The reality of gun control in America...

Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
1,794
Likes
994
Location
Fairbanks, Alaska
Feedback: 20 / 0 / 0
Unfortunately in the wake of the horrific events in Aurora, the "gun ban" crowd has renewed its efforts to restrict law abiding citizens freedom as it pertains to firearm laws. I am aware that I am preaching to the choir a bit on this forum, but if nothing else I need to vent my frustration as there are so many ill informed folks that are jumping on the "ban it bandwagon".

First off, if history is any indicator, within 2 generations +/- 40 years, civilian firearm ownership in the United States will be illegal. Every modern and post modern government under the guise of "security" has regulated firearms to the point of extinction.

Secondly the "who needs an AR15 to hunt?" argument espoused by the left shows a VERY OBVIOUS lack of understanding of WHY the second amendment was so important to the young America. John Locke, one of the founders of modern libertarianism, claimed that a government stealing from its citizen is no different than an individual stealing from another, and that such occurrences should be dealt with similarly. The government (dems, reps, etc) WILL NEVER self limit without a collective check, and the founders knew this. Let me be clear, the 2nd Amendment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING.

Finally, GUNS PROHIBITED signage will NEVER prevent crime AND carry permits are USELESS. It makes absolutely no sense that almost any American can purchase firearms with relative ease, but they cannot carry them. Someone with intent to do harm DOESN'T CARE ABOUT CARRY LAWS. PERIOD. It is time for state to state reciprocity so we can stop nailing GOOD HONEST citizens for technicalities. CARRY PERMITS ARE TAXES ON YOUR FREEDOM AND THEY ARE ILLEGAL!

Cheers,
Justin
 
Every modern and post modern government under the guise of "security" has regulated firearms to the point of extinction.

Switzerland is doing it right.

They have pretty strict handgun laws, but they ISSUE evil black rifles to each household, and ammo purchases are subsidized by the government...

Guess how much crime they have [hmmm]

Plus chocolate, and hot women... Maybe we can all move there when USA falls apart.
 
Switzerland is doing it right.

They have pretty strict handgun laws, but they ISSUE evil black rifles to each household, and ammo purchases are subsidized by the government...

Guess how much crime they have [hmmm]

Plus chocolate, and hot women... Maybe we can all move there when USA falls apart.

Ok you lost me when you said strict handgun laws...

On CNN the guy was desperate to get his expert, Alex a 15 year police vet (and a lady), to support some control. He went from guns to assault rifles to ammo but no dime. She said it was the person not the tool. Pretty cool. It's a slippery slope you know...
 
Ok you lost me when you said strict handgun laws...

The main purpose of the 2A is to protect us from tyranny - to give us the ability to overthrow the government if it comes down to that. It's about "the security of a free state", not self defense.

I believe self defense is a human right, and any non-violent-felon non-crazy person who wants a handgun should be able to get one. That said, as a young and physically fit person, the odds are cosmically small that I would ever need to use one in self defense outside the home. Of course things change as you get older and less physically capable, or have a wife/kids to protect.

But realistically, I think rifle ownership is much more important than handgun ownership. 100 million civilian-owned rifles insure that Obama doesn't declare a state of emergency and become a dictator overnight or some BS. Hope I didn't just start a big flame war.
 
Last edited:
I used to believe the whole "give it a couple of generations" argument, especially considering the larger demographic shift, but today, I'm not so sure.

Many of my friends and acquaintances have either purchased guns outright (e.g. NH) or have applied for licensing (e.g. MA). I can think of only one close friend that doesn't have at least one gun, and it's only because he hasn't got the Wifey Seal of Approval. These are all twenty-somethings or thirty-somethings.

The Second Amendment, and by extension, the private ownership of firearms, will remain valid provided we continue to convert more responsible folks into the fold. Heck, even my mother, who was borderline anti, got her CC last year.

We'll win. The folks that want to limit or qualify our civil liberties are going to lose in the end.
 
I honestly didn't really want anything to do with guns until last fall, I was all for anyone that wants them can have them, but personally didn't see the need...then I knocked up the wife and realized I would be responsible for another life and would do anything to protect her...must have been the paternal instinct that took over, I now own several fire arms and carry concealed frequently.
 
I honestly didn't really want anything to do with guns until last fall, I was all for anyone that wants them can have them, but personally didn't see the need...then I knocked up the wife and realized I would be responsible for another life and would do anything to protect her...must have been the paternal instinct that took over, I now own several fire arms and carry concealed frequently.

That was basically me as a teen, I had a 12 gauge but wasn't too concerned or informed about firearm laws. Just the basic laws. Once I had a family, my views changed.
 
Switzerland is doing it right.

They have pretty strict handgun laws, but they ISSUE evil black rifles to each household, and ammo purchases are subsidized by the government...

Guess how much crime they have [hmmm]

Plus chocolate, and hot women... Maybe we can all move there when USA falls apart.
MYTH: People in Switzerland are heavily armed. There is an assault weapon in every Swiss home.
TRUTH: It's true that Swiss soldiers are required to keep their assault rifles at home. How big is the Swiss Army? 400,000 (source). There are about 3 million Swiss households (source- PDF file). 400,000/3,000,000= 0.133. Therefore, there is a military assault rifle in about 13% of Swiss homes. Switzerland also has rather strict gun control laws. In Switzerland a permit is required in order to purchase a weapon (The permit shows that you are at least 18 and don't have a criminal record). A permit is also required to carrry a weapon. Such a permit is mostly issued to people who work in security-type occupations. To obtain this permit, you have to demonstrate that you need to carry a weapon and that you know how to handle a gun safely and have knowledge of the law regarding firearms use (source). Soldiers in the Swiss Army are required to store their military weapons at home under lock and key and to undergo regular training. Strict gun laws in Switzerland minimize the dangers of gun ownership. However, such dangers can not be completely eliminated as illustrated by the case of Friedrich Leibacher who rushed into a session of parliament in the Swiss town of Zug. He used his Swiss Army assault rifle and a grenade to murder fourteen people. Eleven of these people were lawmakers
.
 
Regarding the basic rationale behind 2A -- to prevent tyranny by the govt -- antis are adamant that that could never occur b/c we are such a civil society now. I don't disagree that the likelihood may be tiny, but the constitution is what it is. If you don't like it, you need to change in the manner that the founders permitted. The antis view, of course, is that changing it by following the legitmate means established by the constitution itself is too hard and therefore it should be able to be changed by other means (general legislative or judicial action). That in and of itself explains why the founders required it to be much more difficult to change. You will never convince an anti that the constitution should be interpreted as plainly written. You are dealing with people who do not like and are afraid of guns. The irony is that the same people who want to limit 2A are all for interpreting the constitution in a manner that provides for other personal liberties that are much less clearly defined in the constitution -- in other words, so long as these people like a particular liberty, it's ok to find a reading that permits it but if they don't like a liberty, then it's ok to read other provisions as permitting it to be severely restricted. And conservatives are not w/o fault either. At the end of the day, both conservatives and liberals tend to be hypocrites when it comes to the constitution -- they want it to provide the rights they like and enjoy but not those rights with which they disagree. Of course, 2A has pretty straightforward plain meaning anyway. What will come out of CO? Who knows. But politicians will feel that they have to do something.
 
Last edited:
The main purpose of the 2A is to protect us from tyranny - to give us the ability to overthrow the government if it comes down to that. It's about "the security of a free state", not self defense.

I believe self defense is a human right, and any non-violent-felon non-crazy person who wants a handgun should be able to get one. That said, as a young and physically fit person, the odds are cosmically small that I would ever need to use one in self defense outside the home. Of course things change as you get older and less physically capable, or have a wife/kids to protect.

The average violent crime rate is something like 500 per 100,000 people, per year. So that's a a probability P=0.005 of being victimized per year.

So the chances that in, say 30 years, you will NOT be the victim of a violent crime is (1-P)^30 =~ 0.86.

That also means that over 30 years, your chance of being the victim of a violent crime is 1 - 0.86 = 0.14. That's roughly 1 in 7. I wouldn't call that cosmically small at all.

If something is somewhat unlikely, that somehow becomes equivalent to it not existing at all, at least in the liberal world view. Given the violent crime rate, if you have 10 friends, there is a 95% probability that none of them will be victim of a violent crime in a given year. And of course the violent crime rate is not evenly distributed, so raise it by a factor of 10 for the "urban" dwellers, and reduce by factor of 10 for the wealthier areas. SO now we have the case that the wealthy resident of Brookline who votes for gun control has a 99.5% chance of not knowing anyone personally who is the victim of violent crime in any given year. So most people assume that it doesn't happen to anyone, since they don't know anyone personally who has been victimized, and try to make laws that reflect this myopic view of "if I've been safe, everyone else must be safe too".
 
The main purpose of the 2A is to protect us from tyranny - to give us the ability to overthrow the government if it comes down to that. It's about "the security of a free state", not self defense.

Sorry, but this is pure BS. Self defense is a NATURAL RIGHT! Which is obvious the framers wanted to protect people from the government ****ing with that right. If you don't get that, then you need a remedial education on the constitution and civil rights in general.

-Mike
 
And the FACTS are, that even with these horrific mass killings (which are about regular and predictable BTW, in terms of numbers) we STILL have a lower violent rime rate than the UK, which has banned all handgun ownership, and forget EBRs.

Professor Lott got it right with "More Guns, Less Crime." a book-format of a peer-reviewed scientific study. You can't equivically say more guns=less crime. But you CAN say, unequivocally, that more guns does NOT equal more crime.

Those facts turn every argument for gun control on it's head. And with the gun ownership skyrocketing in this country, there is less and less interest in gun control outside some particular and predictable constituencies (Like Massatwoshits).

Gun dealers in my town literally can't keep guns in stock they are gone so fast. The SW Shield is unobtanium here it's so popular, and that for a gun I wasn't all that impressed with over the MP9c. Forget a Sig P290. ONE dealer I know has one in stock. ONE, and he isn't selling it, he's ordering backorders. He took the extra for himself.

Rugers? LC9s and some older LCPs, THAT'S IT.

Savage is backordered all to Hell as are RRA and LWRC and FNC.

My classes, which focus on new and newer gun owners are packed to the gills. I turn people away EVERY class just about. And I live in a metro area with under 100k people.

The usual suspects will spout the usual crap. As usual, nothing will happen.

My thoughts are with the victim's families. This could have been my kid. And no, under the circumstances, I don't know that a CCW holder would have made any difference. (And neither does anyone else given the chaos and numbers at the scene. -A prudent CCW holder may have held onto his gun for fear of hitting innocents until it was all done, we don't know).

What we do know is that this won't affect in more than a tiny blip the 15,000-16000 annual murders we have in the USA. 12 is a lot, but not compared with the overall number. And I can't think of anything other than a total ban on civilian firearms ownership and confiscation (Never gonna happen and wouldn't be effective if enacted) that would have had the slightest effect on this tragedy.

ZERO plausible gun control measures that are in the least measure politically possible would have had ANY effect on this guy.

Freedom isn't free.

It's not about what some guy putting on the uniform does, its what we allow to happen in the name of freedom. And ya, that includes mis-uses of freedom like this asshat. That's the real meaning of the phrase. What costs EVERYONE.
 
I believe self defense is a human right, and any non-violent-felon non-crazy person who wants a handgun should be able to get one.


The problem is, who gets to define crazy? I'm sure your aware that just by owning and advocating the use of firearms there is a not so small contingent of people who think you're insane. The name "gun Nut" is not just a pet name we use among ourselves, from the outside it is a word of derision and how many feel, that we are nuts. I have a bunch of freinds who are shrinks, they don't like guns, and they decide who is sane or not.
 
Regarding the basic rationale behind 2A -- to prevent tyranny by the govt -- antis are adamant that that could never occur b/c we are such a civil society now. I don't disagree that the likelihood may be tiny, but the constitution is what it is. If you don't like it, you need to change in the manner that the founders permitted. The antis view, of course, is that changing it by following the legitmate means established by the constitution itself is too hard and therefore it should be able to be changed by other means (general legislative or judicial action). That in and of itself explains why the founders required it to be much more difficult to change. You will never convince an anti that the constitution should be interpreted as plainly written. You are dealing with people who do not like and are afraid of guns. The irony is that the same people who want to limit 2A are all for interpreting the constitution in a manner that provides for other personal liberties that are much less clearly defined in the constitution -- in other words, so long as these people like a particular liberty, it's ok to find a reading that permits it but if they don't like a liberty, then it's ok to read other provisions as permitting it to be severely restricted. And conservatives are not w/o fault either. At the end of the day, both conservatives and liberals tend to be hypocrites when it comes to the constitution -- they want it to provide the rights they like and enjoy but not those rights with which they disagree. Of course, 2A has pretty straightforward plain meaning anyway. What will come out of CO? Who knows. But politicians will feel that they have to do something.

If there were no constitution, would we still have the right to keep and bear arms?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
You couldn't be more wrong,you want to have reasonable hand gun controls but think rifles are ok.You are young and physically fit so a handgun isn't needed ? There is always somebody badder than you. I'll bet a half dozen on here in the 40 to 70 year old range could make you cry like a little girl. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves whether you think they need it or not.
The main purpose of the 2A is to protect us from tyranny - to give us the ability to overthrow the government if it comes down to that. It's about "the security of a free state", not self defense.

I believe self defense is a human right, and any non-violent-felon non-crazy person who wants a handgun should be able to get one. That said, as a young and physically fit person, the odds are cosmically small that I would ever need to use one in self defense outside the home. Of course things change as you get older and less physically capable, or have a wife/kids to protect.

But realistically, I think rifle ownership is much more important than handgun ownership. 100 million civilian-owned rifles insure that Obama doesn't declare a state of emergency and become a dictator overnight or some BS. Hope I didn't just start a big flame war.
 
And the FACTS are, that even with these horrific mass killings (which are about regular and predictable BTW, in terms of numbers) we STILL have a lower violent rime rate than the UK, which has banned all handgun ownership, and forget EBRs.

Like to see your sources, these are mine.


Total gun related deaths Per 100,000

England/
22px-Flag_of_Wales_2.svg.png
Wales
- 0.46

United States- 10.27
 
Lower gun deaths yes. But violent crime isnt just guns.

Sent from my SPH-P100 using Tapatalk 2

I belive this argument is about guns is it not?. Lets compare apples to apples, i dont care about the gangster who used a frying pan as the tool.
 
bottom line is this, there is nothing that we can say that will sink into the heads of the anti's, you say 2A is to prevent tyranny, they come back with "ya lets see you stand up against a modern army, AR-15s vs tanks"..... which proves their ignorance alone. There is nothing you can say to an anti that will change anything, they dont believe in logic they look at us as barbarians and the like and they think they are above us. If the president, COngress, and the Supreme court would all become liberal anti controlled kiss 2A goodbye, not just "assault weapons" as bull**** as that term is but all civilian ownership. The goal of the left and the anti's is to turn the U.S. into Europe.
 
Lets see what Obama has to say when he visits Aurora today. Lucky he's not in his second term, or he'd be taking our guns by "executive order". To hell with procedure of law, or states rights.
 
Lets see what Obama has to say when he visits Aurora today. Lucky he's not in his second term, or he'd be taking our guns by "executive order". To hell with procedure of law, or states rights.

could you imagine if he did something like that, just disregards the constitution, that right there would teter the country on massive insurrection. The military would have to sieze the guns and people would resist.
 
and yet the Antis will say id rather be stabbed then shot, you can survive a stab wound

On that note it's odd that most antis see handguns as a bigger problem, when in fact the likelihood of surviving a sub-caliber are quite good. Rifle/shotgun survivability is altogether less likely.
 
On that note it's odd that most antis see handguns as a bigger problem, when in fact the likelihood of surviving a sub-caliber are quite good. Rifle/shotgun survivability is altogether less likely.

since when does anything coming out of an anti's mouth makes sense, they want "black rifles" banned because they are weapons of mass destruction and yet they are used in what 4% of all gun crimes. Not to mention they are basically profilling guns. It looks scary so ban it.
 
You couldn't be more wrong,you want to have reasonable hand gun controls but think rifles are ok.You are young and physically fit so a handgun isn't needed ? There is always somebody badder than you. I'll bet a half dozen on here in the 40 to 70 year old range could make you cry like a little girl. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves whether you think they need it or not.


I know a little girl on here who could make a shit-ton of us guys cry, if she was so inclined. A punch
through the solar-plexis comes to mind.........just sayin' [thinking]
 
Back
Top Bottom