This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Discrimination on... gun holders?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
BlueRobe, would you accept my argument that it is then unconstitutional to prevent US citizens from arming themselves with nuclear warheads and requiring registration of them with the government, on the basis that they may require it as self defense against a despotic US government? Because as far as 'baring arms' is concerned, if all you are concerned about is 'legitimate purpose', then anything from a 9mm pistol, to rocket propelled grenade launchers, to military-grade warheads and cluster bombs are all fair game, considering that they'll all be equally useful / useless in self-defense against the government.
Post by
Squishalot
In stark contrast, handguns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, shot-guns, grenade launchers, SAMs, armoured cars, anti-tank guns/missiles, tanks, armed aircraft and armed ships can routinely be utilised against specific legitimate targets without an any/unreasonable collateral damage to innocent civilians.
So, just to be clear - you would sanction free ownership without registration nor monitoring of the above list of armaments? So, for instance, you wouldn't ask that my F-117A stealth bomber be regulated, registered or otherwise monitored?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
b4xx
In stark contrast, handguns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, shot-guns, grenade launchers, SAMs, armoured cars, anti-tank guns/missiles, tanks, armed aircraft and armed ships can routinely be utilised against specific legitimate targets without an any/unreasonable collateral damage to innocent civilians.
So, just to be clear - you would sanction free ownership without registration nor monitoring of the above list of armaments? So, for instance, you wouldn't ask that my F-117A stealth bomber be regulated, registered or otherwise monitored?
Correct.
I... can't even...
I find these kinds of thoughts very absurd, but then again, you and I live in a completely different kinds of societies.
Any number of civilians armed only with hand weapons, no matter how large, stands no chance against an organized army nowadays. And I can not think any reason on earth to give normal citizens the right to own stealth bombers.
Post by
Squishalot
In stark contrast, handguns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, shot-guns, grenade launchers, SAMs, armoured cars, anti-tank guns/missiles, tanks, armed aircraft and armed ships can routinely be utilised against specific legitimate targets without an any/unreasonable collateral damage to innocent civilians.
So, just to be clear - you would sanction free ownership without registration nor monitoring of the above list of armaments? So, for instance, you wouldn't ask that my F-117A stealth bomber be regulated, registered or otherwise monitored?
Correct.
At least you're consistent. Suffice to say though, for the sake of the US, I'm glad you're not a Supreme Court judge.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
I would have thought Jon Stewart would have learned a thing or two about the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of governments and their uniformed enforcers. Given that he's Jewish...
Actually, he probably has good reason to believe that armed minority groups practicing insurrection do not always receive popular support and that doing so can foment support for repression. The myth of the Jewish backstabber was rife in post-Versailles Treaty Germany - evidence of Jewish revolutionary forces would have ensorcelled the populace. For instance, Fred Hampton was part of a group which exercised its second amendment rights and that didn't help him. Nidal Malik Hasan, Ted Kaczynski, David Koresh and Richard Poplawski all had radically different views of how a society ought to be run. Their actions do not justify their ideology.
Do not mistake paltry concessions with participation. Violence is authoritarian.
The use of a WMD inevitably comes with massive collateral damage.
and thus acts as a deterrent to any potential threat to the US government. A totally asymmetric one, needless to add (we're already discussing a despotic government, with you making the analogy to Nazi Germany, mind).
Post by
Magician22773
So, to be clear, there is an ability to cross-check a officer's assigned weapons and munitions back to an officer.
As there is to nearly every weapon sold since
1999
. Of course, criminals know this, so they often will change out the firing pin, or alter the bore of the weapon to render this database useless.
You also have the vast majority of weapons legally purchased in the US documented via permits and licenses. The largest exception to this is the "gun show" loophole, which I, and most responsible gun owners have no issue with having closed. The problem with closing the loophole is logistics. People like to call it the "gun show" loophole, because they want to demonize the gun shows, when actually a far greater number of weapons that pass through this are just private sales of firearms.
The "gun show" loophole is that when a firearm is sold between two private parties, filling out the proper paperwork is done on a "honor system", since private citizens do not have access to the FBI background checks. The seller is required to report the sale, and the buyer is required to register the weapon, but as you can imagine, not everyone does what they are supposed to do. Gun shows often are cited as using this loophole, because the sellers can act as a private party in transactions made at the shows.
but you would be kidding yourself if you think that logistics officers don't keep track of who has been assigned what weapons, what's gone missing, what has been used, and how frequently they've been used.
And again, there are
similar systems
in place for responsible gun owners. There are also many private databases for stolen firearms out there as well, and many states have their own systems.
As for monitoring the discharge of duty weapons, they are only logged if they are discharged in the line of duty. This would hold true for private, legal weapons as well. If someone uses their weapon for defense, that incident will be well documented, assuming the proper reports are filed. Officers can fire their duty weapons on personal time at a range, using personal ammo, and their is no reporting required.
If there was a legal requirement to bring your guns in for 'stocktake' (for lack of a better term), I'd be willing to bet that you would find a lot less disappearing into thin air, which is my key point.
I have to disagree. If all that changes is I now have to bring my weapons in to have them inspected every so often, how does this deter someone from stealing them? If I have a weapon stolen (and I have had), it is going to be reported as fast as the officer can get his car to my home.
My key point is that the only people that the laws affect are the lawful citizens. More regulation, more control, and less access will ONLY apply to the people that you have the least reason to worry about.
The criminal will not stop stealing weapons just because they require a yearly inspection. They will not stop buying stolen guns on the street just because you make getting a permit more difficult or costly. The will not stop carrying hi-cap magazines while committing a crime, just because they are illegal.
And that is the real issue here. Ban whatever you want. Pass whatever law you want. And you will have done NOTHING to help the problem, because your focus has been on the wrong part of the equation....the GUN, and not the person behind it.
Post by
b4xx
In stark contrast, handguns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, shot-guns, grenade launchers, SAMs, armoured cars, anti-tank guns/missiles, tanks, armed aircraft and armed ships can routinely be utilised against specific legitimate targets without an any/unreasonable collateral damage to innocent civilians.
So, just to be clear - you would sanction free ownership without registration nor monitoring of the above list of armaments? So, for instance, you wouldn't ask that my F-117A stealth bomber be regulated, registered or otherwise monitored?
Correct.
I... can't even...
I find these kinds of thoughts very absurd, but then again, you and I live in a completely different kinds of societies.
Any number of civilians armed only with hand weapons, no matter how large, stands no chance against an organized army nowadays. And I can not think any reason on earth to give normal citizens the right to own stealth bombers.
No reason on Earth?
A few books on the history of genocide gave me a few good reasons. If the Holocaust taught us ANYTHING, it taught us that
we can never trust government completely
.
I remind you that the American Revolution was started by the citizen soldiers (Militias) of Lexington and Concorde who possessed their own CANNONS.
It's pretty ironic that Boston now lies in the heart of America's gun-control movement.
So you really think that normal citizens should still possess the means to stand up to their government in the case of it turning into some despotic tyranny, even if this would also give them the means to kill thousands of people very easily? I'd call this paranoid. You don't have to trust your government completely, but nor should you be arming yourself against it.
Post by
Squishalot
The criminal will not stop stealing weapons just because they require a yearly inspection. They will not stop buying stolen guns on the street just because you make getting a permit more difficult or costly. The will not stop carrying hi-cap magazines while committing a crime, just because they are illegal.
You've said this a number of times in the last few pages, and it hasn't made it any more true. Someone who drives over the speed limit isn't going to go onto the black market and buy a gun, just because what they're doing is illegal. Most armed crime is committed using guns which were legally acquired by the criminal. That should suggest that it is a minority of crimes where stolen guns are being used for crimes.
Not all criminals are either capable nor willing to acquire weaponry on the black market. Not all crimes are pre-planned but are simply knee-jerk reactions to events. If a person is going to commit armed robbery, they may choose to do so with a less lethal weapon due to the greater difficulty in obtaining a firearm. If that's the case, then you're going to reduce the human cost of crimes, which is something which I thought you would support.
And that is the real issue here. Ban whatever you want. Pass whatever law you want. And you will have done NOTHING to help the problem, because your focus has been on the wrong part of the equation....the GUN, and not the person behind it.
You're missing my point then, which has been about monitoring of gunholders.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Magician22773
Most armed crime is committed using guns which were legally acquired by the criminal.
Just curious, because just as I keep going back to my point that criminals will find a way to obtain a gun regardless of any law in place, you seem to like this argument just as much.
What is your source on this?
I ask, because I cannot find ANYTHING that I would consider "factual" on this statistic..for either side.
By "factual", I am looking for something non-biased, preferably crime statistics. I have found plenty of "opinions" that support my argument, some even giving statistics that I know are wrong, such as 93% of all gun crimes are committed with
illegal
weapons...which even I do not believe.
I did find
this article
, which I find almost...laughable.
It seems to focus on the fact that "
Guns start with a legal sale from a licensed dealer
.".....well...duh! Yes, most weapons do
originate
from a legal sale. The only other option are weapons smuggled into the country, which while that is still more than a million a year by some estimates, is only a small part of the problem.
Once a gun is stolen, or sold "under the table" by a dealer, it is no longer a "legal" weapon. But that seems to be how, at least in this article, they wish to define them. Since they were legal at one point, they still count them as "legal" after a criminal has them. To me, that is just ignorant logic.
Its the same way Washington DC tries to explain why they had the strictest gun control in the nation for 20 years, yet still had one of the highest gun crime rates. They claimed most guns were "legally" purchased in surrounding states. No, purchasing a weapon in Virginia, then transporting it to DC is a crime, and thus, the firearm is illegal.
What I want to see, is some unbiased statistic of how many gun crimes were committed by the
legal owner of a legal weapon.
I will be willing to bet you dinner it will NOT be anywhere near "all", and I would bet at least a light lunch its not even a majority.
And, BTW, exclude suicides as well, as I would not consider that a "crime" in the context of this debate.
Post by
Squishalot
The link I posted earlier gets its information from
this article
, which refers to weapons being "obtained legally", which is a much more compelling definition than the article that you found.
That being said, I stand slightly corrected for myself - the data they were looking at were in relation to mass shootings, not armed crime generally, which I forgot.
Post by
Magician22773
The link I posted earlier gets its information from
this article
, which refers to weapons being "obtained legally", which is a much more compelling definition than the article that you found.
That being said, I stand slightly corrected for myself - the data they were looking at were in relation to mass shootings, not armed crime generally, which I forgot.
I gotta make this a quick reply.
First, I would suggest you look at the last line in the description of all the shootings there....
Previous Signs of Mental Illness: Yes
seems to be pretty prevalent on those dots.
And I would also like to add that the fact that Adam Lanza is classified as "unclear" in that category, that make me question what they want as proof of mental illness. Have you read the reports about this "kids" condition? It seems pretty clear to me he was mentally ill.
Second. I know you do not know firearms as well as I do, but looking at the weapons used....they are all over the place. From .22 caliber rifles with a scope (that would be what I would call a Squirrel hunting gun), to .32 revolvers (this was very likely an antique gun, as .32 is a very odd caliber for a modern weapon), up to the dreaded .223 Bushmaster "assault" rifle, which, is not really an assault weapon, by definition.
An assault weapon as defined is "a weapon capable of fully automatic or semi-automatic fire, selectable by the shooter". The bushmaster is not capable of full auto fire, and thus does not meet that definition.
I also would say I asked for "unbiased" facts....you picked a Mother Jones article? You realize I can link a dozen articles from the NRA or other similar websites that support my opinion, but I choose no too, because even I realize that each side is going to cherry pick statistics that fit their agenda.
Post by
b4xx
In stark contrast, handguns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, shot-guns, grenade launchers, SAMs, armoured cars, anti-tank guns/missiles, tanks, armed aircraft and armed ships can routinely be utilised against specific legitimate targets without an any/unreasonable collateral damage to innocent civilians.
So, just to be clear - you would sanction free ownership without registration nor monitoring of the above list of armaments? So, for instance, you wouldn't ask that my F-117A stealth bomber be regulated, registered or otherwise monitored?
Correct.
I... can't even...
I find these kinds of thoughts very absurd, but then again, you and I live in a completely different kinds of societies.
Any number of civilians armed only with hand weapons, no matter how large, stands no chance against an organized army nowadays. And I can not think any reason on earth to give normal citizens the right to own stealth bombers.
No reason on Earth?
A few books on the history of genocide gave me a few good reasons. If the Holocaust taught us ANYTHING, it taught us that
we can never trust government completely
.
I remind you that the American Revolution was started by the citizen soldiers (Militias) of Lexington and Concorde who possessed their own CANNONS.
It's pretty ironic that Boston now lies in the heart of America's gun-control movement.
So you really think that normal citizens should still possess the means to stand up to their government in the case of it turning into some despotic tyranny, even if this would also give them the means to kill thousands of people very easily? I'd call this paranoid. You don't have to trust your government completely, but nor should you be arming yourself against it.
How many innocent people have been killed by armed civilians?
How many innocent people have been killed by governments?
Do the math.
I find it astonishing that so many people have learned so little from history.
And I get seriously pissed off when Jewish people demand complete trust and subservience to uniformed authority. They should know the danger of civilians being completely defenceless in the face of armed government better than anyone. What the hell are they (not) teaching in our schools these days?
We're talking about 21st century, not history. And even if you would just take the sheer numbers, I can't find it acceptable to let a few people die to protect the majority from a highly unlikely event.
Post by
gamerunknown
And I would also like to add that the fact that Adam Lanza is classified as "unclear" in that category, that make me question what they want as proof of mental illness. Have you read the reports about this "kids" condition? It seems pretty clear to me he was mentally ill.
This is a
post hoc
assertion. What "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership would you support now that would have prevented Adam Lanza from using his mother's firearms? Not selling guns to anyone unless one has a doctor's certificate that their whole family is neurotypical?
By the way BlueRobe, Nazi Germany passed two sets of gun laws: one which extended gun rights to citizens and one which prevented sale to and manufacture by Jews (substitute "Jew" with "mentally ill" and many gun owners would support the same laws in the US).
Post by
Magician22773
This is a post hoc assertion. What "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership would you support now that would have prevented Adam Lanza from using his mother's firearms? Not selling guns to anyone unless one has a doctor's certificate that their whole family is neurotypical?
No "reasonable" restriction on gun ownership would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre. Lanza stole his mothers firearms, killed her in her sleep, and killed 25 innocent people. No amount of control on weapons of any kind could have prevented that. If it had not been her guns, it would have been someone else's. If it had not been guns, it would have been a bomb. He was determined, and he was crazy. The only thing that could have prevented this, is if the principle and the teacher that bravely stood in front of him to protect the children had been armed themselves. THAT would have prevented this. NOTHING else could have.
Post by
Magician22773
At least Americans are still allowed to shoot back at meth-crazed machete-wielding maniacs trying to steal high-powered firearms.
In America, you don't get prosecuted,
you get sued
.
I have to admit, that I have considered if, God forbid, I ever had to defend my home against an attacker, if I would even want to report it to the police, or if I would be better off just fertilizing the garden with the scumbags remains.
Post by
b4xx
We're talking about 21st century, not history. And even if you would just take the sheer numbers, I can't find it acceptable to let a few people die to protect the majority from a highly unlikely event.
History?
Rwanda. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sri Lanka. Indonesia. Darfur. Tibet. The United Nations. 7 governments who are guilty of committing genocide just within the last 20 years.
And I haven't even bothered to list examples of Ethnic Cleansing or those countless examples of governments that are clearly despotic TODAY.
But in those countries, weapon's ownership isn't limited by anything. Still they're/ were under a civil war and many terrible things happened. I don't think it was guns they needed...
Post by
b4xx
We're talking about 21st century, not history. And even if you would just take the sheer numbers, I can't find it acceptable to let a few people die to protect the majority from a highly unlikely event.
History?
Rwanda. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sri Lanka. Indonesia. Darfur. Tibet. The United Nations. 7 governments who are guilty of committing genocide just within the last 20 years.
And I haven't even bothered to list examples of Ethnic Cleansing or those countless examples of governments that are clearly despotic TODAY.
But in those countries, weapon's ownership isn't limited by anything. Still they're/ were under a civil war and many terrible things happened. I don't think it was guns they needed...
In 1995, the United Nations disarmed the besieged Bosnian population of Srebrenica. The United Nations confiscated the weapons, military vehicles, ammunition and mines from the Bosnians.
The Dutch peacekeepers of the United Nations then stood back and did absolutely NOTHING while the heavily armed and well-organised Serbs moved in to rape the women and young girls (eye-witness accounts at the Hague show that the Dutch peacekeepers actually watched many of the rapes), and allowed the organised massacre of the men in the worst act of genocide on European soil since the Second World War.
To this day, there is an intense hatred for the Dutch among the people of Srebrenica.
As bad as the siege of Srebrenica had been over the previous 2 years, the armed stand-off between the two armed groups was infinitely preferable to the horrors that resulted from disarming the people of Srebrenica.
It was the removal of guns from the victims of that war crime that allowed those war crimes to occur.
Genocide and tyranny WILL happen again. Tyranny is happening TODAY. The horrors currently happening in Darfur were greatly exacerbated by the fact that the victims of those crimes were completely unarmed.
Why do you insist that tyranny and genocide is something that could only ever happen to OTHER people? Germany and Japan are two of the most civilised countries on Earth and look at the horrors they perpetrated within living memory.
You can continue to trust in government. I'm going to learn a few things from history. Lest we forget.
I insist it, because I don't believe it's going to happen to me, nor do I believe that it's going to happen in the western democracies, like the US.. I can't really speak about other countries like Rwanda, because the situation there is and always has been so different from the US for example. I'm not saying that there aren't genocides or tyrannies, of course there are.
I'm saying that civilians having weapons does not change that fact.
It's still going to happen, and we shouldn't be arming the people, we should be making them realize why they shouldn't kill the jew just because he was born to be jewish, for example. It's not something that's going to change fast or easily.
I trust my government. I don't need guns to protect myself or my home. I'm fine with that.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I also would say I asked for "unbiased" facts....you picked a Mother Jones article? You realize I can link a dozen articles from the NRA or other similar websites that support my opinion, but I choose no too, because even I realize that each side is going to cherry pick statistics that fit their agenda.
I've got no idea who Mother Jones are, to be honest. The original post that referenced the Mother Jones article was a Washington Post article, and I haven't heard that they've got any Fox News-style reputation of bias in particular.
The key thing is though, I'm not looking at the text of the article at all, I'm only looking at the statistics that they've thrown together. Facts are, by definition, unbiased.
The question of the type of weapon isn't really that relevant for me - my argument is more about restricting / monitoring legal access to weapons generally. We've got a number of studies in Australia that show that shooting crimes have come down following a no-questions-asked buy-back of 'illegal' weaponry and a tightening of gun laws, with rough estimates of some 200 people who haven't been killed by firearms over the last 15 years. For a population the size of ours, that's a reasonably significant change.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.