191 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

No matter which side of the gun debate you are on, it's hard to deny that something has changed in the gun debate.  The events of Sandy Hook have not so much changed the debate as woken up the silent majority of Americans who had never felt strongly about the gun debate, and the country has discovered it is a lot more pro-gun control than previously thought.  I believe this goes back to something I said in another thread about the Great Shift Left that I believe we are witnessing.  One day we might look upon this as the era of the Three G's:  Gay marriage, Ganja, and Gun control.

 

Understand, I don't believe we are going to see the right to keep and bear arms revoked.  Guns will remain a fact of life for many, many people across the country.  Gun culture will continue unabated.  But I think we are going to see more restrictions on buying guns, including universal background checks and better tracking of sales.  And I think we will see restrictions on carrying guns in public.

 

This is important.  The Supreme Court is considering hearing a case that challenges a law restricting who can carry firearms in public.  Many states have such laws.  If the SCOTUS upholds them, it would open the floodgates for states and municipalities to place greater and greater restrictions on guns in public.  On the other hand, if the Supremes shoot down the state law, any and all such laws would become null and void.  That would be a major victory for the gun-rights crowd.  In fact it would all but cripple gun control efforts.

 

With this Court there is simply no way to guess how they might rule on this matter, and they are only at the point of considering it, so it wouldn't be until the next session that they could even hear it, so a ruling is not in the offing until at least June of 2014.  But I believe the members of this Court are keenly aware that the eyes of history are upon them.  A lot of major social issues, all of the Three G's in fact, are either currently before them or set to come before them soon.  In a perfect world, political considerations and one's place in history would not enter into a justice's deliberations.  And for the most part I think they do not.  But they are human, it is only natural to think about such things.  And at their level, the final court of appeal, they must surely take into consideration such factors as societal and cultural norms.  It is not unusual for justices to become more "liberal" the longer they serve.  And many conservative appointees (such as Earl Warren himself) proved to far more liberal than their political patrons liked.  Roberts shows signs of becoming just such a Chief Justice.  Certainly his ruling in the Obamacare case did not endear him to the Right, which had once lauded him as the perfect example of the kind of jurist we need.  Ah well.

 

The majority of Americans want stricter gun control.  I have a feeling they're going to get it.

[Manoka]

But what for?

 

You're not going to stop the majority of violence perpetrated by criminals who even now are getting the vast majority of their goods from cartels and other smuggling organizations.

 

 

We can increase background checks, do all kinds of things, and it's not like it's going to stop criminals.

 

Or those people without backgrounds, which tend to be the quite people planning crap.

 

 

So it will accomplish nothing.

 

It detracts from the over-all issue.

Edited by Manoka, 14 April 2013 - 05:17 PM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I think we're going to see gun crime decrease because society's tolerance is lessening.  I certainly don't think we're going to see it disappear altogether.  Baby steps.

[Manoka]

We can ban guns and all we'd be doing is banning it from civilian hands.

 

That itself can become a problem.

[Alyster]

The argument about criminals and illegal guns is flawed or more even irrelevant. It's not about them, never has been. It's about school shootings, it's about drunk people playing around with dangerous toys and it's about home violence. It's so that things that happened in 1990s Estonia would never happen again, where a 4-year-old boy shot his dad. 

 

I mean I have an army issued assault rifle AK-4 I could keep at home, but I don't.  It's more trouble than it's worth it. 

 

There are more effective, cheaper and safer methods to protect your home. Only time you need a gun is when you want to kill something. And that happens in a war or when you're hunting. Drunk unemployed 40 year old living in a trailer park doesn't need a pistol.  He needs a maze, a batton or a job. 

[Manoka]

If you care about random acts of violence why not organized violence?

 

Organized violence is predictable and easier to stop, and effects far more people.

 

 

It's ludicrous to ignore the majority of problems for a minority.

 

If you care about what happens to a few people you should care about what happens to everyone.

Edited by Manoka, 14 April 2013 - 06:11 PM.

[Alyster]

Who said I ignore it? But we can focus on more than one thing at a time. 

[Manoka]

We can focus on stopping as much violence as possible, which isn't going to occur by removing people's defensive capabilities.

 

Since legal weapons are rarely used in crime, and it's used more in self defense, it's crazy to suggest it's a good idea to remove that.

 

 

Machine guns are illegal, military style weapons are also illegal; specifically, the ATF has banned certain weapons, even if they otherwise meet safety criteria (so, a bolt action rifle is a hunting weapon, but many sniper rifles are bolt action; specific military ones have been banned, for instance).

 

All a new assault weapons ban would ban is pistol grips, adjustable stocks and barrel shrouds, stuff that makes weapons safer and easier to use.

 

 

Criminals don't even want these things, because it makes it harder to conceal.

 

Background checks are already mandatory for licensed dealers, and most dealers, so resolving a few possible loopholes/ease of transaction in a few states isn't bad, but won't really solve much.

 

 

If you want to stop violence and crime you have to A- do mandatory psychological screenings, which aren't bullet proof, on nearly everyone and B- stop the flow of smuggled goods.

 

I understand banning certain guns, ones that can be more dangerous or harder to control, but there's not a whole lot left to ban that would help people. It could actually start to cut into what's adequate for self defense.

Edited by Manoka, 14 April 2013 - 06:22 PM.

[Alyster]

School shootings, home violence, accidents are more related to legal firearms. We can stop that.

 

Organized crime will exist with or with out armed citizens. We need other methods to crack down on that and these two things are not related. 

[Manoka]

They'll find another way, and in the mean time we'll be left without the capacity to defend ourselves from ever more powerful criminal organizations. The cartels aren't going away any time soon; and if they did, the Russian Mafia or some other group would come in.

 

And they have access to military weapons from the cold war in Russia, from the fall out of country's, that they make in illegal arms manufacturing plants. You do more bad than good.

 

 

That's assuming you'd even stop these crazy people!

 

They could just as easily run people over with a car or any other number of things. You can get a saturday night special just as easily as you can get drugs, for around the same price. 50-100 bucks for a .38 special revolver, one of the most common weapons. 100 dollars for a fucking GRAM of cocaine; both of which you can find on any street corner in any major city of America. To remove the ability to even have a chance to stop them what are you left with? 20 minutes to several hours of waiting for someone else to show up? It's not a good idea.

 

 

The vast majority of mass attackers were on some kind of drug, as well.

 

Be it prescribed pain killers, mental illness medicine, or illegal drugs.

Edited by Manoka, 14 April 2013 - 06:33 PM.

[Alyster]

Having a gun doesn't stop you from being ran over. Nor does it scare off organized crime. Point a gun at me and I'll break your arm for that. 

 

Guns only create illusion of security. 

[Manoka]

You'll break my arm?

 

I can shoot you 30 feet away, 10 feet away, 1 foot away, 200 yards away, you can't get close enough to do that.

 

 

You can't be that stupid.

 

Would you do that to a criminal, just attack them if they had a gun pointed at you, get closer to them?

 

 

It's not about scaring them off, it's about defending yourself when it comes down to the inter personal attacks.

 

Large scale things are left up to the police and military.

 

 

I'm not arguing for guns right to go stop the cartels, just for general defense.

 

I mean idk, criminals don't go away because we ask them to or because of legislation.

Edited by Manoka, 14 April 2013 - 06:39 PM.

[Alyster]

You can't effectively shoot a gun over 8m. Especially in urban area where every missed shot can basically land you in jail. You don't even need to hit a person accidentally, you're responsible for every single shot you make, if you miss and shoot someone's window or a car or a wall, you've committed an armed assault against them. (Edit2: Furthermore you need to think about details such as from what material is the wall behind you, you can shoot a riccocet and hit yourself. We nearly killed our AT guy in my platoon with a riccocet at tactical shooting. Luckily it missed and hit his AK-4)

 

Second of all try taking a gun, even from a tactical holster, cocking it and aiming. Even a slow person would have ran you over from 6m before you're done with all the preparations, no matter what gear you have. Trust me, my last employer had me practicing it for days with USP and a tactical holster. 

 

1m away - every rookie who doesn't shit himself will break your arm. It's the first and the biggest mistake when handling a handgun, you let people close to you. See I even found a video about the technique I had in mind. Trust me, it is easy. I've had to practice that for years in jujitsu. Then I quit, 5 years later still had it in me when I was in another army training camp. (edit: no, no you will not be able to pull the trigger in time, best you can do is shoot and miss)

 

So pistols as a security are an illusion. 

 

[Manoka]

I can't hit past 8 meters? I just went out shooting this weekend, with my pistol, and did, and I was aiming for bottles. O_o

 

Much smaller than humans at 50 feet.

 

 

And that's not like the best pistol around or anything, it's a 400 dollar .40 S&W, which is fairly cheap.

 

My weapon would likely already be in my hands if someone was breaking into my house, and I can quick draw pretty quickly. Not to mention with a laser sight you don't even really need to aim, since you know what you're shooting at fairly easily, it's pretty easy to do.

 

 

Most situations involving guns are resolved without a single shot fired, the other person usually surrenders, whether it be, being assaulted or defending yourself.

 

The idea that you'd dodge gunfire, my bullet, and move your whole body faster than I can move my wrist, and assuming that I wouldn't be as good if not a better ninja than you, or a criminal, and couldn't fight back with the same, another pistol, etc., I mean idk. You must be on crazy pills. The idea that your average criminal can do this is nutbally. The concept that I can't use a pistol in close quarters is also absurd.

 

 

Your fist takes you drawing your whole body into an attack.

 

The pistol can be at any angle hitting anywhere and all it takes is a flick of the trigger. You need distance to be able to attack someone with your bare hands; even the famed 3 inch punch takes 3 inches, I only need millimeters with a gun. O_o

 

 

Bruce lee can't attack me at even 5 feet.

 

Unless he can out run me too anyways I've got a much better chance with a gun than no gun.

Edited by Manoka, 14 April 2013 - 06:57 PM.

[Alyster]

Shooting range =/= tactical shooting duh. Even the classical shooting positions in ranges don't work IRL. Furthermore IRL people use 2 eyes for aiming. It's a different ball game. Go try VIP shooting. Trust me, it is fun as hell. 

[Manoka]

I have done tactical shooting, it's not that hard.

 

Military weapons training takes about a week, and about 3 weeks for a sniper.

 

 

You can become a real proficient marksmen in a real short time.

 

It can take months, or even years to become an expert at physical hand to hand combat, the agility, the strength, the endurance, the ability to attack people just right, to get the first strike etc.

 

 

Dumb people kill people with guns all the time.

 

How many times have people disarmed a gunmen with their bare hands, by themself, in the midst of shooting?

Edited by Manoka, 14 April 2013 - 07:02 PM.

[Alyster]

Yeah I guess this is where neither of us can prove if either of us would hit or miss. I fully believe you that you could hit stuff with a pistol at 25m in a range. However I'm confident in what I've previously stated as well. 

 

PS. There's more to sniper training that being a good marksman

[Manoka]

That's exactly my point.

 

There's a lot more to military training than hitting targets.

 

 

It's really easy to do. O_o

 

It's difficult to disarm people with your bare hands though.

 

 

I've done it with people with weapons like broom handles and knives, but guns would be freaking hard.

 

With a bullet proof vest you could maybe move in such a way for them to shoot you there, think they've got you etc. but then move in and hit their hand hard enough to knock the gun out of their hand, but with a gun all I have to do is point it at them and now we're even.

 

 

Two of us can die today if that's how they want to play it.

 

And I'm aiming at their head, they're likely not aiming at all, few criminals do.

 

 

But think about it this way.

 

If he can run 6 meters uber fast, than so can I; it's not like I'm incapable of moving just because I have a gun in my hand. So the physical range is nullified by that. On the other hand, the only advantage in that situation would be a gun.

Edited by Manoka, 14 April 2013 - 07:07 PM.

[Alyster]

See disarming a knife is much more dangerous than a gun. Gun only shoots a straight line when you squees a trigger. Knife however moves alot more freely in one's hand. It's really a terrible weapon to fight with bare hands. I do dare to take on a gun, I don't want to mess with a knife unless I have a batton. 

[Manoka]

Knives are a lot less of a problem than a gun. 

 

The guy has to get in close and then he needs ample movement range to hurt me.

 

 

With a knife if it's too close to him or too far away from me it's essentially rendered useless.

 

He has to hit me with it; with a gun, if I'm off my millimeters I'm dead, yet he can be just 6 inches away or even 30 feet and shoot me, where as a knife is harder to use.

 

 

A lot of people say using a knife in self defense is worse than if you didn't if you aren't trained with it, since they can use it on you, or it will just make them angry.

Edited by Manoka, 14 April 2013 - 07:13 PM.