most modern militaries, or those that are available in gun stores in many.

Oh, sorry, I suppose I wasn't very clear. I realize that the assault rifles available in gun stores aren't military-grade or anything like that.

But yeah, I'd like to see a blanket ban on assault rifles for civilian use. Things like handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles are fine, but in my opinion allowing civilian use of assault rifles is just taking things a step too far.

[The Parkus Empire]

Ideally gun laws should be decided as locally as possible, but trafficking of firearms makes it unfortunately more complicated.

For my personal sentiment I would that guns were eliminated from society as much as possible, but I also recognize their cultural significance in America is very unique so we can't really ban them.

[A Rational Anarchist]

Can't retreat when your weapon must remain connected to the bad guy by electrical leads.

There are wireless concept models under development (at least, last I knew) which deliver a self-contained shocking device. Dunno if any civilian models are in the works, and they do involve an impactor, so the potential lethality is increased probably significantly. But still.

Probably don't care, since I went out the nearest window anyway.

Also, really? Fist fight with a guy being electrocuted? Do you want to electrocute yourself? Because that's how you electrocute yourself.

[/quote]

There's lots of youtube of Taser gun demonstrations showing the recipient being caught and gently lowered to the ground while being actively shocked.

[Telconi]

Can't retreat when your weapon must remain connected to the bad guy by electrical leads.

There are wireless concept models under development (at least, last I knew) which deliver a self-contained shocking device. Dunno if any civilian models are in the works, and they do involve an impactor, so the potential lethality is increased probably significantly. But still.

Probably don't care, since I went out the nearest window anyway.

Also, really? Fist fight with a guy being electrocuted? Do you want to electrocute yourself? Because that's how you electrocute yourself.

There's lots of youtube of Taser gun demonstrations showing the recipient being caught and gently lowered to the ground while being actively shocked.[/quote]

Yes there are, been there, done that. But it requires control and a willing subject really, because if you get crossed by one of those electrodes it's flashing vision and spasming muscles for you too.

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

If a TASER fails to deploy you're screwed. If I get a FTF I tap the mag rack the slide and it's good to go. Takes about a second.

Assuming the failure isn't caused by some condition that will cause the weapon to blow up in your face on the next shot -- like a squib or otherwise blocked barrel.

Granted, in an emergency/combat scenario, the risk is necessary, but the general point that a firearm can fail catastrophically stands.

AK-47 never fails.

[A Rational Anarchist]

AK-47 never fails.

Literally two seconds in Google later...

[Sovaal]

Assuming the failure isn't caused by some condition that will cause the weapon to blow up in your face on the next shot -- like a squib or otherwise blocked barrel.

Granted, in an emergency/combat scenario, the risk is necessary, but the general point that a firearm can fail catastrophically stands.

AK-47 never fails.

Is of mechanical devise, is of fail on occasion.
Is of best to care for your tools.

[Greater Cesnica]

AK-47 never fails.

Is of mechanical devise, is of fail on occasion.
Is of best to care for your tools.

XD

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

AK-47 never fails.

Literally two seconds in Google later...

AK-47s rarely have failures, and if they do its usually due manufacturing errors, or user errors.

[Sovaal]

Literally two seconds in Google later...

AK-47s rarely have failures, and if they do its usually due manufacturing errors, or user errors.

That's what makes up the majority of most firearm failures.

[Greater Cesnica]

Literally two seconds in Google later...

AK-47s rarely have failures, and if they do its usually due manufacturing errors, or user errors.

Imagine a Chinese-knockoff AK-47.

[A Rational Anarchist]

Literally two seconds in Google later...

AK-47s rarely have failures, and if they do its usually due manufacturing errors, or user errors.

This is probably true of any weapon more mechanically complicated than a baseball bat, so the original point (that any weapon can fail at an inopportune moment, and there is nothing particularly special about a firearm in this regard) is fairly safe.

[Sovaal]

AK-47s rarely have failures, and if they do its usually due manufacturing errors, or user errors.

Imagine a Chinese-knockoff AK-47.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_56_assault_rifle

[Greater Cesnica]

Imagine a Chinese-knockoff AK-47.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_56_assault_rifle

Hold on, gonna buy this from the nearest Bulk Barn now.

[The East Marches II]

Registration and tracking of firearms is all-important, as is licensing for individuals.

As a person who understands judicial history, registration and tracking concerns me greatly in the current climate. The SCOTUS decision which upheld the right to have firearms was decided by the slimmest of majorities, and although that majority is maintained at this time, it's still an extremely slim majority.

To understand my concern, I will put it in similar terms. Imagine if a community banned political protest entirely, and it was struck down a 5-4 majority. People then viciously debated the merit of the decision with people arguing that "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you have a right to speak, and it's a right of the states to choose whether or not you're allowed to protest. You would be rightly concerned about the right of political protest going forward.

Then, when you consider the history of such firearm registries (how, in Chicago, it was used as a precursor and method to take away pretty much all the guns later), it would make anybody nervous to have their name and firearms in a database somewhere. Add on top of that how governments and corporations are losing confidential information at crazy levels, and I want to be in as few databases as possible. I have a LOT of concerns with firearm registries. I would have fewer concerns of such if the McDonald v. Chicago and DC v. Heller were decided by thicker majorities (7-2 or 8-1 perhaps), instead of a 5-4 in both cases, but still with concerns about data breach.

^This is a very good post

Gallo covered the legal side well but the data needs a bit more. There is a reason why in Illinois I don't answer surveys about guns or politics. Criminals commonly attempt to find out who is armed by these means so they can either target them specifically or which houses are weak. The police don't really respond to robbery so most go unsolved. Either way the information floating about in a government lax with data is dangerous. Imagine if they suddenly had a list of exactly what you owned and where you lived. That would be exceptionally bad.

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

AK-47s rarely have failures, and if they do its usually due manufacturing errors, or user errors.

That's what makes up the majority of most firearm failures.

Manufacturing errors can be fixed, user error can be fixed. A bad gun can't be fixed.

[Sovaal]

That's what makes up the majority of most firearm failures.

Manufacturing errors can be fixed, user error can be fixed. A bad gun can't be fixed.

Never did I say they couldn't. All I was saying is that AK's can suffer from malfunctions as well.

[The Parkus Empire]

Been gone from NSG recovering from a little accident (nothing major) so I thought I'd return to the forums with a true classic - gun control.

I speak on this issue as an American, and thus I necessarily refer back to the 2nd Amendment here. The 2nd Amendment is culturally important - practically, less so. In an age of effective nonlethal self-defense weapons, 'self-defense' rings somewhat hollow as a justification; in an age of the MIC, 'combat readiness' for the civilian population doubly so; and anyone who thinks that their militia is going to resist the tyranny of the Feds with small arms is loony enough that they probably shouldn't own any guns. One must remember that even in the American Revolutionary War it was not private firearms which provided the majority of the firepower of American forces; such firearm ownership was primarily the province of skirmishers and some irregulars.

I could care less, to be honest, about long guns. We aren't the Wild West. We aren't some wartorn third-world country. Even fully automatic long guns don't concern me too much. Our problems with firearms are overwhelmingly concerned with the tracking of individuals who misuse them, not so much the disarmament of individuals with firearms. We don't live in a country where militias and gangs can resist the force of the State without using the institutions of the State (judicial process, presumption of innocence, civil rights).

Registration and tracking of firearms is all-important, as is licensing for individuals. I'm not sure that there are many circumstances I would support a full ban on a person's right to own firearms, but restricting ownership of certain firearms for certain individuals is probably useful. Acquiring a license to own handguns in particular, I think, is a good idea. Criminal activity is overwhelmingly reliant on concealment of weaponry.

I do think a limitation on different 'classes' of weapons is useful - but the current definitions of 'assault' weapons are asinine and borderline useless. Restrictions on semiautomatic long guns should be based primarily on ease of concealment - 'tactical' attachments, bayonet lugs, that shit doesn't matter. Collapsing stocks and shortened barrels and extended magazine capacity is more important, and even then I don't believe in a complete ban on such things.

Private and government property, naturally, can restrict what comes onto their property. Your rights end where another's begin. If the city doesn't want your glock in the local social services department, leave it at home and quitcher bitchin'.

Silencers is a question I struggle with. Any policy on silencers has to be Federal, not piecemeal state-by-state, but... on one hand, the use of silencers to lessen hearing loss and damage is perfectly legitimate and silencers don't work like Hollywood 'plink plink' kind of bullshit. It turns a roar into a bark. It's not exactly a sneaky-beaky murder weapon. On the other hand, turning a roar into a bark is sometimes enough combined with background ambiance to conceal the firing of a gun in circumstances where a gun should not be fired, which is... problematic.

Open carry is an issue that I think should mostly be regulated by the individual states, with some exceptions. There is no fucking reason you need to open carry a fully automatic weapon in public, full stop. Keep that shit on private property. I'd prefer it if people didn't carry their AR-15 dick replacements into the local department stores with tactical webbing and camo from head to toe either, but I guess that's more a personal preference.

So? Agree? Disagree? Am I just rambling?

Some gun control measures, such as back ground checks, not allowing violent offenders to have the, etc., I agree with, others, such as weapon and accessory bans and registrations, not so much.

Hey CM, glad to see you're back.

As to the subject of the thread, I mostly agree. My only real point of contention is that assault rifles should be flat-out banned. If you aren't in the military or a state militia, there's no real reason to have one.

Otherwise, regulations really need to be re-worked so that they follow some kind of logical consistency because as of now, they're a god-awful mess.

What do you mean by this? The rifles used by most modern militaries, or those that are available in gun stores in many.

If ex-cons can't have guns, then that shouldn't be in the Constitution.

[Telconi]

That's what makes up the majority of most firearm failures.

Manufacturing errors can be fixed, user error can be fixed. A bad gun can't be fixed.

Which is why AKs are bad...

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

Manufacturing errors can be fixed, user error can be fixed. A bad gun can't be fixed.

Never did I say they couldn't. All I was saying is that AK's can suffer from malfunctions as well.

Yes, but a properly made AK rarely fails, I mean have you seen the tests the Russian military does on these things, and they still fire? User errors can be easily ended almost altogether with proper training. And again, a manufacturing error can be easily fixed once you take your new AK to the range and figure out the problem.

From personal experience, I can count 2 times my AK failed from neither of those prior two issues, and It was because I was using crappy hand loaded ammunition.