Debunking Some Gun Myths

[Kigen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

 

The Supreme Court wrote that:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

[LazaHorse]

Not entirely sure how "The Supreme Court has already ruled *insert talking point here*." is an argument for or against any of the points here. Most of you are simply stating your opinions and interpretations of past and present law to defend them. But frankly, that's all the Supreme Court does as well. When Grease Lightning offers his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment however good or bad it may be (personally I think you oversimplified it and also missed the important fact that well-regulated militias are no longer important to the security of a free state anymore), saying "Well the Supreme Court has already decided that point" doesn't really mean much. That's like saying "You're wrong because my dad said I'm right, and he can beat up your dad." Rather than point to some higher interpretation as right (Supreme Court decisions are as political and convoluted as your own opinions by the way), explain why his interpretation is wrong, offer proper counter examples, and present your own interpretation.

 

Don't just go and say "That point about the 2nd Amendment not applying to non-militants is wrong because the Supreme Court says so," explain why they say so and why their decision was correct.

 

Frankly I think it's a moot point myself, but not because the Supreme Court says it is lol... I think it is because militias are no longer a necessary counter to the abuse of power. Like someone said 20 years ago when this thread began, we're not the Wild West anymore. Abuse of power is addressed through politics, just like everything else, and is trumped the same way. As a result, we don't need militias anymore, and the argument of "I need my guns to defend myself from the state" seems a cop out to the real reason why most people want to keep their guns: they're fun. Vigilante justice does not work in aggregate, nor do I see a need for that in the near future.

[Vetman]

guns r bad mkay

[zidian]

Regan is right and wrong at the same time. Yes, an AK 47 isn't a sporting gun. It is too inaccurate for anyone in the 'sporting' aspect to use it and accomplish their goal. And no, it is not a machine gun. Ok, it is technically a machine, and it is a gun, but it is not "An automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession for as long as the trigger is pressed."

 

Just FYI, I REALLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYY regret ever starting this thread. The main point of this was to put out there that HEY, WE HAVE PROBLEMS, BUT THE BANS THEY WANT TO PUT IN PLACE WILL NOT FIX ANY OF IT.

 

It is very funny, because I think both the President and VP said it best. "Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down,"er Basically, the only reason why they would put these bans in is to give the illusion of safety, which I guess the General, media-blinded masses need.

 

Or maybe one of my other favorite quotes by them. And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately." eWhich in theory could keep guns out of the wrong hands....Isn't that what we need to do?

 

So more laws is the answer? More regulation? More tax money spent? Obviously the 300 FEDERAL laws, plus countless other laws set down by each state, each county, each city/town that are put in place to keep people safe are not working, so the answer is to throw MORE laws out there?

 

And Vetman, guns are no more bad than your computer, car, furniture, pen, knife, fork, spoon, bat, or any other inanimate object you own that can be used to inflict physical or emotional pain, its just HOW you use it that makes it bad. <3

Edited February 11, 2013 by zidian

[zidian]

Well, the legal version of an AK-47 isn't. Obviously the automatic weapons the 'bad guys' use are actually machine guns. But I would say less than 1% of the AK-47 in the USA are actually automatic.

[LazaHorse]

It is very funny, because I think both the President and VP said it best. "Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down,"er Basically, the only reason why they would put these bans in is to give the illusion of safety, which I guess the General, media-blinded masses need.

Well he DID learn from Clinton and his approach to the border. Sometimes seeming like you did a good job is more important than doing a good job.

And Vetman, guns are no more bad than your computer, car, furniture, pen, knife, fork, spoon, bat, or any other inanimate object you own that can be used to inflict physical or emotional pain, its just HOW you use it that makes it bad. <3

Difference is that none of those with the almost-exception of a bat and knife are designed to inflict pain on animate objects. Truly misuse of an object does not make the object evil, as I doubt you would discount killing someone with a fork as misuse. However, abuse or perversion of an objects intended purpose may call for that object's regulation.

[^TheRumor^]

I have 30 rounds in my AR, come get me NY!

[Kigen]

Not entirely sure how "The Supreme Court has already ruled *insert talking point here*." is an argument for or against any of the points here. Most of you are simply stating your opinions and interpretations of past and present law to defend them. But frankly, that's all the Supreme Court does as well. When Grease Lightning offers his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment however good or bad it may be (personally I think you oversimplified it and also missed the important fact that well-regulated militias are no longer important to the security of a free state anymore), saying "Well the Supreme Court has already decided that point" doesn't really mean much. That's like saying "You're wrong because my dad said I'm right, and he can beat up your dad." Rather than point to some higher interpretation as right (Supreme Court decisions are as political and convoluted as your own opinions by the way), explain why his interpretation is wrong, offer proper counter examples, and present your own interpretation.

 

Don't just go and say "That point about the 2nd Amendment not applying to non-militants is wrong because the Supreme Court says so," explain why they say so and why their decision was correct.

 

Frankly I think it's a moot point myself, but not because the Supreme Court says it is lol... I think it is because militias are no longer a necessary counter to the abuse of power. Like someone said 20 years ago when this thread began, we're not the Wild West anymore. Abuse of power is addressed through politics, just like everything else, and is trumped the same way. As a result, we don't need militias anymore, and the argument of "I need my guns to defend myself from the state" seems a cop out to the real reason why most people want to keep their guns: they're fun. Vigilante justice does not work in aggregate, nor do I see a need for that in the near future.

 

The Supreme Court's decisions limit the ability of the government in banning weapons. They looked up historical evidence of the intentions of the 2nd Amendment when it was written. Vigilante justice rarely ever happens. The US has a ton of people walking around with CHLs. But they don't go acting like the police because they are NOT the police. The point of CHLs is to protect life from someone wishing to do harm. Police generally arrive AFTER the crime has been committed. And as far as the 2nd Amendment being for defense from the state you can look up more historical evidence which would show you. Several founding fathers wrote that the true intention of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent another Lexington from happening. They also believed it to be the natural right of the people to overthrow their government when it stops serving the people. "A government for the people, by the people."

[jajolt]

Regan is right and wrong at the same time. Yes, an AK 47 isn't a sporting gun. It is too inaccurate for anyone in the 'sporting' aspect to use it and accomplish their goal. And no, it is not a machine gun. Ok, it is technically a machine, and it is a gun, but it is not "An automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession for as long as the trigger is pressed."

 

It is an automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession, you don't have to reload or do shit except hold the trigger until the clip is out. (Not counting controlling recoil, etc)

 

"Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down,"

 

You can't stop shootings, you can't. People are going to find a way to shoot people in masses if they're determined. What the president is saying is that he cannot directly change it, because there is always the black market, there is always so many ways guns can be obtained. Same reason goes for why he can't guarantee it, because there's the black market and shit like that. He's not a god, he's not someone with magical powers. Whatever you do, there is no guarantee.

 

So more laws is the answer? More regulation? More tax money spent? Obviously the 300 FEDERAL laws, plus countless other laws set down by each state, each county, each city/town that are put in place to keep people safe are not working, so the answer is to throw MORE laws out there?

 

Well do you suggest nothing happens and more sandy hook events happen?

 

And Vetman, guns are no more bad than your computer, car, furniture, pen, knife, fork, spoon, bat, or any other inanimate object you own that can be used to inflict physical or emotional pain, its just HOW you use it that makes it bad. <3

 

Yea, I've heard of real mass computer throwings, mass car murders, mass furniture murder, mass pen murder, (there has been mass knife murder, but way less than gun murder), mass fork murder, mass spoon murder, or mass bat murder. No but seriously, name one event each in which more than 10 lives were taken at the same time due to the things listed above. Guns are, especially in assult/machine form, murder weapons, and it's idiotic when people say "guns don't hurt people, people hurt people" because (this is not what i believe,) but say all guns were banned and magically wiped out of the hands of everyone, even the black market. How many murders would we see a year? Number would go down by the thousands.

[Jake]

Yea, I've heard of real mass computer throwings, mass car murders, mass furniture murder, mass pen murder, (there has been mass knife murder, but way less than gun murder), mass fork murder, mass spoon murder, or mass bat murder. No but seriously, name one event each in which more than 10 lives were taken at the same time due to the things listed above. Guns are, especially in assult/machine form, murder weapons, and it's idiotic when people say "guns don't hurt people, people hurt people" because (this is not what i believe,) but say all guns were banned and magically wiped out of the hands of everyone, even the black market. How many murders would we see a year? Number would go down by the thousands.

 

mass bombings.

 

bombs should be made illegal. oh wait...yet it still happens. i dont think banning all guns, or any one gun would really make any kind of a difference. Registering guns and getting them out of the hands of criminals would. Not just disarming everyone and calling it good.

[jajolt]

mass bombings.

 

bombs should be made illegal. oh wait...yet it still happens. i dont think banning all guns, or any one gun would really make any kind of a difference. Registering guns and getting them out of the hands of criminals would. Not just disarming everyone and calling it good.

 

Still, I hear of less mass bombings in the us than shootings. I didn't say we need to ban all guns, and personally, I think it should be allowed to have a pistol in your home. But you don't need an assult rifle for self defense. You can fend off one guy by shooting his legs and waiting for the cops to arrest him.

[Jake]

Still, I hear of less mass bombings in the us than shootings. I didn't say we need to ban all guns, and personally, I think it should be allowed to have a pistol in your home. But you don't need an assult rifle for self defense. You can fend off one guy by shooting his legs and waiting for the cops to arrest him.

 

I agree with you. You dont NEED an assault rifle. Just like a lot of other things in life that you don't NEED. However, if I would like to own one for target shooting or just to have, then as an American, I should have the right to. After following proper steps of registration and background checks of course.

[Papa John]

I agree with you. You dont NEED an assault rifle. Just like a lot of other things in life that you don't NEED. However, if I would like to own one for target shooting or just to have, then as an American, I should have the right to. After following proper steps of registration and background checks of course.

 

I don't NEED a tank nor should I POSSESS a tank because I have no USE for a tank (other than to facilitate my road rage). I have the right not to get shot by the guns you believe you have the right to own.

[Jake]

I don't NEED a tank nor should I POSSESS a tank because I have no USE for a tank (other than to facilitate my road rage). I have the right not to get shot by the guns you believe you have the right to own.

 

If you dont need a tank and dont want a tank, dont buy a damn tank. I have the right not to be killed by the car that you own, if you crash.

[Papa John]

If you dont need a tank and dont want a tank, dont buy a damn tank. I have the right not to be killed by the car that you own, if you crash.

 

Except my tank is more likely to kill you then my car.

[Jake]

Except my tank is more likely to kill you then my car.

could you even afford the fuel?

[zidian]

It is an automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession, you don't have to reload or do shit except hold the trigger until the clip is out. (Not counting controlling recoil, etc)

 

You don't hold the trigger, you have to pull the trigger each time you want a round to fire. Same way as a double-action revolver, a semi-auto handgun, or any other semi-auto rifle.

 

You can't stop shootings, you can't. People are going to find a way to shoot people in masses if they're determined. What the president is saying is that he cannot directly change it, because there is always the black market, there is always so many ways guns can be obtained. Same reason goes for why he can't guarantee it, because there's the black market and shit like that. He's not a god, he's not someone with magical powers. Whatever you do, there is no guarantee.

 

Exactly. So he wants to punish the law-abiding citizens who buy their guns legally for (otherwise) lawful reasons. He wants to put all these restrictions on LEGAL gun owners because of bad people. Bad people will do bad, you basically said it. I want the right to defend my self from one person trying to threaten my life or defend myself for a band of looters after some natural/man-made disaster.

 

Well do you suggest nothing happens and more sandy hook events happen?

 

No, I want them to have them ENFORCE the laws we already have. I saw a great documentary of a sting ATF agents did. They set up a 'illegal' shop. It was set up as a head shop (pipes and shit for smoking green) which was legal, but they basically got the word out they were buying guns off the streets in Oakland (or some other bad city). In a matter of 2 years, they bought back a couple hundred firearms (I can't remember the exact number, but it was over 150 and less than 400). Over HALF we're either illegal (fully auto, sawed off, and some other illegal mods) or used in a crime (matching the "fingerprints" of a firearm to evidence at a crime). Then the people who they could charge with the crime, after the stopped the operation, leading to almost 100 arrests. I'm sure there are MANY other options they can go through to getting these guns off the street, or stopping them from getting them in the first place.

 

I know they can't stop it, but they need to do something else. This ban didn't work the first time, and it won't work this time.

 

Gonna skip the 'mass' stuff because it was more as a joke with some truth. Those items cause a lot of harm in some sense, maybe not causing mass deaths but still affect MANY more people on a daily basis than guns. Computers can be used to steal identities and COMPLETELY ruin someone. Eating utensils are the tool used to eat, causing a whole slew of different health issues, some resulting in death. Pens are used to write notes passed around in schools making fun of someone. I guess now-a-days kids don't use pens since they have phones and computers, but back in MY day (yeah, I'm using it, you wanna fight about it), this is shit that happened.

 

But, as I said, more intended as a joke.

 

Guns are, especially in assult/machine form, murder weapons,

 

First of all, THEY ARE NOT MACHINE GUNS. They are semi-automatic, the same as a hand gun. Machine guns are all but banned. You have to get a Class 3 License to own one. You have to jump through so many hoops, pay so much money, and spend soo much time in order to get it. I would love one just to have (for sporting purposes...of course), but I just don't see the need as I would usually fire in semi-auto anyways so I can control recoil better. Hand gun homicides are in the thoundsands, while 'assault rifles' and bolt action rifles are numbered in the tens in any given year, yet they are STILL focusing on semi-automatic rifles.

 

As I said in my original post, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE, but not what they're trying to do. Stricter background checks and mental health screening I 100% agree with. As with a registry, there are a few reason why I don't want this. If the government knows who has guns and where they live, SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE. I don't want MS-13 or Crips or any of the various cartels to know I have guns, except if they decide to break into my house and they are looking down the barrel. Furthermore, I don't want the government to know I have it. If for whatever reason our government wants to take our firearms, I don't want them to know I have one. If martial law is declared in my area for whatever reason (I live within 20 miles of the white house, I can think of many different reasons why this would happen), I don't want them knocking on my door taking my guns. If, for whatever reason, our government falters or fails and a new civil war breaks out, you BETTER believe I don't want them to know. Not saying these are likely, but there is a possibility. "Better safe than sorry" "Rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it" "(insert any number of sayings here)".

 

However, I do think a registry could save lives, so I'm not 100% opposed and I would rather them do that then a lot of the other stuff they want to do. I will, however, become a criminal because I will NOT register all my guns, for the reasons I mentioned above. I'll just bury a few in the back yard for a 'rainy' day.

 

I hate how I have to repeat myself. SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, but what they are trying to do will not alter the murder problem we have in this country. The last assault weapons ban had "no notable affect on the homicide rate in the 10 year span it was in affect." Definition of insanity "Doing the same action expecting different results".

[Papa John]

could you even afford the fuel?

 

Its all good my tank is a hybrid, also the fuel would be the least costly part of the tank.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Papa John

[Kigen]

Its all good my tank is a hybrid, also the fuel would be the least costly part of the tank.

 

This is a good video in response to the whole "nuclear, missile, etc" argument.

 

[Papa John]

This is a good video in response to the whole "nuclear, missile, etc" argument.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc

 

He is right it is absolute lunacy, to be owning a semi-automatic rifle.

[Jake]

Its all good my tank is a hybrid, also the fuel would be the least costly part of the tank.

 

Better start saving your tips from pizza delivery's!

[Kigen]

He is right it is absolute lunacy, to be owning a semi-automatic rifle.

 

[Cookie]

This is a good video in response to the whole "nuclear, missile, etc" argument.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc

I don't think this guy understands how nuclear power works. Nuclear accidents really don't happen, disregarding reactor malfunctions and airforce accidentally dropping them or crashing a plane with one inside, it really never happens, but that's regardless of the point. Also in the second video you posted, he says he would rather carry around an AK as a defense tool over a pistol, well all I can say is that, that comment alone just ruined his legitimacy. Perhaps using the extreme, may just distract some people from the whole argument; Look at it this way, I don't think you can contest that the 2nd amendment applies specifically to firearms - because it definitely doesn't, I don't think anyone that actually has read the constitution would ever argue that dirks, swords, cannons, knives, spears, bows and arrows, ect would not be considered 'arms'. The above are/were protected by the 2nd amendment at the time of the signing. So as technology advanced, the above list became more and more deadly, and went more away from hunting and more for warfare, but the only one to achieve legality through this transition is firearms (disregard bows as the only thing that really changed much). Cannons turned into ballistics, knives turned into ballistic, and switchblade (both illegal), but flintlock turn into automatic guns and keep their legal status. Anyone that is not a psycho can see why a ban on things on ballistic missles, and ballistic knifes should be illegal because they are made to kill people and for destruction, but somewhere in that mix, people think that automatics should be legal only because its an 'arm', disregarding everything else. Just does not make sense why someone would be allowed to own an ak-47 designed for war, but not a switchblade.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Cookie

[F4ithl3ss]

I don't think this guy understands how nuclear power works. Nuclear accidents really don't happen, disregarding reactor malfunctions and airforce accidentally dropping them or crashing a plane with one inside, it really never happens, but that's regardless of the point. Also in the second video you posted, he says he would rather carry around an AK as a defense tool over a pistol, well all I can say is that, that comment alone just ruined his legitimacy. Perhaps using the extreme, may just distract some people from the whole argument; Look at it this way, I don't think you can contest that the 2nd amendment applies specifically to firearms - because it definitely doesn't, I don't think anyone that actually has read the constitution would ever argue that dirks, swords, cannons, knives, spears, bows and arrows, ect would not be considered 'arms'. The above are/were protected by the 2nd amendment at the time of the signing. So as technology advanced, the above list became more and more deadly, and went more away from hunting and more for warfare, but the only one to achieve legality through this transition is firearms (disregard bows as the only thing that really changed much). Cannons turned into ballistics, knives turned into ballistic, and switchblade (both illegal), but flintlock turn into automatic guns and keep their legal status. Anyone that is not a psycho can see why a ban on things on ballistic missles, and ballistic knifes should be illegal because they are made to kill people and for destruction, but somewhere in that mix, people think that automatics should be legal only because its an 'arm', disregarding everything else. Just does not make sense why someone would be allowed to own an ak-47 designed for war, but not a switchblade.

 

Ok, lets get something straight because I can't believe anyone within their right mind owning a gun would consider a stock, flash/sound suppressors, or larger magazines as purely cosmetic items and don't add to the lethality of the firearm. The stock transfers the recoil (kinetic energy) of the weapon into the users shoulder making it easier to fire. Flash/sound suppressors prevent you from being seen or heard shooting respectively making you able to fire off more rounds before spotted if firing at range. The most comical is the larger magazines, even if skilled marksmen can easily reload their weapon doesn't mean that skill is as easy as hammering the trigger. Any moron can depress a weapon's trigger then having to deal with reloading the weapon quickly. As each time they have to reload is an opening in which someone has the capacity of taking them down.

 

I believe you do deserve the right to own a firearm, however, I don't believe you need to possess automatic or even semi-automatic, ranged, weapons. I won't try to speak for you, but I believe (to whatever extent you have gone hunting) you don't use a semi-automatic weapon to fire at targets. As that would eliminate the sport of it all, right? After that, I see no reason why a private citizen would need to purchase and/or own a weapon that has the capacity to kill like the AR-15 (or weapons like it). Just because gun laws won't work 100% of the time at preventing those who want guns from getting them doesn't mean we give up and go home saying we tried. But if even one life is saved by the law, it seems worth it. The idea of arming everyone is simply a fallacy, more guns doesn't equal less gun violence as the NRA chairmen would have everyone believe.

 

Except you don't need a defense against the world because you live in a country and pay its taxes so that it will defend you. As far as the dictatorship, I believe you made your point clear about disarming the populous.

 

He is right it is absolute lunacy, to be owning a semi-automatic rifle.

 

Guns are, especially in assult/machine form, murder weapons,

 

My rage.....

 

I wonder what would've happened to the people of Asian descent during the LA riots had they not been armed with AK47's to protect their shops. Oh, that's right, they would've lost their shops. It's a higher guarantee of protection, and it's our right as American citizens to protect ourselves against other people and more specifically, the threat of tyranny. The government is armed with automatic weapons, we should also be armed with automatic weapons. "Well then people can go on rampages and kill more people!" Well how about we invest useless government spending in mental health facilities to treat or house people with mental disorders. Not to mention, the US department of homeland security is purchasing billions of dollars worth of bullets and other weaponry. Fun Fact: Anything purchased by the department of homeland security is to be used WITHIN OUR COUNTRY.

 

The signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America are contracts between the people and the government that were created to protect THE PEOPLE from THE GOVERNMENT. Taking away firearms from law abiding citizens due to the laws broken by individuals who AREN'T abiding by US law is not the answer, in fact, it's absolutely ridiculous. Someone at your place of employment cooks the books, you all get fired, how is that fair?

 

As my good man Jesse Ventura said, the police can not protect you, the police are a response team that show up after a crime has been committed (in most cases). So what happens when NO law abiding citizens are armed with guns when the next shooting comes along by a person who DOES NOT abide by US law and owns a gun illegally? Well, that guy kills everyone because no one has a concealed carry license to bring the gunman down. Logic time: Drugs are bad, let's make them illegal so no one uses them. Fact Time: Doesn't work. There is ABSOLUTELY NO LEGITIMATE REASON to punish lawful gun owners for the wrong doings of psychotically disturbed individuals, gang members, and others who decide to discharge their firearms at innocent victims. "But how else can we stop this from happening?" Oh, I don't know, perhaps stop giving people who commit horrible crimes so much face time on the news where they can become well known around the world.

 

Not everyone uses guns to shoot at targets or for hunting, many people have them in order to protect themselves, their property, and their loved ones against any type of threat.

 

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." -The fucking Declaration of Independence

 

Edited multiple times, forgive my lack of "flow" within this short paper, please don't make it illegal to edit posts to solve the problem

[Kigen]

I don't think this guy understands how nuclear power works. Nuclear accidents really don't happen, disregarding reactor malfunctions and airforce accidentally dropping them or crashing a plane with one inside, it really never happens, but that's regardless of the point. Also in the second video you posted, he says he would rather carry around an AK as a defense tool over a pistol, well all I can say is that, that comment alone just ruined his legitimacy. Perhaps using the extreme, may just distract some people from the whole argument; Look at it this way, I don't think you can contest that the 2nd amendment applies specifically to firearms - because it definitely doesn't, I don't think anyone that actually has read the constitution would ever argue that dirks, swords, cannons, knives, spears, bows and arrows, ect would not be considered 'arms'. The above are/were protected by the 2nd amendment at the time of the signing. So as technology advanced, the above list became more and more deadly, and went more away from hunting and more for warfare, but the only one to achieve legality through this transition is firearms (disregard bows as the only thing that really changed much). Cannons turned into ballistics, knives turned into ballistic, and switchblade (both illegal), but flintlock turn into automatic guns and keep their legal status. Anyone that is not a psycho can see why a ban on things on ballistic missles, and ballistic knifes should be illegal because they are made to kill people and for destruction, but somewhere in that mix, people think that automatics should be legal only because its an 'arm', disregarding everything else. Just does not make sense why someone would be allowed to own an ak-47 designed for war, but not a switchblade.

 

I'm not going to replying to the rest of your argument because its obvious that you did not understand the video at all.