Americans - Would you change gun laws?

[Infiltrator]

This isn't Europe. You're only allowed to protest in free speech zones here. What is a free speech zone? It's an area where you're allowed to protest, surrounded by fences or barracades with cops in full riot gear ready to crack skulls at the slightest sign of unrest. In cases of riots you can bet the state government will mobilize the National Guards and declare martial law.

-----------

You know people actually AGREE that protesters should be arrested because they don't think their message is patriotic? Hell most people think torture is perfectly acceptable and that censoring the media is acceptable! You can talk about voting but what happens if half the population votes the OTHER WAY?

Half the country think the Patriot Act is a GOOD thing and that domestic spying is a GOOD thing.

Police respond to protests/riots in Europe as well. They're generally considered pretty good at it too.

That's not even the point.

My question is how do guns factor in to protesting and public opinion/elected representative voting on the PATRIOT ACT? I'm just not seeing the correlation. And don't come with some slippery slope thing;

It's simple, protesting and voting is the "demand", the guns in our hands is to emphasize "or else".

pro-gun are more likely to support/legislate PATRIOT ACT anyway.

I thought we were all paranoid anti-government nutjobs?

[Beckwin]

uh, the "or else" really doesn't mean shit if it's in the form of firearms or not. I think it's already been covered that guns alone are incapable of policy change, not to mention overthrow. What are you gonna do, storm City Hall or Congress or the White House with your glock? Good luck with that. Keep in mind that the most effective protests actually contributing to change in the last century were primarily peaceful ones.

And it doesn't take political rocket science to generalize that Republicans are generally more supportive of the PATRIOT act and 2nd Amendment rights. There are exceptions both ways, but it's the larger contingents that matter most. Hell tbh I couldn't really fathom someone supporting the PATRIOT act while simultaneously wanting to heavily restrict firearms, although the converse makes sense.

[Faris]

I cant believe people are arguing that guns should not be banned...i just dont see how.

[Infiltrator]

I think the idea of owning firearms to protect yourself from the government is really lol. There'd be no way a citizen uprising alone could overthrow the government without existing military support. It'd be a slaughter. "But 200 million people with guns!!111!!!" versus.... trained soldiers, machine guns, tanks, mines, mortars, missiles, naval bombardments, planes, bombs, etc. We simply are beyond the times where number of armed individuals was the chief strength of a force, so as far as I'm concerned the notion of a citizen militia or protection from oppression offered by guns is absolutely irrelevant.

The US military was designed to capture cities, not to fight irregular warfare against hit-and-run guerillas.

But I suppose protest signs are a better match for an M1 Abrams.

And finally, the constitution = holy grail attitude is annoying to me. The document was designed to be changed, so it's currently existing status really has no bearing on this discussion.

Then change it the only way it's allowed to be changed, by having 2/3s of the Senate and House vote on the changes then have 2/3s of the States to ratifying it.

[Tricen]

I cant believe people are arguing that guns should not be banned...i just dont see how.

Can I get a wat wat?

[Beckwin]

I think the idea of owning firearms to protect yourself from the government is really lol. There'd be no way a citizen uprising alone could overthrow the government without existing military support. It'd be a slaughter. "But 200 million people with guns!!111!!!" versus.... trained soldiers, machine guns, tanks, mines, mortars, missiles, naval bombardments, planes, bombs, etc. We simply are beyond the times where number of armed individuals was the chief strength of a force, so as far as I'm concerned the notion of a citizen militia or protection from oppression offered by guns is absolutely irrelevant.

The US military was designed to capture cities, not to fight irregular warfare against hit-and-run guerillas.

But I suppose protest signs are a better match for an M1 Abrams.

And finally, the constitution = holy grail attitude is annoying to me. The document was designed to be changed, so it's currently existing status really has no bearing on this discussion.

Then change it the only way it's allowed to be changed, by having 2/3s of the Senate and House vote on the changes then have 2/3s of the States to ratifying it.

angry mob with guns != hit and run guerilla fighters. And a protest sign would be just about as effective as a pistol versus an M1 Abrams. Actually moreso; they'd contribute more to a massive pile of bodies that might be able to slow the thing down. Or perhaps you flip a bunch of signs around, draw an open road landscape, and Looney Toons the tank off an overpass or bridge.

I'd be down with a formal gun control amendment, but considering that in respect to the peoples' right to assembly in the 1st being subject to registration/monitoring, I don't see a problem in regulating guns (and bear arms, those things are dangerous too).

[Infiltrator]

uh, the "or else" really doesn't mean shit if it's in the form of firearms or not.

I'd like to have ALL options available no matter how improbable.

I think it's already been covered that guns alone are incapable of policy change, not to mention overthrow.

History disagrees with you.

What are you gonna do, storm City Hall or Congress or the White House with your glock? Good luck with that.

no, I'm going to stand in front of a tank.

Keep in mind that the most effective protests actually contributing to change in the last century were primarily peaceful ones.

Did those protest stop the Blitzkrieg? Oh right, force did that.

And it doesn't take political rocket science to generalize that Republicans are generally more supportive of the PATRIOT act and 2nd Amendment rights. There are exceptions both ways, but it's the larger contingents that matter most. Hell tbh I couldn't really fathom someone supporting the PATRIOT act while simultaneously wanting to heavily restrict firearms, although the converse makes sense.

lol partisan politics.

[Scythiroth]

I'm not reading this whole topic, but I personally have no use for a gun and could care less if they were banned. Never heard of anything good coming from a gun though, I always just hear about school shootings, etc.

[Beckwin]

History disagrees with you.

I was obviously talking about in the hands of American citizens today. Don't take shit out of context.

Did those protest stop the Blitzkrieg? Oh right, force did that.

Are you saying civilians with handguns and hunting rifles stopped the Blitzkrieg? Oh wait, it was a military force stopping another military force.

Are you trying to make really bad points now? I don't get where you're trying to go with this stuff.

[Demosthenes11]

wow, horrible troll is horrible

[Woozie]

A joke post in the midst of a serious debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

Okay, you may now continue with your regularly schedule argument.

Edit: I claim this page in the name of comedy!

[Woozie]

Also:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Someone commented earlier than 8/10 gun-related violent crimes were from guns that were obtained illegally? These statistics are a bit outdated, but they indicate that the number isn't even half of that. From the looks of it, a ban on guns would cut out a very significant portion of gun-related incidences (a little under 61%).

[Norelco]

I don't think guns should be banned but the laws need to be changed. There's no way that Cho fucker from VT should have gotten his hands on those weapons, especially with his previous mental history.

People will always have guns, legal or illegal. I don't like the idea of guns being banned, because that will pretty much guarantee that the bad guys will be armed to the teeth while the rest of us are not.

More education is needed on handling and storing guns properly. More restrictions needed on who and how one can obtain a gun.

[sephir]

Infiltrator, did you know that Cho put automatic clips into his semi-auto to make it nearly the equivalent? Spraying 25 bullets in 11 seconds seems somewhat dangerous to the public- at least to me.

did you also know that Handguns comprise approximately 25% of the weapons in America but are involved in 82% of all homicides? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... ted_States

I understand that in the US no fully auto has yet been used in violent crime (because special permits are required, and difficult to obtain), but the majority of the massacres that do take place are done with Semi-autos. Many of these weapons are smuggled accross the boarder into my country, and as a result pose a danger to our citizens. We have been fortunate that we haven't had incidents of the scale of Columbine occur yet (we have had shootings but they are infrequent and much smaller), but with what is being illegally smuggled as a result of your gun laws, it just might (I hope it doesn't).

A rifle used for hunting is VASTLY different from a semi-auto. I know that it is a gun that is dangerous, but it is much more difficult to smuggle a hunting rifle, and much more difficult to have a massacre with one- Whitman is an exception. Handguns are of the same category as they can be easily hidden and smuggled into various locations and be dangerous.

[Isiolia]

Also:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Someone commented earlier than 8/10 gun-related violent crimes were from guns that were obtained illegally? These statistics are a bit outdated, but they indicate that the number isn't even half of that. From the looks of it, a ban on guns would cut out a very significant portion of gun-related incidences (a little under 61%).

Actually, no. Look at the percentages and read more than the first page of the document posted. Around 40% of guns were obtained from street/illegal sources. A further roughly 40% of guns were obtained from friends or family members. There's a topic in the paper stating that legally purchased firearms used in crime went from 21% to 14% between 1991 and 1997.
They also state that 8 out of 10 prisoner would legally not been able to purchase a gun.

It seems like that document supports the notion that the vast majority of guns being used in crime are not being obtained via regulated channels.


Personally I don't see legality changing things much, considering the lack of concern most criminals have for breaking the law in the first place. Average punishment for crimes committed without a firearm are already less that those with (according to the linked document).

I don't think there should be rampant availability of guns, but it's like copy protected media. The main people who get affected are the ones following the law in the first place.

I don't think guns should be banned but the laws need to be changed. There's no way that Cho fucker from VT should have gotten his hands on those weapons, especially with his previous mental history.

I think part of the problem with that was that he had mental issues, but some of them were at his discretion to have treatment or whatever for. So it never went on the record because he declined it.

[Woozie]

Also:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Someone commented earlier than 8/10 gun-related violent crimes were from guns that were obtained illegally? These statistics are a bit outdated, but they indicate that the number isn't even half of that. From the looks of it, a ban on guns would cut out a very significant portion of gun-related incidences (a little under 61%).

Actually, no. Look at the percentages and read more than the first page of the document posted. Around 40% of guns were obtained from street/illegal sources. A further roughly 40% of guns were obtained from friends or family members. There's a topic in the paper stating that legally purchased firearms used in crime went from 21% to 14% between 1991 and 1997.
They also state that 8 out of 10 prisoner would legally not been able to purchase a gun.

It seems like that document supports the notion that the vast majority of guns being used in crime are not being obtained via regulated channels.


Personally I don't see legality changing things much, considering the lack of concern most criminals have for breaking the law in the first place. Average punishment for crimes committed without a firearm are already less that those with (according to the linked document).

In 1997, 14% of State inmates who had
used or possessed a firearm during
their current offense bought or traded
for it from a retail store, pawnshop, flea
market, or gun show (table 8). Nearly
40% of State inmates carrying a
firearm obtained the weapon from
family or friends. About 3 in 10
received the weapon from drug
dealers, off the street, or through the
black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained
their gun during a robbery, burglary, or
other type of theft.

They're saying that 14% bought the gun themselves (i.e. a friend or family member didn't give it to them, and it wasn't obtained illegally through the streets/blackmarket). It clearly says that 3/10 got the weapon from blackmarket/other illegal sources, whereas people in this topic have been stating "majority" or "8/10".

[Linktri]

Now that Charleston Heston is dead, does someone actually have the balls to pry those guns from his cold, dead hands?

[Maxxthepenguin]

Woozie: They say 8 in 10 are gotten illegally, trying to imply that this means the black market when usually it's the weapon being stolen or borrowed from somebody who had it illegally.

[Woozie]

Woozie: They say 8 in 10 are gotten illegally, trying to imply that this means the black market when usually it's the weapon being stolen or borrowed from somebody who had it illegally.

I'm probably just being an idiot here, but I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me x.x

Edit: Okay, I get it, my bad lol

[Maxxthepenguin]

I'm just clarifying what they were trying to say and imply. Then they would go on to make the argument that criminals are criminals and would just expand the black market if guns were illegal and purchase them instead of the borrowing and stealing. Of course then people say we can try to crack down on the black market if it is the source since it's less of a moving target and can be focused on better. Then the other people will say that you can't take away their penis-analogues.

etc