Gunchat III: The Gun Shoots Back

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gunchat III: The Gun Shoots Back

Death? This poll is closed.
Love it!	49	28.00%
Leave it!	59	33.71%
That is not dead which can eternal lie...	67	38.29%
Total:	175 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

Rule of law is for those without guns! - says the guy who talks about how gun owners follow the rule of law

# ? Oct 24, 2015 19:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 09:29

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

archangelwar posted:

Rule of law is for those without guns! - says the guy who talks about how gun owners follow the rule of law

I think the subtext here is that law comes out of the barrel of a gun, and as such, the gun owners are simultaneously "the harried guardians of peace and virtue" and "an almighty giant who is just one or two more provocations away from REALLY showing you gun-grabbers what for." Which is which depends on the emotional needs of the moment, and (for instance) once we have taken LeJackal's guns away through constitutional amendment, they'll have to find something else. Anime, maybe.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 19:40

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

Maybe you could use all that material you've got to build something constructive, like a space ship so you can start your own colony where you can make all the guns you want.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 19:43

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

Ddraig posted:

Maybe you could use all that material you've got to build something constructive, like a space ship so you can start your own colony where you can make all the guns you want.

Not a violent fantasy including delusion of masterminding criminal enterprise, why would anyone want to do that?

# ? Oct 24, 2015 19:44

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

SedanChair posted:

Would it? I'd be cranking out receivers in my basement.

Ok, then what's your issue with gun control? If they're banned just make your owns guns, you big baby.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 19:46

Gin and Juche: Apr 3, 2008; The Highest Judge of Paradise
Shiki Eiki
YAMAXANADU

What do you all think of my aunt and uncle's ~~hoard~~ setup?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcsLaSBWG9k

# ? Oct 24, 2015 19:46

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Who What Now posted:

Ok, then what's your issue with gun control? If they're banned just make your owns guns, you big baby.

I will, but in the meantime I prefer to be as obstreperous as possible.

Ddraig posted:

Likewise if you're capable of producing enough to make a sufficient dent in the government's attempts to limit weapons you should probably start up shop as a weapons dealer because I hear that's a lucrative market.

The US might even hire you to produce weapons for them with all those resources you're sitting on.

Oh it wouldn't be just me...it would be everyone who bought jigs, and everyone who downloaded plans from the internet. Is that really what you thought was at issue, that it would be just me? :lol:

I'd be one of a million.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:19

Cartouche: Jan 4, 2011

LeJackal posted:

I quoted from the federal register for you. Whats your source for all of this.

So to get a CCL you need vastly more training than police? Funky.

On the flip side, if someone willingly seeks better training they are labeled a psycho.

LionArcher posted:

My thoughts are this. Logically, a lot of people who live in rural areas want multiple firearms for hunting. Three includes a hunting rifle, a shot gun, and a side arm.

If the requirements to purchase the weapons in the first place are stricter, it will decrease a number of times that people who shouldn't be able to purchase a weapon but do.

I also know a lot of people who have CCL. My best friend has one. These are people who in general have good judgment. However, him aside almost all of them that have that permit as far as I'm concerned are undertrained for that responsibility.

I'm not saying it's a perfect set of ideas, but it seems like a reasonable starting point.

You completely missed his point. Not at all shocked.

CommieGIR posted:

Oh, I dunno. A group actively engaging in a stand off against Federal officers? Yeah. That might make them questionable a legitimate and protected militia instead of a paranoid right wing group.

Founding fathers: paranoid right wing group.

Cartouche fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Oct 24, 2015

# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:24

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Cartouche posted:

Founding fathers: paranoid right wing group.

Well um, yeah.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:29

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Cartouche posted:

Founding fathers: paranoid right wing group.

Like the DND revolutionaries wouldn't immediately agree.

So what was your favorite part of the thread so far? Mine was when people were surprised to learn that European gun control was arbitrary too.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:31

Crab Dad: Dec 28, 2002; behold i have tempered and refined thee, but not as silver; as CRAB

Cartouche posted:

On the flip side, if someone willingly seeks better training they are labeled a psycho.

You completely missed his point. Not at all shocked.

Founding fathers: paranoid right wing group.

They most certainly were. They didn't have a problem with taxes. They had a problem with the money going back over seas.
Also gently caress the poor and enslave the black was pretty much A-ok with them.

Mass Confiscation is a pipe dream because there isn't enough pearl clutching ninnies to ever get the balls to actually go collect anything other than cap guns at the grocery store.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:35

Cartouche: Jan 4, 2011

DeusExMachinima posted:

Like the DND revolutionaries wouldn't immediately agree.

So what was your favorite part of the thread so far? Mine was when people were surprised to learn that European gun control was arbitrary too.

Mine is the idea that prohibition results in a net positive.
gently caress history. Surely THIS prohibition of something far less lethal will work out splendidly!

~feels~

~reasons~

# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:35

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Cartouche posted:

Mine is the idea that prohibition results in a net positive.
gently caress history. Surely THIS prohibition of something far less lethal will work out splendidly!

~feels~

~reasons~

Are you saying it didn't work in Australia and Britain and can't work here? !

*ignores the fact that all guns were already registered*

*ignores stop and frisk in Britain and random home searches in Australia*

# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:46

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Cartouche posted:

Founding fathers: paranoid right wing group.

The sound a wet fart makes.

LingcodKilla posted:

Mass Confiscation is a pipe dream because there isn't enough pearl clutching ninnies to ever get the balls to actually go collect anything other than cap guns at the grocery store.

I don't remember anyone claiming mass confiscation would work, but neither would any sort of armed resistance to it.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Oct 24, 2015

# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:48

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

TomViolence posted:

Generally I'd consider a bolt-action rifle a hunting weapon, while I'd consider a self-loading rifle with a removeable box magazine a battle rifle. Many such weapons are indeed just civilian, mass-market models of military firearms after all.

Okay, I don't think anybody in this thread has promoted firearms as weapons of a future, hypothetical revolution, but it is a rationale commonly employed by right-wing gun advocates, particularly in the militia movement. I may be talking poo poo with the "safe or nothing" thing, but to be fair the only gun owner I know personally is a German who is legally required to keep his gun stashed in a secure safe pretty much all the time and submit to regular checks by a qualified police firearms handler. While the mauser may once have been a military grade rifle, most modern battle rifles are semi-automatic and boast removable magazines and that's what I mean when I say "military grade." That other dangerous weapons are also legal does not make guns less dangerous or make a particularly strong case for their continued legality and circulation. Whether or not guns require human intervention to cause harm, I think it requires something of a naive and blind faith in the essential goodness of mankind to believe that that is enough to prevent them from needlessly killing innumerable people across the United States on a daily basis. The ubiquity of dangerous weapons makes impulsive murder not just possible, but nearly inevitable. While you could reduce that argument to including kitchen utensils and carpentry tools, they don't act as potent force multipliers allowing one man to kill a dozen over the course of a minute or less. That mass shootings are infrequent is a rather rickety leg to stand on, as even one is indefensible and they happen more frequently in the United States than even in countries with a comparable number of guns per capita, as do firearms deaths in general. Whether or not widespread firearm ownership is the root of the problem, taking a significant amount of them out of circulation and assuring they aren't in the hands of dangerous psychopaths would at least do something to alleviate the problem.

I'm going to break this out into a few paragraphs here, since I'm not on mobile anymore.

I'm glad that you've decided on a consistent, mechanical definition, but I'm afraid it's incredibly over-broad. "Self-loading rifle with a detachable magazine" describes most long guns in civilian hands today. Both technologies are close to a century old at this point. I can't really go along with a prohibition that claims to only be targeting dangerous weapons, but covers the majority of rifles in circulation. The distinction between military and civilian firearms is an arbitrary and false one. I also question why it is necessary, since long guns make up a tiny fraction of weapons used in violent crimes.

Actually, the necessity of human intervention is absolutely an argument for the continued legality of guns. You asked why they should be any less regulated than your ridiculous hypothetical nerve gas hobby, and there it is. Guns can be used to hurt other people, which places them in the same category of simple property as cars, knives, gasoline, and a hundred other things besides. Certainly, guns are at the deadlier end of the spectrum when misused, but that is a question of degree, not of kind. Restricting the rights of citizens without individual suspicion, just because they might be hypothetically misused, is not good government policy. I would also note that impulsive murders are a relative rarity. People are not stricken with the sudden urge to kill, snatching up the nearest gun to execute their bloody desires.

Again, why should I care about mass shootings? What makes it particularly different from the other rare and novel forms of harm citizens inflict on each other? Ten thousand people die every year from DUI collisions, but I don't see that as a compelling argument to ban cars or alcohol. You even admit that you don't know that widespread firearms ownership is responsible for the problem. Why should I agree to go along with a "solution" that severely impacts me, which you can't demonstrate will actually help, for something that really isn't a significant problem?

# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:57

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

I would love to have a Remington Model 8 (a self-loading rifle, albeit with a fixed magazine, designed over a century ago specifically for hunting) but man, I watched a Forgotten Weapons video that showed how to take one apart and it looks like an unbelievable chore. Still, I might get one and shoot it like once a year (and pose with it in front of the mirror wearing a big Stetson hat considerably more often).

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:00

ugh its Troika: May 2, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Dead Reckoning posted:

Again, why should I care about mass shootings? What makes it particularly different from the other rare and novel forms of harm citizens inflict on each other? Ten thousand people die every year from DUI collisions, but I don't see that as a compelling argument to ban cars or alcohol. You even admit that you don't know that widespread firearms ownership is responsible for the problem. Why should I agree to go along with a "solution" that severely impacts me, which you can't demonstrate will actually help, for something that really isn't a significant problem?

You are arguing with people who do not understand guns, or gun rights, and do not particularly care to understand guns, or gun rights. They're basically on the same level as antivaxxers and should be treated the same way.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:01

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

I mean, just look at it.

Look upon it.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:04

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Flowers For Algeria posted:

(or for a TL;DR, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand")
I dispute that gun regulation would have to pass strict scrutiny, since the right to bear arms wouldn't be significantly abridged. Certainly not by registration, most likely not by even a severe shall-issue rule or a selective ban, maybe by a may-issue rule depending on the conditions set. In fact, I know of no Supreme Court case where strict scrutiny was applied to 2nd Amendment matters.
Even if it were, and while I'm not a constitutional scholar, I wager that gun control (maybe not selective bans) would pass compelling interest ("not allow weapons to fall in the hands of people who, by constant jurisprudence for decades, have not had legal access to guns", and to people who might fall into that category). The narrow tailoring requirement would probably depend on the way the law is written, and there are certainly ways to tailor the law in such a way that it would pass - and if it is argued that simple registration is too weak to have any effect, I'm pretty sure that the next reasonable step is shall-issue. All in all I think it is safe to say that the true answer to that question can only be given by the Supreme Court, and we're both crafting our theories in a way that agrees with us. I say, let us try, and see what happens if and when the law is challenged.

This is hella dumb, since you were asking about how we balance rights against regulation, like the idea of the bill of rights sprang fully formed from the void in the 21st century. We do it by favoring not restricting rights without a good reason, and aiming for the lest restriction possible, something you seem to continually not get. "I bet I could come up with something the Supreme Court won't overturn" isn't a justification of policy.

Flowers For Algeria posted:

Well it sounds pretty reasonable to me that people who have shown major lack of discernment while intoxicated - for example by drunk driving, or initiating fights while under the influence - be barred from entering certain bars, and be forced to follow some sort of therapy. And education to alcohol wouldn't be too much of a luxury in general. People who commit crimes or misdemeanors or whatever while inebriated should definitely be held responsible for their actions. As for banning certain types of alcohol, maybe you'll be surprised to know that because of the existence of excise taxes, homebrewing is limited to beer (in limited quantities) and any other homemade alcohol is actually illegal or heavily restricted. And the legality of everclear is actually not a given in many states.

Here's the problem: your analogy in this case doesn't match your proposed policy. We already bar people who have a documented history of misusing guns from owning them. You don't feel that this retrospective system is sufficient, and want to try to determine in advance who might misuse a gun through subjective judgements. ("Gun owners should have to pass a psychological exam.")

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:06

Cartouche: Jan 4, 2011

I want a usgi model 12 trench gun

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:07

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

"Yes, look at it."

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:07

Gin and Juche: Apr 3, 2008; The Highest Judge of Paradise
Shiki Eiki
YAMAXANADU

-Troika- posted:

You are arguing with people who do not understand guns, or gun rights, and do not particularly care to understand guns, or gun rights. They're basically on the same level as antivaxxers and should be treated the same way.

Not sure that's an apt comparison given the anti-vax movements insistence on ignoring things such as data trends and scientific studies in order to enable their paranoid and selfish tendencies. In fact you might have it backwards.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:09

Cartouche: Jan 4, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

Here's the problem: your analogy in this case doesn't match your proposed policy. We already bar people who have a documented history of misusing guns from owning them. You don't feel that this retrospective system is sufficient, and want to try to determine in advance who might misuse a gun through subjective judgements. ("Gun owners should have to pass a psychological exam.")

Clearly those who want guns are those most likely to abuse them. It solves itself! :psyduck:

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:09

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Gravel Gravy posted:

Not sure that's an apt comparison given the anti-vax movements insistence on ignoring things such as data trends and scientific studies in order to enable their paranoid and selfish tendencies. In fact you might have it backwards.

Heavily reliant on quoting the same discredited study? Believe that correlation equals causation? Concerned moms who just want to do something about all the problems? Sounds like gun control.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:13

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Cartouche posted:

Clearly those who want guns are those most likely to abuse them. It solves itself!

PS: gun ownership is itself abuse.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:16

C.M. Kruger: Oct 28, 2013

Gun control is inherently bad because most of the people who support it are rich white capitalists like Mitt Romney. Same as back when the pope tried to ban crossbows because German noblemen were wining about getting shot off their horses by dishonorable peasants who couldn't afford suits of armor and hadn't trained their entire lives to ride around stabbing peasants.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:26

Cartouche: Jan 4, 2011

War on alcohol: resulted in serious violence and death
War on drugs: results are serious violence and death
War on gunhavers: certainly a common sense goal

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:27

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Cartouche posted:

War on gunhavers: certainly a common sense goal

Yeah, that's what it is. Notice how much we berate regulations on alcohol and cigarettes like age limits.

Silly liberals.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:30

Gin and Juche: Apr 3, 2008; The Highest Judge of Paradise
Shiki Eiki
YAMAXANADU

Dead Reckoning posted:

Heavily reliant on quoting the same discredited study? Believe that correlation equals causation? Concerned moms who just want to do something about all the problems? Sounds like gun control.

Sounds like you've a tenuous grasp on statistics and are just quoting bumper stickers at me, tbh.

Cartouche posted:

War on alcohol: resulted in serious violence and death
War on drugs: results are serious violence and death
War on gunhavers: certainly a common sense goal

Interesting you cite the war on alcohol...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre

You guys are just god awful with analogies.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:36

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Cartouche posted:

Founding fathers: paranoid right wing group.

Yeah, we get it, disagreement with y'all means we are disrespecting the sky-father totem idols of the United States of America. Hell, mere non-assent does the same thing. We've heard it from a thousand sources a thousand times, probably in most cases for most of our adult lives.

Go start the war and enforce your vision, if you can.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:39

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Nessus posted:

Yeah, we get it, disagreement with y'all means we are disrespecting the sky-father totem idols of the United States of America. Hell, mere non-assent does the same thing. We've heard it from a thousand sources a thousand times, probably in most cases for most of our adult lives.

Go start the war and enforce your vision, if you can.

Why aren't you an unquestioning patriot, citizen? :911:

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:53

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Gravel Gravy posted:

Interesting you cite the war on alcohol...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre
You guys are just god awful with analogies.

So prohibitions on alcohol caused criminals to illegally acquire guns and use them to go to war over control of the new and profitable black market. Prohibitions on guns will...

Nessus posted:

Yeah, we get it, disagreement with y'all means we are disrespecting the sky-father totem idols of the United States of America. Hell, mere non-assent does the same thing. We've heard it from a thousand sources a thousand times, probably in most cases for most of our adult lives.

Well, if you're going to keep trotting out "the Bill of Rights is meaningless and outdated, except the parts I like" and "Right-wingers and some racists agree with you, therefore you must be wrong" it's probably going to keep coming up.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:57

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Dead Reckoning posted:

Well, if you're going to keep trotting out "the Bill of Rights is meaningless and outdated, except the parts I like" and "Right-wingers and some racists agree with you, therefore you must be wrong" it's probably going to keep coming up.

Where did I trot them out, pray? I did propose an amendment to the Constitution which would somewhat alter the second amendment, as a thought experiment, of course. Does that mean I hate The Founding Fathers? How grave is my sin in the eyes of Columbia compared to, say, an Englishman?

CommieGIR posted:

Why aren't you an unquestioning patriot, citizen?

Patriot, naturally, is defined entirely and beyond argumentation by other folks, with the exciting leavening of the implication of civil war behind it for non-compliance.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:03

Gin and Juche: Apr 3, 2008; The Highest Judge of Paradise
Shiki Eiki
YAMAXANADU

Dead Reckoning posted:

So prohibitions on alcohol caused criminals to illegally acquire guns and use them to go to war over control of the new and profitable black market. Prohibitions on guns will...

Lead to over consumption of alcohol and liver disease I suppose if we take that logic at face value or ignore that people that probably shouldn't access guns are able to anyway.

See what I mean with the analogies?

# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:05

Cartouche: Jan 4, 2011

CommieGIR posted:

Yeah, that's what it is. Notice how much we berate regulations on alcohol and cigarettes like age limits.

Silly liberals.

And yet guns are less lethal.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:28

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Gravel Gravy posted:

Lead to over consumption of alcohol and liver disease I suppose if we take that logic at face value or ignore that people that probably shouldn't access guns are able to anyway.

See what I mean with the analogies?

Not really, no. The point is, previous prohibitions led to increased criminality and violence, and failed to substantially curb supply, and there is no reason to believe a prohibition on guns would be any more successful. Pointing out, "yes, but those bootleggers and drug runners used GUNS!" does not in any way dispute that.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:30

Cartouche: Jan 4, 2011

Gravel Gravy posted:

Sounds like you've a tenuous grasp on statistics and are just quoting bumper stickers at me, tbh.

Interesting you cite the war on alcohol...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre

You guys are just god awful with analogies.

Mmmm. Compelling case. If only they would have banned guns when they banned alcohol.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:31

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Dead Reckoning posted:

So prohibitions on alcohol caused criminals to illegally acquire guns and use them to go to war over control of the new and profitable black market. Prohibitions on guns will...

Make gun owners blubber and cry about government tyranny on Internet forums and not much else.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:33

Cartouche: Jan 4, 2011

Nessus posted:

Yeah, we get it, disagreement with y'all means we are disrespecting the sky-father totem idols of the United States of America. Hell, mere non-assent does the same thing. We've heard it from a thousand sources a thousand times, probably in most cases for most of our adult lives.

Go start the war and enforce your vision, if you can.

My vision is supported without the need of war. See, thats what is nice about having citizens owning guns and the right of it not to be infringed.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 09:29

E-Tank: Aug 4, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

Not really, no. The point is, previous prohibitions led to increased criminality and violence, and failed to substantially curb supply, and there is no reason to believe a prohibition on guns would be any more successful. Pointing out, "yes, but those bootleggers and drug runners used GUNS!" does not in any way dispute that.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:35

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gunchat III: The Gun Shoots Back

«‹›30 »