• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Gun Control Laws

"It defeats the point to have that tyrannous regime keep a log of who owns the weapon against tyranny. And yes, I'm fully aware that a gun isn't going to prevail against the United States war machine, but that really isn't the point. The point is that I have the right to go down swinging, and, thus, possibly deter the tyranny to begin with. And if you think the idea of the United States attacking its citizens is loony bins, I suggest you read a little history."

And having every sale registered does not stop anyone "from going down swinging".
 
Junebug said:
A few random observations:

First, there is no point discussing a ban of all guns or even all handguns. There is no political will for it, and, even if there were, it would be patently unconstitutional. If you think that it is going to happen, you are living in a fantasy land.

Second, while the numbers of gun-related deaths in the United States is high (~31,000), this number is artificially inflated because over half of these deaths are suicides (~17,000). These deaths really aren't attributable to the ease of access to guns because, for the most part, suicidal people are going to find a way to kill themselves anyway. The fact that they do so by guns in the United States skews the numbers.

Third while incidents like Sandy Hook capture our national attention (as they should), the reality is that the vast majority of gun deaths are perpetrated by criminals (i.e., people who were criminals beforehand) and gang members. When we think about what regulations to enact, we need to assume that only law-abiding citizens are going to comply. Gang-bangers aren't going to register or buy insurance for their guns.

Fourth, and related, on the assumption that criminals aren't going to self-report their gun ownership (which is a safe assumption considering the Supreme Court has held that criminals have a constitutional right to avoid registering their illegal guns under the self incrimination clause), I don't really see what a national registry would accomplish. In any event, the idea of a national registry is problematic because one of the principles underlying the Second Amendment is that, just as a jury in a criminal trial interposes a human buffer as a weapon between the state and the individual, a gun interposes a literal weapon between a tyrannous regime and the individual. It defeats the point to have that tyrannous regime keep a log of who owns the weapon against tyranny. And yes, I'm fully aware that a gun isn't going to prevail against the United States war machine, but that really isn't the point. The point is that I have the right to go down swinging, and, thus, possibly deter the tyranny to begin with. And if you think the idea of the United States attacking its citizens is loony bins, I suggest you read a little history.
Click to expand...

1. I agree
2. Suicide rates are significantly higher with more availability of guns. Even controlling that, we are among a peer group for gun-related homicides with war torn countries.
3. More regulations would lead to less guns for criminals to steal or require illegally.
4. I get your sentiment, but if the state decided to turn on citizens, a drone would blow up your house before you even knew to get your gun. It's a dated argument.

I do appreciate what seems to be the most reasoned and civil argument I have read from you on this board.
 
Junebug said:
A few random observations:

First, there is no point discussing a ban of all guns or even all handguns. There is no political will for it, and, even if there were, it would be patently unconstitutional. If you think that it is going to happen, you are living in a fantasy land.

Second, while the numbers of gun-related deaths in the United States is high (~31,000), this number is artificially inflated because over half of these deaths are suicides (~17,000). These deaths really aren't attributable to the ease of access to guns because, for the most part, suicidal people are going to find a way to kill themselves anyway. The fact that they do so by guns in the United States skews the numbers.

Third while incidents like Sandy Hook capture our national attention (as they should), the reality is that the vast majority of gun deaths are perpetrated by criminals (i.e., people who were criminals beforehand) and gang members. When we think about what regulations to enact, we need to assume that only law-abiding citizens are going to comply. Gang-bangers aren't going to register or buy insurance for their guns.

Fourth, and related, on the assumption that criminals aren't going to self-report their gun ownership (which is a safe assumption considering the Supreme Court has held that criminals have a constitutional right to avoid registering their illegal guns under the self incrimination clause), I don't really see what a national registry would accomplish. In any event, the idea of a national registry is problematic because one of the principles underlying the Second Amendment is that, just as a jury in a criminal trial interposes a human buffer as a weapon between the state and the individual, a gun interposes a literal weapon between a tyrannous regime and the individual. It defeats the point to have that tyrannous regime keep a log of who owns the weapon against tyranny. And yes, I'm fully aware that a gun isn't going to prevail against the United States war machine, but that really isn't the point. The point is that I have the right to go down swinging, and, thus, possibly deter the tyranny to begin with. And if you think the idea of the United States attacking its citizens is loony bins, I suggest you read a little history.
Click to expand...

You said a lot of things.

A couple points I want to make. While the majority of the 9 fire-arm related deaths/100k people in the US annually are suicides, 2.98 of them are homicides. That is higher than all Top 10 GDP countries I had data on (so not including China, UK, or Russia) other than Brazil. No Western European country is higher than us on that.

The second point is, gangs are going to get guns and kill each other. I get that. The problem is when a mentally unstable person snaps and goes on a rampage. If this person has guns readily available they will likely use them. If they have to jump through hoops to get them, this may discourage them to some degree.
 
WakeandBake said:
Let's start with an assault weapons ban. You people had your chance and you blew it - a bunch of kids were killed with one. :noidea: sorry, shit happens. your idea sucked

signed, WakeandBake - owner of a shotgun a .22 rifle and a 30/30 rifle
Click to expand...

Yes. There is simply no reason for a private citizen to own an assault weapon.
 
Shorty said:
Yes. There is simply no reason for a private citizen to own an assault weapon.
Click to expand...

And even if there is a reason (because lord knows that a RWingnut or libertarian can manufacture some antiquated nonsense), it's not a good reason.

For instance: the whole being armed to protect yourself against the tyranny of the state. An automatic weapon isn't going to protect you from a drone any more than a handgun. You're toast either way.
 
Junebug said:
A few random observations:

First, there is no point discussing a ban of all guns or even all handguns. There is no political will for it, and, even if there were, it would be patently unconstitutional. If you think that it is going to happen, you are living in a fantasy land.

Second, while the numbers of gun-related deaths in the United States is high (~31,000), this number is artificially inflated because over half of these deaths are suicides (~17,000). These deaths really aren't attributable to the ease of access to guns because, for the most part, suicidal people are going to find a way to kill themselves anyway. The fact that they do so by guns in the United States skews the numbers[SUP]1[/SUP].

Third while incidents like Sandy Hook capture our national attention (as they should), the reality is that the vast majority of gun deaths are perpetrated by criminals (i.e., people who were criminals beforehand) and gang members[SUP]2[/SUP]. When we think about what regulations to enact, we need to assume that only law-abiding citizens are going to comply. Gang-bangers aren't going to register or buy insurance for their guns.

Fourth, and related, on the assumption that criminals aren't going to self-report their gun ownership (which is a safe assumption considering the Supreme Court has held that criminals have a constitutional right to avoid registering their illegal guns under the self incrimination clause), I don't really see what a national registry would accomplish. In any event, the idea of a national registry is problematic because one of the principles underlying the Second Amendment is that, just as a jury in a criminal trial interposes a human buffer as a weapon between the state and the individual, a gun interposes a literal weapon between a tyrannous regime and the individual. It defeats the point to have that tyrannous regime keep a log of who owns the weapon against tyranny. And yes, I'm fully aware that a gun isn't going to prevail against the United States war machine, but that really isn't the point[SUP]3[/SUP]. The point is that I have the right to go down swinging, and, thus, possibly deter the tyranny to begin with. And if you think the idea of the United States attacking its citizens is loony bins, I suggest you read a little history.
Click to expand...

1. That's contrary to 1. research specifically on suicide in the US (your library should have Night Falls Fast by Kay Redfield Jamison, but this will do just as well) and 2. the experience of Australia after its gun crackdown in 1996 (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full). Other means are equally terrible but nowhere near as lethal as firearms. This paragraph is just aggressively wrong on facts. I have no idea what the fuck would be "artificial" about a suicide.

2. No, the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides. A gun in a household is many times more likely to be used in a suicide than in crime prevention (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182).

3. Tunisia had a really impressive revolution without an armed populace. Anything they can do, we can do better.


I feel like I should also say that I think you are an idiot.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
1. I agree
2. Suicide rates are significantly higher with more availability of guns. Even controlling that, we are among a peer group for gun-related homicides with war torn countries.
3. More regulations would lead to less guns for criminals to steal or require illegally.
4. I get your sentiment, but if the state decided to turn on citizens, a drone would blow up your house before you even knew to get your gun. It's a dated argument.

I do appreciate what seems to be the most reasoned and civil argument I have read from you on this board.
Click to expand...

2. In places, our inner cities are akin to war-torn countries. I simply don't believe that the type of regulations that could constitutionally be enacted are going to change that. The problem is much bigger than the fact guns are in the hands of criminals.

3. Walk me through how you think regulation would result in fewer guns for criminals to acquire. I'll confess at the outset to being skeptical.

4. Your counterpoint is actually an argument for fewer restrictions, not more--If the sentiment of the second amendment was resistance against oppression (which it was), then I should be able to own means of effective resistance, including assault weapons, drones, tanks, etc. I'm not actually making that argument, however, because I don't think the Second Amendment should be interpreted to allow citizens to possess these type of weapons. Plus, the state isn't going to be able to blow up every house using drones, and those who were missed in the first wave should have the ability to defend themselves. Moreover, the sentiment isn't just about protection from our own government's tyranny; it is also about protection from an invading force. I don't know how old you are, but there was a time in my life when a Russian invasion didn't seem far fetched.

As to your final point, I presume you mean "on this thread."
 
Junebug said:
A few random observations:

First, there is no point discussing a ban of all guns or even all handguns. There is no political will for it, and, even if there were, it would be patently unconstitutional. If you think that it is going to happen, you are living in a fantasy land.

Second, while the numbers of gun-related deaths in the United States is high (~31,000), this number is artificially inflated because over half of these deaths are suicides (~17,000). These deaths really aren't attributable to the ease of access to guns because, for the most part, suicidal people are going to find a way to kill themselves anyway. The fact that they do so by guns in the United States skews the numbers.

Third while incidents like Sandy Hook capture our national attention (as they should), the reality is that the vast majority of gun deaths are perpetrated by criminals (i.e., people who were criminals beforehand) and gang members. When we think about what regulations to enact, we need to assume that only law-abiding citizens are going to comply. Gang-bangers aren't going to register or buy insurance for their guns.

Fourth, and related, on the assumption that criminals aren't going to self-report their gun ownership (which is a safe assumption considering the Supreme Court has held that criminals have a constitutional right to avoid registering their illegal guns under the self incrimination clause), I don't really see what a national registry would accomplish. In any event, the idea of a national registry is problematic because one of the principles underlying the Second Amendment is that, just as a jury in a criminal trial interposes a human buffer as a weapon between the state and the individual, a gun interposes a literal weapon between a tyrannous regime and the individual. It defeats the point to have that tyrannous regime keep a log of who owns the weapon against tyranny. And yes, I'm fully aware that a gun isn't going to prevail against the United States war machine, but that really isn't the point. The point is that I have the right to go down swinging, and, thus, possibly deter the tyranny to begin with. And if you think the idea of the United States attacking its citizens is loony bins, I suggest you read a little history.
Click to expand...

I love it how lawyers feel compelled to talk people down on the basis of not understanding the law while lecturing us on the finer points of history and social interaction.

Did it ever dawn on you the correlation between suicide and unlimited access to weapons of, let's face it, mass destruction may extend to similar social problems? Same for mass murder and suicide. Look at the types of people committing these crimes. What do they have in common? I think that's far more intelligent than decoupling murders and suicide to say, hey look 14k isn't that bad!

The right to go down swinging? Who the hell do you (or the law) think you are to decide what this means? I think government tyranny is taking 250 years to legalize gay marriage. Does that mean that I can bring an assault rifle to...? I'll forfeit that right to fire an assault rifle at a drone if it means that elementary school children aren't massacred in a school by a 20-year old psychopath.

What the hell happened to your moral compass, Junebug? This is pure, unadulterated moral relatvism and it's really dangerous. Remember the Columbine shooters' manifesto?
 
Junebug, aren't you a lawyer?

The 2nd Amendment is just as open to interpretation and subject to change as others. It has been shoehorned into something it never could have anticipated to be. You can stockpile all the muzzleloaders you want. Go for it. Not the same thing as modern weapons.

Second, the reason for reducing guns is not trying to stop suicides. Even though that inflates the # of gun deaths, it isn't really relevant to the gun violence discussion.

Third, this point has been multiply addressed. Gang violence will have to be treated differently than Sandy Hook violence.

Fourth, see above above retorts.
 
Junebug said:
I feel like I should say that I don't really give a fuck what you think.
Click to expand...

Well, most of the people posting on this thread seem to feel the same way, so that you are not right might be worthy of consideration.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
1. That's contrary to 1. research specifically on suicide in the US (your library should have Night Falls Fast by Kay Redfield Jamison, but this will do just as well) and 2. the experience of Australia after its gun crackdown in 1996 (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full). Other means are equally terrible but nowhere near as lethal as firearms. This paragraph is just aggressively wrong on facts. I have no idea what the fuck would be "artificial" about a suicide.

2. No, the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides. A gun in a household is many times more likely to be used in a suicide than in crime prevention (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182).

3. Tunisia had a really impressive revolution without an armed populace. Anything they can do, we can do better.


I feel like I should also say that I think you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

2. By the way, I was obviously referring to homicides. In fact, I provided the numbers of deaths v. suicides in the paragraph.

Now go find a chart or something.
 
Junebug said:
A few random observations:

First, there is no point discussing a ban of all guns or even all handguns. There is no political will for it, and, even if there were, it would be patently unconstitutional. If you think that it is going to happen, you are living in a fantasy land.

Second, while the numbers of gun-related deaths in the United States is high (~31,000), this number is artificially inflated because over half of these deaths are suicides (~17,000). These deaths really aren't attributable to the ease of access to guns because, for the most part, suicidal people are going to find a way to kill themselves anyway. The fact that they do so by guns in the United States skews the numbers.

Third while incidents like Sandy Hook capture our national attention (as they should), the reality is that the vast majority of gun deaths are perpetrated by criminals (i.e., people who were criminals beforehand) and gang members. When we think about what regulations to enact, we need to assume that only law-abiding citizens are going to comply. Gang-bangers aren't going to register or buy insurance for their guns.

Fourth, and related, on the assumption that criminals aren't going to self-report their gun ownership (which is a safe assumption considering the Supreme Court has held that criminals have a constitutional right to avoid registering their illegal guns under the self incrimination clause), I don't really see what a national registry would accomplish. In any event, the idea of a national registry is problematic because one of the principles underlying the Second Amendment is that, just as a jury in a criminal trial interposes a human buffer as a weapon between the state and the individual, a gun interposes a literal weapon between a tyrannous regime and the individual. It defeats the point to have that tyrannous regime keep a log of who owns the weapon against tyranny. And yes, I'm fully aware that a gun isn't going to prevail against the United States war machine, but that really isn't the point. The point is that I have the right to go down swinging, and, thus, possibly deter the tyranny to begin with. And if you think the idea of the United States attacking its citizens is loony bins, I suggest you read a little history.
Click to expand...

Just curious, what tyranny would you say most concerns you right now with regards to the government? I don't want to lump you in with stereotypes of people I already have of people who talk about the dangers our government poses to the citizens, but I can't help but feel this sentiment is a little deranged. Most people I hear spouting it list bullshit like obamacare and the UN but could care less about the Patriot Act or detention/killing of American citizens in the war on terror.
 
Townie, Tuff, Strick, Bake, how dare you question Junebug. You should be grateful to be allowed to bask in brilliant presence. Would you question the Dali Lama on Buddhism? How can you dare to question him on anything in life?
 
Strickland33 said:
I love it how lawyers feel compelled to talk people down on the basis of not understanding the law while lecturing us on the finer points of history and social interaction. [SUP]1[/SUP]

Did it ever dawn on you the correlation between suicide and unlimited access to weapons of, let's face it, mass destruction may extend to similar social problems? Same for mass murder and suicide. Look at the types of people committing these crimes. What do they have in common? I think that's far more intelligent than decoupling murders and suicide to say, hey look 14k isn't that bad!

The right to go down swinging? Who the hell do you (or the law) think you are to decide what this means? [SUP]2[/SUP] I think government tyranny is taking 250 years to legalize gay marriage. Does that mean that I can bring an assault rifle to...? I'll forfeit that right to fire an assault rifle at a drone if it means that elementary school children aren't massacred in a school by a 20-year old psychopath.

What the hell happened to your moral compass, Junebug? [SUP]3[/SUP] This is pure, unadulterated moral relatvism and it's really dangerous. [SUP]4[/SUP] Remember the Columbine shooters' manifesto? [SUP]5[/SUP]
Click to expand...

1. I have no idea what you are talking about.
2. It's pretty clear what the Second Amendment was about. Hint: it wasn't about homosexual marriage.
3. I have no idea what you are talking about.
4. I have no idea what you are talking about.
5. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top