The efficacy (or lack thereof) of Gun Control

[Zachowon]

You're thinking in military terms, not civilian ones.

When I walk across the street at a crosswalk the only thing protecting me from an idiot running me over and killing me is a red lightbulb telling the people driving cars that they need to stop and wait.

Uh no. I am thinking civilian terms. If I have a nuke anyone who knows I have it would avoid me the best they can.
Easy way to fix

...eh, I disagree when it comes to nukes.

Normal guns do not have the issues with rads and persistent damage, even normal explosives or artillery do not have that issue.

Fissile material is a different beast than a 'firearm' of any caliber or size, because they can impact areas for decades to centuries, and just getting a nuke properly built results in a lot of hazardous waste no private citizen is equipped to handle.

I don't mind if civies can buy Hellfires or even reserve fleet ships, but nukes and fissile material are a different ballgame.

If someone has the money and capability to store it.
It shouldn't be a big deal.
The main reason most people can't own nukes is no where to store it and not enough money

 

[Battlegrinder]

Constraining firearms to only those that have a valid civilian use is directly in opposition to the meaning of the second amendment in the first place, which grants civilians the right to own firearms to defend themselves against any aggressor, not any aggressor other than the state.

Given that, the present problem we have with firearms laws is that too few weapons with limited civilian use but considerable military value are restricted, not the other way around, and the discussion should be geared around how to best reclaim that right and exercise it responsibly, not restrict it even more.

 

[Cherico]

Constraining firearms to only those that have a valid civilian use is directly in opposition to the meaning of the second amendment in the first place, which grants civilians the right to own firearms to defend themselves against any aggressor, not any aggressor other than the state.

Given that, the present problem we have with firearms laws is that too few weapons with limited civilian use but considerable military value are restricted, not the other way around, and the discussion should be geared around how to best reclaim that right and exercise it responsibly, not restrict it even more.

We litterally had a year where the police showed us in graphic detail that they will not protect people and property from rioters that they will gladly allow people to be murdered in the street. The need for civilians to have milatary weapons has been decisively shoved into our faces the social contract was broken now we need to be able to protect ourselves.

 

[bintananth]

Uh no. I am thinking civilian terms. If I have a nuke anyone who knows I have it would avoid me the best they can.

No, you are not.

I'm very aware that showing up somewhere while openly armed tends to make people who aren't familiar with you very nervous.

If I'm going to wear a weapon when out and about - which I don't do, BTW, because I've never felt the need to - it'll be so hidden you won't even know I'm wearing one.

When I'm carrying a firearm in public it will be very obvious that I'm either out hunting or taking it to/from a firing range. In the latter case the weapon is partially disassembled and can not be fired until I put it back together.

 

[Zachowon]

No, you are not.

I'm very aware that showing up somewhere while openly armed tends to make people who aren't familiar with you very nervous.

If I'm going to wear a weapon when out and about - which I don't do, BTW, because I've never felt the need to - it'll be so hidden you won't even know I'm wearing one.

When I'm carrying a firearm in public it will be very obvious that I'm either out hunting or taking it to/from a firing range. In the latter case the weapon is partially disassembled and can not be fired until I put it back together.

Why? What is the use of bringing a gun somewhere?
You should always make sure your gun is ready to be used if you need to have one.
I only open carry I'm certain situations

 

[Scottty]

Agreed.

I think gun control should be limited to "these weapons have absolutely no legitimate civilian use" and "these people shouldn't be allowed to touch the ones which do have legitimate civilian uses".

The problem is that we are dealing people who will not accept that there's such a thing as "legitimate civilian use" for firearms, because "civilian" to them is supposed to mean "powerless serf that Government Almighty can do as it pleases with".

One way to clear the air is to make anyone who wants to talk about regulation answer one question first, and answer it with no waffle or word-games: Do you accept that human beings have the right to defend themselves?
If they will not give a clear answer, then you know you are dealing with a bad faith actor.

 

[bintananth]

Why? What is the use of bringing a gun somewhere?
You should always make sure your gun is ready to be used if you need to have one.
I only open carry I'm certain situations

I've never been in a situation where "I need a gun for self-defense right now" has ever come close to being a thought.

Not even when visiting my brother-in-laws relatives in East Saint Louis.

As I said, you aren't thinking like a civilian. You're thinking military where anything just the slightest bit out of the ordinary might mean you're about to get shot.

 

[Zachowon]

I've never been in a situation where "I need a gun for self-defense right now" has ever come close to being a thought.

Not even when visiting my brother-in-laws relatives in East Saint Louis.

As I said, you aren't thinking like a civilian. You're thinking military where anything just the slightest bit out of the ordinary might mean you're about to get shot.

You shouldn't have the thought "I need the gun for self defense right now" you should have the thought "in case something happens I need my gun for self defense".

What is going on right now should not dictate such things. It should be something you have and not need then need and not have.

 

[Atarlost]

I think there are three valid reasons to restrict or license weapons:
1) It can not be controlled. I would thus allow legislation on chemical, biological, and informatic weapons. I'm not sure if informatic is the right word, but computer viruses, basilisks (which might not be a thing now, but could become a thing if AIs are ever given citizenship), and hazardous memes like the detergent eating challenge.

2) The consequences of accidental discharge are catastrophic. I would thus ban radiological weapons, require safety inspections and licensing for nuclear powered* weapons and require safety inspections and licensing to store large quantities of explosives in a single location. Preventing something like the Halifax Harbor explosion is a valid concern of government and not excessively onerous upon the law abiding citizen. Anyone needing to store more than a couple hundred tons of explosives is an organization that can afford to either spread it across multiple sites or comply with safety regulations.

3) Preventing loose cannons from attacking other sovereign nations. I think that if someone wants to build a working replica of the Paris Gun they should be able to, but it is a reasonable compromise to insist that they do so somewhere that it can't hit sovereign Mexican or Canadian territory. I'd guess one mile effective range is where it's reasonable to stop restricting where a weapon can be taken based on its range.

* I believe nuclear powered naval vessels should be protected as weapons.

 

[bintananth]

You shouldn't have the thought "I need the gun for self defense right now" you should have the thought "in case something happens I need my gun for self defense".

What is going on right now should not dictate such things. It should be something you have and not need then need and not have.

I can go pretty much anywhere without fear because anything and everthing within my reach is a weapon. I could probably kill someone with a broken plastic spoon in an emergency and here's how I'd do it: shove it through one of their eyes.

When I'm carrying a loaded firearm I'm not potential prey. I'm the predator searching for a tasty meal.

 

[Battlegrinder]

We litterally had a year where the police showed us in graphic detail that they will not protect people and property from rioters that they will gladly allow people to be murdered in the street. The need for civilians to have milatary weapons has been decisively shoved into our faces the social contract was broken now we need to be able to protect ourselves.

That's iffy. Automatic weapons and explosives are still overkill for that, and legally it would be a bad idea to try and employ them for that.

I can go pretty much anywhere without fear because anything and everthing within my reach is a weapon. I could probably kill someone with a broken plastic spoon in an emergency and here's how I'd do it: shove it through one of their eyes.

The "just grab [random object] and insert into eyeball/throat/etc" thing is a great trick in action movies, which is also the only place it's viable plan because unlike real people, action movies stars benefit from the entire fight being scripted and choreographed.

In real life, where your opponent has agency and isn't just a stuntman waiting for his cue......not so much.

When I'm carrying a loaded firearm I'm not potential prey. I'm the predator searching for a tasty meal.

No one that has any training for concealed carry thinks that. No one.

 

[bintananth]

The "just grab [random object] and insert into eyeball/throat/etc" thing is a great trick in action movies, which is also the only place it's viable plan because unlike real people, action movies stars benefit from the entire fight being scripted and choreographed.

In real life, where your opponent has agency and isn't just a stuntman waiting for his cue......not so much.

That was just one example of how I could do it with something improvised. Would you like me to provide more example possibilities?

No one that has any training for concealed carry thinks that. No one.

I ain't a cuck. If I'm armed you'll know it.

 

[Bacle]

That was just one example of how I could do it with something improvised. Would you like me to provide more example possibilities?


I ain't a cuck. If I'm armed you'll know it.

Didn't you just say you'd hide a weapon on you and no one would know, if you wanted to?

If I'm going to wear a weapon when out and about - which I don't do, BTW, because I've never felt the need to - it'll be so hidden you won't even know I'm wearing one.

 

[bintananth]

Didn't you just say you'd hide a weapon on you and no one would know, if you wanted to?

The key part was "if I wanted to", which I don't want to ever have to do.

 

[Zachowon]

I can go pretty much anywhere without fear because anything and everthing within my reach is a weapon. I could probably kill someone with a broken plastic spoon in an emergency and here's how I'd do it: shove it through one of their eyes.

When I'm carrying a loaded firearm I'm not potential prey. I'm the predator searching for a tasty meal.

Okay. If they are coming at you, and you only had a plastic spoon. You are more likely to die if they want you dead then vice versa.
Yes I carry a metal pen in uniform and when I workd at jail because you dint play fair in a fight, but it is just to do as much damage before they can inflict more on me.

Also, unless you are wanting to actively use it. Carrying should only be an emergency self defense thing

 

[stephen the barbarian]

@bintananth,
no one believes you, knock off the itg act.

 

[Battlegrinder]

That was just one example of how I could do it with something improvised. Would you like me to provide more example possibilities?

No, because you haven't demonstrated that you have the skill to actually back up any of these hypotheticals. Getting ahold of an object that can be used as a weapon is easy, actually winning a fight with it is not. I carry a knife while I'm out and about, that doesn't mean I should be believed if I start talking about how if I had to I could totally take someone down with it via sick knife fighting moves, because I have not done anything to prove that I actually know how to knife fight.

Sans hard evidence like documentation or videos, you could perhaps judge my claims based on my general trustworthiness and reputation as a poster to assess if I'm likely to be exaggerating my prowess. Given that you claimed on the last page that if you just have the right materials you might be able to build a nuclear weapon, you can guess what I think in terms of your likelihood to overstate your own abilities.

 

[Scottty]

People, can we agree that nuclear bombs aren't guns?

 

[prinCZess]

People, can we agree that nuclear bombs aren't guns?

Well, I mean...Technically...

Spoiler

Gun-type fission weapon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sailor.X]

I will point out that you can ban every gun in the US and seize every single gun in the country and criminals will still have guns by months end. Back in the early 90s when my unit was part of the Carribbean Anti Drug Task Force. We seized some boats that not only contained Cocaine but also a shit ton of Firearms. A lot of the guns that get into this country also come from outside the country with drugs. That is what the powers that be don't want to tell the people.