NationStates

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?

Hey CM buddy glad to see you're okay, was starting to worry.

For me I don't consider the 2nd Amendment all that important in practical terms, that said I also think that from where I stand the Gun Control issue is a distraction at best.

However I have to agree on the regulation of suppressors. I think they too easily enable murder.

Conserative Morality wrote: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.

Maybe you need more time to recover, you don't seem to be thinking straight.

So? Agree? Disagree?

Not being American I don't have any emotional attachment to that one sentence tacked onto the end of your constitution. You'd probably be better off without it, if anything. Being a big dirty liberal I'm fine with people having guns if they want them. Being a big dirty statist I'm not fine with letting just anyone have any guns they want. Guns are dangerous, and useful for committing crimes, so the government should make sure that people are properly licensed before playing with guns and should keep track of who owns what guns and things like that and should sometimes just tell people no, I don't care how cool it is, you can't have one, it's too dangerous/useful for crime/whatever.

Am I just rambling?

Signs point to "Yes".

---

Genivaria wrote:Hey CM buddy glad to see you're okay, was starting to worry.

For me I don't consider the 2nd Amendment all that important in practical terms, that said I also think that from where I stand the Gun Control issue is a distraction at best.

However I have to agree on the regulation of suppressors. I think they too easily enable murder.

They might make it easier to escape the scene of a murder, but it's the thing stuck to the end of the suppressor that enables the murdering.

Conserative Morality wrote: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.

MERIZoC wrote:(Image)

Do not disparage our national sport.

Conserative Morality wrote:-snip for the snip god-

Cold dead hands, filthy statist, etc. Good to see you again CM.

My biggest bone is the "effective non-lethal self defense tools". As nice as it sounds, there really ain't. A TASER? Failure to deploy renders your weapon useless. Prong gets stuck in a baggy shirt renders your weapon ineffective. Hell, weapon connects and delivers a full charge right into the chest of your attacker, he bulls through it and you're left with your thumb up your ass. There's a reason Police Officers only deploy less-lethal when they're given lethal cover by their partner. A stun gun? Fuck that, I don't want to get into a fight with someone trying to kill me at hand to hand range. Pepper spray or mace? A stiff breeze renders your weapon useless at best, and blows it back into your own face at worst.

Len Hyet wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:-snip for the snip god-

Cold dead hands, filthy statist, etc. Good to see you again CM.

My biggest bone is the "effective non-lethal self defense tools". As nice as it sounds, there really ain't. A TASER? Failure to deploy renders your weapon useless. Prong gets stuck in a baggy shirt renders your weapon ineffective. Hell, weapon connects and delivers a full charge right into the chest of your attacker, he bulls through it and you're left with your thumb up your ass. There's a reason Police Officers only deploy less-lethal when they're given lethal cover by their partner. A stun gun? Fuck that, I don't want to get into a fight with someone trying to kill me at hand to hand range. Pepper spray or mace? A stiff breeze renders your weapon useless at best, and blows it back into your own face at worst.

Not to mention they are restricted in many places as well.

Galloism wrote: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.

Balancing the rights of peaceful individuals in their own homes versus Sandy Hook/Pulse-type public atrocities wasn't hard enough. Now I have to worry about privacy disasters as well.

Egads.

Although, just to clarify -- what difference does the thickness of the SCOTUS decisions make concerning "data breach?" Even if both decisions were 9-0, a concentrated database of personal information is still a breach disaster waiting to happen. Or does "data breach" just mean "SCOTUS eventually reverses and now the 'gun grabbers' know where all the guns are?"

EDIT: fixed quote to quote the person I meant to quote.

Conserative Morality wrote: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.

Since the purpose of a suppressor is to alter the roar sufficiently that it's not necessarily immediately obvious that the sound being heard is a firearm, they should probably, at the very least, be regulated in the same manner as other concealment methods in the public sphere. I mean, that's what they do; they conceal a weapon. I would assume, however, that the general reasoning leading to McDonald and Heller might still apply in regards to use in private, however.

Galloism wrote:snip

Lets not forget that local governments have repeatedly used natural disasters as pretexts to engage in mass gun confiscation. Famously in Katrina, but more recently in Irma. So the argument that "that won't happen here" is false.

A Rational Anarchist wrote:

Galloism wrote: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.

Balancing the rights of peaceful individuals in their own homes versus Sandy Hook/Pulse-type public atrocities wasn't hard enough. Now I have to worry about privacy disasters as well.

Egads.

Although, just to clarify -- what difference does the thickness of the SCOTUS decisions make concerning "data breach?" Even if both decisions were 9-0, a concentrated database of personal information is still a breach disaster waiting to happen. Or does "data breach" just mean "SCOTUS eventually reverses and now the 'gun grabbers' know where all the guns are?"

EDIT: fixed quote to quote the person I meant to quote.

I have two independent concerns.

One regarding data breach that SCOTUS thickness has nothing to do with (just hackers). This would persist despite "thickness" of the decision.

The second is that, in some future time not far down the road,

A Rational Anarchist wrote:"SCOTUS eventually reverses and now the 'gun grabbers' know where all the guns are?"

Galloism wrote:I have two independent concerns.

One regarding data breach that SCOTUS thickness has nothing to do with (just hackers). This would persist despite "thickness" of the decision.

The second is that, in some future time not far down the road,

A Rational Anarchist wrote:"SCOTUS eventually reverses and now the 'gun grabbers' know where all the guns are?"

They're both reasonable concerns, but presumably they apply to every other instance of licensing and registration which seem much less controversial -- motor vehicle registration, driver's licensing, etc. Although I suppose there aren't any "car grabbers," at least not quite yet.

A Rational Anarchist wrote:

Galloism wrote:I have two independent concerns.

One regarding data breach that SCOTUS thickness has nothing to do with (just hackers). This would persist despite "thickness" of the decision.

The second is that, in some future time not far down the road,

They're both reasonable concerns, but presumably they apply to every other instance of licensing and registration which seem much less controversial -- motor vehicle registration, driver's licensing, etc. Although I suppose there aren't any "car grabbers," at least not quite yet.

That's a key point. I have concerns about data breach in the vehicle registries, but I have no concerns about "car grabbers". It's not a mainstream position that all cars should be confiscated and private ownership of cars should be banned.

So while I have concerns about the former, I have no concerns about the latter.

So I could possibly get past the former if it weren't for the latter.

Len Hyet wrote:Cold dead hands, filthy statist, etc. Good to see you again CM.

My biggest bone is the "effective non-lethal self defense tools". As nice as it sounds, there really ain't. A TASER? Failure to deploy renders your weapon useless. Prong gets stuck in a baggy shirt renders your weapon ineffective. Hell, weapon connects and delivers a full charge right into the chest of your attacker, he bulls through it and you're left with your thumb up your ass. There's a reason Police Officers only deploy less-lethal when they're given lethal cover by their partner. A stun gun? Fuck that, I don't want to get into a fight with someone trying to kill me at hand to hand range. Pepper spray or mace? A stiff breeze renders your weapon useless at best, and blows it back into your own face at worst.

Those same arguments can be applied to guns, though. There are any number of mechanical or maintenance problems that can render a firearm ineffective, whether through environment, circumstance, or user error. People can and often do push through after being shot once or twice, sometimes more, especially when hopped up on adrenaline or drugs. No method is 100% effective. Also, it'd have to be a pretty damn strong wind to render it useless. Pepper spray comes out pretty hard.

My point is not that guns are useless for self-defence. My point is simply that the generalized role of low-skill self-defence weapons has been diversified from the personal sidearm this past century and thus it can no longer be regarded as *the* method of personal protection. Low-skill self-defence in the modern day is very viable without firearms.

Conserative Morality wrote:Those same arguments can be applied to guns, though. There are any number of mechanical or maintenance problems that can render a firearm ineffective, whether through environment, circumstance, or user error.

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.

People can and often do push through after being shot once or twice, sometimes more, especially when hopped up on adrenaline or drugs.

TASER gives you one shot. I can get up to 20 out of a full sized non-extended handgun.

No method is 100% effective. Also, it'd have to be a pretty damn strong wind to render it useless. Pepper spray comes out pretty hard.
My point is not that guns are useless for self-defence. My point is simply that the generalized role of low-skill self-defence weapons has been diversified from the personal sidearm this past century and thus it can no longer be regarded as *the* method of personal protection. Low-skill self-defence in the modern day is very viable without firearms.

Eh. If you're willing to trust your life to pepper spray that's your call and I respect your right to make it. I'd rather not.

Len Hyet wrote:
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.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Len Hyet wrote:Cold dead hands, filthy statist, etc. Good to see you again CM.

My biggest bone is the "effective non-lethal self defense tools". As nice as it sounds, there really ain't. A TASER? Failure to deploy renders your weapon useless. Prong gets stuck in a baggy shirt renders your weapon ineffective. Hell, weapon connects and delivers a full charge right into the chest of your attacker, he bulls through it and you're left with your thumb up your ass. There's a reason Police Officers only deploy less-lethal when they're given lethal cover by their partner. A stun gun? Fuck that, I don't want to get into a fight with someone trying to kill me at hand to hand range. Pepper spray or mace? A stiff breeze renders your weapon useless at best, and blows it back into your own face at worst.

Those same arguments can be applied to guns, though. There are any number of mechanical or maintenance problems that can render a firearm ineffective, whether through environment, circumstance, or user error. People can and often do push through after being shot once or twice, sometimes more, especially when hopped up on adrenaline or drugs. No method is 100% effective. Also, it'd have to be a pretty damn strong wind to render it useless. Pepper spray comes out pretty hard.

My point is not that guns are useless for self-defence. My point is simply that the generalized role of low-skill self-defence weapons has been diversified from the personal sidearm this past century and thus it can no longer be regarded as *the* method of personal protection. Low-skill self-defence in the modern day is very viable without firearms.

A taser, or pepper, or any pain based defense weapon relies on the subjects pain response to be effective. A gun doesn't necessarily, while pain is a part, and likely the first part, there are further effects from a gunshot. No matter how tough, high, determined, etc. an attacker is, he cannot 'push through' blood loss, organ failure, or CNS damage.

Len Hyet wrote: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.

Do you really think you'll have a second in the kind of close-up situation that would necessitate a self-defense scenario? And that'a a second under ideal conditions. People rarely perform well under pressure.

TASER gives you one shot. I can get up to 20 out of a full sized non-extended handgun.

Only really relevant if you miss, considering that tasers can discharge a continuous stream of electric pain once the electrodes connect. Also, modern models can fire more than once.

Eh. If you're willing to trust your life to pepper spray that's your call and I respect your right to make it. I'd rather not.

Dunno that I'd trust my life to pepper spray, but I'd feel pretty comfortable with a taser.

Telconi wrote:A taser, or pepper, or any pain based defense weapon relies on the subjects pain response to be effective. A gun doesn't necessarily, while pain is a part, and likely the first part, there are further effects from a gunshot. No matter how tough, high, determined, etc. an attacker is, he cannot 'push through' blood loss, organ failure, or CNS damage.

Blood loss takes too long, organ failure is hard to achieve, etc. If the hydrostatic shock doesn't set it and their pain response doesn't stop them, then you're not really looking at a stopped opponent, as any number of colonial troops facing natives in 19th century warfare could tell you.

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.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Telconi wrote:A taser, or pepper, or any pain based defense weapon relies on the subjects pain response to be effective. A gun doesn't necessarily, while pain is a part, and likely the first part, there are further effects from a gunshot. No matter how tough, high, determined, etc. an attacker is, he cannot 'push through' blood loss, organ failure, or CNS damage.

Blood loss takes too long, organ failure is hard to achieve, etc. If the hydrostatic shock doesn't set it and their pain response doesn't stop them, then you're not really looking at a stopped opponent, as any number of colonial troops facing natives in 19th century warfare could tell you.

Blood loss depends on the hit, organ failure aND CNS aswell. Either way, they may be 'hard to achieve' with a gun, but they're impossible with a TASER.

Telconi wrote:Blood loss depends on the hit, organ failure aND CNS aswell. Either way, they may be 'hard to achieve' with a gun, but they're impossible with a TASER.

You can survive, conscious, several minutes from a shot to the heart. Circumstance and the condition of the person being shot matter more than placement of the shot in most cases in terms of immediate immobilization and neutralization in the absence of a meaningful pain response. And yes, killing someone is very difficult with a taser. That's the point of less-than-lethal defence weapons.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Telconi wrote:Blood loss depends on the hit, organ failure aND CNS aswell. Either way, they may be 'hard to achieve' with a gun, but they're impossible with a TASER.

You can survive, conscious, several minutes from a shot to the heart. Circumstance and the condition of the person being shot matter more than placement of the shot in most cases in terms of immediate immobilization and neutralization in the absence of a meaningful pain response. And yes, killing someone is very difficult with a taser. That's the point of less-than-lethal defence weapons.

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.

Telconi wrote: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.